You don't seem to know very much about the two companions for the next three specials in which case.
Honestly, to make such a ridiclous statement based on the age of those cast is in itself ageist, which makes your complaint quite ironic in my eyes.
I know exactly who been casted for the specials. They can have an older companion for the one off specials. But we will never see one for an entire series.
The BBC has been focusing on putting out series that appeals to younger people. So now we are going to be stuck with HollyWho. Hopefully it works because Doctor Who is an iconic series. But I have serious doubts about Moffat casting of the new series. And until 2010 I will continue to have them.
Why in the world with a young looking Doctor do you cast someone even younger to be his companion?
You don't seem to know very much about the two companions for the next three specials in which case.
Honestly, to make such a ridiclous statement based on the age of those cast is in itself ageist, which makes your complaint quite ironic in my eyes.
I'm giving up in a minute.....I must have pointed out at least three or four times now that casting actors in the assisstant role at least, to be in their early 20's is hardly a New series feature......In fact Like Muttley points out, the New series is the one to really have the oldest actors as companions.....even if for a couple of episodes.....
I know exactly who been casted for the specials. They can have an older companion for the one off specials. But we will never see one for an entire series.
The BBC has been focusing on putting out series that appeals to younger people. So now we are going to be stuck with HollyWho. Hopefully it works because Doctor Who is an iconic series. But I have serious doubts about Moffat casting of the new series. And until 2010 I will continue to have them.
Why in the world with a young looking Doctor do you cast someone even younger to be his companion?
But CT was hardly young was she????????
Oh and when Peter Davison was Cast in the Role...the youngest ever before Matt.....none of his assistants were older than him in looks...or actual age......
And as for your question....time will answer that......
Don't forget that any actor/actress that applied for the job would have to read with MS. I'm sure that the right person will have been cast based on their dynamic with the next Doctor. It may seem ageist, but I doubt it really truly is - if an older person had done it better they would have been cast. It stands to reason that it's likely to be someone younger.
I'm giving up in a minute.....I must have pointed out at least three or four times now that casting actors in the assisstant role at least, to be in their early 20's is hardly a New series feature......In fact Like Muttley points out, the New series is the one to really have the oldest actors as companions.....even if for a couple of episodes.....
Except for Davison first year the Doctor has always been over 30 years old. The balance of the series has been thrown off by having a Doctor who looks like he just finished college.
The complaints of ageism is happening because the series has never had such a young dotor.
It's sad that Moffat and Co. didn't think to having a companion who looks like they finished their exams.
Except for Davison first year the Doctor has always been over 30 years old. The balance of the series has been thrown off by having a Doctor who looks like he just finished college.
The complaints of ageism is happening because the series has never had such a young dotor.
It's sad that Moffat and Co. didn't think to having a companion who looks like they finished their exams.
What?? Now I know you don't know what you're talking about. :rolleyes:
And I don't think it's sad at all. I for one shall reserve my judgement of the new companion (indeed for the whole of series 5) until we've seen it.
What?? Now I know you don't know what you're talking about. :rolleyes:
And I don't think it's sad at all. I for one shall reserve my judgement of the new companion (indeed for the whole of series 5) until we've seen it.
I believe Matt Smith too young for the part and it's not going to work. I may change my mind, but I'm not the only one who has major doubts about him being the Doctor.
Except for Davison first year the Doctor has always been over 30 years old. The balance of the series has been thrown off by having a Doctor who looks like he just finished college.
The complaints of ageism is happening because the series has never had such a young dotor.
It's sad that Moffat and Co. didn't think to having a companion who looks like they finished their exams.
No the complaints of ageism is that for people like yourself have no respect for those that happen to be younger than you.....there is no rule to say that the Doctor cannot look like a 26 year old, although for all we know....by the time he comes into his costume, he may look much older....and like you said, apart from Peter Davison's first year , the other Doctors have been older than 30....but that means that there was still a time that the Doctor had an actor playing him before he reached 30.....and to have an assistant younger than him is tradition.....its only really that Tennant has had companions where the actor/actress are older than him.....so this again defies any attemp to suggest that the BBC are aiming for younger audiences (although like I said, even if they were, that is what they have been doing since 1963, as it is a kids show!!!!) by casting younger actors......
Could it not be because Moff actually found something both in Matt and Karen....that he wanted in his Doctor and companion, rather than pandering so called youngsters???? Moff knows that the show has been going on since 1963, and has a vision of what he wants....and that is what he will give us.....
I believe Matt Smith too young for the part and it's not going to work. I may change my mind, but I'm not the only one who has major doubts about him being the Doctor.
Yes, you can doubt, and sorry that you do doubt.....but considering that many doubted Series 4 success, on the casting of CT....only proves that doubts don't count for much.......
I also doubted DT, after being mesimerised by CE.....how wrong was I....but at least my doubt were only based on the fact that I didn't understand DW at that time, and so found a change in the lead actor a big blow....and wasn't able to see past that at first......and not on the judgement on someones looks, age, race or whatever......
I think Smith is too young as well but I'm prepared to be proven wrong. I guess what irritates me with this choice of woman as companion is that it's so incredibly predictable. Moffat could've gone older, uglier, fatter, plainer, and with a different gender but decided instead to tick all the obvious boxes instead: skinny, pwetty, young redhead who will appeal to the middle-aged dads and post-pubescent fanboys.
*yawn*
(I too have doubts over Matt Smith but I'm prepared to be proven wrong, and those doubts are mostly based on fears that Moffat will try to write an imitation of David Tennant).
No the complaints of ageism is that for people like yourself have no respect for those that happen to be younger than you.....there is no rule to say that the Doctor cannot look like a 26 year old, although for all we know....by the time he comes into his costume, he may look much older....and like you said, apart from Peter Davison's first year , the other Doctors have been older than 30....but that means that there was still a time that the Doctor had an actor playing him before he reached 30.....and to have an assistant younger than him is tradition.....its only really that Tennant has had companions where the actor/actress are older than him.....so this again defies any attemp to suggest that the BBC are aiming for younger audiences (although like I said, even if they were, that is what they have been doing since 1963, as it is a kids show!!!!) by casting younger actors......
Could it not be because Moff actually found something both in Matt and Karen....that he wanted in his Doctor and companion, rather than pandering so called youngsters???? Moff knows that the show has been going on since 1963, and has a vision of what he wants....and that is what he will give us.....
Consider the fact that Matt Smith is only three years younger than me I seriously doubt that I have a prejudice against him because of his youth.
I believe Moffat scripts will be absolutely brillant because he is a great writer. I also believe he may have miscast the role of the Doctor. And that's my right until I see what Matt Smith can do in the role. If I am right the next series will be terrible.
The BBC has been focusing on putting out series that appeals to younger people. So now we are going to be stuck with HollyWho.
A children's programme being aimed primarily at young people? Whatever next? Yes, they are aiming the programme at younger people. The key demographic is 8-12 year olds. Just like it was during RTD's tenure. And Verity Lambert's. At no time in the programme's history has it ever been aimed primarily at anyone over the age of 15.
To quote Moffat himself:
If you like and enjoy Doctor Who, then Doctor Who is aimed squarely at YOU. Absolutely at YOU. Lovely, wonderful, great-taste-in-telly YOU. And what do YOU (and we love YOU) care about who else its aimed at?
Really, in a way, this whole discussion - about who Who is aimed - isn't FOR you lot. You lot ARE the audience, what could possibly interest YOU (and everyone in Wales sends their love to YOU) in any of this?
It's a discussion for people making the show. It's about a tone and taste - Doctor Who (whatever the composition of the audience) is absolutely a childrens show in terms of its strictures, limits and imperatives. All the talk at meetings is about what the eight-year-olds will think. Cos igniting the imaginations of eight-year-olds is pretty much - no, is EXACTLY - the mission statement.
A side benefit, of course, is that adults are in fact eight-year-olds with increased body-mass and frowning. So of course, THEY'LL watch! Of course they will. Get it right for the eight-year-olds and the adults will follow - nothing is more certain.
It's like - no really, it is - when you go into a restaurant, and you're looking at the menu, and you're being all adult, and you're thinking, ooh, maybe lettuce soup, or a carrot rissotto, or perhaps just a glass of water and slap from the Maitre D ... and your eye drifts (oh, how it drifts) to the children's menu!
Sausage and mash! Burger and fries!! Actual size chocolate pigs!!!
Doctor Who is the children's menu. Like you're ever gonna grow out of that.
PS. There will be people who argue the children's menu is actually the adults menu. Let them. They're not going to be around for long.
All the above being explicity forbidden in Doctor Who because it's a children's programme. At least practically everyone who makes (or who ever has made it) thinks it is, and practically everyone who watches it (or who ever has watched it) thinks it is, and I kind of think that's good enough. That's the jury coming back in, that is.
Calling Dr Who a children's show isn't a definition of the audience, it's a definition of the SHOW. In style, pace, tone, sensibility, Dr Who stories are children's stories. Like Harry Potter, Star Wars, The Hobbit, Narnia, Toy Story, The Incredibles and all gorgeous, magical stuff. Does that mean it's not for adults? Don't be daft, adults love children's stories - just look at that list. Some of the most famous creations in the human history! People who grow out of children's stories are people who never understood them in the first place.
It's a children's show. Always has been. And, yes, it's going to be aimed at children. Specifically 8 year olds. Always was.
And, as I've already said, 21 is ancient when you're 8. 26 is practically dead. It's got nothing to do with the Doctor being younger, and everything to do with you being older.
Can't you just accept that people have different opinions!!!!
:eek:
I'm more than happy for people to have different opinions.....but the comments made by yourself are judgemental, and have no base excpet that because both Matt, and Karen happen to be young and good looking, for you that ticks boxes....although there is no proof of that.....
The profession I am in, I have come to face agesim again and again....people who can't tell my age, don't have a problem, but some that find out or ask that I am 24 years old....it is like they are insulted that they are being supported by someone so young....yet I know I am as capable and profesional as a 50 year old....
I nearly didn't get onto my course because of my age, but I have fought and defied that too.....
So at least I know what I am talking about, instead of making sweaping statements...
Consider the fact that Matt Smith is only three years younger than me I seriously doubt that I have a prejudice against him because of his youth.
I believe Moffat scripts will be absolutely brillant because he is a great writer. I also believe he may have miscast the role of the Doctor. And that's my right until I see what Matt Smith can do in the role. If I am right the next series will be terrible.
Okay maybe being prejudice is too strong of a word.....but you are using the programme and the so called BBC agiest agenda to prove your point....bith which have no basis, because like I said....Matt being as young as he is, is till not a new thing because Peter was also young....and got older...and I might be wrong, but I think Matt will also get older, and like I said, that casting a companion who is younger than the actor as the Doctor...is nothing New too....I am just pointing out the those issues in your argument.....if you feel the show is rubbish next year...well that is how you feel.....my argument is based on the fact that none of this is new.....so no agenda by the BBC.....
A children's programme being aimed primarily at young people? Whatever next? Yes, they are aiming the programme at younger people. The key demographic is 8-12 year olds. Just like it was during RTD's tenure. And Verity Lambert's. At no time in the programme's history has it ever been aimed primarily at anyone over the age of 15.
To quote Moffat himself:
It's a children's show. Always has been. And, yes, it's going to be aimed at children. Specifically 8 year olds. Always was.
And, as I've already said, 21 is ancient when you're 8. 26 is practically dead. It's got nothing to do with the Doctor being younger, and everything to do with you being older.
And, as I've already said, 21 is ancient when you're 8. 26 is practically dead. It's got nothing to do with the Doctor being younger, and everything to do with you being older.
I started watching the series when I was 27 so I doubt me getting older is the reason I why object to the fact that Matt Smith has been casted as the Doctor. I have no childhood ties to the series.
Also Doctor Who is not just a children series. It is a family show. There is no way they would pull the rating that they do if the show did not appeal to people of all ages. If the casting doesn't work all the BBC will be left with are those 8-12 year olds watching the series.
I started watching the series when I was 27 so I doubt me getting older is the reason I why object to the fact that Matt Smith has been casted as the Doctor. I have no childhood ties to the series.
Also Doctor Who is not just a children series. It is a family show. There is no way they would pull the rating that they do if the show did not appeal to people of all ages. If the casting doesn't work all the BBC will be left with are those 8-12 year olds watching the series.
How many people watch the show right now because DT is over 30? How do you know why people watch a show? Its the same argument as those who say that once DT goes, so will the fangirls.....everyone has a different reason to watch the show....there are some on here, on DS who cannot stand Tennant, but some of the stories, ironically Moff's stories keep them watching.....If Matt doesn't work, it will be because he wasn't a properly written Doctor, or not acted very well, or had the most stupid and rubbish stories the series has ever seen.....very few will leave because "oh he is fanatastic actor, the stories are good, but he is 26"....do you see what I am trying to say?
You may not have an issue with the fact that you are getting older, but Matt's youth is what makes you doubt....because you feel that automatically means that they are aiming for a younger audience, which as Trollface proves they always have....but we don't know yet what reason it is that he was cast....and the only basis you have for that is his age...and I'm sorry, but that is unfair.....you can't help how you feel....but you don't realise how offending that is.....
I started watching the series when I was 27 so I doubt me getting older is the reason I why object to the fact that Matt Smith has been casted as the Doctor. I have no childhood ties to the series.
I didn't say you did.
Also Doctor Who is not just a children series. It is a family show.
So what you're saying is that you know more about what the programme is and what audience it's aimed at than Steven Moffat? More than RTD? More than Verity Lambert, Phillip Hinchcliffe, JNT, Graham Williams and pretty much everyone who's ever actually worked on the programme?
So what you're saying is that you know more about what the programme is and what audience it's aimed at than Steven Moffat? More than RTD? More than Verity Lambert, Phillip Hinchcliffe, JNT, Graham Williams and pretty much everyone who's ever actually worked on the programme?
Just...wow.
I never said I knew more than anyone who's worked on the show. There is a reason why when they introduce Matt Smith that Steven Moffat explained why they casted someone so young because it could've been a PR disaster.
Also no one who works on Who is going to say anything negative publically about the casting of Matt Smith. So even if they have some doubts they are not going to say anything publically to hurt the popularity of the show.
I never said I knew more than anyone who's worked on the show.
But yes you did. After I quoted Steven Moffat saying it's a kid's programme and told you that that's what practically everybody else who's ever been involved in the programme in any capacity thinks, too (again backed up by Steven Moffat himself), you said that that was wrong. It's not wrong. It's a children's programme. It's aimed at 8-12 year olds. This is a fact.
There is a reason why when they introduce Matt Smith that Steven Moffat explained why they casted someone so young because it could've been a PR disaster.
Also no one who works on Who is going to say anything negative publically about the casting of Matt Smith. So even if they have some doubts they are not going to say anything publically to hurt the popularity of the show.
You seem to be arguing against something I've not said. None of those points correspond in any way to my posts.
Comments
You don't seem to know very much about the two companions for the next three specials in which case.
Honestly, to make such a ridiclous statement based on the age of those cast is in itself ageist, which makes your complaint quite ironic in my eyes.
I know exactly who been casted for the specials. They can have an older companion for the one off specials. But we will never see one for an entire series.
The BBC has been focusing on putting out series that appeals to younger people. So now we are going to be stuck with HollyWho. Hopefully it works because Doctor Who is an iconic series. But I have serious doubts about Moffat casting of the new series. And until 2010 I will continue to have them.
Why in the world with a young looking Doctor do you cast someone even younger to be his companion?
I'm giving up in a minute.....I must have pointed out at least three or four times now that casting actors in the assisstant role at least, to be in their early 20's is hardly a New series feature......In fact Like Muttley points out, the New series is the one to really have the oldest actors as companions.....even if for a couple of episodes.....
But CT was hardly young was she????????
Oh and when Peter Davison was Cast in the Role...the youngest ever before Matt.....none of his assistants were older than him in looks...or actual age......
And as for your question....time will answer that......
Except for Davison first year the Doctor has always been over 30 years old. The balance of the series has been thrown off by having a Doctor who looks like he just finished college.
The complaints of ageism is happening because the series has never had such a young dotor.
It's sad that Moffat and Co. didn't think to having a companion who looks like they finished their exams.
*teehee*
That made me chortle
What?? Now I know you don't know what you're talking about. :rolleyes:
And I don't think it's sad at all. I for one shall reserve my judgement of the new companion (indeed for the whole of series 5) until we've seen it.
I believe Matt Smith too young for the part and it's not going to work. I may change my mind, but I'm not the only one who has major doubts about him being the Doctor.
No the complaints of ageism is that for people like yourself have no respect for those that happen to be younger than you.....there is no rule to say that the Doctor cannot look like a 26 year old, although for all we know....by the time he comes into his costume, he may look much older....and like you said, apart from Peter Davison's first year , the other Doctors have been older than 30....but that means that there was still a time that the Doctor had an actor playing him before he reached 30.....and to have an assistant younger than him is tradition.....its only really that Tennant has had companions where the actor/actress are older than him.....so this again defies any attemp to suggest that the BBC are aiming for younger audiences (although like I said, even if they were, that is what they have been doing since 1963, as it is a kids show!!!!) by casting younger actors......
Could it not be because Moff actually found something both in Matt and Karen....that he wanted in his Doctor and companion, rather than pandering so called youngsters???? Moff knows that the show has been going on since 1963, and has a vision of what he wants....and that is what he will give us.....
Yes, you can doubt, and sorry that you do doubt.....but considering that many doubted Series 4 success, on the casting of CT....only proves that doubts don't count for much.......
I also doubted DT, after being mesimerised by CE.....how wrong was I....but at least my doubt were only based on the fact that I didn't understand DW at that time, and so found a change in the lead actor a big blow....and wasn't able to see past that at first......and not on the judgement on someones looks, age, race or whatever......
*yawn*
(I too have doubts over Matt Smith but I'm prepared to be proven wrong, and those doubts are mostly based on fears that Moffat will try to write an imitation of David Tennant).
Can't you just accept that people have different opinions!!!!
:eek:
But you (and others) are basing your opinions on nothing though.
Fine if the programme had aired and you had a valid point, but we don't even know how it will look yet never mind play out over the series.
I don't understand why you can't give people a chance.
Consider the fact that Matt Smith is only three years younger than me I seriously doubt that I have a prejudice against him because of his youth.
I believe Moffat scripts will be absolutely brillant because he is a great writer. I also believe he may have miscast the role of the Doctor. And that's my right until I see what Matt Smith can do in the role. If I am right the next series will be terrible.
It would be very boring if we all had to wait until things aired until we could express an opinion
A children's programme being aimed primarily at young people? Whatever next? Yes, they are aiming the programme at younger people. The key demographic is 8-12 year olds. Just like it was during RTD's tenure. And Verity Lambert's. At no time in the programme's history has it ever been aimed primarily at anyone over the age of 15.
To quote Moffat himself:
It's a children's show. Always has been. And, yes, it's going to be aimed at children. Specifically 8 year olds. Always was.
And, as I've already said, 21 is ancient when you're 8. 26 is practically dead. It's got nothing to do with the Doctor being younger, and everything to do with you being older.
I'm more than happy for people to have different opinions.....but the comments made by yourself are judgemental, and have no base excpet that because both Matt, and Karen happen to be young and good looking, for you that ticks boxes....although there is no proof of that.....
The profession I am in, I have come to face agesim again and again....people who can't tell my age, don't have a problem, but some that find out or ask that I am 24 years old....it is like they are insulted that they are being supported by someone so young....yet I know I am as capable and profesional as a 50 year old....
I nearly didn't get onto my course because of my age, but I have fought and defied that too.....
So at least I know what I am talking about, instead of making sweaping statements...
Okay maybe being prejudice is too strong of a word.....but you are using the programme and the so called BBC agiest agenda to prove your point....bith which have no basis, because like I said....Matt being as young as he is, is till not a new thing because Peter was also young....and got older...and I might be wrong, but I think Matt will also get older, and like I said, that casting a companion who is younger than the actor as the Doctor...is nothing New too....I am just pointing out the those issues in your argument.....if you feel the show is rubbish next year...well that is how you feel.....my argument is based on the fact that none of this is new.....so no agenda by the BBC.....
Thankyou......
I started watching the series when I was 27 so I doubt me getting older is the reason I why object to the fact that Matt Smith has been casted as the Doctor. I have no childhood ties to the series.
Also Doctor Who is not just a children series. It is a family show. There is no way they would pull the rating that they do if the show did not appeal to people of all ages. If the casting doesn't work all the BBC will be left with are those 8-12 year olds watching the series.
How many people watch the show right now because DT is over 30? How do you know why people watch a show? Its the same argument as those who say that once DT goes, so will the fangirls.....everyone has a different reason to watch the show....there are some on here, on DS who cannot stand Tennant, but some of the stories, ironically Moff's stories keep them watching.....If Matt doesn't work, it will be because he wasn't a properly written Doctor, or not acted very well, or had the most stupid and rubbish stories the series has ever seen.....very few will leave because "oh he is fanatastic actor, the stories are good, but he is 26"....do you see what I am trying to say?
You may not have an issue with the fact that you are getting older, but Matt's youth is what makes you doubt....because you feel that automatically means that they are aiming for a younger audience, which as Trollface proves they always have....but we don't know yet what reason it is that he was cast....and the only basis you have for that is his age...and I'm sorry, but that is unfair.....you can't help how you feel....but you don't realise how offending that is.....
I didn't say you did.
So what you're saying is that you know more about what the programme is and what audience it's aimed at than Steven Moffat? More than RTD? More than Verity Lambert, Phillip Hinchcliffe, JNT, Graham Williams and pretty much everyone who's ever actually worked on the programme?
Just...wow.
I never said I knew more than anyone who's worked on the show. There is a reason why when they introduce Matt Smith that Steven Moffat explained why they casted someone so young because it could've been a PR disaster.
Also no one who works on Who is going to say anything negative publically about the casting of Matt Smith. So even if they have some doubts they are not going to say anything publically to hurt the popularity of the show.
But yes you did. After I quoted Steven Moffat saying it's a kid's programme and told you that that's what practically everybody else who's ever been involved in the programme in any capacity thinks, too (again backed up by Steven Moffat himself), you said that that was wrong. It's not wrong. It's a children's programme. It's aimed at 8-12 year olds. This is a fact.
You seem to be arguing against something I've not said. None of those points correspond in any way to my posts.
Karen looks lovely.