|
|
Post by berry on Oct 2, 2006 1:44:27 GMT -5
The Sci-Fi channel started showing the 2nd season in the US over the weekend and showed the first 2 episodes. I thought the Christmas Invasion one was better than the second episode, but in both I missed Eccleston. I guess my opinion can be specifically summed up with the following actions/statements:
1) I recorded onto DVDs the 1st season
2) I will probably watch the 2nd season but expect to record none of the episodes
3) IMO, Tennant is pretty blah and the shows better be darn well-written because his acting (or should I say lack thereof) isn't going to carry the show at all
4) I watched The Doctor Dances from Season 1, and I can not even dream of Tennant pulling a performance off like Eccleston did in that one (exemplified by the part where Eccleston talks about "Rose, everybody lives....just this once, everybody lives!")
5) Eccleston put a combination of goofiness, concern, great deliver of humorous lines, etc. into his portrayal...after 2 episodes, I see nothing of that from Tennant
I do agree with many who have said Rose's family has been way overplayed...not only that, but how many times are the same characters going to show up....Harriet Jones for example who added little to the first season's show and certainly carried that bad tradition into the second season's show
Bottom line is I would rate Eccleston's portrayal as an A+ and Tennant's as a C- .... not even close IMO!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Thinker on Oct 2, 2006 10:01:29 GMT -5
Each incarnation of the Doctor is different. I quite like Tennant's portrayal of the character and believe me, give it time. Never judge a book by the first 2 chapters. You'll find many the differences between the two Doctors to be deliberate.  |
|
jove
Brigadier
Posts: 106
|
Post by jove on Oct 2, 2006 13:06:19 GMT -5
I prefer Eccleston too, but I have heard the second season gets better, perhaps Tennant's performance will as well. It is only fair to reserve judgement, (though before I even saw Tennant's Doctor in action, I thought I would prefer Eccleston).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dalek on Oct 3, 2006 13:30:37 GMT -5
I like them both the same Tennet may not be darker but he's good at his Doctor just like Eccleston was good at being his doctor a darker one.
|
|
|
|
Post by berry on Oct 24, 2006 18:09:52 GMT -5
I have now watched the 4 or 5 episodes that Sci-Fi in the US has shown. I am convinced now more than ever that Tennant is around a C- doctor while Eccleston was around an A+. I still imagine some of the more important scenes being acted by Eccleston and how he would probably come across in them. Tennant gives a rather poor performance, and his most noticeable "acting" is giving the old googly eyes (wide open with white showing all around).
Having said that, I think the writing has been outstanding which is the main reason I'm still watching. They seem to have gone with more different writers which seems to give each show a different slant or tone. Also, the one good thing about IMO the poor performances by Tennant is that the guest stars come across as stronger characters. I thought Eccleston really dominated the shows so much that the guest stars didn't seem to make their parts in the show that important.
Anyway in summary IMO, the content of the shows in Season 2 is at least as good as Season 1, but the loss of Eccleston and the addition of Tennant really brings the quality of the acting down. I will say that when Billie Piper leaves (about a C+ on my scale), an addiiton of a better "companion" might help the show.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eryx on Oct 25, 2006 7:09:04 GMT -5
IMO Eccleston has more charisma which shows through on screen. Tennant doesn't have that but he does have a force of personality that carries him very well.
I quite enjoy Tennant's Doctor.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Thinker on Oct 25, 2006 9:53:24 GMT -5
I have now watched the 4 or 5 episodes that Sci-Fi in the US has shown. I am convinced now more than ever that Tennant is around a C- doctor while Eccleston was around an A+. I still imagine some of the more important scenes being acted by Eccleston and how he would probably come across in them. Tennant gives a rather poor performance, and his most noticeable "acting" is giving the old googly eyes (wide open with white showing all around). Having said that, I think the writing has been outstanding which is the main reason I'm still watching. They seem to have gone with more different writers which seems to give each show a different slant or tone. Also, the one good thing about IMO the poor performances by Tennant is that the guest stars come across as stronger characters. I thought Eccleston really dominated the shows so much that the guest stars didn't seem to make their parts in the show that important. Anyway in summary IMO, the content of the shows in Season 2 is at least as good as Season 1, but the loss of Eccleston and the addition of Tennant really brings the quality of the acting down. I will say that when Billie Piper leaves (about a C+ on my scale), an addiiton of a better "companion" might help the show. Personally I'd watch the whole season, or at least half (around 7 episodes), before making any rushed judgments.  |
|
|
|
Post by doctornk9 on Jan 26, 2007 22:21:48 GMT -5
At the end of parting of the ways i thought it would be impossible to replace eccleston i almost didnt want to give the regenerated doctor a chance as eccleston was fantastic to coin a phrase and obviously he was the start of the comeback for a new generation of DW viewers so he was dear to some peoples heart,i thought he brought over the darkness of the lone time traveler cut by the time war and the death of all his people,also he was bakeresk with that eccentricity,but tennant has come in beautifully hes come to terms with the loss of his people more now and hes almost reinvented his self with a fast pace youthfulness and charisma!!
Ecclestons boot were hard to fill but tennant is doing a magnificent job and bringing alot of his own ideas to the show!
|
|
|
|
Post by davisonera on Feb 14, 2007 6:13:56 GMT -5
David Tennant is a Doctor Who
Chris Eccleston was a good actor but not a Doctor Who
|
|
|
|
Post by Nytik on Feb 14, 2007 10:33:14 GMT -5
I prefer David overall. I only saw a small number of Chris' ones when they came out, four or five. With David, I looked forward to each one and so remember they were on, unlike series one. Although I prefer David, it may be because his storylines were better; in Series One, the team were just starting out, and did some experimenting. Series Two corrected a lot of Series 1's mistakes, which made it more enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
Post by cindylouwho on Sept 21, 2007 10:08:59 GMT -5
Although I have yet to see all of the Tennant episodes (yes, yes, you guys are all very far ahead of me on the viewing, I must have been in hibernation), so far I prefer Eccleston's version of the doctor. I just think the acting was better. I found Tennant to be a good-looking, flashy, high-paced, action-oriented doctor versus Eccleston which I found to be more grounded, heartfelt, and intense while still conveying the critical nature of the climaxes in the storyline. The character that Eccleston portrayed came through to me as a more realistic personna. It just rang true. However perhaps I will warm up to the seemingly colder, less emoted Tennant as time progresses.
Maybe I just have a problem with producers always feeling like they need to throw the audience the beautiful people in order to maintain interest. I think it also strikes me as contrary to the character of the doctor for him to have a pretty face at all, and maybe that's a change I need to grow accustomed to in order to better appreciate this portrayal. Perhaps I will find that despite the pretty face there's some actual substance there, but so far, I'm with you Berry.
|
|
