... as a big budget Hollywood film with a Hollywood actor, then I want it to have nothing to do with the show's continuity. I don't want them regenerating a new Doctor just for a two hour movie, and then regenerate another new Doctor. I dislike the revolving Doctor door we have going lately.
Revolving Doctor door? Tennant stayed for ages.
Four years is ages? One of those four wasn't even an actual season ...
Looking at the history of the show though, I guess four years is about the average, with Baker being the only one to stay for much more (six or seven years it looks like).
Still, it feels like they should stay on longer. A Doctor regeneration feels like it should be a big event, not something they do twice in the space of two hours for the sake of a movie.
True. And I would object to making Smith regenerate because of a movie. And I would ideally like him to be the Doctor in a film (if that were to happen).
But a film could take the time and money to actually solve something like having to go to Gallifrey to do something about the regeneration thing. I don't think the TV series has the cash for the special effects.
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
structured procrastinator
Who what?
30/06/2010 09:12:20 PM
- 622 Views
There's only one way I could see it.
01/07/2010 01:44:10 AM
- 370 Views
I have the opposite reaction
01/07/2010 09:37:47 AM
- 444 Views
But if it's Davies doing it ...
01/07/2010 04:47:03 PM
- 397 Views
Re: But if it's Davies doing it ...
01/07/2010 06:15:48 PM
- 412 Views
Re: But if it's Davies doing it ...
02/07/2010 01:43:50 AM
- 454 Views
Re: But if it's Davies doing it ...
02/07/2010 09:06:51 AM
- 467 Views
I'll probably ignore it, like I have with the Sherlock Holmes thing recently *NM*
01/07/2010 10:55:12 AM
- 170 Views