Why age shouldn't be an issue.

[O'Dib]

We've seen old play young countless times, how is this different? In fact, anyone playing the Doctor is young playing old, as a difference of 10 years doesn't really matter much in portraying a 900 year old. And even in our own understanding of the word Doctor, it is possible for a prodigious 26 year old to attain that title by that age if diligent enough. I can buy a 26 year old being called Doctor, is what I'm trying to say, if he seems special enough. All it comes down to is if Smith will be good in the role, and his age is not a factor in the quality of the performance, as far as we know.

 

[Awesome Possum]

He's only 3 years younger than Davison and he was fantastic, I have no problem with Smith and I am eager to see what he can do. I think that some people are just freaked out by a Doctor who is young enough to be the son of some fans.

 

[Sci]

It's a matter of whether or not the actor in question has accumulated enough life experience to convey the impression that he is much older than he actually is. That is OFTEN related to the actor's age, but it's not determined by it, no. So Smith could certainly have had enough life experience to convey the idea that he's 900 years old by age 26, and, meanwhile, another actor may never really convince you they've graduated high school. (Jeremy Piven, I'm looking at you.)

Having said that, I find, personally, that it's much rarer for a young person to convey advanced age than for a middle-aged person to convey youth, so Smith's age gives me pause. And, further, I just prefer a 40-something Doctor -- I like there being a physical emobodiment of the idea that the Doctor isn't exactly a spring chicken. But that's just me.

(Funny, I remember when saying I preferred a 40-something Doctor was the same thing as saying you preferred a younger Doctor...)

 

[davejames]

I don't really see the problem myself. I've never gotten much of a "wise old alien time lord" vibe off Tennant either, but I've still had no trouble accepting him as The Doctor.

As long as Smith's Doctor is witty and interesting and engaging, and is written well, then he'll do just fine.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

And on the plus side when Doctor Who is resurrected again in 20 years time he should be able to appear again

 

[wamdue]

^ you assume people will want him back.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^ you assume people will want him back.

Someone will want him back, someone to whom he is "their" Doctor.

 

[wamdue]

he will have to go someway to beat Tennant for alot of the modern audience

 

[Bob The Skutter]

he will have to go someway to beat Tennant for alot of the modern audience

Yeah, maybe so, but there are new tykes born all the time, a toddler now might just be the right age to start paying attention during Smiths run and love him to bits.

 

[wamdue]

I guess we hope he stays long enough to become someones Doctor, if he leaves after 1 season, he wont get that many fans.

Dont know why i think he will only go 1, fandom negativity getting to me

 

[WillsBabe]

Age shouldn't be an issue. But it is. The reason his age could be an issue for me is engagement with the character. When I watch tv, I like it when the writers and the actors have a degree of authority and reliability about them, so I can trust them to take me on a journey, tell me a story. So many actors, so many writers fail to do this for me. I often find them patronising, or incompetent or just plain rubbish. Now youth is not necessdarily an indicator of this. Buffy had a young cast and I engaged with them. So, I am going to reserve judgement about Matt Smith until I see him as the Doctor (although a couple of moments in the interview we saw him in during Confidential made me think I could get on board with him). As an older viewer (and I suppose Whis isn't necessarily aimed at me) I might find a Doctor so much younger than me to be a bit of a challenge to accept. But my mind is open. I want it to be open, I don't want to stop watching Who.

 

[Starkers]

I'm with Sci here, in that on the whole I do think you have to have a certain maturity and gravitas about you to play someone ancient, so ideally I think that Who (like Bond) should probably usually be in the late 30s early 40s range. It gives them a certain solidness and grownupness without limiting their ability to runaround jumping over things and fighting monsters.

That said it would be nice to see an older Doctor again (shame we'll never see Nighy or Rickman in the role), and my fave Doc ever was Davison so in theory I'm not that against the idea of a young Doctor. As with anything its how Smith plays it. Davison was, what 29?, but he was a good enough Actor that he could pull off seeming a lot older.

[Shug] End of the day it should be the best person for the job and until I see evidence to the contrary I'm going to trust Moffat that Smith was the best man for the job

 

[JoeZhang]

Actually age does matter to an extent - regards of the internal fiction, this is still a show watched in the real world. The guy might be brilliant or he might look as stupid as when you have 20 years old singing Frank Sinatra songs about doing it "my way" - the audience might not buy it regardless of what is said about his age...

 

[DWF]

Age isn't an issue according to Moffat, Smith came in an blew them away when he auditioned for the part, if you trust Moffat trust his choice for the role.

 

[Sci]

I'm with Sci here,

Mark your calenders, folks, this doesn't happen that often!

 

[Starkers]

Well I like to agree with you at least once a year

 

[wamdue]

Well I like to agree with you at least once a year

but it is very early in the year, do you wish to use your "agree with Sci" card so early?

 

[davejames]

I'm with Sci here, in that on the whole I do think you have to have a certain maturity and gravitas about you to play someone ancient, so ideally I think that Who (like Bond) should probably usually be in the late 30s early 40s range. It gives them a certain solidness and grownupness without limiting their ability to runaround jumping over things and fighting monsters.

That said it would be nice to see an older Doctor again (shame we'll never see Nighy or Rickman in the role), and my fave Doc ever was Davison so in theory I'm not that against the idea of a young Doctor. As with anything its how Smith plays it. Davison was, what 29?, but he was a good enough Actor that he could pull off seeming a lot older.

[Shug] End of the day it should be the best person for the job and until I see evidence to the contrary I'm going to trust Moffat that Smith was the best man for the job

In some ways I agree. There are a LOT of 40-something actors who would be great in the role I bet. But at the same time... it would also be fairly safe and predictable. "Ho hum, it's another middle-aged dude playing the Doctor." You just plug him in and start cranking out the same stories as before.

Getting someone so much younger feels much more daring and risky to me, where you aren't quite sure WHAT to expect when the new season starts. I have a feeling that's what excited Moffat about this choice. He wanted to be challenged and inspired by something new as a writer, and I can't really blame him. Plus, the more inspired he is, the better it'll be for us.

 

[Cutter John]

Considering I'm older that both Tennant and Eccelston, I'm way past the whole 'age' thing.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Age isn't an issue for me. I don't see much difference between someone who is 26 or some who 36. At my age they are both younguns to me