The Next Doctor

I've just re-watched the 2008 Christmas special, 'The Next Doctor', and while I'm cautiously optimistic about Matt Smith taking the keys to the TARDIS (although he still seems rather young for it), I can't help thinking it might have been great if David Morrissey actually had been the next Doctor; he seemed to nail the essence of the character in about five minutes. Opinions, anyone?

He came across to Doctor-stereotype if you ask me, as if he had to meet a default criteria of what the doctor is rather than natural expansion upon it.
Matt Smith I have high hopes for but an actor can only as good as the material he has to work with and it's that area I'm skeptical on.
Personally I think Johnathan Pryce would make an excellent doctor.

Hourglass wrote:He came across to Doctor-stereotype if you ask me, as if he had to meet a default criteria of what the doctor is rather than natural expansion upon it.
Matt Smith I have high hopes for but an actor can only as good as the material he has to work with and it's that area I'm skeptical on.
Personally I think Johnathan Pryce would make an excellent doctor.

Or an excellent Master. He seemed like a natural for that part in 'The Curse of fatal Death'. You're skeptical about Moffat's writing?I've enjoyed pretty much everything he's written. With Russell T Dodgyplots gone, I'm quite optimistic about the standard of the writing. Well, except for Chris Chibnall...

I immediately thought John Simm would make a good Doctor when it was revealed that Eccleston was leaving - then, of course he turns up as the Master! It would have been great if John Simm HAD turned INTO the Doctor instead of this Matt Smith bloke at the end of Tennant's reign...

GBF wrote:I immediately thought John Simm would make a good Doctor when it was revealed that Eccleston was leaving - then, of course he turns up as the Master! It would have been great if John Simm HAD turned INTO the Doctor instead of this Matt Smith bloke at the end of Tennant's reign...

If he hadn't been the Master, yeah, Simm could have done the job quite well i think. Sadly, it appears he won't be returning as the Master either. A shame. He's one of the better actors around at the moment. Though having him turn into a third rate General Zod for no apparent reason didn't do him any favours.

tony ingram wrote:

Hourglass wrote:He came across to Doctor-stereotype if you ask me, as if he had to meet a default criteria of what the doctor is rather than natural expansion upon it.
Matt Smith I have high hopes for but an actor can only as good as the material he has to work with and it's that area I'm skeptical on.
Personally I think Johnathan Pryce would make an excellent doctor.

Or an excellent Master. He seemed like a natural for that part in 'The Curse of fatal Death'. You're skeptical about Moffat's writing?I've enjoyed pretty much everything he's written. With Russell T Dodgyplots gone, I'm quite optimistic about the standard of the writing. Well, except for Chris Chibnall...

The problem is I dont know if Moffat can undo the damage done by Russell's Terrible Directorship and I doubt Moffat will make the writing more intelligible in fear of isolating vast amounts of audience. He is a goo writer but it's not just the writing which is poor these days but the shows direction and target.

He has apparently stated an intention to take the show back to its roots, giving us the kind of stories he preferred himself in the old days. Every change he's made, from the retro TARDIS to the retro logo, seems to back that up. The BBC will insist on certain things remaining the same, but Moffat is a decent enough writer to be able to pull it off, I think.

I just happened across a spinning Christmas tree attacking Tennant, Piper, her mum and that lad - what the hell was all that about??!! No wonder I gave up after Eccleston...

GBF wrote:I just happened across a spinning Christmas tree attacking Tennant, Piper, her mum and that lad - what the hell was all that about??!! No wonder I gave up after Eccleston...

Ah, yes! Now, I know this one! The Christmas tree was being used by the robot Santas, which were...er...not actually even remotely relevant to the overall plot...

And I'm not sure why they were dressed like that, either...

Russell T Davies wrote that one. He's a genius, you know. Best writer in television history, somewhere betweeen Elvis and God.

Allegedly.

On a serious note, I've been watching the Doctor since episode 1 way back when Presidents were being murdered. I stopped watching religiously when Tom Baker left - Davison and then the rest just haven't cut the mustard for me. My opinion would be that the BBC have character/series they are completely unworthy of. They simply don't know what to do with it. So, in the best tradition when possessing something magical...they change it to be less so...

GBF wrote:On a serious note, I've been watching the Doctor since episode 1 way back when Presidents were being murdered. I stopped watching religiously when Tom Baker left - Davison and then the rest just haven't cut the mustard for me. My opinion would be that the BBC have character/series they are completely unworthy of. They simply don't know what to do with it. So, in the best tradition when possessing something magical...they change it to be less so...

I have a soft spot for Colin Baker, liked McCoy's last season a lot and think Paul McGann was an excellent choice even if his solitary TV story was deeply flawed. Davison, I can live with but I felt he was too young at the time. But I am deeply unimpressed with the majority of Russell T's tenure as producer and with Tennant as the Doctor (Eccleston was less irritating, but the scripts were still largely abysmal). The only new series episodes I've really liked have been those written by Steven Moffat, Paul Cornell and Rob Shearman, and mostly that has been in spite of them featuring Doctors I couldn't really believe in to any great extent. I just don't much like the whole tone of the show these days. It isn't really the same Doctor Who I used to watch.

My concerns about Dr Who since it returned (2005 was it?) that Russel Davies seemed obsessed in making the Doc into an omnipitent `God-Like` bieng! "Oh Dear" Say I!

I liked the "Midnight" ep as it showed how vulnerable he could really be! the "Impossible Planet/Satan Pit" probably best for me!

Re Mat Smith! He is in the same position as Peter Davidson-if you know what I mean!

alanultron5 wrote:My concerns about Dr Who since it returned (2005 was it?) that Russel Davies seemed obsessed in making the Doc into an omnipitent `God-Like` bieng! "Oh Dear" Say I!

I liked the "Midnight" ep as it showed how vulnerable he could really be! the "Impossible Planet/Satan Pit" probably best for me!

Re Mat Smith! He is in the same position as Peter Davidson-if you know what I mean!

He's actually younger than Davison was when he got the job. Three years younger. But I'm prepared to give him a chance. I do know what you mean about Davies' apparent belief that the Doctor should be the new messiah, though. I'd like to think that it was all building up to that moment in The Waters of Mars where he finally realised he'd bought into his own 'legend' and gone too far, but I don't think that Russell really plans that far ahead. Frequently, he doesn't even seem to plan as far ahead as the end of the story he's actually writing...

Soooo... anybody else actually like the new version?

felneymike wrote:Soooo... anybody else actually like the new version?

I don't entirely hate it, Mike-several stories over the last few years are among my personal favourites, in fact. Blink, Human Nature, The Empty Child, Dalek...

What I dislike, basically (apart from the supremely annoying David Tennant, a lovely bloke who nonetheless insists on playing the Doctore as a hyperactive twelve year old) is the overall tone of the new series (specifically the soap opera aspects; I don't care about the companion's family troubles, I want to watch a sci-fi show) and Russell T Davies' writing. The man always sets things up well, then completely fails to pull off a satisfying resolution. I do have high hopes for the new guy, though...

Ahh yes, i did think the penultimate episode of the Donna series was the best thing i'd ever seen, but then the final episode was a bit lame by comparison. Also the one with the bus in the desert was awful.

I loved virtually the whole Martha series, though. Also the one with the devil and the black hole was great, because it reminded me of Doom. The one that was set on a bus on the crystal planet was excellent too - one of the scariest things i've ever seen, but there was no 'monster'!

felneymike wrote:Ahh yes, i did think the penultimate episode of the Donna series was the best thing i'd ever seen, but then the final episode was a bit lame by comparison. Also the one with the bus in the desert was awful.

I loved virtually the whole Martha series, though. Also the one with the devil and the black hole was great, because it reminded me of Doom. The one that was set on a bus on the crystal planet was excellent too - one of the scariest things i've ever seen, but there was no 'monster'!

'Midnight' is one of the most critically acclaimed episodes of the new series, but I must admit, it didn't do much for me. Though I couldn't help thinking it was lucky this was a new episode-difficult to imagine poor old William Hartnell getting through all that repeated dialogue, hmm? The Impossible Planet (the black hole one)was pretty good, I have to agree. I just really disliked the combination of the tenth Doctor and Rose-as a pairing, they always seemed so smug and unlikeable. He worked far better with Martha.

What I liked about `Midnight` Tony was the slant where the Doctor finds out that in a `trapped` situation with humans...all his knowledge, power etc counts for nothing when they turn against him! That wasn't a Russel Davis written ep was it? If it was... he went right against his usual "The Doctor Is God" Ethos!

alanultron5 wrote:What I liked about `Midnight` Tony was the slant where the Doctor finds out that in a `trapped` situation with humans...all his knowledge, power etc counts for nothing when they turn against him! That wasn't a Russel Davis written ep was it? If it was... he went right against his usual "The Doctor Is God" Ethos!

Incredibly, it was indeed a Davies episode. It was certainly better than his usual fare, but it seemed to go around in circles a bit after awhile.

How about this? In the episode where the Doctor meets Charles Dickens which was set in the Winter of 1868/69 Where Dickens died before completing "Edwin Drood" There were many `snowy` scenes!

The winter of 1868/69 still holds the record of the `mildest` since records began! Just edging out 1974/75 and 1988/89. Anorak Al!

alanultron5 wrote:How about this? In the episode where the Doctor meets Charles Dickens which was set in the Winter of 1868/69 Where Dickens died before completing "Edwin Drood" There were many `snowy` scenes!

The winter of 1868/69 still holds the record of the `mildest` since records began! Just edging out 1974/75 and 1988/89. Anorak Al!

Hah! An elementary mistake-how could they not have known that? The fools!

....

Actually-this was Wales. Are you sure that they wouldn't have had snow? From what I've seen of Wales, 'mildest on record' might just mean 'no actual lives lost'...

Those Dickension winters were a bit of a `myth` Sure! the 1800s had some cold winters but nothing like the 1600s or 1700s Dickens `exaggerated` a bit. He probably only experienced about two realy snowy winters in his life time!

Dr Who seems obsessed by snow though! Look at the `Waters of Mars` UK was having snowfall in November in that one!

alanultron5 wrote:Those Dickension winters were a bit of a `myth` Sure! the 1800s had some cold winters but nothing like the 1600s or 1700s Dickens `exaggerated` a bit. He probably only experienced about two realy snowy winters in his life time!

Dr Who seems obsessed by snow though! Look at the `Waters of Mars` UK was having snowfall in November in that one!

RTD likes snow. If there's no logical reason for it, he writes in fake snow (like the 'snow' in The Christmas Invasion, which was actually ash from a disintegrating spaceship).

Its likely due to his lack of imagination. If you think about it he constantly repeats themes and uses the same imagery time and time again. This is why the series has grown stale.

Hourglass wrote:Its likely due to his lack of imagination. If you think about it he constantly repeats themes and uses the same imagery time and time again. This is why the series has grown stale.

Well, luckily we've a new start coming up in two months time which won't be stale...

Did you know that three former television Dr Who actors were in effect `let go` by not having their contracts re-newed. One (in the 1980s) is well known as the story was `splashed out` in the media...anyone guess the other two?

alanultron5 wrote:Did you know that three former television Dr Who actors were in effect `let go` by not having their contracts re-newed. One (in the 1980s) is well known as the story was `splashed out` in the media...anyone guess the other two?

Sylvester McCoy and Paul McGann. Though Jon Pertwee was effectively let go because he wanted a pay rise.

Actually thats a bit of a myth. Jon told me when I met him he left for a variety of reasons, mainly Rogers death, Katey leaving but also because he had a continuing injury with his leg which meant the hours he was working wear playing havoc with it, especially since he liked to do his own stunts, and as such he just couldn't physically carry on anymore.

Hourglass wrote:Actually thats a bit of a myth. Jon told me when I met him he left for a variety of reasons, mainly Rogers death, Katey leaving but also because he had a continuing injury with his leg his meant the hours he was working wear playing havoc with it, especially since he liked to do his own stunts, and as such he just couldn't physically carry on anymore.

I'm sure he sad in an interview once that he did tell them he'd stay on if they put his wages up by about a fiver a week and they said no. Was that just a handy anecdote, do you think?

Knowing Jon, he probably didn't like to admit his weakness' and used that as an excuse. Remember he was a man of action who had to fight to get the right to do his own stunts. I do think that his "money" argument is a quiet way of explaining his departure without elaboration on his health problems.

Hourglass wrote:Knowing Jon, he probably didn't like to admit his weakness' and used that as an excuse. Remember he was a man of action who had to fight to get the right to do his own stunts. I do think that his "money" argument is a quiet way of explaining his departure without elaboration on his health problems.

That would make sense. One of the recent DVD commentaries mentions that his back would sometimes go in the studio and Roger Delgado would have to stand on him and pull on his arms...

William Hartnell was `let go` by Inness Lloyd. Yes! he was ill, but his cantankerous demenour caused problems in rehearsal and new producer of the time (mid 1966) Lloyd decided that Hartnell had to go!

alanultron5 wrote:William Hartnell was `let go` by Inness Lloyd. Yes! he was ill, but his cantankerous demenour caused problems in rehearsal and new producer of the time (mid 1966) Lloyd decided that Hartnell had to go!

I've never heard that one-I thought he resigned due to ill health.