tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post8405950961733373727..comments2024-03-17T11:05:22.464+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: Hello, I Must Be Going (1)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-24837923482822139192013-12-11T20:09:29.029+00:002013-12-11T20:09:29.029+00:00The modern version of the show is much faster-pace...The modern version of the show is much faster-paced so I'm not sure it makes sense to base comparisons by screen time. A 45-minute story from seriesĀ 7 like <i>Nightmare in Silver</i> doesn't have much less story than a 100-minute 1970s 4-part story like <i>Pyramids of Mars</i>. If we count stories rather than screen minutes, we find that by the time he quits Matt Smith will have starred in 39 stories, whereas Tom Baker starred inĀ 41.Gareth Reeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405124248006286547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-87377435497302524082013-08-05T18:12:35.051+01:002013-08-05T18:12:35.051+01:00SK: Yes, I knew Matt Smith had also beaten out Pet...SK: Yes, I knew Matt Smith had also beaten out Peter Davison (but not David Tennant). I also agree with your general point that Matt Smith's tenure wasn't that short and that short tenures have been the rule in <i>Doctor Who</i> for a long time (the last thirty years). I was only disagreeing because you were including Hartnell and Troughton as short-tenured Doctors, and I think Mr. Rilstone can plausibly make the case that, prior to 1981, you could expect each Doctor to put in a pretty long run of material, much longer than has been true since.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-10197843206306736172013-08-05T10:15:58.876+01:002013-08-05T10:15:58.876+01:00(Tennant did the same number of regular episodes a...(Tennant did the same number of regular episodes as Smith, but all the specials he did, including the one which I'm sure you remember was seventy-two minutes rather than the usual sixty, push his total up to 2,247 minutes). SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-79622129211215830672013-08-05T10:02:13.178+01:002013-08-05T10:02:13.178+01:00Oh, in terms of screen time, the comparison's ...Oh, in terms of screen time, the comparison's a bit unfair, because (as we all know) in its early years <i>Doctor Who</i> was a weekly soap opera recorded as live. The simple realities of TV production and the changed nature of the programme make it impossible that any other doctors could 'cram in' as many episodes. <br /><br />Nevertheless, one can look at the numbers. Davison starred in one series of twenty-six twenty-five-minute episodes, one of twenty-two (plus a ninety-minute special), and then twenty-two episodes of a third series (counting 'Revelation of the Daleks' as originally-intended rather than as broadcast). That's a total, by my calculator, of 1840 minutes of screen time. <br /><br />Smith has up until now been in three series of thirteen forty-five minute episodes (actually, 'The Eleventh Hour' was sixty, wasn't it?) and three hour-long Christmas specials, for a total of 1950 minutes. <br /><br />So he's already beaten Davison for screen time, and he still has at least the anniversary special to go (not sure how long that will be, but it'll probably put him over the 2,000-minute mark) and possibly the Christmas special (depending on whether he regenerates at the beginning or the end). <br /><br />So even by screen time, Smith's run wasn't that short. <br /><br />I suspect that this is a case where the memory cheats: both in terms of time seeming to take longer when you are a child, and in terms of you growing up in the Tom Baker era, such that Baker could have been the Doctor for effectively your entire childhood. <br /><br />I know it seem to me that Doctors Who change far more frequently these days, but the numbers don't bear it out. <br /><br />I'm also not convinced that screen time equals 'getting used to' time. Sylvester McCoy made such an impression in twenty-eight episodes (700 minutes, we're ignoring season twenty-four) that the character he created could sustain nearly five million words of novels over the next few years. Smith actually was better served by the scripts than McCoy in that he hit the ground running in his first series, so his impressions was practically instant.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-10900745775000853092013-08-04T20:45:03.038+01:002013-08-04T20:45:03.038+01:00SK: I would make exceptions for Hartnell and Troug...SK: I would make exceptions for Hartnell and Troughton who packed an awful lot of screen time into their three years. (I.e. I think we had plenty of time to "get used to them.") In terms of screen time, the first four Doctors are pretty easily the top four. (I believe David Tennant finally passed up Peter Davison for the number five slot.) It's after Tom Baker hangs up his scarf, that shorter tenures became the new normal. (You make a good point that this might have been inevitable after they shortened the seasons in 1970, but there was a delayed effect because Pertwee and Tom Baker each hung around for longer than usual to put off the moment when the Doctor became more ephemeral.)Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-895593296040751752013-08-04T11:15:55.650+01:002013-08-04T11:15:55.650+01:00yet another new actor has yet another go at figuri...<i>yet another new actor has yet another go at figuring out what the new show is all about, and then quits when we have barely had time to get used to him</i><br /><br />Which is as it always was: Smith has played the Doctor for (taking into account production slippage) about three years, which is the same as Hartnell, Troughton, Davison and McCoy, and more than C. Baker, McGann, or Eccleston. <br /><br />In fact only three actors have played the role for longer, and Tennant only counts because of that bizarre 'specials year'. <br /><br />Three years is, it seems, the standard time for an actor to play the Doctor. Some do it for less; the ones who do it for more are notably exceptional.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-63838052562579327972013-08-03T11:28:23.460+01:002013-08-03T11:28:23.460+01:00Issues of the race, age, gender, height, weight an...Issues of the race, age, gender, height, weight and other attributes of the Doctor notwithstanding I have felt for some time now that Patterson Joseph would make an awesome Doctor, simply because giving the Marquis de Carrabas a time machine sounds like a recipe for a lot of fun; unfortunately he has already been in an episode in a very visible, plot related, speaking role, so the chances of him getting the role are pretty poor.<br /><br />After the very pleasant surprise that was Matt Smith (who has actually usurped Tom Baker as my favourite Doctor ever) I am quietly hopeful that the new choice will be a good one, but I reserve the right to change my mind this Sunday at around 19:30.Paul Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09247954135752131284noreply@blogger.com