I think there would be public outcry if a Yank was to land the job that so far, has been given to British actors... The tabloids would have a field day....
Okie dokie, how about a real character actor then -- Gary Oldman?
It would depend on whether or not the makers of Dr Who thought he had a certain air to him. I'm not usually choosy over who gets what roles in things like this, but as the show is so quintessentially British, there really should be a British actor paying the role.
I would like for them to have continued with Paul McGann. Anyone know if he was even approached about the possibility?
The article suggests that no cast decisions have yet been made, Chris. Paul McGann has made it fairly clear in several interviews that, while he is happy enough to do the audio-only adventures, he's actually quite relieved that he didn't/doesn't have to do a TV series of Who.
He'll at least have to make a brief appearance so they can kill him off - allowing him to be regenerated into the new actor - won't he?
He'll at least have to make a brief appearance so they can kill him off - allowing him to be regenerated into the new actor - won't he?
I don't see why - that was one of the (many) problems with the Who movie - it established a lead actor from several years previously, then killed him off, consequently slowing the story down way too much. Let's face it, that story didn't get going till at least halfway through.
Anyway, interesting article on Media Guardian today:
Media Guardian posted:
The spirit of wobbliness
If the new series of Doctor Who is to succeed, it needs to bring back a little piece of the 60s
Brian Logan
Monday September 29, 2003
The Guardian
Rejoice, rejoice - but with reservations. The BBC's announcement last week that Doctor Who is to return to our TV screens in 2005 has sent we Whovians into a tizz. "It's the best news I've heard since the birth of my son," says one correspondent to the BBC's message board. But amid the celebrations, a note of anxiety is struck. "Please," begs another obsessive, "make Doctor Who like it used to be." The Beeb's instructions are clear: tread softly, because you tread on our dreams.
The portents are good. The series is to be scripted by Russell T Davies, the creator of Channel 4's Queer as Folk, the programme that turned the Doctor's robot dog K-9 into a gay icon. That show's main character selected his sexual partners according to their knowledge of Doctor Who - which seems to me eminently sensible. Davies says the character was semi-autobiographical: he's a fan, with respect for the series' traditions. "I grew up watching Doctor Who, hiding behind the sofa like so many others," he says. "I'm aiming to write a full-blooded drama which embraces the Doctor Who heritage."
There are several promising names being touted for the lead role (Bill Nighy, Jonathan Pryce, Richard E Grant) and some provocative ones (Dame Maggie Smith, Lenny Henry). Fans are used to the "why not a female Doctor Who?" argument being wheeled out every time our hero regenerates, usually by parties who haven't thought through the profound implications for Time Lord society. This time round, the case is being made for a black Doctor or a gay Doctor, too.
No wonder fans are restive. Because these are issues that strike at the heart of the paradox of Doctor Who fandom. On the one hand, we like to argue that the series' unique virtue (in contrast to the dreaded Star Trek) is the anarchic flexibility of its format. One bloke, one time machine, anything can happen. But we reserve the right ruthlessly to circumscribe that flexibility. The BBC's last effort to revive the series, in 1996, scandalised fandom when - horror of horrors! - Paul McGann's Doctor planted a kiss on his voluptuous sidekick's lips. That's taking flexibility too far.
But that ghastly Americanised version of the programme was symptomatic. In our heart of hearts, we fans know that (however inappropriately for a show about time travel) Doctor Who is inescapably a product of its era. As Alan Bennett wrote in this paper on Saturday, BBC television of the 1960s and 1970s was "a haven for the odd and the eccentric, a ramshackle set-up". An educational sci-fi series in which an old man and a teenage girl travel through time in a police telephone box? In 2003, it would never get past the focus groups. In 1963, the BBC commissioned a nine-month run. (The first episode was delayed while news was broadcast of JFK's assassination. History was made, twice in one day.)
Way back then, Doctor Who was one among several remarkable British sci-fi series - Quatermass, The Prisoner, The Tomorrow People - none of which would get a sniff of a commission in these more cautious times. When the greatest Doctor Who of them all, Tom Baker, was cast in the role, he was an unknown former monk doing shift-work on a building site. No such gambles nowadays: the bookies' current favourite to fill Baker's boots is the ubiquitous Jonathan Creek star and housewives' choice, Alan Davies.
If the return of Doctor Who is to be a success, then it needs to bring back a little piece of the 1960s with it. It's not that the oft-cited wobbly sets should be recreated. (And they're not always wobbly - you should watch The Robots of Death!) It's the spirit of wobbliness, the primacy of imagination over special effects, that counts. Likewise, the Doctor needn't remain forever sexless - it can't be easy, after all, when your fellow traveller is wearing leopardskins. But in an age as sexually obsessed as ours, a hero who'd rather be knobbling Daleks than knocking off his leggy companions is surely to be welcomed.
Perhaps that's the real significance of the good Doctor's return. For 26 years until 1989, he battled threats to the galaxy: from Sontarans, Zygons, Cybermen and one or two unconvincing rubber snakes. Now he faces his biggest challenge of all. Can Doctor Who stave off the dark forces of homogeneity, thwart the nefarious management consultants, see off the Americanisers, and prove that there is a place for idiosyncratic, wildly imaginative British sci-fi in the 21st century?
He'll at least have to make a brief appearance so they can kill him off - allowing him to be regenerated into the new actor - won't he?
They possibly could - the Colin Baker-Sylvester McCoy regeneration was done without Colin Baker, and whilst it is obvious if you look for it, it worked well enough to serve it's purpose.
Whilst it doesn't need to form a big part of the story, I think there should be some on screen regeneration scene.
Teletext had a different version of what he has said: namely, that he thinks Eddie Izzard would make a good Doctor because of his character.
Mind you, it also mentioned that he wouldn't want to play the Doctor again, preferring the idea of playing th eMaster, so that the Doctor could say things like 'You look familiar.' Ho hum.
I think we should hold onto our hats (and possibly our long scarves too) - if Russell T Davies has only just started writing, casting is going to be some way off.
I'm sure the esteemed Mr Baker is talking through his hat (or possibly his scarf).
Tom Baker always was one to playfully sprinkle dashes of enigmatic misinformation into the rumour mill, so I'd take whatever he has to say with a pinch of salt! I read once that during a press interview at the end of his tenure as the doctor he wished his successor well, saying: "I hope whoever gets the part will have as happy a time as I've had.. I wish him, OR HER, luck" then he smiled and refused to say anymore. Alledgedly, the next day the newspapers were full of headlines like "New Who To Be A Woman!"
