i agree about peter davidson, who was just off 'all creatures great and small' where he played a soft, wimpish 'triston farnham' (sp?). never a good choice for the doctor

 

mind you, i bet robert hardy would have made a superb doctor!

 

i agree with whats been said about eccleston, he didnt fit as dr who... he seemed to be a 'lovey' acting below himself....

 

Ecclestone is WAY too "Northern" to be some sort of 'luvvie' though.. And, I'm sorry I just dont get how the implication that Dr Who cant be a bit serious, or that it being a bit serious is a bad thing... I think Ecclestone brought a bit of darkness to the role which was needed.... It was established that he was alone in the universe, all the other timelords were dead and it was down to him through his actions in the 'Time War'... That sort of guilt would send anyone a bit broody and a bit dark, and Chris put this across far better than Tennant did for me.... The "Dalek" episode where Chris puts across his rage and hatred was probably some of the best acting I've ever seen from him, in fact some of the best acting I've seen in a BBC drama, period... He wasn't "playing below himself" at all, he took the role seriously, and Series one was all the better because he took it seriously....

 

You should listen to some of the Dr Who audiobooks some time mate, some of these stories will utterly blow your mind....

I'm surprised you said that.

 

For me Christopher Eccleston put on far more convincing acting performances in Let Him Have It, Cracker, Shallow Grave, Our Friends In The North & for me his career high performance to date in Hillsborough than in Dr Who. Personally I think he is this generations Albert Finney (& could you imagine Albert Finney as Dr Who as one of the first three Doctors? For me the answer is no, because he was too good/serious for the part, like Christoper Eccleston.

 

In contrast David Tennant has been perfect for the role because he has been far superior in the role of the Doctor then he was in Casanova or Blackpool and his character seems to be getting more darker the more he experiences in this regeneration as the Doctor. (The same could be applied to Tom Baker who I remember playing Rasputin in some film, The Life & Loves of the She-Devil, as Sherlock Holmes in Hounds of the Baskervilles, was in the Narnia Chronicles & appeared in that wretched ITV series Cluedo - but whose out of this world eccentricity made him born to play Dr Who).

 

Personally I'm not one of those anorak's (I'm not a Sci-Fi fan in the slightest) who thinks Dr Who should be all serious high brow stuff & largely Scientific based. For me Dr Who at its best should be a mainstream programme watched by parents AND their children with a perfect mix of drama, tragedy, serious topics one minute & humour the next.......in short an emotional rollercoaster that makes you think, even if it is all "Wibbley Wobbly Timey Wimey" rubbish. In other words a show that makes the males of the family grab the remote and tell their other halfs "you watch your Corrie & 'Enders, so I'm watching Who"

 

You've certainly changed your tune in the past year... I seem to remember you absolutely slating Dr Who for more-or-less the same reasons me and Rob did - the fact that it was overly-childish nonsense and incredibly repetitive in seasons 2 and 3.... I dunno what's really drastically changed tbh... The four or five episodes from this series that I have bothered with aren't really a great improvement on seasons 2/3 in my view... Something seriously miraculous must happen in episodes 11-13 or summat.... I'll download em and judge for myself.... I think if any series improved it was "Torchwood", I actually stuck with that one because it was obvious to me from the first few episodes of series two that things were getting a bit more serious .... Again, the consistency was just more in evidence, which is why I stuck with "Torchwood" and blew off "Dr Who" after the Sontarans....

 

Ecclestone is WAY too "Northern" to be some sort of 'luvvie' though.. And, I'm sorry I just dont get how the implication that Dr Who cant be a bit serious, or that it being a bit serious is a bad thing... I think Ecclestone brought a bit of darkness to the role which was needed.... It was established that he was alone in the universe, all the other timelords were dead and it was down to him through his actions in the 'Time War'... That sort of guilt would send anyone a bit broody and a bit dark, and Chris put this across far better than Tennant did for me.... The "Dalek" episode where Chris puts across his rage and hatred was probably some of the best acting I've ever seen from him, in fact some of the best acting I've seen in a BBC drama, period... He wasn't "playing below himself" at all, he took the role seriously, and Series one was all the better because he took it seriously....

 

You should listen to some of the Dr Who audiobooks some time mate, some of these stories will utterly blow your mind....

 

dunno m8, i hear what you are saying but there was summut about ecclestone that just didnt do it for me... and yes, im all for the dr to be serious... hartnel and pertwee were, troughton and t baker could flit between serious and clown.

I grew up watching Tom Baker, and he will always be my favourite, Jon Pertwee second, I'm hoping Sean Pertwee might take the lead later on, that I would like to see, as I think he would be a great Dr.

dunno m8, i hear what you are saying but there was summut about ecclestone that just didnt do it for me... and yes, im all for the dr to be serious... hartnel and pertwee were, troughton and t baker could flit between serious and clown.

 

Oh, by the way mate, if you wanna see Chris really act below himself, then he's gonna be playing a generic Hollywood baddie in the upcoming silly action film "GI Joe".... :lol: :lol: :lol: