So, if Steven Moffat replaces Russell T Davies as Executive Producer of “Doctor Who”, after season four next year, it looks as though “Jekyll” and “Cold Feet” actor James Nesbitt will succeed David Tennant in the title role of the long-running science fiction series and become the eleventh actor to play the Doctor! I’m not really sure what I think about this. The idea doesn’t repulse me in the same way that the prospect of Catherine Tate nagging for thirteen episodes does! I gradually warmed to the actor’s performance in Moffat’s take on Stevenson’s horror classic and have previously enjoyed him getting to grips with a certain Billie Piper in “The Miller’s Tale” episode of “The Canterbury Tales”!! The possible casting of Mr Nesbitt does still seem a far cry, though, from the way I perceive “Doctor Who”. Sadly, the show isn’t meant for thoughtful and analytical types, anymore, but for those who prefer their entertainment wacky and zany in a manner far-removed from Tom Baker’s supposed eccentricities. New “Doctor Who” is for those who favour munching on a Big Mac to savouring a well-cooked meal. I wonder if Tate, and the returning Noel Clarke, will be gone by the time of Jimmy’s arrival and, if so, will he be “Coupling” with “Blackeyes” in the TARDIS or pulling (a pint with) the “Bionic Woman” in the old Queen Vic?!!
8 comments:
I'd prefer Gatiss over Moffatt. SM is too much like RTD when it comes to 'relationships' whereas I suspect Gatiss' vision of who would be much darker, more Holmesian.
Also, Nesbitt as the Doctor? I don't think so... I'm not suggesting he's a bad actor, I just don't see him in the part...
Besides, this was reported by The Sun remember and leaping to the conclusion that he could play DW isn't unlikely given the recent Moffatt/Nesbitt/Jekyll connection.
I don't really want to see Mark Gatiss, Steven Moffat or Paul Cornell, for that matter, given the top job on "Doctor Who". It would be good for the series to have some fresh blood injected into it, writers with no connection to Russell T Davies.
As for James Nesbitt, Moffat's subsequent denial of The Sun's story suggests it's probably true, bearing in mind RTD's similar denial over the casting of Kylie Minogue in the Christmas special! Russell lied so why wouldn't Steven, especially when he'd prefer the present focus to be on the second season of "Jekyll".
I agree it would be nice to have new blood, however I think that, because its such an important brand to the Beeb now, they'll want a 'professional' fan to be the next RTD.
Lets face it, Collinson, Gardner etc didn't know much about Who but RTD did and they deferred to him over everything (at least publicly). "Oh, Russell suggested this and we all thought it was brilliant", "Russell re-wrote the script and it was SO much better" blah blah. I think the higher-ups at the BBC will be worried that if they DON'T get someone in who knows the show's history that damage will be done to the brand (which is, lets be honest, what it is now).
I suspect Moffatt WILL get the gig because the way he operates is closest to RTD's 'vision'.
Wow. What an amazing story to come back to. I'd actually be interested in seeing Nesbitt give it a go. He's certainly capable of being darker and moodier - I recall being very impressed with the first series of Murphy's Law. I guess it all depends on the scripts. Although I like Moffat I agree with Timewarden that some completely new blood might be a better choice.
"Doctor Who" is a brand but then it was when it finished back in the '80s (admittedly, a seemingly unpopular one at that time) otherwise it wouldn't have returned now, in the same way I expect, one day, to see the return of "Top of the Pops" and "Tomorrow's World"!
I think the BBC are more likely to worry over "Doctor Who" losing its present popularity than the programme not adhering to its history. Damage has already been done, and is still being done, but the series remains a favourite with the viewing public who don't analyse it in the way the long-term fan does.
Whether or not Moffat and Nesbitt eventually get their respective jobs, it's still a long way off and I suspect the batch of episodes currently in production will, ironically, see a decline in the very popularity the BBC are seeking to preserve! That's what happens when one man is allowed to wield too much power!!
I'm with you on that Tim, although I'm don't agree that Doctor Who was a brand back in the late 80s, certainly not in the way TV companies (and us) perceive things now.
Star Trek only became a 'brand' for Paramount around Season 3 of ST:TNG, the same for X-Files, when it became apparent that the popularity of the show went beyond a culty fanbase and actually went mainstream.
After both of these shows were a success, following series were automatically looked at as a potential brand rather than simply a TV show. Stargate, Buffy, 24, Lost, etc hit the ground running with multimedia promotions, merchandise and the like almost as soon as the first episodes were broadcast. Much like New Doctor Who.
Merchandise and all the other trappings of a 'moneyspinner' always came later in the case of Original Who. The fact that JN-T wouldn't authorise a series of original novels while the show was on air in case it detracted from the main show highlights how much things have changed!
Mmmmm lots of hot debate there gents! I am still holding out for the hope that standards in the current Dr Who series won't drop too far. The casting of Ms Tate definitely has me worried though.
As for James Nesbitt - as Timewarden says, if they can deny casting Kylie then this could equally be true! However it's still early days as we don't much about Season Four yet and whether or not David Tennant is definitely leaving in the next series. Then again there are lots of reasons FOR the casting of James N, such as the "Jekyll" / Stephen Moffatt connection. Look at RTD - he'd worked with David T in "Casanova" and that obviously had an influence...
I admit I haven't seen much of James Nesbitt's acting (apart from those silly telephone adverts). He has a dry, laconic quality about him that I like though and...I actually find him reasonably sexy too! (David Tennant has never really done it for me - although I do like his smouldering dark eyes).
I suppose it's a question of how you define brand because I would've thought "Trek" was already a franchise well before season 3 of "TNG" possibly since the series of movies began rolling.
You're right though, Paul. For the most part, "Doctor Who" merchandise is more immediate these days with the possible exception of the novelisation of "The Five Doctors" which I seem to remember was released before the story had even aired!
What you're effectively saying, though, is that making money from the new series is more important than the content of the series itself which is a really sad indictment for any possible creativity when said creativity is secondary.
The casting of Ms Tate seems to have disappointed most people, Simon, even casual viewers judging from letters I've read. The viewing figures are down by at least one even before a single frame has been shot!
I haven't followed Nesbitt's career, particularly, but, from what I've seen, do feel he's more suited than either Tennant or Eccleston, although he wouldn't be my first choice.
Post a Comment