The First Doctor
daveyboy7472
Posts: 16,397 Forum Member
✭✭
After writing about the Fifth Doctor, and putting a new spin on the 'what do you think of this Doctor and name his good and bad points.', I'm gonna try a thread on each Doctor and take it from a slightly different angle.....which will probably go back to those points anyway!
For the First Doctor, my topic is very similar as to before.
That is here we have another Doctor who seems to be as far as I can tell, not as popular as other Doctors but had some of the highest ratings of Classic Who, certainly higher than some of New Who as well but.......just never seems to get any appreciation or recognition, who seems unpopular because he was apparently old and grumpy and the complete opposite of David Tennant.
Whenever Hartnell is mentioned on this forum, it's like that scene from Shooting Stars where Vic Reeves tells a crap gag and silence really does fall and the old bale of straw sweeps across the floor.
No thread on him gets rarely past the first page(Really hoping this does!)
So what's the problem then with this Doctor on here? Too old? Not watched him? Too grumpy for you or is Black and White just not colourful enough for you?!!!!!:D
Does Hartnell not deserve more credit for the character he created that gave us the show we have today?
I like to be fair and say that watching the First Doctor for the well, first time is hard work. It took even me a while to get used to him and if you watch his stories in chronological order, you may think he was a bad-ass Doctor. But it only takes watching The Romans or The Time Meddler to see his more comedic side. It wasn't all grumpiness and sternly mannerisms.
Like I said on the Fifth Doctor thread, he's not for everyone. However, it's just getting to the bottom of why on this forum talking about him(I use the word talking in it's loosest possible sense here) is so.....non talkative.
Even if you haven't watched him, I'd like people to discuss what their views of him are, what their impressions are, however vague. Good or bad.
For the First Doctor, my topic is very similar as to before.
That is here we have another Doctor who seems to be as far as I can tell, not as popular as other Doctors but had some of the highest ratings of Classic Who, certainly higher than some of New Who as well but.......just never seems to get any appreciation or recognition, who seems unpopular because he was apparently old and grumpy and the complete opposite of David Tennant.
Whenever Hartnell is mentioned on this forum, it's like that scene from Shooting Stars where Vic Reeves tells a crap gag and silence really does fall and the old bale of straw sweeps across the floor.
No thread on him gets rarely past the first page(Really hoping this does!)
So what's the problem then with this Doctor on here? Too old? Not watched him? Too grumpy for you or is Black and White just not colourful enough for you?!!!!!:D
Does Hartnell not deserve more credit for the character he created that gave us the show we have today?
I like to be fair and say that watching the First Doctor for the well, first time is hard work. It took even me a while to get used to him and if you watch his stories in chronological order, you may think he was a bad-ass Doctor. But it only takes watching The Romans or The Time Meddler to see his more comedic side. It wasn't all grumpiness and sternly mannerisms.
Like I said on the Fifth Doctor thread, he's not for everyone. However, it's just getting to the bottom of why on this forum talking about him(I use the word talking in it's loosest possible sense here) is so.....non talkative.
Even if you haven't watched him, I'd like people to discuss what their views of him are, what their impressions are, however vague. Good or bad.
0
Comments
I grew up with Who as a kid in the Seventies, but I became a fan with a capital F in 1982. I had already seen and been fascinated by the shows past thanks to the 'Five Faces of Doctor Who' repeat series prior to Season 19, and then started buying Doctor Who Monthly from Issue 67 (the one with the first 3 Doctors on the cover.)
Met fellow fans in the Mid Eighties and started to slowly get to see more episodes, usually of very dubious quality, if you get my drift! And I didn't really bother much with Hartnell. Focused more on seeing as much of Tom as possible, I recall. There were delightful bootleg surprises like The Ark and The Gunfighters (the latter often dismissed by 'fandom' at the time as something of a nadir) that I thoroughly enjoyed. I liked this Doctor!
It's only really in the last decade that I began to appreciate Hartnell more and more, with The Beginings/Lost in Time boxsets. Yes, he could be a grumpy beggar, but so could a lot of the Doctors. He was also caring, mischevious, sly, funny, child-like and as old as the Universe. I've definitely spotted Peter C doing the Hartnell 'eye dart' a few times already, and I remember grinning like mad when he did the 'lapel clutch' when he was announced as the new Doctor.
Often hear people opine that with the Second Doctor we got the real 'template' for C21 Doctors. However great Patrick was (and my giddy Aunt he was) THE DOCTOR was created the moment William Hartnell appeared on screen. And *that* is why we're still discussing the programme 51 years later.
There have been so many great speeches over the years, and Matt in particular had some crackers recently, but that "Go forward in all your beliefs...." speech, and indeed the whole conclusion to 'The Dalek Invasion of Earth', slays me as much as anything that has come since.
So yeah, I love the Hartnell/Doctor era!
Doctor Who was very different in those days and I can quite understand why the twenty-somethings who watch the show now have trouble watching it.
It's very serial based, one episode a week with each story running into the following one which didn't happen even in the Troughton years much after his first season.
It's slow and was shot 'as live' so you have to make allowances for the him and the programme. It annoys me when people go on about all his slip ups as a lot of that was not his fault but due to his workload and the production team being unable to offer him a second take. Just look what happens today when they film a single 'live' episode of a popular programme.
Hartnell was the first and played the character as he was originally designed, some of his stories remain amongst my all time favourites. Dalek Invasion of Earth, Time Meddler and War Machines in particular.
I think, like Troughton, his popularity is affected by missing episodes. It would be interesting to see how Hartnell was perceived if Marco Polo, Daleks Master Plan, The Massacre and The Smugglers etc suddenly turn up.
Hartnell's my 4th favourite Doctor for what it's worth.
I understand that completely, but not all fans are surely that age.
I think it's weird that after the 50th Anniversary, which through the TV Docudrama, would have raised awareness of his Doctor more, even more so given the exposure his Doctor had on the Ultimate Doctor Who show around that time as well.
Agree about the slip ups as well. I actually think they add to his performances rather than detract from it. It's just one of those happy coincidences that since the First Doctor was quite eccentric and absent minded, the slip-ups naturally seem part of it and if you didn't know they were fluffs you would probably think it part of his character.
As someone who started the show with new who, when I have delved into classic who, I never really tend to go further back than tom baker. As I tried to explain with my anecdote above, I respect the doctors that came before him, and all they brought to it's continued success, but at the same time, I get the impression that stories before his time tended be more dry in nature and slow going in storytelling. I go from the 4th onwards because they represent a time where, thanks to the input of the first three, the show had evolved to a point where it's more like the show I enjoy today with new who. For example I understand that during hartnell at least the word gallifrey was never uttered and that the master never even existed until the 3rd doctors time. I also get the impression that the early doctors were more about being respectable than eccentric. yet going from the 4th onwards you have fun eccentric doctors with the backstory in place, the stories paced closer to that which you would see today, and all the lore like gallifrey, the master etc already in place, so it just seems more accessible from that point on.
My views maybe be seen as completely wrong, and I'm sure there are some twenty-somethings out there who love the first doctor, but the thread asked for opinions from those who hadn't really watched the first doctor and these are mine.
P.s. You'll notice I haven't mentioned the lack of colour as a negative. I notice often that there seems to be a myth among older people that younger people won't watch the older stuff because of the lack of colour, but it really dosen't factor for me. a good episode is a good episode colour or no colour. It's more just the points i've raised above.
Think Jon Pertwee fits the 'respectable' tag to a degree. Hartnell much less so, by his second season the rather stern patriarchal figure had all but gone and Troughton I'd say not at all. Quite an anarchic chap, the Second Doctor.
BIB - Actually totally disagree with this point. Have you seen what they wear?
You really should give the earlier Doctor's a go. If you do find them hard going fair enough but at least they will be your own opinions and not just impressions you are getting, which in my view are wrong.. You are robbing your self of some of the best stories in the programmes history.
If I could recommend The Dalek Invasion of Earth or The Time Meddler for Hartnell, Tomb of the Cybermen or The Web of Fear for Troughton and Spearhead from Space and The Daemons for Pertwee. They're not necessarily the best but would give you a good feel for the earlier Doctors.
I have seen the first three in the 5 doctors (even though, yes I know, it wasn't actually Hartnell, but still the first doctor) and I've also seen troughton in the two doctors, so I've at least had a glimpse of those doctors.
I was more thinking their attitude/demanour from clips and the odd parts here and there I have seen. I fully admitted it was more an impression than an actual fully fledged, researched opinion.
The Op did actually suggest that those who hadn't watched give their impressions presumably as to give insight into why, which is why I did, and I feel I did so in a fair manor, without disrespecting those era's in any way.
I don't feel anyone should pressure someone else to watch a particular era. I may give those early stories ago some time, I may not, but the point of my post was just to give that point of view angle of someone who hadn't yet ventured into early doctor territory and my reasons why.
Hi DBB, thank you for your post, that was indeed exactly what I asked for and I hope it will encourage others to post. The point of this thread is to get to the bottom of why exactly the First Doctor just seems so under-discussed and on the face of it unpopular on this forum and your post has given me some insight into that.
Just a few points to comment on. Firstly, I have never suggested every 20 something avoids classic who because of the effects. However, there have been some posters over the last five years I've been on here that have explicitly stated that is the case but I know there are some people in that age group and even younger who have sought to watch this particular Doctor. Not everyone is the same.
Following on from that, it was never my suggestion that anyone should feel pressured to watch the First Doctor because of this thread and from my point of view, I would rather people feel free to discuss this topic without feeling they were being bullied into watching him. As I said, that wasn't the point of the thread and if I'd asked people to state their good and bad points only, this thread would die very quickly. That's why I wanted people who haven't watched him to comment.
Now the other point of the thread was to maybe challenge any misconceptions people had of Hartnell's Doctor who hadn't seen him without making people feel like they were being criticised. I think like anything else, you can misjudge something you haven't seen, but that's again that's not a criticism, that's life.
Your point about the First Doctor not being eccentric is one such misconception. I know where Jethryk was going with his post and to a degree he is right The First Doctor was eccentric in a lot of episodes, I could name a few but that's not my point either. The point is that you have rather neatly told us that's what your impression is, it explains a lot to me what I have thought all along, that people see him as a grumpy old git whereas I can tell you it isn't 100% true.
Whether you choose to follow up that info and watch him is your choice. All I want to do is to raise awareness and address any misconceptions where they arise. I hope it will encourage others to post.
P.s page is looking pretty full, I think you may make your second page after all
With the arrival of DVD and the release of WH stories, I started to buy and watch his stories and boy was I surprised, as to how much I really liked the First Doctor ( I mourn the missing episodes).
As for the lack of colour, it has no effect on my enjoyment. I have many films/tv series in black and white (to many to mention) in my BR/DVD collection.
Personally I'd favour a Hartnell episode almost any time over a Pertwee, Davison, McCoy and (puts on tin hat) Smith. Dodo aside (although she had by far the most interesting exit of all companions ;-)), the companions are more rounded and appear to be there for the stories rather than demographics or eye candy (and by demographics I mean the need to tick a 'yoof' box, like Ace, or any other social grouping). In the early Sixties, any elderly man would have been born/formed during the Victorian and Edwardian ages and the stern, remote persona would not have been so unrecognisable to children. What was important, as Hartnell used to say himself, was not the authority of the character but the twinkle behind the eyes that was there to those who knew him.
I think that Hartnell's multi-layered approach to the character outshines many of his successors who have tried to imitate this without the luxury of a story in which to develop it, the stories increasingly being focused on the action and threat-resolution. I believe Capaldi is bringing some of that back, to the confusion of many viewers, but to the delight of others who are being drawn in to discover how he will react to a new situation. There is comfort in knowing how Tennant's Doctor will respond (much less appreciation of his unpredictability in the 'Specials'), which I say without criticism as Tennant features way, way 'up there' in my favourites.
Final point: someone above mentioned it was less interesting an era because there was no Gallifrey lore, etc. For me, that means that the focus is on the story and the characters. Hartnell was interesting for that reason. RTD (my opinion, granted) did a favour to the return of Doctor Who by removing the baggage of the Time Lord society to focus back on the character and the 'something in the past' (exactly as Hartnell). The 50th stuffed that completely in all ways.
Final, final point (!), where would I introduce someone to Hartnell? Apart from the first episode, maybe "The Aztecs". Still early days but here you see a whole range of the Doctor's personality as well as him setting out the nature of time travel.
I sort of agree and disagree about The Hartnell Companions. They were less eye candy for certain(Aside Sara Kingdom if you choose to classify her as a companion). I find some of them, particularly Vicki, very childish and annoying and goes back to what I said in the other thread about Hartnell's Humour being a bit old-fashioned and that comes across in his companions as well. However, as I also said, the Hartnell Era does cater more for the kids rather than the adults which Hartnell himself thought the show should be more for.
To answer your other question, and this for DBB as well, if you were going to start watching Hartnell, or introduce someone to him who's more used to the New series or later Classic Doctors, then starting right from the beginning maybe not so wise. In these initial three stories he was a bit more fierce and aggressive and not really the typical Hartnell Interpretation of the First Doctor.
I would recommend perhaps The Rescue, as a short two parter in case you don't want to sit through four episodes. In this he is at his eccentric best and it's also the first story he confronts a villain solo. If you like that, then try the following story The Romans where he was at his comedic best. I think these two stories show all side of Hartnell's Doctor but certainly The Aztecs and the Time Meddler does this as well.
Great choices. Said before on DS, Hartnell's performance in The Rescue is my favourite of the lot. He does endearingly befuddled, sad, funny, inquisitive, kindly,gentle, shrewd and heroic in those two episodes. Quintessential Doctor. I think The Gunfighters is another story where he's at his funniest, and from the later stories, he's in great form in the proto-UNIT 'The War Machine'.
We've had plenty of 'hero shots' of the Doctor over the decades, but that cliffhanger zoom-in to the First Doctor in his cape, standing between the enemy and the humans with that look of utter defiance and conviction in the latter story gives me goosebumps every time.
Right. Definitely hitting a Hartnell DVD today!
He was such a clever grandad figure to me.
Now, 50+ years later - I still love to travel back via DVD and re-live those days again. Not so exciting,,,,,but uncannily still very intriguing! I can spot the gaffs now (which never happened when I was a kid!?), and that swirly beginning and music still gives me goosebumps.
My best mate (in his 30's) cannot see beyond Tennant! And he wont tolerate anything in black and white - which infuriates me!
Reminds me: not so long ago all old films used to be played at a faster speed so that WWI looked like a Charlie Chaplin film. I remember my sister once asking my nan "in the olden days, did everyone walk like that?" Sister Hestia also thought the world itself was in black and white in those same olden days...
Back on topic: I wonder how they would look colourised and would it be heresy to do so? Would it make the stories more accessible? The colour stills from Aztecs, for example, look amazing. Is the current expectation of realistic effects as standard insurmountable when the inevitable time comes that "The Web Planet" is the only one that you have yet to watch?
Daveyboy: I'd deleted Vicki, but she does remind me of the typically over-worked character for children's television that we still see. Right from her first appearance: you evil witch, you killed my pet and only friend! Oh, alright then, never mind... (paraphrased, of course).
B&W deserves to remain as it is/was/whatever!
I remember getting a DVD set of Laurel & Hardy, with the option of watching it in colour. I chose B&W without a second thought!
It's quite interesting to see some clips on youtube where it's been done with Sixties Who out of curiosity, but yeah, heresy, blasphemy, messing around with the original makers intentions and artistic choices....Um, No.
Bit pretentious there, but you might've guessed it's a negative from me too. ;-)
Pretentious, MOI ? I agree all the way Michael-Eve old boy!! Got it in one!
Colourising classic movies that were made in black and white is bad enough, and they were at least made with cinematic production values.
You could colourise them and remix the sound to 5.1 surround, but those early Doctor Who episodes will still be of their era, 1960s studio-bound television.
They are still classics of television as it was then, and should remain so.
Hartnell is a fabulous man, and he was clearly devoted to the show. If only he could see the legacy he has helped to create!
Hey daveyboy, we made it to a second page!