So how long is respectable, when it comes to recasting?

There's no way of setting it in stone and answering the question in absolutes. I think it's always got to be case-by-case. I'm only in my early 30s and I remember being really upset at Jon Pertwee dying but I could get behind Tim Treolar 100% when he came on board and I didn't feel it was disrespectful or crass. Yet it would be too soon for me to hear someone else as Sarah-Jane or the Brig. There's no way of knowing that in 15 years that will be different but I think it would - time really is a healer and you start to gain perspective that you can't have when emotions are raw. 

Now, I do think EVERY role is fair game to be recast...eventually. People can argue that so-and-so are irreplaceable but BF have replaced The Doctor himself with the 3DAs. There's no role in Who more iconic than the title one and if that is fair game with the right circumstance then it all should be. Jon Culshaw even did replace Tom Baker on a BF audio, albeit briefly. I won't say the name of the story in case anyone hasn't heard it as it's a lovely wee moment. David Troughton stood in for his father on the BBC audios. Frazer Hines, William Russell and Peter Purves play their era's Doctors. It's been done and will be done again.

I would say 15-20 years seems to be the period BF have gone for as a safe distance. I think that's about right and may be as close to answering the thread query as possible. I didn't like BBV making a new PROBE film with a recast Liz Shaw only 2 years after Caroline John's passing. That, for me, did feel too soon. I wouldn't suggest it felt opportunistic or a cash-in but it was still too raw for me. Others will have had no problem with the quick recasting. I also didn't like on this very forum when news broke about Gareth Thomas' passing some people wondering if Blake should be recast. Again, those people would obviously disagree with me that time is required but I think they were so fast it was disrespectful. It was literally the same day we lost the man.

On another point you raise, if the actor is unwilling to return....I'm not sure. Again I think it would be case by case. Jackie Lane's only done a couple of Who-related events and releases ever and none for BF but is the world crying out for Dodo stories? No...but it would open the First Doctor era up a bit more so maybe it's an avenue that could be explored. I guess we'd feel differently if a lot of the companions had said "no thanks" way back when.  I think we're very lucky that almost every last regular actor from TV for Who and the spinoffs has come back and indeed come back so much. I can't see shows from other countries being so lucky but with audio drama being much more prevalent in the UK the actors are open to the work.

The Beeb may have been fine with replacing Hartnell but it's telling that Troughton did not play the same version of the character. They didn't get another older actor with a grey wig on for the role. And of course, Hartnell wasn't dead. When they did recast The First Doctor it was - and here's that number again - 20 years later with Richard Hurndall.

I also think it bears mentioning that in a lot of cases the actors have friends at BF in some instances going back decades on the convention circuits and through BBV and Mythmakers videos. In those instances where relationships have gone beyond just being formal I'd imagine there's a lot more personal sorrow and grief that may make recasting more painful. There's also the factor of fellow actors opinions. Remember Katy Manning was reticent to even do BF at the start because just thinking of Jon Pertwee made her feel heartbroken. Would fellow actors accept a recast so soon? It's "the job" to a lot of actors but in a lot of these instances the actors have spent a massive chunk of their careers together at cons and signings all over the world. I can't imagine the other actors feelings wouldn't be a big factor.

BF trod on eggshells when launching the 3DAs because of how sensitive the subject is. We had the narration in Vol. 1 purely because Nick thought people who couldn't accept Pertwee's Doctor being recast would do so if they felt it was a narrator taking the part. I thought that was well intentioned but it's telling that people were more peeved at the narration than at Tim Treolar's casting. Time had passed. Time has passed for Michael Craze, Jaqueline Hill and others but has enough time passed for others? It really is an impossible question. Brians you say a couple of years is about right, which I take to be two years but Lis and Nick, your examples, have been dead just about three times that long and you even say you're not sure about them yet so a couple of years really would be too soon I think. Especially given how much earlier the stories we might hear 2 years hence would need to be written and recorded.  So,yeah, it's 100% case-by-case but I do think there's a period that is just too soon and I think given the way Big Finish have handled their recasts, I'm pretty much in line with their thinking on the matter.

This puts me in mind of Justice Stewart's famous phrase "I know it when I see it." He was referring to something else, but the phrase applies here whenever I think about how long to wait for recasting. I'm not sure how long, but I'll know it when it's been long enough.

I came to Big Finish for Tom Baker. I really wasn't interested in recast characters for a long time, but I listened to the Third Doctor trailers when I got curious to see how the recasting came out and I was sold. It's a touchy process in any fandom because as fans we are so much more interested in every part of the things we love, including the actors. I think the argument can be made that Doctor Who fans, more so than any other fandom, are asked to accept new faces. It's the nature of the show. If you don't like a Doctor or companion, wait three or four years, all the faces will be different. Of course, the Doctor changing regenerations is not entirely the same as another person playing a particular regeneration, but in a way, it does prepare one for change.

Hello again.

While I am not in favour of recasting in general, I can understand those who clamour for new stories with their favourite characters.

I think we don't realise how lucky we have been that so many eras of the show have been recreated on audio with original cast members revisiting much-loved characters.

I do think that there are certain characters whose interpretations of the character are so intertwined with the actor who played them, that recasting is for me, virtually unthinkable.

Sarah Jane Smith and the Brigadier and probably Ian Chesterton, Susan Foreman, Vicki, Steven Taylor and Jamie, Jo Grant and Leela are examples of characters who are just as much the creation of their respective actors as the writers who thought them up.


Some companions are very thinly drawn and so it does matter who plays them. However, I would find it difficult to accept another actor playing such iconic characters as Sarah or Leela.

I'm not sure why. It is a totally illogical feeling as Sarah is a fictional character and thus could be played by another actress. Each Doctor's character has both on television and audio been played by a different actor too. An interpretation of the original actor's take on their Doctor.

I think you have to be sensitive. Time is definitely a factor. The question of how long you should wait before recasting is going to be very subjective.

I think too, that as time goes by different actors play certain well-known characters such as Sherlock Holmes or Miss Marple. Their interpretations add to the character but most people have their favourite or definitive version. Joan Hickson and Jeremy Brett for me.

As time ticks by and Doctor Who celebrates its 100th anniversary, certain characters may well be played by different actors. However, there will always be Elisabeth Sladen as the definitive Sarah or Nicholas Courney as the definitive Brigadier. Their performances on television or audio will live on and their impact on our little show never forgotten...

I find it interesting that with so many saying that after a certain amount of time recasting would be ok, but there are still a few that people don't want to see recast. Roger Delgado comes to mind. He has (sadly) been gone for decades, but there are many people who are adamant that they don't want him recast. I find it curious that they accepted Jon Pertwee being recast but will not accept Delgado, who has been gone much longer.

I'd say about a year is probably long enough.

Never.

If you have a story that demands telling, it can be told with living characters/actors--not mimics.

When the BBC used Hurndall, it was only ten years after Hartnell last appeared on TV and only ten years after he passed. I'd say ten to fifteen years / when the family thinks it's okay / when the other members of the TARDIS crew think it's okay. The deaths of Lis Sladen, Nick Courtney and Mary Tamm, for instance, all still feel recent. But in five-ten years? Sure. As long the portrayals are good.

All recasts should be at the level of Treloar and Chapman where they've created a near-perfect representation of the original characters, but still brought enough energy and skill to the role to make it pop. Otherwise, it's not worth it. It'll just take listeners right out of the story.

I'd always wondered what had happened to Guilor, especially as his work on Planet of Giants was great and Russell and Ford were singing his praises