Subject: The next Doctor...
Author:
Posted on: 2019-07-29 11:17:00 UTC
...should be Nathan Fillion. No seriously. I mean, imagine him doing Mal Reynolds in a TARDIS, and you have the next Doctor. Thoughts?
-
The next Doctor... by
on 2019-07-29 11:17:00 UTC
-
I can see it... by
on 2019-07-29 16:38:00 UTC
Reply
...if you were going to make a North American version of the show (maybe as a 2nd or 5th Doctor?).
If you want to keep it on the UK side of the pond, you probably couldn't have him as more than a one episode ally.
So here's a thought. Remake the lineup of Doctors with North American actors, instead. Who do you pick for which Doctor?
-Phobos -
Are you going for 'at the same time'? by
on 2019-07-29 16:44:00 UTC
Reply
So, One in the early 60s, Eight a single film in the late 90s, Nine a revival in 2005?
If so, I'd sayMalCastleFillion fits perfectly as Ten; he even comes with a similar taste in coats, and it's right between those two series. He was doing... voice work and appearances on Lost in that timeframe, so I'm sure he'd be up for it. :)
hS -
But then who would be 4...! by
on 2019-07-29 18:50:00 UTC
Reply
Gene Wilder as Doctor Who.
Can this be real? -
{= O Yes please! (nm) by
on 2019-07-29 19:59:00 UTC
Reply
-
So we're doing a fan casting, are we? by
on 2019-07-29 23:27:00 UTC
Reply
First Doctor: Edward Everett Horton
This guy was one of Hollywood's greatest ever comic actors. While early Who was still edutainment (at the absolute utmost levels of edutaining), getting a bit of a laugh out of it all kinda works in the show's favour. Also, he was old as balls at the time, which fits with the character. Hey, it worked for Hartnell, right? =]
Second Doctor: Dabbs Greer
So he's a very different actor to Horton. So what? He feels like the Second Doctor to me. Different staging and acting directions, more a mischievous pixie than a cunning imp, but the spirit is there.
Third Doctor: Bill Bixby
A really interesting character actor with form in sci-fi TV; he'd been in Who's ratings rival My Favourite Martian for much of Horton's Doctorial tenure. He's good, he's dedicated, he's got a Third Doctor feel to him.
Fourth Doctor: Roger Smith
Smith's been asked to play someone else's character before, and he has form in genre comedy TV due to his stint as eight (count 'em!) characters in Dark Shadows. The TV show, not the festival of garbage with trash boy Johnny Depp.
Fifth Doctor: Lee Majors
The Six Million Dollar Time Lord. I rest my case, m'lud.
Sixth Doctor: Leslie Nielsen
The Sixth Doctor gets a hell of a bad rap, but with the episodes that exist - and the later audio adventures - this is the absolute perfect American for the role. Trial Of A Time Lord with Leslie Nielsen. Need I say more.
Seventh Doctor: Ricardo Montalban
You know his name. You know why this is here. You. Know.
Eighth Doctor: Robin Williams
Funny story - due to some budget reasons and it kinda being partially funded by the BBC, there were originally plans to cast a British actor as the Doctor! How weird is that? Hell, that's also why the Master is played by Pete Postlethwaite in this incarnation.
Ninth Doctor: Timothy Olyphant
He's done a lot of drama work, fitting the rather darker tone the series went in.
Tenth Doctor: Jay Mohr
Same as above, but skewing a little younger.
Eleventh Doctor: Josh Dallas
See above, skewing even youngererer. The fangirls are just as present and, in rather fewer cases, just as in need of a mop.
Twelfth Doctor: John Slattery
Rewatch early Mad Men back when it didn't suck as much.
Thirteenth Doctor: Christina Hendricks
Okay these last ones have been kinda short because my train is pulling in soon but you should definitely think on this choice. I know I am. Bonus points for thinking about Karen David as Tax being asked if she and Thirteen are dating. Send help. -
None that I can repeat in polite conversation =] (nm) by
on 2019-07-29 13:55:00 UTC
Reply
-
ItÂ’s never going to happen. by
on 2019-07-29 12:32:00 UTC
Reply
Nathan Fillion is Canadian-American, and they wouldn’t cast a non-Brit in the BBC’s flagship show.
-
Yes, but we can only dream by
on 2019-07-30 00:46:00 UTC
Reply
He'd be leagues better than Mrs Scronch-face anyway. I mean, seriously. Her only defining characteristic as the Doctor not ripped off from David Tennant or Matt Smith's interpretations is a constipated look where she screw up her face like she's trying really hard to push one out. Also, she can't emote; she spends more time criticising male characters than playing the Doctor, and they got rd of UNIT as a joke. About Brexit. Not cool, BBC.
-
I rather like Mrs Scronch-face and think she's brilliant. (nm) by
on 2019-07-30 04:43:00 UTC
Reply
-
I'm gonna split the difference. by
on 2019-07-30 09:30:00 UTC
Reply
I like Jodie as the Doctor, but she had a really rough set of episodes to work with. The decision to only use writers (and directors?) who had never worked on the show before really bit them hard. There was way too much emphasis on 'non-interference' - both with historical events (remind me why Prem had to die alone, again? Or why the giant spider couldn't be rescued and taken to a high-oxygen planet?) and with her own companions. Ryan dumps the villain of 'Rosa' defenceless in the distant past, which is as good as murder, but the Doctor says nothing. She doesn't do a whole lot to stop the potential murder of Tim Shaw in the finale, either.
Oh, and that's not to mention that she directly murders the villain of 'Kerblam!' by setting off a roomful of bombs around him, and then sides with the soulless corporation and their murderous AI. I seem to recall her coming up with a plan in the special that consisted of 'what if we electrocute the Dalek to death', too.
Outside of the Doctor, it was clear they had no idea what to do with such a crowded TARDIS, either. I adore Yaz, but she spends most of the series doing pretty much nothing while Ryan and Graham work out their family drama. Which was fine, and not something that's really been done in the TARDIS before, but... why not just cast two companions, if you're only going to make use of two? They never needed three, though which two they made use of varied a bit.
Having a few bad episodes isn't unusual, and nothing in Thirteen's first season hit the depths of 'In the Forest of the Night' or (gulp) 'Kill the Moon', both from Twelve's first. But nor did they come anywhere near the heights of 'Time Heist' or 'Listen', and that's a real shame.
Still, Season 12 is coming next year, and hopefully they'll have found their feet by then, and will have a chance to let Jodie Whittaker and hercompanionsgang? fam? I forget what she settled on - really shine.
hS -
I dunno. by
on 2019-08-02 01:07:00 UTC
Reply
See, the thing is, I think the actress is a brilliant choice to represent the Doctor's ongoing character arc. She's found that she can move past that original choice to be purely pragmatic and professional-- which we saw with Twelve, who embraced procedure, form, and professionalism to combat that loss of personal identity, wondering if he could even call himself a "Good Man" anymore-- and embrace the joy that the Doctor has always found in adventuring, without seeing it as a dangerous "addiction" like he did when he was worried it would infect Clara. (Say what you will about that season, that was the most compelling conflict in it)
Jodie is a perfect choice to represent the Doctor's pure enthusiasm and energy, and she's an amazing casting choice for it.
I think the openings to the episodes are strong almost across the board-- they're almost all intriguing, and set up interesting conflicts.
The only problem I do have is that almost all of the plot resolutions were... disappointing? I mean, your point about her being directly responsible for the death of the Kerblam antagonist is spot on, and Arachnids in the UK could have used a rescue arc. Some of the characters have odd moments-- like Ryan in It Takes You Away assuming that the girl's father has just run off, after having been adventuring with the Doctor for several episodes now, wherein aliens have been responsible for exactly the type of scenario they find themselves in. Not to mention, the ending scene with Solitract was. Erm. Not stupendous.
Generally, I think they have potential-- I think we all found the return from overcomplicated plot arcs that were more about Moffat pretending he was clever than story, back to genuine emotional adventures, to be a refreshing change-- but I do think that they need to tighten up their writing as they move forward, given the sheer number of holes we got in the plotlines this series.
--Aegis -
Do you ever post about anything you like? by
on 2019-07-30 03:56:00 UTC
Reply
Oh, no, sorry, you've mentioned that you like The Orville, Seth Macfarlane's self-indulgent and entirely surface-level Trek extreme-quotation-marks parody that, like every other Macfarlane creative outpouring (and I use outlet here in the manner most commonly followed by "from the burst sewer main"), is about as funny as watching your favourite grandfather get fed slowly into an industrial sausage mincer.
It's not nice when someone craps all over something you enjoy, is it, Minh?
D'you think maybe you could stop doing it, Minh? -
Y'know, I'm not really all that bothered by what you said by
on 2019-07-30 09:21:00 UTC
Reply
...I mean, we're all entitled to our own opinion right? In all honesty, I don't give a flying frak whether you like whatever I like, or hate it; whether you agree or disagree with me; or whether any of you think poorly of me for simply voicing my opinion on a topic of popular culture.
What I do care about is when people start voicing their opinions in a way directed to attack other people. Your tone was very aggressive there Scapegrace, and I'm not sure we need or want that. If you're at doubt, I will direct you to what you said here:
"It's not nice when someone craps all over something you enjoy, is it, Minh?"
I mean, that that sentence just bleeds aggression from the very spaces between the words. I don't think what I said warranted that, especially since I didn't mean any harm in the first place. There is no need to deliberately try and target me because I don't happen to like Jodie Whittaker. As I've said (and say it with me folks!) I'm entitled to my own opinion.
I apologise yet again for simply saying I don't like something. There are in fact many things I like. Battlestar Galactica. Firefly. Hell, I even like Inheritance for christ sake, and yes; I know what the general consensus on those books is around here.
But forgive me, for I am a critic. When I criticise something (for example, the abysmal writing of the current Doctor's tenure; which spends more time being woke as all hell than telling interesting stories that aren't frakking toxic) I criticise it because I used to love what is being criticised. I used to love Doctor Who. I used to love Star Trek. But when those shows fell into the hands of people who never cared about either franchise till it gave them the ability to spread their highly-toxic views (and remember that I'm progressive, but I do draw a line at the point where people start screaming "ALL MEN MUST DIE!!!", and somehow getting a job in the BBC writing department [to my knowledge, no one at the BBC is actually a Tumblrite, but I'd be shocked if anyone there didn't personally have that particular view]) at the expense of good writing, good characterisation, good stories...you kinda see where I'm coming from, right? Doctor Who is a kids show; or rather, it's a show for all ages. Last time I checked, family entertainment didn't usually involve criticising single fathers or straight white dudes, did it? -
My two cents by
on 2019-07-30 16:35:00 UTC
Reply
Minh, I don't think anyone on the Board is against someone criticising something they love.
What Scape, Nesh, Delta, me and probably other people at this point DO have a problem with is your style of criticism, which is often very aggressive and insult-laden. And we've been through this discussion SO many times, Minh - it does feel good to rant about something you hate, I'm sure we've all done it, but we here at the PPC consider it very poor form to just straight up badmouth everything you don't like. I'm sure you would have been able to voice your opinions about Jodie Whittaker without insulting her appearance, or about the writing of Doctor Who without calling people "toxic" and "Tumblrites". I don't care about the show one way or another, and even I find your remarks a wee bit too much, pal.
As for your frequent comments about politics creeping into entertainment - dude, entertainment and politics have always been intertwined. Just think about all the lantern-jawed American action heroes facing off against evil Russians in 80s movies (to bring up something I myself enjoy - and yes, I do enjoy cheesy 80s movies while still recognizing their huge flaws); or about Star Trek The Original Series' incredibly morale-heavy storylines.
In my experience, usually when people complain about politics creeping into entertainment, it is because they don't agree with the message. -
Progressive? by
on 2019-07-30 15:30:00 UTC
Reply
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will say I haven't seen you say progressive things as much as I've seen you slam female main characters and complain about people criticizing poor fragile white men. Your show does not match your tell.
Also, I will again make the point that criticizing a character is not the same as insulting the appearance of an actress' face. You did the latter. Learn the difference already; we are getting very sick of it.
~Neshomeh -
Pretty much this. (nm) by
on 2019-07-30 17:48:00 UTC
Reply
-
One note... by
on 2019-07-30 15:23:00 UTC
Reply
"Voicing their opinions in a way directed to attack other people" is what a lot of your "criticism" has read as, to me. You've called things "highly-toxic views", people "tumblrites" and "entitled morons" - and that's just in the last couple pages of Board history.
It kinda feels like you're blasting anger and profanity, rather than actually giving meaningful criticism? And that's not going to make people want to interact with you, or feel good about this community at large.