Christopher Eccleston appreciation thread

As much as I disliked Tennant, I think that Eccleston's portrayal was worse.

His was the only Doctor whom I genuinely hated.
One thing I have always found unsettling was the way he treated Rose like a petulant controlling older boyfriend.
Getting moody when she showed a sexual interest in other men, threatening to dump her for spending too much time with her family...

Who was this leather jacketed northern skinhead with the creepy attraction for a teenage girl?
Certainly not the intellectual gentleman adventurer I grew up with.

Tennant may have been a horny cockney spiv doing an impression of Timmy Mallet, but at least I didn't feel he could suddenly go mental and give Rose five across the eyes for having Christmas dinner with her family.

Lord Pertwee's Knob wrote:As much as I disliked Tennant, I think that Eccleston's portrayal was worse.

His was the only Doctor whom I genuinely hated.
One thing I have always found unsettling was the way he treated Rose like a petulant controlling older boyfriend.
Getting moody when she showed a sexual interest in other men, threatening to dump her for spending too much time with her family...

Who was this leather jacketed northern skinhead with the creepy attraction for a teenage girl?
Certainly not the intellectual gentleman adventurer I grew up with.

Tennant may have been a horny cockney spiv doing an impression of Timmy Mallet, but at least I didn't feel he could suddenly go mental and give Rose five across the eyes for having Christmas dinner with her family.

One hundred percent agreed. I hate to say it, because it sounds elitist, (though given how many new Who fans have acted I'm past caring.) Whenever someone says the 9th Doctor is their favourite I struggle to take them seriously as a fan, at least of the original series.

Its like saying the 98 Godzilla is your favourite Godzilla movie, or Batman and Robin is your favourite Batman movie. (TBH I think its worse than B&R as whilst that was crap, at least it was still recognisable as the campy Batman. It was just misjudged bringing a campy Batman after such a darker version who murdered his enemies!)

Eccelston is just not the Doctor in any way shape or form. Fair enough if that was the first one you saw, I can understand still having nostalgic affection for it, but to still say that he is the best is absurd and shows an ignorance of the character.

burrunjor wrote:

Its like saying Batman and Robin is your favourite Batman movie.

Yeah, what kind of loser would have that as his favourite Batman movie?






Oh, right.

burrunjor wrote:

Lord Pertwee's Knob wrote:As much as I disliked Tennant, I think that Eccleston's portrayal was worse.

His was the only Doctor whom I genuinely hated.
One thing I have always found unsettling was the way he treated Rose like a petulant controlling older boyfriend.
Getting moody when she showed a sexual interest in other men, threatening to dump her for spending too much time with her family...

Who was this leather jacketed northern skinhead with the creepy attraction for a teenage girl?
Certainly not the intellectual gentleman adventurer I grew up with.

Tennant may have been a horny cockney spiv doing an impression of Timmy Mallet, but at least I didn't feel he could suddenly go mental and give Rose five across the eyes for having Christmas dinner with her family.

One hundred percent agreed. I hate to say it, because it sounds elitist, (though given how many new Who fans have acted I'm past caring.) Whenever someone says the 9th Doctor is their favourite I struggle to take them seriously as a fan, at least of the original series.

Its like saying the 98 Godzilla is your favourite Godzilla movie, or Batman and Robin is your favourite Batman movie. (TBH I think its worse than B&R as whilst that was crap, at least it was still recognisable as the campy Batman. It was just misjudged bringing a campy Batman after such a darker version who murdered his enemies!)

Eccelston is just not the Doctor in any way shape or form. Fair enough if that was the first one you saw, I can understand still having nostalgic affection for it, but to still say that he is the best is absurd and shows an ignorance of the character.

I think some people give him a free pass due to his reputation as a serious actor, and for the moments where he displays anger (although I’ve always found these moments rather overrated myself). Truth be told, due to said reputation, I can see why he would have preferred to bugger off quickly, given that RTD’s mandate was to basically have him act like a complete prat for 95% of his screen-time. I’ll give him credit for that if nothing else.

But yes, there is nothing about Eccleston’s portrayal that resembles the Doctor at all, and he’s not only crap at conveying eccentricity, but also sentimentality. The scene in Dalek where he enunciates “I couldn’t... I wasn’t... Aw, Rose!” is fucking awful (he’s clearly fucked off with having to deliver such shite dialogue), as is his final scene where he delivers the painfully pompous and crap final lines “You were fantastic! And d’ya know what? So was I” followed by a completely forced gurn that had me laughing my arse off on my previous viewing of Parting of the Ways (the music only made it all the more hilarious given the overplayed choral nature of it when juxtaposed with such a ridiculous face Eccleston was pulling).

I think there’s a strange kind of authenticity in Eccleston’s inability to deliver such drivel. No wonder he bailed as soon as he could. He knew he was being asked to regurgitate utter shite, and he couldn’t do it,

Ludders wrote:I think there’s a strange kind of authenticity  in Eccleston’s inability to deliver such drivel. No wonder he bailed as soon as he could. He knew he was being asked to regurgitate utter shite, and he couldn’t do it,

Well, to quote the man himself whilst filming Aliens Of London -

"At least I don't have to watch this shit"

Lord Pertwee's Knob wrote:

Ludders wrote:I think there’s a strange kind of authenticity  in Eccleston’s inability to deliver such drivel. No wonder he bailed as soon as he could. He knew he was being asked to regurgitate utter shite, and he couldn’t do it,

Well, to quote the man himself whilst filming Aliens Of London -

"At least I don't have to watch this shit"

Quite. Sums it up really.

Viewers down at 3.81 million. Jodie's fucked. Even the fiddled figures will struggle to make 5 million now.

I can hear Jon Blum shrieking in the voice of Magnus Greel.

Cheers Burrunjor

Sorry I put that in the wrong thread LOL. Well the point still stands.

The low ratings are only bad to fans when it's McCoy.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:The low ratings are only bad to fans when it's McCoy.

The funny thing is that Capaldi's viewers were far worse than McCoy. They went down every year, they technically hit greater lows, he had all the support and promotion yet he still tanked. Still we get told McCoy was the nadir because that's what shallow cunts on panel shows say, whilst Missy is praised as the best take on the character because? Its enough to make you sick.

Kaijuko wrote:Eccelston: Well, they didn’t get Terence Stamp they got me–Plug from the Bash Street Kids."

(Radio Times Interview, 2005).

I thought he looked more like Jonah, the nautical nightmare myself.

More Ken Reid than Leo Baxendale when it comes to Beano characters.

The more I consider Eccleston the more I feel he's been extremely overrated over the years.
Surely the mark of a good actor has to be versatility? Take Troughton or Davison for example, equally brilliant at both drama & comedy.

Davison has even excelled on the west end stage in musical theatre, but is often considered as little more than a good reliable "TV" actor meanwhile Eccleston who looks uncomfortable delivering anything even mildly amusing is lauded amongst his peers as one of the best of his generation.

Lord Pertwee's Knob wrote:The more I consider Eccleston the more I feel he's been extremely overrated over the years.
Surely the mark of a good actor has to be versatility? Take Troughton or Davison for example, equally brilliant at both drama & comedy.

Davison has even excelled on the west end stage in musical theatre, but is often considered as little more than a good reliable "TV" actor meanwhile Eccleston who looks uncomfortable delivering anything even mildly amusing is lauded amongst his peers as one of the best of his generation.

Completely agree. To be honest, I’ve never understood why he’s lauded as a brilliant actor when he’s only really capable of playing tough and austerely serious northerners. It’s the only part he seems to thrive in. I suppose it’s that tough exterior which gives the impression that he has some level of conviction, but he rarely delves beyond that exterior.

Although he’s not in it too much, part of the reason I enjoyed Eccleston in “Elizabeth” is because he actually played a character of aristocracy and did it well. However, I also saw him play Macbeth at the RSC back in 2018, and he looked frequently out of his depth when delivering Shakespearean dialogue, rushing his lines rather prominently.

Only twice has an actor nailed the role in the history of the show: William Hartnell (though, I technically am cheating since he was the first and there wasn't really any pressure) and Tom Baker.

But, Eccleston was the other actor who came close because after Dalek, it was the Doctor. No problems. Certainly a stronger first year than that of Tennant.

TheCuomoDoctor wrote:Only twice has an actor nailed the role in the history of the show: William Hartnell (though, I technically am cheating since he was the first and there wasn't really any pressure) and Tom Baker.

But, Eccleston was the other actor who came close because after Dalek, it was the Doctor. No problems. Certainly a stronger first year than that of Tennant.

Erm... The first year of the reboot appears (relatively) stronger mostly because it was all new, the novelty of shiny Dr. Who for the 21st Century, and unfortunately, a lot of us got sucked in simply by the newness of it all, despite everything. However, it now appears more dated than any of the other NuWho Seasons and  I find it unwatchable; the very worst part of it is the great gaping hole where the Doctor should be.  Because Eccelston really isn't that character in any shape or form  - you can't just stick some random actor in the Tardis, plonk a sonic screwdriver in their hand and say "There you go, Doctor No 9" (or whatever).  He looked awful - like a scruffy binman -he couldn't do eccentric, the humour was awkward and forced, he appeared lost in the whole thing and he obviously didn't understand the character of the Doctor or the legacy of the show. To all intents and purposes, he came across as a stock working-class character who just happened to have a time machine, and while I sympathize with his decision to leave the show because of bullying, I'm so very glad he did.

To end on a more pleasant note, I agree entirely with your choice of William Hartnell and Tom Baker!

Series 2 is still worse.

iank wrote:Series 2 is still worse.

Yes, despite everything I've just typed, and despite the fact I found Tennant slightly less irksome that Eccers, I did enjoy S1 more than S2, at least back then. I wouldn't ever contemplate watching either series again, though.

I don't really mind if a show or film is "dated" as long I like the period it was made in. Personally I like the hazy look of Series 1 and the fact that Gold was using sampled instruments for his scores. I like digital music a lot:

Pepsi Maxil wrote:I don't really mind if a show or film is "dated" as long I like the period it was made in. Personally I like the hazy look of Series 1 and the fact that Gold was using sampled instruments for his scores. I like digital music a lot:

I agree to a certain extent. All my favourite films and telly shows are from the '50s, '60s and (especially) the '70s and I don't find them dated, creaky or old-fashioned at all - quite the opposite in fact. However, culture from those early Millennial years (like the Who reboot) has very little appeal to me - it's not a period that I associate with any distinct style, attitude, or flavour nor one I have any particular fondness for. Others may feel differently, but episodes from 2005 just look cheap and of very much of their time to me, in a way that for instance, the Moffat/Smith ones don't (somehow).

However, I found the music of Series 1 considerably less overblown, overbearing and sickly than later Gold compositions - he seemed to have swapped subtlety for a loud, farting brass band.

Kaijuko wrote:

Pepsi Maxil wrote:I don't really mind if a show or film is "dated" as long I like the period it was made in. Personally I like the hazy look of Series 1 and the fact that Gold was using sampled instruments for his scores. I like digital music a lot:

I agree to a certain extent. All my favourite films and telly shows are from the '50s, '60s and (especially) the '70s and I don't find them dated, creaky or old-fashioned at all - quite the opposite in fact.  However, culture from those early Millennial years (like the Who reboot) has very little appeal to me - it's not a period that I associate with any distinct style, attitude, or flavour nor one I have any particular fondness for. Others may feel differently, but episodes from 2005 just look cheap and of very much of their time to me, in a way that for instance, the Moffat/Smith ones don't (somehow).

However, I found the music of Series 1 considerably less overblown, overbearing and sickly than later Gold compositions - he seemed to have swapped subtlety for a loud, farting brass band.

Yeah, series 1 definitely doesn’t hold up at all in that respect. I do understand Maxil’s stance on it in that such qualities are what are expected given the period it was made, and there is a certain nostalgic quality that some may derive from it, but I suppose there’s a certain charmlessness to it as well. The examples you mention may be creaky or dated in specific regards, but they usually possess a unique atmosphere or charm to ensure that they possess an essence of timelessness. I recently had a look at the 70s science fiction kids’ series “Timeslip”, which despite clearly being creaky and dated in its own right definitely felt atmospheric and pertinent regardless due to the overall intelligent nature of the narratives, and the fact that it doesn’t try to harken back to the popculture of the period it was made in as RTD’s era did with its harkening back to popcultural references as to further the populism of the era, hence why it doesn’t feel as charming to me as something akin to TruWho or Timeslip.

Although I’ll admit that I’m not as scathing of series 1 and other aspects of the era as I might have been previously as it does have its redeeming qualities looking back, there is a certain trashy and artificial aspect to its aesthetic and dated qualities which isn’t necessarily there in certain older forms of low-budget media (as with Timeslip).