New Dr Who

Bill Nighy was considered before Matt Smith I think.

Personally I would have loved Richard Griffiths as the 5th Doctor. Can't imagine he would have been too good running down corridors as he was a portly chap!

Hope if Whittaker is going they will do a reset. However if it were to get the timeslot opposite Corrie .....

Just as vaguely football related aside, in Who on Earth is Tom Baker he says growing up in post war Liverpool one of his heroes was our very own Bert Trautman. Legends both!
 
Aba452 said:
Bill Nighy was considered before Matt Smith I think.

Personally I would have loved Richard Griffiths as the 5th Doctor. Can't imagine he would have been too good running down corridors as he was a portly chap!

Hope if Whittaker is going they will do a reset. However if it were to get the timeslot opposite Corrie .....

Just as vaguely football related aside, in Who on Earth is Tom Baker he says growing up in post war Liverpool one of his heroes was our very own Bert Trautman. Legends both!
Click to expand...
Griffith's was chosen to replace McCoy who was going to regenerate by going insane. His Doctor was going to be a Hartnell throwback of an aging, intellectual who had a young companion to do all the action stunts.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
I always thought this guy should be the doctor:

360c8fa0e3ca902286ba98fb127c3e34.jpg
Click to expand...
Along those lines should the Next Doctor be a woman I would cast Michela Coel. She's going to be a huge star and I think DW would be a great springboard for her. She can do both comedy and serious roles brilliantly.
 
I liked Dr Who when it rebooted years ago. Imho it got even better with Tennant then Matt Smith despite the odd clunky episode.
For me it reached the top with the triple episode with John Simm as the Master.
I think the show suffered when Russell T Davies finished.
Peter Capaldi is a fine actor but was dealt some terrible scripts. The show is about action,excitement etc not an attempt to get into the psych of Dr Who.
Have not gone back since.
 
Protein Junkie said:
The show is about action,excitement etc not an attempt to get into the psych of Dr Who.
Click to expand...
I'd say the exact opposite for me. In most shows or film series changing the actor of a major character is seen as a real test, but in Dr Who it's something welcome and exciting (or used to be). How will they compare to earlier generations? Will they be odd like Hartnell, Troughton, Tom Baker or Eccleston? I think the storylines are almost secondary, but occasionally hit a real classic (Weeping Angels for example). Unfortunately they've cast 4 safe actors in a row who haven't been able to add anything to the character.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
I'd say the exact opposite for me. In most shows or film series changing the actor of a major character is seen as a real test, but in Dr Who it's something welcome and exciting (or used to be). How will they compare to earlier generations? Will they be odd like Hartnell, Troughton, Tom Baker or Eccleston? I think the storylines are almost secondary, but occasionally hit a real classic (Weeping Angels for example). Unfortunately they've cast 4 safe actors in a row who haven't been able to add anything to the character.
Click to expand...
Ah I had forgotten about the classic Weeping Angels.
Your point of view is interesting and I agree with a change providing a test. Also yes the storylines can be secondary but boy when they are bad they clunk big time.
Maybe it’s the safety of those last four actors cumulatively putting me off the programme.
Great to have another point of view though
 
I think it's the format - single episodes, lots of companions recently (3 and recurring guests is clearly too many) - there's no time given to breathe.

It appears that the directive to writers is for shouting and explosions to appear regularly, and the quieter thoughtful episodes are maybe 1/year.

Add to that the over-use/iffy updating of daleks/Cybermen, and wildly overacted Masters (all 3 have been too crazy for me), and drenching with soap melodrama, and the Doctor against bad guys/universe gets lost. When the current Doctor talks aloud to see what she thinks, it's almost immediate that she goes 'zany' or 'goofy' inside 30 seconds.
 
Protein Junkie said:
Ah I had forgotten about the classic Weeping Angels.
Your point of view is interesting and I agree with a change providing a test. Also yes the storylines can be secondary but boy when they are bad they clunk big time.
Maybe it’s the safety of those last four actors cumulatively putting me off the programme.
Great to have another point of view though
Click to expand...
I also liked the WW2 episode where the victims faces became gas masks. Quite disturbing for a kids show but a really clever story.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
I also liked the WW2 episode where the victims faces became gas masks. Quite disturbing for a kids show but a really clever story.
Click to expand...

yes, there are a couple of extremely good ones each series.
The late Capaldi one with the crystal wall, Dalek (Eccleston), the first one or two Weeping Angels, the Lonely Child with the gasmasks you mention.

The thing was, to me anyway, that was a first of a 2 parter and therefore could spend its running time with more set-up for the next episode.
 
Back for Xmas with David Tenant reprising the role...... never been the biggest fan but my lad and other "Whovians" are beside themselves. Nice bit of escapism in these troubled times so good luck to them.

ps

Weeping Angels and "are you my mummy" I was on board with as being proper scary for kids. I did like how the age old question about them not climbing stairs with "just allow the Daleks to hover" lol.

Oh - and Jenna Coleman
 
Iplyaer got all the old series on atm, watched a few pertwee, davidson and baker ones plus a few of the lost episodes that have been remade in animated form
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top