Doctor Who News The Eleventh Hour

Published on May 7th, 2014 | by Andrew Reynolds

Matt’s Hoping Capaldi Isn’t A “Better” Doctor Than Him!

Despite heading back into the future (‘one possible future… From your point of view. I don’t know tech stuff.’) in the not at all necessitate by the rights reverting back to James Cameron in 2019, Terminator franchise, Matt Smith is still suffering from a case of Post Doctor Anxiety (no, not that PDA!).

Yes, when it comes audiences expectations of just how good the ‘he surely must be awesome’ Peter Capaldi will be as the Twelfth Doctor, Matt is still a little apprehensive about his place in the affections of audiences around the world.

Discussing Capaldi at a recent Wizard World Minneapolis Q&A session, Smith commented:

Peter will be brilliant… He’s a lovely man. He’s going to do something which is inventive and new, and he’s doing really well and he’s having a good time. I’m a massive fan of his before the show…

I’m a fan, like you guys now. I think he’ll be brilliant.

But when asked if he thought Capaldi would make a better Time Lord than he was, Matt replied:

Will he be better than me? I hope not.

He’ll be different, and it will be a different show and it will be a new show, and that’s what Doctor Who is about. I’ve got to let it go. And the great thing about it is everyone has their own Doctor. So, hopefully, there are a few eight or nine-year-olds out there who I’ve claimed.

Oh Matt, try a few million!


Tags: , , , ,

About the Author


Everyone has a favourite Doctor and mine - just for his honesty, his fairness and his ability to not notice the Master's awful, awful disguises/anagrams (Sir Gilles Estram!?!) - has to be the Fifth Doctor, Peter Davison. The stories didn’t serve him as well as his acting served those stories.

23 Responses to Matt’s Hoping Capaldi Isn’t A “Better” Doctor Than Him!

  1. avatar Harry M VanHoudnos says:

    Anyone has got to be better than Matt Smith! Matt may be a good dramatic actor, but the writing just never gave him a shot to let us see it. I think that with better writing, Capaldi will come across as a stronger actor than what we have gotten.

    • avatar Philip Bates says:

      Heh. You do make me laugh, Harry.

    • avatar DonnaM says:

      A touch harsh, Harry!

      I’ve felt all along that Moffat and Co have gone “Oh, he’s really good at that physical comedy and pratting around – let’s give him more!” It’s not to my personal taste, so I’ve not particularly adored his Doctor.

      Capaldi’s a wonderful comic actor in a slightly different way – he’s got tremendous subtlety (witness The Thick Of It, where he can steal a scene with a look) and does that biting sarcastic wit very well. I’m sure the writers will play to those strengths too.

      He’s equally brilliant with the darker, more dramatic stuff; I just hope they give him a balance that I personally never felt was quite reached for Matt.

    • avatar rickjlundeen says:

      Thankfully, you’re in a very tiny minority Harry. (I’m guessing you’re just saying that to spark a fire but whatever) Matt Smith may be the best Doctor since Tom Baker, easily. Even when the scripts failed him, he still elevated the proceedings with his talent. A massive talent that is almost hard to fathom given his young age but none the less, brilliant.

      • avatar Geoff says:

        I was going to post a comment here but you’ve said everything I was going to say.

        • avatar Harry M VanHoudnos says:

          I will say this: I prefered Tennant to Matt Smith. David had a fire that one could see. Matt came across to me as one who while he might have the passion and fire, it is so tampered down that its hard to see it. I hope that Capaldi gives us a much more powerful performance as the Doctor. Now, if you want to talk Classic Era, my personal favorite was Tom Baker.

          • avatar Rick says:

            I never “got” Tennant. He wasn’t bad, but he may be my least favourite Doctor ( That’s not an insult, I like them all, and don’t think there’s ever been a bad Doctor)

  2. avatar Philip Bates says:

    As Matt says, he won’t be better – he’ll be different.

    Matt’s My Doctor though, and I do like him saying that he’s a fan, just like us. :D

  3. avatar mec says:

    Not surprised Matt is suffering from Post Doctor Who Anxiety. Peter Davison admitted in an interview when he saw Colin Baker sit up in his old Doctor’s togs his first thought was “what have I done?” As for being apprehensive to where he stands with the audience post Who can’t say I blame him. He still gets beat up on social media for replacing David Tennant. Oh yeah he was joking about hoping Peter Capaldi would not be better then him. :)

  4. avatar Max says:

    I liked Matt, but the series suffered the last two series’ because of the writing – in many ways, he deserved a better shot. I have every confidence in Capaldi, but increasingly less in Moffat and co.

  5. avatar Al says:

    Matt was great and I must assume those who think the writing was poor for him were watching a different show these last few years. But then it’s traditional for some to say a new Doctor is oh so much better than the one who just left. I even heard that when Davison came along. Capaldi will be his own Doctor and in my opinion comparing any of the Doctors is a waste of time.

  6. avatar Kat says:

    Seriously… I would change the name of this article….It makes Matt Smith sound like he’s full of himself and a bit harsh, and knowing people these day’s they would barely read the article. It’s also contradicting to the actual article, because Matt was Joking around. Matt is a lovely man and was an awesome Doctor! All the Doctor’s reincarnations are special in their own way, so it’s a waist of time comparing any side of the Doctor Like Al said. Besides, Matt actually likes Capaldi. Though, Matt Smith will always be my Doctor so he’ll never be forgotten for a lot of us. So yeah… Probably best you changed the title of the article. Thanks.

  7. avatar Kaity says:

    I was there you guys; he was joking around he also pretended to run off the stage in order to not answer the question…he had nothing but good things to say about capaldi and after meeting him, he’s extremely genuine.

  8. avatar Endy says:

    I sometimes wonder when reading some stuff on here if they made a separate version of Mat Smith’s Who just for me. In my world after two pretty good seasons they produced an almost faultlessly brilliant third year followed by the wonderful 50th special and the Christmas farewell. I love all the Doctors but Mat was special, very special and the program more brilliant than ever. It also took on a new life around the world during his time. Of course I am looking forward to what comes next but I wish Matt had done one more year. There was still so much for his unpredictable madman in a box Doctor left to do. and more hats to try on

    • avatar Rick says:

      I think the Matt Smith/Moff era was better then the RTD era. Although I was sad to see MS leave, I do think it was time for a change. It’s just a shame that out of Matt Smith’s four years in the role, the BBC only made three series.

  9. avatar Barb says:

    Matt was okay. The problem was that the stories, for the most part, were unmemorable compared to both CE’s and DT’s.

  10. I’m just waiting for the fan club I created to crash in August under the enormous weight of fans. :)

  11. avatar Jamie-42 says:

    Can I just say, I love Dr Who. I don’t care about actors and writers, I care about escapism.

    When those titles start I get the same thrill I got in the ’70′s on those cold winter evenings around 6.30pm waiting to see what the Doctor (Tom Baker) was going to do this week.

    I know that my kids get a similar thrill and I get a bigger one when they ask to sit next to me in the scarier parts. I have never had them turn to me and say, “Matt Smith is just not believable.” or “The writer should be shot, there’s a plot hole I could ride my bike through!”

    Dr Who is first and foremost a kids show and I think that Matt and the Moff know that. I just wish some of you would also recognise that.

    If you do love the show, support it and those who have the task of creating it, because it only survives as long as you do.

    Oh, and back on topic, of course Matt Smith is joking! It is exactly what you would expect anyone to say. What would the headlines be if he had said that of course he will be better?!

    • Dr Who is first and foremost a kids show

      Whoah! Steady on there. Is it made by a children’s department? No. Is it screened on a children’s TV channel? No.

      Doctor Who is family TV, always has been, always will be. Describing it as “a kids show” isn’t just wrong, it gives those that don’t like it a stick to beat fans with.

      • avatar Jamie-42 says:

        Well, that was not the intention of what I was trying to say. Unfortunately, in this day and age “kids show” has a derogitory edge that I was not intending here. The A-Team and Knight Rider were kids shows when I was a kid!

        All I am trying to say is take a chill pill, take the mind off the hook and enjoy the show…like you did as a kid.

  12. avatar iankiddy says:

    I’m sorry, but this is rubbish. Doctor Who was never a kid’s show. Never. From it’s conception it was intended as a FAMILY show that would appeal to all of the family demographic. That certainly included kids, but they were never the main target. And fandom used to be well aware of this once upon a time – in fact, pretty much from 1963-2009. Even RTD, for all his bizarre wrong-headedness in some aspects, knew that it was meant to be for all the family, not just the under 12s.

    Then Moffat takes over, declares it’s a kids show and half of fandom goes “Oh yes, Steve, you’re so right!” like the sheep they so often demonstrate themselves to be. No, he’s wrong. It’s also wrong to use “it’s for kids” (not least since it never was) to excuse the sloppy plotting, piss-poor writing and juvenile dialogue we’ve been served up with so often of late.

    • avatar TonyS says:

      “Then Moffat takes over, declares it’s a kids show…”

      If Mr Moff has been making a kids show for the past four years, then it’s a kids show. Whether it should be a kids show is a different question.

    • avatar Philip Bates says:

      It’s wrong to link “it’s for kids” to “sloppy plotting, piss-poor writing and juvenile dialogue”. But apart from that, the stories have been engaging, the plotting well-paced, and dialogue brilliant as far as I’m concerned. And many things deemed “for kids” are of very high quality anyway. For instance, I’d prefer to watch SJA over Torchwood any day.

      I don’t think it’s a kids show; you’re right that it’s a family show. But I think it was Peter Davison who said that it’s got to be complex enough to keep the children engaged, and simple enough for adults to understand. And I think that’s about right!

      Moff can’t do right. Some say it’s too childish; others, that it’s too complicated.

      We’re not playing RTD vs. Moff, but I must add that Russel had his fair share of childish episodes under his belt, much as I like his era.

Please be aware that all comments are subject to adherence to our comments policy.
Back to Top ↑