Doctor Who!

[darren]

Re: Doctor Who!

going by this every dr has been in either his forties or fiftiwes.

yes i think we need someone at leaast in there thirties.

being the dr is a big role and i feel an older actor appreciates the role more understands it better as its one of the biggest roles you can get and you have a lot to live up to.


Be interesting to know what ages all the companions where when they took the roles.

i bet hardly any where in there forties.

Davison was 29 in 1981, so yes, you're right. Matt Smith was 27 when he took over. The oldest was William Hartnell, who was 55, followed by Jon Pertwee (50), PatrickTroughton (46), Sylvester McCoy (44), Chris Eccleston (41), Tom and Colin Baker (both 40), Paul McGann (36) and David Tennant (34).

[tony ingram]

Re: Doctor Who!

going by this every dr has been in either his forties or fiftiwes.

yes i think we need someone at leaast in there thirties.

being the dr is a big role and i feel an older actor appreciates the role more understands it better as its one of the biggest roles you can get and you have a lot to live up to.


Be interesting to know what ages all the companions where when they took the roles.

i bet hardly any where in there forties.

Only Catherine Tate, who was 40 when she became a regular. Though William Russell (Ian Chesterton) was 39.

[stud1al]

Re: Doctor Who!

I think Moffat just wanted to get him back to being his old self as soon as possible, unencumbered by the previous showrunner's baggage. I agree about wanting an older Doctor, but sadly I think the days of any Doctor being played by an actor over forty are over. All TV now seems obsessed with youth.

They have younger Doctors so there can be romance between him and his companions. Totally ruins the show if you ask me.I want an older Doctor as well.

[tony ingram]

Re: Doctor Who!

They're afraid that theirnew fanbase of young women will switch off if the Doctor isn't young and fit (though a lot of them probably left with David Tennant anyway, as he was all they were interested in).

[darren]

Re: Doctor Who!

thats true but they are the minority if they dont watch it because the dr is not young shows they are not true dr who fans.

the show is about the adventures the races the dr comes across.

But the true dr who fans the haRDCORE FANS will watch it no matter what.

aNd there are im sure thousands of loyal hardcore fans.


drt who is not about romance after all the dr is not a human.

the show needs to get back to its roots why fix whats not broken.

They're afraid that theirnew fanbase of young women will switch off if the Doctor isn't young and fit (though a lot of them probably left with David Tennant anyway, as he was all they were interested in).

[tony ingram]

Re: Doctor Who!

Ithink it drifted a long way from its roots from 2005-2009, but it's getting back there now.

[darren]

Re: Doctor Who!

well there is none of this romance carry on which is good.

my latest dr who buy.
http://youtu.be/PP6HDt37B98
wonder what we can expect froim the new series.

Ithink it drifted a long way from its roots from 2005-2009, but it's getting back there now.

[sf1378]

Re: Doctor Who!

Its called updating the format a bit and bringing it into the 21st Century - so what if the Doctor has a bit of romance? Are the 'hardcore' fans saying he should be an asexual nerd then? The characters a charismatic, compassionate being - so of course women (and from a modern standpoint, men, like Jack Harkness) will be attracted to him. However, as he's so old, as its also an adventure its usually tragic or ends sadly - look at the brilliant 2 parter Human Nature or Family of Blood? The Girl In The Fireplace?

And how does anyoneknowtheir fanbase 'will turn off?' Who said? Steven Moffat? The BBC? There have and always will be female fans that carry on watching the show (there are plenty of women/girls on youtube who comment on Matt Smith Who uploads for one thing) irrespective of the lead actor having left the role and a new guy coming into the role...whether they 'fancied' D.T. or not a lot of women still watch it...the only let down to the new series is the current writing - confusing, overly - complicated plots that don't deliver on the promise certain plot hints dropped earlier on since series 5 began...Moffats just trying to be overly clever for the sake of it.

[tony ingram]

Re: Doctor Who!

wonder what we can expect froim the new series.

So long as Moffat and the others maintain the standard of writing we've had for the last two years, I'll be happy. After five years of shallow, poorly thought out plots playing second fiddle to irrelevant soap opera, it's nice to have someone in charge who actually realizes he's supposed to be creating science fiction and sees the more intriguing possibilities of time travel as a core concept. I love the twists and turns of his writing over the last two seasons.

[sf1378]

Re: Doctor Who!

I fail to see whats so reverential about the hallowed Mr Moffat - compared to the stories from the 60s, 70s and 80s in the show the current stories are on the whole drivel...confusing and stupid. Lots of people who watch Who say 'the older series was actually better' why? Because the stories were far better written, less confusing, less pretentious and all the more focused on entertaining the viewers compared to the overblown, spectacle its become today - I'd take Genesis of The Daleks, Tomb of The Cybermen, or any other classic story over the current Moffat era. As for the notion its no longer 'plot playing second fiddle to irrelevant soap opera' thats ridiculous - Amy and Rory Pond? River Song being their daughter? Amy being kidnapped, Rory the Auton, Rory dying for the umpteenth time? River regenerating? What a load of rubbish - plots wholly focused on 'irrelevant soap opera'....Funny how the the upcoming season even has yet more strife for Rory and Amy with divorce papers seen on set, with one or both 'growing old' - its still focused on a soap opera thats Rory and Amy - yawn. At least in the RTD era there was humour, chutzpa and a dash of fun - which was an updating of the original series format - todays Moffat led era is just plain pretentious - the so - called 'twists' aren't twists at all but lame excuses and poorly thought out and ill conceived...if the writers were less full of themselves the stories would probably be a whole lot better - i.e. if he's such a great writer he'd stop stretching out a concept and do something with it - 'silence will fall' boomed a 'voice' - at this point, who cares? He should have revealed 'who' said that by now...instead of which he yammers on about Amy etc...

[Richard1978]

Re: Doctor Who!

I enjoy both the original & new Dr Who, both have a mixture of strong & weak stories.

[sf1378]

Re: Doctor Who!

I enjoy both the original & new Dr Who, both have a mixture of strong & weak stories.

Good way of putting it Richard. Good example, I've got the dvd of that Tom Baker/Leela story, The Robots of Death - its pretty boring all in all lol...and it had a bleak ending too. 'Family of Blood/Human Nature' in the Tennant series was very good, so was '42' and then 'Last of The Timelords' was so anticipated but had a rubbishy, quick fix 'time gets wound back as per usual (lol) story...they should have set that 2nd half '10 years on' i.e. The Master ruling for a longer period of time, older characters of Martha etc and I thought it would have been funny to see John Simm's 10 years on Master with a widows peak hair cut and a goatee like Delgado's Master and in a Nerhu style suit like Delgado wore and then he'd have a haircut and shave and say 'Naaaa, that looks dated!' to The Homunculus Doctor....

I've mused sometimes that they could bring a few surviving Timelords back, via them having used a 'Void ship' to hide in like the Cult of Skaro had done...or The Timelords before the War summoning The 11th Doc on an adventure....some megalithic 'universal armageddon ridiculousness would be needed there...It'd also be nice to see The Cruciform and The Moment, or The Nightmare Child (apparently The Dalek Emperors 'pet' according to Davies when he was writer) oh and that there Could Have Been King and his Armies of Meanwhiles and Neverweres of whatever they were called...they sounded interesting as maguffins as Hitchcock would say...

One of the interesting theories is that those headless Monks are worshippers of Omega - if you know your Who trivia you'll know what I'm on about...and if you looked at those soldiers insignias in that story with them in it they had the symbol of Omega from the greek alphabet - well, I remember River Song did....so it may well be Moffats 'grand plan' is to bring about Omega into some sort of BIG story finale or whatever...oh, and I've heard Julian Bleech aka the current actor to have played Davros is in the new series....as Davros, and that apparently the bloke who played Holly in Red Dwarf's playing 'young Davros' (he's not that young, not happy about that casting if its true...) I'd rather see Bleech in both roles if thats the case or a much younger actor playing a pre - crippled Davros in a story set long before he becomes an ugly blighter...I'd also like to see how River Song gets that future Sonic Screwdriver- it looked much older than the 10th Drs one even though it was from the future, and its totally different to the one he has now...and is it the 11th Doctor thats 'my Doctor' as she said in the library episodes? Who knows...its these sorts of things that would make it all the more enjoyable really...lol.

[tony ingram]

Re: Doctor Who!

I enjoy both the original & new Dr Who, both have a mixture of strong & weak stories.

True. But nobody can agree on which is which.

[Richard1978]

Re: Doctor Who!

True. But nobody can agree on which is which.

That's true, I've read a few books & websites with reviews & they can vary a lot for the same story.

[tony ingram]

Re: Doctor Who!

The Gunfighters was for years believed to be the worst story ever...until it came out on video, and people saw it and realized it actually wasn't bad.