The only upside is that Eccleston left sharpish (Yay!) and we then got the best Doctor ever (Ten), who may not have had a chance to take the part if McGann had been the Doctor for several series.
As good as he was and although with the audios I prefer him to CE I can completely understand why RTD went with a new Doctor - it needed to be a fresh start in 2005 and it clearly worked.
It's hard to balance - you could certainly launch a new series with an old Doctor, and not mention any of the backstory. But there would still be expectations, and a sense of jumping in part-way through something, which is off-putting to new viewers.
A new Doctor can behave in a different way, and we have no idea what has happened, where he's been, who he's fighting. Everyone's on the same page, the Doctor is back to being an unknown quantity. We didn't even know for sure if the continuity was the same.
The TV Movie partly failed because it tried to fit in as much fan-pleasing mythology as it could - which was toxic.
The TV Movie partly failed because it tried to fit in as much fan-pleasing mythology as it could - which was toxic.
A very good point johnny. Much as the fans were delighted by the continuity, starting with McCoy, then 'killing' him and regenerating into McGann wasted WAY too much time, and meant that the TV movie began awkwardly, with far too much complex backstory - a structural flaw from which it never really recovered.
RTD was right to start Rose with a totally fresh Doctor, annoying though it may have been to some long term fans, because this meant that the new series really was a fresh start, which is what was needed at the time. Gradually elements from the past crept in, but the series was already established on it's own terms by then.
A very good point johnny. Much as the fans were delighted by the continuity, starting with McCoy, then 'killing' him and regenerating into McGann wasted WAY too much time, and meant that the TV movie began awkwardly, with far too much complex backstory - a structural flaw from which it never really recovered.
RTD was right to start Rose with a totally fresh Doctor, annoying though it may have been to some long term fans, because this meant that the new series really was a fresh start, which is what was needed at the time. Gradually elements from the past crept in, but the series was already established on it's own terms by then.
I think it was very important that McCoy was in the '96 movie as it gave a vital link to the Classic Series and in hindsight, considering no series followed, the Movie would have felt more isolated than perhaps it did at the time because of the big gap between series either side of it. And because maybe the producers felt it would go to a TV Series, that is when we would have got to know The Eighth Doctor a lot better and perhaps McCoy's inclusion wouldn't have been an issue as such.
Not only that, as it was set and made in America it does feel at times slightly alienated from both Classic and New who and McCoy's inclusion for me felt like a bit of viewer reassurance that this was still the same programme even though it still had the Tardis and other elements in it.
Not only that I felt McCoy's appearance was over and done with relatively quickly considering the fast pace of the story.
Also compare it to Tennant's debut in the Xmas Invasion. IMO there was even more so-called time wasting in that one when he was practically laid up in bed for nearly three-quarters of the episode!
It would be nice if we got to have a one-off miniseries with McGann set just before the Time War. It would make up for the lack of a full series we got from his Doctor.
McGann's performance in the TV Movie, which I thought was the high point, is not the performance he would have given in 2005. Everything we saw in the minisode is a result of him BECOMING the Doctor over his tenure at Big Finish...heck, from Storm Warning to the last set of audios he did there is a big growth in how he plays the Doctor.
Today's McGann would have been brilliant in the 2005 revival, although to be honest it made sense to start fresh. And people didn't like what they saw in the early promotional snaps of the 9th Doctor either...people were shouting from the bleachers that Eccles had the wrong look and that the leather jacket was "not the Doctor." He proved us wrong, even with only one season.
But yes, it still bugs me that we only had one season of Eccleston. But who knows...McGann categorically said he wasn't involved with the 50th...and I guess technically the minisode isn't the 50th...perhaps Eccleston will yet appear and surprise us all.
Not only that, as it was set and made in America it does feel at times slightly alienated from both Classic and New who and McCoy's inclusion for me felt like a bit of viewer reassurance that this was still the same programme even though it still had the Tardis and other elements in it.
[niggle] Set in America, made in Canada. [/niggle]
[niggle] Set in America, made in Canada. [/niggle]
You have been in very niggly mood today CHJ!
First the name of the very first story and now this. maybe I should hit you over the head with a huge boulder and throw you in the Eye Of Harmony where you can niggle to your heart's content! :D
I love that the 8th Doctor had his send off, and I think the TV movie is good. But I follow the Big Finish plays and I find the 8th Doctor a bit hard to listen to. He always sounds a bit bored and sarcastic, as though he never quite takes the threats seriously, and I must admit I thought some of that came through on the mini episode. It may be (and sorry if this sounds awful) that the 8th Doctor is remembered more fondly because he only had one outing.
I think RTD made the absolute best decision to cast Eccleston as the Doctor in 2005.
By the time of the reboot, there were a lot of young people who had never seen Doctor Who, and often hadn't even properly heard of it - even myself, the most I'd seen of Doctor Who was the Daleks in an advert for Kit Kat back in 2001.
What drew me in as a new viewer was this amazing looking series, with brand new characters and fantastic design and story prospects. Something of that would have been lost if McGann had been cast - not because he's a bad Doctor (far from it) but because he came from a bad movie. If you're going to force backstory onto a viewer from the very start it has to be good, and the TVM simply wasn't. If you expect the viewer to be at least somewhat familiar with a character from the very first minute, then that character needs to have been served well previously.
Eccleston was MY Doctor, and remains my favourite Doctor (Smith sits comfortably in second, while my ventures into Classic Who have left Hartnell and McGann warring for third). Part of what made his character so great was the sense of mystery surrounding him, and that is automatically lessened if I know there was a lacklustre film preceding my first experience. I had never heard of Gallifrey, or Skaro, or anything of the sort before - I never saw The Master before 2007 and Dalek was my first ever look at the pepperpots in canonical action.
I do think there is room for McGann to make further appearances in Doctor Who now... the show is well established once again, and I doubt there's a British person out there who doesn't know what it is. But back in 2005, I think the show was hugely dependent on being a fresh image rather than a continuation of one that was a bit stale. It needed the big draw and the modernisation that RTD afforded it, to show people that what had come before the turn of the century was really worth looking back on
Comments
Definately McGann then!
A new Doctor can behave in a different way, and we have no idea what has happened, where he's been, who he's fighting. Everyone's on the same page, the Doctor is back to being an unknown quantity. We didn't even know for sure if the continuity was the same.
The TV Movie partly failed because it tried to fit in as much fan-pleasing mythology as it could - which was toxic.
A very good point johnny. Much as the fans were delighted by the continuity, starting with McCoy, then 'killing' him and regenerating into McGann wasted WAY too much time, and meant that the TV movie began awkwardly, with far too much complex backstory - a structural flaw from which it never really recovered.
RTD was right to start Rose with a totally fresh Doctor, annoying though it may have been to some long term fans, because this meant that the new series really was a fresh start, which is what was needed at the time. Gradually elements from the past crept in, but the series was already established on it's own terms by then.
I think it was very important that McCoy was in the '96 movie as it gave a vital link to the Classic Series and in hindsight, considering no series followed, the Movie would have felt more isolated than perhaps it did at the time because of the big gap between series either side of it. And because maybe the producers felt it would go to a TV Series, that is when we would have got to know The Eighth Doctor a lot better and perhaps McCoy's inclusion wouldn't have been an issue as such.
Not only that, as it was set and made in America it does feel at times slightly alienated from both Classic and New who and McCoy's inclusion for me felt like a bit of viewer reassurance that this was still the same programme even though it still had the Tardis and other elements in it.
Not only that I felt McCoy's appearance was over and done with relatively quickly considering the fast pace of the story.
Also compare it to Tennant's debut in the Xmas Invasion. IMO there was even more so-called time wasting in that one when he was practically laid up in bed for nearly three-quarters of the episode!
I do believe Paul McGann should have been the Doctor in 2005 but I'm guessing he wasn't one of RTD's chums so was dismissed.
Today's McGann would have been brilliant in the 2005 revival, although to be honest it made sense to start fresh. And people didn't like what they saw in the early promotional snaps of the 9th Doctor either...people were shouting from the bleachers that Eccles had the wrong look and that the leather jacket was "not the Doctor." He proved us wrong, even with only one season.
But yes, it still bugs me that we only had one season of Eccleston. But who knows...McGann categorically said he wasn't involved with the 50th...and I guess technically the minisode isn't the 50th...perhaps Eccleston will yet appear and surprise us all.
[niggle] Set in America, made in Canada. [/niggle]
[niggle] Canada is part of America. [/niggle]
You have been in very niggly mood today CHJ!
First the name of the very first story and now this. maybe I should hit you over the head with a huge boulder and throw you in the Eye Of Harmony where you can niggle to your heart's content!
i like McGann but a line had to have been drawn between the older series and the new. maybe have him a couple episodes then regen him?
The series needed Eccleston
By the time of the reboot, there were a lot of young people who had never seen Doctor Who, and often hadn't even properly heard of it - even myself, the most I'd seen of Doctor Who was the Daleks in an advert for Kit Kat back in 2001.
What drew me in as a new viewer was this amazing looking series, with brand new characters and fantastic design and story prospects. Something of that would have been lost if McGann had been cast - not because he's a bad Doctor (far from it) but because he came from a bad movie. If you're going to force backstory onto a viewer from the very start it has to be good, and the TVM simply wasn't. If you expect the viewer to be at least somewhat familiar with a character from the very first minute, then that character needs to have been served well previously.
Eccleston was MY Doctor, and remains my favourite Doctor (Smith sits comfortably in second, while my ventures into Classic Who have left Hartnell and McGann warring for third). Part of what made his character so great was the sense of mystery surrounding him, and that is automatically lessened if I know there was a lacklustre film preceding my first experience. I had never heard of Gallifrey, or Skaro, or anything of the sort before - I never saw The Master before 2007 and Dalek was my first ever look at the pepperpots in canonical action.
I do think there is room for McGann to make further appearances in Doctor Who now... the show is well established once again, and I doubt there's a British person out there who doesn't know what it is. But back in 2005, I think the show was hugely dependent on being a fresh image rather than a continuation of one that was a bit stale. It needed the big draw and the modernisation that RTD afforded it, to show people that what had come before the turn of the century was really worth looking back on
Highly debatable that! Tom Baker was a better Doctor in my opinion.
Very highly debatable...for me Tennant sits in my bottom three Doctor's
Go Chris!
You may all debate as much as you like. I know the best Doctor when I see him, so to me no debate is necessary.
(Being a fangirl, and all....)
(Though Eccleston was a better choice for reviving the series, I just prefer McGann!
Very good point.
I voted McGann.