Doctor Who: 50th anniversary casting news

News Louisa Mellor 30 Mar 2013 - 11:20

Two familiar faces and a very famous one have been confirmed as appearing in the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special...

Warning: contains spoilers for the Doctor Who 50th anniversary episode.

It's only fitting that on Doctor Who Day comes confirmation of news that's been circling in rumour-form for months. The new issue of Doctor Who Magazine has confirmed three additional cast members for the 50th anniversary special. You ready to hear them?

David Tennant. Billie Piper. John Hurt.

Those are the names reported so far to be joining Matt Smith in the 3D special, which is due to receive a limited worldwide cinema release this November. Happy Doctor Who Day everyone.

Doctor Who returns to BBC One tonight at 6.15pm with The Bells of St. John. Read our spoiler-free review, here.

Blogtor Who

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Tennant and Piper I don't really care about but I *really* hope the John Hurt has a decent part rather than a cameo or voice over. Whichever it is great news.

I sincerely hope this isn't an early April Fools because I will be ever so sad.

This news, I like. Another!

I would rather this had stayed a secret, for us to find out when we actually watched the episode, but I guess keeping it under wraps until the moment of broadcast would have been nigh impossible.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now just announce Jack Harkness and the regeneration of 8th into 9th and I'll be happy for the rest of the year ! ^^

I've got no sense of humour on Tennant's return on Doctor Who, I am an absolute child about the idea. As well balanced as I consider myself about the rest of enthusiasms, I think I'd petulantly overreact and boycott a website that got my hopes up about the idea of 10 on Who.

Wonder who John Hurts playing, my votes with Omega!!!! Silence will fall!!!!!

All they need now is Christopher Eccelston and Paul McGann on board and we've got the 4 Doctor's.

Now we need Eccleston..... :)

Looking legit. Good.


Great of course, but where is John Barrowman's Captain Jack Harkness?!

John Barrowman said on This Morning a few weeks ago that he was "in talks" with regards to being involved in the anniversary...
...though whether that meant all that's going on around the event, or the actual episode, remains to be confirmed...

It's incredible that they have bagged John Hurt.

Of all the actors I have ever wanted to see in the show it was him , but I thought he was too big a star to get on he show.

Excellent news! Of course, it would have been absolutely bizarre not to have David Tennant in the show.

This is hopefully just the first of several such announcements, with Captain Jack et al still to come.

The BBC have confirmed the DWM article. It's all good :)

John Hurt to play the first doctor perhaps?

Second that!

i wonder if tennent's doctor will be from series 2 as that would explain Billie appearing as to bring her back again from the parallel universe would be pushing it

The Tennant era definitely isn't one of my favorites, but it's cool to see them come back for an episode. Especially the 50th.

...and then there's the other surviving classic doctors - Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker, and Sylvester McCoy. It doesn't feel like a proper 50 years' celebration to me if they're not invited to the party. McCoy's last TV appearance was the same as McGann's, and (once you clean off all the bird poo) he hasn't changed all that much since then. Davison was passable in his Comic Relief reappearance with Tennant. The Bakers are trickier - they've both filled out a bit since occupying the role - but then, if people can't suspend disbelief a little, maybe they're watching the wrong show! Oh, what I'd give to see the 8 Doctors this autumn....

Well is the era relevant? I don't like the Tennant era, and I don't like the TV movie, but both McGann and Eccleston were FANTASTIC Doctors, so I want them both back.

I hate to say but John Barrowman has confirmed on Twitter that he won't be in the 50th anniversary special.

This is great news but the idea of Tennant AND Piper returning together implies that it will be the Meta-Crisis Doctor trapped in an alternative universe, which fills me with dread! It was a truly awful cop-out to a an awesome set up; I sincerely hope that Moffat avoids that scenario and has the Doctors bump into each other in a better way. Oh and John Hurt is one of our finest actors, what great casting for the special!!

I've read some discussion boards where people reckon it might be the Doctor and Rose pre-Doomsday that we see in the 50th. That'd work in a similar way to, say, the Five Doctors, where they were just plucked out of their respective timelines. Or, on a smaller scale, they made it work with Peter Davison in Time Crash the other year. I do hope we get proper 10th Doctor.

This show is a major hit because of the David Tennant era.

His portrayal is why Doctor Who caught on in a serious way in America.

This is a show centering on time travel. It doesn't function in a linear way.

Ten and Rose can be scooped up into the plot whenever/wherever.

The two of them don't have to arrive together. Any iteration of either from their respective timelines can be worked into the plot.

It could quite easily be the parallel universe Doctor, it would be a neat way to explain why Billie and David have aged since series 2 was 7 years ago (even though we are told that series 7 is on again tonight....just saying!).

In fairness that what David Tennant has been saying for months.

Sounds like the 50th anniversary is just going to be a weak NuWho Moffat-style mashup.

I hope this going to be a truly reflective 50TH anniversary show, rather than as it seems so far, just an anniversary of the last 6 years - Billie has come back more times than the Daleks - I sincerely hope that pre-2005 Doctor Who is given as much attention as post 2005 seems to be getting. Forgot Jack Harkness, what about Ace, Peri,Susan etc etc.

....After more or less confirming on TV that he will be in it (and after his sister said that the BBC was annoyed at him for bringing it up), don't trust most denials dealing with the 50th til we see an official cast list!

After Richard E Grant and Ian McKellen('s voice) in the Christmas Special, I'm not sure anything's out of the realms of possibility.

I think John Barrowman's involvement will lie directly with Eccleston's involvement; Jack never traveled with Ten and Rose, as evidenced by Rose's surprise in Journey's End. Jack would need to be traveling with either Nine and Rose, or with Ten at some point after Rose left. In either case, it'd mean that Rose's appearance would have to be alongside Nine.

He tweeted that he wouldn't be in the 50th, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's not evidence that Eccleston won't be in either.

As long as the Ten and Rose won't be mushy, I'll be fine with it. But the more important question is: What about McGann?

I'm really, really hoping it isn't alt-universe hand-clone Doctor.

Captain Jack wasn't traveling with anyone when he popped back into the show for the three-parter ending Series 3. He was running Torchwood on Earth.

Thing is, I didn't see anywhere that specifically says Tennant and Piper WILL be playing Ten and Rose. Wouldn't it be a bitch if they had them cameo as other characters?

Agreed - I think, indeed I HOPE, that there will be a lot of misdirection around casting and the script. I want to be surprised when I watch it.

Like when the Cybermen showed up in Earthshock - it was a big surprise back then which the crew deliberately kept from the press and public and it worked a treat.

I'll third it! If that's a thing...

Yeah, but he (technically) traveled with the Doctor and Martha and then with the team in The Stolen Earth/Journey's End, and he could have (unseen) traveled with Ten after that, but definitely not alongside Rose. I doubt they'd fit in a return appearance by himself, as that would raise far too many questions for where it would fit in with his personal timestream, then have to balance his introductions with everyone else, yada yada. The only way I see Jack being in it is during his time with Nine or his time with Ten, and his time with Nine was only with Rose.

Well, you're certaintly free to ignore what I'm saying, which is that Jack simply grabbed on to the Tardis to get back in the show, and that it had nothing to do with Rose, Martha, or anybody else other than the Doctor.

How am I ignoring you? I know exactly what happened, and no he didn't travel inside the TARDIS on that first trip in Utopia. But he was then traveling with them until he was dropped off in Cardiff in Last of the Time Lords, so a reappearance would likely take place there. Or during Stolen Earth/Journey's End, but that would include many other companions including Sarah Jane, so unlikely. That is the only other time that he travelled with Rose, so if he were to reappear with the Doctor it would either need to be with Ten without Rose, or with Nine and Rose. And since Rose is going to be in it, she'd need to be with Nine.

Frankly, I don't get why you are going on about these involved scenarios.

My point is very simple. Jack can be injected into this show in any number of ways that don't involve all this rigamarole you are investing it with.

If Christopher Eccleston and Paul McGann are on aboard, I may well have to start wearing a nappy.

Yes, but its unlikely. If they were to bring him in it'd be alongside a Doctor, since that's what's being celebrated. Adding him in separately would mean complicating it much more than necessary.

You are not getting what I'm saying.

Here is what I said:

>Well, you're certaintly free to ignore what I'm saying, which is that Jack simply grabbed on to the Tardis to get back in the show, and that it had nothing to do with Rose, Martha, or anybody else other than the Doctor.


David Tennant will probably be playing the Doctor/Donna copy, seeing as he will be accompanied by Rose, who is in the parallel universe with him. Or they could just do the ole' time gathering like in the other time clashes.

Kind of makes David Tennat's ending redundant, "I don't want to go" then he meets his inferior future self, that's a extra stab in the back

No, really, I got that. It doesn't change the theory.

Sorry I'm not getting through.

You theory is far too involved.

... On the other hand, you may actually agree with what I said originally, without realizing it.

>If they were to bring him in it'd be alongside a Doctor, since that's what's being celebrated.

>>> You are not getting what I'm saying.

Here is what I said:

>Well, you're certaintly free to ignore what I'm saying, which is that Jack simply grabbed on to the Tardis to get back in the show, and that it had nothing to do with Rose, Martha, or anybody else other than the Doctor.

Davison, Baker, McCoy and McGann are all in New Zealand in April, hopefully the question will be asked.

Nah - David Bradley would if anyone was. I'm pinning my hopes on Omega.

He wasn't too big to do a semi regular but part in Merlin so don't see why DW should be any different - especially for such a high profile episode.

Nah - it'll be 10th Doc and Rose at some point in between episodes in series 2

I thought it was Tom Baker's portrayal that made WHO get caught on in a serious way in America...

Most Americans I know of say WHO is a corny show, but the (then-) new version with Tennant was even more corny. Because of the emotional baggage... but most of the people I know aren't fangirls.


100,000% agreed.

After the amusingly titled "Doomsday" setting Rose up for a very permanent departure, which was promptly ignored in that joke of a "Stolen Earth"/"Journeys End" scribblestory, do you think they'll care about any of that *now*?

And it's a celebration - and a show involving time travel and operating outside of time and space. They can easily write in something more credible than the slop in "Stolen Earth" to justify their appearance. Anybody could. I just alluded to the "how" of one possibility, but then I prefer sci-fi and not soap opera. It's easy to see why WHO of the time (2005-2009) couldn't get sci-fi right...

Yes , the four Doctors would be great... Christopher Eccelston and Paul McGann deserve more on screen Doctor time, perhaps we will see more.

Tom Baker?? Er, no. I'm afraid you have no idea.

Doctor Who only caught on in a serious way in America with the new Who. Prior to this, it was strictly a small cult show, seen only here and there on PBS stations or whatever.

As an American, I can tell you that Tennant's version is what caught on here. If you bother to read any mainstream American media coverage of the show, it's obvious.

And no, anonoboy, I'm not a fangirl. lol

>I thought it was Tom Baker's portrayal that made WHO get caught on in a serious way in America...

The Tom Baker era was a cult hit in America and Tennant's era was more successful main stream hit.

Let's put it this way.

I was aware of Tom Baker as the Doctor. But the show was strictly cult, and not easy to find. When it went off the air, not many people noticed.

David Tennant's Doctor is what put Doctor Who very much on the radar screen of American media.

And Matt Smith is doing a great job sustaining that success.

I'm afraid you're talking nonsense William Bradley, it was Series 5 when Dr Who started enjoying real success in America and New Zealand, the viewing figures sky rocketed.
You can credit David Tennant with making the show a huge hit in Britain though.

The viewing figures disagree with your assessment.
Most Americans are aware of Tom Baker (see his Doctors cameos in things like Family Guy and Futurama), and NuWho didn't have breakout success in America until Matt Smith took over.

Tennant established it in the US.

Not sustaining, exceeding by leaps and bounds. You can keep saying it as many times as you like. Who was very much a cult phenomena in the US until series 5, now it's on Enterainment Weekly, the viewing figures have more than doubled, it gets nods from various US shows like the Big Bang, to Community.

You can keep saying that until the cows come home, the figures disagree with you.

Why are you repeating yourself? Trying to convince yourself??

You're absolutely bonkers if you imagine that most Americans have ever heard of Tom Baker!

The reality is that all this stuff is niche.

It's just that the Who of Tennant and Smith is much more on the cultural radar screen than the old Doctor Who.

Doctor Who is NOW a cult hit in the US, with growing mainstream awareness. Before it was just a cult.

Repeating myself? I replied to you in all your instances, it's hardly my fault you were repeating the same inaccurate claim six times over.


You are absolutely wrong.

The viewership has gone up over the years and has increased with Smith.

But Tennant established it.

In which case present nods to the show from the Tennant era by US TV shows.
Show me coverage as large as gaining the cover of Entertainment Weekly (twice) in the Tennant era.
Show me viewing figures which either exceed, or at least come close to matching, those of the current show in the Tennant era.
Show me iTunes sales or DVD sales which are higher or even comparably close in the Tennant era.

Can't do it? No. Good. Let's move on beyond this ridiculous claim then shall we.

No, I'm not wrong, I've highlighted examples of just how far from mainstream the show was in the Tennant era and examples of it reaching the US public conciousness in the Smith era.
You have presented no examples, you've simply stated I'm wrong. Is this a weird American thing whereby reasoning is irrelevant so long as you give your opinion loud enough it's correct?

I think you are just confused and angry.

For one thing, this sentence --- "In which case present nods to the show from the Tennant era by US TV shows." -- does not make sense.

For another, what I say is very simple. Tennant's Doctor established the show in the US -- and made it a huge hit in the UK -- and Smith's Doctor continues it.

You are arguing with a particularly fake straw man when you imply that I said Tennant's numbers are higher than Smith's.

In fact, I've said all along on this site that Doctor Who is on an ascending path in the US market, which makes the on-again/off-again nature of its programming very problematic for the show's potential.

I think Matt Smith is great, as I 've also made very clear.

BTW, you are very funny in how you argue, making sweeping claims and insisting that I must disprove them.

You have presented absolutely nothing but angry assertions.

I just double-checked the figures from the Tennant era. But it's up to you to support your idiotic claim that only the Smith era moved the show into the public consciousness.

You should control your anger, make better use of your time, and avoid wasting mine.

No I presented facts. It's not an assertion. The viewing figures HAVE increased. The show has ONLY been on the cover of ET with Matt Smith in the role, and nods to the show have only begun in the Matt Smith era. Don't confuse stating "you are wrong" with "you are wrong, and here is a list of a reasons why"

You totally distorted what I said and you presented nothing to back up what you are saying, aside from the show being on the cover of Entertainment Weekly -- NOT ET -- and of course your very amusing claim that Tom Baker is widely known in America.

I'm not going to waste more time repeating what I said despite your continuing to distort it.

Don't confuse your failing to comprehend a simple sentence with it not making sense. I shall put it into child speak for you
"In which case present" - Please list
"nods to the show from the Tennant era" - the times when the show was referenced in a loving manner during 2006-2009
" by US TV shows." ... I can't make that any simpler.
You already had two examples. Homages like inspector space time just didn't exist back then.

Fake straws? By fake straws you mean the offically collected and viewing figures for the show entitled Dr Who in the US? I hate to break this to you, but I didn't have anything to do with collecting or announcing them.

I think you are funny in the way you argue. You matter of factly state someone is wrong, but don't feel the need to back this up with any form of reasoning.

Take a cold shower. I have no time for this nonsense.

Yes that of so ammusing assertion that is common knowledge - that Dr Who briefly enjoyed commercial success in the US whilst Tom Baker was in the role. How utterly ludicrous of me.
What exactly do you want me to back up? Do you want me to itemise every list of iTunes sales and the viewing figures for each year? Are you actually disputing these things, or are you just hurling out accusations for the sake of it?

Easily found documentation on Wikipedia of Tennant establishing the show with rising ratings and in fact record ratings on its outlet ...

Links very oddly don't seem to work on this site.

It's sad how some fan boys insist on saying only their faves are great and others are nothing.


The Sci Fi Channel began airing season four on 18 April 2008.[27] The season four premiere episode, "Voyage of the Damned", earned a 1.1 rating and captured 1.48 million viewers, making it the best-rated season premiere since the pilot and the episode with the most viewers since 2006.[28] The season finale, broadcast in a special 90-minute time slot, earned a 1.0 rating and 1.26 million viewers. Season four as a whole was rated 25% higher than season three in household ratings, and 17% higher in number of viewers.[29

BBC America's airing of The Waters of Mars on 19 December 2009 earned the channel 1.1 million views, its highest ever prime-time ratings to that date.[39

You claimed Tom Baker is known by everyone in America. It's sheer nonsense.

I only know a few people who've ever heard of the guy.

You are the one who makes all the claims, sport, totally distorting what I say into straw man arguments in the process.

We're done.

Incidentally, I showed above how Tennant established the show in the US, with actual documentation. Which of course you can't offer for your claims.

But you are seriously wasting my time with this pointless exercise.

No I didn't, I said he was known. If you're just going to make **** up be more clever about it. He was known, David Tennant was known, the show wasn't a success or mainstream under either.
And no you can't just say "I showed how he" and not actually present any evidnece whatsoever you dingleberry.

And the current average viewing figures are what, closer to 1.6million? On BBC America, a channel hardly anyone has (it's permanently breaking records, EVERY year) AND topping the US iTunes which it never did under Tennant.

You really are impervious to information.

Try reading before ranting, including the only facts presented in this silly debate, my US viewing numbers which demonstrate how Tennant established the show in the US with rising and at times record viewership.

It's kind of pathetic how people like you call names and attack in furtherance of the ridiculous idea that Tennant not be included in the 50th anniversary show.

But this is what happens with people hiding behind anono handles.

For the 14th time, 14-year old, my position is clear and obvious.

Tennant established the show in the US, Smith has continued it, and Doctor Who continues to rise as it should.

But it's all still niche viewing. It's just a matter of degree.

NCIS is viewed regularly by around 20 million people.

Star Trek had much higher numbers, even at the end.

How is a show that tops the charts "niche viewing"?
I said it before and I say it again, the show moved to BBC America, where it BREAKS records yearly. FAR FEWER people CAN watch BBCA, but the ratings have increased - many americans have opted to alternative methods of watching outside of live broadcasts etc, hence it taking the #1 spot on iTunes US each and every year. NCIS airs on CBS, hence higher live viewings, but does not enjoy the same success with download services as a result.

Everyone I know that watches the current Doctor Who knows who Tom Baker is, and they knew before they knew who David Tennant was. He is a legend in America. Your perspective on Chicago's PBS station premiering The 5 Doctors seems lacking - most people only had around 8 channels at the time - it was a big deal. According to a 1982 BBC documentary on the Chicago Doctor Who convention, the BBC cited 7 million viewers in the US at the time. In comparison, Doctor Who broke its BBC America ratings record with 1.6 million viewers in Sept. 2012.

How are viewing figures 50% lower, on a channel with a FAR higher potential audience "record viewership"? Record for Who granted, but not good - and certainly not entering the public coniousness. And it is the public conciousness we were talking about, you never addressed mainstream articles or references by other shows either. You addressed ONE of my points, and did so very unsuccessfully.

Also where is this absurd idea that I said Tennant shouldn't be included? If you'd read this thread you'd have noticed me saying that whilst I disliked his era I thought he was a superb Doctor and want both him and McGann back. You do love making stuff up don't you.

Oh, he's found something else he wants to argue about, since his original points were wildly off the mark.

How novel.

Actually, it is incredibly boring.

I don't have time to read any more of your nonsense, especially not on an Easter weekend night.

" then he meets his inferior future self"

He's playing a double role?

eccelston got most people i know into it, tennant the rest. This is from canada and all american friends i know. Before that, who was known, but not well. When our networks picked it up in the tennant era it took off as mainstream. We were a year behind bbc in viewing, so matt smith rode the wave and increased popularity.

Sorry for my bad punctuation, I was typing on my Tablet before.

This argument is hypocritical, don't you think?

I'm sorry to tell this to you, but the other guy is right. Doctor Who was a cult phenomenon in the US during the 70's and 80's with over 70 million viewers. With Tennant, it struggled to get more than a million. Matt Smith helpd to ren-energise it.

My favorite Doctor is Tennant... why? Probably the same reason your favorite is yours. You cannot argue that one is better than the other because all of your arguments at that point boiled down to opinion. For example, you can argue that strawberries taste better than Oranges to someone who hates strawberries and loves oranges, but all you will end up doing is giving the both of you a headache.
I will say, however, that viewing numbers aside... if you do not live in North America, and are not around for North American discussions around North American dinner tables, or here to experience the Doctor Who phenomena unfolding for us... please do not try and tell us what we like or don't like based on documentation. Since Doctor Who was released to the North American audience a year after it was released in the UK. ONLY recently, the past 2-3 years, have we had it aired at the same time, so most hard core doctor who fans downloaded the show from pirate sites. Your numbers are not going to give an accurate reflection, no matter how compelling your arguments may be.

Nonsense?How many facts and figures did you have to back you up?

Do you really just like arguing, or is there any point behined it?

I think getting garbage from anono-handles in my mailbox is a bug, not a feature.

That is true, but also a little irrelevant. The show ended, and it lost viewership over here long before it was cancelled. The New series is very much a new series with most of the new viewership either not interested in, or never have watched the older series.

I have no interest in who your favourite is, nor any interest in anecdotal evidence of your group of friends. To look at my group of friends Matt Smith is the most popular Doctor in the UK and Rose was a terrible assistant... that does not pain an accuate picture of the UK as a whole. I have no interest in your anecdotal evidence anymore than anyone has an interest in mine.

I did NOT at any point bring superiority in to the matter, I simply stated that Mr Bradleys supposed "fact" that Tennant made Dr Who in America, that no one had heard of Tom Baker and that it was not Matt Smiths tenure that broke NuWho into the public conciousness was total bobbins. And what you discuss at your dinner table, no matter where you may reside, is entirely irrelevant to that debate.

Filming of the special is in April so most likely their response will be "well obviously not"

Your handle is no more or less annoymous, you've not linked with a facebook account or any such - and I'm using a disqus account. But hey when has talking garbage ever stopped you.

My point is that before you arrogantly start explaining to us colonists what we should think, you should probably spend more than a holiday over here. I know this is an assumption that you are not intimately familiar with North American culture. but it is not an assumption to say that we (William and I)are. To make claims that we like something based off of some figures (which you have not actually shown in any concrete way) is rude, incendiary and going to get people responding to you in a negative way.
I've read your arguments with William, and I know you will most likely, blindly ignore anything that people say which does not fit your way of things (such as the entirety of the Tennant years we were 1 year behind the UK on our local networks, which left us to download from the internet and go about watching the new stuff in non conventional means. This invariably will skew any network figures, even more so than a PVR does...) and probably start throwing an insult or two my way for disagreeing with you.
The UK produces some fantastic shows. Doctor Who has been one of them for the better part of 50 years. The new series is treated as a new incarnation of the show with it's roots in the previous series, but not the same as a continuation, as many old time fans believe This, to most over here is as Star Trek the Next Generation is to the Original Series, or BSG new is to BSG old. Its a new take on something old.
It took time to gain popularity as all foreign shows do, but most people still started with Eccelston, moved on to Tennant, loved both, and welcomed Matt Smith. The fact that Matt Smith has a higher viewership is because of North American networks getting on board and airing it real time, as opposed to with a syndication delay. It started to get advertised over here in the mains stream because there was an actual investment happening. David Tennant was brilliant, as was Eccelston. And I am very sorry to tell you this, but I don't know anyone who is overly familiar with Tom Baker. The old time fans, I could get some nods if I asked, I am sure, but 90% of the people I know who love this show now, picked up with Tennant and Rose, looked back to Eccelston, and maybe... just maybe... tried to find a very hard to get box set of the original series releases.
My arguments at this point to back it up are actually more tangible than your so called facts. I live here, I talk to people, I engage in social media, I go out, I go to conventions, and I am actually a part of the culture... not some dude an ocean away reading some filtered figures (which he hasn't posted) that are probably not completely reflective of this scenario, (as any single source of "figures" often are), and telling others facts about themselves.

Ok your entire, incredibly oversized post falls down to
1) That previously the show had a delay in air times. Now frankly I feel this only address viewing figures and ignores every other point I made about media penetration (and we were talking about the show going main stream), but this is a point I am willing to engage with you on in a sensible fashion.
2) Anecdotal evidence which you claim is "tangible". I'm sorry, I don't accept anecdotal evidence, I don't know anyone who does. I place no value on it, unless you want to take the word of my friends (as I said, everyone I know is more a fan of Smith than Tennant and Rose is not popular amoung them; this does not I feel reflect Britain as a whole as people with similar tastes tend to group together). Now I shouldn't have to explain something as fundamentally basic as that - I will not do it again, and if you insist on pushing that point, I will not respond to you.

I absolutely did not tell you what to think, In the context of when the show became mainstream I have absolutely no interest in what YOU think, or what your friends think, or any of the people you talk to, it's not relevant, this falls down to point 2, a point I had hoped I made clear in my previous post, but apparently not.

You are missing the point. I was pointing out that your evidence is also pointless and circumstantial at this moment in time since all you have done is claimed it to exist, but have not substantiated it yourself. Also, if you look way up in the earlier posts, you will see that you quite happily used your friends and "everyone you've talked to" as part of your own anecdotal evidence.
I would not have jumped in if I did not find your way of presenting things to be rude and disrespectful.
Seeing as how this is the current trend of your arguments, and that I really have no further desire to trade barbs with you. I am not going to waste any more time trying to defend or explain a pointless position.
I don't mind a good debate on something, but at the moment, you are too interested in hammering the same points home and bringing this down to rude remarks.
I am also guilty of that (I'm sorry) but I have no further desire of carrying this on. Its way too nice of a night to get all hot under the collar about an internet argument.
So I will say, with all sincerity, Happy Easter, and I hope you enjoy more brilliant Doctor Who.

But he only did the voice of the Dragon in Merlin.
That probably involved a couple of hours work in a sound studio with a tea break (possibly with Rich Tea finger on the side-he seems a Rich tea kinda bloke)

`Merlin the prophecy says that this will happen in the future...'etc etc

`You are a young wizard now go away and leave me alone' etc etc

Say twenty or so lines of that nature into a microphone and that's the whole of one season.,

I expect John Hurt to be in Doctor Who in person and have more than a cameo.

No Yalyn YOU are missing the point. You are using anecdotal evidence, whilst claiming it to be superior. Anecdotal evidence is by it's very definition pointless and circumstantial. I said I wouldn't explain that to you again, you should have been taught in in school.

Dude... No one sensible ever really reads anything written in caps, especially if it is following "read what I wrote again". I've already stated that I am not debating this anymore, so go have a beer or something and settle down (you won... YAY!).
Life is way too short to spend this much time arguing about things that don't matter.

Not a sensible response for someone who failed to read what I read without caps and accuse of saying the exact opposite of what I actually did.

LOL! seriously? give it up man. Goodnight! :D

It seems likely that John Hurt will be playing the 0th Doctor - that is the one that stole ( / was stolen by) the Tardis, and later regenned into William Hartnell.

This gives Hurt an irrefutable place in the canon, helps to explain the change in the number of regens possible, and sets him up for a deus-ex-machina role in the Fields of Trenzalaw episode (he was the first to ask the question, and he would not have asked if he did not know the answer, even if he had to suppress it in later regens).

All-in-all, classic moff-fecking as usual.

Great news

I'd be happy if they just brought back Paul McGann. If his Doctor endured the Time War, then it would be great to see flashbacks.

Well this is depressingly obvious news.

John Hurt replacing William Hartnell perhaps?

Hilariously dishonest, sport!

Only someone like you could pretend that a fake fanboy handle is the same as a real name.

But given how off you are in your view of things, maybe you really don't have "the Google," as John McCain calls it.


You are insane to even suggest this. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

>Doctor Who was a cult phenomenon in the US during the 70's and 80's with over 70 million viewers.

Nope, what he/it said is totally false.

Old Who never had anything close to 70 million viewers in the US. That is nuts.

Notice the clowns below claiming Old Who had an audience of 70 million in America??!!

Talk about insane fan boys ...

Yo, anono boy, if Doctor Who could get 20 million viewers in America, it would be on CBS or another huge network in a hot minute.

It can't, so it doesn't.

And tell your alter ego anono boy that he is either high or insane to say that Old Who had an audience of 70 million in the US.

Are you mentally retarded? You have the name William Bradley, there's a few thousand out there, and if you are purporting to be an award winning columnist let me say you are fooling nobody.
No one wants a creepy Internet stalker, hopefully it goes without saying that if this guy is asking for your contact details DO NOT give them out.

I'm easy to find on the world's biggest news site, and other vetted sites elsewhere for biographical details.

But keep using those sock puppet handles that fool no one.

I'm sorry to ay, iut you really need to calm do n. nDn geek sohuld ban himmim. Yareewronng, you are angry and your are not listening to other peopre's views. Oh and by the way, I got these figures from a source I'm sure you've heard of- the BBC. It was broadcast over many seperate stations across the countr and gained a huge following. So get some facts, sit down, have a cup of tea and then try and pointlessly argue. Okay?

Wow you saw through 'youmustbejoking' as not being ones real name, shame you didn't notice it was a direct response to your creepy goading for contact details. Whoever you are pretending to be is not likely going to be pleased about the association

Den of geek,can you ban William Bradley?He has insulted another user and he just insulted me. He is also arguing with us for no reason. Thaviour.Den of geek, Den of ge

I have the facts. Your claim is absolutely false.

It is simply bizarre even to imagine that Old Who, which only showed on public tv stations here and there, had a MASSIVELY larger audience than actual big American TV hits.

It is also simply bizarre to claim that Tom Baker is a really famous guy in America.

Hardly anyone here knows who he is.

Sorry, but these examples of delusion/disinformation are so wild I will have to use them at some point in my work as an example of how strange fan boy culture can become.

I have ZERO interest in your "contact details."

The point, which you have again missed, is that real people with real handles have real credibility and are far less likely to indulge in idiotic flaming.

I am "pretending to be" myself, genius.

You are giving me fabulous material for a piece on how utterly bizarre fan boy culture can become with these ludicrous claims about the massive American popularity of Tom Baker and the "70 million American audience" for Old Doctor Who.

Neither claim came from me, I claimed Tom Baker was known during a brief period of success, I have no idea what the figures are, simply that it penetrated American media and the doctor with the scarf became a recognisable icon (within certain groups).

Someone did make those claims but it wasn't me, if you were really a journalist mis attributing a source is about the most basic mistake you could make, it would make you a very very poor one.

They are too old for the parts. Nonsense, to bring them back

You most certainly did claim that Tom Baker is known by everyone in America.

I think you get all your fake handles mixed up.

You have definitively demonstrated that your comments are to be ignored. The problem is that you hide behind all this fakery, so in my fast reads of everything I won't always know it's you.

Don't waste your time replying.

Like I said, poor soul, you can't keep your fake handles and bogus stories straight ...

>TARDInSexy William_Bradley • 13 hours ago−

The viewing figures disagree with your assessment.
Most Americans are aware of Tom Baker

I claimed he enjoyed success in the us yes, I did not claim he enjoyed 70million viewers, nor do I expect he did as that sounds absurd. However I highlighted his cameos in family guy and futurama. So everyone who disagrees with you is a single individual posing under a different avatar eh? That is psychiatrist material right there, which are the accounts you believe belong to me?

Under this handle, you falsely claimed that Tom Baker is really famous in America.

I don't read the rest of this for the reasons I told you.

What part of that quote has me claiming he had 70million viewers or that everyone was aware of him?

You claimed you never said Tom Baker is really famous in America.

I threw your own words back at you.

Please show me where I said he was 'really famous'. Not even Matt Smith is 'really famous'. I said he entered American mainstream culture as a recongnisable icon and highlighted two examples of that.
You said I claimed everyone knew him and had 70millon viewers... a claim you backed up with a quote of me saying most Americans knew of him....

...seriously if you were really a journalist you could only get a job with Fox News with that standard of reporting.

Heh, I guess we'll have to agree to differ on both points....

Very nice.

But you will never convince this character of a thing.

Incidentally, sport, you have already had to admit that you engage in sock puppetry here.

The only question is which fake handles you are behind.

What is wrong with you? You put out a creepy request for my contact serials and I replied with an unregistered youmustbejoking, there was no attempt to hide it. How many unregistered users are there in this thread? As far as I can tell the other people you've been harassing have long standing accounts, or has your paranoia spread to that extreme?

Your nonsense is endless.

When you claim that most Americans know Tom Baker you claim that he is really famous.

Once again, a reality check for you. Very few Americans know who he is.

I am very tired of your tedious personal attacks, by the way. Sitting behind your chicken salad fan boy handle, arrogantly pretending to tell me what is going on in America.

Maybe I should start pontificating about what Britain is all about.

But I'm not that silly.

That is an absolute lie.

>You put out a creepy request for my contact serials

There is a difference between fame and cultural awareness (which if li recall was the topic of conversation before you went off flaming people).
How many people know the name of the actor who plays Harry potter? How many are ware of Harry potter.
I stand by my claim, most Americans know of Tom Bakers doctor, perhaps not by name, the actor is not famous but the role he played and the trademark scarf invaded the public consciousness. Or will you quibble over semantics? Most British people couldn't name Tom Baker but recognise his Doctor.

Say what you like about Britain, say what you like about the US, stop acting like you speak with authority for anyone except yourself without some evidence to back it up.

Save the useless spin. Your statement was very clear.

You've definitively demonstrated that all posts from you are to be ignored.

have a nice life.

I am not armed with actual figures... I was meaning that it is true that Old who was pretty big in the 70s and 80s. At least in my experience it was...

Doctor Who was seen, to the extent it was seen, in the US, on a hodgepodge of PBS and other stations.

It wasn't on any network, wasn't on a major channel. It was actually hard to find. That's why you're not finding actual figures. (70 million is absolute bonkers. That's the Super Bowl!)

It wasn't at all like Star Trek in terms of having a large viewership, and of course Star Trek was cancelled for low ratings.

There was a nice cult following for it, but I knew only a few people who watched it or even sought it out, as I did.

It wasn't hard to find Star Trek fans. But we were niche, too. Just a far bigger niche.

... Incidentally, here's part of Wikipedia's report on Old Who's failure to penetrate the US in the '70s.

For some reason, this site is inhospitable to links.

Things got somewhat better for Old Who later, but it's all relative.

Brit shows usually don't do well in the US.

Take Spooks, for example, one of my faves, which was at times a great show.

It was like Old Who, showing on off-outlets and getting relatively low viewership. With Spooks, MI-5 in the US and Canada, I turned a lot of people on to it but they frequently couldn't make out what was being said with all the British accents!

>The BBC series was originally sold to television stations in the United States in 1972, with Time-Life Television syndicating selected episodes of Jon Pertwee's time as the Doctor. The series did not do well, despite an interesting write-up some years earlier in TV Guide. Apparently, program directors of the commercial television stations that picked up theJon Pertwee series did not know that the program was an episodic serial, and so it was constantly being shuffled about in the programming schedules.

In 1978, Tom Baker's first four seasons as the Doctor were sold to PBS stations across the United States. This time, though, Time-Life was ready to have the Doctor poised for American consumption, by having stage and screen actor Howard Da Silva read voiceover recaps of the previous episode and teasers for the next one which would inform the viewer as to what was going on. To accommodate the teasers up to three minutes of original material was cut from each episode. PBS program planners took the show at face value, but it soon achieved cult status. A few commercial stations including WOR in New York also aired the show for a few years.

I don't have the figures because I wasn't looking for them ;) tbh... I agree with you on most points made. In my personal experience, I saw some of the Sarah Jane episodes. My older family members enjoyed Doctor Who. It was on regularly on KVOS 12 for a while, and I regarded it like I did MASH and Red Dwarf (The humor was way above me and it was a silly show my parents watched... gimme my Transformers ) As I got older, I developed an appreciation for each show and am now a fan. Incidentally, my mom finds the new who silly and loved the old who, but most whovians I know now are new series fans and around my age late 20s - early 30s.
Now, before someone (Not who I am replying to) chimes in about not caring about anecdotal evidence and yelling at me in CAPS... Let me remind you that this is a casual internet forum discussion, not a hardcore debate podium. If I was debating with research I would actually cite my sources sources and give more than 2 craps about winning...

There's hardly any dishonor in a show not being wildly popular. I mean, look at some of the junk that IS wildly popular.

I write extensively about Mad Men, for example, which is also a niche show, although one that is EXTREMELY influential in mainstream culture and media.

As I'm sure you know, only a few million people watch Mad Men in the US. But that doesn't mean that fans don't go over every nuance, at times even a glance. :)

Which is fine. That's part of what being an enthusiast is about.

One of reasons I like Doctor Who is that it is NOT ubiquitous. It is different, and definitely an acquired taste. But one that's hard to shake once acquired ... :)


Love this news! :-D
Really have high hopes of this! SO EXCITED. :-D

My bets are on John Hurt playing the third doctor actually, look at how he looks for example as Ollivander in harry potter, he could pull of playing 3 very well i reckon

Ok, whilst I'm excited by this news and would also dearly love to see Eccleston and McGann in the special, my comment is about the nature of other comments in this thread. We come to this site because of our shared love of all things geek, and it saddens me to see the personal insults and name-calling that are becoming commonplace here. I understand that people will want to defend their point of view, but there's debate and there's bickering. We're fans and geeks, it should be a joy to discuss our various theories and favourites, not descend into schoolyard name-calling. Anyway, great coup for the Beeb to get Hurt on board. Love it or hate it, the 50th anniversary is going to be something special :) peace out xx

Possibly... but personally I'd cast Pertwee Jr in that role!

I want to see Paul McCann. I need me a Withnail and I fix, having Richard E Grant on the show is already half way there.

God help us on the return of piper!! Couldn't stand her. Tennant ok if they get peter davidson then lets hope father and son in law work well together..... I hope they some how manage to get all 10 docs (other actors for the deceased) together would be cool all 10 faces what an fantastic doctor who explosion :)

There are reading comprehension courses one can take.

Just stop trying to argue with him. He has proven that he won't ever give up on an argument no matter how wrong or right he is. He even ended up on the radar of the guys at The Last Word because of his stubbornness.

No matter what you say, whether you can prove it or not, he will ALWAYS try to have the last word (he'll probably even have something insulting to say to me but I'll just let whatever he says wash over me and refuse to join in his little game of 'I can keep this going longer than you can'.

Just ignore and move on - it's the best thing to do.

Had to delete quite a few comments here that had resorted to name calling. This is a friendly place, with relaxed moderation. But we do not tolerate personal attacks.

DT is back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank God, something to look forward too in Dr Who, again.

fift that !

Cue my full, undying gratitude and excitedness

Agreed. if you believe everything, then Doctor Who is real, and one of John Barrowman won't attend, while one of his many other selves will.
I hope so :D

I have a feeling this will end up like the 3 Drs. With Chris doing his stuff (largely separate). I think 10 and 11 will bicker. I take it that it will be 10 and Rose from earlier in their time stream. To have the alternative dimension with the meta crisis Dr would be a huge mistake. What wouldn't surprise me would be a reverse generation of Matt (degenerating?!) into Tennant. Whose first words would be "I'm back!"

I wonder what Matt makes of this? I have already seen a picture of them and Tennant already looks the main man. In the public consciousness he is the Dr. When Tom Baker was absent from the 5 Doctors it gave Davison space to be the lead.

Davison looked fine in his cross-over with Tenant - obviously older, but no more so than the 2nd and 3rd docs in 'The 5 Doctors' - i.e. well within the boundaries of suspending belief. And McCoy isn't a problem because he wasn't young at the time anyway - the intervening years haven't actually changed his appearance very much. The fact that he's tied up working on The Hobbit is a rather more substantial problem though...

As for the Bakers, I never liked Colin Baker (maybe not his fault, but it was easily the original series' weakest era) and Tom sadly really does look too different, even compared to his very last episodes. Unlike Davison, who was so young that his wrinkles can still be disguised, and McCoy who always looked older than his age and has a much smaller time gap since his last appearance, Tom Baker falls bang in the middle of that age category and appearance era where 35 years have passed and he really does make too big a difference for the makeup artists to work with. Even he's admitted it when asked if he'd appear in a cross-over - he's said in interviews that he'd love to come back and play the Master (again, he looks sufficiently different to when he played the Doctor that he could get away with that), but he couldn't do the Doctor again given his change of appearance.

Yes, I think that's a fair summary :)

(Although I can't help but suggest the Big Finish audio dramas if you'd like a chance to experience Colin Baker's Doctor in a new light. I never liked him much either, from the TV series, but with good scripts and no visual reminder of his awful costume, he's a revelation. If you don't know them, I'd definitely recommend giving them a go - "The Holy Terror", "The One Doctor", "Jubilee" and "The Pirates" are among my favourites.)

To be entirely fair, I think the problems in Colin's era where more down to script problems, as well as the underlying issues JNT was having with the BBC at the time. Colin really ended up as the scapegoat at the time, thus his untimely sacking. It's only as the Big Finish audio comes out and we see him in decent stories we see how good the era could have been.

Sponsored Links