The Next Doctor
14 June 2013 at 09:54 #12258ScaryB @scaryb14 June 2013 at 10:26 #12260
And he is back…
Well, sort of… an hour a day of R&R is better than nothing. Greetings to all and many many thanks for the well wishes.
Back to John Hurt…I think my option 4 was the same as your 13th Doctor? Or have I missed something?
So – is there no bonkers theory about who/what he is apart from those?
And I think you are too harsh on Andrew Scott – live, he is a better actor than any of the three who have been in the hot seat since the reboot – he can do anything, as his hilarious but profoundly sad turn in Design for Living at the Old Vic clearly showed. He is a wonderful Moriarty – but I think he could we a wonderful geeky professor with a time machine.
Rory Kinnear, on the other hand, would be a delicious, cold and chilling Master… (although I thought he was a crap Iago!)
Whoever it is, remember that it is highly likely that they will be looking for someone with quite different attributes from Matt Smith. Scott is very different – but so are the solid ones: Rory Kinnear, Andrew Buchan – and friend told me Ben Aldridge was being seen and that Rhys Ifwan had been told “No” which is why he had the spat with the Sunday Times journalist a week or so back…
But actually….I would love it to be Nicola Walker. Really love it.
Cheers to all – and special thanks to @craig who has been so so kind to my nephew as well as me.14 June 2013 at 10:36 #12262
@htpbdet (sans S)
Glad to have you back! Ooh and with the inside gossip too.
I think Andrew Scott would be good, but perhaps it’s a cross pollination step too far. As long as it’s someone who can project a bit of personality. Sacrilege I know (considering the ‘E’ in your name), but I thought that Ecclestone lacked a certain something in this area.14 June 2013 at 10:41 #12263
Wouldn’t put too much value on the inside gossip. I find it hard to believe that it is not done and dusted.
Rory Kinnear is playing Thomas Cromwell in the BBC’s Wolf Hall adaptation – which is the single thing which makes me think he would not then become Dr Who…but, who knows?
E is there for a lot of reasons – but I did like Eccelstone’s personality. 🙂14 June 2013 at 12:43 #12265Pufferfish @pufferfish
@HPBDET nice to see you back and hope you’re bearing up. Thanks for the insider stuff – Rhys Ifans was a guest at a friend’s wedding a while back and was charm itself on the day. So much so that I can’t imagine him giving a bad interview unless the journo really made him cross (I do similar for a living and have never had a bad scene with a subject). Loved him as Peter Cook in the BBC film BTW.
I’m wondering if people shouldn’t be looking for a Doc 12 hidden in plain sight, so I checked the 50th cast list and I’m intrigued by the inclusion of the RSC actor/Billie Piper co-star Jonjo O’Neill in what appears to be a suspiciously small role. He’s definitely on the up, and fits the bill.14 June 2013 at 20:39 #12298Miapatrick @miapatrick
@snail42- it’s been set up a bit- The Doctor and the Cyber-Doctor playing chess. (Though while the Game Of Thrones, I imagine, is like 3D-chess+monopoly+risk, the Game of Doctors is, in my mind, more like Snakes and Ladders+Cludo).14 June 2013 at 20:47 #12299Miapatrick @miapatrick
HTPBDET- so happy to see you back. Although your contributions while incapacitated put many if not all the capacitated members to shame, its genuinely good to see that (almost perfect ;)) sequence of letters back on the forum.14 June 2013 at 23:03 #12304Arkleseizure @arkleseizure
@htpbdet – Great to see you back – I’ve been loving your autobiographical articles about the past Doctors. I wish I could think of something else to say besides that!14 June 2013 at 23:32 #1231015 June 2013 at 21:50 #12340Anonymous @
John Lithgow, in all seriousness, would make a superb Doctor. I mean it. I know, I know; he is an American BUT he has all the qualities and acting capabilities that we have seen in the Doctor. Also, I believe it is time to get back to an older Doctor. For evidence, just watch some of Lithgow’s performances especially in 3rd Rock from the Sun. Would love to hear everyon;e opinions and flaws in this choice.16 June 2013 at 04:46 #12353janetteB @janetteb
@HTPBET so glad that you are back and well on the way to a full recovery I hope. We missed you but really appreciated the articles you sent through.
Janette16 June 2013 at 10:43 #1235716 June 2013 at 16:43 #12362UhGooglie @uhgooglie
An older doctor would be nice, like around thirty so they are more rugged and aged but not to old16 June 2013 at 16:51 #12363Anonymous @
Hello @uhgooglie and welcome to our forum! Nice avatar. It took you a month to make your first comment, so I don’t want to put you off further commenting, but I fear I have a bone to pick with you for this:
“An older doctor would be nice, like around thirty”
Fnarr fnarr! Those of us who have dim and misty memories of turning 30 don’t consider that age as being old, at all! 🙂
It does seem to be a young man’s game (young woman’s, maybe?) nowadays, being the Doctor. But I agree with your sentiment, that someone with the gravitas that comes with age would be nice. However, who knew when Matt Smith was signed (in his mid-20’s) that he could do the old-man-in-a-young-person’s-body so well. We’ll just have to trust The Moff that he gets it right, again.16 June 2013 at 18:05 #12370Brynwe @brynwe
Erf, I just turned thirty this year. I’d like to think I’m not older. Matt is thirty this year as well.16 June 2013 at 20:53 #12382wolfweed @wolfweed16 June 2013 at 21:09 #12384Anonymous @
@wolfweed – “Yes he’s costing us more than Tom Cruise but we need a solid, balding alpha male who is totally the opposite of these foppish emotionally-incontinent Doctors.”
Tee hee hee! Where is Craig when we need him, eh?17 June 2013 at 07:31 #12394FishComBobulated @fishcombobulated
Depending on the poster’s age, or not, we do have to presume that when people say an older Doctor, they’re referring to the more recent casting trends of Smith and Tennant in the revived era.17 June 2013 at 11:57 #12396ScaryB @scaryb
An older doctor would be nice, like around thirty so they are more rugged and aged but not to* old
<Aaaagh! Crawls off to the decrepit corner with all the old abandoned theories! 😥 >
*small compensation – at least I can spell 😈17 June 2013 at 13:51 #12408OsakaHatter @osakahatter
Greetings all, been lurking recently but haven’t had chance to contribute (arguably of course, I never contribute anyway, just ramble! 😉 )
Firstly, welcome back @htpbdet – good to see you back and posting, hope the recovery is going well. Glad to see you and various others singing the praises of Andrew Scott, think he would be a wonderful choice, although I suspect (as @chickenelly referenced as well) the Sherlock cross pollination would give him a rough ride with the SM detractors.
Secondly,Rory Kinnear. No issue with him at all, would watch as ever and probably enjoy, but can’t say the idea fills me with ‘Oooh, wonder what his Doctor would be like?’ Although saying that, the whole rumour feels very like the Paterson Joseph one that did the rounds just before Matt Smith was announced.
Thirdly, I’ve given up on guessing the identity of the new Doctor, because I’m sure that the names I can come up with are going to be too high profile, so I’ve been thinking about what I want the new Doctor to be like instead. I’d like the universe weariness to have gone, with more of a thoughtful scientist wanting to get under the bonnet of the universe, to be looking and trying to make sense of the unknown rather than the cleverness being in what they already know. Not so much trying to fix things as trying to understand them. I think that would then play well into science as horror type stories (e.g. please please please a Genesis of the Cybermen story as we discussed weeks ago). Perhaps companions being people the Doctor needs to find a way to help, rather than a mystery for the Doctor to solve. I’d like more historical stories as well (and by historical, I’m thinking pre-Victorian!) and given I spent time living in Japan, I’d like to see some trips to Asia in amongst the Earth based stories.
Finally, female Doctor. Been reading the debate on here for the past week or so about the justification or not for a female Doctor and I’m still in favour, as long as it is story driven and not tokenism. @arkleseizure made a good suggestion of it being linked to the Doctor River’s remaining regenerations. I like that, not least because Lets Kill Hitler is my least favourite episode of Matt Smith’s run thus far – and I wondered at the time if it was so busy closing some threads and planting seeds for new ones that it failed to be a story in its own right. This would back up that suspicion. I also like @bluesqueakpip ‘s suggestion that it could be necessary to change the future ala JTTCOTT. I wonder if, fitting with this idea, we’ll see this Doctor forcing himself to regenerate, rather than having to because of injury, poisoning, old age, having it hoisted on him by the TimeLords or due to being attacked by a radio telescope?
I don’t think there would be any issue about boys not wanting to watch a female Doctor – it’s not as if Buffy was unpopular with males, and I’m sure that wasn’t purely driven by attraction to Sarah Michelle Gellar (likewise, I’m certain our many female commentators, even if they do have a liking for Tennant or Smith, don’t purely watch because of the physical appeal of the lead.)
Ultimately, if you have well written, exciting stories with good arcs and characters that keep drawing us back to the show, it shouldn’t matter if the lead is male or female. As far as female representation goes, I think the lack of female writers is probably more pressing.
Anyway, enough of my rambling. Hope you’re all well 🙂17 June 2013 at 14:22 #12410Anonymous @
Hiya OsakaHatter – “I’ve given up on guessing the identity of the new Doctor … so I’ve been thinking about what I want the new Doctor to be like instead.”
Yes, me too. And I’m 100% with you on “I’d like the universe weariness to have gone”. The Doctor as a character has gone a bit too existential angst-y since 2005. I’d love to see a childlike wonder of exploring the universe again; as you say, more scientist-under-the-bonnet than world-weariness.
“Perhaps companions being people the Doctor needs to find a way to help, rather than a mystery for the Doctor to solve.”
Mmmmm, I’m definitely with you on the latter, but not the former. I’d like companions to be, well, just companions – not necessarily needing to be ‘helped’ by the Doctor. @htpbdet ‘s blog series on the BG Doctors has been an education for me, in the many ways companions can be fully-fledged characters who bring something to the table simply by dint of who they are. The perfect companion to me is kind of like Amy in her 2nd and 3rd outings – she shows the Doctor where he gets it totally wrong by instinctively doing the right thing. He may be a millennia old and with lots of ego and experience, but he just doesn’t ‘get’ some really important concepts – and that’s where the ideal companion makes all the difference.
Now that, AG, companions and their family lives outside the Tardis have apparently become canon, I wonder if we could ever go back to companions travelling with the Doctor without their mothers berating him, their grandfathers / fathers hitching the occasional ride, their parents becoming tools of the Master, etc. I’d also prefer a companion – or really, multiple companions – who aren’t from present-day London.17 June 2013 at 15:32 #12422OsakaHatter @osakahatter
Hi @Shazzbot – I’d like companions to be, well, just companions – not necessarily needing to be ‘helped’ by the Doctor.
Yeah, I take your point. I was more thinking that arguably since Donna, there seems a need for their to be more to the companion than just their ability to be helpful, although you had romance arcs with Martha and Rose as well so perhaps it’s an AG generality, so was trying to think of new ways this could be achieved. As you rightly point out, the PG companions could be fully rounded without needing additional baggage and ideally future companions could go back to that, but I’m not sure that will happen while maintaining the extended family motif.
I’d also prefer a companion – or really, multiple companions – who aren’t from present-day London.
To play devils advocate, Amy was Scottish, who had been brought up in the English countryside (Why? Why not a Scottish aunt taking her in in a Scottish village? Always wondered that) but yeah, me too – would love to see an alien companion (even one who was conveniently human shaped to avoid hours in make up ala Leela). I think seeing Earth bound episodes through alien eyes would be good variation, but without the human companion you lose justification for so many episodes happening to take place in modern day London. I also much prefer the TARDIS with multiple companions, so perhaps a human – alien mix would work?17 June 2013 at 23:23 #12456
Heh. I was looking for a video clip of something, and came across this, which is quite funny. Back in 2003, UK Gold was doing the anniversary thing rather than the BBC. Interest had been increased because it was only a couple of months since the announcement that the BBC was bringing it back in 2005.
This short feature was on a female Doctor done for Big Finish. Arabella Weir was the Doctor. What’s quite entertaining is that she mentions a friend in the biz who was hugely excited for her. He appeared in the audio and in this clip. One David Tennant who was her Lodger once upon a time.18 June 2013 at 07:50 #12479
That’s a great clip. Not for Arabella Weir, but for Tennant lurking at the side.18 June 2013 at 09:23 #12482Anonymous @
@chickenelly , @phaseshift – watching that clip, it made me think how Rebecca Front could be a great female Doctor. I’ve heard in the past some bad talk against Arabella Weir, and I don’t have anything much for or against her myself as an actress / comedienne, but I really started thinking during that clip how Rebecca Front would be marvellous.18 June 2013 at 17:35 #12494
@chickenelly – yes, it’s a funny one that. He appeared in different roles in three of that Unbound series.
Not sure about Rebecca. She seems too calm and laid back in most roles I’ve seen her in. I didn’t think Arabella was that bad in the audio play she did, although the story she was in “Exile” was a bit too deliberately farcical for my tastes.
That Doctor Who series “Unbound” was intriguing though. It’s deliberately non-canon, presenting potential alternative Doctors past, present and future, and is kind of the idea that @blenkinsopthebrave mentioned of lots of alternatives.
So as the Doctor you have Geoffrey Bayldon, David Warner, David Collings, Derek Jacobi and Arabella. Michael Jayston returns to his Valeyard role to take centre stage in “He Jests at Scars…”, which would be excellent if it wasn’t for Bonnie Langford. Carole Ann Ford and Nicholas Courtney show up as alternative versions of Susan and Lethbridge Stewart. It’s all quite fun.19 June 2013 at 09:01 #12515
The Grauniad has another story about a ‘potential’ Doctor Who cribbed from The Sun:19 June 2013 at 09:15 #12516janetteB @janetteb
@chickenelly I just read that and popped over here to join in the discussion. I supect that, given the source, this rumour, like all the others, can be taken with a very large grain of salt and some Aoili too.
I have to say that I would prefer Rory Kinnear to Julian-Rhind-Tutt. He look too, too, smooth and smart, (not sure I can quite find the correct word for what I’m trying to say) for my liking. I have only seen him in two roles, Black Books and The Hour where he played arrogant characters, the wrong kind of arrogance for Doctor Who, but it is maybe unfair to judge an actor by two roles.
The Sun list all are sound and unexciting. Burn Gorman would be my choice from that limited list had he not had a major role in Torchwood. (About the only scene from Torchwood worth re-watching, or even watching at all, was him emptying the fridge after he died. I had given up on Tw long before that but “he” insisted I watch that one scene.)
We re-watched the Christmas special with David Morrissey as the ‘fake Doctor” last night. (sorry tough day and I’ve forgotten the title.) He was so good, and remember at the time hoping that he might be the future incarnation. I would like the Doctor to meet his future self. If he has unlimted regen’s then it could be a very distant future incarnation and not one ever likely to be encountered again. Or it be an alternate regen’.
Janette19 June 2013 at 10:49 #12517
What’s quite interesting about these lists of potential Doctors is that depending on which source you read, a different bunch of names are definitely in the running.
Julian Rhind-Tutt fits the current mould as he has the floppy hair but his erstwhile co-colleague, Stephen Mangan, was another name doing the rounds for a bit. I probably prefer Mangan as I really liked the Dirk Gently series which was on last year. Of course the BBC cancelled that but never mind.
I still think it’s likely to be Kinnear though. Now that the show is big abroad, in no part thanks to Matt, I do wonder if they’d risk sticking a virtual unknown in there. As Kinnear has been in the Bond films he’s looking like the frontrunner to me.19 June 2013 at 11:36 #12519
Julian Rhind-Tutt might be okay. I rather suspected they would go for a blonde actually.
He seems a good actor – and as long as the writing and the new characterization works, I think he might pull it off.
Certainly he would be a better choice, in my humble opinion, than either Mangan or Gorman, both of whom have limited ranges and whose Doctor I am quite sure we can all see clearly in our heads now.
They can risk a virtual unknown if the virtual unknown can act and has good chemistry with Clara.
But, really, each AG Doctor has hardly been a virtual unknown…which is why the longer the silence continues, Rory Kinnear seems more likely.
I confess to still hoping for Andrew Scott… or Nicola Walker!
🙂19 June 2013 at 12:58 #12525Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip
Oh, lord. Can we keep speculation about the next Doctor strictly in ‘The Next Doctor?’ thread? Please? Including links to news stories about possible next Doctors?
It has, quite frankly, reached the stage where it’s driving me nuts and I’d rather talk about anything else. The Twin Dilemma. Fear Her. Anything. 🙂 And if it’s kept to one thread, I only have to avoid that thread.
Pretty please?19 June 2013 at 13:02 #1253119 June 2013 at 13:03 #12532Anonymous @
@htpbdet – was Andrew Scott in the movie ‘Never Let Me Go’?
I was on holiday last week, and the cottage had that book so I finally got to read it. Amazing. I have no desire to see the movie, because it couldn’t possibly live up to Ishiguro’s writing.
“They can risk a virtual unknown if the virtual unknown can act and has good chemistry with Clara.”
Here’s where I worry about the juggernaut that Doctor Who has become globally, and how the BBC are clearly pandering to an American audience (perhaps to the detriment of their UK audience). A sort-of unknown, who has no ‘baggage’ of prior well-known acting roles to work against (or with), is my favourite idea. But have those days gone forever now? Are they beholden to getting a ‘name’ in the role from now on, to ensure the global audience stays with the show?19 June 2013 at 13:42 #12545Anonymous @
I second Rhind-Tutt as a fairly decent Doctor. I’ve definitely seen his name mentioned before in this regard. But @chickenelly, I think you’ve really got to see him in Green Wing, I think, to see how we might approach the Doctor. Could be quite Tom Baker-ish I reckon. I’ve posted a clip below in which he appears. I’ve posted the whole thing because it contains quite a lot of classic Alan Statham (now there would be a daring Doctor) and the Mac segment only really works I think if you’ve seen the preceding clips.
@Shazzbot — I think you’re getting Andrew Scott mixed up with Andrew Garfied (who is just way too major now to be even in the running, although he might have been an interesting choice.) Scott was Moriarty in Sherlock and also did a fairly good turn as a damaged war veteran in an episode of Foyle’s War. He’d be good, great even, but I think he’d mean a swing back to damaged Doctor a la Eccleston…
btw. The film version of Never Let Me Go, while not as good as the book, is still pretty decent, if only for forcing Kiera Knightley to have a bash at acting for once. But it’s Garfield who owns it, I think…
And just to add that I’m less convinced than others about it definitely being Kinnear. But that could just be because I’m not really convinced that he’d be good in the role. Mind you, I remember thinking that same about Smithy — and look how that turned out…19 June 2013 at 13:57 #12551Anonymous @
“but I think he’d mean a swing back to damaged Doctor a la Eccleston…”
Now, here’s where I think people are doing it wrong. You have seen Andrew Scott in a couple of things, playing a couple of specific characters, and you assume that his Doctor would be tinged by those roles. Surely he could do engagingly mad-cap, boffiny scientist, and fun-loving? (I just know that I’d like to look at him, a lot. 😀 I’m going to have to excuse myself in a moment!)19 June 2013 at 14:04 #12552Anonymous @
Surely he could do engagingly mad-cap, boffiny scientist, and fun-loving?
True, but very few actors are absolute chameleons. Hence, in my opinion, Eccleston’s moments of grinning zaniness never really convinced because they seemed somehow forced and awkward. But he was great at the brooding, damaged aspects of his Doctor. Because that is where his strength lies.
Similarly, Scott even if he was going for mad-cap and fun-loving I think his performance would still have an element of dangerous psychosis to it because that, I suspect, is just part of what he brings to the party.
Not that that might not be good….19 June 2013 at 14:10 #12554
@Shazzbot Yes, that’s the thing. I have seen Andrew Scott on stage and he can be deliciously wicked and very funny, as well as brooding, intense and serious. He is an “actor’s actor”.
But I don’t think the next Doctor will be especially mad-cap. I think they will find a different way to express the eccentricity – otherwise the actor will suffer.
Just as, in BG Doctor Who, each of the first five Doctors found their own way, so, too, must the 12th Doctor find his own way. And to be fair to Smith and the programme, it should not be similar to Smith.
A wise-cracking, petulant, scholarly pedant who collects odd things, carries a telescope and a magnifying glass – something quirky and fresh, male or female. The part can go anywhere – and hopefully it will.19 June 2013 at 14:12 #12555Anonymous @
@jimthefish – yes, CE had more than a few ‘rictus grins’ which didn’t feel at all natural. In retrospect, I think it was utterly perfect for the wounded, haunted Doctor of the initial re-boot. He remembers being happy but at that point in time, he couldn’t really, truly feel it.
Now that I’m thinking harder about it, an Andrew Scott with his ‘element of dangerous psychosis’ along with Our Clara – what a fab combination.19 June 2013 at 14:12 #1255619 June 2013 at 14:17 #1255819 June 2013 at 14:25 #12562Anonymous @
@jimthefish – the makers of Green Wing are gods. Pure and simple. 🙂19 June 2013 at 14:29 #12564Anonymous @
@htpbdet – “But I don’t think the next Doctor will be especially mad-cap. I think they will find a different way to express the eccentricity – otherwise the actor will suffer.”
Hmmm, can I ask you to expand on that? Not sure what I meant by ‘mad-cap’ to be honest, but after reading your comment I realise both DT and MS had some elements of that – fast-talking, quirkily strange, sudden great yelps of recognition / understanding. Why do you say the actor will suffer as the 12th if he/she expresses some version of mad-cap?19 June 2013 at 14:41 #12566
@Shazzbot At the risk of incurring the wrath of everyone here, one of the disappointments for me about Smith’s tenure has been that his characterization did contain such an emphasis on “fast-talking, quirkily strange, sudden great yelps of recognition / understanding” – all clear aspects of Tennant’s 10th.
As I have said, I much much prefer Smith post Angels Take Manhattan – I think with Clara he has found a way to ground his characterization, to truly make the Eleventh different from his predecessor.
The differences between incarnations should be profound – as they always were. Well, that’s how I would prefer it (not that it is up to me!).
The shock of the new Doctor should be something that both scares and excites – as it has so many times before.
Just having a new actor to play the same sort of Doctor Smith has been playing would, in my view, be a terrible mistake.19 June 2013 at 15:07 #12575Anonymous @
@htpbdet (Jeff 🙂 ) – “Just having a new actor to play the same sort of Doctor Smith has been playing would, in my view, be a terrible mistake.”
Yes, and here’s where I’m going to go all existentially angst-y. I’m really worried by what the show has turned into since 2005. It’s bigger than any of us can imagine; inordinantly important to BBC Worldwide. Once things get to that level of meta-importance, conservatism bites. Both 10 and 11 shared some character traits because, I fear, some Suits at the BBC said ‘this works – we can’t change it!’
“The shock of the new Doctor should be something that both scares and excites – as it has so many times before.”
And when you’re shepherding a juggernaut across the globe, ‘shock’ is one thing that just can’t be risked. I can only lay my faith in The Moff to do the right thing – serve up a profoundly different Doctor which goes back to the first few regenerations in terms of differences to his/her predecessors. Still recognisable as the Doctor, but [hopefully] lacking the samey-samey kind of characterisations of 10 and 11.19 June 2013 at 15:26 #12581
@Shazzbot Okay….can we stop with the Jeff now please…
I don’t think the BBC suits have that much power.
I don’t have the confidence you do in Moffat, but I think the show will suffer dramatically unless there is a completely new Doctor.19 June 2013 at 15:34 #12586Anonymous @
@htpbdet – “I don’t think the BBC suits have that much power.”
My show-biz experience is at the bottom-feeding end, of a 99-seat Equity-waiver comedy/improvisational theatre in LA. And also doing production accounting (non location). However, from what I learnt back then, I think the ‘Suits’ do have that much power. But I bow to your better experience here.
I share your fear that the show will suffer if it doesn’t fly off in a completely new direction; but I also know about killing-the-golden-egg-laying-goose fears of people who have millions of dollars/pounds – and their fragile, ego-ridden reputations – on the line.19 June 2013 at 15:48 #12587
@Shazzbot The BBC is quite a different beast from any other broadcaster or production house in the world, mainly because of the license fee. More than anything else, Doctor Who has to work in the UK otherwise the BBC can’t justify using the licence fee on it – this is what truly killed the BG version.
But…Moffat has been unashamedly chasing the USA market in recent years – and that, I think, may be more of an issue about the next incarnation.
Doctor Who both has rules and no rules. But variety…that is the one imperative. At least in my view.
I think a “sort-of-the-same” Doctor will be a fundamental error now – which may partly be why Moffat has thrown Hurt into the mix. He can use Hurt to establish the notion of an entirely different Doctor for AG viewers.
I guess we will see.
🙂19 June 2013 at 16:04 #12589
@pufferfish I have been meaning to ask. Where did you see Jonjo O’Neill’s name on the cast list for the 50th?
He is an interesting actor – but not, I think, a Doctor…19 June 2013 at 16:18 #12592Anonymous @
@pufferfish , @htpbdet – I checked out Jonjo O’Neill’s website. Really an interesting choice – as you say, on the ups, Northern Irish, good hair ( 🙂 ), and enough varied acting experience without bringing huge preconceptions to the role.
Please, though, not ‘mad-cap’ as per mine and Jeff’s (sorry! will stop doing that 🙂 ) previous conversations.19 June 2013 at 23:09 #12637FishComBobulated @fishcombobulated
I have a good decade of working in the American film (and increasingly) video world, and the way the hierarchy and bureaucracy work, yes, unfortunately the people who call the shots, dole out the money to the creatives and the crews, do stay in the process from beginning to end, and they shape it. When there is a hit show or movie, like with Who, the people above those people ensure from preproduction to postproduction the vested interests of keeping that franchise going on what has been working (as opposed to what the creatives know will work.
They are essentially “helicopter parents” or “Tiger moms” or whatever you phrase your Anglo-culture uses. They hover and make sure things “run smoothly”, or, in better words, make sure that the status quo remains recognizable from a business perspective.
This, of course, hampers change and creativity. While that is unfortunate, these people (“producers” et. al. which is code for the people attached whose interest are mainly financial) have a serious stake in their careers and reputations with how they handle their work on tv and film projects.
There’s good and there’s bad there. If they thought SM was not returning their financial investment properly according to their bottom lines, they would fire him. Because he is doing so well, and helping to spread the show to a global market, they intend to keep him happy, as well as many key crew positions (such as writers) so that the quality does stay high.
However if some idea for the next series were truly brilliant, these business-side people very well will stifle, insist on re-writes, or worse abort the concept if they cannot sell the story idea to a boardroom full of curmudgeonly old men and woman who do not watch the show and have no understanding of story and probably have only seen the show at Christmas with their grandchildren.
This is my experience working within, and fighting within, the film and television system.
The topic ‘The Next Doctor’ is closed to new replies.