Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Wouldn't buy this guy playing a MEDICAL doctor...

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: Wouldn't buy this guy playing a MEDICAL doctor... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Wouldn't buy this guy playing a MEDICAL doctor... - 5/1/2009 5:58:44 PM   
The_Hat


Posts: 290
Joined: 18/9/2006
From: londinium
quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

...let alone Doctor Who? The casting of someone so young is typical of the modern BBC. Look at Merlin, look at Robin Hood, look at the new Saturday evening Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch - 32 yrs old).


According to research, the character of Sherlock Holmes was 'born' in 1854, he's first supposed to meet Watson in 1881. So why is Cumberbatch too young to play the role?


After checking Wikipedia, I stand corrected and bow to your superior research, Rawlinson. Indeed, Mr. Holmes' date of birth is listed as January 6th 1854. So happy birthday for tomorrow Sherlock. So Holmes was only 27 in A Study In Scarlet, eh? You learn something new every day. Doesn't make Matt Smith any older though, does it?


_____________________________

There are monkey boys in the facility.

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 61
RE: Matt Smith Is New Doctor Who - 5/1/2009 6:21:03 PM   
Mason Verger


Posts: 4724
Joined: 13/1/2006
From: Bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri
This forum could be called 'Screen News'.


_____________________________

Mind like parachute - only function when open.

Be excellent to each other.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 62
His hair is shit - 5/1/2009 7:09:39 PM   
muchobenny

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 17/10/2006
Really, really shit. They'd better make him cut it.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 63
RE: Wouldn't buy this guy playing a MEDICAL doctor... - 5/1/2009 7:59:58 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

...let alone Doctor Who? The casting of someone so young is typical of the modern BBC. Look at Merlin, look at Robin Hood, look at the new Saturday evening Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch - 32 yrs old).


According to research, the character of Sherlock Holmes was 'born' in 1854, he's first supposed to meet Watson in 1881. So why is Cumberbatch too young to play the role?


After checking Wikipedia, I stand corrected and bow to your superior research, Rawlinson. Indeed, Mr. Holmes' date of birth is listed as January 6th 1854. So happy birthday for tomorrow Sherlock. So Holmes was only 27 in A Study In Scarlet, eh? You learn something new every day. Doesn't make Matt Smith any older though, does it?



No, but I don't see that it matters. It's not as if they've cast a 26 year old to play a character who's established to be in his 50s. And it's not as if they've cast someone fresh from Hollyoaks in the role, they've cast an acclaimed stage actor as a character who can really be any age they like. If we're going by The Doctor's actual age then even Hartnell was too young for the role! 

Also meant to say, the Robin Hood actor is about 25/26, in the 80s series Jason Connery was in his early 20s and so was Michael Praed. I think Errol Flynn was only about 30 when he played the role.  So it's not as if the age range there is wrong either.

(in reply to The_Hat)
Post #: 64
Lost lol - 5/1/2009 9:22:52 PM   
Funk

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 20/3/2006
Yes i actually thought it was funny reading Empire being told absolutley bugger all about the next season of Lost.... made the 3/4/5pages feel worth it.... was there a buy season 4 on blu ray also :)

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 65
RE: Wouldn't buy this guy playing a MEDICAL doctor... - 5/1/2009 9:26:36 PM   
The_Hat


Posts: 290
Joined: 18/9/2006
From: londinium
quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

...let alone Doctor Who? The casting of someone so young is typical of the modern BBC. Look at Merlin, look at Robin Hood, look at the new Saturday evening Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch - 32 yrs old).


According to research, the character of Sherlock Holmes was 'born' in 1854, he's first supposed to meet Watson in 1881. So why is Cumberbatch too young to play the role?


After checking Wikipedia, I stand corrected and bow to your superior research, Rawlinson. Indeed, Mr. Holmes' date of birth is listed as January 6th 1854. So happy birthday for tomorrow Sherlock. So Holmes was only 27 in A Study In Scarlet, eh? You learn something new every day. Doesn't make Matt Smith any older though, does it?



No, but I don't see that it matters. It's not as if they've cast a 26 year old to play a character who's established to be in his 50s. And it's not as if they've cast someone fresh from Hollyoaks in the role, they've cast an acclaimed stage actor as a character who can really be any age they like. If we're going by The Doctor's actual age then even Hartnell was too young for the role! 

Also meant to say, the Robin Hood actor is about 25/26, in the 80s series Jason Connery was in his early 20s and so was Michael Praed. I think Errol Flynn was only about 30 when he played the role.  So it's not as if the age range there is wrong either.


You can't say that Michael Praed was playing the same Robin Hood as Jonas Armstrong. Both Praed and Connery played it as a much more mature version of the character and the new Robin Hood series was definately aimed at a younger audience. Maybe what i was trying to get at was this pandering to the younger demographic. During development, the creators of the Merlin tv series must have made a definate choice to re-cast the character as a young man, knowing that this decision would mean almost altering the whole concept beyond recognition. In all the official press releases regarding Matt Smith, the one thing they have constantly emphasised is his age, and to me, that does not bode well. To my mind, Doctor Who should be played by an older actor. I just cannot picture this guy going head to head with the Daleks, or having an assistant of, say, Catherine Tate's age. She would look like his mum. The assistants will have to be of an equal age to him or younger in order to give the Doctor the gravitas the character needs, and this cannot help but skew the series towards a younger bent. (Jeez, i'm starting to sound like a big Who fan - i'm very much not. It's the dumbing down of tv that pisses me off.)


_____________________________

There are monkey boys in the facility.

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 66
RE: Wouldn't buy this guy playing a MEDICAL doctor... - 5/1/2009 11:12:52 PM   
HughesRoss


Posts: 5668
Joined: 19/12/2008
From: Merthyr
As this topic is being covered in another Forum I'll keep this short.  As the show as run since the 60's and has fans all over the world-some that say the show went downhill after Tom Baker left, some who say Christopher Ecc is much better than Tennant.  Some who love Peter Davidson and a few (not many) who adore Colin Baker, my point is when David gasps his last breath at Christmas, like all the other Dr's that have regenerated, it will continue and there is no doubt that Matt himself will have a new army of fans who be asking one simple question-David Who?-

_____________________________

Our first ever HCF MOVIE AWARDS

http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/2012/01/horrorcultfilms-movie-awards-of-2011-all-the-winners-right-here-of-our-first-ever-hcf-awards/

(in reply to The_Hat)
Post #: 67
RE: Wouldn't buy this guy playing a MEDICAL doctor... - 6/1/2009 10:58:26 AM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

...let alone Doctor Who? The casting of someone so young is typical of the modern BBC. Look at Merlin, look at Robin Hood, look at the new Saturday evening Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch - 32 yrs old).


According to research, the character of Sherlock Holmes was 'born' in 1854, he's first supposed to meet Watson in 1881. So why is Cumberbatch too young to play the role?


After checking Wikipedia, I stand corrected and bow to your superior research, Rawlinson. Indeed, Mr. Holmes' date of birth is listed as January 6th 1854. So happy birthday for tomorrow Sherlock. So Holmes was only 27 in A Study In Scarlet, eh? You learn something new every day. Doesn't make Matt Smith any older though, does it?



No, but I don't see that it matters. It's not as if they've cast a 26 year old to play a character who's established to be in his 50s. And it's not as if they've cast someone fresh from Hollyoaks in the role, they've cast an acclaimed stage actor as a character who can really be any age they like. If we're going by The Doctor's actual age then even Hartnell was too young for the role! 

Also meant to say, the Robin Hood actor is about 25/26, in the 80s series Jason Connery was in his early 20s and so was Michael Praed. I think Errol Flynn was only about 30 when he played the role.  So it's not as if the age range there is wrong either.


You can't say that Michael Praed was playing the same Robin Hood as Jonas Armstrong. Both Praed and Connery played it as a much more mature version of the character and the new Robin Hood series was definately aimed at a younger audience. Maybe what i was trying to get at was this pandering to the younger demographic. During development, the creators of the Merlin tv series must have made a definate choice to re-cast the character as a young man, knowing that this decision would mean almost altering the whole concept beyond recognition. In all the official press releases regarding Matt Smith, the one thing they have constantly emphasised is his age, and to me, that does not bode well. To my mind, Doctor Who should be played by an older actor. I just cannot picture this guy going head to head with the Daleks, or having an assistant of, say, Catherine Tate's age. She would look like his mum. The assistants will have to be of an equal age to him or younger in order to give the Doctor the gravitas the character needs, and this cannot help but skew the series towards a younger bent. (Jeez, i'm starting to sound like a big Who fan - i'm very much not. It's the dumbing down of tv that pisses me off.)



Oh, the approach is completely different, both the new Robin Hood and Merlin series are certainly aimed at younger/family viewers. But the point doesn't transfer to Smith as The Doctor. No-one has seen him in the role yet, he's still a relative unknown when it comes to television so a lot of people still haven't seen him act in anything, and if Praed can play Robin Hood aimed at a more mature audience and be believable then why can't Smith be believable as The Doctor? I find it hard to accept that they've cast him solely based on the fact that he's young, he's not good looking in a typical fashion, so if they just wanted to make teen girls squeal then there's 100s of actors of a similar age they could have cast that would have accomplished that. They could have cast someone young, who already had a fanbase, and was a typical heartthrob. The fact they went with someone who's a respected stage actor suggests to me that they picked him because they think he can pull it off.

(in reply to The_Hat)
Post #: 68
RE: Wouldn't buy this guy playing a MEDICAL doctor... - 7/1/2009 12:22:13 PM   
missphoenix

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 1/3/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: The_Hat

...let alone Doctor Who? The casting of someone so young is typical of the modern BBC. Look at Merlin, look at Robin Hood, look at the new Saturday evening Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch - 32 yrs old).


According to research, the character of Sherlock Holmes was 'born' in 1854, he's first supposed to meet Watson in 1881. So why is Cumberbatch too young to play the role?


After checking Wikipedia, I stand corrected and bow to your superior research, Rawlinson. Indeed, Mr. Holmes' date of birth is listed as January 6th 1854. So happy birthday for tomorrow Sherlock. So Holmes was only 27 in A Study In Scarlet, eh? You learn something new every day. Doesn't make Matt Smith any older though, does it?



No, but I don't see that it matters. It's not as if they've cast a 26 year old to play a character who's established to be in his 50s. And it's not as if they've cast someone fresh from Hollyoaks in the role, they've cast an acclaimed stage actor as a character who can really be any age they like. If we're going by The Doctor's actual age then even Hartnell was too young for the role! 

Also meant to say, the Robin Hood actor is about 25/26, in the 80s series Jason Connery was in his early 20s and so was Michael Praed. I think Errol Flynn was only about 30 when he played the role.  So it's not as if the age range there is wrong either.


You can't say that Michael Praed was playing the same Robin Hood as Jonas Armstrong. Both Praed and Connery played it as a much more mature version of the character and the new Robin Hood series was definately aimed at a younger audience. Maybe what i was trying to get at was this pandering to the younger demographic. During development, the creators of the Merlin tv series must have made a definate choice to re-cast the character as a young man, knowing that this decision would mean almost altering the whole concept beyond recognition. In all the official press releases regarding Matt Smith, the one thing they have constantly emphasised is his age, and to me, that does not bode well. To my mind, Doctor Who should be played by an older actor. I just cannot picture this guy going head to head with the Daleks, or having an assistant of, say, Catherine Tate's age. She would look like his mum. The assistants will have to be of an equal age to him or younger in order to give the Doctor the gravitas the character needs, and this cannot help but skew the series towards a younger bent. (Jeez, i'm starting to sound like a big Who fan - i'm very much not. It's the dumbing down of tv that pisses me off.)





Doctor Who's audience is a FAMILY AUDIENCE. This includes the fecking kids. If you don't like it, then don't watch it.

And Stephen Moffat who is writng the Smith series has written the darkest of the episodes that have featured throughout theese new series (The Empty Child, THe Doctor Dances, Blink etc) - these aren't exactly pandering to the Disney genreation. So if Moffat is in charge the series should be darker than anything Russell T Davies did.

And are you telling me that the original DW didn't have moments of childishness?

(in reply to The_Hat)
Post #: 69
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: Wouldn't buy this guy playing a MEDICAL doctor... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.032