Sunday, March 21, 2004
And so, the new Doctor is...Christopher Eccleston.
Casting the role is obviously one of the most important decisions the new production team had to take, and it's difficult to criticse their decision. Of course, many would have liked an older Doctor, but that has problems. Would the actor be up to the rigours of shooting a 13-part series like "Doctor Who"? Would they still be up to (and even, up for) the role in two or three years time? Would his age place too many restrictions on the type of Doctor we get? (The possibility of an older actor being cast as the Fourth Doctor lead to the addition of Harry Sullivan to the regular line-up, so that he'd be able to handle any 'rough stuff' required.)
In fact, Eccleston's age is only a little below the average for the first eight Doctors. Five of the eight have been aged from their late thirties (McGann, 37) through to their mid forties (Troughton, 46), with only Hartnell (55), Pertwee (51) and Davison (30) falling outside this age range.
It's difficult to think of a bigger 'name' that the BBC could have cast in the role. Eccleston's name might not be immediately recognisable to the general public, but many would recognise him when they see him - whether it's from "Shallow Grave", "Cracker", "The Second Coming" or something else. Unlike, say, Sylvester McCoy, many people reading or seeing reports of his casting will know him from something. Eccleston also has the advantage of the likes of Alan Davies and Eddie Izzard that he hasn't come from a comedy background - not that that doesn't have it's place in "Doctor Who", but the show should be more than just a light-entertainment fest.
Of course, it remains to be seen what sort of Ninth Doctor we get (it's good to see how the BBCi Ninth Doctor has swiftly been downgraded to something akin to Big Finish's 'Unbound' Doctors), but hopes must be high.
Casting the role is obviously one of the most important decisions the new production team had to take, and it's difficult to criticse their decision. Of course, many would have liked an older Doctor, but that has problems. Would the actor be up to the rigours of shooting a 13-part series like "Doctor Who"? Would they still be up to (and even, up for) the role in two or three years time? Would his age place too many restrictions on the type of Doctor we get? (The possibility of an older actor being cast as the Fourth Doctor lead to the addition of Harry Sullivan to the regular line-up, so that he'd be able to handle any 'rough stuff' required.)
In fact, Eccleston's age is only a little below the average for the first eight Doctors. Five of the eight have been aged from their late thirties (McGann, 37) through to their mid forties (Troughton, 46), with only Hartnell (55), Pertwee (51) and Davison (30) falling outside this age range.
It's difficult to think of a bigger 'name' that the BBC could have cast in the role. Eccleston's name might not be immediately recognisable to the general public, but many would recognise him when they see him - whether it's from "Shallow Grave", "Cracker", "The Second Coming" or something else. Unlike, say, Sylvester McCoy, many people reading or seeing reports of his casting will know him from something. Eccleston also has the advantage of the likes of Alan Davies and Eddie Izzard that he hasn't come from a comedy background - not that that doesn't have it's place in "Doctor Who", but the show should be more than just a light-entertainment fest.
Of course, it remains to be seen what sort of Ninth Doctor we get (it's good to see how the BBCi Ninth Doctor has swiftly been downgraded to something akin to Big Finish's 'Unbound' Doctors), but hopes must be high.
