Jump to content

Official Doctor Who New Series Discussion (spoilers)


Recommended Posts

I've never heard of any of the doctors before they were cast, so no worries there. There was a rumor the part would be played by Chiwetel Ejiofor (Serenity, Red Belt). I think he's awesome, but I'm not complaining.

 

I'm keeping an open mind, I'm always bummed when a current Doctor leaves, but i always end up liking the next one better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That, and pretty much this:

The 'new chick' had already been set up.   Lot's of pretty spot on fan theories regarding how Clara is a meta-textual analogy for the show itself. She's born on Nov 23, the show's original air date. S

Couple other changes that seem to be intentional episode to episode--   The Tardis and the Doctor's control of it are steadier than ever. No running about, no sparks and rough landings.   His use of t

Posted Images

I'll reserve proper judgement until I've actually seen him in a role (any role!), but I'm both pleased and disappointed. I would have liked someone older, but I'm glad they went for a relative unknown. And yes, he definitely needs a haircut!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I want to be the first fanboy to officially say HELL NO! This stinks of Twilight/Buffy casting! 26?!? Are you Fing kidding me?!?

 

I realize I have absolute no reason or evidence to say he'll be a bad Doctor. But, this casting decision better justify itself.

 

On the plus side, hopefully the BBC put into the contract "WILL play for no less than four straight seasons." No more of this 3 and out stuff, I'm sick of that. I'm not ready for how the series will continue after Doc 13. That needs to be a LONG way off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the series can't continue after Doctor number 13?? Otherwise they're just crapping over everything that the Doctor has been about and how he has this regeneration ability, but can only do it 13 times. He's young enough to be able to stick around for a good few years and put in a decent stint as the Doctor.

 

And Matt Smith does have that Twilight/Buffy sort of look to him. But that's almost certainly to satisfy the teenage girls who have discovered Doctor Who as a result of fancying the pants off Tennant. They may as well have dipped him in chocolate and said "Will this do?"

 

Will Christmas 2009 be Smith's first show as the Doctor? I know Tennant's doing the specials this year, but does that include Christmas?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm keeping an open mind, I'm always bummed when a current Doctor leaves, but i always end up liking the next one better.

 

That is so true!

 

Although it makes sense that every time the Doctor gets a new body he should be young and in his prime. It was just my personal opinion that I would have liked someone who looked a little older, but as long as the stories are good I am ok.

 

I would like Doctor Who to be a little more serious and less goofy in the upcoming seasons. I have always like Moffat"s stories better than Davies, so maybe I will get my wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely the series can't continue after Doctor number 13?? Otherwise they're just crapping over everything that the Doctor has been about and how he has this regeneration ability, but can only do it 13 times. He's young enough to be able to stick around for a good few years and put in a decent stint as the Doctor.

 

Will Christmas 2009 be Smith's first show as the Doctor? I know Tennant's doing the specials this year, but does that include Christmas?

 

I don't see the regeneration issue really being a problem. We've seen other time lords have generations added and taken away. The Master used all his up, got new ones, had some taken away, and even died and was still able to come back.

 

According to the article, the Xmas 2009 special will be Tennant's last episode, and will end with the regeneration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to be the first fanboy to officially say HELL NO! This stinks of Twilight/Buffy casting! 26?!? Are you Fing kidding me?!?

 

I realize I have absolute no reason or evidence to say he'll be a bad Doctor. But, this casting decision better justify itself.

 

On the plus side, hopefully the BBC put into the contract "WILL play for no less than four straight seasons." No more of this 3 and out stuff, I'm sick of that. I'm not ready for how the series will continue after Doc 13. That needs to be a LONG way off.

 

He looks very odd. Almost no eyebrows.

 

I hope this Doctor will not behave like some nighttime youth drama knockoff, but a serious person still dealing with the consequences of his actions. My main concern is that aside from the River Song future romance (which the Doctor is well aware of), the series moves far away from the Harlequin novel/teen drama crap which defined the Rose storylines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm really glad the people behind Doctor Who cast Tilda Swinton in the title role.

 

:lol::lol:

 

I will wait and see what he's like, but it will take a good actor to play the role at the age of 26 up against no doubt some good guest actors that will have some years on him.

 

Xmas day special will be even more of a must see! I would think that his new companion would be introduced in that episode also - they have mentioned that Tennant will be "solo" for these specials in 2009, but you must have a new companion when the regeneration occurs to help him out as they normally do.

 

Hope Tennant goes out on a high. He has been a very good Doctor. Also hope that they give McGann a go in one (or more) of the specials this year. Seeing him on the Confidential programme last night as they recapped the previous Doctors before the announcement, Russell T Davies was really bigging him up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul McGann pretty much kept the role alive doing some much 8th Doctor stuff in between the cancellation-movie-new series. He's a great aurator and the radio episodes he did are very well written.

 

I hope he does get a good shwing in one of the specials. Maybe a one off about the Time War and regenerating into Eccleston? McGann's Doctor was already involved in a Time War, just not the same one.

 

Also I think Smith will go a bit more serious. Tennant is great at the zipping between 'woop lets go kill some bad guys' and the 'Don't even think about it' scences, but it also helps that that is RTD's writing style which is where Eccleston suffered in that there were too many funny lines for such a serious actor taking on a serious part.

 

But Moffat will throw up some wild and disturbing things or Smith's Doctor to take on, and I don't think he'll let Smith butcher them. It was Moffat and his exec Producer who picked him after all, not RTD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree or disagree, it's well thought out:

 

http://beasthouse-lm2.blogspot.com

 

It is, I think you'll agree, the most middling result you could imagine. Not that I've got anything against Matt Smith, you understand: this man clearly appreciates the weight that's been put on his juvenile shoulders, and I think I can safely say that we all wish him the best. He's a believer. He cares, and he knows we care. More than that, all evidence suggests that he's a Nice Bloke.

 

However, let's take a few moments to consider what this means for the series. Regular readers of this blog-thing will know that my big, big problem with Moffat is his desire to be liked: there's no doubt that he's capable of writing good material, but he also has the adolescent (we might even say "Gaimanesque") urge to ensure that his target audience worships him as a demigod. "The Empty Child" was an exercise in establishing its author as the "proper" Doctor Who scriptwriter of the new epoch; "The Girl in the Fireplace" involved the most blatant manipulation of audience emotions since ET; "Silence in the Library" was a collection of bits from his previous scripts that people seemed to respond to, making it the most frighteningly cynical Doctor Who story ever made. This is a man who won't even consider giving the viewers anything that might alarm or challenge them, and in this light, the casting of Matt Smith makes a terrible sort of sense. The country has grown used to the Doctor as a nimble young adventurer with Super Mario moves and a cheeky grin. The new executive producer claims that he really wanted an older Doctor, but... according to the all-important Confidential, he still sends text messages like: "It's Matt, isn't it?"

 

Erm... no, it isn't. Or at least, it didn't have to be. Moffat could have given us something wholly unexpected. He could have argued for a complete contrast to the Boy David, a Doctor who could be as surprising in 2010 as Troughton was in 1966 or Davison was in 1981. Instead, he went for the obvious, and gave us Tennant 1.5. Moffat's greatest flaw is that he refuses to risk offending anybody (it's a side-effrect of wanting to impress the fangirls), which means that he's guaranteed to make the blandest possible decision in any situation. As a result, replacing Tennant was much like replacing a member of a boy-band: you want someone who can do exactly the same moves, someone who can be young, sexy, and dynamic in exactly the same way, someone who's familiar with the back-catalogue. The New Boy will always be seen as a pale doppelganger of the previous model, but does that really matter...?

 

To us, it does. If Matt Smith had come straight after Christropher Eccleston, then it would've seemed ridiculous, like replacing Richard Burton with Sooty. Smith only makes sense after Tennant's stint as Britain's Top Adventurer Pin-Up. He makes sense if you're trying to replace a specific actor. He doesn't make sense as Doctor Who. He guarantees that the programme will never be able to develop beyond its current parameters, but then, what did you expect? Moffat doesn't like taking risks. That's why I never really got on with him.

 

So, let's celebrate Matt Smith, because at least we know he'll try. But at the same time, let's not forget that his casting really is the most boring decision in the entire history of Doctor Who. And it's apt that the announcement was made on the same night ITV premiered Demons, because ultimately, they're both "demographically correct" in exactly the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how we can slate somebody a full year before he's even done any acting.

 

It's not about ho they are now, it's about who they become in character. And since we haven't seen any of the character yet I don't think anybody in the world is allowed to comment to such an extreme.

 

There were probably people saying the same type of things when Troughton, Pertwee, Baker, Daividson, Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston and Tennant were cast. Probably even Hartnell if they had inside info on a new BBC series.

 

Typcial fanboy responses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I love how we can slate somebody a full year before he's even done any acting.

 

It's not about ho they are now, it's about who they become in character. And since we haven't seen any of the character yet I don't think anybody in the world is allowed to comment to such an extreme.

 

There were probably people saying the same type of things when Troughton, Pertwee, Baker, Daividson, Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston and Tennant were cast. Probably even Hartnell if they had inside info on a new BBC series.

 

Typcial fanboy responses.

 

L. Miles is hardly a fan boy; he's written multiple, published Doctor Who novels. Good ones, too, by all accounts though I have only read one. He's been an active participant on the creative side of the franchise for years.

 

My gut (and the experience of of the past two Doctors) tells me we will not be getting what we expect here. The initial press photos of Eccleston showing his cropped hair and leather jacket gave the impression that he was going to be "hard". I mean, he looked like he was straight out of "Locked, Stocked and Two Smoking Barrels"! But then once he was on screen he was goofy and sort of awkward. Not what I was expecting.

 

And those Tennant press photos of him in the Jarvis Cocker get up led me to believe that this was going to be a book-ish thinker, almost a nerdy Doctor. Contraire! By the end of his first story he was sword fighting invading hordes and then ruthlessly killing their leader saying "No second chances. I'm that type of man." Again, not what I was expecting.

 

So this Matt Smith kid, everyone is saying comes from the "Twilight" school of modern sci-fi/fantasy casting. And, for now, he sort of looks that part. But my gut (and history) tell me that that's NOT what we're going to see in 2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he kinda looks like Marty McFly's dad... well at least like an undead or slightly zombized version or something lol.

 

Yea, there's a lot of people saying he looks a bit like Crispin Glover. Incidentally, there has been a lot of fan discussion over the years about who might take the role if the show was going to take another stab at the US and Glover's name always comes up as a good choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trumpet Player, I generally don’t like to insult posters. It’s a very 90s kinda internet thing to do. But, I gotta make an exception. TP, you are obviously either a Doctor Who noob and/or a novice. What generally happens when a new Doctor is cast is that the actor and/or writers inject something new and nuanced with the character while retaining core beliefs and traits.

 

The regeneration process alters every single cell in a Time Lord body. Hence, personalities can be fundamentally different from other incarnations. But, core beliefs and attitude remain. So, your belief that a Tom Baker-like actor is the only way a successful transition can be made is just ignorance. Most new Doctor Who fans cut their teeth on that sCarF dUDe. It seems like you are one of them.

 

What has made this series successful is the casting of new actors that can flesh out the Doctor over the previous incarnation. It has been a mostly successful formula (Colin Baker notwithstanding, but I liked the C. Baker incarnation and I digress). As the blog above states very well, Patrick Troughton (Doc 2) and Peter Davison (Doc 5) were able to make very successful transitions from wildly popular Doctors before them. One of which was your beloved Tom Baker.

 

This is the bottom line. Matt Smith does not fit into any of the above formulas. This may be good or bad and only time will tell. He is neither different physically than David Tenant nor is he physically mature enough to be taken seriously as a Doctor. A current Lalla Ward (Romana 2) regenerating into, say, Keira Knightly would be a very bold and sensible change. Going from David Tenant to Matt Smith is not a change, it’s a replacement.

 

So, your argument that the new Doctor should be like Tom Baker makes no sense. It’s not more of the old REAL Doctor Who fans want; it’s…change we can believe in (I’m about to really puke now but I digress).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how people are saying 'Oh he's just like David Tennant'. He is young and shares a few similiar features to him.

 

Thats where the comparision ends. We have no idea how he'll take on the role or what kind of actor he will truely be, so saying it's not a change isn't quite justified yet.

 

If he acts and ends up the same as Tennant then I;ll take it back, but you can't judge a book by its cover, or a time lord by its actor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gman, I'm not a Dr who fan period, especially not a fan of the later incarnations. The problem with me is I want to like Dr Who. I think it's an interesting premise for a series but I can't get into it. The BBC are terrible at making good drama in every aspect, and this is no exception. The only thing decent about Dr Who is some of the writing and ideas.

 

I put up that post after I'd been out drinking last night with someone I havn't seen since my school days. A 38 year old man (he's four years older than me) who is my old school friends older brother, who was, and still is the biggest Dr Who geek I've ever known in my entire life. This guy actually went knocking on doors back in the 80's with a petition to try and stop it from being axed.

 

We talked about the new Dr Who last night, and he doesn't like Tennant or the look of this new guy either, why ? Same reasons as me, we both agreed that Tennant is pretty bad in the role, and we both agreed that Eccleston was slighly better. The problem with Tennant is his facial expressions, they are way over the top, just not natural, I've never seen anyone so animated. Does Time Travel make you act like you are on speed (amphetamines) or something ? He is highly irritating.

 

We both know that the character can regenerate into virtually anything, (thanks for pointing that out) but the problem is, if he is old, wise, intelligent and eccentric (he always seems to inherit these traits after every re-generation) then you need an actor who can actually convey these qualities in a beleivable manner, and usually that takes an actor who is atleast over 45. Tennant just doens't pull this off, Eccleston could just about.

 

If Dr Who was put in the hands of say JJ Abrams team behind Lost, or the people who make Galactica, it would be miles ahead of this BBC garbage.

 

To put it bluntly, it has the same production value of a cheesy british soap like East Enders. The photography is awfull, it's lit so bad that the environments actually look like cheap sets. The music sounds like it's come straight from a royalty free soundtrack CD and banged in there without much thought. The supporting characters who pop now and again are just the worst kind of actors you get on TV who come from soaps (one in particular was in Coronation Street), who should never be allowed back on TV again period. Then there was the Peter Kay episode ? What ? And the CG and visual FX, I won't even go there.

 

I did hear that Richard E Grant was tipped to take over at some point. Now there is a much better class of actor than Tennant. If someone like him played the part (it doens't have to be Tom Baker), with the crew of Lost or Galactica behind it, we would have something far better. This new stuff is clearly aimed at the little kiddies, and it's obvious thats why they are going for younger actors these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Dr Who was put in the hands of say JJ Abrams team behind Lost, or the people who make Galactica, it would be miles ahead of this BBC garbage.

 

You may not hold on to that thought if what i've heard about Abrams' 90210 Revision Trek turns out to be true....

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...