Well I did say it wasn't the best analogy. Would you be ok with a recast first Doctor in a reboot of the universe? Steve, if you only like the Doctor for the actor who portrays him, doesn't that mean that you would disdain a novel with the character in it? Because the writer is trying to do an imitation of the character, trying to capture the mannerisms and voice ( a good writer, anyway).
Some people hear it, some don't I'm among the later. I've got every Big Finish Doctor Who to date, but I'd draw the line at recast regulars.
No, it's like saying that there's only one guy who can play Sean Connery's interpretation of James Bond, or Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes. Or rather, that somebody else can try, but it's liable to come across as a lifeless imitation or an OTT parody rather than a compelling performance.
Well, sort of. It's a problem that the Doctor is a very unique situation. The various Doctors could be considered interpretations of the same character, but in many ways they are different characters. The Sean Connery and Daniel Craig Bonds don't exist in the same universe.
A more relevant question is if we'd be okay with a reboot of the universe. And while reboots have their place as a legitimate story device, I question if such a thing is truly necessary in Doctor Who. But regardless, if a reboot is actually done, then what the hell, go crazy recasting any incarnation of the Doctor. That doesn't really compare though. When watching or listening to a different actor portray a character, I tend to be distracted making comparisons between them and the original actor. And the littlest thing, be it something to do with the actor's voice or appearance can be enough to completely pull me out of the experience. With a novel I can easily imagine the actor no problem provided they aren't written too much out of character. I can only imagine having a problem with a novel if it did something like having the First Doctor hopping around the console wearing a scarf and multi-coloured overcoat screaming "Fantastic, bow ties are cool!"
A novel can at best give you pieces of what you'd get in a performance-- and your mind tends to fill in the rest with your memory of the actor. With an actor, that actor gives you the whole thing. Parts of it may suggest the original, but parts of it will definitely not!
Eccleston, Tennant and Smith may be involved as well... Radio Times Now what "behind the project" means exactly, that isn't clear. Fingers crossed, though!
They're not. The quoted words "behind the project" may mean that the "support" the project, not that they're a part of it. Tennant has been in Big Finish productions in the past. It would be amusing if he appeared in a non-Doctor role as Colonel Brimmicombe-Woode (or whatever the name of his UNIT character is).
Oh, that's right. It slipped my mind earlier. Oh well. Yeah, that's what it sounds like. It would be interesting if Briggs' comment actually meant that the three would be involved, just not playing The Doctor. That shouldn't be a rights issue. Though I think I'm reading a bit too much into it...
A few people have suggested this over at Gallifrey Base and I find myself really hoping this is happens, especially after reading Briggs' newest comment on this project. Having Tennant reprise the not-so-good colonel again would be a nice wink to Nicholas Courtney as well.
Nick Briggs has clarified what Radio Times reported: "'This was the Radio Times extrapolating incorrectly.' he explained, 'We stupidly said all surviving Doctors supported the project. We meant "all surviving classic Doctors".'"
The trailer for The Light at the End has been released, along with a synopsis on Big Finish's website: This sounds infinitely more promising than Zagreus turned out to be.