Tom Baker and Peter Davison on 'Who's Past

One of the most significant signs of Who's 5oth anniversary being not too far away anymore is that the papers have started conducting interviews with some of the actors who left their mark on this show.

This is The Guardian featuring Tom Baker commenting on his time on Who. Leaving those fan-ish debates on 'who is the best Doctor' aside, to many people Doctor Who would not be the same show if at one point in time Tom Baker didn't have played the mad man in the blue box. Just in case you don't believe me, take a look at the final of DoctorWhoTV's recent poll on the most popular Doctor and decide for yourself. A hint, it's not Matt Smith vs David Tennant.

And if you've ever been interested into Peter Davison's take on the show, on its past and its future,  then make sure not to miss this interview by the Telegraph. Maybe the most interesting question he gets asked is his opinion on a female Doctor:

It’s not as if genders are interchangeable on Gallifrey [...] I don’t like the idea of the Doctor having a sex change - it’s not as if you would have a female James Bond.

And I know a rather big number of Whovians who'd wholeheartedly agree. 

The only thing about which I have to disagree with him is that I don't think Rose was the first companion which the writers got right. Sarah Jane Smith has always felt like a proper companion to me. In a way, she felt much rounder than Rose, because Rose hardly ever seemed to doubt the Doctor's decisions.

Moffat on Why We Didn't Get a Female Doctor

Yesterday 'The Telegraph' was running an article in which they where citing Moffat describing why he did not choose an actress as the 12th Doctor: 

I didn’t feel enough people wanted it [...] Oddly enough, most people who said they were dead against it were women.

I for my part am glad that Peter Capaldi is not a Petra Capaldi, however, I can't help feeling a bit disappointed about Moffat not mentioning to have any other reasons than peer-pressure. I mean, the Doctor has been a guy for 1000 plus years. Why should I change that, or even want to change that? It has become part of his identity. Sure, some may think it to be fun and the audience could cope. But could he? Could the stories? Wouldn't that be the famous jump over the shark? 

Changing his gender is not necessary, not story-wise and even not gender-policy-wise. For isn't the basic idea of emancipation that there is no difference between men and women, both of them have theoretically the same abilities, the same potential? So why should it be better to make him a her?

I simply fail to come up with a compelling reason. Maybe one day someone will. But I hope, for the sake of the fans and the show, that it will be a good one.

Crazy & Bizarre...

With Doctor Who's season opener being less than a week away, and I know I'm overusing this phrase, but it's true, all kind of newspapers are starting to take an interest into the more or less leading actors of our all time favourite series. The result is that around this time we are getting quite a number of interviews. And The Telegraph is no exception. So, here is their rather ... bizarre interview they did with Karen Gillan. But I'm only posting this so that I can say I did not miss it, because actually it's not too interesting.

Anyway. This week just has started, so I think this won't be the only one we'll have the pleasure of reading this week.

A Mad Man with a Box...

This is a Matt Smith interview by The Telegraph about how Doctor Who has changed his life, how he has been dealing with its fandom and there is also a paragraph mentioning the old 'How Did Matt Smith End Up As An Actor' story, which might be already familiar to more than just the vast majority of the people who are going to read that article.

A bit of a downer is how Matt Smith refers to the name of his character, or is this just The Telegraph quoting him in a wrong way? It is still, just as for the last 47 years, 'the Doctor' and not 'Doctor Who', latter one is the name of the show. Oh, and is it worth mentioning the whole TARDIS vs Tardis stuff?
Probably not.

However, apart from these points in my humble opinion it manages to be a surprisingly entertaining interview. Matt Smith has certainly the right idea of presenting his role. Thanks for that.

Furthermore, he also talks about why this show is still so immensely popular (yep, it does have 'the best ever TV drama format'). And I hope when saying 'everything is possible' he does not include to forget about a certain set of rules which would really appreciate if someone would actually care about them. That's rather Steven Moffat's job, though.

And finally we have to agree uncompromisingly to the last statement, we’ll never tire of watching the Doctor saving the day again and again, at least not as long as someone screws things up really badly.

An Odd Matt Smith Interview...

Well, maybe I could have put more effort into the title of this post. Anyway.

Our dear Telegraph has printed and partly commented some parts of a Matt Smith interview Esquire did with him (and which is going to be available tomorrow). Here is the link.

I'm not the biggest Matt Smith fan ATM, but to be fair, I have to add that actually Matt Smith doesn't say that he was destined for that role, it's the very ignorant interviewer who does so. And it's the even more ignorant Telegraph who gives that article that title.

Maybe in a few days some particular Esquire scans will have made it online. If I come across them , I promise to introduce them to you.