Well, There's A Turn-Up For The Books, And No Mistake: Updated
Posted 3 January 2009 in Doctor Who by Catriona
The new Doctor has been announced.
And it’s not, as we thought it might be, Paterson Joseph. I’m a little disappointed about that, actually.
Instead, it’s . . . well, you can read for yourself right here at Outpost Gallifrey.
It’s not that it’s a spoiler, not now it’s been officially announced; I just think people might like to learn the news for themselves.
For much the same reason, I’m putting my response to this in the comments thread, rather than right here.
UPDATE: Courtesy of the BBC, here is an extended interview with Matt Smith, which the Beeb kindly posted on YouTube.
Seriously, he looks about twelve.
Previously: Advertising: My Nemesis
Next: I Know, I Know, I Promised To Write About Books . . .
Share your thoughts [32]
1
Catriona wrote at Jan 3, 09:39 pm
Looking back, that post looks a little terse. And, to be honest, a little terse is how I feel about this news. I’m not unhappy, just uncertain.
Actually, no: I am unhappy. I’m deeply unhappy about the fact that they’ve cast a Doctor younger than me. But that’s more to do with my anxieties about my own aging process, so we can safely ignore that.
I have seen Smith in the Philip Pullman adaptations, and enjoyed his work. But I do have some concerns about the similarity (superficial as they may be) to David Tennant, which makes me worry that they may be bowing to an inevitable regeneration while actually seeking continuity. And I think that may be a little dangerous.
(This may, of course, not be what they’re doing. And I almost certainly wouldn’t be thinking this way if I hadn’t been thinking in terms of Paterson Joseph, so the chances of my over-reading the situation are high.)
What does everyone else think?
2
Wendy wrote at Jan 3, 09:45 pm
first thought was….hmmmmmm….unsure
then wondered, like you, about the similarity to David Tennant in “look”
3
Nick Caldwell wrote at Jan 3, 09:45 pm
I’m surprised that after all the speculation about black actors taking on the role, Moffat’s chosen someone who’s not only whiter than David Tennant, but also whiter than that vamp boy in the Twilight movie.
Like we were saying, I think they should have gone for Julian Rhind-Tutt if they wanted ultra-white again. At least he’d be a ginger!
Still, Smith wouldn’t have been considered for the role if he wasn’t excellent. But having two Doctors in a row who look quite similar to one another doesn’t feel very Doctor Who-ish. It also reinforces the perception that the Doctor needs to be young and conventionally handsome to be salable.
4
Nick Caldwell wrote at Jan 3, 09:51 pm
Our favorite mad Doctor Who curmudgeon, Lawrence Miles, has weighed in (read the link while you can, as he’s got an annoying habit of deleting posts within days of writing them).
He’s less defamatory than usual, which is a sign he’s thinking more clearly than usual. It’s certainly easier to appreciate his arguments when they’re not dripping in vitriol and character assassination.
5
Catriona wrote at Jan 3, 09:55 pm
Well, I think they should have cast Julian Rhind-Tutt anyway, for reasons that I’m not going to outline on a public forum.
I’m sure Smith will be excellent, but you’re quite right on the young and handsome front. Neither of those were necessary for Christopher Eccleston (who is sexy, sure, but not conventionally handsome), but I’m hoping this won’t be a continuing trend (and I’m hoping that the Doctor won’t continue to trend younger and younger: that was never necessary for the original series.)
I don’t have the strength of character to read a Lawrence Miles post just yet, I don’t think. At least not one related in any way to Steven Moffat.
6
Nick Caldwell wrote at Jan 4, 12:30 am
Yeah…. you know, he’s probably going to be very good, but the last young Doctor worked because he came right after Tom Baker, who was looking very old and tired at the end of a seven-year run. Having a very very young Doctor follow a young and very energetic Doctor doesn’t sit right.
7
Catriona wrote at Jan 4, 12:36 am
That’s what I’m worried about: not that he’s younger, but that it may be the beginning of a trend towards only casting younger (or, perhaps in Tennant’s case, as much younger-looking as younger) Doctors, and I’m not sure about that.
8
Nick Caldwell wrote at Jan 4, 01:04 am
Cautious thumbs-up from Neil Gaiman.
9
Catriona wrote at Jan 4, 01:06 am
Fair enough. But I don’t really want a cautious thumbs-up from Gaiman: I want an agreement that he is intending to write an episode for the 2010 series.
Or maybe two episodes.
Or a trilogy.
10
darryl rosin wrote at Jan 4, 01:36 am
Shorter Lawrence Miles: ‘It’s not a new Doctor, it’s a replacement for David Tennant’
11
Catriona wrote at Jan 4, 01:47 am
I think you’re spot-on there, Darryl. (And welcome to the blog!)
12
darryl rosin wrote at Jan 4, 02:13 am
“Having a very very young Doctor follow a young and very energetic Doctor doesn’t sit right.”
Like the Italians say: Always follow a fat Pope with a thin one.
13
Nick Caldwell wrote at Jan 4, 02:35 am
I’m compelled to link to an imagined audition piece for the role by Al Swearengen on Warren Ellis’s Whitechapel forum. Not safe for work, obviously.
14
Sam wrote at Jan 4, 03:51 am
I don’t think that he can be too bad, after all he is just an actor and Steven Moffat is the man with the real power.
I would like a Doctor with slightly less energy, or maybe that’s not the right term- just not so ecstatic. I still prefer Christopher Eccleston to David Tennant and was hoping for someone more like that, but oh well.
15
Catriona wrote at Jan 4, 03:55 am
I agree that Moffat will be the one who determines the overall feel and direction of the show, and I’m still thrilled about Moffat taking over the show.
But the actor will have an enormous impact on how the scripts play out on screen and in how people respond to the show—and audience response is doubly important in a fan-friendly cult show like Doctor Who.
More than that, though, I’m a little worried, as Nick is, that this indicates a broader shift in how the writing/directing team will be conceiving the overall show.
16
Tim wrote at Jan 4, 03:59 am
Congrats, Matt!
17
Matthew Smith wrote at Jan 4, 11:17 pm
Thanks Tim, and I’m going to be taking the doctor down a kind of emo / post punk route to try and win over more of the youth. Doctor Who is going to have a kind of vampire feel to it and the tardis will be redecorated in blood red tones with lots of dark shadows and I’ll bring back the zombie hand in a bubbling jar.
18
Catriona wrote at Jan 5, 04:06 am
Is Steven Moffat on board with these planned changes, Matt?
Mind, I’m all for zombie hand in a jar.
19
Tim wrote at Jan 5, 04:35 am
Matt, that sounds interesting. I deduce from this information that one of the Great Vampires will be back as the season’s Big Bad, and we’ll learn more about Time Lord history.
20
Catriona wrote at Jan 5, 07:41 am
Ooh, if Tim’s right, does that mean a trip back to E-space, Matt? Exciting! Drop by and visit the lion people! But, whatever you do, don’t go near that planet that Adric was from—he’s probably got some equally annoying great great nieces and nephews by now.
21
Drew wrote at Jan 5, 09:40 am
this would be the first time ever I have engaged in new new new Doctor specualtion, normally I wait like a good loyal fan for the new Doctor to arive and then accept him completely and utterly 2 secs later. He is very young. I, of course, have no idea who he is, but as Nick says, he wouldn’t have been chosen if he wasn’t good. I would have liked an older man though [Moderator's note: Ack! Christmas special spoilers!]. Obsessions with Billy Piper aside, I am tired of only pretty female companions, or pretty boys like Jack. I’d like an Ian Chesterton on board [Moderator's note: Ack! More spoilers!]
22
Catriona wrote at Jan 5, 10:00 am
Drew, careful with spoilers! I’ve taken two lines out of your comment, and made it clear where I’ve removed them—I hate doing that, but I know that some regular readers only watch Doctor Who as it airs on Australian free-to-air, and I don’t want them to stumble across spoilers where they don’t expect them.
The Christmas special will air on the ABC in roughly a month, and I’ll be live-blogging it: we shall have our fun then.
I’ve seen Matt Smith and I liked him. But I’ve only seen him in one role: I’d need to have seen him in more than one to really judge his ability. I’ll have faith, but I still say he’s too young.
23
Drew wrote at Jan 5, 01:47 pm
D’oh, sorry. In the depths of my obsession I tend to forget that there are others with patience and lives.
24
John wrote at Jan 5, 10:43 pm
A month! I thought there’d be a quiet get-together in an unnamed Brisbane suburb before then…
25
Catriona wrote at Jan 5, 10:50 pm
Well, now you’ve outed me to the SAS and the FBI, yes, there will be.
But in terms of the blog, unless people want me to set up a spoiler thread (as I did for the final episode, and as I’m always happy to do), the main discussion will follow the ABC airing of the episode. That way everyone’s in sync, no one gets spoiled.
26
Wendy wrote at Jan 6, 01:03 am
The trouble with spoiler threads is that even though I clearly shouldn’t read them I can never resist!
(but that’s my little problem to deal with really isn’t it?)
:)
27
Tim wrote at Jan 6, 06:37 am
> I’ve taken two lines out of your comment, and made it clear where I’ve removed them—I hate doing that, but I know that some regular readers only watch Doctor Who as it airs on Australian free-to-air, and I don’t want them to stumble across spoilers where they don’t expect them.
But you left the last line of Drew’s post unedited?
28
Catriona wrote at Jan 6, 07:33 am
Well, not now I haven’t.
Thanks for pointing that out: I missed that in the rush to also remove my response to Drew’s initial post. Still, what remained, given the title of the Christmas special, wasn’t quite as spoilery as what I removed in the first place.
29
Leigh wrote at Jan 8, 01:48 am
I just watched the Confidential, I’m wondering if they are going to do something about his hair, i really cannot take that hair cut seriously. Ok maybe not as important about some of the other details …….. but after 900 years surely he would know that that haircut is ridiculous.
Otherwise, he seems interesting, time will tell i suppose.
30
Catriona wrote at Jan 8, 02:03 am
Yep, he has Robert Pattinson’s hair. Which I understand Robert Pattinson himself just had cut (to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of teenage girls everywhere). Maybe it’s the haircut that never dies? Perhaps it needed to find a new host head once Robert said, “Enough! My scalp needs air!”
Than again, David Tennant had remarkably silly hair. So did Patrick Troughton. In fact, haven’t all the Doctors had odd hair? Except maybe Sylvester McCoy?
I still think he’s too young, and I want to see him in something else first. I’ve seen him in one thing (well, two telemovies, but playing the same character in both) and he was great, but I need to see him in something else to know if he can do it.
31
Leigh wrote at Jan 8, 02:36 am
Thats funny i love Tennants hair, not as much as Rose did mind you. He does seem young i wonder how he will go playing someone so old and wise. I liked the clips of him in the show … was it called housemate, he seemed endearing, the others were to small for me to get a feel. It will be interesting how i feel about him once I’ve seen him in a few episodes, it took me that long to like Tennant.
32
Catriona wrote at Jan 8, 03:44 am
The spiky hair doesn’t do much for me, and it got so long (and yet still so spiky) that at one point it ran the risk of becoming a genuine New Romantic pompadour.