I was reading some handbooks today and it got me thinking as always does when I start a thread, about which of Hartnell and Troughton should we really be grateful to the most, for the show still being here today.

Hartnell for creating this superb character and setting the template for all other Doctors to follow, or Troughton, for taking over the role and being the first 'New Doctor' and making it easier and more acceptable for there to be New Doctors for all the actors who followed.

Though I admire Hartnell enormously, I'm leaning towards Troughton. The show could easily have finished when Hartnell left but had it not been for Troughton, maybe we wouldn't still have a show today.

So what do you all think? One or the other, perhaps you think both should take equal credit or neither of them should and another Doctor should take some credit as well. No right or wrong answers on this one, it's just about opinion.

Oh, and it isn't about who your favourite Doctor is, though some will see it as that, just your opinion on the topic!

Interesting question, but difficult to answer. In my mind both of them deserve credit, and so does probably every other actor who was brave enough to take on the role and running thus the risk to be compared unfavourably to his predecessor. From this point of view, I would also say that people Christopher Eccleston deserves a lot of credit, because he was willing to be the first one to brave the role again (yes I know Paul McGann was as well). Hmmm... I will think some more.

Like i say, sis, there's really no right or wrong answer, it's just opinion, so don't stretch those grey cells too much!!!! Yes, every Doctor could take credit in one way or the other, but most of them have one or both of the two to be grateful for nonetheless.

A tough one! I first saw Doctor Who (aged about 4) - and it was William Hartnell. He WAS the Doctor in my eyes. But when Pat came on the scene shortly after I was STILL hooked on it.
In my opinion, I think Pat Troughton deserves the honour for keeping it going. If he had failed, I think the series would have just been dropped and the idea of 'rejuvenation' (as it was called then) would have been scrapped too.
I agree with Lach as well, regarding Chris Ecclestone - he's done the same for Nu-Who.

Equally grateful to both

Hartnell for ushering in the show and Troughton for taking up the baton so well

i think without either we wouldn't be watching this show today...so they both deserve credit in their own acheivements.......

Hartnell. I prefer Troughton's Doctor personally (just) but if Hartnell hadn't made the show such a success, it wouldn't have lasted until 1966.

They were both excellent. I prefered Pat. He is so endearing.

This is a difficult one, but one I can get my head round (unlike the cracks thread, which I have carefully read, yet am still no wiser re series 5).

I have said before that I remember the 1st regeneration (I know it wasn't called that then), and how I was fascinated and delighted by Troughton. He is my 2nd favourite Doctor, still. There's no doubt that he maintained the fan base and probably increased it? (Don't know about viewing figures). And his success at taking over made it easier for subsequent actors to take on the role.

But would we have cared if we hadn't already been hooked by Hartnell's Doctor? I personally think not, and so I think that Hartnell must take most of the credit.

I agree with lach about Eccleston. I know I've said I didn't like series 1, and Chris was my least favourite Doctor, but that was for a number of reasons, and I would never denigrate Eccleston as an actor - he's top class - and he was very brave to take the role on, and he did make it very successful and introduce DW to a whole new generation, so good for him, especially as the movie with McGann wasn't well received, I believe, so it was quite a risk.

(Must add, I personally liked the film and loved McGann)

OP, this was a really great question and my brain is buzzing, so thanks!

Heart vs Brain time.

My brain tells me that I really am pleased that PT took up the mantle so well, but I never really took to him as much as Bill. But then, Pat was so much better than Jon P. Tom Baker was the real ressurectionist for me and he took WHO back to the heights that BIll had reached. SO Brain says PT, Heart says WH.

On the NuWHO track, wow, CE was absolutely up there and utterly brilliant. TO be honest he was, for me, too hard an act to follow and I never really took to DT, (Oh, I enjoyed the DT years, 'but...' ), but now we have MS who had excelled beyond expectations, and is (for me) doing a Tom Baker.

I guess I just love WHO overall, taking the down days with the up. I mean, for example, I hated the Sally Sparrow episode when I first saw it, I didn't like the fact that there was so little of the Doctor in it, now, I view it as a masterpiece. But that is OT and as I tend to ramble on.........

Not quite truye, despite some opinions in fandom. The movie wasn't well received in America, mostly because a) the majority of the population hadn't a clue what they were looking at and b) it ended up airing in direct competition to a key episode of Roseanne, at the time one of the country's top rated shows. In Britain McGann went down very well, and over nine million people watched it, not spectacular ratings perhaps in 1996, but still far higher than the old show had achieved a lot of the time, and probably high enough to justify a series if it had been a purely BBC production. Unfortunately, it wasn't, and the low ratings in the States killed any chance of that while the rights issue with Fox/Universal meant the BBC could do nothing with it for several years afterward.

I was unsure of the facts, which is why I said "I believe".

I know it had highish ratings, and it was the American market which killed it, but didn't it get poor reviews here anyway?

Hartnell wrote the book and made it brilliant.

Troughton rewrote it and made it immortal.

Eccleston did the same thing, many many many years later, and made it... christ, I don't know what comes after immortal. A fixed point in time and space?

I agree with the thread title.

WHO should take more credit!!!!!

Mixed, but I think more people enjoyed it than not-most of the negative reviews were from the fan community, predictably enough....

How exactly do you make a non-living thing immortal? They must have been good!

Well, a non living thing is not mortal to begin with so I guess it could be immortal by default.

Bill !

Dr Who was his swansong, he took pains to get the character right, and always considered children who would be watching. He could be opinionated with other actors ...........

I understand he took a lot of trouble doing personal appearances as Dr Who, and always signed autographs etc.

He would have been Dr Who longer, except for failing health.

I should have thought of that when I thought the title! Niice one!


Why thanks, I try my best and if meant it got you thinking, even better!


I can't give CE as much credit as he maybe due as he buggered off after one series, quitting after one episode was transmitted. I think he used the show as a short term thing to boost his career, I think he should have stayed longer to cement his status as one of the more better Doctor's(Though I'm not a fan anyway)

Out of the two it has to be Patrick troughton. For two reasons. Firstly if he had not got it rght the programme would have ended with him, he had the job of taking over a character someone else had played but also making it a new interpretation. Secondly and more importantly; of all the doctors that have followed the first two, the only one to bare any similarity to Hartnell is arguably Colin Baker who was not very successful as the Doctor, however Troughton's influence is still felt particular in Matt Smith's Doctor. Could anyone imagine a doctor to be anything like Hartnell's every again (Old and Grumpy)?

However saying that I think Jon Pertwee deserves the most credit, and he is also the most overlooked. During the classic series the programme came close to being cancelled 3 times. 1969 with a drop in ratings, 1985 with the hiatus and obviously 1989 when it was finally cancelled. Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy failed to turn the show around (though arguably scheduling and stories did not help). However Pertwee took on a programme which was fundamentally changing. Earth bound stories, more grown-up, no longer running all year round and coming into colour for the first time. And the show became a roaring success leading into the heydays of Tom Baker. If it was not for Pertwee and UNIT the programme could very much have ended in the early 1970s, Tom Baker would never have taken over the role and the show would not have been the huge success which arguably meant that even though it was cancelled in 1989, it would always refuse never to die

I try to be fair to CE, even though he's my least favourite Doctor. I think it was a risk for him to take on the role, as he had no idea that the show was going to be such a success. If it had flopped, it wouldn't have done his career much good.

I think it was a shame that he left so soon, though that's his decision, of course, but on the other hand I'm glad, because we then got lovely Doctor 10.

I think that is quite unfair, considering that he was a well respected actor, who was more well known than Doctor Who was at that time...for example I watched Rose because of him...he gave a show that had become a joke, credibility. The idea that if Chris is wanting to do it, then it has to be something specail....(which it was)....a man of his calibre doesn't need a carear boost....but he did boost the show itself.....

Both deserve credit, and I'd add that every actor to play the role has contributed something to the ongoing success of the series, including the two who fell foul of hostile and negative BBC management in the 1980s.

Wonderful chaps - all of them!

Are you serious? Doctor Who has been ingrained in the British public's consciousness since the sixties, images like the TARDIS and the Daleks and characters like K9 have been iconic for years; I doubt many people, even those who'd seen him in stuff like Cracker, had any idea who Eccleston was!

I was 8 when it started so remember the first episode clearly (and the fact they repeated it the following weekend). There was so much to get used to - that we take for granted now. Alien settings, new villains and monsters seen for the first time (still freak out at Cybermen), the TARDIS, time travel, companions leaving (Susan leaving made me sad) and new ones joining.
However when Patrick Troughton started his stint it was a nice shock. At the end of Hartnell's final episode during the regeneration I didn't quite take it all in - I was more fascinated by the trailer after the credits for a new series coming called Star Trek.
When Patrick T started I then realised what had happened and was totally immersed in the new Doctor and his quirky traits. I accepted the fact that he could change and got on with it.
Going through the years I never thought - will this show continue/end. I watched but was not fanatical about it so when it re-appeared year after year I was happy.
I saw my first colour episode while on a weekend with parents at the seaside (colour tv was too expensive to have at home in 1970) in a hotel's communal TV room (ahh things have changed there lol).
After that I was overseas for most of Baker's era so missed a lot. I can vividly remember getting a VHS tape off-air of the Twin Dilemna in the diplomatic bag - and having a champage evening to celebrate Colin Baker's changeover.
I was at the Civil Service College on a residential course when Sly started (and getting very drunk to celebrate).... So lots of memories there.
But back to the question - loved Hartnell - he was the original and paved the way but Troughton turned it around (less grumpy and more accessable) and continued with a "new" way of looking at the Doctor. For me 45% Hartnell and 55% Troughton....
Now will I be there when the first 3D epsiode is made.....