I haven't said that age is all-important for me, but that is a helpful factor. I have actually said that I don't mind the occasional younger actor if they do it right, but still prefer older actors in the role. You've ignored this however, because again you're putting words in my mouth, telling me what my argument is despite me saying otherwise, and generally presenting a strawman argument.

The fact is this: I do not think the older they are the better. You can keep trying to assert what my opinion is if you like, but it doesn't reallg contribute anything, does it, rather than make your argument look sillier and sillier?


More words being put into my mouth. I do not think that older actors are better actors in general, only that they fit the role of the Doctor better. My point here was Tennant's younger presence doesn't feel right for the character in my opinion. I do judge the actors as individuals, based on how well I think they act; I would even say Tennant is much better, as an actor, than Tom Baker. But I also judge how well I personally think they suit the role, and as much as it bothers you that I hold this belief, I do believe that actors that give off an older presence, and older actors in general, simply fit the role much better.

[quote]If you think that it doesn't often happen that the right actors are chosen and given good writing, then surely that suggests you have disliked the portrayal of most of the incarnations?

If, however you meant it aimed specifically at younger actors, then i'd guess that, given what you've told me about your views on age, that no new younger actor could ever be the right one for you. You'd have judged them unfit for the role about 5 seconds after seeing them, before they ever had chance to actually start the role.[quote]

I was referring to your claim about any actor being able to pull it off with the "best writing to get it across in a natural, non-forced way", as I feel this hasn't always happened.

As for apparently judging them before they've even had a chance to start the role, Matt Smith's first episode left me feeling a lot more impressed with him than I thought I would, after having a lot of doubt about him. Sure, I still think he wasn't a slipper fit for the role and he's far from my favourite, but I can assure you I do give each new Doctor a chance even if I have my skepticisms. But this is again you trying to assert my opinion for me and claiming that I don't like younger actors in the role full stop. I don't know if you're intentionally trying to make my opinion look irrational, because if I was saying half the things you think I am then it certainly would be.


But you can't tell someone what they should and shouldn't like in a character, and for somebody paranoid that I'm supposedly trying to tell them their opinion is wrong, you're doing a lot of just that.

If they had someone aged 26 who could really pull it off and proved themselves just as good in the role as the likes of Capaldi, Baker, Pertwee, etc. then that would be fine by me. But I'm also weary that they'll simply be written as more generic and as boyfriend material again, which seems to be the average for a lot of younger actors these days and has happened with Doctor Who. I'm also weary that if they keep getting younger actors in the role, then New Who will be stuck in a case of only being able to cast younger Doctors and older actors being considered too risky for the role. I'm sure, with your constant assertions that you wouldn't want any age range to become the norm, that you wouldn't like that.

Smith was 26 when he got the part. Smith was brilliant. IMHO.

If it's the right person...go for it!

So we've had 26 to 56 when they've got the part. Cool.

Admit when I became a fan when I was 12 the fact that Peter D was 30 odd didn't really occur to me, I just loved him and he was a complete hero to me. 30 was well old for me then! Sigh...

I feel that at the start of all this you were very much asserting the importance of age, yet with each passing post where I assert the numerous reasons why a person should be judged on merit rather than age, you seem to be distancing yourself more and more until the point where I feel if this conversation goes on much longer, you'll eventually be saying that you never said age was a factor in the first place.

Oh, and you can use your favourite 'strawman argument' catchphrase as much as you like in your attempt to somehow diminish my stance. It doesn't do anything to my perception (other than noticing that you seem to use it when your running out of constructive things to say), but if it makes you feel better, you carry on.



That's what I meant.


My understanding of what you've just explained to me is that it is the feeling of an older presence you value more than age itself. If that is the case then it concur's with my assertion of judging the actor, and not the number on their birth certificate, so in a way that would sort of put us in agreement.


No, it hasn't always happened, but you said 'often' doesn't happen, which as I said might lead someone to believe you've actually been uncomfortable with more incarnations than one's you have been comfortable with.

I've just been replying to what you've been writing yourself, and even quoting you for that matter, the same as you with me. If you do give younger actors a fair chance then fair enough, but someone could be forgiven for thinking otherwise based on your earlier strong stance of older age as a requirement for your preferred type of incarnation.



Im not. You have enjoyed older actors rather than young? fine, I've just really gotten the sense in your previous posts that a world class 20 something year old actor, wouldn't rate as highly for you as a 60 year old who had never acted a day in their lives previously, because you have been asserting the case for older age with quality so strongly, and just think it's strange that you place so much emphasis on the age of the actor as an indicator of quality in the role. I was mainly just commenting on that fact, and trying to better understand your reasoning.



.
There has only been one actor in new who that I would class as 'young' (Smith), and they didn't go down the romantic, generic boyfriend route with him. Plus it seem's a bit of a pre - stereotyping thought on your part that it is likely they would automatically do that, as much as it would be if I were to say that I didn't want an older actor because i'd expect they'd automatically write him as a grumpy old man.


I indeed wouldn't like that, but based on what we've seen so far, we don't seem to be in any danger of that at the moment.

When Capaldi was announced, apart from the fact I thought it was good because he had an already impressive reputation as an actor, it seemed a nice variety change again given that the last 3 incumbents had been all different ages, and different in the role, but getting younger with each new actor, that a sudden actor older than any we'd had in new who offered a chance for something different again.

If the next doctor was 50+ again though, I wouldn't judge them on solely that, but I might have a sense, like I did before Capaldi, that after that person that maybe we could do with someone from the younger age range again so as to not risk going too far in the direction of getting stuck in one age range again. (although if they did then hire a third 50+ actor in a row i'd still judge them on merit, but it would strengthen my view it should be someone younger the next time)

I don't think I'm distancing myself from that at all, considering I'm still strongly defending that age is an important factor in playing the Doctor for me... you're literally just making this up now. The problem here is you ignore it when I say, for example, I don't think mind a younger Doctor occasionally or I don't think a younger actor should ever play him, and you play up the age part as though it's the one and only thing I care about.

I wouldn't keep bringing up the strawman argument (I think I've said it twice) if you didn't keep using them. Perhaps you don't know, as you seem confused by the word, but a strawman is to try and refute an argument that hasn't even been advanced, which is literally what you keep doing by putting words in my mouth and trying to assert my opinion for me despite me having said otherwise. That says to me that you're merely out of anything constructive to say yourself (if you had anything constructive to say in the first place, when you're mostly just arguing that I'm wrong to prefer older Doctors) and are just grasping at straws to try and make my preference of older Doctors look irrational. I'm not even sure why such a preference bothers you so much: you nitpick at me for it, and then when I defend that belief, I'm apparently telling you your opinion is "wrong". Hmmm.

This is typical of you, of course. For example, people who didn't like Rose are focusing too much on the romance side of things and not taking into account what else she brought to the show. Clearly.


Your specific words were "You can't say older actors are better in general" which isn't me putting words in your mouth. I was pointing out that I never claimed such a belief.


So like how I appreciated Matt Smith in the role more than Tennant, despite him being younger? That doesn't really fit in with your silly assertion that I have a specific preference based on who's got the older birth certificate, but the question is, will you continue to ignore that and still attempt to convince me that I do?


Oh look, trying to assert my opinion for me again. I think you know well I've been more than comfortable with most incarnations, and that I'm referring to the use of younger actors there. You can't argue a point that you know I'm not making, it's utterly ridiculous.


If that's the case, then I can only assume you are very presumptuous, dismissive of other's preferences, and of course are making child assumptions what their opinion is simply because you don't like it. I would hate it if a terrible actor was put into the role, even if they were older, but fortunately I don't think there's ever been a bad actor to play the role, even if I think some have worked better than others. Like I said, I consider Tennant superior in acting ability to Baker, and if nothing else, I certainly appreciated his acting ability and how it helped make episodes such as Human Nature and The Waters of Mars so stong. But of course, I secretly don't value acting ability at all, for the crime of having preferences on who plays a fictional character.


Can't agree there. He was definitely a step in the right direction compared to Tennant, but a lot of Tennant's less interesting traits had carried on over and often showed through... including being played up as somebody rather desirable and being a more typically heroic character. Contrary to your belief, however, I'm not saying Smith was terrible and that everything he did well with the role is immediately redundant because of his age.


So you wouldn't want Doctor number 14 to be someone chosen solely for their acting and individuality, but rather for their age range?

If i'm talking about different actors of different ages all having success, you make comments about how they constantly, in your view. go down the romantic route with the doctors you perceive as young, or that they don't have the right essence, but then if I point out that you have to judge each actor individually, you suddenly come over all innocent and fake outraged saying that you never acted that way, are fine with younger actors playing the part, and do actually judge them individually. You contradict yourself based on whichever way the conversational wind is blowing at the time.

If my responses are in any way confused, it's only because of an attempt to keep up with your ever shifting and changing opinion.


Here again, is you declaring your favourability of older doctors, despite in other parts of this very post you trying to now act as though it's not so important for you.

If you feel that it's fair to say older actors are better to you, then obviously I can't change that, but at the same time, after we've gone over elements like acting talent, and the same age actors having radically different personalities, and how the same age people can feel older or younger than others. If after discussing all those elements, you feel that your fine with making yourself someone associated with the view that 'older actors are preferrable', when their is simply nothing that links them, or nothing that links younger actors for that matter, but numbers on a birth certificate, then all I can say is that I feel a little sorry for you that you can't see that.



I meant you can't say older actors are better in general for this particular role. didn't realise i'd have to be quite that specific with my wording. It's not as though were having a conversation about the entire tv industry. At most it was a 'cross wires' in wording between us, so really nothing to make a big deal about. I apologise if you think I was trying to imply something that wasn't so if it makes you feel better, but it wasn't the case.



Based on what you said in your last post, where you were talking about presence, then it would suggest you didn't care about age. Based on your earlier posts though where you made an immensly big deal about age and even said that older actors have a presence that younger actors can't match.

So again, if i seem somewhat confused, it's only because your previous strong opinions on age as a basis for suitability seem to have gradually softened and altered over the course of the thread.




How is saying 'might lead someone to believe' (obviously referring to myself) something based on comments you have made trying to assert your opinion for you? I simply said my opinion based on what you had said.



Again, it sound all very level headed now to talk of acting ability, but I was having this conversation with you when you were asserting that younger actors simply couldn't do what an older actor could, and I'm here now when you still insist on asserting that all younger actors are portrayed as romantic in on way or another, as a way to diminish them, when it simply hasn't been the case, and I see no reason it would be in future.




Matt Smith tie's with Capaldi as the least romantic lead I've experienced. It seems to me the only reason you want to lump him in with the romantic type stuff is because, despite acting on other parts of your post like you actually aren't now judging on age, your still simultaneously trying to push the view that all younger doctors are portrayed as romantic leads, as evidence for why they are bad for the role in your view, when I simply don't see it. Tennant had some romantic storylines sure, but that's nothing to do with the age of the actor.



Of course I would. Like I said, If the next doctor were 50+ I'd still judge him on the individual that he was and how suited his personality seemed for the role. If doctor's 14, 15, ad 16, were all 50+ plus then i'd do the same for them, but if someone asked me inbetween incarnations, when there was nothing to judge on, of what I might like for the next incarnation, in the interests of variety, I'd probably say someone younger. If they then cast another 50+ actor and told us they'd interviewed many, young and old, and that he was simply the best man for the job, that would still ultimately be fine to me.

Just the same the other way around. A slew of younger actors, then I'd think in theory it was time for someone older again, in the interests of the best possible variety mix, but were they to cast someone younger saying that he had been the best candidate, then that would be fine by me.


I have felt that during the last few posts of this conversation, I am simply trying to follow the logic of someone who's logic, in this instance, cannot be followed, because in this conversation, you seem to be switching and changing your opinion, from initially putting quite a bit of emphasis on age, and why younger actors, were, to you, not as suitable for the role, such as presence and the apparent tendancy (in your opinion) to make younger actors a romantic incarnation.

More recently in posts, you have tried on one side to tone down that view and act as though you value the individual and don't judge younger actors taking up the role, whilst on the other side, still trying to peddle the idea of all younger actors being romantically infused in character, in the hope it sticks as a negative in their column. That proves to me that you are still, (albeit, more discreetly) trying to prove the apparent better suitability of older actors in the role, and that your protestations otherwise are simply an attempt to somehow 'win' a conversation about opinions.

It is for these reasons, that I am walking away from this now pointless conversation.

Insult me, my opinions, my feelings, and anything else if you so wish in your next post, if it makes you feel better. You have done throughout this, the only difference being that this time, I won't be giving your post the time of day this time (especially since it will probably consist of things you have already said in one form or another anyway.)


Despite this rather heated conversation, I will bear no personal grudges going forward, and hope that if we engage directly in another thread, that it is on more favourable terms.

My opinion hasn't been changing at all, I think I've made it quite clear how I feel despite still being told how I apparently feel to an amusing inaccuracy. I prefer older actors in the role (which for some reason, bothers you a lot more than it should) and generally have more confidence in their ability to play the Doctor, whereas younger actors have yielded more mixed results for me. That's not to say I immediately hate anyone young in the role and refuse to see anything good about them, despite your determined protests that that's what I've saying and your poor perceptions of what emphasis is. I would be a lot happier if the next person to land the role is a man older, but also very capable of acting, and somebody who suits the role well. I feel if we get another younger Doctor already, the show will limit itself to that sort of protagonist. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply can't differentiate between somebody not having as much confidence in younger Doctors, and somebody outright hating them; otherwise you're simply twisting my argument to your favour. Perhaps if you stopped doing that, you'd be able to understand what I'm saying?

As for the romance hullabaloo, I think it was Terrance Dicks who discussed the sexualisation of the Doctor in the modern series, Matt Smith included. Maybe you don't see it, but I do.


Surprisingly, it is possible for you to have a preference, without it being the only defining, be-and-end-all factor. There are many other factors to take into account which I do think of.

You're arguing under the assumption that you've proved to me that younger actors can easily fit into the role as much as older actors, when I simply don't feel that's the case (although I apparently need to clear up that it doesn't mean I think younger actors can never fit the role at all).


Presence of age often, but not always, goes hand in hand with actual age. Again, not me telling you two different things, but you determined to read this how you want it to read.


I think it's obvious by now you haven't based much at all on what I've said so much as what you think I've said.


There are things younger actors generally can't do that an older actor can. That, in my opinion, makes them less ideal for this particular role and gives a more limited pool of options, it doesn't completely rule out every single one. Take Paul McGann, for instance: he didn't quite feel so experienced or absurd, but he did capture that aura of mysteriousness.

You seem to be trying to look at this in a very black-and-white manner.


There was quite a lot of flirting, romantic tension and even a bit of snogging with Smith's Doctor. River was a full on love interest, and Amy and Clara both had a strongly hinted potential with him. You go ahead and act like I'm making up it though, I certainly don't feel that's my intention. I'm just discussing what I saw in the show, and considering I seem to have a higher opinion of Smith's stories than you, it shouldn't be a surprise I've watched them plenty of times.


But that wouldn't be casting based on acting ability, that would be casting in an attempt to keep the numbers balanced.

Silly thing to pry at you for, no?


I don't think I've ever pretended I don't judge younger actors taking up the role, I admit fully that it gives me a feeling of skepticism, but that I'm willing to give the actor a chance and appreciate what they do well: but for me, it presents something missing which means I can't appreciate the character as much, and still have yet for someone to fully turn me around on that one. Any so-called "emphasis" is where I've been explaining in detail how I feel about certain situations to your prying curiosity. This whole "switching and changing my opinion" is literally just being made up by you, trying to decide where I do and don't put emphasis on what and coming up with wildly inaccurate conclusions that seem more like a desperate attempt to make my opinion look irrational. Without even paying attention to what I say, you whip out your next observation without any actual evidence as to why I supposedly think that, and harp on about me "contradicting" myself. If I'm repeating myself, its because you're going "No, you didn't say that, you said this". But if you didn't want this heated debate, perhaps you should have swallowed your pride, admitted that I simply have a difference preference from you, and not tried to show me up for it or whatever you were doing?

I guarantee the next actor in the role though will be a 30 something bloke. Not the likes of Aidan Turner or James Norton but someone with that kind of appeal though. I also guarantee that they will debut in Series 11 with Chibnall too.

I agree. I think they'll go for someone who's a bit of eye candy again to get the mum's back. I'm hoping for Sean James Murphy which would also fulfill the Doctor's desire to finally be ginger!

Absolutely. Had enough of the other arguments about the race, gender or sexual preferences of a future Doctor. Enough of the gingerphobia and deal with one of those areas of prejudism that is still somehow OK to exhibit. (I had a little websearch on 'gingerphobia'... )

I believe that continually putting us redheads into the subservient role is demeaning and fails to address fundamental prejudices in society.

Or something. (And before anyone thinks that I'm mocking diversity, try being a redhead and being told that you didn't get a job because the recruiting manager (a very senior manager in the Home Office, you stinker) shared with a third party that because I have red hair I would be volatile and bad tempered.)

Capaldi's Doctor starting going down when he introduced the shades and guitar. Looked like a geriatric Andy Murray trying to be cool.

He was great in the last Christmas special. Reckon he will leave Christmas 2017 or New Year 2018 . Unless they do a shock regeneration in the early or middle episodes of series 11. Hope he gets a good final story maybe a two parter and they bring back some old friends and villains for it. We already know Missy will return at some point to torment our hero. Until then enjoying hearing about series 10.

A couple of pictures of handsome ginger-haired actor Sean James Murphy.

Picture one.

Picture two.

I have everything crossed (everything)!!

The Doctor would be very happy to finally be ginger.

It has to happen sooner or later!

To be honest im fed up with under 40 actors playing the Doctor.

Could be room here for a bit of fun in the teaser trailers at least.

Voice over announcer: All new Doctor Who! All new adventures! All new Doctor!
12: (Looks round, surprised and irritated, as if hearing the voice over...) Not if I've anything to do with it!
Followed by shots of 12 in various fun, but life threatening, situations... fade to black.

(It's practical, all shots could be lifted from the forthcoming series.)

A bit 4th wall-ish?

Well, he's already broken the 4th wall so this could be a goer!

Not being rude but you may have to accept it and only two actors so far since 2005 have been under 40. Ecccleston was 40 when cast.

As for this Sean James Murphy bloke, not a bad suggestion but would they really cast a non UK actor though? That is the thing.

Robert Carlyle or Suranne Jones please. Someone who can pull off weird but intelligent and distinctly on a different level of thinking than any ordinary person, with a very old-fashioned or simply off-colour dress sense.

Love Jones but want the Doctor to remain male.

Carlyle, I like him but I don't see him as the Doctor though.