Spoilers
This topic contains 932 replies, has 79 voices, and was last updated by 
-
AuthorPosts
-
29 July 2013 at 05:20 #14557
Was just looking at the above pic’ of John Hurt and it struck me that the guy on the right behind J.H. has a little bit of an Ian Chesterton”ish” look about him. He appears to be an actor or extra. Or maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part still it would not surprise me if the anniversary special takes us on a long journey. I am hoping it won’t be limted to the period between Doctors 8 and 9. I am confident that Moffat will throw in lots of surprises and references to past Doctors.
Cheers
Janette
31 July 2013 at 00:38 #14640Not sure if this is a spoiler, seems more like public speculation to me, but best to err on the side of caution:
When I read it, I thought: “Yes, he probably could carry it off”. But my hesitation is that he is, perhaps, too well known for other roles. I always thought that was an impediment for Peter Davison. I tended to feel that “Tristan” often hovered disconcertingly over his Doctor.
If only the BBC realised the appeal of the blenkinsop rotating Doctors theory!
31 July 2013 at 00:45 #14641Anonymous @
blenkinsopthebrave – kudos to you for posting in the Spoilers thread! This nugget appeared earlier today in The Next Doctor thread and I’m leaning more toward a Spoiler myself, but this is a tricky one to judge.
Bookies and betting hedges are interesting, and I’m wondering where all this speculation suddenly arose from. An ill-judged leak on the BBC’s part? The kind of fish-shoal group syncopated motion that so often overcomes the internet? A massive blinder from Steven Moffat’s team? Who knows?
I would have thought Peter Capaldi was far too well-known, and far too busy as an actor, to commit to multiple years of being The Doctor. He fits one bill requested by lots of fans, in that he is ‘older’, but as you say it’s an odd casting call to make as he would bring so much previous role baggage to the part.
31 July 2013 at 04:16 #14642I have seen Peter Capaldi in a number of small roles but not in The Thick of It. He certainly has the range. I could see him as a Doctor. I think he is an accomplished enough actor to transcend a single role, and he had the right kind of back ground for the role, a mix of comedy and drama. If S.M is angling for an older doctor it will be more difficult to cast an unknown. I don’t quite see him as the Doctor though. However I can’t picture any other actor as the Doctor at the moment. Still I suspect that this is just one more rumour with as little substance as any of the previous ones and when the announcement is made we will all be “gobsmacked”. I just hope that we don’t have much longer to wait.
(the one actor I really want in the role just now is Matt Smith and I keep hoping that maybe the news of his departure is just another Moffat lie,)
Cheers
Janette
31 July 2013 at 07:23 #14645I don’t know how much you know about the Thick of It, but Peter Capaldi plays the part of a political spin doctor in the last Labour government. It is extremely well written and funny. Many of the pithy phrases have entered political life in the UK. You may have seen VEEP made by HBO which is created by the same guy (Armando Iannucci), which is similar in concept but rather toned down for USTV in comparison.
Nick
31 July 2013 at 11:32 #14646@janetteb and @nick — I think Capaldi could be an excellent Doctor, even with the baggage of previous roles that he might bring to the part. And he’s not the only one to have done so — let’s not forget that Pertwee, Ecclestone, McCoy and McGann were hardly unknowns when they were cast. (Neither really was Hartnell but he gets a special dispensation because he was the first and ‘being the Doctor’ was hardly a big deal.) Not sure I agree with @blenkinsopthebrave‘s view that Davison’s Doc never escaped from Tristran. It was certainly there initially but I think by the end of the Vistitation, Davison’s Doc was definitely his own man.
Oh, and @janetteb — to get some idea of how a Capaldi doc might look I do recommend you check out the BBC miniseries The Crow Road, based on the book by the late and much lamented Iain Banks. (It’s currently being repeated presumably in honour of Banks so I’d recommend those in the UK to iPlayer it while they can. If not it looks like it’s all available on YouTube.)
He’s a lot older now, of course. But I’m sure he could still pull it off….
31 July 2013 at 11:54 #14647I’d agree that he’d be one of several almost perfect candidates, so lets hope. Actually pretty much all of the Doctors were relatively well known as character actors or in the case of McCoy as a comedian, although I’d say Colin Baker is the least known. As HTPBDET\s comment in the Next Doctor thread just might indicate we may be in for more of a surprise than we think.
Nick
31 July 2013 at 12:02 #14648Have you seen this ? Since its numbered #4 it implies there is a series of them out there (or will be ?). What are they doing with all this stuff ?
Nick
31 July 2013 at 12:11 #14649Shhhh, lets not mention that.
Really, if you want to get into it, I suppose Tennant is the one I watched and got hooked on, Post Gap.
Have watched the odd Pre-Gap on youtube but never made an issue of it. Most of my knowledge comes of spending (lots of) time on WIkipedia.
31 July 2013 at 12:14 #14650@nick — re. casting. I agree that I think we’re in for a surprise. Although I’m not sure how much of a surprise it actually will be. I’m more than 50% certain that we’ll be seeing our first female Doctor this year… although how that would work with Clara, I dunno…
I’m afraid that video is a bit of viral marketing for the Fourth Doctor Time Capsule — basically a vanilla release of the Terror of the Zygons DVD with a load of other old tat thrown in. Yours for £60.
31 July 2013 at 12:30 #14651There seems to be a lot of back ground noise from various female actors that it should be a female who this time. More than in the last time ? I’m not sure how it would work period. I’m sure it could work, but I’m not sure exactly how. I also think Who will need quite a few more female writers as well. Whether the BBC would gamble this much on a ratings leader is something else. There is probably a lot of internal and external pressure to do just that, but whether it would be a ratings winner I just don’t know, there’s so little precedent out there.
I won’t be parting with any cash then. I passed on the regenerations one so far even thought I’d love to see the 10th planet on the basis that I already had the rest of them.
Cheers
Nick
31 July 2013 at 13:17 #14652@nick — yeah, I did have the Regenerations thing on pre-order but then decided against it as not really being worth it. I am looking forward to the animated version of the Tenth Planet though. Also the one of The Moonbase. Wish they’d hurry up with them though….
31 July 2013 at 13:38 #14653One of the things I keep hearing is that River was always intended as the prototype for a female Doctor – a test drive of what a female Dr might be like. The argument runs – River is popular with audiences, so will a female Doctor be.
Giving the Doctor her regenerations might turn out to be quite important…
I also keep hearing that they are casting for a male assistant…mind you, there is also talk that the Paternoster trio will spend time as crew TARDIS in 2014…
I don’t think the BBC would be worried about having a man write a show with a central female lead. At all.
And while I agree that it is ridiculous that female writers are not used on the show, it might be that female writers have not wanted to be used on the show…Do we know of any who have been rejected?
31 July 2013 at 13:50 #14654@htpbdet — The River theory makes sense and I still suspect that we might get a high-profile short-term female Doc initially (much in the style of Ecclestone) before a decision is made either way. That makes me think we might get a Swinton or a Mirren for a year before another regeneration into a more long-term Doc.
With regards to female writers, certainly I remember reading that Helen Raynor got a really rough ride from fans over her stories, so much so that it made her reluctant to write for the show again. Similarly, I believe some other pretty established female writers have been asked and have turned it down, either through lack of interest in the show itself or a disinclination in the ‘heat’ that they’ll tend to get if they do…
But I tend to think that they should be casting their net a little wider. I’m sure that there are plenty of female writers who would jump at the chance. I suspect the problem is one of experience though. There are probably just not that many writers with the depth of experience to write for the show. It’s by all accounts an incredibly difficult show to write for, with, as Neil Gaiman attests, lots of rewrites required and no doubt lots of provisos and interference from various levels of executives. It’s interesting to note that most of the male writers for the show already have showrunning or executive experience of some kind or another.
It’s just a tough gig, period. And I suspect the reason that there are not more female writers is less to do with the Who team but just indicative of a wider institutional culture in British TV. It’s just harder for female writers to get the breadth of executive experience that seems to be required to write for Who these days.
31 July 2013 at 14:02 #14655I wouldn’t know of course, but Helen Raynor and (Pip &) Jane Baker (Paula Moore ?) isn’t much of a track record on the writing side. What you say about River makes sense, but its different being a “companion” than being the lead. As I say, I think the dynamic of the show would have to be different in some ways. Presumably they have a bunch of audience research. Hmmm…
Nick
31 July 2013 at 14:17 #14656Your theory makes sense. Tilda Swinton would be a very interesting choice in my opinion and she has quite a CV for unusual character parts. I’m not so sure about Helen Mirren as I’d think you’re looking at someone in their late 30’s/mid 40’s as the top end of the age range, unless you’re particularly young looking. Even William Hartnell was 55 in 1963 and I can’t see them casting someone that old these days in a show like Who with a “young” audience demographic. Once you get into the 50’s it seems TV needs the older actors to be strong character who support younger leads (DCI type positions).
Nick
31 July 2013 at 14:27 #14657@nick – isn’t Tilda Swinton, though, in her 50s? Granted, she has the kind of face that could play a 20-year old, too.
31 July 2013 at 14:40 #14658@nick — I’m not sure I was putting them forward as serious contenders but more as examples of the sort of names you might see in the frame if they went for a high-profile, short-term Doc. Although you’re right I think Swinton is much more the sort of actor who would be likely to take a shot at it — and she would in my opinion be pretty good too….
With regards to female writers, just because there haven’t been I’d say any that have been that promising in the past, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there. There are certainly some great genre writers out there who would write great Who — the likes of Jane Espenson and Marti Noxon spring immediately to mind. But there are others closer to home….
But AL Kennedy… I’m telling you, get ALK to write an ep….
31 July 2013 at 14:55 #1466051 or 52 I think. There is a whole bunch of actresses who would have the right sort of gravitas to play the first female Doctor (Rachel Weisz would also be a good choice for example as would have been Alex Kingston herself who is 50 now). I’m not so sure about some of the other names mentioned though (Nicola Walker especially according to @htpbdet. She’s a fine actor, but I’m not so convinced. Mind you I though Matt Smith was too young so..).
This might interest you – I thought it was any way
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/25/no-women-over-50-allowed
Nick
31 July 2013 at 14:59 #14661No I understood what you meant, but I think you need someone of that sort of stature if your going to make it work first time round. No matter how good the actress actually is, the first time is going to need somebody very special to pull it off. That isn’t the way it should be, but I think its necessary. Everyone is a little uneven at first – just think of the potential headlines in the Sun and Mirror and the crap on Twitter.
Nick
31 July 2013 at 15:04 #14662@nick — that’s definitely true. Any actress to take on the part of the Doctor is potentially opening herself up to a world of pain. She’ll either have to be incredibly thick-skinned or of a sufficiently high enough profile where the ire of the Arse brigade won’t really touch her….
1 August 2013 at 07:10 #14718your last comment exactly explains why River can’t be a prototype female Doctor – the audience expectation of River is very different from what it would be if she was playing the Doctor. If you look at the Companions thread discussion between HTPBDET, @bluesqueakpip , @Shazzbot and @whisht (post 14659 to 14708) and reverse the concept so that you have a female Doctor and (most often) a younger male Companion I can just see the media “Cougar Doctor” coverage right now. Whether its right or wrong doesn’t matter they’d play up the angle and create the controversy to sell newspapers (as for a younger female companion !). Unfortunately this is the world we live in.
Nick
1 August 2013 at 07:21 #14719OK, @nick, I’ll bite on that one.
With a male lead and a female companion, the default position for the male writers of Doctor Who (post reboot) is either lurrve, unrequited love, or opportunistic snogging (even if simply comedy snogging in Donna’s case). This has nothing to do with the media, it’s how the show has been written.
With a female lead and (presumably) a male companion, I simply don’t see the same on-screen dynamic happening, at all. Nor do I see the media inventing such a thing. And I for one will find it refreshing to have two characters essentially in a working environment who can simply get on with things without bringing in that undercurrent of ‘will they, won’t they’. And a female lead with a female companion …. naaah, I don’t see DW being cast this way, ever.
I’m sure I’ve said on other threads that I think a female Doctor with multiple companions would be ideal – but I don’t see the Paternoster Gang in this instance. Because the latter is two females and one male (one very neutered male to boot), so plus a female Doctor it would be far too XX-centric.
1 August 2013 at 08:30 #14721Your description of a female Doctor lead is spot on for me – that’s exactly what the BBC would do (and in fact its exactly how BG Who treated the Doctor/female relationship). But isn’t that a reflection of what they would be happy to show on screen in a Children’s programme ? If you think about it the rationale that supports younger female companion falling for the Doctor (even if it has been part subverted by SM in that way that Amy and Clara’s relationship developed) works then just why wouldn’t the same be true with a female Doctor ? I think the answers obvious isn’t it ? The BBC wouldn’t even want to hint at a “cougar Doctor”, but they have little compulsion against hinting at the opposite.
Of course in adult drama, in an attempt to be more PC (I suppose) its now pretty commonplace to develop the sexually aggressive female lead character (I don’t know if you saw Gillian Anderson in the Fall for example) subverting the normal older male/younger female stereotype, but I can’t see the BBC doing it in a kids programme.
The problem when you bring “romance” into the Tardis is that it immediately opens up the “will they won’t they” dynamic. Doesn’t this theme underlie pretty much all TV relationships these days ? Older male/younger female is the most common portrayal of course. RTD chose to incorporate that dynamic by writing in the lurrve, unrequited love, or opportunistic snogging when he didn’t have to. The Doctor is Alien, not human after all. It seems I’m more cynical than you are on how the parts of the Media and some comedians (for example) might choose to play up the female Doctor line to create some faux coverage for themselves.
I think your probably right. It’s difficult to envisage a female Doctor with a female companion, given the relationship stereotypes that typify our society. The fact that its feels necessary to mirror the male Doctor/female companion is a shame surely ? The companion group dynamic will probably work better with a female Doctor, in that it is a safer environment to avoid the female Doctor romance problem.
It’s interesting to speculate about how it might actually be done. I’m sure it could be done, but I’m not so sure that they will actually do it. I’m sure they have thought about it though. If I were the BBC (and I had the budget) I rather think I’d go for a bigger trial first – a River lead spin-off show anyone ?
Nick
1 August 2013 at 10:06 #14724This may be of some interest to Paul McGann regeneration wishes
http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/mcgann-on-50th-return-rumours-52161.htm
1 August 2013 at 16:47 #14754Now what will this be?
1 August 2013 at 18:39 #147641 August 2013 at 18:45 #147651 August 2013 at 18:56 #14766@Shazzbot I’m going to a wedding in Stratford upon Avon on Saturday, staying over, but I’ll be back on Sunday before 7pm, have no fear.
If I don’t, for whatever reason, you can create a new topic yourself.
But do we need a new topic? Or just carry on on the The Next Doctor topic? I can see crossover with the News thread as well. Might get messy just when I want to relax on a Sunday night 😕
1 August 2013 at 19:12 #14767Tend to agree with @craig that we might as well keep it all in the Next Doctor thread. Though I suppose we maybe better start hunting out a pic of Peter Capaldi right now…. 😉
1 August 2013 at 19:17 #14769@wolfweed, @craig and @others…
And according to the RT, it’s going to happen a lot sooner than that. Or something…
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-08-01/doctor-who-announcement-imminent
1 August 2013 at 19:44 #14770@jimthefish – isn’t the midnight announcement simply that there will be a live show on Sunday night?
1 August 2013 at 19:45 #14771@jimthefish I’ve been thinking more about it and The Next Doctor thread does just need a new picture once we know. It’ll still be a place for speculation about the new Doctor, just a lot of speculation about what he or she will be like now that we know who they are.
1 August 2013 at 19:57 #14772@shazzbot — yep, I imagine it will be….
1 August 2013 at 20:12 #14774Not being one for much bonkers theorising myself, I suddenly had one. Since Troughton, The Doctor seems to regenerate in a way that reflects what he has just been through or who he is surrounded by. I’m not going to go through them all but in AG Who 9 is dark as he has just regenerated after the Time War. After his hearts are healed by Rose he regenerates into fun loving 10, but 10 started to go dark again so we got something in between with 11, who was a bit child-like perhaps because the first person he met was young Amelia while he was “still cooking”
Given Moffat’s timey wimey stories, with the Doctor currently stuck in his own time stream etc., what if his regeneration is profoundly affected, or even caused, by a time when he mucked about with a fixed point i.e. Pompeii, where he saved Peter Capaldi and family? I think that’d be quite a story (which would explain everything away at the same time).
1 August 2013 at 21:12 #14778I don’t know if this is classed as spoilers but will post here anyway anyone in uk tried looking for the dr who program on NBC one Sunday 7pm and it hasn’t turned up?
http://news.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/major-announcement-at-midnight/
1 August 2013 at 22:52 #14780I do like the idea of linking “The Fires of Pompeii” to the next Doctor.
(Cracking bonkers theory, btw, @craig)
I recall that the actor protraying a new companion sometimes had their first outing in another episode, as a different character. And Karen Gillan made an appearance in “The Fires of Pompeii”. And so, of course, did Peter Capaldi. Hmm.
Still, he does seem to be an awfully busy actor (and director) to commit. Then again, there is a lovely symmetry involved in @craig‘s bonkers theory.
1 August 2013 at 22:56 #14781Tennantmarsters2013 – interesting that the first comment (in the version I viewed) of your link was:
Is this about the rumoured return of confidential?
Ahhh, if only that were so. But I have to ask, since this is the first place I’ve heard of such a rumour … is Confidential really coming back? Budget cuts and (UK) TV license fee freezes being what they are, it would be hard to fathom a return of such an apparently budget-swallowing entity as Confidential.
But, we can dare hope … 🙂
1 August 2013 at 23:03 #14782Well, @craig, for a self-confessed non-bonkers theorist, that’s quite good, actually. That’s one of the moments in Donna’s time that I haven’t ever properly understood. Vesuvius blowing chunks is a ‘fixed point in time’ (help @bluesqueakpip !) but Donna managed to convince the Doctor to save just that one family.
However, I hold no real hope of Peter Capaldi really becoming the Doctor ** but in the interim, here’s a moment from one of my favourite films of all time, ‘Local Hero’.
I would have preferred the knee-kissing scene with his character’s excellent Japanese, but YT didn’t provide as quickly as required.
** I will happily eat my words on Sunday evening if proved wrong. 🙂
1 August 2013 at 23:25 #14784@shazzbot — yep, a quick check on IMDB makes it look like Capaldi is going to be busy next year with a new series of The Three Musketeers. I suspect the rumour-mill got going because he is credited as playing a character called W.H.O. Doctor in World War Z… Sheesh….
1 August 2013 at 23:32 #14785There’s two reasons why I rarely look at spoilers. One is because they’re spoilers. The other is that they often turn out to be rumours about announcements about announcements.
2 August 2013 at 00:13 #14786@jimthefish – if that is really the source of this scurrying-around rumour for the last day or so, I fear for mankind. No, I really do. It’s analogous to that braying mob that attacked a paediatrician’s house because they were too stupid to understand the difference between a doctor who specialises in childhood diseases, and a paedo.
An actor who plays a ‘World Health Organisation’ doctor as a character in a Brad Pitt movie? Which de facto means that that same actor is signed to play the next Doctor Who?
Give me strength.
2 August 2013 at 00:16 #14789Best use of tasteless analogy ever!
2 August 2013 at 00:39 #14791For anyone who cares, four BBC insiders claim that the 12th Doctor is a relative of a previous Doctor…
A relative of one Patrick Troughton…
Probably bollocks…
2 August 2013 at 01:03 #14793Assuming it is any previous Doctor, there is not simply the Troughton connection. There is also the daughter of Peter Davison and wife of David Tennant–Georgia Moffett, who played the Doctor’s daughter.
Also probably bollocks…
2 August 2013 at 01:16 #14795@pedant – I’m weirdly proud of that tasteless moment, me. 🙂
@htpbdet @blenkinsopthebrave – arrrgghh! I’m driving on over to @bluesqueakpip ‘s house right now, to share in her ‘frustrated ennui’ at the endless, pointless speculation of the Next Doctor.
The only light in that particular tunnel is that we appear to have some sort of closure coming soon.
2 August 2013 at 01:21 #14797They were specific about the Patrick Troughton descendant but not which one.
So there are at least three – David, Sam and Harry Melling….
2 August 2013 at 01:24 #14798But I am not holding my breath…
2 August 2013 at 01:39 #14800@htpbdet – I’m confused. Now, it’s definitely a Troughton descendent / relative, and before it was definitely a female. Is there a Venn diagramme which contains both? 😀
I’m totally with @bluesqueakpip (who mercifully won’t see any of this, as she avoids Spoilers): I’m blinkin’ tired of speculating on this point. Especially since (apparently) a live audience is being gathered in ( … where? Salford? London? ) to witness The Unveiling this Sunday evening.
2 August 2013 at 01:50 #14801 -
AuthorPosts
The topic ‘Spoilers’ is closed to new replies.
