Who?!
Haven't posted here for quite a while, what with personal issues at home, work being insane since September, and sundry other RL interruptions.
But with the Christmas Holidays coming to a close, I just had to comment on this.... The New Doctor primarily because of the utter frenzy going on surrounding it. And would just like to say one thing.
FFS, would people actually wait to see the guy act/character in action before going about declaring "I will NEVER watch this show again!!" in utter righteous indignation. Just how childish are you coming off making snap decisions, and judging a book by it's cover? Strikes me as ludicrous that a show where such emphasis is put on the continuing character of the lead, rather than his face, that some people are so bloody up in arms about this.
Just looking through some of the comments that have popped up on D.S and LJ and probably every Dr Who, SF and general TV site from here to Timbuktoo, the reactions fall into five general, often overlapping, categories.
1) Those who know Matt Smith from his other work on TV, and like him.
2) The common sense "Let's Wait And See" brigade, which thankfully includes a fair sprinkling of David Tennant's fans, though largely made up Classic Who watchers who are long used to a variety of shapes, sizes and ages in their Doctors.
3) The ridiculously superficial kneejerk reaction "He's FUGLY! I'm Not Watching!" morons, who reveal a helluva lot more about the shallowness of their character then anything else with their comments, and whose opinion on anything serious to do with this or any other show is immediately invalidated and who should really just fuck right off and watch Twilight repeats and Hollyoaks till they die.
4) The die hard Tennantites who just didn't want anyone anyway apart from their floofy hair idol, and seem to forget that 'The Tennant' wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms when it was announced he would take over from Chris Ecclestone.
5) Those who just can't seem to get past his age.
On that last one Yes, Mr. Smith (points for that one right there!) is a tad on the youngish side, and I admit to being a bit taken aback by just how young he is. But on reflection he's not much younger than Peter Davison was when he kicked off with Five. And what's more important is what he brings to the part and how he plays it. I can see Moffat turning how he looks right on his head, using it, and using it well...he's that kind of writer. Moffat, lest people forget, is responsible for Press Gang, where he managed to imbue a load of teens working on a school paper with more adult gravitas then many grown up shows I've seen. Julia Sahwalia's 16 year character would've given Meryl Streep's Oscar Nominated Vogue editor a run for her money for the way she was characterised and acted, and that's what you can get with good writing and acting.
And I'm hopeful on the latter. I've only seen Matt Smith in The Ruby In The Smoke, which was IMO a rather dull BBC period mystery tale filled with anachronisms (thanks to the production team, not the author) with, for me, only two memorable/likeable characters in it. One of them was Matt Smith's Jim, who was also the narrator of the piece, who stood out and frankly acted Billie Piper off the screen in all their scenes togther. As the other stand out was Julie Walter's tremendous turn as the villain of the piece, I think he was in good company.
People always have a fixed idea about 'how something should be', God knows there were moans aplenty about Catherine Tate's casting as a companion as she 'didn't fit the mould', and how many people were made to eat their words this past year I wonder?
I've heard the moaning before, seen the knee jerk reactions before, so...yes again, he's young looking...and I feel sorry for comments Matt Smith's undoubtedly going to hear in spades a good year before he ever hits the screen...but it'll be then and only then when verdicts, TV turning offs and flouncing away from fandom should occur!
But with the Christmas Holidays coming to a close, I just had to comment on this.... The New Doctor primarily because of the utter frenzy going on surrounding it. And would just like to say one thing.
FFS, would people actually wait to see the guy act/character in action before going about declaring "I will NEVER watch this show again!!" in utter righteous indignation. Just how childish are you coming off making snap decisions, and judging a book by it's cover? Strikes me as ludicrous that a show where such emphasis is put on the continuing character of the lead, rather than his face, that some people are so bloody up in arms about this.
Just looking through some of the comments that have popped up on D.S and LJ and probably every Dr Who, SF and general TV site from here to Timbuktoo, the reactions fall into five general, often overlapping, categories.
1) Those who know Matt Smith from his other work on TV, and like him.
2) The common sense "Let's Wait And See" brigade, which thankfully includes a fair sprinkling of David Tennant's fans, though largely made up Classic Who watchers who are long used to a variety of shapes, sizes and ages in their Doctors.
3) The ridiculously superficial kneejerk reaction "He's FUGLY! I'm Not Watching!" morons, who reveal a helluva lot more about the shallowness of their character then anything else with their comments, and whose opinion on anything serious to do with this or any other show is immediately invalidated and who should really just fuck right off and watch Twilight repeats and Hollyoaks till they die.
4) The die hard Tennantites who just didn't want anyone anyway apart from their floofy hair idol, and seem to forget that 'The Tennant' wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms when it was announced he would take over from Chris Ecclestone.
5) Those who just can't seem to get past his age.
On that last one Yes, Mr. Smith (points for that one right there!) is a tad on the youngish side, and I admit to being a bit taken aback by just how young he is. But on reflection he's not much younger than Peter Davison was when he kicked off with Five. And what's more important is what he brings to the part and how he plays it. I can see Moffat turning how he looks right on his head, using it, and using it well...he's that kind of writer. Moffat, lest people forget, is responsible for Press Gang, where he managed to imbue a load of teens working on a school paper with more adult gravitas then many grown up shows I've seen. Julia Sahwalia's 16 year character would've given Meryl Streep's Oscar Nominated Vogue editor a run for her money for the way she was characterised and acted, and that's what you can get with good writing and acting.
And I'm hopeful on the latter. I've only seen Matt Smith in The Ruby In The Smoke, which was IMO a rather dull BBC period mystery tale filled with anachronisms (thanks to the production team, not the author) with, for me, only two memorable/likeable characters in it. One of them was Matt Smith's Jim, who was also the narrator of the piece, who stood out and frankly acted Billie Piper off the screen in all their scenes togther. As the other stand out was Julie Walter's tremendous turn as the villain of the piece, I think he was in good company.
People always have a fixed idea about 'how something should be', God knows there were moans aplenty about Catherine Tate's casting as a companion as she 'didn't fit the mould', and how many people were made to eat their words this past year I wonder?
I've heard the moaning before, seen the knee jerk reactions before, so...yes again, he's young looking...and I feel sorry for comments Matt Smith's undoubtedly going to hear in spades a good year before he ever hits the screen...but it'll be then and only then when verdicts, TV turning offs and flouncing away from fandom should occur!