McGann: "An older white male Doctor would be wrong"

[ClockworkOcean]

www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-paul-mcgann-ncuti-gatwa-newsupdate/

In an interview with the Radio Times, Paul McGann declares that casting the Doctor in keeping with the character's long-established archetype would be "wrong".

"I love it that he’s young because they needed that. Another middle-aged so-and-so, particularly a white male as well, would have been wrong."

He also gives his opinion on Fathead:

"He really knows what he’s doing. And there’s genuine love for it, you know, for Doctor Who. The reason that it's survived and thrived as long as it has is because generally, down the years, people who have genuinely loved it have run it."

Not quite as pathetically simpy as Colin or Eccleston, but heading in that direction. Is there anyone left connected to this show who hasn't turned into an utter embarrassment?

[Deleted]

Oh geez he has to say that then yikes 😂 he had to say that oh well what can you do

[Deleted]

He gave chinballs praise lol ratings are the lowest yeah he is doing a great job

[rushy]

I wouldn't read too much into this. I don't think McGann has watched or been invested in Doctor Who since the 1970s. It's just a role he likes doing out of nostalgia and because of money. He's just saying what he feels is the appropriate thing to say.

[iank]

The whole enterprise, and almost everyone linked to it, is an embarrassment now.

[Deleted]

They all sound the same to me. They can't think for themselves, they just spew the same rubbish.

[burrunjor]

May 27, 2022 15:58:06 GMT ClockworkOcean said:

www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-paul-mcgann-ncuti-gatwa-newsupdate/

In an interview with the Radio Times, Paul McGann declares that casting the Doctor in keeping with the character's long-established archetype would be "wrong".

"I love it that he’s young because they needed that. Another middle-aged so-and-so, particularly a white male as well, would have been wrong."

He also gives his opinion on Fathead:

"He really knows what he’s doing. And there’s genuine love for it, you know, for Doctor Who. The reason that it's survived and thrived as long as it has is because generally, down the years, people who have genuinely loved it have run it."

Not quite as pathetically simpy as Colin or Eccleston, but heading in that direction. Is there anyone left connected to this show who hasn't turned into an utter embarrassment?

Love the new profile pic btw. You can definitely see shades of Jodie in that picture. 

McGann has sadly always been a bit of a cuck as far as this is concerned. Still as I'm always saying you get the franchise you deserve and the respect you deserve if you sell out and don't have confidence in yourself the way that the classic era makers have. 

At no point did they ever try and defend their work, or be honest about what they thought of Chinballs and RTD and Missy. As a result it became received wisdom that DW was all about change, that true who never caught on until RTD, etc. Look at Ray Harryhausen in contrast who to the very end always defended is craft and his work, even when up against the new cgi stuff, hence his work always gets the respect its due. 

[rushy]

May 28, 2022 11:50:52 GMT burrunjor said:

As a result it became received wisdom that DW was all about change

Well, that part is certainly true. The changing of actors and production teams and the show's overall tone whilst retaining the same lead character is what makes Doctor Who unique.

[burrunjor]

May 28, 2022 16:05:50 GMT rushy said:

May 28, 2022 11:50:52 GMT burrunjor said:

As a result it became received wisdom that DW was all about change

Well, that part is certainly true. The changing of actors and production teams and the show's overall tone whilst retaining the same lead character is what makes Doctor Who unique.

No it isn't and this attitude is what killed the show. 

DW has a core identity like any long running work of fiction. It can adapt when it needs too, in order to tell new stories, but there is always a core character and identity to the show/character that manifests itself.

This isn't to say that you can never change it, but you have to have a proper reason to do that and you have to make sure that it isn't such a change that it's no longer DW. Hartnell to Troughton there was a legit reason, and it happened at a point when the identity wasn't as set and therefore more flexible. 

Hacks like Paul Cornell and Steven Moffat and Chris Chibnall meanwhile used that to justify anything, hence why in the last few years nobody is even sure what the f*ck DW is meant to be anymore. The character can morph into a woman, a pigeon, he has trillions of pre Hartnell lives, he doesn't come from this universe, he is lesbian, a womanizer, asexual, bisexual, the last time lord, the creator of the time lords all at the same f*cking time. Just look at DW wiki. It is an utter joke the section on the Doctor. 

He has about 74 different origin stories. According to one account the Doctor was a half human, according to another he was a pigeon from Galaxy 5 that wanted to be a human, according to another he was a pixie from another universe. Its f*cking stupid and destroys any kind of identity to the character. 

[rushy]

I disagree.

Every producer and actor brought something of their own to the part, by default because they're different people with their own experiences and ideas. Hartnell's era is not Troughton's, and Troughton's is not Pertwee's. The approach is entirely different, even if they are in theory making the same show.

If they had cast Troughton or any other actor to do a Hartnell impersonation, it would not have lasted nearly as long.

The difference between then and now is that the producers had restraint. Their focus was on making a good show, not shaping their TARDIS Wiki page. And they did take into account what came before and worked with that instead of rewriting the lore. Rewriting the past is not change, it's a retcon. Pure and simple.

But change is absolutely vital to Doctor Who. The show needs to be run by people who have enthusiasm, respect and their own ideas.

[billpatjontom]

I think you're both right really. A certain degree of change is indeed vital to keep any long running series fresh and engaging. Otherwise even a winning formula runs the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant. However, such change clearly needs to be handled carefully. So I do agree the core identity of a series like Doctor Who is crucial.
Consider a series like The Avengers - I refer to the antics of Steed & Co! - which changed drastically throughout its decade of production, becoming radically different in tone from how it started. The Avengers managed for the most part to remain fresh and popular by shifting its emphasis and style, becoming more dynamic and reflecting some of the changing culture of the 1960s. Yet I think it remained The Avengers throughout, somehow managing to retain its identity whether it was focussed on being raw spy thriller or outlandish science fiction. For instance, compare the quite serious first season episode, Hot Snow with Patrick Macnee and Ian Hendry, with the absurd final season episode Bizarre involving Macnee and Linda Thorson enjoying champagne as they rocket into space. The formula was tweaked again slightly when the series was reformatted for the 1970s as The New Avengers. It seems to me that classic Doctor Who (1963-1989) managed the same trick, i.e. it evolved and periodically altered style and tone, ranging from monster adventures to historicals and taking in horror, science fiction, comedy and straight adventure, yet successfully retained its core identity throughout.
In the case of Doctor Who, changes of style can often be attributed to different production teams manipulating creative direction and of course the show's unique method of occasionally replacing its lead actor automatically ensured a new format whenever it occurred. Sometimes changes seemed subtle and other times quite revolutionary but the basic formula was retained in order to continue successfully. I think the formula continued successfully in Doctor Who during the 1963-89 run so I could always buy the idea that Doctors 1-7 were fundamentally the same character. I like to imagine that, every time the Doctor regenerated, yes his personality could change quite markedly but different aspects of his same personality could come to the fore every time he got a new body. That's the key point here - the same personality. So the audience could always believe Hartnell through to McCoy were actually one and the same character. I suspect this was achieved so effectively, as borne out by the show's long run, because of the individual skills of each leading actor in the role and also because of very careful treatment by the show's producers. Admittedly "NuPooh" has also had quite a long run since it emerged in 2005 but I don't think it has ever handled its change with any where near the care and skill of the original series.
Superficially, "NuPooh" might appear to retain the original show's established formula. I mean it still features the TARDIS, the Daleks, the Cybermen etc. The lead actor is a Time Lord (or have they changed that as well now?) who battles an enemy Time Lord, The Master (or is it "Missy" now?). But the current producers of the show seem to have forgotten just what made the original series work so well. Maybe they subscribe to the mantra that change - all change - must be a good creative choice, even if it flatly contradicts long established principles of the original series' lore and no matter if such principles may be cherished by the original show's fans. The idea of canon is anathema to the creators of "NuPooh" so little if any attempt needs to be made emulating the original show in imaginative ways. For instance the current series masquerading as Doctor Who champions the idea that Time Lords can routinely change gender (which never happened in the original series) so casting the lead actor or actress seems to no longer need to be based on any particular suitability to portray a specific character - albeit one with many traits - but rather seems to be motivated more by gimmickry. Now there is no reason why any character in a science fiction show should not be able to change gender or race. I'd draw the line at becoming an animal though  Take the Master for instance, having used up all his regenerations, who might conceivably steal another body and if that body was female then he might exploit the situation in characteristic ways. But such ideas entail imaginative writing for the concept to be consistent with the character's history. I suspect any such considerations simply don't apply with "NuPooh" - changes happen...just because. So if McGann says "An older white male Doctor would be wrong", it's just because. But why should it be wrong? The idea ignores the proven success of a long established formula - one that doesn't seem to concern the makers of the new series. Yes of course the Doctor does not necessarily have to be an older white male and indded there might be imaginative potential in casting some one who offers a fresh dynamic to the role. But there is no need to ignore the continuity that was establsihed previously if change is handled with skill and consideration otherwise there is no real resemblance to the original at all. 

[burrunjor]

May 28, 2022 18:12:43 GMT rushy said:

I disagree.

Every producer and actor brought something of their own to the part, by default because they're different people with their own experiences and ideas. Hartnell's era is not Troughton's, and Troughton's is not Pertwee's. The approach is entirely different, even if they are in theory making the same show.

If they had cast Troughton or any other actor to do a Hartnell impersonation, it would not have lasted nearly as long.

The difference between then and now is that the producers had restraint. Their focus was on making a good show, not shaping their TARDIS Wiki page. And they did take into account what came before and worked with that instead of rewriting the lore. Rewriting the past is not change, it's a retcon. Pure and simple.

But change is absolutely vital to Doctor Who. The show needs to be run by people who have enthusiasm, respect and their own ideas.

You've just kind of made the same point I did. Maybe I didn't phrase it well. 

Yes the show does change in a practical way when it has to. You come up with new adventures, new monsters and when you bring back the old villains, you think of new things to do with them. That is what you do to move the show forward and that is what always happened with the original. 

However that does not mean DW is all about change, anymore than it does for any other show. Buffy for instance was also all about her meeting new monsters, going into new situations etc. 

Ultimately with DW, there are traditions that need to be set, characters that need to be faithful, as they give it it's own identity. 

For instance the TARDIS always has to be a blue police box. The Daleks always have to be xenophobic monsters, the Cybermen always have to be mechanical creatures that want to convert us, the Sontarans war mongers, UNIT the Doctors military pals that track down aliens and monsters etc. A lot of these villains even have to look and sound the same, or at least have a variation of the same design.

Similarly yes the Doctor as we have explored many times always does have a core template to his personality and it was always the job of an actor playing the role to try and do something new within that template, rather than just ignore it completely. Patrick Troughton said for an interview in the shows 10th anniversary that the key to the shows success was that he, Pertwee and Hartnell had all played different aspects of the same character. Jon Pertwee also mentioned it being important that the Doctor remain asexual, whilst Tom Baker said it was the most limited role he had ever played as there were so many things he couldn't do or else he wouldn't be the Doctor and it was his job to find something new to do within that. 

Finally Davison, Colin and McCoy all mentioned keeping their predecessors in mind whilst trying to do something new with it. 

It was a balance, and the same is true of any adaptation of an iconic character to be honest. Look at the different adaptations of Batman, Adam West, Michael Keaton, Christian Bale, the DCAU. All as different as night and day in many respects. One's a comedy, one's a gothic horror character, one a sci fi superhero, the other a gritty crime fighter, but all still stay within the template of what the character of Batman is. IE all billionaire playboys Bruce Wayne, all motivated to fight crime by the tragic murder of their parents, all live in Gotham, all work with Commissioner Gordon, all have no powers and rely on gadgets, all are summoned by the Bat signal, all fight at least some of his adversaries, all have a batcave, Alfred etc, etc. 

That's what a true writer does when adapting someone else's character. They find something new to do with that character, which yes is very, very hard and is why it requires a lot of care and knowledge of said character. 

Meanwhile here is what a hack like Paul Cornell has to say about it. 

To be a good writer, you have to smash things up. To make great Doctor Who, especially, you have to destroy something someone values with every step. Those footsteps of destruction will, in a few years, be cast in bronze and put on a plinth for the next great story to destroy.

THAT is exactly what led to the Fitzroy Crowd's crap. Where they care more about changing canon to keep it fresh than in actually writing new stories and coming up with new monsters. Hence the overreliance on Daleks, Cybermen and the Master because in their minds, they're making it fresh by giving the Doctor 17 different origin stories. 

Of course when people like me try and point that out, we get fed with "DW is all about change, these 17 different origin stories are no different to Hartnell changing into Pat simply because they are both changes" and that's where I feel this "all about change" bullshit has devoured DW from within. 

[burrunjor]

May 29, 2022 8:35:01 GMT billpatjontom said:

I think you're both right really. A certain degree of change is indeed vital to keep any long running series fresh and engaging. Otherwise even a winning formula runs the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant. However, such change clearly needs to be handled carefully. So I do agree the core identity of a series like Doctor Who is crucial.
Consider a series like The Avengers - I refer to the antics of Steed & Co! - which changed drastically throughout its decade of production, becoming radically different in tone from how it started. The Avengers managed for the most part to remain fresh and popular by shifting its emphasis and style, becoming more dynamic and reflecting some of the changing culture of the 1960s. Yet I think it remained The Avengers throughout, somehow managing to retain its identity whether it was focussed on being raw spy thriller or outlandish science fiction. For instance, compare the quite serious first season episode, Hot Snow with Patrick Macnee and Ian Hendry, with the absurd final season episode Bizarre involving Macnee and Linda Thorson enjoying champagne as they rocket into space. The formula was tweaked again slightly when the series was reformatted for the 1970s as The New Avengers. It seems to me that classic Doctor Who (1963-1989) managed the same trick, i.e. it evolved and periodically altered style and tone, ranging from monster adventures to historicals and taking in horror, science fiction, comedy and straight adventure, yet successfully retained its core identity throughout.
In the case of Doctor Who, changes of style can often be attributed to different production teams manipulating creative direction and of course the show's unique method of occasionally replacing its lead actor automatically ensured a new format whenever it occurred. Sometimes changes seemed subtle and other times quite revolutionary but the basic formula was retained in order to continue successfully. I think the formula continued successfully in Doctor Who during the 1963-89 run so I could always buy the idea that Doctors 1-7 were fundamentally the same character. I like to imagine that, every time the Doctor regenerated, yes his personality could change quite markedly but different aspects of his same personality could come to the fore every time he got a new body. That's the key point here - the same personality. So the audience could always believe Hartnell through to McCoy were actually one and the same character. I suspect this was achieved so effectively, as borne out by the show's long run, because of the individual skills of each leading actor in the role and also because of very careful treatment by the show's producers. Admittedly "NuPooh" has also had quite a long run since it emerged in 2005 but I don't think it has ever handled its change with any where near the care and skill of the original series.
Superficially, "NuPooh" might appear to retain the original show's established formula. I mean it still features the TARDIS, the Daleks, the Cybermen etc. The lead actor is a Time Lord (or have they changed that as well now?) who battles an enemy Time Lord, The Master (or is it "Missy" now?). But the current producers of the show seem to have forgotten just what made the original series work so well. Maybe they subscribe to the mantra that change - all change - must be a good creative choice, even if it flatly contradicts long established principles of the original series' lore and no matter if such principles may be cherished by the original show's fans. The idea of canon is anathema to the creators of "NuPooh" so little if any attempt needs to be made emulating the original show in imaginative ways. For instance the current series masquerading as Doctor Who champions the idea that Time Lords can routinely change gender (which never happened in the original series) so casting the lead actor or actress seems to no longer need to be based on any particular suitability to portray a specific character - albeit one with many traits - but rather seems to be motivated more by gimmickry. Now there is no reason why any character in a science fiction show should not be able to change gender or race. I'd draw the line at becoming an animal though  Take the Master for instance, having used up all his regenerations, who might conceivably steal another body and if that body was female then he might exploit the situation in characteristic ways. But such ideas entail imaginative writing for the concept to be consistent with the character's history. I suspect any such considerations simply don't apply with "NuPooh" - changes happen...just because. So if McGann says "An older white male Doctor would be wrong", it's just because. But why should it be wrong? The idea ignores the proven success of a long established formula - one that doesn't seem to concern the makers of the new series. Yes of course the Doctor does not necessarily have to be an older white male and indded there might be imaginative potential in casting some one who offers a fresh dynamic to the role. But there is no need to ignore the continuity that was establsihed previously if change is handled with skill and consideration otherwise there is no real resemblance to the original at all. 

Another fine example is Peter Cushing's Van Helsing vs Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing. Both were different to the original version from the novel, but one was a classic and the other failed, because one as different as it was still felt like an adaptation of Van Helsing, whilst the other was a New Who "I can do anything I want."

Cushing's Van Helsing was different to Stokers in that the original was just an eccentric scientist who knew about vampires, but didn't hunt them. Cushing was the first version who devoted his life to hunting the undead, was actually Dracula's archenemy that had fought him many times all over the world, was known and hated by the vampire world and was part of a lineage of vampire hunters, all of which would become dominant in subsequent adaptations. (I've also argued that Cushing's Van Helsing was the first character like that in general, and therefore the template for vampire hunter characters overall in popular culture afterwards.)

However Cushing's still fulfilled the same purpose, role and themes as Stokers Van Helsing and was similar to him in other ways that this deviation didn't matter.

Stoker and Cushing's Van Helsing both fulfil the role of mr exposition, the person who knows about the vampires, reads up on them, and explains to the other characters and the audience what is going on. Both are also old professors. Both are the ones who figure out what Dracula's plan is and guide the others and both are also ordinary men with no superpowers who still manage to overcome an ancient, supernatural evil through their wits, faith and courage. I might add that Cushing even went as far as to study the book, and adopted some of Van Helsing's mannerisms into his performance like raising his index finger to make a point, and also rejected an ending for Brides of Dracula where his Van Helsing would have summoned magic bats to destroy a vampire, on the basis that it was too mystical for Van Helsing and would have ruined his ordinary man fighting monsters status.

Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing meanwhile throws everything about the character out. His Van Helsing is not Mr Exposition. He doesn't know anything about vampires, he's just a mercenary who hunts them. In fact he has another character fill that role. He also is not a professor. He isn't an ordinary man. He is an Angel turned into a human and then becomes a Werewolf, and he only overcomes Dracula through supernatural means. Also I don't think Hugh Jackman read the book before being cast, or if he did then it didn't matter as he didn't include any of the characters mannerisms or anything like that. As a result there is nothing to tie him into the Van Helsing we all know and love, hence why that version didn't do as well as the Hammer version.

For the record I actually do like the Hugh Jackman Van Helsing movie. It's a great, fun monster flick in its own right, and Jackman is a brilliant actor who puts in a good performance as always. However he just isn't Van Helsing and as a result even though the movie has its fans, when people think of Van Helsing, or when they are trying to adapt him, it will still be Peter Cushing they go to as he was a proper adaptation, rather than just an in name only version of the character.

Now in regards to DW, the RTD era was pretty much like Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing. IE enjoyable in it's own right, and superficially like the original, because it had the same trappings. Dracula, his brides, Daleks, Cybermen etc, but the actual character was off. RTD however got away with it because A/ he had an unbelievable mainstream support from the media to hype it up and demonise his critics as Ming Mongs. B/ A lot of classic DW fans were so desperate after it got the Amy Winehouse treatment of being bullied by the media for ten years for it to be a big mainstream success again. C/ It was a lot of people's first exposure to the brand. 

Also and this is the most important thing, RTD, only had the attitude of no continuity, all change is good to anything from the original. In regards to his own work, he very much did maintain a continuity, core characterisation of the Doctor (Eccelston and Tennant are believable as playing the same character as each other.) However when Moffat took over that's when things start to go wrong. 

Now in Matt's time he threw away some of RTD's story arcs which did lead to a big backlash from fans like Claudia Boleyn as after all those were stories that had been built up for years for them. Old Who NEVER did that. Look at the changeover from Pertwee to Tom.

It was handled so delicately in contrast. The Brig and UNIT are still prominent in Tom's first two seasons, Sarah Jane carries over as the companion. It's not until Tom's third year that he cuts ties with the Pertwee era. In contrast in Matt's first year, pretty much everything like Torchwood, earth being aware of aliens etc is just dumped. 

However in spite of this they got away with it, as Matt was still believable as being the same character as Tennant and Eccelston. (He was also the only one believable as being the same character as the original 7 too at certain points, which is probably why his era represented the peak of popularity for New Who. It truly bridged the gap between the old and new fans.) 

However when we get to Capaldi, in order to justify the gender change both to himself and the fans, Mofftwat started to really embrace the all change is good formula. Hence the Capaldi era doesn't even link up with Matt's time. IE the search for Gallifrey arc is abandoned before it can begin, the Doctor is given a new origin story, (the hybrid) and it gets to the point where even within the Capaldi era itself, continuity doesn't matter. Hence Bill doesn't know what a Cyberman is despite them turning every dead person on earth into a Cyberman a year before! 

By the time we get to Jodie however this attitude has now become the mantra for the show. It's not just we won't bother with continuity, it's that "in order to do good DW you have to smash it up." Hence the stories now all revolve around breaking the lore, culminating in the Timeless Children and the process of regeneration basically being turned into.... into this. 



Now it's a mangled mess that doesn't really know where it wants to go, hence the desperation of relying on old hits like Ten Inch, Donna, Tegan, Ace, Daleks, Cybermen etc. Hoping that nostalgia will bring them back. Ironically that's what all about change does for you. It changes it so much you have to later ironically rely on a Member Berry fest to bring back the people you drove away! See also Ghostbusters with that awful 2016 version and the equally awful, but for different reasons Afterlife sequel. 

The lesson here is just do a Peter Cushing, learn about the old character you are adapting and see what you can do with that character. If not, well then it's time to move on to a new character as there is no point in bringing him or her back otherwise. 

[billpatjontom]

Yes indeed and if "NuPooh" took its inspiration from Peter Cushing's excellent brand of sophisticated cool (and I do mean his body of work as a whole rather than just his Dalek movies!) then things really would be looking a hell of a lot better!

[rushy]

I must say, I found it really humorous how there were two Christopher Lee Dracula movies where Christopher Lee didn't show up, but Peter Cushing did. It's like they filled in for one another.

The Cushing-only Draculas were also some of the most imaginative of that series. I feel like focusing on intellectual characters like Van Helsing/Frankenstein made for more interesting films than focusing on Dracula/the Monster (even if in theory Dracula should be intellectual, the Christopher Lee films usually treated him as a beastly character of few words).