|
|
Post by rushy on Mar 25, 2024 16:09:44 GMT
yet the resolution to it in the 60th was literally she can just choose not to use them and be completely okay LOL. You'd think that would have occurred to her when she was literally dying back in Journey's End In fairness, they did explain that having a baby diluted the Meta-Crisis, which I can just about buy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2024 17:49:10 GMT
yet the resolution to it in the 60th was literally she can just choose not to use them and be completely okay LOL. You'd think that would have occurred to her when she was literally dying back in Journey's End In fairness, they did explain that having a baby diluted the Meta-Crisis, which I can just about buy. This is just not how biology works though (starting to notice a theme here...). The mother doesn't lose anything in producing a baby that she wouldn't have lost otherwise. Our entire bodies rewrite themselves every few years, each cell totally different. If the natural depletion of "metacrisis" cells, through either birth or cell death and replacement, were to assuage the extent of Donna's condition, she would be totally clean by the time ten years had passed from Journey's End, even if she hadn't had a child. Ergo the expunction of metacritical matter, so to speak, is not a viable explanation for the split in this situation considering the Doctor very heavily implies that Donna will be permanently affected, which means the only explanation for the split metacrisis is magical bullshit. I know it's kind of a fantasy show but it should always be firmly rooted in SCIENCE-fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Mar 25, 2024 18:07:18 GMT
This is just not how biology works though (starting to notice a theme here...). The mother doesn't lose anything in producing a baby that she wouldn't have lost otherwise. It's alien energy. This sort of nitpicking wouldn't happen if you liked the storyline. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 25, 2024 18:54:52 GMT
This is just not how biology works though (starting to notice a theme here...). The mother doesn't lose anything in producing a baby that she wouldn't have lost otherwise. It's alien energy. This sort of nitpicking wouldn't happen if you liked the storyline. Not really. The whole point is that the meta crisis wasn't just something that could be lost through an ordinary physical process. If that were the case, then the Doctor could have had someone give Donna a blood transfusion to take some of the edge off of it and lose it that way. The story for those who liked it, only worked because it was meant to be permanent and tragic that he could never find a way to cure her. Even in The End of Time, there's a bit where Wilf goes on about can't you think of something to help her, and he makes it clear that NO, it's embedded in her mind or every part of her and nothing can take the edge off it. The idea that something as normal as having a child can get rid of it, does sell the tragedy short in hindsight, and the flippant way in which Donna and her daughter dispose of it and the fact they even make out that it was only the Doctor being a stupid short sighted, egotistical man that forced him to wipe her mind, further undermines it. Again why did Russell do that? Like I said a clumsy and when you think about it offensive attempt to empower trans people (by making out that they are all weird shapeshifting aliens?) And a cheap joke at men to make the gammons heads explode. Pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by iank on Mar 25, 2024 21:02:19 GMT
How about this: Lindsay Anderson as producer with Malcolm McDowell as the Doctor? Or Lars Von Trier as producer with Stellan Skarsgård as the Doctor? Or Hitchcock as producer with James Stewart as the Doctor? Or Mel Brooks producing with Gene Wilder as the Doctor? Mind you, I think the “Blazing Saddles” Doctor has already been discussed on here… I tell you what: Thinking up these implausible scenarios is far more entertaining than discussing the current series is. 🤣 That's what I've been saying for years. That's where my alternate sequel story Fire of the Daleks came about actually. I thought how cool it would have been to see the Doctor played by Dylan Moran with Dana DeLorenzo as the companion, and so I finally thought "why not write a story with that type of Doctor and companion" LOL. Personally though I'm sorry to say I find James Stewart a bit overrated and can see him being a Tennant style Doctor, emo, wimpy and too human. Malcolm McDowell meanwhile when he was much older in say the 90s would be an absolutely inspired choice for the role. Dear god think of what a cool thing that would be for Trekkies and DW fans LMAO. I'm sure I suggested McDowell a while back and you said he'd make a better Master.  I've long said he would have been a great Doctor, esp in the 90s. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 25, 2024 21:26:14 GMT
That's what I've been saying for years. That's where my alternate sequel story Fire of the Daleks came about actually. I thought how cool it would have been to see the Doctor played by Dylan Moran with Dana DeLorenzo as the companion, and so I finally thought "why not write a story with that type of Doctor and companion" LOL. Personally though I'm sorry to say I find James Stewart a bit overrated and can see him being a Tennant style Doctor, emo, wimpy and too human. Malcolm McDowell meanwhile when he was much older in say the 90s would be an absolutely inspired choice for the role. Dear god think of what a cool thing that would be for Trekkies and DW fans LMAO. I'm sure I suggested McDowell a while back and you said he'd make a better Master. I've long said he would have been a great Doctor, esp in the 90s. I don't think so? I've never thought of him for DW at all before this? He would have made a great Master no doubt, but yeah honestly I can see him do a great Doctor too. He'd be a completely unexpected choice. Just imagine what it would be like for young fans who wanted to go back and check his career out prior to DW LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by iank on Mar 25, 2024 21:33:06 GMT
Somebody did. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Mar 25, 2024 21:44:16 GMT
It was probably me. I'd pick McDowell for the Master. Not that he wouldn't be a good Doctor, quite the opposite. I think he'd do a great job portraying that 'darker variation of the Doctor' aspect that Delgado nailed so well, where you can almost see him be the good guy if things were a little different.
|
|
|
|
Post by ClockworkOcean on Mar 26, 2024 10:06:38 GMT
I always pictured McDowell as the Master rather than the Doctor, but he would've been an excellent choice for either character. Terrance Dicks' rule of thumb applies here, i.e. that in order to be suitable for the Doctor, an actor should be also be able to pull off a convincing villain performance. Which is ultimately why Gatwa and Whittaker are so unwatchable in the role. The idea of them making compelling villains is laughable because they bring absolutely no power or gravitas to the table. Can you even imagine feeling intimidated by these two?
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 26, 2024 10:54:23 GMT
I always pictured McDowell as the Master rather than the Doctor, but he would've been an excellent choice for either character. Terrance Dicks' rule of thumb applies here, i.e. that in order to be suitable for the Doctor, an actor should be also be able to pull off a convincing villain performance. Which is ultimately why Gatwa and Whittaker are so unwatchable in the role. The idea of them making compelling villains is laughable because they bring absolutely no power or gravitas to the table. Can you even imagine feeling intimidated by these two? I didn't know Dicks said that, but he's bang on the money. I've always said if you're looking for Doctor actors, go for actors who prior to being cast are best known for one of the following things. Outrageous over the top comedy characters. Villains, tough guys, thugs, brutes etc. Quirky, oddball characters, perhaps victims. Wise old mentors, Rupert Giles type characters etc. Other unconventional leading roles like scientists or Sherlock Holmes, Van Helsing types. All of the above like William Hartnell LOL. Pretty much every classic era actor barring Peter Davison fits into that. Now that's not to say that you can't sometimes go for a guy who is more conventional, as I think Davison did as good a job as the others. I also think based on his performance as Lucifer Tom Ellis would make a pretty good Doctor. Not saying he'd be my absolute number 1 choice, but honestly I could see him bring something to it. (Though personally I'd rather have him play Bond. To me Henry Cavill would make a good Sean Conneryesque modern Bond, charming, but a bit rough and edgy, whilst Ellis absolutely is a modern Moore, light and fun.) However getting a conventional guy does always lead to the potential problem that he'll play it as a conventional role, or indeed that someone will want to write it as a conventional character. Both of those problems happened with David Tennant's Doctor IMO, whilst with Matt Smith, I think it was more the latter, as he did seem to want to play it as a more alien role whilst Moffat and others used the young Doctor to make him a sex god. Then again Matt's biggest regret was in not doing a full series with Jenna and exploring the romance between him and Clara. (That might just be him thinking with his dick though LOL.) Sadly as a sign that New Who had drawn in a different audience, even before all the political crap, their choices for the Doctor to me were still often off. They'd suggest guys like Adrian Lester, James MacAvoy to play the role. Again both good actors, but to me both too conventional. Yeah they can and have played villains and oddball parts sure, as did David Tennant ( he makes an excellent villain btw.) Still the likes of McAvoy and even Tennant are the types you can imagine playing the lead in a Rom Com, or being a Hollywood pretty boy, whilst Lester similarly is the type who can take on leading roles in other conventional dramas. The Doctor, much as Miss Marple was for women, was designed to be one of the few leading roles, older, more unconventional actors could play. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Mar 26, 2024 11:02:51 GMT
McAvoy played the God-Emperor of Dune. That's as out there as you can get.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 26, 2024 11:25:38 GMT
McAvoy played the God-Emperor of Dune. That's as out there as you can get. Again though as I said, he is also the type that could be a leading man in a Hollywood film and was. Same with Tennant who makes a great villain. First thing I ever saw Tennant in actually, he was playing a hack, fraud, artist, serial killer, transvestite, who dressed up as his girlfriend (who he murdered) and then pretended to be and argued with! However again Tennant is the type you can also imagine starring in something like Broadchurch or a rom com as the Hugh Grantesque leading man. He and McAvoy are what you call conventional unconventional. The Doctor ideally should be someone who like I said you generally couldn't imagine appearing as a pretty boy in a Hollywood film, or the lead in a rom com, or even in something like Broadchurch as the lead. Tom Baker for instance is just too weird, too striking, has too over the top a voice to do those kinds of normal parts. I mean I dare say if Tom worked hard, he could play a more normal role as he was a better actor than you think. Same with Pertwee and of course Hartnell. However all three generally tended to gravitate towards the more over the top, or more unconventional, darker characters. Case in point look at the roles that won each actor the part? William Hartnell it was playing nasty villains, generals and bullies and thugs for twenty years, coupled with a performance as a closeted gay man in This Sporting Life (an extremely unusual role for an actor to play in the 60s when it was still illegal!) Jon Pertwee it was a history of doing crazy voices, silly characters and his OTT persona as a showman. Their first choice, Ron Moody meanwhile it was his performance as Fagin that convinced them he'd make a great Doctor, but he turned them down. (Something he regretted for the rest of his life.) The third Doctor in another universe. Tom Baker meanwhile it was playing an evil wizard in a fantasy film and playing Rasputin that convinced them he was the guy for the job. Colin well whilst people often like to say that it was being entertaining at a wedding that got him the gig, JNT had already worked with him and he was a famous actor. Again however he was famous for playing villains and his performance in DW was also darker and thuggish. Finally McCoy was well known for playing comedy roles, like on Tiswas. Tennant meanwhile, well what won him the part was his performance as Casanova. Yeah I think we can see RTD had a different idea in mind LOL. I think an actors age also can determine when they can play it. I'm not against a young actor in the role, but I think it's better if he is unconventional. Tom Baker for instance was a young man in the part. He was only 6 years older than me when he was cast and younger than Ingrid Oliver was as Osgood I believe. (Oh and that adorable woman Lopez in the Lucifer video I posted above? She's older in that than Tom was as the Doctor LOL.) Tim Curry and Rik Mayall meanwhile both could have played the role no problem in their 30s or hell even in their twenties. Someone like Malcolm MacDowell however, I don't know I think he'd be better in his 50s and above for the Doctor. I think a younger Malcolm would bring too much baggage to the part. Same with Bruce Campbell who I think in his 50s might be quite fun, but as a young man would be too much of a straight forward hero. Then again as we've been over as seen with Davison, you can cast a young, conventional actor no problem, provided he and the producer don't play it as a straight forward hero. IE they thankfully didn't decide to have him fall in love with Peri or Tegan. However again in the case of the Tenth Doctor, we had RTD and Tennant clearly both wanting him to be a conventional hero. That said though I'd have had 0 problem with a more romantic, conventional Doctor if New Who had been a remake, not a sequel, but we've been over this before. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Mar 26, 2024 11:35:38 GMT
David Tennant is a good actor, but he makes some odd choices in some of his performances. Here he is as a villain in Goblet of Fire.
3:07-3:19
Lol why does he pull a kissy face?
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 26, 2024 11:47:48 GMT
The great thing about casting an actor like McDowell is you really couldn't have predicted what way he would have played it. Some actors you can tell, like Tom was a crazy bastard, so he would play it as a crazy bastard LOL.
However Pertwee and McCoy for instance were more unpredictable, as Pertwee was a comedy actor, basically the Rowan Atkinson of his day, but ended up being the most serious and heroic and physical, whilst McCoy, similarly a comedy actor, and also the smallest and seemingly weakest physically, nevertheless ended up being the darkest and the most manipulative.
With this in mind whilst McDowell might have been a darker, more intense Doctor, he might also have used it as an opportunity to play a really heroic, straight down the middle Doctor, and could have been the nicest, most charming, gentlemanly Doctor, like his short but funny performance in South Park.
Again that's what makes it such a great character to cast, and why honestly trying to take it away from these types of actors as New Who did from the start was a crime to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Mar 26, 2024 11:48:10 GMT
David Tennant is a good actor, but he makes some odd choices in some of his performances. Here he is as a villain in Goblet of Fire. 3:07-3:19 Lol why does he pull a kissy face? It could just be the director asking him to ham it up. Goblet of Fire is a very kinetic film, doesn't slow down for a second. |
|
