I think The Family of Blood provides the best example of how badass the Doctor can be. He'll try to avoid confrontations if he can, not because he can't fight but because he doesn't want to. But if you provoke him enough he'll make you regret it.
By contrast, Smith's "there's one thing you don't ever, ever put in a trap..." sounds like rather callow bravado.
By contrast, Smith's "there's one thing you don't ever, ever put in a trap..." sounds like rather callow bravado.
I don't think we can really judge that until we see what context it occurs in.
I'm in the camp that found Tennant's "dark side" about as threatening as a four-year-old throwing a shouty tantrum. He could certainly yell a lot. But, not once did I feel "Ooh, he's dangerous". I felt like he was The Doctor, trapped in a very, very non-threatening body. Thus, he talked a big talk. But, in the end, he was one of the 'weakest' incarnations. Meanwhile, Eccleston could rip the skin off your balls with a stare.
I'm in the camp that found Tennant's "dark side" about as threatening as a four-year-old throwing a shouty tantrum.
I generally agree with your take on things, The. I do here, it's just for me, because I was expecting dark from 9, and brooding and something black and barely contained that somehow when 10 turned it seemed somehow darker. I think because it was kind of out of character for his Doctor, or against type, in a way. The dark side of 10, coming out of that skinny body and clownish face somehow had more shock value. It made me think, "so really you're that kind of man."Holy crap, when he had that moment with the Dalek, I nearly spit out my drink. Number Nine was the dangerous, lonely survivor. Number Ten was the egomaniac with a god-complex.
But was Nine really that dark and dangerous?
Yeah he was in the Dalek's face spitting and snarling...after he realised it was impotent of course. His first reaction upon seeing it was to run for his life, to batter on the door and beg to get out. Now to be honest that isn't a bad reaction (I imagine I'd do something similar) but it's quite cowardly,
but then in Parting of the Ways this is the character who says "Coward, every time."
Frankly that makes him more interesting that the golden boy 10 in my opinion, but I don't doubt that 10 was the more dangerous of the two. Drowning the Racnoss, his punishment to the family of blood. His little people comment in Waters of Mars, and the fact that you can see his mind working near the end of TEOT2, I don't think he was that far away from letting Wilf die to be honest.
Starkers, your points are fair and I did consider the evidence beforehand. I think, for me, there's this notion from Season One that he's the man that destroyed Gallifrey. He wiped out his own race, almost the Daleks, and when the clone/metacrisis Doctor wiped out the Daleks, he was most definitely supposed to represent the 9th incarnation.
The Doctor was throwing a temper tantrum because he'd thought he had managed to avoid his death, and then realized it was coming anyway. But as angry as he was at how unfair it was that he'd still be called upon to give his "life," I don't think he ever really had any intention of allowing Wilfred to die.
I totally agree with you here, The. Well said.I hear all the arguments, and I see the point of view about Tennant's dark-side, as how WillsBabe explains it. But, I think it's just David Tennant's performance for me. I just didn't believe it. As some have mentioned, Family of Blood is the closest I can see his Doctor being a threat of some kind. And only then that it reminded me wholly of the 7th Doctor. Nothing wrong with that, as Eccleston gets his gruff and darkness from Docs 1 & 6. Still, Tennant's darkness never felt valid for me. Again, shouty child. Doesn't mean I don't like his Doctor. But, everytime he tried to act "tough" I cringed. But, hey, that's just me.
Eccleston gets his gruff and darkness from Docs 1 & 6.
I hear all the arguments, and I see the point of view about Tennant's dark-side, as how WillsBabe explains it. But, I think it's just David Tennant's performance for me. I just didn't believe it. As some have mentioned, Family of Blood is the closest I can see his Doctor being a threat of some kind. And only then that it reminded me wholly of the 7th Doctor. Nothing wrong with that, as Eccleston gets his gruff and darkness from Docs 1 & 6. Still, Tennant's darkness never felt valid for me. Again, shouty child. Doesn't mean I don't like his Doctor. But, everytime he tried to act "tough" I cringed. But, hey, that's just me.
Starkers, your points are fair and I did consider the evidence beforehand. I think, for me, there's this notion from Season One that he's the man that destroyed Gallifrey. He wiped out his own race, almost the Daleks, and when the clone/metacrisis Doctor wiped out the Daleks, he was most definitely supposed to represent the 9th incarnation. The damaged one. The one who had committed wholesale genocide at least twice. I think that notion of Nine is what drives home the "toughness" of his Doctor, the threat of the Oncoming Storm.
But hey, again, just my own musings...![]()
I totally agree with you here, The. Well said.I hear all the arguments, and I see the point of view about Tennant's dark-side, as how WillsBabe explains it. But, I think it's just David Tennant's performance for me. I just didn't believe it. As some have mentioned, Family of Blood is the closest I can see his Doctor being a threat of some kind. And only then that it reminded me wholly of the 7th Doctor. Nothing wrong with that, as Eccleston gets his gruff and darkness from Docs 1 & 6. Still, Tennant's darkness never felt valid for me. Again, shouty child. Doesn't mean I don't like his Doctor. But, everytime he tried to act "tough" I cringed. But, hey, that's just me.
Matt Smith totally blew me away with his performance. When he said to the aliens at the end "Basically, run", the threat could be seen in his (gorgeous) eyes, if that makes any sense. The same goes with Eccleston - whatever emotion he was acting was reflected in his eyes. I never saw that with Tennant. I thought he was brilliant with the lighter comedic stuff, but I never could believe he was someone to run from.
By contrast, Smith's "there's one thing you don't ever, ever put in a trap..." sounds like rather callow bravado.
I always thought it was a crying shame that they couldn't have had Christopher Eccleston come back to play the Metacrisis!Doctor.
Amongst other things, I think it would have made the goodbye scene with Rose work a lot better; as it stands, it doesn't quite register as the Doctor both getting and not getting Rose, because 10.2 is just too much like Ten. But if it were almost literally the Tenth Doctor losing Rose to the Ninth Doctor, I think that would have simultaneously given Nine/Rose a happy ending and yet preserved the sense of loss and isolation for the Tenth Doctor.
And, of course, it would be a chance for RTD to truly say goodbye to all of his characters.
Eccleston gets his gruff and darkness from Docs 1 & 6.
I think his "gruff and darkness" comes more from competent writing and acting, two things that Docs 1 & 6 never benefited from.
Well, yeah Kelso. That's stunningly obvious.
Well, yeah Kelso. That's stunningly obvious.
I would have hoped so.
RTD's Time War back-story provided more than enough motivation for the Doctor's emotional state. Trying to link it back to the quirks of old timey Doctors, from which Eccleston's portrayal of the Doctor was completely divorced, is unnecessary.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.