Looking ahead to the christmas special, it's going to be 99% Matt Smith with about 30 seconds of Peter Capaldi right? That's how they've been doing the regenerations isn't it? So we'll actually have to wait till the middle of next year to properly get to the next doctor.
Probably, but maybe this time, they'll break the pattern.
Looking ahead to the christmas special, it's going to be 99% Matt Smith with about 30 seconds of Peter Capaldi right? That's how they've been doing the regenerations isn't it? So we'll actually have to wait till the middle of next year to properly get to the next doctor.
Usually, yes. I was really hoping one of the big swerves of the anniversary special was that the regeneration would take place there and we'd get a proper full Capaldi story before the break.
Of course the last time they introduced a new Doctor before the season finished, we ended up with The Twin Dilemma, so I can maybe see why they were hesitant to try that again.
Last night, while watching it with a crowd, another smart thing the special did occurred to me. I know there was some trepidation among some fans, especially younger, more recent ones, over casting 55-year old Peter Capaldi. But the audience loved Hurt's Doctor at the showing I attended. And they laughed at him doing things that the show simply can't do with more youthful Doctors. It was a good reminder of a style of Doctor that we've missed out on in recent years, and a good indicator of why we need such a shift. I've loved the Tennant/Smith eras, but watching them both together pretty much maxed out my interest in seeing any more young, wacky Doctor for a while. There's nothing left to mine out of that concept.
I think it's going to be a nice contrast going from Matt Smith who is the youngest person to play the Doctor to Peter Capaldi who is the same age as William Hartnell when he played the role which in itself is rather neat in itself.
Last night, while watching it with a crowd, another smart thing the special did occurred to me. I know there was some trepidation among some fans, especially younger, more recent ones, over casting 55-year old Peter Capaldi. But the audience loved Hurt's Doctor at the showing I attended. And they laughed at him doing things that the show simply can't do with more youthful Doctors. It was a good reminder of a style of Doctor that we've missed out on in recent years, and a good indicator of why we need such a shift. I've loved the Tennant/Smith eras, but watching them both together pretty much maxed out my interest in seeing any more young, wacky Doctor for a while. There's nothing left to mine out of that concept.
I, too, really was pleased by the enthusiasm the largely-young crowd showed for the "old dudes".
I was afraid we'd lose the fans who were drawn in by the the dreamy young doctors, but I think the great lot of them are well-and-truly hooked.
I think people are going to be okay with an older Doctor. To use Star Trek as an example, as much as people love the action-oriented Captain Kirk, people also loved Captain Picard. I think the moment we see Peter Capaldi in the role of the Doctor, he'll get a lot of fans.
I think people are going to be okay with an older Doctor. To use Star Trek as an example, as much as people love the action-oriented Captain Kirk, people also loved Captain Picard. I think the moment we see Peter Capaldi in the role of the Doctor, he'll get a lot of fans.
It's the disproportionate number of young women who I feared we'd lose.
I think people are going to be okay with an older Doctor. To use Star Trek as an example, as much as people love the action-oriented Captain Kirk, people also loved Captain Picard. I think the moment we see Peter Capaldi in the role of the Doctor, he'll get a lot of fans.
It's the disproportionate number of young women who I feared we'd lose.
Tennant & Smith certainly have drawn the birds.
There were at least a dozen teenage girls dressed like Matt Smith at my showing.
I'm sure for someone out there, that would probably be some kind of fetish overload.
I think people are going to be okay with an older Doctor. To use Star Trek as an example, as much as people love the action-oriented Captain Kirk, people also loved Captain Picard. I think the moment we see Peter Capaldi in the role of the Doctor, he'll get a lot of fans.
It's the disproportionate number of young women who I feared we'd lose.
Tennant & Smith certainly have drawn the birds.
There were at least a dozen teenage girls dressed like Matt Smith at my showing.
I'm sure for someone out there, that would probably be some kind of fetish overload.
Yep. Fezes and Bowties galore.
One of the girls Saturday wore a bowtie, red Chucks and a long black coat. She spread the love among all three nuDocs.
Am I remembering An Adventure in Time and Space right? I thought they referenced 10 million viewers for the first episode of Dr. Who. Those sound like huge numbers by todays standards.
Am I remembering An Adventure in Time and Space right? I thought they referenced 10 million viewers for the first episode of Dr. Who. Those sound like huge numbers by todays standards.
I was curious because I thought I'd heard that myself, and it turns out there's a handy chart for the entire show's history. It's an interesting read.
I knew it dropped off in the later years, but I hadn't realized there were such big declines toward the ends of Troughton and Tom Baker.
And, yes, it's often hovered around 10 million., which is about where the new series often lands, also. I'm wondering if that was more or less impressive back in the '60s and '70s, though? With less viewing options, typically older shows have much higher numbers than we see today. I remember a few years ago reading that a generic episode of The Beverly HIllbillies remains (or at least did at the time) the highest rated non-special episode of a TV series, for no reason other than a lot of people chose to watch that instead of their two other options that night.
I'm also not as sure if that is as impressive compared to today's standards but still, it's a great amount of people to have watched a show like that back in the day. I think it's rather impressive.
Comments
I'm more curious about what's wrong with the Gallifreyan textile industry. Why can't they make cloth in any color but red?
Of course the last time they introduced a new Doctor before the season finished, we ended up with The Twin Dilemma, so I can maybe see why they were hesitant to try that again.
http://www.rpsteeves.com/2013/11/guest-blog-day-of-doctor-analysis-by.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01m3kfy
Of course, Peter Davidson will always be Tristan Farnon to me.
*See what I did there?
Nice bookending.
I was afraid we'd lose the fans who were drawn in by the the dreamy young doctors, but I think the great lot of them are well-and-truly hooked.
Tennant & Smith certainly have drawn the birds.
I'm sure for someone out there, that would probably be some kind of fetish overload.
One of the girls Saturday wore a bowtie, red Chucks and a long black coat. She spread the love among all three nuDocs.
That's gotta be more than the budget for the entirety of the Fourth Doctor's run, right? B-)
GUINNESS WORLD RECORD FOR THE DAY OF THE DOCTOR
http://www.doctorwho.tv/whats-new/article/guinness-world-record-for-the-day-of-the-doctor
I was curious because I thought I'd heard that myself, and it turns out there's a handy chart for the entire show's history. It's an interesting read.
I knew it dropped off in the later years, but I hadn't realized there were such big declines toward the ends of Troughton and Tom Baker.
And, yes, it's often hovered around 10 million., which is about where the new series often lands, also. I'm wondering if that was more or less impressive back in the '60s and '70s, though? With less viewing options, typically older shows have much higher numbers than we see today. I remember a few years ago reading that a generic episode of The Beverly HIllbillies remains (or at least did at the time) the highest rated non-special episode of a TV series, for no reason other than a lot of people chose to watch that instead of their two other options that night.
In 1963 there were 12.4 million licences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom_(historical)#Number_of_licences_issued
In 2010 there were 25 million licences.
Doesn't tell you how many viewers per household but that 10 million in 1963 must have represented a sizeable chunk of the potential audience.
At least that's what the gent in the cat detector van from the Ministry of Housinge said.