Originally Posted by
Benjamin Sisko:
“Firstly, that poll is not representative of the whole Who fanbase. If it was, Tom Baker and Matt Smith would be way, way higher.
Actually, I think Peter Capaldi's quite possibly a better actor than both David and Matt...
Give him a chance - I think he's going to be legendary. No need at all to compare him to former Doctors negatively IMO.
In fact, I've seen a lot of people who gave up watching during Matt's era saying that the promise of Capaldi playing the Doctor has convinced them to start watching the show again!”
A couple of non-fan friends (people who have a few fond memories of watching the classic series but haven't bothered with the post-2005 programme at all) have said Peter's casting might actually get them watching. I think he's going to be fantastic for the programme, not only in the sense of being a superb actor who I'm sure will bring something amazing to the role, but also in terms of the interest in (and hopefully enthusiasm for) Who he could generate.
And in response to the OP's assertion that "DT he is not", well, frankly, in the context of Doctor Who that's a good thing. Don't misunderstand me - David Tennant is a fantastic actor. I've seen him give wonderful performances outside Doctor Who, and it's not even as if his performance in Doctor Who could be described as "bad" - far from it, I very much enjoyed watching him a lot of the time. It's just that I could never quite take him as the Doctor. There was nothing I thought of as
Doctorish about him or his performance. It's a hard quality to define (a distant, enigmatic air maybe, an alienness, a mixture of light and darkness) but Matt Smith has certainly got a Doctorish air to him, which is why I think he's been the best Doctor since Tom Baker. Chris Eccleston had it but I just never got any of that from David Tennant. I look at Peter Capaldi, though, and think "Yep, he's got that Doctorish quality". I can't wait to see him in action.