Question about the 2010 series. BIG SPOILER

[The]

There is nothing remotely ageist about saying that most actors above a certain age can't handle the rigors of the new series' production schedule. (Of course, there are some who could, but the likelihood that one of them would be what the producers are looking for in a new Doctor is even slimmer.)

Certainly it is ageism to assume because someone is of a certain age range that they cannot handle the "rigors" of the production schedule. If there is no other reason to not include them other than they're "old" so they wouldn't be able to handle it, then that's an ageist view.

Of some note, I copied this from Wikipedia:

• 
  In a survey for the University of Kent, England, 29% of respondents stated that they had suffered from age discrimination. This is a higher proportion than for gender or race discrimination. Dominic Abrams, Social Psychology professor at the University, concluded that ageism is the most pervasive form of prejudice experienced in the UK population.

Now, am I arguing that all actors above 40 could handle it? No. I'm arguing that stereotyping across the board based on an "age requirement" is limiting at best....embracing stagnation at worst.

And that's the only reason anyone has given for casting 40ish actors- nothing about who could own the role or playing elderly or playing young or whatever.

My response concerning assumptions that old equals grandfather-figure was in response to this post:

Because the show is appealing to a younger demographic...who really isn't interested in a Grandfather figure anymore...

 

[The]

I've gotta say, I don't see why Eccleston (who had just turned 41 when he left Doctor Who) would strike people as being particularly older than Tennant (who will be 39 at least when he leaves). Eccleston's Doctor is a bit less manic than Tennant's, but as has been pointed out, that's a function of character personality, not age: 40ish Tom Baker was much more energetic in the role than 30ish Peter Davison.

Couldn't agree more. But, I don't think that's the point people here are neccessarily making. The point, at least for me, was that Moffat/BBC are saying that they will "never" cast a 40-year-old actor in the role again, based on (the sex-symbol/pretty-boy status Tennant created with his Doctor) "the rigors of production". I am saying that is ultimately limiting, because it sounds like they're making excuses to try and keep the Fan-Girls-Base squeeing along with the next hearthrob Doctor, by eliminating any possibility of a mature actor taking the role. That's all...

 

[captcalhoun]

the simple fact is, Doctor Who entails 9 months (NINE!) of intense filming at all hours of the day and night followed by a 3 month break before the next series starts. it's punishing enough for a young actor (as Tennant has admitted), let alone for someone older. Moffat is merely thinking back to, in particular, Hartnell who was ill and had trouble remembering his lines and doing filming and had younger companions to do 'the heavy lifting' in the action scenes...

 

[Brendan Moody]

Certainly it is ageism to assume because someone is of a certain age range that they cannot handle the "rigors" of the production schedule.

No. It's (mildly) ageist to say with no basis that all people of that range, or specific individuals can't do it- if (say) Patrick Stewart wanted to try out for the eleventh Doctor and Steven Moffat said, "Ah, get out of here, ya useless old geezer," that would be ageist. It's not ageist to acknowledge that most people above a certain age are not likely to be able to handle this kind of work. There are biological realities associated with the aging process; talking about them in hypothetical generalities is not ageism.

The fact that you would put quote marks around "rigors" suggests that you may not be taking seriously the actual strain the role can create- we're talking about nine months of six day weeks and 12-14 hours days with lots of night shooting and time pressure. It's not an exaggeration or an excuse to say that this is a rigorous schedule that ages the people involved.

As your statistics would indicate, ageism is a real phenomenon that affects the lives of ordinary older people by means of wildly skewed assumptions about their limitations- like the idea that people over 65 are senile old farts who can't move and whose minds are wandering. Looking it up on Wikipedia to make a point about a TV show does something of a disservice to the struggle against problems rather more pressing than whether hypothetical older actors could play Doctor Who.

And that's the only reason anyone has given for casting 40ish actors- nothing about who could own the role or playing elderly or playing young or whatever.

My response concerning assumptions that old equals grandfather-figure was in response to this post:

Because the show is appealing to a younger demographic...who really isn't interested in a Grandfather figure anymore...

Ah. I should have written, "Anyone associated with the show." Sorry.

The point, at least for me, was that Moffat/BBC are saying that they will "never" cast a 40-year-old actor in the role again

But they aren't. How is Moffat saying, "He'll always be around 40" saying that he'll never be 40?

You seem to be assuming that the "rigors" argument is just an excuse for keeping the Doctor young. That's not very likely. If they wanted to say, "The audience prefers a young, sexy Doctor," they would- Moffat and RTD aren't shy about saying things that give fans fits.

 

[RevdKathy]

Nothing against Moffat, but 'never' is an awfully big word for someone who only just took over. Maybe the creator after him... or the one after that... Or is Moffat reckoning he'll 'never' give it up?

 

[Brendan Moody]

'never' is an awfully big word

And one that he didn't use. Here is the sum total of actual quotes from Moffat about this topic:

It's a practical issue. This is a show that's hard for even the young, super-fit David Tennant to keep up with. It might kill someone over 60.

If the Doctor turned into an old man you would be a bit p***** off. Even William Hartnell had trouble back then, he was often ill and forgot his lines.
I think he'll always probably tend to be around 40.

Note the absence of "never" and the presence of "think" and "probably tend." (Alongside "always," which is a bit contradictory, but this is an off-the-cuff response to a question, not a rehearsed mission statement.)

 

[Starkers]

I really don't get this 40 and no further roadblock. Are they seriously suggesting that they'll turn down a guy who is ideal for the role because he's 45? Ridiculous. As for the fitness issue, well let's face it, Patrick Stewart is probably a damn site fitter than men half his age, in fact I'd imagine there are men ten years older than Tennant whose stamnia etc are higher.

I can understand the issue of someone who's 60, maybe even someone in their late fifties.

As another poster said above, my one fear about Moffat is that he'll esentially replace Tennant with another Tennant.

 

[Count Zero]

I really don't get this 40 and no further roadblock. Are they seriously suggesting that they'll turn down a guy who is ideal for the role because he's 45?

No, they aren't. "Around 40" does include 45, I should think.

As another poster said above, my one fear about Moffat is that he'll esentially replace Tennant with another Tennant.

I agree that this would be a mistake because only Tennant does Tennant best. But I don't really see that happening. They didn't cast a second Eccleston either, so why should they do that?

 

[DWF]

Tom Baker was 39 when he became the Doctor and Davison was a mere 29 and I do think that Davison for his short time as the Doctor was a very active one. By the time he was 46 at the end of time as the Doctor, Tom Baker was very difficult to work with and alittle ill in his final season.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

if (say) Patrick Stewart wanted to try out for the eleventh Doctor

Yes please!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, either Stewart or if they want a young actor, they should go for it. And I mean a REAL young actor. Barely of adulthood. What age was the youngest doctor so far?
But only if they find an actor who can actually act good enough for the role of a 900 years old guy. Does someone like that exist?
Do you think one of the "Weasly" twins might be good enough? I found both of them rather compelling since GoF.

 

[Starkers]

Tom Baker was 39 when he became the Doctor and Davison was a mere 29 and I do think that Davison for his short time as the Doctor was a very active one. By the time he was 46 at the end of time as the Doctor, Tom Baker was very difficult to work with and alittle ill in his final season.

Are you suggesting Tom was senile? I don't think his age had anything to do with him being difficult to work with, I think that was just tom Baker's nature coupled with having been in the role far far too long.

 

[JoeZhang]

I don't why people have leaped to the conclusion that it to do with the production side of it - it seems to me it's more to do with the fact that they want a sexy young man who connects with the core audience.

 

[Brendan Moody]

I don't why people have leaped to the conclusion that it to do with the production side of it

Maybe people have "leaped" there because it's the reason the producers have given every time the question has ever come up. It's the assumption that it's about "sexy young men" (like that pin-up idol Christopher Eccleston, I guess) that constitutes a leap.

 

[JoeZhang]

I went to a lecture that RTD gave a couple of years ago and that's pretty much the answer he gave, production reasons were never mentioned.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I don't why people have leaped to the conclusion that it to do with the production side of it - it seems to me it's more to do with the fact that they want a sexy young man who connects with the core audience.

If that's the case, then Eddie Izzard and Bill Nighy are still possible because they're drop dead gorgeous. And no, I'm not being facetious.

 

[JoeZhang]

The moffat quote seems to be saying both things:

He said: "This is a show that's hard for even the young, super-fit David Tennant to keep up with. It might kill someone over 60. If the Doctor turned into an old man you would be a bit pissed off."

 

[Brendan Moody]

The jocular use of "pissed off" there would be an indicator that this is one of those Moffat jokes that people take seriously to give themselves something to talk about.

Davies gave the production schedule as the reason not to have an older Doctor in this interview. (Where one can see sexy young man-obsessed Verity Lambert opine that "nowadays you don’t really want an older Doctor.") I wouldn't be surprised if he has also said something to the effect that the audience wouldn't want a Doctor who (regardless of the actor's age) played elderly in the way that only Hartnell has- that's really something that belongs to the program's formative stage where its post-1966 dynamic hadn't emerged.

 

[Meredith]

I would like to see two doctors, one for the tv series, and one for the ocassional special. when the special series ends then you have one regenerate to the other.

 

[The]

Certainly it is ageism to assume because someone is of a certain age range that they cannot handle the "rigors" of the production schedule.

No. It's (mildly) ageist to say with no basis that all people of that range, or specific individuals can't do it- if (say) Patrick Stewart wanted to try out for the eleventh Doctor and Steven Moffat said, "Ah, get out of here, ya useless old geezer," that would be ageist. It's not ageist to acknowledge that most people above a certain age are not likely to be able to handle this kind of work. There are biological realities associated with the aging process; talking about them in hypothetical generalities is not ageism.

It's an ageist view to create a theoretical barrier based on age. Is it an accurate assessment? Depends on who we're talking about. Otherwise, it's blanket generality that sets an imperfect limit on the casting range.

The fact that you would put quote marks around "rigors" suggests that you may not be taking seriously the actual strain the role can create- we're talking about nine months of six day weeks and 12-14 hours days with lots of night shooting and time pressure. It's not an exaggeration or an excuse to say that this is a rigorous schedule that ages the people involved.

Oh, I'm quite certain it's strenuous. I have no problem seeing a decently fit 40-55-ish being able to handle it with a little effort.

As your statistics would indicate, ageism is a real phenomenon that affects the lives of ordinary older people by means of wildly skewed assumptions about their limitations- like the idea that people over 65 are senile old farts who can't move and whose minds are wandering. Looking it up on Wikipedia to make a point about a TV show does something of a disservice to the struggle against problems rather more pressing than whether hypothetical older actors could play Doctor Who.

Who are you to determine the integrity or veracity concerning the choice of my source? What site would you prefer I quote from when sourcing a debated point?

The point, at least for me, was that Moffat/BBC are saying that they will "never" cast a 40-year-old actor in the role again

But they aren't. How is Moffat saying, "He'll always be around 40" saying that he'll never be 40?

You seem to be assuming that the "rigors" argument is just an excuse for keeping the Doctor young. That's not very likely. If they wanted to say, "The audience prefers a young, sexy Doctor," they would- Moffat and RTD aren't shy about saying things that give fans fits.

I assume as much because it's reading between the lines of big business. They've struck gold with Tennant, and have created an entire segment of followers based on The Doc's newfound sex appeal. I don't think they will let that aspect slide for the next one. Art does not trump greed.

But, hey, I hope I'm wrong and they surprise me. I will certainly eat my words. But, until then, I remain skeptical...

 

[The]

I really don't get this 40 and no further roadblock. Are they seriously suggesting that they'll turn down a guy who is ideal for the role because he's 45? Ridiculous. As for the fitness issue, well let's face it, Patrick Stewart is probably a damn site fitter than men half his age, in fact I'd imagine there are men ten years older than Tennant whose stamnia etc are higher.

I can understand the issue of someone who's 60, maybe even someone in their late fifties.

As another poster said above, my one fear about Moffat is that he'll esentially replace Tennant with another Tennant.

Exactly my point. Exactly...