Yeah, Walsh is very well known but more as a 'personality' and game show host these days. I think there may have been some grumblings about that when he was cast, similar to when Billie's casting was announced, but those people are either unaware or have forgotten that he received very good notices for his acting work in L&O:UK, which was treated as something of a revelation at the time.
No matter how one slices and dices it he has had a long running career and when it comes to fame exposure and being in the public eye creates presence.
Which can only help the show, and it makes no sense to say it would somehow hurt Whittaker as the Doctor. As others have pointed out, Billie Piper was a bigger celebrity than either of the Doctors she starred with. Catherine Tate was also pretty prominent for her pre-DW work. However famous the companions may be, the Doctor is intrinsically the center of the show and the character who draws the most attention. Recall that at the start, Ian and Barbara were meant to be the lead characters, with the Doctor as more of a story catalyst and source of mystery and/or exposition, but the Doctor eventually ended up becoming the more dominant character anyway.
I am not familiar with either of their careers, so -for me- neither has a 'presence'. I doubt that either has any presence for the very vast majority of Americans. Oh well.... I guess Doctor Who is now doomed in the United States. Too bad they didn't choose American actors this time, like they did repeatedly in the previous 50-some years of DW......
Uh-oh, I think I see where this is going, but just to be sure, which character do you think was doing the overshadowing?
I think Lorca became far more compelling than Michael and in part that was because of Isaac's experience and presence. In some ways it was a detriment to the character Michael because he owned every scene he was in and I say that as someone who didn't actually like the character Lorca. It was a surprise the Doctor Who production has matched Bradley (and he is one of three companions I believe) to Jodie. He has such a cocky way about him but still likeable. I don't want to be ageist as I think it is rather cool the way 'Doctor Who' mixes up age and gender, but his age might also give him a certain gravitas. However at the end of the day the Doctor (in my opinion) should be the star. God help me but this in part why Clara irritated the crap out of me, she just took over.
Well, I don't agree. And I can't help but notice that in both cases you see a female lead as being overshadowed by a male character. Hell, if anyone overshadowed Sonequa Martin-Green in Discovery, it was Michelle Yeoh. Besides, it's a bad comparison, since Star Trek is usually an ensemble show. So it's not a fault if the attention is spread out among characters instead of concentrated around the lead.
Well, if we are judging solely based on personal experience. Until Whitaker's name was released, I don't know who either ONE of them were. I still don't who the fuck is Walsh. But, I know who the hell Whitaker is.
Even if I agreed that that was true, what the hell has that got to do with Bradley Walsh and Jodie Whittaker? From what I've seen of both actors, I daresay Whittaker is the one who left a stronger impression on me, although I admit that's largely because I watched Broadchurch after her casting as the Doctor so I was specifically paying attention to her. But of the cast members from Law & Order: UK, I wouldn't say Walsh particularly overshadowed anyone else, despite being one of the co-leads of the show. Of course, that's largely because he was acting opposite the likes of Jamie Bamber, Freema Agyeman, Harriet Walter, and Peter Davison.
It doesn't matter if one actor is on TV five times a week or once a week, if you don't watch the show that the actor is on you might not be aware of who they are. As I said earlier I'm not really familiar with either of them but I at least had heard of Jodie so she had more name recognition at least for me. I wonder if you asked random people on the street if they had heard of The Actor Bradley Walsh? and had they heard of the actress Jodie Whittaker? Which would get more affirmatives,
I'd query the idea that Billie was more famous than Eccleston. At the time her claims to fame were A/being the British Britney for a very short period of time and B/being married to Chris Evans (not that one) whereas Eccleston was very well known for things like Cracker, Our Friends in the North etc. You could maybe argue they were equally well known, for different reasons, but no way was Billie more well known then CE. Tennant on the other hand, well when he began she was clearly the better known. But this comes back to something I said months ago. I can't think of any instance where the a new Doctor's companion was more famous than him, except where it was an existing companion (Sarah Jane with Tom or Rose with David). That said just because it's never been done it doesn't mean it's a bad call. My worry has always been that it potentially sends a message out that the producers lack faith. The first female Doctor and you give her a companion who's an older white male who's also better known than her (in the UK at least). That said this does seem to be Chibnall's call and it seems like he's gone out of his way to get Walsh, and never wanted anyone else for the role, which is another slap in the face for Jodie (IMO) given she had to bloody audition. Hell even Peter Capaldi had to audition! None of which will stop me saying Walsh is bloody brilliant if he is in fact bloody brilliant.
All it says to me is that Chibnall likes to work with actors he's used before. Presumably he was thinking in terms of whose talent and personality were best suited to the characters he created. And let's not forget, Walsh is just one of three companions, and the one most removed from Doctor Who's target demographic in age. If anything, an older companion surrounded by three younger people is the character most likely to be overshadowed, so it makes sense to cast a well-known actor to compensate for that. I don't see the objection. The Doctor is a more important role than any companion, so of course it has to be cast more carefully. In the modern series, companions rarely last more than a year or two, while Doctors typically last at least three years. So it's more of a long-term investment, and certainly a higher-stakes choice.
I honestly don't know, this might be mentioned in RTD's book I guess. Of course at the time both of those were one off characters rather than recurring companions.
My knowledge of both is almost nothing apart from knowing Walsh is on a some quiz show which i have only seen snippets of, but both are real unknowns to me, not that it makes any difference, long as it is enjoyable.
John Hurt didn't have to audition. He got the script, thought about turning it down, changed his mind when his wife convinced him otherwise, and was on set the following week. No audition, just Boom! and go. I have wondered over the years if Moffat sent the script for "Day of the Doctor" to other actors. David Bowie, perhaps? Bowie was approached about something (though we don't know what) in Doctor Who, and he would have fit Moffat's one-off "Mayfly Doctor" pretty damn well.
The Beeb higher-ups almost certainly mandate auditions for the Doctor, even if there's really only one candidate. Companions can theoretically be gotten shot of fairly easily if they don't work out ("hey, we still haven't ever actually permanently killed a companion - thanks Moffat! - to show that it can happen and how dangerous life with the Doctor is! BUT WE COULD"). But the Doctor? Don't think folk are going to accept the "hit head on console, played by next actor in a wig" thing again at the start of an episode.