Christopher Eccleston "I love The Doctor"

2456789

Comments

  • Irma BuntIrma Bunt Posts: 1,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lordo350 wrote: »
    I'm really not sure why so many people have been so quick to jump on the "defend Christopher Eccleston no matter what" brigade, while at the same time being frightfully unpleasant to anyone who happens to have a problem with his apparent attitude to Doctor Who.

    I understand he didn't enjoy his time. I understand he has no obligation to anyone. But even the great Tom Baker was criticised for his dismissive attitude back in the 80s, and if Doc 4 can, so can Doc 9. As far as I'm concerned, if he didn't want the baggage that came with the role, he shouldn't have taken the role.

    It's all very well and good stating things like, "well, he had no idea how popular the show would become." Come on, he's not an idiot. The show was MASSIVE in the 70s. Even now, fans treat Baker through to McGann like royalty. He must have known the fandom he would receive if the show even had a fraction of that fame.

    The fact is, the role of the Doctor comes with certain responsibilities and ties. He would know he would always be associated with it. Fair enough, he's friendly to fans. Fair enough, nobody can rightly force the bloke to do anything. But his dismissive, and now sarcastic, attitude to the 50th has grated on many people, and its easy to see why. When Colin and Sly and McGann have stated they'd love to be asked back, and Tennant jumped at the chance, to see the 9th Doctor be so dismissive in comparison quite rightly can annoy many people.

    Despite this, it really doesn't bother me. The 9th is not my favourite, as brilliant as it would be to see 9 and 11 interact; I reckon they would find each other completely ridiculous. And I do agree people go too far in their criticism of him. I think he's a brilliant actor. Really looking forward to seeing him in Thor and future projects. It's his attitude to Doctor Who I question, which when compared to the other Doctors, is actually quite a shame. He brought the show back! Why is he so dismissive of it?

    Ah well.


    No, the actual fact is, it comes with no more responsibilities or ties than any other role. It's a job, end of. He signed a contract. He fulfilled the terms of said contract. He moved on. And no amount of some fans' bleating, reeking with a sense of entitlement, can change that.
  • be more pacificbe more pacific Posts: 19,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lordo350 wrote: »
    I'm really not sure why so many people have been so quick to jump on the "defend Christopher Eccleston no matter what" brigade, while at the same time being frightfully unpleasant to anyone who happens to have a problem with his apparent attitude to Doctor Who.

    I understand he didn't enjoy his time. I understand he has no obligation to anyone. But even the great Tom Baker was criticised for his dismissive attitude back in the 80s, and if Doc 4 can, so can Doc 9. As far as I'm concerned, if he didn't want the baggage that came with the role, he shouldn't have taken the role.

    It's all very well and good stating things like, "well, he had no idea how popular the show would become." Come on, he's not an idiot. The show was MASSIVE in the 70s. Even now, fans treat Baker through to McGann like royalty. He must have known the fandom he would receive if the show even had a fraction of that fame.

    The fact is, the role of the Doctor comes with certain responsibilities and ties. He would know he would always be associated with it. Fair enough, he's friendly to fans. Fair enough, nobody can rightly force the bloke to do anything. But his dismissive, and now sarcastic, attitude to the 50th has grated on many people, and its easy to see why. When Colin and Sly and McGann have stated they'd love to be asked back, and Tennant jumped at the chance, to see the 9th Doctor be so dismissive in comparison quite rightly can annoy many people.

    Despite this, it really doesn't bother me. The 9th is not my favourite, as brilliant as it would be to see 9 and 11 interact; I reckon they would find each other completely ridiculous. And I do agree people go too far in their criticism of him. I think he's a brilliant actor. Really looking forward to seeing him in Thor and future projects. It's his attitude to Doctor Who I question, which when compared to the other Doctors, is actually quite a shame. He brought the show back! Why is he so dismissive of it?

    Ah well.
    What attitude? When has Chris ever been dismissive of Doctor Who? If I'm unpleasant, it's because accusations such as "dismissive attitude" and the other poster's charming "dick" are deeply unpleasant if unqualified.

    Nobody ever seems to post actual evidence of Chris having a "dismissive attitude" or being a "dick". It's all just the impressions of people who feel entitled to an encore and feel entitled to lash-out when they don't get one.
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    rhynoGB wrote: »
    Recently i saw my old boss who i worked for in a small shop for about 3 years back in 1997, he and his wife made my life hell for the whole 3 years i was there, being 17 i just put up with it.

    He asked me if i'm ever in need of work to give him a call, i instantly felt anger but decided just to walk off.

    My point is why would CE go back to something he hated, he did the job and left and moved on, he doesn't owe the BBC or dr who anything what so ever.

    admittedly it is a shame he hates it so much but that's life.

    DW has different "bosses" now.

    So the ones that upset CE (though, interestingly none of the other cast at the time were upset by them) are all gone.

    I get that some people like CE's Doctor....fine, though I don't. The fact that he didn't want to be there was evident to me. I've nothing against him personally.

    But using the analogy above, if I was asked to return to a job I had left because I hated it, and I wrote a note saying how much I loved it and would certainly come back in 50 years, I think they would know how to read it, and they'd be a bit daft if they didn't spot the irony.

    But of course, Saint Christopher is always right to some on here. A bit like the BBC.

    Thanks for the "entitlement" word, whoever posted it - I collect instances of this meaningless and inaccurate word (among others) on this forum, for my personal amusement.
  • Irma BuntIrma Bunt Posts: 1,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Theophile wrote: »
    Ummmm... no. There are certain characters which come with history (and sometimes baggage) and are viewed by people differently. The two biggest ones are The Doctor and James Bond. (I believe that playing James Bond even has a contractual obligation with it that you cannot properly wear a tuxedo in any later movies.) These two are both British Institutions more than they are characters and playing the part is an honor and a privilege, not just a job.

    The actors who are graced with officially playing these roles (no matter how briefly) will forever be remembered for their part in the role and associated with it.

    It is not true that James Bond actors are constrained by such a contractual obligation. As their later films attest. It was a myth doing the rounds some years ago. In any event, such a clause would be unenforceable. A studio cannot copyright a dinner jacket. It's an item of clothing, not a costume.

    And I'm sorry, but playing the Doctor or James Bond is just a job. And if an actor - Sean Connery, say, or CE - wishes to turn his back on it after fulfilling the term of his contract, he is perfectly entitled to do so without being condemned. Why some fans - and this is not directed at you, since your posts are always mature - cannot grow up and accept that actors owe them nothing and don't have to jump to their tune, is beyond me.
  • Irma BuntIrma Bunt Posts: 1,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DW has different "bosses" now.

    So the ones that upset CE (though, interestingly none of the other cast at the time were upset by them) are all gone.

    I get that some people like CE's Doctor....fine, though I don't. The fact that he didn't want to be there was evident to me. I've nothing against him personally.

    But using the analogy above, if I was asked to return to a job I had left because I hated it, and I wrote a note saying how much I loved it and would certainly come back in 50 years, I think they would know how to read it, and they'd be a bit daft if they didn't spot the irony.

    But of course, Saint Christopher is always right to some on here. A bit like the BBC.

    Thanks for the "entitlement" word, whoever posted it - I collect instances of this meaningless and inaccurate word (among others) on this forum, for my personal amusement.

    It was me. Happy to oblige. But the definition of entitlement is:

    en·ti·tle·ment
    /enˈtītlmənt/
    Noun
    The fact of having a right to something.
    Synonyms
    right - title - warrant

    If you can definitively prove to me not one poster on DS has written that it is a fact they have a right to see CE in the 50th anniversary episode (hence the phrase used by some of us on here as some "having a sense of entitlement") I'll happily withdraw it.
  • Shawn_LunnShawn_Lunn Posts: 9,353
    Forum Member
    I love Christopher Eccleston.
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Irma Bunt wrote: »
    It was me. Happy to oblige.

    Thank you. Just mention "gurning" (though that's usually in a David Tennant thread) and "annoying fangirls" (ditto) and I'll have my hat trick.

    Edit; I see you have expanded your post - I think you assume that people who say it would have been nice of CE to appear in the 50th think they have a right to see him. I don't make such an assumption.

    I can't prove no one has posted what you say without trawling all relevant threads, and I'm obviously not going to do that because, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

    Perhaps you could show me such a post?
  • Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Strange attitude some fans have to CE IMO. He did a job he was paid for and did it well. Then he stopped. This obligation that some seem to think he is under to provide his time for years to come is not something you would expect in other jobs.
  • be more pacificbe more pacific Posts: 19,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DW has different "bosses" now.

    So the ones that upset CE (though, interestingly none of the other cast at the time were upset by them) are all gone.

    I get that some people like CE's Doctor....fine, though I don't. The fact that he didn't want to be there was evident to me. I've nothing against him personally.

    But using the analogy above, if I was asked to return to a job I had left because I hated it, and I wrote a note saying how much I loved it and would certainly come back in 50 years, I think they would know how to read it, and they'd be a bit daft if they didn't spot the irony.
    Chris said he loved the character. He did not say he loved working on the show. Big difference.
    But of course, Saint Christopher is always right to some on here. A bit like the BBC.
    Oh dear. You have many rivers to cross.
    Thanks for the "entitlement" word, whoever posted it - I collect instances of this meaningless and inaccurate word (among others) on this forum, for my personal amusement.
    I hear DeAgostini will be launching The Entitlement Collection next month. First issue just £1.99, subsequent issues will be £9.99.
  • Irma BuntIrma Bunt Posts: 1,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thank you. Just mention "gurning" (though that's usually in a David Tennant thread) and "annoying fangirls" (ditto) and I'll have my hat trick.

    I won't mention "annoying fangirls" as I simply try to forget they exist and rise above their shrill nonsense.
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Chris said he loved the character. He did not say he loved working on the show. Big difference.

    Oh dear. You have many rivers to cross.

    I hear DeAgostini will be launching The Entitlement Collection next month. First issue just £1.99, subsequent issues will be £9.99.

    Please expand.
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Irma Bunt wrote: »
    I won't mention "annoying fangirls" as I simply try to forget they exist and rise above their shrill nonsense.

    Thank you (2 out of 3) - do you think CE gurned as much as DT?
  • SexyDavrosSexyDavros Posts: 47
    Forum Member
    He knew full well the baggage the part came with.

    Nevertheless the guy continues to distance himself from the role to pursue new roles, yet the jokes on the big luvvie, as he'll always be regarded in the media as "former Doctor Who actor..." - which i'll wager must infuriate him.

    As mentioned earlier, no other actors had a problem with working on the show, it's just Eccles is a bit jumped up and too serIous, after all, he just dresses up and pretends to be someone else, he's hardly solving world problems is he?
  • Michael_EveMichael_Eve Posts: 14,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I am currently expanding my 'Gurning is Cool' thread into a book (many people have shown very little interest) and would say there is not much between Christopher and David. ie compared to Jon and Sylvester, there wasn't much going on, really. Bit disappointing. Also am slightly worried that Peter C doesn't look like the gurning type. But we will see.

    As regards Christopher's message; I guess you'll see it as being light and humorous or just being dismissive depending upon your individual opinion of the bloke. (Stating the bleedin' obvious there, I know.) I go for the former.

    Anyway, back to the second draft....:)
  • johnnysaucepnjohnnysaucepn Posts: 6,775
    Forum Member
    lordo350 wrote: »
    I'm really not sure why so many people have been so quick to jump on the "defend Christopher Eccleston no matter what" brigade, while at the same time being frightfully unpleasant to anyone who happens to have a problem with his apparent attitude to Doctor Who.

    Perhaps they don't like being called a "defend Christopher Eccleston no matter what brigade"? Just a thought.

    I understand that it's easier for you to dismiss people's opinions by lumping them together into a single group with extreme views, but I think the case for his "apparent attitude to Doctor Who" is completely unsubstantiated.

    What about the "defend Christopher Eccleston because he's been perfectly reasonable and appreciative towards Doctor Who brigade"? Because I think that covers things better.
  • johnnysaucepnjohnnysaucepn Posts: 6,775
    Forum Member
    SexyDavros wrote: »
    He knew full well the baggage the part came with.
    In the 80s, you would have a case. In 2005, no-one knew how it would be accepted, or if it would be anything more than a nostalgic flash-in-the-pan.
    Nevertheless the guy continues to distance himself from the role to pursue new roles, yet the jokes on the big luvvie, as he'll always be regarded in the media as "former Doctor Who actor..." - which i'll wager must infuriate him.
    Why should it? He's never expressed any opinion other than pride for the work he did. And he's no more distanced from the job than I am from the job I did eight years ago.
  • saladfingers81saladfingers81 Posts: 11,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't know about crossing rivers but yet again Granny finds herself stuck in the middle of one of the worlds biggest.

    That selective vision working well I see. The entitlement of some fans is clear to see. Read these threads. The childish attitude is compounded by them then complaining that other forum members are being 'frightfully' horrid to them by challenging their false assertions and conjecture and yet they are allowed to label CE a 'dick' and other such pleasantries.

    But its pointless. just as when you have been pointed to instances of 'tennant fangirls' you choose to ignore what you don't wish to see.
  • saladfingers81saladfingers81 Posts: 11,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ps.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jzIhpLy6cZA&feature=related

    This clip has been studied endlessly by professional experts and they concluded that David Tennant was indulging in at the very least 'mild' gurning. Not to mention stomach churning idiocy.
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Perhaps they don't like being called a "defend Christopher Eccleston no matter what brigade"? Just a thought.
    I understand that it's easier for you to dismiss people's opinions by lumping them together into a single group with extreme views, but I think the case for his "apparent attitude to Doctor Who" is completely unsubstantiated.

    What about the "defend Christopher Eccleston because he's been perfectly reasonable and appreciative towards Doctor Who brigade"? Because I think that covers things better.

    Well, I can understand that as I don't like being told I have a sense of entitlement because I think Eccleston could have made a bit more effort for Nine fans (of which I am not one). I have no sense of entitlement.

    I don't like people being called annoying fangirls because they express a perfectly valid opinion that Smith is not as good as Tennant.

    And I don't like the fact that some posters always say Tennant gurns whenever his name is mentioned. If they don't like him, fine, but he doesn't gurn more than anyone else.

    It also seems odd to me that some people think Eccleston is so saintly, and think that BBC has not treated fans quite poorly this year.

    That is my current DW manifesto. :)
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ps.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jzIhpLy6cZA&feature=related

    This clip has been studied endlessly by professional experts and they concluded at the very least that David Tennant was indulging in at the very least 'mild' gurning. Not to mention stomach churning idiocy.

    Poor David, his back must have been killing him at that point. it's a credit to him that he could act at all!
    I don't know about crossing rivers but yet again Granny finds herself stuck in the middle of one of the worlds biggest.

    That selective vision working well I see. The entitlement of some fans is clear to see. Read these threads. The childish attitude is compounded by them then complaining that other forum members are being 'frightfully' horrid to them by challenging their false assertions and conjecture and yet they are allowed to label CE a 'dick' and other such pleasantries.

    But its pointless. just as when you have been pointed to instances of 'tennant fangirls' you choose to ignore what you don't wish to see.

    It's easy to see a sense of entitlement (whatever that means) in some posts, but as you are not the person posting you are merely projecting your assumptions.

    I have never called CE names. I've said I respect his work as an actor (well, some of it) and I was glad he left DW so I could enjoy it again.

    Aren't we in a clique, btw? :D Some people see that in our previous posts, when, obviously, it is a presumption based on their own feelings.
  • be more pacificbe more pacific Posts: 19,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Please expand.
    You called him "Saint Christopher".
    I don't know about crossing rivers but yet again Granny finds herself stuck in the middle of one of the worlds biggest.

    That selective vision working well I see. The entitlement of some fans is clear to see. Read these threads. The childish attitude is compounded by them then complaining that other forum members are being 'frightfully' horrid to them by challenging their false assertions and conjecture and yet they are allowed to label CE a 'dick' and other such pleasantries.

    But its pointless. just as when you have been pointed to instances of 'tennant fangirls' you choose to ignore what you don't wish to see.
    It is a truly bizarre attitude. Granny declares the common word entitlement to be meaningless, even when used in the context of people who feel they're entitled to some special consideration from an actor who owes them nothing. Has anyone contacted the Oxford English Dictionary to get the word removed or redefined as meaningless?
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You called him "Saint Christopher".
    It is a truly bizarre attitude. Granny declares the common word entitlement to be meaningless, even when used in the context of people who feel they're entitled to some special consideration from an actor who owes them nothing. Has anyone contacted the Oxfor English Dictionary to get the word removed or redefined as meaningless?

    Ah, I see it now, sorry. :o

    I mean it's meaningless in this context. sorry, I should have made myself clearer. :)

    Some people think the world should be organised for them. Some people express disappointment that something they longed to happen is not going to. The two things are being confused on here, I think.
  • saladfingers81saladfingers81 Posts: 11,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Poor David, his back must have been killing him at that point. it's a credit to him that he could act at all!



    It's easy to see a sense of entitlement (whatever that means) in some posts, but as you are not the person posting you are merely projecting your assumptions.

    I have never called CE names. I've said I respect his work as an actor (well, some of it) and I was glad he left DW so I could enjoy it again.

    Aren't we in a clique, btw? :D Some people see that in our previous posts, when, obviously, it is a presumption based on their own feelings.

    Oh bugger. I forgot. We had better reach common consensus on this lest anyone think we have fallen out and the club house is out of bounds!
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Oh bugger. I forgot. We had better reach common consensus on this lest anyone think we have fallen out and the club house is out of bounds!

    I am entitled to use the clubhouse. :p
  • Shawn_LunnShawn_Lunn Posts: 9,353
    Forum Member
    Calling him a dick because he wont return to the show is a bit unwarranted though.
Sign In or Register to comment.