2005 replies to this topic

[baerrtt]

At a guess, I think I'm going to like Smith's rendition of the Doctor more than either Eccleston or Tennant's. Liked both of them to be sure, but this new guy seems a very exciting bit of casting. Not a safe choice at all.

Personally, I hope the 11th Doctor has a darker, more devious side to him. I could do without the whole "Isn't humanity wonderful!" nice guy act for a bit.

Given that Eccleston and Tennant were 'darker' Doctors (the whole 'losing my planet' backstory hardly made for a conventionally jolly character even with the latter portrayal) I think the significance of casting a much younger man means that Smith's Doctor will be a completely 'healed' man.

Look up what Moffat actually says he likes about the character of the Doctor and why particularly he's always favoured the younger actors who've played the role (Davison, Mcgann, Tennant) and 'dark' and 'devious' isn't it.

[Zorin Industries]

There's another issue with the "he's a bit younger" angle....this is a very demanding role. Eccleston left because the schedules were too intense and Tennent is now facing back surgery no doubt progressed by his action work on DOCTOR WHO. It might need a younger chap to cut the mustard as they say. He's also not going to look a thing like his hair and clothes do in any of these publicity snaps.

[sharpshooter]

I actually would like Smith to possibly push the eccentric side of the character further than any other Doctor before him. It’s my favourite aspect; you could have him hyperactive and slightly unstable, maybe to the point of being dangerous. Let him run wild, especially since he’s quite young. I wouldn’t want over-acting though.

[Safari Suit]

I've been trying for the life of me to think of who he looks like and I got it (after three brandies, a takeaway and a couple of aspirin)

Martin Fry - ABC singer(I think it's the haircut )

He does look a little like Martin Fry. I think he looks more like Alexander Armstrong from Armstrong and Miller.

[dee-bee-five]

Matt Smith is inspired casting. Perfect.

[DamnCoffee]

I actually would like Smith to possibly push the eccentric side of the character further than any other Doctor before him. It’s my favourite aspect; you could have him hyperactive and slightly unstable, maybe to the point of being dangerous. Let him run wild, especially since he’s quite young. I wouldn’t want over-acting though.

I completely agree! I loved when Tennant touched upon that in the Children In Need (2005) special.

[danslittlefinger]

http://www.dailymail...new-Doctor.html\


DID anyone bet on Matt on here for curiosity's sake?

Edited by danslittlefinger, 05 January 2009 - 09:48 PM.

[marktmurphy]

http://www.dailymail...new-Doctor.html\


DID anyone bet on Matt on here for curiosity's sake?

'BBC in storm'- jeez, they wish. They're always trying to stoke a war against the Beeb; it's pathetic.
I did consider betting, I must admit- as you'll see on this thread I did peg him as the likely candidate because of that betting just before he was announced.

[danslittlefinger]

http://www.dailymail...new-Doctor.html\


DID anyone bet on Matt on here for curiosity's sake?

'BBC in storm'- jeez, they wish. They're always trying to stoke a war against the Beeb; it's pathetic.
I did consider betting, I must admit- as you'll see on this thread I did peg him as the likely candidate because of that betting just before he was announced.

Sorry I haven't read all the thread but Lily Allen is pegged to be new assistant (that's if she ever puts Jay Jopling down for a moment )..
http://www.thesun.co...icle2096995.ece

and yes, it's from The Sun

[sharpshooter]

I'll believe that when it's confirmed.

While Smith is spending the next six months building his version of The Doctor, if he plays aspects as an extension of himself, I wouldn’t mind him keeping the hand gestures as seen in the interview while he's thinking. He can't control them. Very Doctor-ish.

[dee-bee-five]

http://www.dailymail...new-Doctor.html\


DID anyone bet on Matt on here for curiosity's sake?

'BBC in storm'- jeez, they wish. They're always trying to stoke a war against the Beeb; it's pathetic.

I couldn't agree more - even though it's not the BBC I work for . The furore over Brand/Ross was a complete overreaction; until the bloody Daily Mail became involved, there were two - count 'em, two - complaints about that Andrew Sachs broadcast until the Mail got involved. Don't get me wrong, it was puerile of Brand and Ross. But nothing more; it was just used as an excuse by the Mail, and others, to beat the BBC. God, I despise the fascist Mail.

Same with the Strictly Come Dancing Final. The papers (not to mention some sad geeks on internet forums) started bleating "fix" when Tom Chambers won. Maybe the chilly Rachel and Lisa were better dancers in terms of feet placement; they weren't when it came to interpretation and joie de vivre , which is far more important to my mind in dancing. And Tom was never in the dance off, unlike his two rivals in the final. This made his victory, for me, inevitable and well-desereved. But this counts for nothing for those in Britain who look for any opportunity to bash the BBC.

[Jim]

God, I despise the fascist Mail.

Unfortunately, that sort of expression makes one sound like the Daily Mail, so replete with bitterness and petty hatreds. This is its trick.

Better to ignore it and have faith in the goodness of the people. They will endure.

[dee-bee-five]

God, I despise the fascist Mail.

Unfortunately, that sort of expression makes one sound like the Daily Mail.

Perhaps. But you know what they say - scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist bleeding...

[marktmurphy]

http://www.dailymail...new-Doctor.html\


DID anyone bet on Matt on here for curiosity's sake?

'BBC in storm'- jeez, they wish. They're always trying to stoke a war against the Beeb; it's pathetic.

I couldn't agree more - even though it's not the BBC I work for . The furore over Brand/Ross was a complete overreaction; until the bloody Daily Mail became involved, there were two - count 'em, two - complaints about that Andrew Sachs broadcast until the Mail got involved. Don't get me wrong, it was puerile of Brand and Ross. But nothing more; it was just used as an excuse by the Mail, and others, to beat the BBC. God, I despise the fascist Mail.

Same with the Strictly Come Dancing Final. The papers (not to mention some sad geeks on internet forums) started bleating "fix" when Tom Chambers won. Maybe the chilly Rachel and Lisa were better dancers in terms of feet placement; they weren't when it came to interpretation and joie de vivre , which is far more important to my mind in dancing. And Tom was never in the dance off, unlike his two rivals in the final. This made his victory, for me, inevitable and well-desereved. But this counts for nothing for those in Britain who look for any opportunity to bash the BBC.

Although oddly, the one time recently when the BBC has annoyed me is when it seemed that a review on Top Gear lied completely about the performance of the car- I don't think there's an excuse for that and yet there was no reaction to that. Pah.

God, I despise the fascist Mail.

Unfortunately, that sort of expression makes one sound like the Daily Mail, so replete with bitterness and petty hatreds. This is its trick.

Better to ignore it and have faith in the goodness of the people. They will endure.

I don't disagree; it's a bit too much of an easy statement to make, however the people do listen to what the Mail tells them and react in the way they tell them to react; it's a sad fact.

[Safari Suit]

Excellent freebies though.

Can Lily Allen act? She certainly can't host!

[Jackanaples]

At a guess, I think I'm going to like Smith's rendition of the Doctor more than either Eccleston or Tennant's. Liked both of them to be sure, but this new guy seems a very exciting bit of casting. Not a safe choice at all.

Personally, I hope the 11th Doctor has a darker, more devious side to him. I could do without the whole "Isn't humanity wonderful!" nice guy act for a bit.

Given that Eccleston and Tennant were 'darker' Doctors (the whole 'losing my planet' backstory hardly made for a conventionally jolly character even with the latter portrayal) I think the significance of casting a much younger man means that Smith's Doctor will be a completely 'healed' man.

Look up what Moffat actually says he likes about the character of the Doctor and why particularly he's always favoured the younger actors who've played the role (Davison, Mcgann, Tennant) and 'dark' and 'devious' isn't it.

Ah, I disagree with that. I think there was a darker backstory hinted at with both Doctors (the Time War, etc.) but in practice they tended toward the lighter aspects of the character (the end of 'Family of Blood' notwithstanding) --to the point where the 10th Doctor is offering to forgive the Master for his recent evil machinations. Both 9th and 10th were to too reactive for my tastes.

I've read what Moffat had to say about how he views Who, but the interview I read was from back in July. He's said that before seeing Smith he was convinced they had to cast a man in his forties for the role. So he's definitely open to changing his mind when he's been wowed by a better idea.

Which is not to say that the 11th Doctor is going to be darker. I think you're right there. Probably not. On consideration though, I guess what I really want is a Doc who's more proactive and in charge than we've seen in the last two incarnations. And as Sharpshooter pointed out, more eccentric wouldn't go amiss either. Hell, more alien.

To me right now, Matt Smith looks like the most exciting casting for the role since Tom Baker. Certainly he has the best writer on the series since Robert Holmes. But we'll have to wait and see.

Edited by Jackanaples, 06 January 2009 - 01:53 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

At a guess, I think I'm going to like Smith's rendition of the Doctor more than either Eccleston or Tennant's. Liked both of them to be sure, but this new guy seems a very exciting bit of casting. Not a safe choice at all.

Personally, I hope the 11th Doctor has a darker, more devious side to him. I could do without the whole "Isn't humanity wonderful!" nice guy act for a bit.

Given that Eccleston and Tennant were 'darker' Doctors (the whole 'losing my planet' backstory hardly made for a conventionally jolly character even with the latter portrayal) I think the significance of casting a much younger man means that Smith's Doctor will be a completely 'healed' man.

Look up what Moffat actually says he likes about the character of the Doctor and why particularly he's always favoured the younger actors who've played the role (Davison, Mcgann, Tennant) and 'dark' and 'devious' isn't it.

Ah, I disagree with that. I think there was a darker backstory hinted at with both Doctors (the Time War, etc.) but in practice they tended toward the lighter aspects of the character (the end of 'Family of Blood' notwithstanding) --to the point where the 10th Doctor is offering to forgive the Master for his recent evil machinations. Both 9th and 10th were to too reactive for my tastes.

I've read what Moffat had to say about how he views Who, but the interview I read was from back in July. He's said that before seeing Smith he was convinced they had to cast a man in his forties for the role. So he's definitely open to changing his mind when he's been wowed by a better idea.

Which is not to say that the 11th Doctor is going to be darker. I think you're right there. Probably not. On consideration though, I guess what I really want is a Doc who's more proactive and in charge than we've seen in the last two incarnations. And as Sharpshooter pointed out, more eccentric wouldn't go amiss either. Hell, more alien.

To me right now, Matt Smith looks like the most exciting casting for the role since Tom Baker. Certainly he has the best writer on the series since Robert Holmes. But we'll have to wait and see.

Oh, dear God, now that last paragraph has depressed me as I believe Tom Baker has always been woefully overrated; his self-indulgence, which was itself indulged by one particular weak producer after his first two seasons, was, frankly, a disgrace. Smith has great potential, although whether he can eclipse Tennant, who is the only Doctor to equal Pertwee in my eyes, remains to be seen.

[Jackanaples]

When I say I'm a fan of Tom Baker's Who, I'm in particular thinking of the Philip Hinchcliffe produced years. I haven't seen much of Pertwee's Doctor but I've enjoyed it all.

I just meant that I think Smith is an exciting choice for the role --he's a breath of fresh air, in the same way that Baker was initially back in 70s. I of course hope he really makes the role completely his own and surprises us all with what brings to it.

[dee-bee-five]

When I say I'm a fan of Tom Baker's Who, I'm in particular thinking of the Philip Hinchcliffe produced years. I haven't seen much of Pertwee's Doctor but I've enjoyed it all.

I just meant that I think Smith is an exciting choice for the role --he's a breath of fresh air, in the same way that Baker was initially back in 70s. I of course hope he really makes the role completely his own and surprises us all with what brings to it.

I agree with all that. Even to those of us who always have a sense of the Emperor's new clothes when all around us are extolling the virtues of Tom Baker have to admit that his first couple of seasons produced by Hinchcliffe were rather splendid (save for the ghastly Cybermen story). Of course, my antipathy towards Baker has much to do with the fact that, to my mind, Pertwee's doctor - played with gusto as the love child of James Bond and Sherlock Holmes, with a bit of John Steed's DNA thrown in for good measure - was pretty much definitive until Tennant took over. For me, it's now a toss up between Pertwee and Tennant as best Doctor. I wish to God Tennant wasn't leaving, but if he feels he must move on I think the producers have made a good choice in casting Smith. But he has big shoes - or a big police box - to fill. In this regard, I feel his youth and his being relatively unknown will be assets. He's young enough and unknown enough to approach the role with confidence whereas more established names might, in a funny way, have been more intimidated by the very long shadow that Tennant's tenure will cast.

[sharpshooter]

I just meant that I think Smith is an exciting choice for the role --he's a breath of fresh air, in the same way that Baker was initially back in 70s. I of course hope he really makes the role completely his own and surprises us all with what brings to it.

Agreed, he really is. And I'm certain he will not be doing a Tennant (or any other Doctor for that matter) impersonation. Sure, aspects of the character will remain, but things will be fundamentally different. He said he put forth his own version during the audition and was brave with it, and they of course liked it enough to warrant his casting.

[DamnCoffee]

Doctor Who Trailer - In the Style of Quantum of Solace.
http://uk.youtube.co...feature=related

[Sniperscope]

I just meant that I think Smith is an exciting choice for the role --he's a breath of fresh air, in the same way that Baker was initially back in 70s. I of course hope he really makes the role completely his own and surprises us all with what brings to it.

Agreed, he really is. And I'm certain he will not be doing a Tennant (or any other Doctor for that matter) impersonation. Sure, aspects of the character will remain, but things will be fundamentally different. He said he put forth his own version during the audition and was brave with it, and they of course liked it enough to warrant his casting.

I hope not because despite the fact that I liked Tennant a lot he is far from my favourite Doctor. I often became rather tired of his gurning and overdone facial mannerisms or sounds. Sometimes that was the problem of direction but it did get a bit almost Frank Spencer in Space at times! I'm hoping Smith will be a bit more aloof and alien. Tennant and Ecclestone were sometimes a bit too human friendly.
Remember how Moffat wrote the Doctor in The Empty Child? I would like to see more of that.
Actually having recently watched the War Machines for the first time I was struck by how impressive Hartnell was: Dignified, aloof and irascible but also kindly. It would be nice if Smith had some of that. Peter Davison often seemed to draw inspiration from Hartnell, especially the often rhetorical lines he had and the "hmms?": kind of an old soul in a young body.

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 January 2009 - 11:22 AM.

[baerrtt]

I just meant that I think Smith is an exciting choice for the role --he's a breath of fresh air, in the same way that Baker was initially back in 70s. I of course hope he really makes the role completely his own and surprises us all with what brings to it.

Agreed, he really is. And I'm certain he will not be doing a Tennant (or any other Doctor for that matter) impersonation. Sure, aspects of the character will remain, but things will be fundamentally different. He said he put forth his own version during the audition and was brave with it, and they of course liked it enough to warrant his casting.

I hope not because despite the fact that I liked Tennant a lot he is far from my favourite Doctor. I often became rather tired of his gurning and overdone facial mannerisms or sounds. Sometimes that was the problem of direction but it did get a bit almost Frank Spencer in Space at times! I'm hoping Smith will be a bit more aloof and alien. Tennant and Ecclestone were sometimes a bit too human friendly.
Remember how Moffat wrote the Doctor in The Empty Child? I would like to see more of that.
Actually having recently watched the War Machines for the first time I was struck by how impressive Hartnell was: Dignified, aloof and irascible but also kindly. It would be nice if Smith had some of that. Peter Davison often seemed to draw inspiration from Hartnell, especially the often rhetorical lines he had and the "hmms?": kind of an old soul in a young body.

All the Doctors have been 'a bit too' human friendly to different degrees, which given that he's largely travelled with them makes this largely plausible.

Watch AN UNEARTLY CHILD and then watch THE WAR MACHINES again for a complete contrast as the First Doctor has grown to be a much warmer, grandfatherly figure compared to the aloof alien that many people think is the only way to play the Doctor when he's never actually been completely played that way by any of the actors (not even Tom Baker's portrayal that quite frankly came across as a drunken eccentric most of the time)

Tennant has also used the

hmms

and with the aid of character-driven scripts and his own acting abilities (HUMAN NATURE/FAMILY OF BLOOD being the best example)suggests, without making it obvious, that this young looking man is very ancient (not merely old).

[Sniperscope]

All the Doctors have been 'a bit too' human friendly to different degrees, which given that he's largely travelled with them makes this largely plausible.

Watch AN UNEARTLY CHILD and then watch THE WAR MACHINES again for a complete contrast as the First Doctor has grown to be a much warmer, grandfatherly figure compared to the aloof alien that many people think is the only way to play the Doctor when he's never actually been completely played that way by any of the actors (not even Tom Baker's portrayal that quite frankly came across as a drunken eccentric most of the time)

Tennant has also used the

hmms

and with the aid of character-driven scripts and his own acting abilities (HUMAN NATURE/FAMILY OF BLOOD being the best example)suggests, without making it obvious, that this young looking man is very ancient (not merely old).

All true baerrtt, although you're a bit harsh on Tom Baker!!! LOL!!! He did apparently enjoy a tipple in the BBC canteen at lunch! But Tom was a genius who defined the role and each of his performances are still intensely watchable nonetheless even if the storylines always weren't. I can't always say the same for Tennant's performance which can sometimes grate on me and I often find it ironic that the episode that most people laud as the best of his era is Blink, in which he was largely absent from it! Human Nature / Family of Blood are superb examples of where I wish Tennant's Doctor would have gone (perhaps it helped that it was from a 7th Doctor novel). Silence in the Library 2 parter was another great performance of his, as was the Satan Pit double episode where he brought so much solemnity to the discussion about belief and death. But somehow the series pulled back a bit from those more classic feeling episodes and instead opted for a more OTT style (especially in that series finale where he completely lost me with his overblown histrionics for the dying Master ).
Neat point on Hartnell. Remember how ruthless and cold blooded he was towards Ian and Barbara in The Daleks? That sure contrasts to his warmth with Dodo in WM.I wouldn't mind seeing that kind of series long arc for Smith's Dr, without perhaps indulging in the excesses of The Twin Dilemma post-regeneration psychosis of Colin Baker's Dr (which was very brave, but ultimately disaffecting).

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 January 2009 - 01:48 PM.

[baerrtt]

All the Doctors have been 'a bit too' human friendly to different degrees, which given that he's largely travelled with them makes this largely plausible.

Watch AN UNEARTLY CHILD and then watch THE WAR MACHINES again for a complete contrast as the First Doctor has grown to be a much warmer, grandfatherly figure compared to the aloof alien that many people think is the only way to play the Doctor when he's never actually been completely played that way by any of the actors (not even Tom Baker's portrayal that quite frankly came across as a drunken eccentric most of the time)

Tennant has also used the

hmms

and with the aid of character-driven scripts and his own acting abilities (HUMAN NATURE/FAMILY OF BLOOD being the best example)suggests, without making it obvious, that this young looking man is very ancient (not merely old).

All true baerrtt, although you're a bit harsh on Tom Baker!!! LOL!!! He did apparently enjoy a tipple in the BBC canteen at lunch! But Tom was a genius who defined the role and each of his performances are still intensely watchable nonetheless even if the storylines always weren't. I can't always say the same for Tennant's performance which can sometimes grate on me and I often find it ironic that the episode that most people laud as the best of his era is Blink, in which he was largely absent from it! Human Nature / Family of Blood are superb examples of where I wish Tennant's Doctor would have gone (perhaps it helped that it was from a 7th Doctor novel). Silence in the Library 2 parter was another great performance of his, as was the Satan Pit double episode where he brought so much solemnity to the discussion about belief and death. But somehow the series pulled back a bit from those more classic feeling episodes and instead opted for a more OTT style (especially in that series finale where he completely lost me with his overblown histrionics for the dying Master ).
Neat point on Hartnell. Remember how ruthless and cold blooded he was towards Ian and Barbara in The Daleks? That sure contrasts to his warmth with Dodo in WM.I wouldn't mind seeing that kind of series long arc for Smith's Dr, without perhaps indulging in the excesses of The Twin Dilemma post-regeneration psychosis of Colin Baker's Dr (which was very brave, but ultimately disaffecting).

The thing with the Doctor is that he's already gone through the 'cold-blooded' to warm-hearted but occasionally dangerous hero when Hartnell was there. He stopped being that man well before THE TENTH PLANET was screened (I, for the record, liked Colin Baker's portrayal but I found the attempts to make him Hartnell-like failed simply because the character developed from that whilst JNT's supposed template was playing him). The Doctor should have times when his over-enthusiasm grates on the viewer. He's basically Q if Q was an action hero. An arrogant genius who behaves like an overgrown child at the best of times.

The Doctor should, imo, always have moments when he's acting like a complete OTT ham, even when's expressing genuine emotions, purely because it's THAT characteristic (something Russell T Davies understood)that's made him stand out from other popular heroes not the fact that he can occasionally be cold and aloof.

James Bond is cold and aloof. Batman is cold and aloof. But neither of them have been portrayed dressing up in woman's clothes (Pertwee in THE GREEN DEATH), getting over-excited at the smallest and meaningless of things (take your pick), clearly falling in love or being attracted to women and then doing absolutely nothing about it (the Doctor/Cameca in THE AZTECS, The Doctor/Jo in THE GREEN DEATH, The Doctor/Romana relationship, The Doctor/Rose etc).

I rate Tennant highly because he's displayed the full variety that makes The Doctor an interesting character. The seriousness and the silliness which is crucial.

Edited by baerrtt, 10 January 2009 - 04:34 PM.

[Sniperscope]

The thing with the Doctor is that he's already gone through the 'cold-blooded' to warm-hearted but occasionally dangerous hero when Hartnell was there. He stopped being that man well before THE TENTH PLANET was screened (I, for the record, liked Colin Baker's portrayal but I found the attempts to make him Hartnell-like failed simply because the character developed from that whilst JNT's supposed template was playing him). The Doctor should have times when his over-enthusiasm grates on the viewer. He's basically Q if Q was an action hero. An arrogant genius who behaves like an overgrown child at the best of times.

The Doctor should, imo, always have moments when he's acting like a complete OTT ham, even when's expressing genuine emotions, purely because it's THAT characteristic (something Russell T Davies understood)that's made him stand out from other popular heroes not the fact that he can occasionally be cold and aloof.

James Bond is cold and aloof. Batman is cold and aloof. But neither of them have been portrayed dressing up in woman's clothes (Pertwee in THE GREEN DEATH), getting over-excited at the smallest and meaningless of things (take your pick), clearly falling in love or being attracted to women and then doing absolutely nothing about it (the Doctor/Cameca in THE AZTECS, The Doctor/Jo in THE GREEN DEATH, The Doctor/Romana relationship, The Doctor/Rose etc).

I rate Tennant highly because he's displayed the full variety that makes The Doctor an interesting character. The seriousness and the silliness which is crucial.

All your points are very well made baerrt and I largely agree with you I for one would never want Dr Who to be a dark and gritty show. It is the geekiness of the character that has always made him appealing to such a wide demographic.

However I don't fully agree with you that RTD has properly understood the character insomuch as both the Dr and the show is very comedy driven compared to the older series which was more drama focused. Tennant's Dr, even when compared to Ecclestone, is occasionally given to some (IMHO) really excessive histrionics. Arrogance and over-enthusiasm is one thing which has always been part of the Dr's character but irrational histrionics is quite another.
I have never before thought the Dr's character was wrong until I witnessed his ridiculous outpouring for the Master in Last of the Timelords. The Dr is weeping over a thoroughly repellant man who had not only murdered and enslaved billions on his favourite planet (in both the present and the future) but had subjected Martha's family (of African descent) to degradation and slavery, repeatedly tortured Jack and kept our hero in a kennel / cage for a whole year! Not to mention the fact that the Master beat his wife. Could you imagine the Dr crying over the death of Hitler (if he had been a TImelord)?
This was a huge character misreading that I put solely down to RTD and it almost drove me away from the show there and then because in no way does it gel with the Dr's very rough treatment of The Family, for example, or on any number of occasions throughout the show's history where he has justly punished his opponents for their evil.
This justice characteristic has been a consistent aspect to each incarnation. Consider that even in Genesis of the Daleks the Dr questions his right to eliminate the Daleks, which is a very appropriate conscience issue to debate, but he still goes back to do it (but only partially because he is not a genocidal maniac). But it's the fact that he goes back that makes the difference and gives us a sense of justice. It is justice that he did not wipe out a race no matter how evil but it is also just that he should punish them and slow down their development.
I'm not saying the Dr should have gleefully killed the Master in LOTTL, because that would not be in the spirit of the show and out of kilter for the Dr's character (do you remember the outcry when Colin B's Dr rather nastily mocked the Borad before disposing of him in Timelash?), but I don't think the Dr should shed a tear either for a mass murderer who hears drums in his head.
*Phew* 2 years later and I finally got that off my chest!!!

Anyway, the Tennant stories I cited in my other post are for me the absolute right balance of crazed enthusiasm and seriousness and were not in fact written by RTD. Those are the moments when Tennant really shines.

I agree with you on Colin B too. He's always been popular with me, he was just scuttled by terrible production decisions (JNT!!!), a very staid BBC management (Michael Grade!!!) and commissioning some poor stories that put the Dr in a dubious light (Saward!!!). Have you seen the documentary on Colin's era on the Trial of a TImelord set? It's very interesting. There were a lot of egos that really screwed it up inside and outside of the production office.

Edited by Sniperscope, 11 January 2009 - 05:57 AM.

[Safari Suit]

I just found out Paterson Joseph is that guy from Peep Show. Those fools! I would have watched it if he were cast. Now they're going to have to suffer with 15,675,892 viewers a week when they could have had 15,675,893!

[baerrtt]

The thing with the Doctor is that he's already gone through the 'cold-blooded' to warm-hearted but occasionally dangerous hero when Hartnell was there. He stopped being that man well before THE TENTH PLANET was screened (I, for the record, liked Colin Baker's portrayal but I found the attempts to make him Hartnell-like failed simply because the character developed from that whilst JNT's supposed template was playing him). The Doctor should have times when his over-enthusiasm grates on the viewer. He's basically Q if Q was an action hero. An arrogant genius who behaves like an overgrown child at the best of times.

The Doctor should, imo, always have moments when he's acting like a complete OTT ham, even when's expressing genuine emotions, purely because it's THAT characteristic (something Russell T Davies understood)that's made him stand out from other popular heroes not the fact that he can occasionally be cold and aloof.

James Bond is cold and aloof. Batman is cold and aloof. But neither of them have been portrayed dressing up in woman's clothes (Pertwee in THE GREEN DEATH), getting over-excited at the smallest and meaningless of things (take your pick), clearly falling in love or being attracted to women and then doing absolutely nothing about it (the Doctor/Cameca in THE AZTECS, The Doctor/Jo in THE GREEN DEATH, The Doctor/Romana relationship, The Doctor/Rose etc).

I rate Tennant highly because he's displayed the full variety that makes The Doctor an interesting character. The seriousness and the silliness which is crucial.

All your points are very well made baerrt and I largely agree with you I for one would never want Dr Who to be a dark and gritty show. It is the geekiness of the character that has always made him appealing to such a wide demographic.

However I don't fully agree with you that RTD has properly understood the character insomuch as both the Dr and the show is very comedy driven compared to the older series which was more drama focused. Tennant's Dr, even when compared to Ecclestone, is occasionally given to some (IMHO) really excessive histrionics. Arrogance and over-enthusiasm is one thing which has always been part of the Dr's character but irrational histrionics is quite another.
I have never before thought the Dr's character was wrong until I witnessed his ridiculous outpouring for the Master in Last of the Timelords. The Dr is weeping over a thoroughly repellant man who had not only murdered and enslaved billions on his favourite planet (in both the present and the future) but had subjected Martha's family (of African descent) to degradation and slavery, repeatedly tortured Jack and kept our hero in a kennel / cage for a whole year! Not to mention the fact that the Master beat his wife. Could you imagine the Dr crying over the death of Hitler (if he had been a TImelord)?
This was a huge character misreading that I put solely down to RTD and it almost drove me away from the show there and then because in no way does it gel with the Dr's very rough treatment of The Family, for example, or on any number of occasions throughout the show's history where he has justly punished his opponents for their evil.
This justice characteristic has been a consistent aspect to each incarnation. Consider that even in Genesis of the Daleks the Dr questions his right to eliminate the Daleks, which is a very appropriate conscience issue to debate, but he still goes back to do it (but only partially because he is not a genocidal maniac). But it's the fact that he goes back that makes the difference and gives us a sense of justice. It is justice that he did not wipe out a race no matter how evil but it is also just that he should punish them and slow down their development.
I'm not saying the Dr should have gleefully killed the Master in LOTTL, because that would not be in the spirit of the show and out of kilter for the Dr's character (do you remember the outcry when Colin B's Dr rather nastily mocked the Borad before disposing of him in Timelash?), but I don't think the Dr should shed a tear either for a mass murderer who hears drums in his head.
*Phew* 2 years later and I finally got that off my chest!!!

Anyway, the Tennant stories I cited in my other post are for me the absolute right balance of crazed enthusiasm and seriousness and were not in fact written by RTD. Those are the moments when Tennant really shines.

I agree with you on Colin B too. He's always been popular with me, he was just scuttled by terrible production decisions (JNT!!!), a very staid BBC management (Michael Grade!!!) and commissioning some poor stories that put the Dr in a dubious light (Saward!!!). Have you seen the documentary on Colin's era on the Trial of a TImelord set? It's very interesting. There were a lot of egos that really screwed it up inside and outside of the production office.

The Doctor wept for the Master because he was the only remaining member of his own race and because, as glimpsed in the classic series, he actually cared for him despite everything the crazed SOB had done and was capable of doing.

Look back to the past Doctor/Master stories where the Doctor either refused to kill the Master directly or even tried to save him despite his latest body count (SURVIVAL, The Tv Movie etc). Was the Doctor written 'out of character' when in TERROR OF THE AUTONS (The Master's 1st appearance) despite the death count the Master's caused the Third Doctor actually smiles and says he wouldn't mind running into him again?

The Doctor has always forgiven the Master (this is the one hero who chooses to forgive his enemies period) and, by proxy, was missing all the traces of his home, an entire race of people wiped out. His response in LOTTL was plausible because of the tragic backstory(The Time War) RTD had built since Series One.

It's no good saying 'the character I grew up with wouldn't have done that' because the character had purposely been developed to service the drama, rather than the action.

I think the reason I like the new eras of WHO and Bond similarly is that their respective production teams are maximising the predictable elements of both characters (the Doctor's compassion on the one hand, Bond's coldness on the other) and pushing them to gain unpredictable dramatic developments. So yes you get fans of both who whinge 'they wouldn't do that' whilst to the mostly receptive public and other fans who don't have a close-minded idea of such characters and enjoy such developments because it gives us,imo, diverse characters and not the cartoons they were once dismissed as being.

Also nothing in RTD's era is as overtly comedic as the Graham Williams era of the show, season 17 in particular, (the era that gave us CITY OF DEATH but also THE HORNS OF NIMON)an era of undergraduate humour (Douglas Adams take a bow) where any drama and tension eventually (much to the late Adams noted regret) got siphoned out so Tom Baker could take the piss.

All of RTD's written stories(practically all his work as a dramatic writer prior to Doctor Who) feature dark themes and oodles of character development hidden beneath the deceptively light tone he employs. If the lightness isn't to your liking Safari that's fine but there's more talent in masking seriousness with lightness than there is in making a serious story without any humour entirely.

The show can't give us HUMAN NATURE or MIDNIGHT every week because tonally that would be boring, just as it doesn't give us PARTNERS IN CRIME every week, just as it didn't give us GENESIS IF THE DALEKS every week 30 years ago and when it had eras where stories fit the same tone week in, week out it betrayed the fact that DOCTOR WHO is a show(a family show first and foremost) that should allow great variety and under RTD it has constantly shown that.

[FLEMINGFAN]

Ok, first of all I'm really surprised this hasn't been done before (Athena where are you? ) and i was wondering if there are any Doctor Who fans on CBn? I'm fairly new to this franchise, and was exposed to it in 2005, during the running of the revamped series - I've been hooked ever since. I really want to get to know the old Doctor Who (1963 - 1989) and quite possibly the 1996 TV movie.
Enjoy
Matt xx

Great list.

I would also recommend reading the excellent book on the subject: INSIDE THE TARDIS (THE WORLDS OF DOCTOR WHO) by James Chapman ( www.ibtauris.com ).

It is one of the best researched books on DOCTOR WHO, though there is only informative text, no photos (which is somewhat refreshing these days).

He also wrote the equally excellent, and recently updated, book on James Bond: LICENCED TO THRILL

[Sniperscope]

It's no good saying 'the character I grew up with wouldn't have done that' because the character had purposely been developed to service the drama, rather than the action.

I think the reason I like the new eras of WHO and Bond similarly is that their respective production teams are maximising the predictable elements of both characters (the Doctor's compassion on the one hand, Bond's coldness on the other) and pushing them to gain unpredictable dramatic developments. So yes you get fans of both who whinge 'they wouldn't do that' whilst to the mostly receptive public and other fans who don't have a close-minded idea of such characters and enjoy such developments because it gives us,imo, diverse characters and not the cartoons they were once dismissed as being.

Also nothing in RTD's era is as overtly comedic as the Graham Williams era of the show, season 17 in particular, (the era that gave us CITY OF DEATH but also THE HORNS OF NIMON)an era of undergraduate humour (Douglas Adams take a bow) where any drama and tension eventually (much to the late Adams noted regret) got siphoned out so Tom Baker could take the piss.

All of RTD's written stories(practically all his work as a dramatic writer prior to Doctor Who) feature dark themes and oodles of character development hidden beneath the deceptively light tone he employs. If the lightness isn't to your liking Safari that's fine but there's more talent in masking seriousness with lightness than there is in making a serious story without any humour entirely.

The show can't give us HUMAN NATURE or MIDNIGHT every week because tonally that would be boring, just as it doesn't give us PARTNERS IN CRIME every week, just as it didn't give us GENESIS IF THE DALEKS every week 30 years ago and when it had eras where stories fit the same tone week in, week out it betrayed the fact that DOCTOR WHO is a show(a family show first and foremost) that should allow great variety and under RTD it has constantly shown that.

I think you've willfully misrepresented a number of things I had said.

I did not say say the Dr should or could kill the Master! Did you actually read my post? I said that would be out of character!!!
I was asserting that there is a big difference to weeping over a mass murderer to wanting to see justice done fairly for both the Dr and the audience, especially considering the outrageous scale of his crimes in TOTL. I think this was an error from RTD and I didn't buy it, despite the backstory which IMHO doesn't rise much above the usual 'tortured soul of a hero' cliche that beleaguers most scifi.

I do not deny that the Dr and Master had often worked together esp. in the Pertwee era but those were very different situations to TLOTL where the Dr was either playing a dangerous game or needed the Master to undo the harm he had caused. You should be able to see that. Do I need to explain how this is not out of character? Anyway, you're comparing Terror of the Autons to TLOTL? Bit of a difference my friend.

IMHO the Dr has always wanted to reform not "forgive" the Master. That's where RTD got the character relationship all wrong and perhaps you have too. Why do you think Pertwee's Dr is always locking him up? For the nice view and three square meals? And that's what the "fight like animals, die like animals" line in Survival means - he wants to change the Master, bring him to the "good side," in a manner of speaking.

Again I ask you where did the Dr's "compassion" go for The Family, for example? You know full well that the Dr's forgiveness for enemies is pretty poor to say the least (The Borad? "Ashes to ashes" comment over a Dalek he had convinced to self destruct, the extinction of the Vervoids etc. etc. etc. I'm not going to list the hundreds of examples. You know them as well as I do!). There is no "period" about it my friend. He's not some kind of latter day JC as RTD would like us to believe in TLOTL. Still if you're OK with that, that's OK, it's only my opinion and we won't agree on that.

I did not say "the character I grew up with would not do that" nor did I imply it! This one really annoys me because you're putting words in my mouth and backhandedly suggesting I'm some fogey who can't cope with change. Instead how would you like me to suggest you're a reactionary who can't take a modicum of criticism of New Who? Silly isn't it?

Every Dr is different from the other (although less so in RTD's tenure) but there is a consistency in the series' portrayal of the Dr's characteristic sense of justice in which for me RTD seriously misstepped with TLOTL. I am not alone in this feeling but for you I must be one of the people who "whinge" or are "closed-minded" as you kindly put it.

I did not say New Who was "overtly comedic" nor suggest it was more so than the Williams/Adams era. You're making an incorrect assumption of my opinion. I said it is "comedy driven." Please note there is a fundamental difference which you should be able to discern and observe when you compare new Who to old.

I did not suggest either that the series should be a continuous stream of dark themed stories. Where exactly did I say that? What did my first sentence in the last post say? baerrtt, you're just making up an argument with me that we were never having!
Or are you mixing me up with Safari?? It's better for clarity that don't reply to me when in fact you're talking to another poster; it creates all sorts of confusion!
Anyway, just because my favourite stories are darker it doesn't mean I want to see 'em every week! I even liked Love and Monsters for heck's sake and most people seemed to loathe it. Again you're being 'creative' with my post.

Other than that I agree with all your points!

baerrtt I shouldn't have to sit here and annotate your misquoting of me. You seem to be arguing against some New Who hater in your head rather than the bloke who wrote the post you have quoted!
I am not here to slam New Who or RTD but you're acting like I am. I like it a lot, but, as with the original series, it has problems and I am entitled to comment on what doesn't work for me just as you are to argue against it.
But please, let's discuss without you putting words in my mouth or misrepresenting my opinions.

Edited by Sniperscope, 13 January 2009 - 11:46 AM.