Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Why won't they have Paul Mcgann back?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23-10-2013, 16:41
Thamwet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Moo
Posts: 774

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.
Thamwet is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 23-10-2013, 16:44
adams66
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 1,782
Wait and see...
adams66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 17:03
icemetallica8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 395
Its a shame if he isnt in it, as he only got one on screen portrayal of the doctor, and hasnt changed too much. However hopefully he might still turn up in it!
icemetallica8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 17:17
James Frederick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 23,076
I hope he is back even if it's just to do a regeneration scene so then there is no doubt that who he regenerated into
James Frederick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 18:09
Lii
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 971
I hope he is back even if it's just to do a regeneration scene so then there is no doubt that who he regenerated into
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.
Lii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 18:14
W._O._Frobozz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 120
Well he did add his voice to the trailer, or so I'm told. I know I can hear his voice during the "echoey bits," along with Billie Piper.
W._O._Frobozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 11:10
Sara_Peplow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,051
Would like to see him again too. Brief cameo is all it would take. 8 would fill the gap between the classic doctors and the new.
Sara_Peplow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 11:45
johnnysaucepn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,739
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?
Because there was no place that he would logically fit into the story, perhaps?
johnnysaucepn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 13:26
Thunder Lips
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,553
Because there was no place that he would logically fit into the story, perhaps?
When the story is purely in the hands of the writer that's not a very good excuse is it?

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.
Thunder Lips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 14:15
johnnysaucepn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,739
When the story is purely in the hands of the writer that's not a very good excuse is it?

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.
johnnysaucepn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 14:18
CD93
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 9,797
When the story is purely in the hands of the writer that's not a very good excuse is it?
If the story was written to bring back Paul McGann, I imagine it would be quite a poor excuse indeed.
CD93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 14:19
Eighth Doctor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The TARDIS
Posts: 656
That extra 10 mins for the cinema showing has me intrigued. Minisode? Possibly involving at least 1 classic Doctor?
Eighth Doctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 14:41
frankiecam
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 23
Its a disgrace pauls not back , i think he will make a great doctor when he gets the chance
frankiecam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 14:59
icemetallica8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 395
Potential prequel/minisode on the red button?
icemetallica8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 15:14
Thunder Lips
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,553
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.
Yes, you've absolutely got me there, that is a spot on comparison. P&P being a 50th anniversary celebration of action sequences it really ought to have featured more of them.
Thunder Lips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 15:39
Mulett
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 6,475
Matt Smith, David Tennant AND Paul McGann all in the TARDIS at the same time. I don’t think I could cope with that . . . I’m already thinking of a ‘slash fiction’ version.
Mulett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 16:28
matdevine21
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 516
Because there was no place that he would logically fit into the story, perhaps?
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)
matdevine21 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2013, 08:00
Sladen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 221
Because there was no place that he would logically fit into the story, perhaps?
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.
Sladen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2013, 09:24
johnnysaucepn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,739
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.
johnnysaucepn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2013, 09:58
Eighth Doctor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The TARDIS
Posts: 656
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.
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.
Eighth Doctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2013, 11:02
Thunder Lips
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,553
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.
Celebration of the show, revolving around the main character. If they can't think of a way to involve 8 at all then that'd make them very poor at their job. It's unlikely that is the real reason (if indeed it's true he doesn't appear).

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.
Thunder Lips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2013, 11:20
Eighth Doctor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The TARDIS
Posts: 656
Lets look at the facts - Moffat lies. Tennant lied. I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of the mouths of any writer or actor. Not even the most dedicated spoiler hunter has been able to come up with a single scrap of information about what has been shot indoors, and therefore absolutely anything could have been shot starring any number of returning actors. Moffat is also a dedicated fan, and loves classic as well as new Who.

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!"
Eighth Doctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2013, 11:42
johnnysaucepn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,739
Celebration of the show, revolving around the main character. If they can't think of a way to involve 8 at all then that'd make them very poor at their job.
Which is very different from what's being argued. I have no doubt at all that they can think of a way to bring all 8 past Doctors back. That's not the same as it being a good idea, let alone necessary.
johnnysaucepn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2013, 11:49
Thunder Lips
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,553
"Necessary" is a complete red herring, none of it is necessary.
Thunder Lips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2013, 12:55
Sam Bell v. 548
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 115
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.
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.
Sam Bell v. 548 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:09.