Official 11th Doctor Thread

Matthew Smith

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/news/latest/090103_news_01
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7808697.stm

We still don't know anything about his take on the character, but feel free to speculate and rant below!

Here is my theory.
9 and 10 had to be established and known actors as BBC was effectively relaunching the DW brand. Now that a following has been established by T and E's performances, they can trun the corner creatively with Moffat taking over and by controlling the budget. Assuming Matt's salary will be significantly less that what Tennat would have commanded for a 5th season.
And I think that is the thick of it...Money. Look at other long running shows ER,CSI, law and never ending order. Grissom leaves temporairly, er lends itself to revolving door and it was runored that law and order actors took pay cuts to keep the show running when facing cancellation. By picking a relatively unknown for the Doctor they save money. Ideally this could go towards better spfx or guest stars, or if nothing else keep the shows production cost low so that it can thrive long term.
At this point it too early to be excited, to be disappointed, or too be depressed. Take what we can get and enjoy what little we have left of T's run which has just been extraordinary!

I don't think they would have chosen him *just* to save money, but there's no doubt that it's a welcome side effect! I'm pretty sure that the BBC has pretty savagely cut all its budgets for 2009, so the salary saving might mean that DW doesn't have to make cuts elsewhere.

I'm not too fussed about sfx or guest stars though. Sometimes I think they go overboard with the sfx at the expense of the story (eg, Voyage of the Damned...but then again, this rated through the roof, so what do I know?) And obviously I'd be watching each week irrespective of any guest stars! I'm not sure how effective guest stars are anyway. I've very rarely watched a show I didn't like just because an actor I liked was a guest in it. For example - Nathan Fillion. I love Nathan Fillion. I've hugged Nathan Fillion! (He's very tall). But I didn't bother to watch Desperate Housewives just to see him. I wonder how many people would tune in to DW for a guest if they weren't otherwise going to watch?

Now, I must go and watch my Dr Horrible DVD again, because...Nathan Fillion...mmmmmmm....

here's my slightly negative rant. most good tv shows only last for 5 or 6 years and the new series is coming up on it's 5th year(i know that the original doctor who went way beyond this). the reason that shows fade after the 5th year is because the writing starts repeating itself, or continuity is just forgotten, or the acting just gets bad. i'm not saying that any or all of these will happen, but i'm saying they could.

i was so excited when it was announced that moffat was taking over, but now i'm worried. what if he can't run a whole series? sure, his episodes in each series were the best, but that's one or two episodes, not the whole series. what if the new doctor/companions aren't good actors?

no amount of sfx or special guest stars can save a show that doesn't have good writing or acting(i'm looking at you, HEROES SEASON 3). i look at it this way, it's had a good run. a great 4 years, with christopher and david. what happens after this will either mean the continuation of the series(like the original did for 20+ years), or the end of the series. no pressure.

the tom baker era is a good example of how different the show can be even when it has the same actor...so that being said I feel the show is too much of an institution to let it come crashing down after 5 years. We all hate change but that is the key ingredient that has kept this show alive...

Most shows do last 4 or 5 years and some are on long past their prime: example Roseanne & Cheers. There are a few exceptions to the rule like Sesame Street mainly because like Doctor Who there are different new generations of kids watching the show.

Well...if I'd come over here and voted when I first heard the news, I'd have voted HUGE MISTAKE, then ranted on and on about why Matt Smith was a horrible choice...but I've calmed down since then, and voted "We'll see." Even if I can't see anyone ever surpassing David Tennant in the role [even if I started with Tom Baker and Peter Davison, David Tennant is really my ideal Doctor...which is part of why it's so hard to let go!], I'm thinking that Matt Smith could be a wonderful Doctor. We'll just have to wait and see!

I agree with Vicki... and I did vote Huge Mistake. I probably would again.
I'll give the guy a chance and hope for the best, but I really would have preferred to see a more middle-aged Doctor again. He should be more the eccentric uncle than potential date.
I sincerely hope this guy surprises me.

I'm going to defer judgement until we're a ways in to series 5. There are just too many directions they could go. We have 3 (probably epic) specials to go before Tennant hangs up his sonic screwdriver. We don't have a clue how Smith is going to play his Doctor (Davison was only 29 but played the Doctor as an old man). We have no idea what Moffat is planning for series 5 and beyond. Who knows, maybe he loses it and does something really reckless (like trying to bring back Gallifrey) that would seem inappropriate for a more mature Doctor. Maybe he'll be around for a year just to contrast an older Doctor in series 6. Maybe 10 brings back the Time Lords and 11 is the rebellious youth on the run from the authorities. Maybe he's just a really good actor.

The point is that Moffat wanted an older Doctor and changed his mind. That fact alone gets my curiosity running enough to give them a chance.

CJSchmidt wrote:

The point is that Moffat wanted an older Doctor and changed his mind. That fact alone gets my curiosity running enough to give them a chance.

This is my thought exactly which is why I voted "In Moffat We Trust".

I've seen lots of bi#$!ing and moaning on other boards, I mean some really nasty comments about the guy, which annoys the heck out of me, I mean give the guy a chance!

For the record, there have been some negative feelings on this board as well, but all the comments I've seen have remained civilized. Merely expressing disappointment.

I'm not crazy about his age, but I haven't seen him act yet either. I'm not gonna pass judgement on someone until I see what they can do.

Moffat saw something in this kid which told him that he was the one and I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll wait until I've seen several episodes with Smith and I've had a chance to get a feel for him as The Doctor.

Its not as if he was elected president of the United States. Let's get some perspective people.

I wonder how this thread would run if the forefathers or rather first four doctors had been younger actors, or the good Doctor had not started out as a grandfather? We all look fondly back on Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee and Baker but as many have pointed out Davison was viewed too young. The great Doctor has the ability to regenerate into any age, shape or size. Imagine a 7 foot, 400 pound cat man in the vain of brannigan. Seems strange but with the ability to regenerate every cell my question falls in the area of not why did they pick a younger actor, but why they haven't picked more younger actors before now. Based on the whole new cell composition wouldn't it make more sense to regenerate younger instead of into an old(er) man?

Either way, it's change and no one really appreciates change unless they're broke. I'll agree with CJ and take the wait and see approach to find out what Moffat has in mind, and whether Smith is really a good enough actor to carry the role. I'll also wish Tennant all the best and many thanks for a Doctor that's considered one of the best. Ever.

We'll just have to wait and see. I really wanted a change in the current format. The last four years have been manic. A shift from that would have been welcome. I've watched all the Doctors (would have liked to have seen more of 2) but each brought their own appeal. Tom Baker may have been the 'it' Doctor but Pertwee also had great appeal and, for the most part, the companions played off his intelligence (sans Jo Grant). To have seen something in that respect would have been nice. In either case, I'll still watch it but won't be as obsessed with the show as I have been the last couple of years. At least we have a nice batch of DVDs and audios to fall back on if 11 doesn't take.

Saward said in the documentary More than 30 years in the Tardis,

In the sixties a young man couldnt play the part. But now people will accept a younger actor in the role.

Mind you, he was referring to Davison. But maybe it will work again.

Hoosier Whovian wrote:

Saward said in the documentary More than 30 years in the Tardis,

In the sixties a young man couldnt play the part. But now people will accept a younger actor in the role.

Mind you, he was referring to Davison. But maybe it will work again.

After recovering from the shock...mind you, I'm still getting my mind around the fact that Tennant is stepping down, I'm finding it quite interesting that Matt Smith is so much younger than the very popular David Tennant very much like Peter Davison was so much younger than the very popular [as far as I can remember] Tom Baker...so there is a precedent, but nobody seemed to be thinking of that as a distinct possibility at all! Before Tennant, Davison was my favourite...he still holds a strong second place, so maybe Matt Smith isn't such a bad idea after all. I think it could work again...

i do need to point out something. as much as i, and a lot of you, loved peter davison, he was not one of the most popular doctor's over in england. first, he was taking over from the longest reigning tom baker, and people were upset over that. second, his age, his character, and story factors played into what could have been a better doctor(people always say colin could have done more, but i really feel this way about peter, and i believe that's why he only did 3 years).

in popularity contests the three main winners of doctor who have been david tenant(in my mind may go down as the greatest), sylvester mccoy(who had great stories, depth to his character, and his age wasn't an issue), and tom baker(who, as far as i know, still the longest on air doctor, i think david will come in second, if i'm wrong about the math, let me know).

i'm not saying peter davison wasn't great, he was. i just think a lot of factors worked against him being remembered fondly by the mass doctor who fans. the same factors that might just work against mathew smith. i hope they don't, i hope his acting ability shines through, and the writing is brilliant, but that doesn't mean it will.

I think most of us will adjust eventually.
Let's face it Tennant departure is like breaking upa 4 1/2 yr relationship. Like dating and being dumped, like my son upset that he will be gettinga new teacher when he goes on to third grade next year.
For many tennant is the doctor as they have become most familiar with him. Unfortunately we did not have enough ecc to truly get attached to him. He is my wife's favorite for the mere fact that he was her first, the whole regeneration concept elluded her. My favorite was davison as his eps were the ones I started with. But I moved on then mccoy was the best, now tennant reigns supreme. Hopefully the trend will continue. I empathize with any actor that can take on a role with this kind of baggage with it.

oddly enough the first episode I ever saw was logopolis- which in hindsight is a rather odd story for a first timer to see and understand at the age of 8...but I fell in love with this odd, quirky show at first sight. I was shocked that the main character "died" and even further shocked when he changed into a man wearing a decorative vegetable. In truth, I think that one of the main reasons I am still a fan is that this show is always changing and reinventing itself- so with that said I am looking forward to the change and also dreading it because I loved Tennant. So Matt Smith has big shoes to fill but so did tennant when eccelston left- so I wish him luck.

I honestly don't know. Moffat, in my eyes, has written some of the best Doctor Who stories ever. I would like to think that he had some story arcs in his head when he hired Smith. If he was hired based off some other reason however, I don't see him working. To me, he just doesn't have doctor appeal... if that makes sense.

Well It's almost a month since the announcement and I have to say I have never been so under-enthused, underwhelmed or uninterested about a Doctor as I am with #11. Maybe it's because I'm getting older but I really was looking forward to a change in direction with the show but it just seems like it's going to be the same thing (e.g., same frantic pace). I don't have high hopes with the companion either at this point (same ol' same ol').

I really don't like the trend of making characters younger (as with Merlin though I do like the show but it is not a previously established show and cartoons like X-Men, Spider-man and Justice League) to target a different audience (the States do this all the time - if the target audience is not the ratings leader but an older bracket, the show is not safe from cancellation).

anyone here watch hell's kitchen? i think a good anology would be for moffat here. they're giving him bad cooks, bad ingredients, but if he can be a master chef and pull off a great dinner, than that makes him even better. if not, i blame everything they gave him to work with. that's just my thoughts on the matter.

remember how people felt about tate being cast as donna again? Oh you should go back to some older threads from outpost and here...see how unenthused people were about the recast...I was one of the few that was patient and said wait and see. She was good...heck she was great. Billy Piper? Oh dear people were most upset that a pop tart was playing the companion- she made people eat crow. That being said first impressions rarely should be the yardstick for judging a person. Many, like me are feeling nervous but I am also excited- I do not feel a sense of doom.

In other words, watch Matt's first episode/series before making final judgment.

Just noticed the poll, the majority of us seem to agree.

oh don't read the spoilers from the "quality" sun paper today- it will make you roll your eyes- hope these rumours will be false...

Good grief... I don't buy it.

same here.