Rory Kinnear ?

2456714

Comments

  • Joy DeanJoy Dean Posts: 21,346
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why younger than 35?:)

    And I had not heard of Matt Smith prior to his portrayal of the Doctor.:)
    Now I think of him more from when he was in Bert & Dickie last year.
  • SHAFTSHAFT Posts: 4,369
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The story isn't true but I think he'd be great in the role. He was very good in the first series of Black Mirror.
  • prof_traversprof_travers Posts: 209
    Forum Member
    Please god no. Someone more attractive, and a bit younger.

    The smell of double standards is over-powering
    Uh, no. I want an interesting character. I don't give a **** what they look like, unlike Moffat.
    from here
  • Dr2PatDr2Pat Posts: 420
    Forum Member
    Most bookies have now suspended betting, according to oddschecker.
  • JohnnyForgetJohnnyForget Posts: 24,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Please god no. Someone more attractive, and a bit younger.

    Someone old and ugly, please! Or failing that, Rory Kinnear will do fine.

    Enough of the pretty boys, this is Doctor Who, with a proud tradition of middle aged men playing a mostly not particularly attractive protagonist, and if that's not to the liking of shallow women and gay men, then tough!

    Jeez, if it had been up to this poster we wouldn't have got Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, the Bakers, McCoy or Eccleston.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Someone old and ugly, please! Or failing that, Rory Kinnear will do fine.

    Enough of the pretty boys, this is Doctor Who, with a proud tradition of middle aged men playing a mostly not particularly attractive protagonist, and if that's not to the liking of shallow women and gay men, then tough!

    Jeez, if it had been up to this poster we wouldn't have got Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, the Bakers, McCoy or Eccleston.

    Eh? The 'pretty boys'?? Matt Smith?! Ecclescake?! Even Tennant was just a gawky, lanky bloke some women happened to fancy. And let's not get started on the pre-2005 Doctors. We don't have ugly companions so why should we always get ugly Doctors?
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    The smell of double standards is over-powering

    from here

    That latter comment is in reference to the companion not the Doctor. How dare you try and misconstrue my remarks by quoting them out of context.
  • JohnnyForgetJohnnyForget Posts: 24,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Eh? The 'pretty boys'?? Matt Smith?! Ecclescake?! Even Tennant was just a gawky, lanky bloke some women happened to fancy. And let's not get started on the pre-2005 Doctors. We don't have ugly companions so why should we always get ugly Doctors?

    Tradition, old chap. Tradition.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Tradition, old chap. Tradition.

    Pity the 'tradition' for interesting, coherent stories hasn't been kept to as well.
  • brouhahabrouhaha Posts: 661
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I quite fancy him, actually. He's got lovely, twinkling eyes.

    Not that it actually matters whether he's a "looker" or not, of course. Acting ability should surely take precedence over looks when casting a part (unless the part specifically requires a good looking actor). Otherwise all TV would be like Hollyoaks :eek:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 82,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dr2Pat wrote: »
    Most bookies have now suspended betting, according to oddschecker.


    Not sure we should pay much attention to that suspending betting is just normal practice if the betting companies see an unusual amount of bets being put on.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    brouhaha wrote: »
    I quite fancy him, actually. He's got lovely, twinkling eyes.

    Not that it actually matters whether he's a "looker" or not, of course. Acting ability should surely take precedence over looks when casting a part (unless the part specifically requires a good looking actor). Otherwise all TV would be like Hollyoaks :eek:

    If that were true we wouldn't have ended up with Coleman as Clara..
  • jtnorthjtnorth Posts: 5,081
    Forum Member
    I'd be really surprised if it turns out to be true, but he is a fantastic actor - his Hamlet was extraordinary. He'd be a great choice. (And I think he's attractive, if that's what matters.)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tradition, old chap. Tradition.

    Ah yes tradition purely for the sake of avoiding change :rolleyes:
  • Paradise_LostParadise_Lost Posts: 6,454
    Forum Member
    Hard to be excited about this.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pity the 'tradition' for interesting, coherent stories hasn't been kept to as well.

    Actually I`m inclined to agree, some of the recent stories have been all over the shop more questions than answers which does get a little :yawn:

    However some episodes have been fantastic too it hasn`t all been bad.

    I don`t blame Matt Smith however he`s done his best with what he was given.

    on the point about attractive doctors, I don`t think its important if the actor is attractive or not, I couldn`t care as long as they play the part good and bring something new to the role.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    doop wrote: »
    Actually I`m inclined to agree, some of the recent stories have been all over the shop more questions than answers which does get a little :yawn:

    However some episodes have been fantastic too it hasn`t all been bad.

    I don`t blame Matt Smith however he`s done his best with what he was given.

    on the point about attractive doctors, I don`t think its important if the actor is attractive or not, I couldn`t care as long as they play the part good and bring something new to the role.

    Yes, but that ideology doesn't apply to the companions so why should it apply to the Doctor too?
  • VerenceVerence Posts: 104,535
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Rooks wrote: »
    He was in "The First Men on the Moon" with Mark Gatiss a few years ago. Mark Gatiss has a strong working relationship with Moffat so I suspect Rory Kinnear would be in the consideration list.

    He was very good in that as well so he has some sci-fi experience
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 82,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    [QUOTE=Para

    dise_Lost;66321384]


    Hard to be excited about this.[/QUOTE]


    I feel the same can't remember the name of the series was, Rory, was playing an angle working as a lawyer although I enjoyed the series I can't say Rory performance was one where I would think he'd make a good Doctor.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 82,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Rooks wrote: »
    He was in "The First Men on the Moon" with Mark Gatiss a few years ago. Mark Gatiss has a strong working relationship with Moffat so I suspect Rory Kinnear would be in the consideration list

    .



    Well since Steven Moffat took over from RTD he has mostly got it right when casting some one. Despite Matt Smitbeing a complete un known his decision to cast Matt, has been an over whelming success . So I have complete faith that Steve will again get the casting of the next Doctor.
  • ntscuserntscuser Posts: 8,207
    Forum Member
    cricketman wrote: »
    Just looked at the oddschecker site again ,this morning Rory Kinnear was 25-1 and 5 bookies were accepting bets. Now he's 8-7 and only 1 bookie is still accepting bets!

    If you mean 'Betfair' they are not a bookmaker's as such. It's a mutual betting association in which bets have to 'matched' in value which is why they can quote odds that no bookmaker dare risk.
    cricketman wrote: »
    It therefore seems that the bookies are pretty certain who's the new Who.

    It's more a case that they think some punters might be acting on inside information and thus taking unfair advantage of the odds being offered..
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, but that ideology doesn't apply to the companions so why should it apply to the Doctor too?

    I get where you are coming from but for me that Ideology with regards to the companions doesn`t matter either.

    Lets be honest the show is aimed mostly at young lads and men hence the sex appeal factor with the doctors female sidekick I think this could largely be the reason behind why the companion is usually attractive, I could be wrong of course on this.

    But for me the looks of either the doctor or his companion matter very little to me personally.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    doop wrote: »
    I get where you are coming from but for me that Ideology with regards to the companions doesn`t matter either.

    Lets be honest the show is aimed mostly at young lads and men hence the sex appeal factor with the doctors female sidekick I think this could largely be the reason behind why the companion is usually attractive, I could be wrong of course on this.

    But for me the looks of either the doctor or his companion matter very little to me personally.

    I think the idea that you need a bit of skirt in Doctor Who to keep the dads and lads happy should've gone out with the ark. I'm sure that's why they still do it but if you go onto GB forum most of the members are gay anyway. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. If they can hire a companion primarily on her looks then why not the Doctor? It wouldn't bother me having an ugly Doctor if we had an ugly companion. But we very rarely do. I'm just suggesting that the balance be restored.
  • Pull2OpenPull2Open Posts: 15,138
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Not sure if I want a Doctor who has carnal knowledge of a pig! :D
Sign In or Register to comment.