I had the exact same two thoughts. What's more, though, I can definitely see it going down like that the more I think about it.
The Day of the Doctore Review Thread (Spoilers?)
- Thread starter DimesDan
- Start date
I too am questioning the accuracy of the site and agree they seem to be taking Eccleston's praise of Ahearne a bit too seriously. I know Eccleston has long been known to view working with Ahearne to be one of the highlights of his time on Doctor Who, but I just imagine Eccleston walking into Moffat's office and saying "yeah I'll do it, if Ahearne directs it" and when Moffat said no Eccleston just turned and walked out. Kind of convenient that this also lead to the infamous falling out between Moffat and Caroline Skinner that led to her erasure.
Sure, it's a nice story, but no, I don't believe it.
That report first surfaced on Doctor Who Archive on the 9th. Doctor Who Is Epic lifted it wholecloth.
I think this was a story that took a lot of different known facts -- Eccleston met with Moffat and passed on the special, Eccleston said he would do the 100th-anniversary special if Ahearne directed, Moffat shouted at Skinner "You are erased from Doctor Who at a BBC function and she was reassigned to London -- tossed them into a blender, and made connections that aren't actually there.
I don't know if I said it here or at Gallifrey Base at the time, so I'll say it again. Signing Eccleston wasn't going to be like signing any other guest star. Eccleston wasn't going to appear just because he was free and needed the work. He would want things. It's the same problem the Star Trek movies had; if Harve Bennett wanted Sulu, he'd have to meet the price George Takei had (which usually involved some sort of meaningful scene). If Moffat wanted the Ninth Doctor, he was going to have to negotiate with Eccleston, sell him on appearing, and find some sort of common ground. I don't see Ahearne as a "make or break" demand; that really seems to me to be a "this would be nice" demand. I can, however, see a meaningful role and a finished script (so that Eccleston could judge whether or not the role was, in fact, meaningful) as a "make or break" demand. If Moffat was unable to provide Eccleston with a script, Eccleston would have shrugged and moved on.
I think that what we got worked out for the best, though. We got John Hurt as the Doctor! According to the new DWM, Hurt did, in fact, fill the narrative role that Eccleston would have filled. We wouldn't have had John Hurt in "The Day of the Doctor," and a world without John Hurt as the Doctor, especially a world without pictures of a boozy John Hurt and a Dalek in Buckingham Palace, scarcely bears thinking of.
I think that what we got worked out for the best, though. We got John Hurt as the Doctor! According to the new DWM, Hurt did, in fact, fill the narrative role that Eccleston would have filled. We wouldn't have had John Hurt in "The Day of the Doctor," and a world without John Hurt as the Doctor, especially a world without pictures of a boozy John Hurt and a Dalek in Buckingham Palace, scarcely bears thinking of.
So the War Doctor really was originally written for Eccleston? I did note in my review that it felt like the role was originally written for him.
Hmm, though this has me wondering. What if the only reason Eccleston turned it down was just because Moffat didn't have a completed script at the meeting and he just shrugged and walked away as you say? As great as John Hurt was, it really is a wasted opportunity if we missed out on having an actual Doctor return just because of Moffat's script-writing procrastination.
"Intended to be" rather than "written," I think. I doubt there was ever a completed script for Eccleston. When Eccleston passed, Moffat says he went with his back-up plan, which was "the Mayfly Doctor."
If there was a scene for Eccleston written, it was probably the moment when the War Doctor meets Ten and Eleven. The breezy attitude he has in that moment is very much as odds with the rest of the portrayal of the character.
I can't see Eccleston agreeing to take part unless there were a script; he'd want to see the kind of material he was getting since this would have been a project that probably didn't pay much. (He's made no secret of the fact that he takes crappy roles for money, but if there's little money involved it would probably work the other way, too; he'd have to see that it were a good and meaty role.) Harve Bennett had the same problem with the Star Trek films. The actors wanted to see the scripts before they signed. Heck, even Tom Baker wanted to see a script for "The Five Doctors"; he read what existed, and then passed.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree to this at all. Between Eccleston and John Hurt, if I HAD to choose which of the two to feature in the program's 50th anniversary - a new Doctor that would screw with the incarnations for no other reason than stunt casting, and a returning actor who hasn't been associated with the role for over 8 years since he left DW - I'd choose Eccleston (though my avatar kinda betrays this).We wouldn't have had John Hurt in "The Day of the Doctor," and a world without John Hurt as the Doctor, especially a world without pictures of a boozy John Hurt and a Dalek in Buckingham Palace, scarcely bears thinking of.
Thats not to say, of course, that I don't like Hurt or his performance as the War Doctor. I do, and he did extremely well - it was the rare stunt casting that worked, and thankfully for that. Can't complain on him, he did more than solid.
But if there was a choice between the two, its gotta be for Mr. Nine. Just like I wouldn't want the special to NOT have David Tennant in it.
That's because it was not stunt casting, it was simply casting. As someone famously said, stunt casting implies that you cast someone solely because they are popular with your target audience. Now, I'm not really "down" with the kids anymore, I don't know a lot about hippity hop and Snoopy Snoopy Dog Dog, but I am fairly certain that most kids don't hang around the playgrounds discussing how cool John Hurt is.
Peter Davison made his own special.
Eccleston just doesn't want anything to do with this anymore.
Let him go.
Eccleston just doesn't want anything to do with this anymore.
Let him go.
I thought it was Snoop Snoopy Dog
I thought it was Snoopy and the Red Baron.
Thats because kids weren't the sole target audience for The Day of the Doctor. And most everyone over 16 knows who John Hurt is, if their pop-culture knowledge is worth a damn.
And he was stunt casting, because he was an all-new Doctor, written with John Hurt in mind. To say it was anything else is wishful thinking.
I thought it was Snoop Snoopy Dog
Nowadays he actually goes by Snoop Lion.
No, really, the expression actually has a definition. No matter how much you insist, "stunt casting" is not just "hiring famous actors".
And Reincarnated is actually a decent album, much to my surprise.
It is when its John Hurt, and promotes the programme through him. Or wasn't there a whole lot of (retroactively pointless) debate about what John Hurt's Doctor was gonna be over the summer?
But they did not promote the programme through John Hurt.
He was not mentioned and his face was not visible in the teaser trailer. His name was listed in fifth position on the official poster, which featured a tiny John Hurt figure in the middle of two towering Matt Smith and David Tennant pictures. He didn't get more interviews or have more media presence than Jenna Coleman.
What you're talking about here, it seems to me, is the amount of speculation among fans, but I can assure you that it's not on the forefront of Stephen Moffat's preoccupations and has very little to do with his casting decisions.
It was a pivotal, meaty role, which is why they picked a talented and charismatic actor to play it. Thinking that they were counting on the legions of John Hurt fans to boost up Doctor Who's viewing figures, though, which is what stunt casting is, is obviously delusional.
Last edited:
Obviously. But his role in the special was the most talked about in the whole year. I even heard about it before I turned into DW this year - and I gotta admit, that did turn my head a little.
In any case, its foolhardy to say that the John Hurt was what made the special so great, and that the thought of him not being in it is, well, unthinkable. I firmly believe the special would've been as effective with Paul McGann as that Doctor, if not more so because of the signifcance of seeing a one-off Doctor have such an interesting history layed upon him.
But Paul McGann wasn't gonna be in it, because who's McGann compared to John frickin' Hurt?
While I might actually agree with your main point, you're way overstepping in the above.
No, you can't assure us about Moffat's preoccupations and casting rationale because you're not in Moffat's head. You can, however, give us your opinion on Moffat's thoughts.
Mr Awe
But you get bonus points for a Father Ted reference.
The rest of you - back of the class with Father Damo!
Similar threads
