rawlinson
Posts: 40151
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.
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: matty_b I would plough my way through MonsterCat    quote:
ORIGINAL: matty_b I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.
|