Word has it that Jodie Whittaker is jumping ship...er, TARDIS, that is...as our latest Time Lord, and if so, what direction (if any) should "Doctor Who" go?
I propose this: Go the young-lad route. And what thespian would hit the mark? Why, Angus Imrie, of course.
Imrie left a fine impression as Merlin in "The Kid Who Would be King", layering quirkiness and brilliance into the slender magician. With only minor tweaking, the Doctor would be reborn, and considering the series' alarming ratings dive, all for the better.
Yeah, I know, Imrie is a guy, and some will, therefore, presume my wish is based on some chauvinistic whim, but it's not. I merely think the young chap would better fit the franchise's required flair--regenerate it, that is. (Then again, I believe Patrick Stewart, "The Kid'"s other Merlin, would make a swell Doctor, too; so would Tom Mison, whose Ichabod Crane held loads of Doctor-ish charm. And know what? I wouldn't object to Jaime Murray for the coveted spot, but oh, that's right, she can't help but flaunt her beauty, and heaven forbid we stick glaring glamour within the reverse-discrimination craze.)
Anyway, Imrie possesses obvious potential to draw and maintain a younger viewership. I don't believe older, faithful fans would object to him, either, as long as his adventures were well rounded, unlike what we've witnessed during Whittaker's phase.
Ah, who am I kiddin'? No one's gonna listen to me... Still, I'm tossing my two cents out there, if only in that minuscule chance my suggestion could catch wind...
I guess with Guy Ritchie's "King Arthur" perceived as too mature, a more subdued version was opted; and so we're served writer/director Joe "Ant-Man" Cornish's "The Kid Who Would be King": a heart-in-the-right-place, family fantasy hampered by modern mollification.
The next-generation Arthur Pendragon, otherwise called Alexander Elliot, is played by Louis Ashbourne Serkis (yep, Andy's son) and his pal, Bedders by Dean Chaumoo, both of whom are bullied and in desperate need of self-esteem. The duo gains such when Alexander extracts Excalibur from a construction site. From there the lad gains the predestined gumption to coax the bullies, Lance and Kaye (Tom Taylor and Rhianna Doris) into joining their crusade, which is (drum roll, please)...
Defeating Morgana, aka Morgan le Fay (Rebecca Ferguson), King Arthur's exiled half-sister who wants to rule (what else?) the whole, bloody screwed-up world, as she anticipates escape from her smoky pit. She's also got lots of monster-making magic to accomplish the self-serving task, but thanks to Merlin, portrayed with spell-snapping, eccentric command by both Angus Imrie (in long-term, spry guise) and Patrick Stewart (for the occasional cameo), her plans may not reach fruition.
Besides, Alexander grows ever more courageous along his discovery trail, inspiring his budding knights to shed their doubts and fears to confront the tendriled villainess, thus establishing (through symbolic gesture) a potential Camelot II.
The concept sounds nice and noble, but it's slanted by Arthur's schoolboy boundaries, which favor Harry Potter (via verbal and visual means) as much as the classic legend. The mythologies don't mesh, and if I must explain why, then you're a fan of neither and/or your philosophical knowledge is damn weak. So be it...
For the record, I am a King Arthur fan--have been since way back when. I've long fancied the idea of a humble youth ascending to royalty or some form of great, non-conformist leadership. The execution needn't be as brash as Ritchie's or as splashy as James Wan's "Aquaman" to work, but it should always adapt an edge far sharper than sole Excalibur exudes.
Arthurian legend requires toughness, a serious degree of prolonged sadness and rage to accompany its glory. That's where "The Kid..." skids. Though it moves well enough on a rudimentary level (and there's never a dull moment throughout), it never hits its emotional peak. That's frustrating, because the concept has "Spider-verse" reach, and to have nurtured it, it had only to deliver on its title.
