|
|
Post by eithne on Nov 5, 2006 0:31:17 GMT
David Tennant has refused to comment on how much longer he will stay with Doctor Who.
The actor, who took over from Christopher Eccleston as the Time Lord last year, is contracted until the end of the fourth series in 2008 - but has given no commitment beyond that.
Having taken the award for best actor at the National Television Awards earlier this week, Tennant was asked if the acclaim meant he would be tempted to stay with the show for longer. "That's a good question," he replied. "I'm not going to answer it."
Tennant previously revealed that he had a firm idea of when he would quit.
From Digital Spy
Speculation building already, only a few months after Billie left? Hmm... I think he'll stay until the fourth series and then leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Nov 5, 2006 15:56:58 GMT
Speculation was building even before when he's meant to have said he's off at the end of this one. Actors these days have no commitment. It's not as much hard work as it was in the 60s and 70s with doing an ep in a couple of hours including special effects and having to be finished by 10pm. The 60s was particularly bad as it was on almost every week when Willaim Hartness did it and they got the occasional week off during a story.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Nov 5, 2006 23:19:46 GMT
i always said they should get an older actor who isn't already as well known..he may be ready to commit to the series for longer
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Nov 6, 2006 16:00:30 GMT
Yeah. The rot started with Peter Davison's casting and continued (though to be fair you can't really fancy Colin and Sylv). But going by all the comments on Ceefax and Teletext most people only watch because they fancy Eccleston and Tennant. Very different to the heyday.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by sootycat on Nov 10, 2006 12:25:57 GMT
When I watch the 'new' Doctor Who's, ( since RTD ) . I can't seem to connect them with the old lseries that I loved.
To me, they are a totally different programme, ( even though I enjoy them ) and I look back with affection on the Tom Baker, Jon Pertwee etc days.
I hope that makes some form of sense. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by sallywebster on Nov 10, 2006 21:15:37 GMT
Yeah. The rot started with Peter Davison's casting and continued (though to be fair you can't really fancy Colin and Sylv). But going by all the comments on Ceefax and Teletext most people only watch because they fancy Eccleston and Tennant. Very different to the heyday. Patsy Well I never fancied Eccleston - he wasnt good looking IMO. However I do confess I quite fancy Tennant. I dont watch for that reason though, honest! I watched before Tennant took over  |
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Nov 13, 2006 23:39:51 GMT
Sooty, it makes perfect sense. We got chatting to an American from Philidelphia and it was refreshing someone else said the new series is crap and the original better. I'll write about the Graeme Harper, Philip Hinchliffe and Eric Saward coffee club when I feel better. There were more kids there this year and they were all happy enough to see the older cast. We missed the Colin Baker and Paul McGann/Daphne Ashbrook's panels but 2 kids under 10 asked Sylvester McCoy questions yesterday. For the Paul McGann/Daphne Ashbrook photos (which I did this year even though the queue was still huge) this little boy in front of me made his dad pay twice because rather than the joint one his dad expected, he told him he wanted one of his own. There have been kids going as long as I have (8 years) and they love the original. One little boy in 1999 even dressed up as the 5th Doctor. So all this gloss and CGI don't really matter to them. They wouldn't watch if they found it boring and dated and effects crap compared with today. Paul asked our friend Martin last night, taking away the production values, CGI etc, can he honestly say the stories are as good and he said no. In the end it'll just be the fans watching. It will never last.
Patsy
|
|
