Quote:
Originally Posted by adzii_nufc
What is it with a few seasons and done? Is it a stepping stone? Like you can see American TV shows run for 10 years with the same lead actor.
I liked Capaldi but I can't see me missing him that much. Still Smith and Tennant here.
Alright then? Matt Smith to return? Benedict Cumberbatch, Eddie Redmayne.
More seriously of course, Jason Isaacs or Hugh Laurie? Anyone got some?
|
Doubtful. They tend not to go for anyone particularly well known. Generally the actor playing the Doctor may have been a regular in a TV series, but he will not have been that well known. That said, there are exceptions. Peter Davison was already playing a major character in a successful TV series (All Creatures Great And Small), Christopher Ecclestone had already been in Shallow Grave and quite a few successful TV series and films and obviously John Hurt (who has been in a *lot* of successful films). I think they went for Christopher because they were relaunching the show. They needed someone relatively well known to increase the show's chances of being a hit. John Hurt was introduced because I think they felt they needed a really big star to launch the 50th Anniversary special.
I doubt it will happen, but I'd like to see Paul McGann have a crack at it again. I think that given a well written series with decent special effects, I think he would have made a great Doctor. I actually think he made a good Doctor in the TV movie, but while it also had excellent special effects (for the time) and a cool looking Tardis interior, I think that neither the writer nor director had any clue about what makes Doctor Who special and seemed to assume it was just a generic action/sci fi show. They assumed that good SFX, a few one liners and a story about time would be enough.
That's one think I like about Doctor Who. The stories. In the old series, they had a saying that you could spend a tenner on the special effects and still get change, but they had some great stories (The Caves of Androzani, Genesis of the Daleks being two). Yes, the sets looked awful, as did the SFX, but the story kept the viewer on the edge of his or her seat.. With the movie, the sets looked great, as did the SFX (for the time, although they look incredibly dated now), but the story was a bit.. meh.
Who would I like to see as The Doctor? Probably someone like Richard E Grant. I know he isn't the handsome heroic type, but the Doctor has not always looked like that handsome heroic type. Look at John Pertwee and Patrick Troughton. No disrespect to either, as I believe they both made good doctors, but I wouldn't say either looked handsome or heroic. I think Richard could carry it off, as he seems just eccentric enough.
I do wonder if the actors consider it a stepping stone (and it certainly seems to have been one for Tom Baker, David Tennant and Matt Smith), but the average stay seems to be 3-4 years.