I am finding myself liking Matt Smith FAR more than I expected (I was grumpy when I saw the casting) and I do really really like his portrayal, even though overall I've found this series a bit blah.
I really think I should trust the producers more - when they cast Tennant I hated the idea (I hated Casanova with a passion) but he was really good.
Peter Davison is ALWAYS going to be My Doctor, but I'm finding myself putting Matt Smith right up there with him, very near the top. My list would go:
Five
Eleven
Ten
Four
Six (mainly for the audios, to be honest)
One
Two
Nine
Seven
Eight
No, but it always strikes me as odd and faintly irritating when people fail to even acknowledge that there have been more than three.
Yes because sayin' 9, 10 & 11 fails to acknowledge there has been an 1 - 8 when even in the program there is never spoken about the doctor's persona's in terms of numbers
Pertwee tops my list and, well I just don't know about the others. Colin Baker was vastly underrated and enjoyed watching him (even if his episodes were not so enjoyable) so he can come 2nd. After that no particular order.
My favourite old Who was Patrick Troughton followed by Tom Baker. Wasn't so keen on Jon Pertwee of William Hartnell though I watched it from the very first episode when I was a child.
Never watched Peter Davidson onwards up until New Who so can't comment except to say didn't like the look of Sylvester McCoy or Colin Baker (didn't like the outfits darlings) which is a bit shallow but there you go.
The first Doctor I remember is Tom Baker and, as far as the original series goes, I stopped watching about when Sylvestor McCoy took on the role. So, of the few I watched back then I preferred John Pertwee, followed very closely by Tom Baker, and Peter Davison was OK. As far as new who goes, Matt Smith is by far my favourite, followed by Chris Eccleston, with David Tennant lagging significantly behind in last place.
Of the three Doctors since the show came back five years ago, Matt is my favourite. He is just as eccentric as David Tennant, but without some of the overacting. Great as Chris's Doctor was, I never felt we got to know him properly.
But of them all, you can't beat William Hartnell (IMO) - he was everything The Doctor should be, rolled into one.
1)Tennant-the best and handsomest
2)Baker-Tom was myfirst and suited the role the best
3)Pertwee-had something
4)Eccleston-funny
5)Smith-is good but needs a further cooking
6)Davison-less confident than smith
7)Troughton-quite fun
8)C Baker-ok off and on
9)Mcoy-funny
10)Mcgann-good if he was given time
11)hartnell-yuck ax
I find it utterly extraordinary that there are people (like myself!) who are prepared to say that Matt Smith is at least as good, if not better, than almost any other actor who has come before him, especially given that Matt Smith was only 27 when cast, almost completely unknown, and that he had to follow on from someone whom, for many, was regarded as one of the best of all. I think it puts into perspective Matt Smith's achievement, helped a lot by Stephen Moffat. It was a casting triumph!
Of the new ones, I'm really warming to Matt Smith, he may be better than David Tennant, but I'm not sure yet.
Tom Baker was definitely MY Doctor as is still the best as far as I'm concerned.
I also like Jon Pertwee and Sylvester McCoy (although I really don't know why )
At the bottom of my list is Colin Baker, I used to think it was the actor's fault, but having seen him elsewhere since, it was actually terrible writing
I've not seen majority of Classic!Who, I've only really seen the Tom Baker/Davison/McCoy years of it. With that in mind;
Smith/Tennant <-- can't make up my mind who's my favourite between them, DT always felt like 'My Doctor' despite CE being the first I saw, but Matt is more 'The Doctor' for me..:p:/
T. Baker
Eccleston
Davison
McCoy
So yeah, Matt's possibly my favourite ever.. now, can I get him to become my GP? HAHA
That's a little harsh on the actors, both of whom were pretty good. OK, they had some dodgy scripts to work with, but that wasn't their fault.
I think you have already chastised me once for my views on McCoy. Perhaps I did overstate it in the other thread but it is hard to forgive somebody who put you off one of your favourite programmes. I know there seems to be a consensus on here that the scripts should be blamed but he did seem to think that the Doctor was just a collection of randomly chosen eccentricities.
As for the fllm. I didnt like McGann before it and I liked him even less after it. Whereas McCoy tried too hard, he didnt seem to be trying at all.
I think you have already chastised me once for my views on McCoy. Perhaps I did overstate it in the other thread but it is hard to forgive somebody who put you off one of your favourite programmes. I know there seems to be a consensus on here that the scripts should be blamed but he did seem to think that the Doctor was just a collection of randomly chosen eccentricities.
As for the fllm. I didnt like McGann before it and I liked him even less after it. Whereas McCoy tried too hard, he didnt seem to be trying at all.
Well, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. But I think you're in the minority, particularly with regard to McGann. Both he and McCoy have been brilliant in the audio adventures so I'm still convinced it was purely the writing that let them down.
No, but it always strikes me as odd and faintly irritating when people fail to even acknowledge that there have been more than three.
I understand that people might have just come to Dr Who with New Who, but I kind of agree with this. The previous doctors are important and we have seen a lot of references to them particularly in this series.
I think you have already chastised me once for my views on McCoy. Perhaps I did overstate it in the other thread but it is hard to forgive somebody who put you off one of your favourite programmes. I know there seems to be a consensus on here that the scripts should be blamed but he did seem to think that the Doctor was just a collection of randomly chosen eccentricities.
As for the fllm. I didnt like McGann before it and I liked him even less after it. Whereas McCoy tried too hard, he didnt seem to be trying at all.
I would disagree with that, but of course it's your opinion and you are entitled to it. McCoy specifically was lumbered with crap scripts and a BBC agenda that wanted to get rid of Dr Who. I think the opening of the McGann film showed how good he could have been, had he had the opportunity. However, I'm biased, without SM's doctor I would not be watching Dr Who.
Well, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. But I think you're in the minority, particularly with regard to McGann. Both he and McCoy have been brilliant in the audio adventures so I'm still convinced it was purely the writing that let them down.
As mentioned above, I agree with this. When the writing was good (in the series), SM was brilliant.
I understand that people might have just come to Dr Who with New Who, but I kind of agree with this. The previous doctors are important and we have seen a lot of references to them particularly in this series.
Yes. Just saying 'I can't judge the previous Doctors as I haven't seen enough of them' is fine (though sad), but to not acknowledge their existence at all just irks me.
I loved SM, and particularly towards the end the stories got better.
Agree. His last series was one of the strongest in the whole 26 year run. I even liked Battlefield. It's just a shame he had such an awful first year, in particular.
I think in part it's the writing, because SM does I think have a slightly different vision of the Doctor than RTD did. I think he see's The Doctor as being one man with ten different faces, all of whom had aspects of personality that were unique to them, i think RTD did see them as more seperate identities. So based on that I think there is an element where hints of prior docs are written in to the part.
The single thing I love the most about Matt's Doctor is the way that he conveys such a natural and raw sense of tenderness in certain scenes - for example the way he asks Vincent if it;s "too much" in the museum, or when comforting the dying monster in the same episode.
As far as the writers go, I would agree with you. going by interviews, and the fact that a lot of series 1 was written before Matt was even cast shows that he was going for a generic Doctor based on all litlle bits and bobs from the past Doctors....and RTD did write with Chris and DT very much in his mind and to their abilities. However I have to say that apart from Chris, the other two have also channelled the Doctors of the past themselves too...Matt's love for Troughton is very obvious in his approach, and DT's love for Tom and Peter is very obvious from his style....so even if for DT, the part was mostly written for Ten, he definitely tried to bring in the past Doctors himself....while Matt has the writing and acting too...
I can now understand why Moffat was not afraid to say to the media, before a single episode had aired, that he thought Matt was the best Doctor ever. Moff never seemed foolish enough to raise expectations unrealistically.
I never doubted Moff choice form the start.....I remember the uproar of the fact that Matt was so young, and people dismissing it as Moff wanting to attract the hollyoaks audience....which is odd statement to make considering that Moff wanted an older actor, and the fact he settled for someone so much younger than he had hoped, well it was obviuos Matt did something magical in auditions to get Moff to change his mind.....
Comments
it isn't a prerequisite that everyone has to to be able to list all the Doctors, to be fair.
No, but it always strikes me as odd and faintly irritating when people fail to even acknowledge that there have been more than three.
I really think I should trust the producers more - when they cast Tennant I hated the idea (I hated Casanova with a passion) but he was really good.
Peter Davison is ALWAYS going to be My Doctor, but I'm finding myself putting Matt Smith right up there with him, very near the top. My list would go:
Five
Eleven
Ten
Four
Six (mainly for the audios, to be honest)
One
Two
Nine
Seven
Eight
Three
It isn't? Dang!
I'm going to have to change my job interview questions a bit :mad:
Yes because sayin' 9, 10 & 11 fails to acknowledge there has been an 1 - 8 when even in the program there is never spoken about the doctor's persona's in terms of numbers
Not everyone has watched each Doctor in action so putting them in order wouldn't exactly be fair.
Eleven
Ten
Nine
Eight
Seven
Six
Five
Four
Three
Two
One
There you go, then!
Whatever job seems instantaneously more interesting if you get such a job interview question
Matt Smith
Chris Eccleston
My favourite old Who was Patrick Troughton followed by Tom Baker. Wasn't so keen on Jon Pertwee of William Hartnell though I watched it from the very first episode when I was a child.
Never watched Peter Davidson onwards up until New Who so can't comment except to say didn't like the look of Sylvester McCoy or Colin Baker (didn't like the outfits darlings) which is a bit shallow but there you go.
I'm aware that there have been more but have never seen the older episodes. Therefore I can't judge the other incarnations of the Doctor.
Three (what a surprise the two I grew up with)
Eleven
Two
Ten
Six
One (although to be fair I think I have only seen him once on video)
Nine
Five
I try to pretend seven and eight never happened.
But of them all, you can't beat William Hartnell (IMO) - he was everything The Doctor should be, rolled into one.
1)Tennant-the best and handsomest
2)Baker-Tom was myfirst and suited the role the best
3)Pertwee-had something
4)Eccleston-funny
5)Smith-is good but needs a further cooking
6)Davison-less confident than smith
7)Troughton-quite fun
8)C Baker-ok off and on
9)Mcoy-funny
10)Mcgann-good if he was given time
11)hartnell-yuck ax
That's a little harsh on the actors, both of whom were pretty good. OK, they had some dodgy scripts to work with, but that wasn't their fault.
Tom Baker was definitely MY Doctor as is still the best as far as I'm concerned.
I also like Jon Pertwee and Sylvester McCoy (although I really don't know why
At the bottom of my list is Colin Baker, I used to think it was the actor's fault, but having seen him elsewhere since, it was actually terrible writing
Smith/Tennant <-- can't make up my mind who's my favourite between them, DT always felt like 'My Doctor' despite CE being the first I saw, but Matt is more 'The Doctor' for me..:p:/
T. Baker
Eccleston
Davison
McCoy
So yeah, Matt's possibly my favourite ever.. now, can I get him to become my GP?
I think you have already chastised me once for my views on McCoy. Perhaps I did overstate it in the other thread but it is hard to forgive somebody who put you off one of your favourite programmes. I know there seems to be a consensus on here that the scripts should be blamed but he did seem to think that the Doctor was just a collection of randomly chosen eccentricities.
As for the fllm. I didnt like McGann before it and I liked him even less after it. Whereas McCoy tried too hard, he didnt seem to be trying at all.
Well, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. But I think you're in the minority, particularly with regard to McGann. Both he and McCoy have been brilliant in the audio adventures so I'm still convinced it was purely the writing that let them down.
Yes.
I understand that people might have just come to Dr Who with New Who, but I kind of agree with this. The previous doctors are important and we have seen a lot of references to them particularly in this series.
Yes I agree, I loved SM, and particularly towards the end the stories got better.
I would disagree with that, but of course it's your opinion and you are entitled to it. McCoy specifically was lumbered with crap scripts and a BBC agenda that wanted to get rid of Dr Who. I think the opening of the McGann film showed how good he could have been, had he had the opportunity. However, I'm biased, without SM's doctor I would not be watching Dr Who.
As mentioned above, I agree with this. When the writing was good (in the series), SM was brilliant.
Agree. His last series was one of the strongest in the whole 26 year run. I even liked Battlefield. It's just a shame he had such an awful first year, in particular.
As far as the writers go, I would agree with you. going by interviews, and the fact that a lot of series 1 was written before Matt was even cast shows that he was going for a generic Doctor based on all litlle bits and bobs from the past Doctors....and RTD did write with Chris and DT very much in his mind and to their abilities. However I have to say that apart from Chris, the other two have also channelled the Doctors of the past themselves too...Matt's love for Troughton is very obvious in his approach, and DT's love for Tom and Peter is very obvious from his style....so even if for DT, the part was mostly written for Ten, he definitely tried to bring in the past Doctors himself....while Matt has the writing and acting too...
I never doubted Moff choice form the start.....I remember the uproar of the fact that Matt was so young, and people dismissing it as Moff wanting to attract the hollyoaks audience....which is odd statement to make considering that Moff wanted an older actor, and the fact he settled for someone so much younger than he had hoped, well it was obviuos Matt did something magical in auditions to get Moff to change his mind.....