# A new Doctor anytime soon? Or at least a new companion?



## derek alvah (Jul 2, 2010)

Kind of new to the Doctor mythos. I burned through the first four seasons on netflix (I've since bought them on dvd along with the Tennant specials and have rewatched them) then came the fifth season. Struggled through it and gave up. Not entirely due to Matt Smith. He seems to do a good job as the Doctor and according to what I read on line seems to be the most popular Doctor ever, although I prefer David Tennant. What ruins the show for me is Amy ##[email protected]#! Pond. Her 3 facial expressions ( big surprised eyes, pursed lips/smirk, furrowed brow) that the cameraman makes sure to cut to every few seconds just really bug me. And where was the learning curve? Rose, Martha and Donna (who I thought I would hate but ended up loving as a companion) all acted slightly awed by the time and space travel at first. Amy is making the Doctor look foolish and saving the day by her second episode and seems to get as much as if not more screen time than the Doctor.  I feel that the writing suffered when RTD left. Were they going for a younger audience with the fifth season? The stories with Eccleston and Tennant as the Doctor just seemed more epic to me. They both brought so much drama to the role it felt like everything was in peril with just about every episode. Great writing and acting. 

Anyway, back to my original question. Any news on when a new team will be announced?


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Well, you're in luck then, cause Amy Pond and Rory will be leaving next season and their exit has been described as "heartbreaking". No idea what will happen to River Song, though I fear we will be seeing more of her.

No word yet regarding a replacement either.


----------



## derek alvah (Jul 2, 2010)

I've only watched through the fifth season. The few episodes I've seen with River Song made me think she might be an interesting character (future wife of the Doctor/adventurer and all). Did that change or is she just not a popular character?


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Not sure my heart will be broken.  Sadly Moffat has done little to make me care about any of them at all.  When I'm in tears and sobbing over a Dalek (the episode is actually called "Dalek") and I can't be moved to even feel sad at anything that has happened with Amy and Rory, something is wrong.  I really feel like we lost anything truly character driven when Moffat took over, which confuses me to no end because Sherlock is done so bloody perfectly.  I am still sad sometimes for the Doctor, but I think that's residual from prior season.  I dare him to break my heart!

I think they have Matt Smith for at least two more seasons.  I really can't wait to see him without Amy, because he just doesn't seem like the Doctor with her.  There's been a few "That's the Doctor I know and love." moments, but not many of them.  This story arc is so focused on Amy Amy Amy that I feel like he gets shoved a bit to the background.  Heck, if you'd never seen Doctor Who before and saw the US version of this series for the first time, you'd think the show -was- about Amy, at least that's what the opening credits would have you believe.

Oh, and he better bring back Daleks.  He tried to be funny saying he was bringing them back then all we got to see was a broken up, old discarded dead Dalek.  I want my Daleks back.  And not the M&M flavored ones either.  End rant.  Oh, but I love the show!


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

I've been watching Doctor Who since it began in 1963 and technically you've not been watching series 1 to 5, but 27 to 31! It's only because of the long break (about 16 years) that have caused people to start renumbering.

Matt Smith is among my least favourite Doctors, though I do like Amy - or I did, she's beginning to wear on me a bit now - but that seems to happen to most companions. I thought Rose was one of the best companions ever but, towards the end, I was glad she was leaving.

A huge chunk of my teenage years (about 7 years I think) was taken up with watching Tom Baker as the Doctor and I still tend to think of him as THE Doctor, simply because of that, though Christopher Eccleston was excellent (and probably my favourite) and I grew to like David Tennant a lot too - he's such a good actor.

I haven't heard any news, but I'll be more than happy when Matt Smith is replaced - at least until I find out who's coming next!


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Scheherazade said:


> Not sure my heart will be broken. Sadly Moffat has done little to make me care about any of them at all. When I'm in tears and sobbing over a Dalek (the episode is actually called "Dalek") and I can't be moved to even feel sad at anything that has happened with Amy and Rory, something is wrong. I really feel like we lost anything truly character driven when Moffat took over, which confuses me to no end because Sherlock is done so bloody perfectly. I am still sad sometimes for the Doctor, but I think that's residual from prior season. I dare him to break my heart!


Steven Moffat is an excellent writer. _Coupling_, _Jekyll_ and _Sherlock_ were all absolutely brilliant. However, for some reason his writing on _Doctor Who_ has never worked for me, not even during the Russell T. Davies era. "Blink" was a very good story (albeit with an incidental Doctor) and "Girl in the Fireplace" was okay. I didn't care for any of the others.

"Dalek" was indeed excellent. Too bad that the writer of that one, Robert Shearman, only did that one episode, though he apparently wrote several _Doctor Who_ audio dramas.


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

Moffat is a hit and miss with me. Not every episode he writes is a winner. As for Matt, I am still ambivalent towards him. I remember with Tennant I was like this until about the second or third episode. There is just something about him not Doctor enough. He does not carry himself around like he is 900 something years old and did it all. He lacks self confidence I guess is the right term. I want to see him act tougher and take charge. As for Amy and Rory, please, kill them off. I know this will not happen but they are my least favorite companions. Rory especially. I was happy when he died the first time. He always has that lost look like he has no idea what is going on. Amy always tries to put the Doctor versus any other guy in an effort to get him to like her even her own husband. I miss Davies.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

He seems to write down to the audience when he writes for Doctor Who.  He sees it as a children's show and writes it that way, I think.  He also tries to focus too much on making it scary and having these huge twists that run through the entire season.  In so doing he fails to write anything for the characters at all, it's all plot and story and you don't ever get to know the actual characters.  I mean... how developed are Amy and Rory as characters?  What do we know about them despite having "known" both of them even in childhood.  And again, I think Matt Smith could make an amazing Doctor Who, but he hasn't been given the chance except on very rare occasions.  I hope once Amy and Rory are gone he gets to.


----------



## derek alvah (Jul 2, 2010)

Scheherazade said:


> I want my Daleks back. And not the M&M flavored ones either.


Hah!! If you're talking about the different colored Daleks, the first thing that entered my mind when I saw them was a fleet of Mini Coopers rolling off the assembly line. I wanted to take one for a test drive. I understand they were trying to differentiate themselves from past Who, but that just looked silly even for something that has a bathroom plunger for an arm. The regular Daleks looked more militaristic and menacing. Like armored death machines.

From what I gather, it seems I should watch season six in order to "get" season five and understand the larger story they're going for?


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Steven Moffat is an excellent writer. _Coupling_, _Jekyll_ and _Sherlock_ were all absolutely brilliant. However, for some reason his writing on _Doctor Who_ has never worked for me, not even during the Russell T. Davies era. "Blink" was a very good story (albeit with an incidental Doctor) and "Girl in the Fireplace" was okay. I didn't care for any of the others.
> 
> "Dalek" was indeed excellent. Too bad that the writer of that one, Robert Shearman, only did that one episode, though he apparently wrote several _Doctor Who_ audio dramas.


Moffat's episodes are among my favourites, but I guess no-one gets it right every time! You mention _Sherlock_ which is interesting, as I think there's a lot of the Doctor in that character and vice versa. Benedict Cumberbatch has the charisma that Matt Smith lacks but sadly was talked out of auditioning for the part of the Doctor when Tennant left. (Matt Smith did audition for _Sherlock_ but thankfully didn't get it.)

I think it's that lack of charisma that makes MS not work for me as the Doctor - he just doesn't have the gravitas, even in serious moments, to convince me he's a 900 old alien with the weight of all of time and space on his shoulders. I hope they go for someone completely different next time, but I think they're so busy trying to appeal to a youngish audience they'll probably pick some washed up popstar. 

And just because the Doctor is a man, why do they have to always pick a woman as his principal companion?


----------



## jumbojohnny (Dec 25, 2011)

Just to balance things up, so don't shout at me ( too loud, anyway). How about - no Doctor, or assistant - at all? The reason I say this is : the best thing that happened to the BBC re the Doctor is the lack of a single rights holder, ever, or, (not totally clear on the history so correct me if one so wishes), if there was, those rights were relinquished long long go (in a galaxy far away, perhaps). This has led to all sorts of trivial garbage which no writer with integrity, and still retaining all rights, would entertain; eg; 'the franchise' which extends to the now sickeningly regular appearance of the Doctor on such things as Children in Need. It cheapens and lessens it all, in my opinion.


----------



## derek alvah (Jul 2, 2010)

Linjeakel said:


> Moffat's episodes are among my favourites, but I guess no-one gets it right every time! You mention _Sherlock_ which is interesting, as I think there's a lot of the Doctor in that character and vice versa. Benedict Cumberbatch has the charisma that Matt Smith lacks but sadly was talked out of auditioning for the part of the Doctor when Tennant left. (Matt Smith did audition for _Sherlock_ but thankfully didn't get it.)
> 
> I think it's that lack of charisma that makes MS not work for me as the Doctor - he just doesn't have the gravitas, even in serious moments, to convince me he's a 900 old alien with the weight of all of time and space on his shoulders. I hope they go for someone completely different next time, but I think they're so busy trying to appeal to a youngish audience they'll probably pick some washed up popstar.
> 
> And just because the Doctor is a man, why do they have to always pick a woman as his principal companion?


This. Lack of charisma for Smith and I feel a lack of chemistry between Smith and Gillan. Eccleston and Tennant both had an on screen charisma that you could feel and just sucked you into the character of the Doctor. And chemistry between the actors? Eccleston/Piper, Tennant/Piper, Tennant/Agyeman and Tennant/Tate all had great chemistry with each other. Whether or not they were in real life, you could believe and feel that they were good friends on screen by the way they got on together. To me Matt Smith and Karen Gillan have zero on screen chemistry. All of their friendly banter and their general relationship with each other feels very forced and very much like "acting".


----------



## Beth Dolgner (Nov 11, 2011)

I just recently started watching the first Matt Smith episodes. I loved David Tennant as The Doctor, and I absolutely sobbed when he regenerated. I seriously had to take a break from the show before I came around to, "Okay, I'm ready for the new guy." Matt Smith is all right, but he's no 10th Doctor. Amy is...well, I don't think I'll ever like a companion as much as I liked Donna.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

In the Doctor Who Confidential installment that was broadcast after the season 6 premiere, i.e. the American set two-parter, there was quite a lot of footage of Karen Gillen and the guy who plays Rory (Arthur Something or other) traveling around monument valley, meeting the locals, etc... And they were actually likable in those segments. And I thought, "Why, oh why aren't they like that in the show proper?"


----------



## tamaraheiner (Apr 23, 2011)

I've never heard of this show but you make it sound very interesting. Is it available on Netflix streaming?


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Most of the new series is on Netflix and quite a few of the older ones. There are a couple in between season episodes not available, but you're not missing much story with those for the most part. You should definitely check it out! http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Doctor_Who/70142441?trkid=2361637


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

tamaraheiner said:


> I've never heard of this show but you make it sound very interesting. Is it available on Netflix streaming?


Not watching Doctor Who is one thing, but I'm amazed at someone never having heard of it! It's in the Guinness Book of Records as the longest running sci-fi show in the world - the first ep aired on 23rd November 1963 (though the eyes of the world were pointed elsewhere that day).

You couldn't hope to catch up on the whole lot but definitely start with the 1st 're-launch' series from 2005, with Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor. And before you do that - read this - or you won't have a clue what it's all about!


----------



## Thumper (Feb 26, 2009)

I'll be the odd person out...I love Matt Smith as the Doctor and I seriously like Amy and Rory (especially Rory...) David Tennant was the bomb as the Doctor and I'd have been perfectly happy if he'd stayed in the role, but I enjoy Smith's take on the character. It's different, and plays into the idea that, sure, it's the same doctor, yet not the same doctor...


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

Thumper said:


> I'll be the odd person out...I love Matt Smith as the Doctor and I seriously like Amy and Rory (especially Rory...) David Tennant was the bomb as the Doctor and I'd have been perfectly happy if he'd stayed in the role, but I enjoy Smith's take on the character. It's different, and plays into the idea that, sure, it's the same doctor, yet not the same doctor...


Nope!! Count me in with you, Thumper. I love Matt Smith and adore Amy and Rory  I hadn't watched Dr. Who since Tom Baker was on, so I've enjoyed these newer episodes. Personally, I'd love to see a woman doctor or a doctor of color. Maybe someone with dreadlocks?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I'd love to see an older doctor again. Someone at least over 40, if not over 50.


----------



## Flopstick (Jul 19, 2011)

I like Matt Smith a lot, and I rather like Rory, but Amy is extremely annoying.  It's not the actress though, it's her dialogue.  Steven Moffat just cannot write women.  He is a good writer though, and he's starting to take the show in a more interesting, more low key direction which I'm all in favour of and I hope he develops next series.


----------



## J Dean (Feb 9, 2009)

Two words: Tom Baker


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I don't mind Rory, and I think I could even like Matt Smith as the Doctor... heck, I do for the most part.  I just don't like Moffat's writing at all.  Even looking at his past episodes before he took over, he made amazing little short stories, but there was hardly any character to them.  They were all plot drive, orchestrated for shock value and surprise twists, not to get to know or advance the characters in any way.  Heck, the Doctor was barely in one of the fans' favorites of his.

And somehow Amy just walked away with a National Television Award for Best Performance in a Drama... I didn't know many of the other females who were up for it, but I just can't see her being the top of the pack.  Matt Smith also won best male which I know for a fact would have been better served going to Benedict Cumberbatch or Martin Freeman, but oh well.


----------



## derek alvah (Jul 2, 2010)

OK. After struggling through season five and not liking it for the most part, I went ahead and bought season six. All I can say is wow. What the hell happened? I am a David Tennant era fan but season six MIGHT be the overall best season of Who I've seen. Matt Smith was very good this season and the stories were great. My favorite is The Impossible Astronaut. While I didn't like the big River Song "reveal", I do still like the character. Amy Pond was not quite as bad this season but I won't cry when the Ponds leave. 

Anyway, I've started a rewatch and am about halfway through season two.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

It's funny how much I went from loving River Song to being just plain tired of seeing her.  And yeah, the reveal just kind of hammered that final nail for me.  You might give Torchwood a try if you like Jack Harkness.  He's a bit darker in it and not nearly as fun, but it's still a pretty good series.  The last season was especially good, it really got back to its roots.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

tamaraheiner said:


> I've never heard of this show but you make it sound very interesting. Is it available on Netflix streaming?


If you're interested in Doctor Who, start with the 2005 season starring Christopher Eccleston. The show's roots go all the way back to 1963, but knowledge of Doctor Who 1963 to 1989 is not required to enjoy the new ones. You can always delve into the older episodes, once you're hooked.

As for _Torchwood_, I enjoyed the first season a whole lot, though it wasn't without flaws. However, I hated anything from series 2 on up. Plus, they turned the intensely likable Jack Harkness into a jerk and killed off all the good characters, while continuously failing to kill off the annoying ones.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

I was disappointed with Torchwood because, if I remember this right, it was a little intense for younger viewers, and I had expected to be able to watch the series with my kids.  I think I didn't last beyond the first couple of episodes.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Torchwood is definitely an adult show.  I believe it was even branded on BBC as an adult show and it was definitely on late at night.  And I do agree it went downhill a bit in the middle, but it's worth giving this last season a chance if you haven't, the one where nobody can die.  It's almost an entirely new cast, but it's pretty good.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

derek alvah said:


> Kind of new to the Doctor mythos. I burned through the first four seasons on netflix (I've since bought them on dvd along with the Tennant specials and have rewatched them) then came the fifth season. Struggled through it and gave up. Not entirely due to Matt Smith. He seems to do a good job as the Doctor and according to what I read on line seems to be the most popular Doctor ever, although I prefer David Tennant. What ruins the show for me is Amy ##[email protected]#! Pond. Her 3 facial expressions ( big surprised eyes, pursed lips/smirk, furrowed brow) that the cameraman makes sure to cut to every few seconds just really bug me. And where was the learning curve? Rose, Martha and Donna (who I thought I would hate but ended up loving as a companion) all acted slightly awed by the time and space travel at first. Amy is making the Doctor look foolish and saving the day by her second episode and seems to get as much as if not more screen time than the Doctor. I feel that the writing suffered when RTD left. Were they going for a younger audience with the fifth season? The stories with Eccleston and Tennant as the Doctor just seemed more epic to me. They both brought so much drama to the role it felt like everything was in peril with just about every episode. Great writing and acting.
> 
> Anyway, back to my original question. Any news on when a new team will be announced?


Speaking personally, I prefer the writing of current showrunner Steven Moffat to that of Russell T. Davies. It's a close call because both are brilliant, but yeah, for me, Moffat's the better showrunner and writer.

In fact, my top-favorite episode of the show since it came back six seasons ago was penned by Moffatt (during the Davies era).

It's the episode BLINK, which features Tennant's Doctor and Martha as his companion. (Martha's my least-favorite companion, so this is significant.)

But BLINK is a perfect episode of the new DOCTOR WHO to introduce someone to the show who's never seen it before.

It introduces the Weeping Angels, who are hands-down the best new villains introduced in the new series, and just offers up a great concept.

I liked Eccleston, really liked Tennant, but Smith is the only one who may someday surpass Tom Baker as my favorite Doctor.

I've totally bought into Amy Pond as a companion. Rory's a bit annoying, but Moffat's writing of Rory brought me round by the end of the first Amy and Rory season, even though Rory is somewhat the SOUTH PARK Kenny of the show.

Amy:
"Oh my God! Someone killed Rory! Again!"

Doctor:
"Prats!"



Amy is my favorite companion of the new series, followed in a photo-finish by Rose.

Sarah Jane Smith, of course, qualifies as my "fave of all-time" choice.

All that being said, here's what I know:

Amy and Rory are leaving the show mid-season in the coming Series 7.

A new (as yet uncast) companion will join on mid-way through to take their place. Perhaps more than one, but definitely one. Moffat's being very cagey about it.

As for Smith's tenure in the role:

He's playing coy right now. There's a rumor swirling that he's leaving at the end of series 7, but he's also made statements that he intends to be around beyond the coming season. So no one knows for sure. Yet.

What's certain: Moffatt won't be leaving the show as showrunner any time soon. He's having the time of his life.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Linjeakel said:


> Matt Smith is among my least favourite Doctors, though I do like Amy - or I did, she's beginning to wear on me a bit now - but that seems to happen to most companions. I thought Rose was one of the best companions ever but, towards the end, I was glad she was leaving.


Oh, c'mon... you dislike Smith more than:

Peter Davison (the MOST vanilla, uninteresting Doctor of all time!)

Sylvester McCoy (I never got a sense of his take on the Doctor being anything specific)

Paul McGann (hired by Fox/US more than their BBC counterparts... and owing the spirit of his interpretation to Tom Baker, mostly.)

I think McGann might've grown on me over time, had he been given a series.

McCoy? There are times I can stomach him.

But no one... and I mean no one... bores me to tears as much as Davison's Doctor. WORST DOCTOR EVER.

During that era, the ONLY elements that kept me watching were Teegan and Turlough.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Linjeakel said:


> Benedict Cumberbatch has the charisma that Matt Smith lacks but sadly was talked out of auditioning for the part of the Doctor when Tennant left.


Once Smith does leave, Cumberbatch would be my ideal replacement for him. He'd be an EPIC Doctor Who... and his run with the character would be legen---

---wait for it---

DARY! LEGENDARY!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

derek alvah said:


> ...Tennant/Agyeman...


Disagree. Absolutely no chemistry at all there. Worst pairing of the modern series.

Worse than, well... anyone that Davison worked with.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

mscott9985 said:


> Nope!! Count me in with you, Thumper. I love Matt Smith and adore Amy and Rory  I hadn't watched Dr. Who since Tom Baker was on, so I've enjoyed these newer episodes. Personally, I'd love to see a woman doctor or a doctor of color. Maybe someone with dreadlocks?


For a LONG time, there was a rumor BBC was in negotiations with Spielberg/DreamWorks to make Doctor Who into a movie franchise. This was in the years before, and after, the Paul McGann TV movie on Fox.

Spielberg loved the property, but BBC balked on one change he wanted to make, and it was a critical one:

He wanted HIS version of The Doctor (for a planned trilogy of movies) to be played by...

MORGAN FREEMAN!

To me, Freeman would have been FANTASTIC as The Doctor. No one can do "world weary, seen it all" like him.

But BBC balked at a non-Brit playing the role.

(Even though Captain America, the new Spider-Man, and the upcoming new Superman are ALL played by non-Americans. Grrr to double standards.)

Spielberg wasn't interested without Freeman as The Doctor. BBC wasn't interested with him. So the deal never got done and I think all rumors about it died down around the time Spielberg turned his attention to exec-producing TRANSFORMERS.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Scheherazade said:


> And somehow Amy just walked away with a National Television Award for Best Performance in a Drama... I didn't know many of the other females who were up for it, but I just can't see her being the top of the pack.


I imagine she won for the second-half-of-series-six episode, THE GIRL WHO WAITED.

Brilliant episode and a terrific showcase for Gillan.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I'm pretty sure a Doctor Who movie is in the works.  Not too excited considering what past Doctor Who movies have been like in terms of being comparable (or not comparable) to the series at the time.


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

Scheherazade said:


> I'm pretty sure a Doctor Who movie is in the works. Not too excited considering what past Doctor Who movies have been like in terms of being comparable (or not comparable) to the series at the time.


I think I'd be more excited about a DW movie if I liked the current Doctor. Chris Eccleston or David Tennant? Yes. But Matt Smith? No thanks.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Not sure it'll have Matt Smith in it.  The movies tend to have their own doctors.  And pretty sure we'll never see Eccleston as the Doctor again.  He left with some pretty bad blood.  I'd love to see Tennant come back, though.  Maybe he could regenerate into Tennant again, but this time with his real accent.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Scheherazade said:


> Not sure it'll have Matt Smith in it. The movies tend to have their own doctors. And pretty sure we'll never see Eccleston as the Doctor again. He left with some pretty bad blood. I'd love to see Tennant come back, though. Maybe he could regenerate into Tennant again, but this time with his real accent.


It would be great -- and perfectly workable -- to have Tennant in a DW movie ... definitely the best Doctor. I think that people see Cumberbatch too much as Sherlock Holmes for him to be credible, on the big screen at least. You'd be doing constant double takes and wondering which character you were watching.


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

Just because I have always wanted to correct Craig (meant with kindness): Captain America is played by the American actor Chris Evans from Boston. Bam!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Danielle Kazemi said:


> Just because I have always wanted to correct Craig (meant with kindness): Captain America is played by the American actor Chris Evans from Boston. Bam!


Correction gratefully accepted. Glad at least Captain AMERICA is from America...

(Nope, not gonna go for any Boston/Taxachusetts jokes... I *will* resist!) 

But THOR's a bloody Aussie, not even a northern European!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Tony Richards said:


> I think that people see Cumberbatch too much as Sherlock Holmes for him to be credible, on the big screen at least. You'd be doing constant double takes and wondering which character you were watching.


Cumberbatch has been in exactly six Sherlock stories. All actors in the role, ever, bring their resumes with them.

But Cumberbatch hasn't exactly wiped out memories of Jeremy Brett yet, so I think we'd be fine if he were ever named "the next Doctor."

Besides, I'm sure the moment one saw Cumberbatch standing in the Tardis, the Holmes association would fade quickly, just as the Harry Potter associations did for Tennant.

But here's the kicker on Cumberbatch... he's gaining momentum on his big screen career, so he's not even a lock for a Sherlock Season 3, let alone committing to a Doctor Who series or three...

BOLD PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE:

At some point, maybe 5-10 years from now, the Doctor will be played by someone from the Harry Potter cast.

My vote?

Hermoine... 

The most likely?

Ron Weasley...

NOTE: The Doctor Who movie that's coming is an relatively unconfirmed BBC rumor.

But the rumor does have the following details:

1) Apparently, Moffat has right of first refusal on doing the script for any big-screen adaptation.

2) BBC would want to reboot the character entirely for a feature film series, so there'd be no connection at all to any previous Doctors or companions. Fresh, entirely re-imagined continuity.

3) No current or former actors would be involved.

BBC sees the great overseas (Aussie-land, USA, etc) popularity of Doctor Who and I believe they are thinking they could transform the Doctor into a SF-tinged James Bond franchise of sorts...

However, the rumor mill suggests that if a movie franchise is launched, it COULD mean the end of the TV series "so as not to confuse the property."


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> ...BBC would want to reboot the character entirely for a feature film series, so there'd be no connection at all to any previous Doctors or companions. Fresh, entirely re-imagined continuity.


In which case, it wouldn't really be the Doctor, would it?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Linjeakel said:


> In which case, it wouldn't really be the Doctor, would it?


Well, he'd be called the Doctor. All the same story elements in terms of companions.

But it'd be like rolling the character back to his first generation (William Hartnell) and starting over with a brand new character.

I think it's a little silly BBC wants to do that. Disconnecting the movie Doctor from the one we've all enjoyed for eleven incarnations now may alienate fans.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Scheherazade said:


> Torchwood is definitely an adult show. I believe it was even branded on BBC as an adult show and it was definitely on late at night. And I do agree it went downhill a bit in the middle, but it's worth giving this last season a chance if you haven't, the one where nobody can die. It's almost an entirely new cast, but it's pretty good.


_Torchwood_ was marketed as adult from the first announcement on and originally broadcast at ten or eleven PM, i.e. way past the watershed.

As for the most recent season, for me _Torchwood_ is Jack, Owen, Gwen, Ianto and Toshiko. The stories were always just reheated _X-Files_ leftovers, but the characters were the reason I watched the show. I am not the slightest bit interested in watching Jack and Gwen run around with some black American man and some blonde American woman. If I wanted to see Americans pretending to be _Torchwood_, I could watch _Fringe_.


----------



## Math (Oct 13, 2011)

I really cannot see the BBC looking at a 4th movie for Doctor Who. I would be *very * disappointed if this were to happen. The first two with Peter Cushing were basically for one reason only - colour. (Although I think the BBC did profit from raising the profile of the relatively new show).

The tv show has the right effects now, so that it has lost it's wobbly sets and rubber monsters image that we all loved and watched (myself from the mid-1970s). In my opinion, a movie would give Doctor Who (as a fan) nothing.

Although it was a long and painful death - Star Wars killed off Doctor Who. Tom Baker recalls how the cast and crew all went to Leicester Square Odeon to watch Star Wars when it came out - and were completely blown away by it. They knew the writing was on the wall eventually (either that or the BBC would have to give them tons more money - which didn't happen).

It took another 10 years or so, but Star Wars propagated the American influx of tv shows like Logan's Run, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rodgers, etc, that really showed up the effects of the BBC, and eventually turned the [non-hardcore fans] target audience away.

The thing is - and people know this now - the thing that made Doctor Who loved was its _Britishness_. (Sorry overseas friends, but it really is something that is 'ours'!) Everything bad about the Paul McGann movie was summed up in one word. Hollywood. Spielburg didn't make Doctor Who....Thank God!! What a lucky escape...I think a new movie will turn off fans again. The BBC and Doctor Who production teams since the relaunch have been very careful to re-invite us as old fans back into the show (we feel we own it, after all!), and cultivate the legacy and history of this amazing television programme. Doctor Who Magazine is as much the classic series as the new one. In fact, although there is a massive gulf between the classic series and the new Doctor Who, it is still considered by everyone to be the same programme, with the same values. (I'm another one who says 'Rose' is the 157th story in Season 27, not the 1st story in Season 1!)

I could go on for pages about things I don't like about the new Who (Time War pff RTD did a lot with that, didn't he...) and how I dislike Moffatt's writing. But I'll just leave you with one(!) In the classic series, the TARDIS was rarely used as a game-changer - let's face it - any story you like, the Doctor could just say - "let's hop in the TARDIS, go back 1 hour ago and stop the big red button being pressed..." It's too easy - too banal, and wayyy too predictable. And yet, this bigger-on-the-inside Deus Ex Machina is being used like this all the bleedin time. 

Oh well. I'm off to watch Tomb of the Cybermen...1967...spot on!


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

CoraBuhlert said:


> As for the most recent season, for me _Torchwood_ is Jack, Owen, Gwen, Ianto and Toshiko. The stories were always just reheated _X-Files_ leftovers, but the characters were the reason I watched the show. I am not the slightest bit interested in watching Jack and Gwen run around with some black American man and some blonde American woman. If I wanted to see Americans pretending to be _Torchwood_, I could watch _Fringe_.


Completely agree. My biggest fear is that Miracle Day will be used as an excuse to make an American Torchwood. <shudder>



Math said:


> The thing is - and people know this now - the thing that made Doctor Who loved was its _Britishness_. (Sorry overseas friends, but it really is something that is 'ours'!) Everything bad about the Paul McGann movie was summed up in one word. Hollywood.


Completely agree here as well. The Doctor introduced me to British television which spawned yet another Anglophile.  I rushed home to see the McGann film and was soooooo disappointed. It just didn't feel British.


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> _Torchwood_ was marketed as adult from the first announcement on and originally broadcast at ten or eleven PM, i.e. way past the watershed.
> 
> As for the most recent season, for me _Torchwood_ is Jack, Owen, Gwen, Ianto and Toshiko. The stories were always just reheated _X-Files_ leftovers, but the characters were the reason I watched the show. I am not the slightest bit interested in watching Jack and Gwen run around with some black American man and some blonde American woman. If I wanted to see Americans pretending to be _Torchwood_, I could watch _Fringe_.


Absolutely agree. Miracle Day wasn't _Torchwood_, no matter what title they put on the screen at the beginning. Jack was hardly in it - you'd never guess he was the first named in the cast if you didn't know beforehand - he was more like a supporting character in most episodes. Then they took off him the one thing that made him unique, made him Jack - the fact that he couldn't die - and then worse yet, they made the other guy immortal. (Sorry, I can't remember any of the new characters' names). Gwen was mostly removed from the sharp end of the action by having her back in Blighty dealing with her Dad all the time.



mom133d (aka Liz) said:


> Completely agree. My biggest fear is that Miracle Day will be used as an excuse to make an American Torchwood. <shudder>


I honestly believe that's what the intention is, even if they pretend it's still the same show - I think that's the reason the American guy got zapped with Jack's blood. Shudder indeed.

At least Doctor Who isn't going that way - yet.


----------



## A. S. Warwick (Jan 14, 2011)

Matt Smith makes an awesome Doctor.  The problem with Tennat was he was just too human, which is not who the Doctor is.

While Amy Pond is good as eye candy, she hasn't been the best of the new companions (that goes to Donna, surprisingly.)  Mind you she leaves Martha for dead.

And Rory takes a level in Badass later on.  I'd say he rivals Donna, as you can say he becomes a companion later on.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Math,

Whether there's a purpose for a Doctor Who movie or not isn't the question. Apparently BBC are serious about it, per the rumor. But they want to be in control of it, if it happens, kind of like how Harry Potter was all-British. So if the rumor proves true, it's about BBC cashing in, not whether there's "a purpose" for one.

All,

Funny everyone's saying McGann felt too American; he was a Brit, just one unfortunate enough to be stuck in a US production.

As for Smith's sudden unpopularity ... these boards are the only place I've run into it ... it reminds me of the transition between Peter Davison and Colin Baker.

One of the reasons I disliked Davison so aggressively was the vanilla portrayal be brought to the role. His Doctor felt "too human." Which I think is what some people loved about him. Go figure.

Anyway, following on from him, Colin Baker was a minor throwback to Tom in costuming, but his basic conceit in the role was, "The Doctor's not from Earth. He's an alien. Some of his mannerisms should feel foreign. His sense of right and wrong should be just a bit different from ours."

So in The Twin Dilemma, in his first story, to underline this approach, Colin Baker responded to Teegan(?) saying she's not sure she likes him by replying, "I'm the Doctor, whether you like it or not."

As I remember, I was the only one thrilled with Colin Baker. All those long-time Peter Davison fans hated him. "Too abrasive," they said. He was given parts of two seasons and one abbreviated full season and then was forced out by BBC in exchange for Sylvester McCoy, in the hope that having a "friendlier" Doctor might boost ratings. (The real problem at the time? Weak writing.)

In similar fashion, someone above me here just mentioned they felt Tennant was a bit too human. And we know Tennant's favorite Doctor prior to him was Davison.

And when Matt Smith came in, he made a lot of the same noises Colin Baker did about needing to remember that the Doctor's an alien with his own sense of morals and such.

Some interesting parallels...


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

mom133d (aka Liz) said:


> Completely agree. My biggest fear is that Miracle Day will be used as an excuse to make an American Torchwood. <shudder>


Luckily (for those of us who don't want to see an Americanized _Torchwood_), the ratings for _Miracle Day_ were not satisfying either at the BBC or the American cable channel that co-financed the whole thing. Plus, the BBC apparently hasn't been too happy with the direction _Torchwood_ took since season 2 at least, that's why the later seasons were shorter and broadcast in the middle of summer.

I don't see the need for an American _Torchwood_ (or Doctor Who for that matter) anyway. A big part of the appeal of both shows is their Britishness (or _Welshness_ in the case of _Torchwood_) which makes them different from anything else out there. The same goes for other British SFF shows like _Being Human_ or _Misfits_. An American _Torchwood_ would just be like _The X-Files_ or _Fringe_ or their lesser known knock-offs.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I don't see the need for American versions of any shows from the UK.  The only reason we get them is because of the greedy broadcast companies who not only want more money from the shows, but the ability to run it into the ground after the original BBC series would have already ended (I'm looking at you The Office).  I may be wrong, but don't they simply import the shows from the US that they want in the UK instead of remaking them?

While we have taken Top Gear, The Office, America's Got Talent, American Idol, Being Human, Hell's Kitchen, D.C. Follies, American Gladiators, Supernanny, Wife Swap, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, The X Factor, Prime Suspect, Dancing with the Stars, What not to Wear, Undercover Boss, Not Necessarily the News/The Daily Show, The Weakest Link, Kitchen Nightmares, Cash in the Attic, Queer as Folk, Masterchef, Junkyard Wars, Little Britain, Three's Company, Max Headroom, Dear John, Frontier House, Cosby... even All in the Family and Sanford and Son apparently.

Oh, and if you want horrible look at the ones that were passed up... Absolutely Fabulous with Roseanne Barr, Fawlty Towers three separate times with Harvey Korman and Betty White then Beatrice Arthur then John Larroquette (which shocks me since John Cleese was so adamant on it not going beyond a second season), The IT Crowd with Joel McHale, Coupling with Colin Ferguson, Red Dwarf, Spaced...  I think I could have stopped at AbFab with Roseanne Barr, though.

Okay, apparently both Maude and Good Times were remade in the UK... but ironically they were both spin-offs of All in the Family which was a remake of Till Death Do Us Part which originated in the UK.

But, yeah, I'm shocked we haven't already tried to remake Doctor Who in the US a number of times over.  I'm hoping it's taken enough of a hold over here with its airings on BBC America to stop that happening.  And while I enjoyed Torchwood a lot more before it got so dark and everyone started dying, I have to say I enjoyed Miracle Day.  If it was an attempt to make a US version of Torchwood, though, that wouldn't set well with me.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Oh, c'mon -- there is no problem, none at all, remaking British shows in America.






Oh, the humanity.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

That's pretty bad... makes me want to see more comparisons like that.  I know I watched some of the failed IT Crowd, and even though they even managed to have  Richard Ayoade reprise his role as Moss, it was just so... painful to watch.  I can't even imagine something as iconic and classic as Fawlty Towers being remade.  I've found snippets, but my morbid curiosity wants more.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I've not been a fan of Coupling on either side of the Atlantic. Moffatt's weakest show, for sure.

That being said, the real problem with importing British comedy to the US is that the British style is a bit more subdued and subtle, which is what fans of Britcoms like about it. (Generally speaking... some British comedy is over the top, obviously.)

The US style of comedy is far more over the top, in general, than its British counterparts.

The Office is a prime example.

Here's a contrasting styles thing I like:



> OFFICE UK:
> 
> David:
> "I'd say, at one time or another, every bloke in the office has woken up at the crack of Dawn!" (laughs)
> ...


And now, the sadly over-the-top US version of the same scene:



> Michael:
> And this is our receptionist Pam. (pounds desk) Pam! Pam Pam! Pam Beasley. Pam's been with us for... well, forever, right Pam?
> 
> Pam:
> ...


Part of the difference is the dialogue, but what makes it more noticeable is the style of performance. Ricky Gervais delivered his "crack of Dawn" like without so much as a wink or a nod, very straightforward.

By contrast, Steve Carell was mugging for the camera, playing up his own jokes, constantly.

He settled down in style later on, after the first season, but never lived up to Gervais' performance.


----------



## Math (Oct 13, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Math,
> 
> Whether there's a purpose for a Doctor Who movie or not isn't the question. Apparently BBC are serious about it, per the rumor. But they want to be in control of it, if it happens, kind of like how Harry Potter was all-British. So if the rumor proves true, it's about BBC cashing in, not whether there's "a purpose" for one.


Agreed!! And that too, is why I don't see a DW movie on the horizon any time soon.  Since the notion is a perfect scenario.. In the reality, I don't think the BBC will actually cash in that much. I imagine, IMO, that they would see it as a risk too big to take.

If the BBC wanted control over the film, I expect that would mean them being a production partner - i.e. stumping up a _lot _ of money. If they wanted complete control - that would mean even more money invested in.

Let's face it, a DW movie would, worldwide, probably tank unless it was the best written, most expensive film ever. Like Abe Lincoln said "you can't please all the people, all the time" - either it would be written as part of the original/continuing canon and only the fans would 'get it', or they would have to go back to the [shudder] origin story like the super hero films. As they do again...and again...yawn... (And since DW doesn't even HAVE an origin story, that's going to be 1. hard 2. a complete turn off for the fan base).

Just me, but I don't think we can compare it to Harry Potter, regarding keeping the British feel of the show. Harry Potter (as a set of books) is a stand-alone entity, that is origin story, canon, ending in one neat package. DW isn't the same. Also, WB only got production rights with JK Rowling as Exec Producer and her criteria. No agreement - no movies. There isn't really one single person (sure as hell not Moffatt or RTD!) who can claim to 'own' Doctor Who. It just seems to trundle on its wonderful way through tv history.

The money the BBC could loose could be immense. Either they pay for a risky film, or sell the rights to Hollywood and risk a bullet to the head for the current tv show - loosing even more money/viewers in the process. (Why was there - as intended/hoped - no restart of DW series after the Paul McGann 'launchpad' film? Because it killed interest rather than create it...)

As seems to be the custom, a film may arrive when the series ends its current life - and we are waiting for the 'third generation' to start, excuse the pun, but like with the Star Trek films. (And for movies ST had it made - as it was only the concept that need be explained rather than the characters - i.e. morality tale with a big space ship with good people fighting baddies  )

This is just my [strong!!]  opinion on things - and I hope I'm right!!


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I've not been a fan of Coupling on either side of the Atlantic. Moffatt's weakest show, for sure.


Since it made me laugh at the hardest time in my life -- the UK version -- I remain a fan. 

I think you're right that the American versions tend to be over the top, and it does take away from the humor. The problem is that I believe Americans do tend to have broader personalities and many respond to the broader comedy. The Office was not an immediate success here, and caught on after it had moved on to original scripts.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I could never get into Coupling either, though it's easy enough to see how bad the US version would have been comparatively. I have to wonder if it's more our broadcasting companies wanting to make extra money or them just thinking we're too stupid to get British humor or understand British accents. I mean, even Doctor Who is cut and redone partially for American audiences. Most of it is done to keep the time down, but some of it is done in a sort of "Aw, bless." sort of way I think.

The worst part? Our opening credits in the US make the show seem to be about Amy Pond. There's this intro that seriously has Amy as the focal point saying, "When I was a little girl I had a friend, and when I grew up... he came back. He's called The Doctor. He comes from somewhere else. He's got a box called the TARDIS that's bigger on the inside and can travel anywhere in time and space. I ran away with him... and we've been running ever since." then the normal intro starts. Anyone who didn't know any better would think the show was about Amy. Not to mention they speed up the show (literally make it run faster) and cut scenes to make it fit an hour with commercials after adding 20 seconds of this garbage to the intro.

If they felt the need to Americanize it they could have at least done this... not that either is as good as the original.


----------



## Math (Oct 13, 2011)

sweet night  

I don't know how to link youtube to the forum - being over 40 -   - but if someone looks up the Tom Baker intro - that's Doctor Who to me. And, even with the colours, you can see the gene-pool that the Matt Smith intro has drawn from...

It's a shame that US networks have to cut and change things just because of running times (I suppose our equivalent is ridiculously long advert breaks to make up for a 40 min show in a 1 hour slot - although we have it better - at least that means a chance to make another cup of tea)


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Aha! I found a halfway decent youtube of the Amy intro. I'll put the Tom Baker one up as well. It's just as easy as putting a picture up, actually. Just click the little Youtube Icon above the smilies when writing a post then paste your link between the conveniently provided board code bits.

It's even worse than what I quoted above. She says when she was a little girl she had "an imaginary friend" so not only is the show all about her, but she conjured up The Doctor in her mind as a child and that's the only reason he exists at all... and if Moffat does that I will be really upset. I wouldn't put it past him.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Okay, time to demythologize the "intro."

The Amy-centric intro was written by Moffatt himself, at the request of BBC America, to "better explain" the basic concept of the show's current incarnation to new viewers. Apparently, ratings in the US have gone up since it was added, so it's working.

Oh, and RTD was interviewed about the intro and he gave it a thumbs-up. I believe he said something to the effect of "I think it's brilliant."

Not sure whether he meant completely brilliant, or just "good as an idea to open the show up to more new viewers," but he said what he said. 

As a lifelong fan, I don't need the US intro, sure...but I'm not who it's intended for.

The intro is definitely Amy-centric and seems based around Moffatt's first episode. (Remember, she was surrounded by folks calling "the raggedy Doctor" her "imaginary friend.")

Anyway, it'll have to be redone halfway through Series 7 when the Ponds leave, so it won't last much longer.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Yeah, I got that it was made to try to introduce the concepts of the show to people who aren't familiar, but they didn't have to make it sound like the show was centered around Amy and The Doctor was second banana.  Of course, that's how Moffat has written it so I guess it's no surprise to hear that Moffat made that opening.  Probably also helps that they actually gave the show advertising and aired it (roughly) at the same time as it aired in the UK.  Ratings are a bit skewed when there's months/years between shows being shown originally and us finally getting them in the states... by then folks have turned to watching on Netflix, DVD or downloading torrents.  I think attributing the boost in ratings so much to the show opener isn't quite accurate.


----------



## Math (Oct 13, 2011)

I didn't realise you had your own little Pond-intro...very interesting.



Scheherazade said:


> Yeah, I got that it was made to try to introduce the concepts of the show to people who aren't familiar, but they didn't have to make it sound like the show was centered around Amy and The Doctor was second banana. Of course, that's how Moffat has written it so I guess it's no surprise to hear that Moffat made that opening.


A million percent agreed!! It gives the wrong message completely, and it does make the show centred around Amy, as you say. I suppose that the only things that are truly Steven Moffat's in Doctor Who are the companions. Everything else is inherited. I pity someone could draw (I am sure an incorrect) conclusion that he wants to trump these up as much as possible. A pity that the Pond intro allows someone to draw that very (I am sure incorrect) conclusion...

Thanks for posting the Tom Baker vid, by the way!! And you picked one of the best stories ever! God, I love that starting...I love the old music better. Ah!!...Saturday evenings in the '70s...where did it all that bad fashion and furnishings go to....I can't even find anything beige anymore...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I lived in one of the few US markets where our PBS station aired Jon Pertwee Doctor Who episodes before unleashing the Tom Baker ones.

I spent the better part of a year or two (1977-7 admiring Pertwee before Baker's episodes began airing.

At first glance, I didn't care for Baker. Less sophisticated a take than Pertwee.

But he won me over with his unique smile and charm and became my favorite Doctor. Still is, to this day. And all his talk of "jelly babies" made Gummy Bears my favorite candy. (I was 11 or 12 at the time... a bit older perhaps by the time Baker's episodes began airing.)

Before the new series, Colin Baker was actually in a close race with Jon Pertwee for second-favorite Doctor of all time.

These days, both Colin and Jon have sank down my list as Tennant and Smith have won me over to their portrayals.

Baker still sits atop my list, untouched.

But if Smith sticks around 2-4 more seasons, Tom may find himself unseated.


----------

