I liked him in Ruby, but I'm not convinced of him as the doctor. Plus I get the feeling that casting someone much younger reflects what they're planning to do with the series.
(Numbers in brackets are approximate ages on taking on the part. May be +/- 1 year.)
The Doctor is supposed to be over 900 years old. Presumably he was in his Hartnell incarnation for most of that time. If he's been re-incarnating quite frequently since it's not surprising he looks younger.
If you work out the declining trend, the eleventh doctor should still be in his early thirties.
What evidence do you have to be able to assume how long the doctor has been in each incarnation? When he's off on his own it could be centuries between each regeneration. All we know is from "Last of the Time Lords", that after 900 years in one body he looks like Dobby the House-elf. Plus I really can't see why you suggest that regenerating frequently would make each subsequent Doctor younger.
What evidence do you have to be able to assume how long the doctor has been in each incarnation?
Yes, that's a very good point. I've no idea whether the writers have definite ideas about this or not. I mean, you get the idea that the modern stuff is continuous from all the back-referencing. But the big questions for me are about McCoy, McGann and Eccleston - they have the biggest potential gaps and we have no way of knowing how long each one went on for (admittedly we have both termini for McCoy, but not continuous storylines).
All we know is from "Last of the Time Lords", that after 900 years in one body he looks like Dobby the House-elf.
Indeed - and that rather suggests that the Hartnell incarnation was much younger than that if indeed he was the first[1], doesn't it, since he didn't look like Dobby? I must ask my friend Henry, because he has encyclopaedic knowledge of this kind of thing.
[1] I have a feeling we know he was the first, but I don't know how we know.
But that's what I thought last time, and last time I said "that's what I thought last time, and last time I resolved to wait and see, and it turned out pretty well, so I'm going to do that again", and it turned out pretty well, so I'm going to do that again.
*nods* I've got a fair bit of faith in the DW production team these days, even if Russell T. isn't going to be involved any more. I was HORRIBLY sceptical when they cast Catherine Tate as Donna for a whole series and thought it would be a disaster...but it actually worked fine.
I'm willing to reserve judgement and see how it goes.
Although David Tennant interviews much better than he does...
Comments 14
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
I can't wait to see Captain Jack's reaction!
Reply
Hartnell (55), Troughton (46), Pertwee (51), Baker (40), Davidson (30), Baker (41), McCoy (44), McGann (37), Eccleston (41), Tennant (34) ... there's somewhat of a declining trend there.
(Numbers in brackets are approximate ages on taking on the part. May be +/- 1 year.)
The Doctor is supposed to be over 900 years old. Presumably he was in his Hartnell incarnation for most of that time. If he's been re-incarnating quite frequently since it's not surprising he looks younger.
Reply
What evidence do you have to be able to assume how long the doctor has been in each incarnation? When he's off on his own it could be centuries between each regeneration. All we know is from "Last of the Time Lords", that after 900 years in one body he looks like Dobby the House-elf. Plus I really can't see why you suggest that regenerating frequently would make each subsequent Doctor younger.
Reply
Yes, that's a very good point. I've no idea whether the writers have definite ideas about this or not. I mean, you get the idea that the modern stuff is continuous from all the back-referencing. But the big questions for me are about McCoy, McGann and Eccleston - they have the biggest potential gaps and we have no way of knowing how long each one went on for (admittedly we have both termini for McCoy, but not continuous storylines).
All we know is from "Last of the Time Lords", that after 900 years in one body he looks like Dobby the House-elf.
Indeed - and that rather suggests that the Hartnell incarnation was much younger than that if indeed he was the first[1], doesn't it, since he didn't look like Dobby? I must ask my friend Henry, because he has encyclopaedic knowledge of this kind of thing.
[1] I have a feeling we know he was the first, but I don't know how we know.
Reply
Reply
I'm willing to reserve judgement and see how it goes.
Although David Tennant interviews much better than he does...
Reply
Actually, I could barely stand to watch any of them interviewing.
Reply
Reply
I don't suppose there's anything can be done except wait and see how it goes though :/ I wonder what sort of companion they'll get for him.
Reply
Leave a comment