Sorry about that

Is PM more innocent than CE?

Innocent of what?

It's arguable that it's not. It's more like a flashback. That's what it would be if it was in the 50th itself. It's a prologue to the 50th.

It's a sort of a prequel to the rest of new Who prior to the 50th story, but it's really too short to for that. It's a minisode.

Examples of true prequels are "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Caprica".

What I'm really fussing about is calling the usual minisode prologues prequels. Somewhat undermined in my original comment because this prologue is, for once, sort of a prequel as well!

Perhaps they should have started with John Hurt in 2005?

*slowly backs away from thread*

Im sure Paul would have been great but I can completely understand them going for Chris who was at the peak of his acting powers. There would have been a few annoying niggles had Paul been cast such as having to work out where the television movie fitted in with continuity of the series, having to explain that the Doctor is not half human etc. Basically complications that were not needed when trying to revive a dynasty. Those issues are not so important in 2013 as they might have been in 05.

What I always hoped would happen was a mini series dealing with the Time War with Paul as the doctor (during that year with only 3 episodes). The day of the doctor partially seems to be this I suppose.but Paul is only getting a fleeting appearance mores the pity.

I think that while we are split roughly down the middle over whether he should have come back in 2005, just about everyone agrees that it would be great to have some more McGann episodes. There's plenty of scope for stories, and watching the interviews posted on the other thread, it seems like he'd be up for more.

No the show needed a fresh start and a break from the post.

Forget that! They should have pretended that the tv movie never existed and had Sylvester Mccoy resume time lord duties.

*quickly sprints away from thread.

We missed a good era with Paul. The Night of the Doctor showed he has the gravitas to do the job. At least now he has his regeneration scene and there is no reason why more doctors can not share the same screen as they are all there in time and space. We had that episode with 5 of them.

I agree that on the reboot Chris Ecclestone was very good because he was more 'modern' at the time with great enthusiasm. I am glad it wasn't too long as he became too much for me. David Tennant was a great choice and I am looking forward to Peter Capaldi.

I say this. Hear me now fellow fans:

It didn't matter how much other people would mock the show for its sfx or silly plots. It didn't matter at all. Because the fans' affection for the show, through thick and thin, ALWAYS trumped the mockery. The affection was always the brightest star in the night sky and no one could ever take that away.
<dries eyes>

However, when DW returned in 2005 it needed a push. A push, not only to make itself popular but to gain credibility. That was achieved by having both decent sfx and good actors. CE and BP were also fresh faces (relatively speaking).

We shoudn't forget that RTD was a big name too. In fact CE signed on, primarily, because RTD was involved.

Eccleston was what the show needed, he's still the best Doc by far and had a huge hand in redeeming the credibility of the show. That's not to say McGann shouldn't have been honoured long before now, with something a lot more substantial than a ethereal "minisode".

McGann was associated in the TV producers' mind with a
failed entry in the DW franchise, and hence casting him would have been automatically ruled out. It would have been like casting George Clooney in "Batman Begins", or Matt Salinger
in the 2011 "Captain America".

This is a shame, but it's how TV and movies work.

Sorry I just thought that someone said that his doctor was more innocent than Eccleston's. Do you think that Paul looks more innocent, ie if both were making their way through passport control would customs be more likely to pull Eccleston aside than McGann?


Charlie Brooker said in his article that Alan Davies (who was the favourite) would have been a bad choice, but not as bad as a comedian, anyone who's been in Casualty or EastEnders, Ralph Little, Paul McCartney or Peter Sutcliffe

I've had time to reflect on this and have changed my mind, Eccleston should have been the Doctor in 2005. As many have said, a new start is what the show needed.

Who said Doctor Who fans weren't fickle?