This is a bit of an odd question, and I'm not sure if a lot of people will even understand what I'm getting at but here goes.

I occurred to me today that there are now not far off twice the number of past Doctors than there were in my childhood. At the time, as a child, I found the 7 Doctors (up to McCoy) a lot to remember. We now have 13 official ones, plus others like Peter Cushing and various non-canonical one-offs. Does the value of being the Doctor depreciate with each new version? How long is it until the number of Doctors is so numerous that they become a dime a dozen and the individual ones aren't special anymore? To date, the majority of fandom tends to treasure all of them (whilst having personal favourites of course) but If we reach the point of having 20 canonical Doctors (and I don't feel the show's future success is as guaranteed as a lot of people seem to take for granted it is, so we may or may not reach that point) will it be the case where we have forgettable ones that are widely considered not to matter, and that most won't be aware of as anything other than a name in a list.

There is surely a watershed point where the list becomes too large for the majority of people to make the effort of remembering and people become far more selective about which ones they will cultivate their interest in. Or is there? How many newcomers will want to learn the Periodic table of Doctors?

Is each past Doctor losing his lustre and prestige with each new one? The fact is we're getting to the point where the role is actually quite well subscribed and the actor cannot say it is a rare career honour few men have been given, especially if we count the numerous non-canonical Doctors (canon's fine for fans but to an actor a job is a job; if you played 'the Doctor', you played 'The Doctor').

What about when William Hartnell is ancient history? Will newcomers still be interested in this antiquarian version of the character? I don't think Dan Leno is hugely popular today. How many 1920s actors can you name, let alone profess an honest interest in?

Thoughts?

Does it matter? As the man himself says "times change and so must I." Why is it imporatant that future fans won't neccisarily remember certain Doctors? Surely the most important thing is that the show continues, and yes although it is true that as time passes people are remembered less, its not like they disappear- there will always be people who will watch their art.

Whether it matters is one of the things I'm inviting comment on It's like one of those essays you must get in school sometimes, that have a statement and then the word 'Discuss'. You must be familiar with those yeah?

You musn't assume I was asking a leading question as a disguise for stating an opinion, although I know that is the common format for topics

It's an interesting question. I hadn't really considered what it must be like for new viewers coming to the show and having all of these ex-doctors to learn about. The fifth Doctor was 'my Doctor' and it's remarkable to think that in twenty odd years of the show there were only four previous Doctors.

Personally I'd love one of the actors to break the three (four) year format and stick around for five full series at least so that we don't race up the numbers so quickly.

I was really taken with how Matt Smith went back to study Troughton's take on the role to inform his character so I think there were always be interest in previous Doctors no matter how old they are. Also it's remarkable how each incarnation seems to have it's own legion of fans, particular McGann who had the least screen time of all.

Consider that there are (insert name of sport here) enthusiasts who know (insert name of esoteric statistic) back to the inception of official record keeping to said game, I'd say no. There will always be someone to keep the record. After all have they stopped playing baseball because there are multiple players who have scored home runs in multiple series? Or cricket players who do what they do? Nope. Why should the number of Doctors be any different?

Must admit that this had been on my mind lately as well. I think it was the end of the 50th that got me thinking about it. As somehow in my mind I had convinced myself, as commercially unrealistic that it is, that we'd have something like 13 doctors and then that would be the end of it. But now of course all the bets are off so to speak, and the show could run for as long as the BBC does. And I keep trying to imagine that end scene happening in a 100th anniversary episode with 57 doctors. Just doesn't seem right somehow..

That last paragraph is so on the money. Bang. On.

As for the thread topic itself? It is going to happen if the show continues. Sadly. Just how it is. Its why I welcome Doctors staying as long as possible (that said I am lucky in that I like every one of them to varying degrees so far. If I didn't then no doubt I would selfishly want them gone as soon as possible). But yes. I don't really want it to become little more than an acting opportunity that lasts three years and then onto other things- cue the next guy. Its why I sincerely hope the rumours of Capaldi being a one season wonder aren't true. If he's as good as we hops then let him stay for many years. Ultimately though its probably best to just think about the here and now and if the current Doctor is good and episodes are brilliant. Legacy is nice but I'm never going to see the 100th anniversary. But no I wouldn't want it to become a revolving door as such.

I'm sorry but what exactly have I done to offend you? You asked a question and I gave an opinion, i may not have directly said yes or no but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid.

Also, you say you haven't been giving an opinion, but it's quite clear from that essay you've written that you think it's a bad idea from your constant rhetorical questions.

I guess I'm just worried that actors don't commit to the role for long enough. In the US, its not unusual for a star to stay with a show for seven or eight years. With Who, we're lucky to get four.

I don't think it's a problem from the bigger view of things, as the Doctor is always the same character. He may have a different face, and slightly different mannerisms, but that can be adjusted to just by watching the programme - there's no extra backstory to absorb in order to understand his actions.

It's not like, say, if Torchwood ran and ran, taking on new members and losing some along the way, where you'd have to learn a new set of characters each time. From that perspective, I would think that the companions would be a bigger problem than the Doctor himself.

The sheer variety of episodes might be more of a fatigue problem, and the number of internal references. Who wants to have to learn which Second Doctor episode a particular monster appeared in, and what their catchphrase was, just to get a joke?

I think that is the case right here, right now that Hartnell is that judging by people's attitudes towards him.

Anyway, I sort of agree that 30 years down the line I can see this long line of Doctors stretching as far as the eye can see in the 80th Anniversary special. I think certain Doctors like Tom Baker and David Tennant will always stand out though as they are more popular but the others will probably fall to the wayside a bit.

Indeed. We've already reached the point where certain Doctors are better remembered than others. It's really not a problem.

Also, the list is getting a bit fuzzy with John Hurt being an official Doctor, but not a numbered Doctor.

This. I remember when I first became a fan with the Davison era in the early 80's, there was the idea that Troughton was the "forgotten Doctor" being bandied about at the time. Well, that was *cough* numbers of years ago and he's pretty high profile at the moment! And I get the general vibe, obviously helped by AAISAT, that Hartnell's, um, 'stock' is rising if anything. (Quite right too. He's marvellous!)

Am also one of those who hasn't had a problem with anyone who's played the Doctor so as long as they keep getting the casting right....and of course we have no idea how long the show will last.

One prediction though. However many Doctors we end up with, they'll all have some fans who consider them their favourite. Which is a rather nice thought, I think.

Real die hard enthusiasts, as any in any subject will probably do their best to familiarise themselves with all aspects of the show, but apart from that, yes I do think older doctors will increasing just become names on a list, with those names not being known at all for many. I came to the show at new who, but have made the effort to watch a fair few classic who ep's and obviously know all the doctor's, but on the other side of that, I know plenty of people who have watched every ep since 2005 who couldn't name a single classic who doctor other than tom baker, and only him because the name is thrown around so much in relation to the role.

So yes, in general,as sad as some may find it, this will happen because it already has and will continue. in fact it will only get worse as one day, there will be no-one alive left to remember seeing hartnell, troughton, etc the first time around, and so they will be consigned to 'archive footage' in the minds of all, only being looked upon by the most dedicated of fans.

I don't remember viewing Troughton as that at the time. The only thing I did remember thinking at the time was that he was this big funny Doctor who had taken over from this grumpy git who first played the role! How times have changed!

I wonder if Hartnell's 'stock rise' is a temporary thing now the anniversary is over? And my my other thought on Hartnell is that every anniversary that comes round his stock will always rise as he was the First actor to play the role and he set the template for the others to follow. So though he may not always spring to mind when thinking back on past Doctors, at big anniversaries I don't think he will be forgotten as last year proved.

Maybe Troughton, being the first 'New Doctor' to play the part will always been mentioned for that reason as well.

If anything, I felt Pertwee was a bit of a forgotten Doctor during the 50th anniversary.

Hartnell was represented in AAiSaT and there were repeats of his first episodes.
Troughton had two long-lost stories released and he was also represented in AAiSaT.
Baker appeared in TDotD.
Davison, C. Baker, McCoy had their own comedy show (with a cameo from McGann). Plus they appeared on various "talking heads" clipshows.
McGann finally got a regeneration minisode to end the Eighth Doctor's tenure.
Eccleston finally got a regeneration scene to start the Ninth Doctor's tenure.
Tennant, Smith and Hurt had lots of brand new material.
Capaldi got a live introduction show, a cameo in TDotD and a regeneration scene to start his tenure.

All Pertwee got was a couple of clips.

Very interesting point, it is a hard one with Pertwee. As only one of two Doctors during the 70's, he was eclipsed by Tom Baker so unless you're a fan of his Doctor/Era it's sort of hard to remember him for anything.

Though I'm not a big fan of his Doctor, you have to give credit to him for helping revitalise the show in the early 70's, but is that enough to make him stand out and be remembered?

That is an interesting point. But perhaps Capaldi will draw upon some Pertweenian traits and make his 'stock' rise again. After all, Pertwee was in an important sense Capaldi's Doctor. (When young Peter was corresponding with Barry Letts and others working on the show and driving them round the bend.)

It's possible, I thought when he was cast that maybe Capaldi's Doctor would be more like Pertwee's, being more serious though maybe not as action-orientated. I sort of based that on his previous roles but it could be I'm hopelessly wrong but from what you've said, it's a possibility.

You mean he might go around speaking in a pompous and/or patronising manor. With a slight lisp. Whilst stroking the back of his neck?



(sorry. I really do like Jon!)

Well, he'd certainly have to take account of what year thith ith. But perhaps he'll use his Venusian martial arts skills and drive lots of cool vehicles.

I've wondered about this. I think now the Doctor count is going into the teens, the titles they'll acquire ('The First Doctor', 'The Fifth Doctor') will start to sound less impressive.

I mean, we already strongly associate numbers 1 to 12 with clocks, for example (quite apt for a time traveller). Numbers beyond that start to sound increasingly arbitrary. 'The Twelfth Doctor' is probably the last grandiose 'title' the character can acquire. 'The Fourteenth Doctor' doesn't sound as impressive, and would probably be assigned to merchandise only.

(I think 'The Thirteenth Doctor' would best be skipped, as with car registration plates )

Speaking of merchandise, what are toy collections going to be like in 20 years time!

I think you will start seeing them divided more as the CLASSIC ERA (1-8) and MODERN ERA (War, 9 to Current) for marketing and history. For the casual fan they will only care about the Modern era. The more dedicated fan will care about all of the Doctor Who history.

Harking back to my reference to 'the Periodic table of Doctors' I wonder if it will become a useful aid in future to adopt this system when refering to one of the Doctors:

Hartnell 1
Troughton 2
Pertwee 3
Baker 4
Davison 5
Baker 6

etc

At a glance that would give everyone not au-fait with the entire run of Doctors and their sequence some sort of reference point to guage roughly how old each Doctor is.

Although Hurt muddles this somewhat by falling in-between McGann 8 and Eccleston 9.