The Doctor Falls

A good episode. Well played. Well thought out. Liked the Master's end. But...no. That ending? No. There was only one first Doctor. Bill Hartnell. He is NOT replaceable. And they've just crapped all over his memory. There will now be a million idiot newbies thinking David Bradley actually was the first Doctor, airbrushing Hartnell out of history. Not acceptable.

tony ingram wrote:A good episode. Well played. Well thought out. Liked the Master's end. But...no. That ending? No. There was only one first Doctor. Bill Hartnell. He is NOT replaceable. And they've just crapped all over his memory. There will now be a million idiot newbies thinking David Bradley actually was the first Doctor, airbrushing Hartnell out of history. Not acceptable.

Not at all. I think that would be true if the episode(s) portrayed the 1st Doctor as a clown or buffoon, but that didn't happen.

As for people thinking Bradley was the actual first Doctor, I think the first few moments of Twice Upon A Time took care of that. Anyone in doubt can always look this stuff up.

Any idiot newbies who still believe otherwise aren't worth worrying about.

BTW, I'd love to see the 3rd Doctor make a return appearance, played by Jon Pertwee's son Sean, of course.

Sean Pertwee has already said he will never play his father's Doctor, he doesn't think it'd be right. I agree with him. Those men are not replaceable. I hated it when they recast Hurndall as the first Doctor in 1983, and my feelings haven't really changed.

tony ingram wrote:Those men are not replaceable.

This may be because I don't have the lifelong connection with Doctor Who (although I will say I have no problem with new actors in Star Trek) but I don't see why it's a problem. Otherwise you limit the Doctor's possibility of meeting himself to just the living previous versions. Which seems less than fun. But, as I said, it could be that I don't get why.

And let me be clear, I don't want them "replaced", and I get why you worry that new people might see a different actor in the role and think they are the original. But, those are the same people who think his name IS "Doctor Who". I just like seeing the Doctor meet himself, and that requires different actors at times.

tony ingram wrote:...Those men are not replaceable...

Of course they are.

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:Those men are not replaceable.

This may be because I don't have the lifelong connection with Doctor Who (although I will say I have no problem with new actors in Star Trek) but I don't see why it's a problem. Otherwise you limit the Doctor's possibility of meeting himself to just the living previous versions. Which seems less than fun. But, as I said, it could be that I don't get why.

I agree.

karatattoo wrote:

tony ingram wrote:...Those men are not replaceable...

Of course they are.

No. They aren't. Even to suggest that they are is insulting. William Hartnell never played a character called "the first Doctor". He was never credited as such on screen. He only ever played "the Doctor". He was the first Doctor, because he was the first actor to ever play the part of the Doctor. Nobody else can claim that, so nobody else can be the first Doctor. Too many people seem not to get this. Recasting any of the past Doctors is both disrespectful and pointless since the whole poit of regeneration was to continue the character without pretending the actor hadn't changed!