I agree thisispop - except for-

I think the only reason the younger Buzzjack members

 

I'm 19 and understand completely how this could be the beginning of the end if true.

 

I was gutted Patterson was not announced as new Doctor. With regards to Matt, I didnt know him but since then I have checked him out and been pretty underwhelmed.

 

After watching Survivors on BBC1 I had convinced myself that they would choose Patterson and the fantastic Zoe Tapper. I still hope theres a chance for Zoe- she was the best thing about Demons too- not that that was hard I accept :P

 

Not giving up hope yet, and even if true I will still tune in and see what becomes of the show I've grown to love over the past few years.

But it is clear the BBC are downgrading Dr Who in terms of cash spent on the show & hence the quality of the SFX's; scripts & acting will suffer accordingly and so I suspect will the audience figures.

 

And this is EXACTLY what they did with the show in the mid-80s..... Downgraded it totally..... Drafted in TERRIBLE choices like Peter Davison, Colin Baker, Bonnie Langford (which was frankly the last straw for me...) and Sylvester McCoy, and, surprise, surprise, the show died ON ITS ARSE by 1987, killed by the BBC and their utter short-sightedness..... <_< Even the relatively good scripts such as "Curse of Fenric", "Ghost Light" and others weren't sufficient to save it.... Steve Moffatt is a great writer, but if you get the wrong people to do the job, then it'll go utterly tits up; the blueprints mean fukk all if you get a bunch of pikey builders to build the Taj Mahal, know what I mean....? :rolleyes:

 

As the Diva once said... "It's all just a little bit of history repeating...." :rolleyes:

I agree. I think the only reason the younger Buzzjack members can't see why you, me & Martin are getting so pessimistic is because exactly the same thing happened to Dr Who from its Tom Baker late 1970s halycon days when it was a regular weekly UK Top 5 most watched programme with a regular audience of 12-16 million to a pathetic 3.5 million less than a decade later with the Sylvestor McCoy / Bonnie Langford combination.

 

As you rightly infer hiring the relatively unknown & inexperienced Matt Smith would be forgivable if you had a damn good experienced actress to cover his backside.

 

(If all of this speculation turns out to be true) For the BBC not take on an actress of Anna Friel's calibre who will be starring in a $100 million Sci-Fi Adventure movie out in June with the brilliant Will Ferrell .......:

 

Land of the Lost (2009) 3D Trailer

 

whom was a long time Dr Who fan (she auditioned unsuccessfully for the part of Dr. Grace Holloway in the 1996 Dr Who movie); with her partner David Thewlis shooting the next two Harry Potter films in the UK throughout the 2nd half 2009/early 2010 she is/was available to work in the UK is bordering on stupidity IMHO on a par with if RTD turned down Christoher Eccleston offer to revive the franchise's main character.

 

But it is clear the BBC are downgrading Dr Who in terms of cash spent on the show & hence the quality of the SFX's; scripts & acting will suffer accordingly and so I suspect will the audience figures.

As another one of the older members who watched the original version I'm still reasonably optimistic. As I said earlier, I was proved wrong about Billie Piper as were many others in my age group. If budget cuts are required I'd much rather see them paying the stars less money (and they'll still be pretty well paid) than cutting down on other production costs.

 

Yes, Sylvester McCoy and Bonnie Langford were awful but the scripts at the time were awful too. I didn't like Moses Jones but that was because I didn't think much of the programme as a whole rather than anything to do with Matt Smith. Just give them a chance rather than jumping to conclusions.

As another one of the older members who watched the original version I'm still reasonably optimistic. As I said earlier, I was proved wrong about Billie Piper as were many others in my age group. If budget cuts are required I'd much rather see them paying the stars less money (and they'll still be pretty well paid) than cutting down on other production costs.

 

Yes, Sylvester McCoy and Bonnie Langford were awful but the scripts at the time were awful too. I didn't like Moses Jones but that was because I didn't think much of the programme as a whole rather than anything to do with Matt Smith. Just give them a chance rather than jumping to conclusions.

 

Billie Piper at least had someone of the calibre of Chris Eccleston to back her up, so her inexperience didn't really show.... Moses Jones wasn't a particularly good prog, but even in a bad prog or film you can still say that so and so actor did a good job (Samuel L Jackson's done some pretty grotty films, but has always shone in terms of performance)... Matt Smith simply did NOT do anything to indicate that he is capable of taking on the role of The Doctor..... This is potentially the biggest casting faux pas since Peter Davison took over from Tom Baker (and I would say that technically, Pete Davison was a better actor than Smith when you consider his track record as Tristan Farnham in All Creatures Great and Small, which was a very memorable performance, he just did not work at all as The Doc, particularly coming after such a huge presence as Baker who pretty much defined the role in that era. Tenant has similarly defined the Doc in this era....), or indeed George Lazenby taking over Bond from Sean Connery.....

 

I really dont particularly like or respect the BBC's decisions which seem purely based on monetary terms, considering they will happily spend the best part of a hundred grand on a fukkin' LAUNCH PARTY..... <_< Are we honestly trying to say that the Beeb wouldn't be able to recoup the costs of hiring an actual PROVEN actor like Patterson Joseph, Robert Carlyle or Sean Pertwee or a PROVEN actress such as Anna Friel or Zoe Tapper from the lucrative DVD box set sales.....? Nonsense.....

Jesus, the snobbery is overwhelming. Billie Piper did not NEED 'backing up' by Ecclestone because there can be no doubt that her acting totally blew him off the screen. Inexperience means knob all because everybody has to start somewhere. A high (ish) profile role, be it TV or film, can also get an actor the attention they deserve, or open gateways they wouldn't otherwise get. I'm appalled that people of supposed intelligence are getting so ANGRY about the casting of a character before they've even seen said character in action as it were. Very short-sighted and setting oneself up for major embarassment later. Sad really...

Jesus, the snobbery is overwhelming. Billie Piper did not NEED 'backing up' by Ecclestone because there can be no doubt that her acting totally blew him off the screen. Inexperience means knob all because everybody has to start somewhere. A high (ish) profile role, be it TV or film, can also get an actor the attention they deserve, or open gateways they wouldn't otherwise get. I'm appalled that people of supposed intelligence are getting so ANGRY about the casting of a character before they've even seen said character in action as it were. Very short-sighted and setting oneself up for major embarassment later. Sad really...

 

This is the biggest pile of rubbish you've ever written (and that is no mean feat :P )..... She was good, but by NO FUKKIN' STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION can you say she "blew" Eccleston off the screen...... That's just a laughable statement.... There were definite hiccups when she started, but as she went on, she grew in confidence and improved considerably, she was a lot better in series two with Tenant than series one... Eccleston nailed the role from the off because he is a fantastically experienced actor who's played just about every type of role, everything from historical/costume dramas (Elizabeth, Jude) to suspense/horror (Shallow Grave), to say that he was "blown away" is utter twaddle. Have you actually SEEN Billie Piper in big screen roles..? Fukkin' AWFUL, I suggest you actually watch cr@p like "Spirit Trap" sometime...... :rolleyes:

 

And p!ss of with the "snobbery" argument, so bloody easy to accuse someone of "snobbery" when you cant actually be bothered to take on board their arguments.... I've seen how this series has been allowed to just slip away in the past, through extremely bad casting, through bad scripts, just so the beeb could save itself a few quid, and I'm unfortunately seeing history repeat itself..... :(

If budget cuts are required I'd much rather see them paying the stars less money (and they'll still be pretty well paid) than cutting down on other production costs.

 

If funding is actually a factor, then why not try to get one of the big US cable networks involved in the production, spread the costs....? They have done co-productions with HBO in the past, ie, the absolutely fantastic "Rome" series, which was perfectly cast, with the right actors in the right roles, and they co-produce The Tudors with the Showtime network, again, another excellently produced and scripted show.... Or, hey, why not ask the Sci Fi channel to cough up some dough... They MIGHT know a thing or two about producing a Sci Fi series, what do you think.....? :rolleyes:

This is the biggest pile of rubbish you've ever written (and that is no mean feat :P )..... She was good, but by NO FUKKIN' STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION can you say she "blew" Eccleston off the screen...... That's just a laughable statement.... There were definite hiccups when she started, but as she went on, she grew in confidence and improved considerably, she was a lot better in series two with Tenant than series one... Eccleston nailed the role from the off because he is a fantastically experienced actor who's played just about every type of role, everything from historical/costume dramas (Elizabeth, Jude) to suspense/horror (Shallow Grave), to say that he was "blown away" is utter twaddle. Have you actually SEEN Billie Piper in big screen roles..? Fukkin' AWFUL, I suggest you actually watch cr@p like "Spirit Trap" sometime...... :rolleyes:

 

And p!ss of with the "snobbery" argument, so bloody easy to accuse someone of "snobbery" when you cant actually be bothered to take on board their arguments.... I've seen how this series has been allowed to just slip away in the past, through extremely bad casting, through bad scripts, just so the beeb could save itself a few quid, and I'm unfortunately seeing history repeat itself..... :(

You are NOT seeing history repeat itself YET because you know nothing about the next damn series - it's all just assumptions and stereotypes; 'she was rubbish in Skins so she'll be rubbish in this', 'he's never had a major role before so he's no good' - what a load of turd you're spouting! And Ecclestone really wasn't up to much as the Doctor; alright at it, yes, but next to Piper/Tenant, not especially suited to the series. Not likeable enough, little charm.

 

I don't care that in the 1980s this series went downhill; I care that in the 2000s it won't. Of COURSE you'll think it has gone downhill if you convince yourself it has before you've even watched it, and what the hell kind of mindset is that to employ when it comes to a series you're a fan of? We've seen this argument so many times before from the public, from the media, a notable recent example being the sheer OUTCRY from nearly all corners when Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, only for people to decide that Casino Royale was a top-notch film, actually, and Craig was a top-notch Bond, actually. You'll only end up eating humble pie if you don't keep an open mind.

Jesus, the snobbery is overwhelming. Billie Piper did not NEED 'backing up' by Ecclestone because there can be no doubt that her acting totally blew him off the screen. Inexperience means knob all because everybody has to start somewhere. A high (ish) profile role, be it TV or film, can also get an actor the attention they deserve, or open gateways they wouldn't otherwise get. I'm appalled that people of supposed intelligence are getting so ANGRY about the casting of a character before they've even seen said character in action as it were. Very short-sighted and setting oneself up for major embarassment later. Sad really...

Yes people could be accused of snobbery towards Billie Piper and the same charge could be levelled at me. I thought she'd be awful and I was proved wrong. However, she didn't outdo Eccleston. She just showed that she should have pursued a career in acting from the start rather than trying to be a singer.

You are NOT seeing history repeat itself YET because you know nothing about the next damn series - it's all just assumptions and stereotypes; 'she was rubbish in Skins so she'll be rubbish in this', 'he's never had a major role before so he's no good' - what a load of turd you're spouting! And Ecclestone really wasn't up to much as the Doctor; alright at it, yes, but next to Piper/Tenant, not especially suited to the series. Not likeable enough, little charm.

 

I don't care that in the 1980s this series went downhill; I care that in the 2000s it won't. Of COURSE you'll think it has gone downhill if you convince yourself it has before you've even watched it, and what the hell kind of mindset is that to employ when it comes to a series you're a fan of? We've seen this argument so many times before from the public, from the media, a notable recent example being the sheer OUTCRY from nearly all corners when Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, only for people to decide that Casino Royale was a top-notch film, actually, and Craig was a top-notch Bond, actually. You'll only end up eating humble pie if you don't keep an open mind.

Having just agreed with you, I'm going to disagree to some extent this time. Eccleston was a good Doctor. However, David Tennant has been outstanding which tends to downplay Eccleston's performance. If he hadn't been any good, the whole revival might well have failed.

Yes people could be accused of snobbery towards Billie Piper and the same charge could be levelled at me. I thought she'd be awful and I was proved wrong. However, she didn't outdo Eccleston. She just showed that she should have pursued a career in acting from the start rather than trying to be a singer.

 

As she is from my local town (Swindon) most people knew she had a great career ahead of her before gaining national fame, but were surprised when she first became a singer, as at a young age she was touted as an outstanding actress in the making which has turned out to be the case.

 

But in any working environment if you are going to employee a rookie as part of a key duo personnel then it is strongly advised that you support the rookie with an experienced "old hand" to ensure the rookie reaches its potential.

 

If the BBC are going to cast two relatively unknown rookies in the crucial roles of Doctor Who then that has a potential to be a disaster in the making.

But you've just said it - potential, not certainty. That's all I wanted.

She just showed that she should have pursued a career in acting from the start rather than trying to be a singer.

 

..Or indeed marrying the ginger prat Chris Evans..... :lol:

 

But then she went and kind of blew it by starring in utter cr@p like Spirit Trap and Diary of a Call Girl... What bloody terrible choices she's made since Dr Who.....

 

Mind you, Zoe Tapper has kind of blotted her copy book after Survivors with Demons, surely the WORST show of the year..... :rolleyes:

 

But in any working environment if you are going to employee a rookie as part of a key duo personnel then it is strongly advised that you support the rookie with an experienced "old hand" to ensure the rookie reaches its potential.

 

Spot on... Billie Piper needed Eccleston and Tenant.... She's one of these actors who needs to star alongside someone strong to play off of, because the stuff she's done after hitting big with the Doc has not been all that great.....

 

But you've just said it - potential, not certainty. That's all I wanted.

 

Oh, so you totally bum Richard and yet call me a 'snob' when I quite clearly said in my post, that this could "POTENTIALLY be the biggest casting faux pas since Peter Davison took over from Tom Baker.....". Takes me back to what I've always said about you, you DONT actually fully digest a person's argument before jumping in...

 

I'm sure she's been critically acclaimed for Diary of a Call Girl.. it's certainly at least been brought back for a second series..

Mind you, Zoe Tapper has kind of blotted her copy book after Survivors with Demons, surely the WORST show of the year..... :rolleyes:

 

Not really a fan of Demons, but the actress has got a lot of potential, I saw her in a BBC1 drama over Christmas, she can be very adaptable.

 

I'm just hoping casting Hannah Murray is just a rumour, as I would prefer Zoe Tapper or Michelle Ryan, actually I wouldn't even mind Anna Friel at the moment she is not even contracted to anything, since Pushing Daisies got the cut.

 

what the hell kind of mindset is that to employ when it comes to a series you're a fan of? We've seen this argument so many times before from the public, from the media, a notable recent example being the sheer OUTCRY from nearly all corners when Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, only for people to decide that Casino Royale was a top-notch film, actually, and Craig was a top-notch Bond, actually. You'll only end up eating humble pie if you don't keep an open mind.

[/size]

 

It's because I am such a fan of the show that I want the absolute best for it..... They have a great writer in Steven Moffatt, who has written by far the most interesting, imaginitive episodes of the show, but it will count for absolute NOUGHT if the casting aint right, and I have a very, very bad feeling that this is where it's all going to fall apart tbh.... If budgeting IS a factor in not being able to employ the bigger names out there, well, fukk it, take the Yankee dollar from HBO, Showtime or Sci Fi channel, do WHATEVER it takes to get the absoute best actors you can..... If I could get Alan Rickman, Tim Roth, Robert Carlyle or Gary Oldman and Emily Blunt, Cate Blanchett or Anna Friel to be the stars, but it was going to take funding from some US cable network to pay their wages and have top notch production values, then fukk it, that is precisely what I'd do, because great actors + great scripts + great production values = phenomenal telly, simple fukkin' formula; look at all these US Cable shows which have seriously good actors in them, The Sopranos, Dexter, Battlestar Galactica, Lost, Mad Men, Heroes, etc. There is no reason why Dr Who cannot be as good as any of them, the show deserves to be the best it can be, and if it takes funding from the States, well fukk it, why the hell not, wouldn't be the first time we had a British/US co-production on the beeb.....

 

As for your statement about Bond... I had no real issues with Daniel Craig being Bond, I knew the guy was a good actor, because I'd seen him do other films in which he played pretty ruthless characters, and Casino Royale was indeed a far tougher, more ruthless breed of Bond film which I was very happy to see as a fan of the Connery (and also Dalton was good, VERY under-rated....) years and of Fleming's novels... Which was why I was so disappointed in the rather lame "Quantum of Solace", which simply was not even half as well written or well made.... And, tbh, when I went to see 'The International' last week, I actually thought that Clive Owen would've been an excellent Bond also, perhaps potentially better than Craig.....

 

I'm sure she's been critically acclaimed for Diary of a Call Girl.. it's certainly at least been brought back for a second series..

 

The show was garbage though, I was frankly only able to stomach about a few episodes of it..... Totally trivialising the very real, very harsh realities of prostitution, Band of Gold is a far better series which dealt with the issue in a more realistic and gritty manner.... I've seen some of these girls hanging around my neighbourhood, Holloway, Kings Cross, etc, and it is an utter fukkin' dreadful life that they lead; harsh, horrendous. Most are hooked on smack, they get beaten by pimps, beaten by "clients", yes, even the ones in the "escort" agencies, I fukkin' HATED that show because of how it falsely presents the sex trade in London, you'd be forgiven for thinking it's all "happy hookers" if you watch that show.....