I think they have all been good, but Matt is my favourite as he really captures the old soul in a younger persons body so well.
You see I have never once seen it like that. I have always just seen him as a typical depiction of the nutty professor/geek who wouldn't be out of place on the Big Bang Theory. I always feel the old soul business is something Moffat put out there but I've never once actually seen it.
That said I enjoyed MS in the 50th. The opening post just shows how different things can come across from one person to another because it was 10 that drew my attention all through out the 50th with his charisma and I can't believe how effortless it felt.
You see I have never once seen it like that. I have always just seen him as a typical depiction of the nutty professor/geek who wouldn't be out of place on the Big Bang Theory. I always feel the old soul business is something Moffat put out there but I've never once actually seen it.
That said I enjoyed MS in the 50th. The opening post just shows how different things can come across from one person to another because it was 10 that drew my attention all through out the 50th with his charisma and I can't believe how effortless it felt.
Blimey. Each to their own and all that but comparing the nuanced, multi layered Troughton channeling and indeed every other Doctor in one way or another genius performance of Matt Smith to a character from the bloody Big Bang Theory has to be the most damning and in my opinion downright wrong and misguided critique of Matts incarnation I have ever read.
I also think it means alot of the subtlety of Matts Doctor is lost and or wasted on some. He can convey more with a movement of the eyes than most other actors could dream of in a life time.
I could cite so many examples but just watch his farewell scene to Amelia in The Big Bang. A young mans face yes, but with centuries etched upon it which is echoed in his words.
Blimey. Each to their own and all that but comparing the nuanced, multi layered Troughton channeling and indeed every other Doctor in one way or another genius performance of Matt Smith to a character from the bloody Big Bang Theory has to be the most damning and in my opinion downright wrong and misguided critique of Matts incarnation I have ever read.
I also think it means alot of the subtlety of Matts Doctor is lost and or wasted on some. He can convey more with a movement of the eyes than most other actors could dream of in a life time.
I could cite so many examples but just watch his farewell scene to Amelia in The Big Bang. A young mans face yes, but with centuries etched upon it which is echoed in his words.
Well, like you said each to their own. I don't see what you're saying. I see a geeky 20 something year old not someone with years etched on his face. It's just the same as some think Tennant gurns and I don't. Just different impressions and that.
I could cite so many examples but just watch his farewell scene to Amelia in The Big Bang. A young mans face yes, but with centuries etched upon it which is echoed in his words.
After his first season i'd definitely have said Smith, but its been getting progressively worse, until he;s turned into a series of ticks and mannerisms almost as annoying as Tennant
I could cite so many examples but just watch his farewell scene to Amelia in The Big Bang. A young mans face yes, but with centuries etched upon it which is echoed in his words.
Totally agree, but I find every actor brings something different and wonderful to the role. Eccleston was hurt and vulnerable under the surface, Tennant has a hint of anger and possible danger but also flirty and romantic, Smith is an old man in a young body but awkward as a teenager. Tom Baker was both childlike and dangerous.
Since the reboot we've had three bloody good but very different actors. Matt probably impresses me the most just because he was the one people thought couldn't do it because of his age and he's been superb throughout. He really is a very good actor and for me slightly outshines Chris and David.
Since the reboot we've had three bloody good but very different actors. Matt probably impresses me the most just because he was the one people thought couldn't do it because of his age and he's been superb throughout. He really is a very good actor and for me slightly outshines Chris and David.
Smith is a good actor, there's no denying that. But he doesn't have the range of Tennant or Eccleston. Just as an example, his supposedly big powerful emotional speech in Rings of Akhtan came across as screechy and lightweight. In short, he lacks gravitas, a problem Slyvestor McCoy had too (and funnily enough I'm a big fan of the 7th Doctor).
Smith is a good actor, there's no denying that. But he doesn't have the range of Tennant or Eccleston. Just as an example, his supposedly big powerful emotional speech in Rings of Akhtan came across as screechy and lightweight. In short, he lacks gravitas, a problem Slyvestor McCoy had too (and funnily enough I'm a big fan of the 7th Doctor).
To you it did, a lot of people cite that speech as a highlight of the let series. Personally, I could have done without the "take it all, baby" bit but thats just my opinion.
I've seen Smith in a lot of his other work and really can't agree he has a limited range. I don't think you see a great deal of The Doctor in his Christopher Isherwood, for example….
The curl of the lip in the Team Tardis scene after the diner in Utah in The Impossible Astronaut is one of the darker Doctor moments Matt pulls off with aplomb.
To you it did, a lot of people cite that speech as a highlight of the let series. Personally, I could have done without the "take it all, baby" bit but thats just my opinion.
Of course, it was my opinion, not a fact! I personally found that speech an embarrassment, and the episode as a whole rather weak. But it's very subjective.
Matt could have been my favourite Doctor. The Lodger showed what a funny, caring, geeky Doctor he could have been. Sadly none of that came to fruition and instead he was given bland, empty scripts that lacked heart and soul. All terribly clever, of course, but nothing that linked him emotionally to the audience in the way Tennant pulled at the heart strings. Sadly I don't think Moffat's learnt his lesson and it sounds like poor old Capaldi isn't going to be any more likeable.
I think we have been blessed in every Doctor. I try not to choose between them as they have all been fantastic in their own way.
If forced at gun point I would say...
Smith
Eccleston
Tennant
But its paper thin between them especially Nine and Ten. I love them all dearly and they all had aspects of the character they carried better than the other. All different. All fantastic.
I was sick of people moaning about Tennant and not leaving him in the past. But seeing him in the fiftieth reminded me just how effortless and good he was.
Yeah I prefer Matt. But its a lovely choice to make between three of the best actors this country has produced. And we have a fourth on the way!
We are lucky.
What a brilliant post. You are absolutely right, of course. Looking at all the Doctors, there has never been a bad actor to play him. I mean, it's a bloody hard part to play, so you simply HAVE to be good. You have to be funny and scary at the same time, old and young, majestic and small. You need to be able to make us laugh one minute, then really intimidate us the next. And, of course, you need to be able to make us cry.
Claiming that any man who's played the Doctor has a limited range is therefore ludicrous! The Doctor is, potentially, the most fascinating character ever created. I mean, 50 years on, he can still surprise us, still entrance us... how many other characters can boast that?
I love Smith's Doctor simply BECAUSE of the range. He just so nails the part of old man in young man's body so effortlessly. I think those who claim he has a limited range really need to re-watch some of his episodes. Try Nightmare in Silver. A very hard script to portray, and in the hands of a lessor actor it would have been cringeworthy (nothing against the script, though, I love that episode, just making a point about the level of acting needed for it to work!). Smith kills it all effortlessly. Then there's his earlier performances, such as the Big Bang, which I think is his highest point (though, I'm sure this will be topped come Christmas). What I loved so much about the Day of the Doctor was that Tennant, Smith and Hurt were all at the top of their game. Nobody came across looking inferior to the other. A combination of a great script and actors.
You really get an impression that Tennant and Smith lived and breathed the role whilst doing it, as well as Eccleston; they put aspects of their own personality into it that, while small, are noticeable when you watch them in interviews. Hell, anyone watch the brilliant drama Tennant did recently for the BBC, the Escape Artist? He played a very different character to the Doctor and I never saw anything Doctorly about it, apart from one scene. He's on a beach explaining something about a rare crab fish he's cooking at like 100 miles per hour, his son and friend completely lost, and I couldn't help chuckling, thinking "yep, he's still the Doctor."
I'd go with Matt, but they're all brilliant. I think Smith's casting is a lesson to Who fans in general: don't judge before you see it! Like I said above, you simply MUST be an exceptional actor to be the Doctor, something we at least know for sure Capaldi is this time around. Therefore, unless they cast David Witts as him in the future, I will never be nervous when a new Doctor comes in.
After his first season i'd definitely have said Smith, but its been getting progressively worse, until he;s turned into a series of ticks and mannerisms almost as annoying as Tennant
So for me
Smith (first season)
Eccleston
Smith (second and third seasons)
Tennant
Completely disagree here. I think Matt has got better over time. He was good in the Eleventh Hour but I found him very bland throughout the rest of series 5. However, he is vastly better for me now.
Matt Smith is for me not only my favourite NuWho Doctor, but my favourite all-time Doctor.
Funnily enough, though, I never rated Tennant at all, and had always ranked him LAST on my list, but actually I thought that he was utterly terrific last Saturday, too - Matt is my all-time favourite Doctor, Tennant is my least favourite, but I think that when the two of them were put together, it was David who stole most of the scenes (aside from the ones with John Hurt in - he absolutely nailed all of them obviously).
To you it did, a lot of people cite that speech as a highlight of the let series. Personally, I could have done without the "take it all, baby" bit but thats just my opinion.
I've seen Smith in a lot of his other work and really can't agree he has a limited range. I don't think you see a great deal of The Doctor in his Christopher Isherwood, for example….
Glad its not just me that winces at that bit. In fact its Matts worst ever line and delivery in my opinion. Interesting to know whether or not it was scripted or ad libbed- I assume scripted- but either way it is totally jarring. I don't mind that scene itself. Just that bit.
Totally agree. Don't know how I found myself here but his is the only doctor I've been able to watch and enjoy. :eek:
I tried as the rest of the family watch DW but I found Matt Smith and David Tennant far too hammy and they badly over acted IMO.
Christopher Eccleston was just so different from any other doctor, he was effortlessly cool :cool: and far more menacing than a lot of other portrayals. I would take him back as the doctor in a heartbeat.
**checks that she isn't on the Strictly forum**:eek::eek::D.
The Doctor doesn't dance you know:D
I know he can
I loved Chris' Doctor, and now I finally have the link between him and the old classic Doctors (thank you Moffat). Chris was fantastic, dark, menacing, a coward, sometimes kind, and subtly alien.
However, I love Tennant, and I love Smith and they both were brilliant in the 50th. I also realised that Paul McGann has become my Doctor in that very small clip and John Hurt is now also my Doctor.
They are all splendid chaps, no favouritism necessary.
I find the cross between Doctor and decent story in New Who somewhat muddling at times.
CE is my least favourite Doctor but I have to admit he had some superb stories in Series 1. Plus his acting in episodes like Dalek was superb. The only issue I had with him was his characterisation and perhaps his costume, which were a bit too 'Normal' for me, otherwise I can't fault him.
DT did have the right mix of stories and personality as a Doctor and he was my fave New Series Doctor for some while.
Then MS has come along and I now find I have a reverse situation to Series 1 where he's brilliant but the stories are anything but. I loved him in The Lodger and I think he's at his best when he's being eccentric as in that episode. I think he just shades Tennant as my fave Doctor of New Who, he's right up there in my Top Three Doctors. I'd have so loved to have seen him under RTD, as he was in the SJA, for me those two episodes were among the best I've seen him in yet!
Comments
You see I have never once seen it like that. I have always just seen him as a typical depiction of the nutty professor/geek who wouldn't be out of place on the Big Bang Theory. I always feel the old soul business is something Moffat put out there but I've never once actually seen it.
That said I enjoyed MS in the 50th. The opening post just shows how different things can come across from one person to another because it was 10 that drew my attention all through out the 50th with his charisma and I can't believe how effortless it felt.
Blimey. Each to their own and all that but comparing the nuanced, multi layered Troughton channeling and indeed every other Doctor in one way or another genius performance of Matt Smith to a character from the bloody Big Bang Theory has to be the most damning and in my opinion downright wrong and misguided critique of Matts incarnation I have ever read.
I also think it means alot of the subtlety of Matts Doctor is lost and or wasted on some. He can convey more with a movement of the eyes than most other actors could dream of in a life time.
I could cite so many examples but just watch his farewell scene to Amelia in The Big Bang. A young mans face yes, but with centuries etched upon it which is echoed in his words.
Well, like you said each to their own. I don't see what you're saying. I see a geeky 20 something year old not someone with years etched on his face. It's just the same as some think Tennant gurns and I don't. Just different impressions and that.
^^^^This!!!!
So for me
Smith (first season)
Eccleston
Smith (second and third seasons)
Tennant
Totally agree, but I find every actor brings something different and wonderful to the role. Eccleston was hurt and vulnerable under the surface, Tennant has a hint of anger and possible danger but also flirty and romantic, Smith is an old man in a young body but awkward as a teenager. Tom Baker was both childlike and dangerous.
Smith is a good actor, there's no denying that. But he doesn't have the range of Tennant or Eccleston. Just as an example, his supposedly big powerful emotional speech in Rings of Akhtan came across as screechy and lightweight. In short, he lacks gravitas, a problem Slyvestor McCoy had too (and funnily enough I'm a big fan of the 7th Doctor).
I will agree he is excellent in Dalek which is my favourite from new who series 1
To you it did, a lot of people cite that speech as a highlight of the let series. Personally, I could have done without the "take it all, baby" bit but thats just my opinion.
I've seen Smith in a lot of his other work and really can't agree he has a limited range. I don't think you see a great deal of The Doctor in his Christopher Isherwood, for example….
Of course, it was my opinion, not a fact! I personally found that speech an embarrassment, and the episode as a whole rather weak. But it's very subjective.
What a brilliant post. You are absolutely right, of course. Looking at all the Doctors, there has never been a bad actor to play him. I mean, it's a bloody hard part to play, so you simply HAVE to be good. You have to be funny and scary at the same time, old and young, majestic and small. You need to be able to make us laugh one minute, then really intimidate us the next. And, of course, you need to be able to make us cry.
Claiming that any man who's played the Doctor has a limited range is therefore ludicrous! The Doctor is, potentially, the most fascinating character ever created. I mean, 50 years on, he can still surprise us, still entrance us... how many other characters can boast that?
I love Smith's Doctor simply BECAUSE of the range. He just so nails the part of old man in young man's body so effortlessly. I think those who claim he has a limited range really need to re-watch some of his episodes. Try Nightmare in Silver. A very hard script to portray, and in the hands of a lessor actor it would have been cringeworthy (nothing against the script, though, I love that episode, just making a point about the level of acting needed for it to work!). Smith kills it all effortlessly. Then there's his earlier performances, such as the Big Bang, which I think is his highest point (though, I'm sure this will be topped come Christmas). What I loved so much about the Day of the Doctor was that Tennant, Smith and Hurt were all at the top of their game. Nobody came across looking inferior to the other. A combination of a great script and actors.
You really get an impression that Tennant and Smith lived and breathed the role whilst doing it, as well as Eccleston; they put aspects of their own personality into it that, while small, are noticeable when you watch them in interviews. Hell, anyone watch the brilliant drama Tennant did recently for the BBC, the Escape Artist? He played a very different character to the Doctor and I never saw anything Doctorly about it, apart from one scene. He's on a beach explaining something about a rare crab fish he's cooking at like 100 miles per hour, his son and friend completely lost, and I couldn't help chuckling, thinking "yep, he's still the Doctor."
I'd go with Matt, but they're all brilliant. I think Smith's casting is a lesson to Who fans in general: don't judge before you see it! Like I said above, you simply MUST be an exceptional actor to be the Doctor, something we at least know for sure Capaldi is this time around. Therefore, unless they cast David Witts as him in the future, I will never be nervous when a new Doctor comes in.
Completely disagree here. I think Matt has got better over time. He was good in the Eleventh Hour but I found him very bland throughout the rest of series 5. However, he is vastly better for me now.
Funnily enough, though, I never rated Tennant at all, and had always ranked him LAST on my list, but actually I thought that he was utterly terrific last Saturday, too - Matt is my all-time favourite Doctor, Tennant is my least favourite, but I think that when the two of them were put together, it was David who stole most of the scenes (aside from the ones with John Hurt in - he absolutely nailed all of them obviously).
Glad its not just me that winces at that bit. In fact its Matts worst ever line and delivery in my opinion. Interesting to know whether or not it was scripted or ad libbed- I assume scripted- but either way it is totally jarring. I don't mind that scene itself. Just that bit.
Smith
Eccleston
Tennant.
**checks that she isn't on the Strictly forum**:eek::eek::D.
The Doctor doesn't dance you know:D
I loved Chris' Doctor, and now I finally have the link between him and the old classic Doctors (thank you Moffat). Chris was fantastic, dark, menacing, a coward, sometimes kind, and subtly alien.
However, I love Tennant, and I love Smith and they both were brilliant in the 50th. I also realised that Paul McGann has become my Doctor in that very small clip and John Hurt is now also my Doctor.
They are all splendid chaps, no favouritism necessary.
CE is my least favourite Doctor but I have to admit he had some superb stories in Series 1. Plus his acting in episodes like Dalek was superb. The only issue I had with him was his characterisation and perhaps his costume, which were a bit too 'Normal' for me, otherwise I can't fault him.
DT did have the right mix of stories and personality as a Doctor and he was my fave New Series Doctor for some while.
Then MS has come along and I now find I have a reverse situation to Series 1 where he's brilliant but the stories are anything but. I loved him in The Lodger and I think he's at his best when he's being eccentric as in that episode. I think he just shades Tennant as my fave Doctor of New Who, he's right up there in my Top Three Doctors. I'd have so loved to have seen him under RTD, as he was in the SJA, for me those two episodes were among the best I've seen him in yet!