Richard's Online Journal
[03/01/09] Doctor WHO?!
So, Matt Smith is going to be the Eleventh Doctor...
What? Who the hell are they kidding? Who is this person, and why wasn't he strangled at birth? Just look at him! With his face... and his nose... How dare he even pretend he can replace the last Doctor everyone thought they were going to hate?! This is even worse than when Daniel Craig became James Bond, and we all know how THAT one went down, don't we? I don't need to see a single frame of him in action to know I'm going to hate him and be on the internet within minutes of his first appearance registering my hate. Boo! | Oooh, interesting choice. I've never heard of him, but that's definitely not a problem - when you're talking about a character as iconic as the Doctor, having some genuinely fresh blood is probably a good idea. Not what I expected, which isn't what I expected at all. However he does in the role, about which we really don't know anything except that Moffat's in charge, that's a pretty brave decision and exactly the kind of thing that makes me want to watch the show in the first place. Looking forward to seeing it. Yay! |
In short, I'm waiting to see. We know that Moffat can write the arse off most TV writers, even after the BBC asked him not to keep littering their offices with fallen derrieres, and it's not like any Doctor ever hired has leapt up and made everyone go 'Oh, yeah, awesome'. The thing I like about the show is that every creative team working on it gets to put their own unique stamp on things, for better or worse, and if that's a younger Doctor than normal, it's hardly sillier than an intergalactic hobo, or a spoon-playing Chessmaster, or a man who pins his lunch on his lapel.
Besides, what's the worst that could happen?
It’d have been interesting, but I wasn’t too surprised that it wasn’t him. As I said in the other thread, I actually wanted an unknown, purely because then it just becomes Eleven (or from my point of view, Steven Moffat’s Doctor, as opposed to Actor Name - as a writer, that’s what interests me more) I didn’t know Tennant from anything before he took over the role, which definitely helped to establish him in my mind. He’s easily my favourite of the lot though.
(I do think it’s quite funny that the last time the Beeb asked for a Young Doctor, RTD gave them Sarah Jane Smith. Not that SJC isn’t pretty decent for a kids show...)
Posted by Richard on Saturday 3rd January
I don’t see what would be brave about choosing Matt Smith - he seems like one of the blandest choices possible, a David Tennant 2.0, if you will (choosing an older actor would’ve been a much more interesting choice, I think).
Posted by qrter on Sunday 4th January
It’s brave picking an unknown, it’s brave NOT picking an older actor (since that’s what the base was expecting), it’s brave not picking someone with an established character type, giving them the option to come up with any personality for Eleven that they want, whether it’s playing against type (the old man in a young body) or wimping out and creating that Tennant 2.0.
Now, whether or not they’ve made the right choice, that’s a matter for 2010.
Posted by Richard on Sunday 4th January
The problem is it’s difficult to see at all this actor show any signs of being older than he appears. Tennant successfuly managed to convey that he was several hundred years old, was jaded and was saddened by the loss of his home planet. He managed to show that the Doctor was older than he appeared.
This iteration though doesn’t look capable of doing that. He looks too young. He looks like whenever he’s trying to shout and point out he’s wiser than anyone on Earth everyone is going to burst out laughing. Similarly his youth surely creates a problem of nobody listening to him. Are you going to listen to a 28 year old that looks like he’s barely 20? Perhaps however Moffat intends to use this to his advantage.
Either way i’ll wait and see as well, but i’m extremely pessimistic he’ll be any good. He looks like average joe rather than timelord.
Posted by William Main on Sunday 4th January
Similarly his youth surely creates a problem of nobody listening to him. Are you going to listen to a 28 year old that looks like he’s barely 20?
Worked in Death Note. Ask the legions of L fangirls. Visually speaking, I can totally see Smith as a Chessmaster figure rather than relying on the Doctor’s usual momentum. I’d say the biggest problem of being a younger doctor is the risk of him coming across as a swot rather than a genius, especially after Tennant’s wonderful handling of those moments.
It’s probably that it was on recently and I’ve always been a huge fan of it, but I keep thinking of Jonathan Creek when people talk about not being able to take this guy seriously. If you’d only seen Alan Davies on QI, you’d never see him as a brainy, sardonic investigator type.
Posted by Richard on Sunday 4th January
I think it’s a rather splendid choice. I am a little bemused by the common complaint that he doesn’t manage to portray being very old when, er, interviewed as himself. He isn’t actually a Timelord, you see. I think it might be more fair to wait until he’s pretending to be a Timelord before judging him on that.
He has an interesting face. Despite being 26, he has that look of a puffy-faced teen, and at the same time has some interesting lines and old eyes. And I rather hope Moffat shares my idea to write him as the oldest Who ever. Also, he’ll have an assistant who’s over a decade older than him, which will be rather awesome.
I think there’s good reason to trust Moffat with him, and there’s so far no reason to doubt the actor. Optimism people! And let’s be honest, he could be the worst Doctor ever, and it couldn’t get worse than most of RTD’s episodes. It can only get better.
Posted by John Walker on Sunday 4th January
Indeed. Brr. Sorry. Just thought of Chris Chibnall taking over full time and got a bit of sick in my mouth..
Posted by Richard on Sunday 4th January
“Luke Rutherford is your average teenager – until… “
STOP!
Wow, fail THAT early into a synopsis?
Posted by Bobsy on Monday 5th January
The best bit is when you watch the show. The intro tries to be moody and dark, but then the title music kicks in with WHOOP!WHOOP!WHOOP!
The second best bit is when you go to the Episode 2 page on the site and immediately think “Hang on, they’ve stuck a picture from Merlin in there in- oh...”
Posted by Richard on Monday 5th January
Yes, i watched that as well and oh it was terrible. Glenister’s accent was silly, the kids were annoying, the demons look ridicolously stupid and on a very small budget. Well done ITV for proving that you can do worse than the Beeb in budget shows.
Posted by William Main on Monday 5th January
In fairness, it’s not as bad as Spooks: Code 9.
But nor is cholera.
It’s such a strange show to have commissioned. A pilot’s usually going to be a tricky affair, but I couldn’t believe how actively Demons seemed to want to avoid being even remotely different from the million and one shows that have already stamped this ground into a fine paste. You’d think the absolute priority in any pilot for a show like this would be to reinforce what was different about it, and I don’t mean a villain who goes down in one goddamn hit* and a chance to sit through yet another bloody Masquerade.
Sigh. I miss Ultraviolet…
Still, those titles. WHOOP!WHOOP!WHOOP! Hehehe…
(* Yeah, only temporarily, I’m sure, but still...)
Posted by Richard on Monday 5th January
It sounds like my gut instinct that Demons was “Buffy but done by ITV” was probably right then?
Speaking of Ultraviolet, did anyone see Apparations? I heard it was quite good but it was always on when I was at work, that was Joe Ahearne as well I think.
Posted by M on Monday 5th January
Demons is Buffy done by Shine - i.e. the guys behind Merlin and Hex. Another day, another channel, I guess.
Never saw Apparitions.
Posted by Richard on Monday 5th January
I saw Apparitions. It was very good, though you have to keep an open mind to what Catholicism believes and how their faith works, otherwise you’ll just write the whole thing off as silly priests at pray (ho ho!).
Was quite disturbing though, and interesting.
Posted by William Main on Tuesday 6th January
Of course, it’s too early to say for sure either way.
He seems to have a good acting pedigree, as did Tennant when he took on the role.
It’s not that surprising that they went for a youngster, given the target audience on a Saturday night.
For me though, it’s a shame that it’s been pre-announced. Inevitably these days I guess, but it spoils the surprise a bit.
Posted by RR on Tuesday 6th January
Agreed, although if they’re filming in six months or so, they didn’t have a lot of choice. Better to release the info on your own terms than to have the papers leak it on theirs. Too many eyes around these days…
Posted by Richard on Tuesday 6th January
“Buffy done by Shine - i.e. the guys behind Merlin and Hex.”
So.. utterly rubbish then?
Posted by Nick on Wednesday 7th January
I must admit I was hoping for Paterson Joseph.
Posted by M on Saturday 3rd January