Options
Why won't they have Paul Mcgann back?
Thamwet
Posts: 2,036
Forum Member
✭✭✭
If he really isn't in it (I know he says he isn't, but so did David Tennant) then why aren't they having him back?
I sort of get why they don't want the proper classic doctors to come back because they are so old, but Mcgann doesn't look that different and anyway, we never saw him regenerate, so he could have been a lot older when he regenerated.
He clearly wants to. It's ironic how Eccleston was asked and yet wasn't interested (I know he had reasons for leaving, but his attitude is a disgrace, considering many actors would love the role) whereas Paul would jump at the chance but they won't have him.
We can hope he's been told to lie, but he seems a lot more insistent than David T was.
If I became the producer, the first thing I'd do would be to get Mcgann back, to make up for the fact he's been snubbed here.
I sort of get why they don't want the proper classic doctors to come back because they are so old, but Mcgann doesn't look that different and anyway, we never saw him regenerate, so he could have been a lot older when he regenerated.
He clearly wants to. It's ironic how Eccleston was asked and yet wasn't interested (I know he had reasons for leaving, but his attitude is a disgrace, considering many actors would love the role) whereas Paul would jump at the chance but they won't have him.
We can hope he's been told to lie, but he seems a lot more insistent than David T was.
If I became the producer, the first thing I'd do would be to get Mcgann back, to make up for the fact he's been snubbed here.
0
Comments
If he is back for a brief appearance, that I think is by far the most likely way. It very literally fulfils the "show, don't tell" writers method of explaining who John Hurt is.
Because there was no place that he would logically fit into the story, perhaps?
I'll reserve judgement until it has been aired with definitively no appearance by him, then I'll agree that it is sorely missed opportunity and another big minus in the column for Moffat.
Absolutely - I've always been disappointed by the lack of action sequences in Pride and Prejudice. Major oversight on the part of the writer, I feel.
If the story was written to bring back Paul McGann, I imagine it would be quite a poor excuse indeed.
I suppose that if you were writing Doctor Who with all its long history, would you want to have to spend time writing a regen scene to cover two actors, one of which was only in the movie and the other did one series (keeping in mind the expense and time it would take up on screen as well as relevence to the current audiance) or would you prefer to dive straight in and get on with a story involving the current doc and the previous doc?
Its wishfull thinking and there might be room for a scene like this in the 50th considering who "hurt doc" is supposed to be but overall apart from fan service what other reason for this would there be?
We are all fans on this forum and all have ideas on what we would like to see but in my little opinion I cant see this happening at all but please Mr Moff prove me wrong.(please)
Pardon if this has already been mentioned, but could not John Hurt be an older and fatigued version of McGann's Doctor?
(Or maybe we are just meant to pretend they have the same face).
It is just that that is probably the simplest explanation.
He could, but I don't see how that's the simplest explanation - as they've already deliberately made the point that he's not one of the incarnations that Clara's seen before.
The modern Doctors have always seemed to consider the Eighth a legitimate 'Doctor' - surely the outcry at denying him that status would be far worse than the outcry at him not making an appearance!
And the 50th anniversary is a celebration of the show, not of every element that has ever appeared in it. Crowbarring fan service in where it's not required to support the story is a sure way to get any episode panned.
I think it comes down to the fact that if they wanted an older McGann, then there's an older McGann still around saying he would do it, and probably for a fraction of the money they are paying John Hurt.
And the suggestion that McGann appearing would in any way lead to the show being panned is laughable. Even if it was a total non sequitur the audience would still lap it up.
I've said it before, I will not be at all surprised if following the screening of Day of the Doctor Moffat says something along the lines of "This is a celebration of 50 years of Doctor Who. Did anyone really think I'd completely ignore the first 42 years? That I'd leave out all those other actors who have played The Doctor and made the show what it is today? That would be bonkers!"
If it is I'll be really disappointed, especially for McGann. If (and obviously still a big if) Hurt Doctor is the same as McGann Doctor then Moffatt et al will have royally effed up. While Hurt is a brilliant actor it would just really be the case of the Doctor Who production team hiring a big name for the sake of it.
Totally agree with this.