Doctor Who Challenge Finale -- The 12th Doctor

So, why did I decide to save only one question for my final post in the Doctor Who Challenge? Because, the question was this: 20 - What actor would you like to play the 12th Doctor? And I have been forming opinions on the subject ever since I felt I was qualified. So, here's my list -- twelve actors I think would be interesting to see as Twelve, in order of least to greatest. Complete of course, with irrelevant opinions, pretty pictures, and pros and cons... and it's absolutely (85%) fanciful. Enjoy!

12 - Simon Woods

33 year-old, five-eleven period drama hero.

Pros: The only reason I thought of Woods is because of his amazing ginger hair in Pride & Prejudice. The Doctor should have his dream -- and not in a half-way kind of way.

Cons: Based on this picture, the red hair wasn't totally real. So unless dyes came onto the scene, it would be half-way. Plus, I'm not sure he has the acting ability for The Doctor... unless you mean romantic and dramatic Doctor Harrison.

11 - Ewan McGregor

42 year-old 5' 9" Scottish Jedi Knight.

Pros: He has the hair, and the vibrant personality, the sense of style, and the acting range... especially the comedy.

Cons: Somehow I feel that his popularity is a con. Could he make his Doctor fresh, or would we just be watching a time traveling Obi-Wan? I imagine his Doctor would also be unbearably cheesy.

10 - Dan Stevens

30, 6-foot British Television hunk.

Pros: He (or at least most his characters) has a interesting, understated off-kilter kind of personality. He does the "awkward but sincere gentleman" very well, and he is very British.

Cons: I'd be worried about his abilities in the action/sci-fi side of the show. And that's pretty important.

9 - Rhys Ifans
46 year-old, six-two chameleon.
Pros: He's got the right face, definitely. You know, the kind that in first glance is weird, but then suddenly grows on you, and next thing you know the guy is actually handsome? A common trait with Doctors. He's also extremely quirky and funny.
Cons: He's too old isn't he? I realize that previous Doctors have been older, but that's not really the thing anymore. Younger audience -- younger actor. Instead, Ifans should just get more film roles; those suit his talents as a chameleon better anyway.

8 - Colin Morgan

Really old, six-foot mythical Irish wizard.

Pros: Watching him in Merlin I assumed he was in his early twenties, and once I found he is actually 27, my very next thought was, "he's old enough to be The Doctor then!" And now I can't get it out of my head. As far as I can tell he has all the necessary qualities, and I personally think he'd be a great, unique Doctor.

Cons: Yeah... there's that one little problem of him having been on Doctor Who before. Rats.

7 - Ben Whishaw
33, 5' 9", supplier of cool toys for 007.
Pros: Well... he's got the wild hair for it. I've only seen him in Skyfall, but based on that, I believe he would make a very interesting, deep Doctor. He has a quiet, but authoritative presence, and an understated sense of humor -- actually everything about him is wonderfully understated... except the hair. Also, I love his voice.
Cons: Since I haven't seen much of him, all this is even more speculative than usual -- I like the idea of him, but really, I have no idea. I could also imagine that his Doctor might be a bit underwhelming. And the hair... it's too much, isn't it?

 

6 - Jamie Bell

The 5' 7" 27 year-old redeeming factor of many terrible movies.

Pros: Obviously, he has the best hair so far, so I'm sold already. He's a very physical actor, so action is no problem, and neither would be comedy as long as sarcasm is okay -- he's great at that. Drama -- very good. Fast-talking -- of course. Bonus -- he's stylish.

Cons: He is rather short, but that's not a problem as long as all companions are as short as Clara. He also usually sticks to movies... but get this: He's Tintin, the sequel is coming soon, and guess who is a writer for those movies? Steven Moffat!

 
 5 - Laurence Fox
Very sensitive Detective Sergeant. 6' 3" thirty-five.
Pros: He's married to Billie Piper, so that pretty much makes him The Doctor already. His looks are perfect for The Doctor (except not ginger) -- unique, odd, but still handsome. Based on his DS Hathaway, you'd think he'd be too mellow for The Doctor, but I read he's actually pretty quirky and upbeat, so really, pluses all around.
Cons: I also read that there's no "Inspector Hathaway" series in the works because he's looking to do more films. In America. A cover story?

4 - Benedict Cumberbatch
37, 6-foot, the universe's only consulting detective.
Pros: Naturally ginger; naturally awesome. He looks like an otter. (yes, that's definitely a pro!) He's a true artist at fast-talking, and equally great at any kind of humor, drama or action. In short, amazingly talented. So much so that...
Cons: ...Doctor Who would actually waste his talents. Then there's that little matter of him actually stating that he wasn't interested in playing The Doctor. Solution: He's The Master. Anyway, I wouldn't want Sherlock and The Doctor to be the same person; I need variety in my obsessions.

 

3 - Rupert Grint
24, 5' 8"; Most ginger ginger ever.
Pros: Look at him. Stop reading and look. ... That's what The Doctor wants to look like, and you know it. I have actually never seen "Harry Potter" but I saw Grint in this brilliant action comedy "Wild Target" and loved him in it. He was goofy and witty and awkward and endearing and oh-so-likable. And oh, did I mention GINGER?
Cons: At twenty-four, he is a bit too young. Perhaps the 13th Doctor will be the ginger one? (hint hint) That would give Grint time to separate himself from that "Weasley" guy too.

2 - Tom Hiddleston
6-foot-2, 32 year-old extremely charismatic god of mischief.
Pros: Charming, lighthearted personality, talented in every genre, classic British gentleman looks, authoritative presence... Hiddleston fits all usual requirements for The Doctor with perfect ease. Like many other guys, just... better. He stands out even more though, in one area I've previously left unconsidered: he respects his fans. He's always patient and gentlemanly, and those are qualities The Doctor should have off screen as well. Practically perfect in every way, and my no-brain-er top choice for this wish list.
Cons: Like Cumberbatch, I fear Doctor Who would waste his acting talents. Still, he is my ideal Doctor.

1 - The Unknown Actor
Height: Adorable. Age: Awesome. The guy born to be the 12th Doctor.
Pros: Now I'll be realistic, and really (realistically) this is the very best choice. An unknown. (Or at least someone you'd need to dig around to find.) This guy is something none of the previous of this list are; fresh. Any known actor is too safe, but a new actor will be bold and original and exciting and mysterious -- just like the show! Yes ladies and gentlemen, somewhere out there is the perfect 12th, and in Moffat I have an appropriate amount of trust.
Cons: Everyone will hate him at first. But no worries; we'll adore and love him like the crazed fans we all are later.



So there you have it -- thanks for bearing with me for all this completely pointless but absolutely fun Doctor Who silliness! Who did I forget? Who did I get totally wrong? I'd love to hear your input! If you missed my previous parts of this challenge, here they are: Part I, Part II, and Part III. And for even more fun, if you were to click here, you would find yourself reading one of the audition scripts for the Twelfth Doctor -- very helpful for imagining how your favorite actor might sound as Twelve!

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a rich man in possession of a large fortune must be in want of a wife."

So begins Jane Austen's classic novel, Pride and Prejudice. What is it about? If you said it was a romance about a proud man and a prejudiced woman you wouldn't be wrong... just missing out on a few points. If you said that, I would assume that you had only watched this 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice, and liked it. And while I really can't say you're "wrong" for liking it, I can say, as before, you would be missing out.

But today I am not here to tell you about all the wonderful things you are missing if I say "Elizabeth Bennet" and you see Keira Knightley. I'm simply going to review, analyze and nit-pick this film until I am satisfied, and hope that the end result gives you a fair idea of what exactly I think of it. I think you may have a fair idea already.

If not, however, I hope that trailer set it a bit straighter for you. Yes, a deep-voiced announcer said "in a era" at the beginning. I can hardly believe it myself. But my favorite part has to be how they try to make you think Miss Darcy is Miss De Bourgh. Ha.

This film starts out very well. Beautiful cinematography paired with some equally fine music goes on pleasantly for a good while, and all is well until Knightley's poor posture and odd hair makes a bold appearance and ruins the serenity. And the nagging feeling of there being something terribly wrong never goes away. Five minutes in I get a horrible desperate feeling that the movie is going by way too fast.

Savor moments that look like this.

I'm afraid that there is very little middle ground here for me. I either think a part is surprisingly good, or intolerably bad -- and I really mean intolerably. Director Joe "Anything-But" Wright makes a large number of changes and additions. Some are blatantly disrespectful of Austen's novel, and appear to have only been made for the sole purpose of making his film obviously different from the source. Some are just plain stupid, and ALL are unnecessary.

An example, because I can't resist: After Mr. Darcy proposes to Lizzy the first time... in the rain... and they've just finished insulting each other, he steps in closer... and they nearly kiss. (Excuse me for moment whilst I give back my breakfast.) I will not insult anyone's intelligence by explaining why that is... is... inconceivably ridiculous. If you can't understand, go read the book.

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Joe Wright obviously has zero respect for Jane Austen. I could go on with this for hours, but I would only succeed in annoying myself. And, unfortunately, I have to give him some good credits too. Cinematography is his forte -- and his takes liberties in the story to show case it -- but if I judge it without bias, I can honestly say it's beautiful. And while he totally messed up casting the two leads (and skinny model and a "hunk") the supporting cast is impressive and very interesting.

Pictured from right to left: One girl soon to be famous, one amazing actress before she was famous, one girl I would not miss if she quit acting, one of the most beautiful women in the world, and one girl who is not actually ugly at all.

Fun facts time! Jena Malone has been cast as Johanna Mason in Catching Fire, which will probably get her a lot of attention. This was Carey Mulligan's first movie, and has since catapulted herself into fame, and I'm confident she will continue to grow rapidly. And do you recognize Mary? Talulah Riley may not be a very big actress, but I doubt she escaped your notice in Inception.

Talulah Riley played a blonde, played by Eames, played by Tom Hardy. A role within a role within a role!

These three girls barely got enough screen time to insure that fans would be able to tell them apart, but there are some really good and funny details to their characters that I love to see. Kitty (Mulligan) eying Mr. Wickham after he's married to Lydia; Mary, through expression, making it obvious that she would have married Mr. Collins; and Lydia's (Malone) "war of the wine glass" with Lizzy. (Inaccurate, but funny)

Rosamund Pike got a fair amount of screen time, and made the most of it by being lovely and sweet, and a very good Jane. Her suitor, Mr. Bingley, played by Simon Woods, was unfortunately ruined by script and direction. His best scene, and the only one where he doesn't act awkward or stupid, was apparently improvised. To really enjoy the actor, I recommend watching Cranford.

Another fun fact: The two actors dated before this movie. Maybe that explains Bingley's awkwardness.

I shouldn't put it off any longer. Lizzy and Darcy -- Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen -- the foundation of the story and therefore, the reason I don't like this version. I suppose it's a credit to their acting... that they're so awful... they obviously did exactly what Wright wanted them to do.

Look at them -- stopped in the middle of the set to stare each other down! Such passion.

All the wonderful complexities of these characters don't even come close to making an appearance. The only thing MacFadyen has going for him is his ability to look serious and proud, and his deep voice; Knightley's is her ability to say all the old-fashioned lines and make them (more or less) sound like they come from her head. Neither look the part, but Knightley is by far the worst of the two. She's way to skinny, way too modern and way too glamorous -- which makes her much better suited for the roles she later took in Wright films, in Atonement and Anna Karenina. (Two movie better suited to his style as well, I believe.)

I always smile in this scene, when Darcy says "you are conscious that your figures appear to best advantage when walking" because Elizabeth's figure is so pathetic compared to Miss Bingley's. The moment takes on a whole new meaning!

Speaking of Miss Bingley, I've decided that she is my favorite part of the film. So fashionable, so haughty, so jealous, and her character is not only played well by the lovely Kelly Reilly, but played as it should be. Right, not Wright. Oh, and the way she holds her mouth as they leave Netherfield is perfection.


Obviously, the director is the reason I don't like/respect/acknowledge this film as a Jane Austen adaptation. But I'm conflicted, because this is a beautifully shot film, that has some great and some practically brilliant intricacies and moments -- also the directors work. So what can I say, but that some of this movie makes me sick, and some makes me laugh out loud? I wish I could say one or the other -- be free to hate or love this movie in peace -- but, sadly, I cannot.

Now I will attempt to give a star rating to this confusing, conflicting film. It boils down to this: as a adaptation of Austen's novel, it's inaccuracies, and disrespectful changes, 1 star would be generous; disregarding all that, just as a film, I could give it 4 with no problem. So here is my compromise...

-- 3 stars.

Review #1 of this challenge!