I'll cop to that 100% but I've never been quite able to shake the feeling I mentioned. Maybe it's all in my head, Lord knows I have a lot rattling around up there...
Eccleston turned down chance to be in 50th Anniversary story
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
I'll cop to that 100% but I've never been quite able to shake the feeling I mentioned. Maybe it's all in my head, Lord knows I have a lot rattling around up there...
He's not the one who keeps bringing it up, though!
No. Everyone keeps ASKING him about his old girlfriend. I bet you could engage in a conversation with Eccelston and if you didn't ask, he probably wouldn't bring up Who at all.
I'm sure he wrote the message to the BFI out of his own free will.
I'm sure he did. And there he was, giving something to the fans that he didn't have to do. He doesn't hate the DW fans, but he had a bad experience with the producers and the BBC, and doesn't really want to get pulled back into the world. But something that was specifically honoring his time as the Doctor? Yeah, he turned out for that. But because he wanted to, not because he owed us anything.
He's not being petty or vindictive or hateful towards Doctor Who. Not doing the BFI would have been petty.
He didn't. He recorded a message in which he said (I paraphrase): "You'd have liked to see me in the 50th anniversary special? Sorry, see you in 2063! Oh and I should probably mention that one guy I worked with on Doctor Who that I liked"
He can do and say whatever he wants and I don't feel that he owes us anything, but yes, I think that as talented as he is, he's a passive agressive jerk.
^He has nothing against the show though, but some of the people who make it.
Yeah, it absolutely amazes me that people have such frustration with Eccleston, but seem to have NO frustration with the the people in charge who are being jerks enough to make Eccleston NOT want to return.
They should have courted him. yes, he's a deeper more intense actor who takes things a bit more seriously than others. Some actors are like that, not just Eccleston. Some of the best, in fact.
You go after them. You treat them right, and try to meet them on THEIR terms so that they WANT to work with you.
You don't mistreat them, or dismiss them, or offer them fleeting ultimatums. You court them, you woo them, you wow them.
Reading between the lines, it sounds more like the folks in charge never really gave a damn about him, created a venomous atmosphere, and did very little to give him reason to come back.
Be mad at the people in charge, not the actor.
Supposedly, his problem was with some production people when he was on DW. I believe almost all of the production team has turned over, at least once. He also stated his favorite episodes were Moffatt penned. He also supposedly met with Moffatt recently to discuss the 50th but declined. So using the "problem with someone in production" is now an invalid defense.
Why is it an invalid defense? By your own admission, he took the meeting, he gave it a shot, and for whatever reason, whatever bothered either hasn't changed or the part didn't appeal to him.
You might have a point if he hadn't even been willing to take the meeting. We still don't know exactly what the problem was. he hasn't pointed at someone in Production and blamed them. He has complained about the Politics of the show generally and the ass kissing at parties. It could have nothing to do with a specific person, it could simply be "the faces on the lunchboxes" which he has a great distaste for that kind of Celebrityism, and has even been quoted as saying he didn't want his face on a lunchbox, he considers that nothing more than prostitution of the art of acting. You keep assigning habits of "Famous Popstars" for him to emulate, and he wants nothing to do with that end of acting, he just wants to do the best performance he can in his art, and move on to the next role and give that his all. It's art and a job to him, he's not interested in the trips down the red carpet and the other trappings of being a Celebrity
Well the event, where he sent the letter was about the time he was on the show.
Whether to appear in the episode or not, is a separate matter.
Seems like he didn't like what he heard was planned for the episode, unless he went there just to get some spoilers.
At the very least, he must have been very naive to play an iconic family/children's-orientated role like The Doctor and not think about things like having his face on merchandise. There have been DW toys for as long as I remember.
Some crossed wires here, I think-- it was Benedict Cumberbatch who said that he wouldn't want to play the Doctor because of the "face on a lunchbox" effect. And he was making a general comment about the amount of attention and publicity given the actor in the role, not complaining about the mere existence of merchandise.
Ah, yea, you're right, my mistake. However, Eccelston does seem to ascribe to the same resistance of "prostituting" his work like that.
You realize, of course, that since Eccleston DID take the meeting with Moffat, that he was most certainly told what the episode was about and maybe even shown a few pages of script.
He's an authentic, true guy.
Maybe he turned it down because it looked terrible, or because he felt all this "The Doctor is really an evil monster!" crap was...well, crap.
For people who ARE NOT excited about the 50th based upon hints at plot, Eccleston turning down the 50th is very likely good validation that it is a terrible, hurtful story. More Moffat crap.
Also, Moffat seemed very impatient and irritated with Eccleston, and I totally believe that Eccleston showed up, and Moffat treated him like crap, and Eccleston said screw it.
He's an authentic, true guy.
Maybe he turned it down because it looked terrible, or because he felt all this "The Doctor is really an evil monster!" crap was...well, crap.
For people who ARE NOT excited about the 50th based upon hints at plot, Eccleston turning down the 50th is very likely good validation that it is a terrible, hurtful story. More Moffat crap.
Also, Moffat seemed very impatient and irritated with Eccleston, and I totally believe that Eccleston showed up, and Moffat treated him like crap, and Eccleston said screw it.
And is this based on any evidence whatsoever? Looks like its not just the anti-Eccleston camp who are reading what they want into events we can only guess about...
I don't know that that was ever an issue with Eccleston.
It was certainly an issue with Benedict Cumberbatch, as he cited that as a reason for not taking the role after Tennant's departure.
^Yes, Brendan Moody has corrected that. I didn't actually introduce the merchandise point though, I simply made that remark in response to Sindatur's reference to lunchboxes (which he's admitted was crossed wires in his part).
How on Earth would you know this? Perhaps that's what he projects, and it may actually be true, but none of us here know Eccleston.
Unless you're being super literally and just saying that, yes, he's truly a guy!
Mr Awe
I think a lot of people have ascribed similar motives to Eccleston, in the period when he refused to say anything and all anyone could do was make wild guesses (or accept ignorance, but when has fandom ever done that?). But I don't know that he's ever suggested he felt a mainstream, highly visible role was inherently undesirable. He takes on material that interests him, or that pays the bills so he can do the stuff that interests him.
On the subject of the anniversary special, I don't think he was ever likely to appear in it, given that a nostalgic event episode in which he's one of three lead actors is unlikely to offer much if any new and interesting dramatic material. His turning it down (if he did; I'd remind people that the original article behind this thread, despite misleading wording, cites an unnamed BBC source rather than an official spokesman) probably isn't a comment on the plot.
On the subject of the anniversary special, I don't think he was ever likely to appear in it, given that a nostalgic event episode in which he's one of three lead actors is unlikely to offer much if any new and interesting dramatic material. His turning it down (if he did; I'd remind people that the original article behind this thread, despite misleading wording, cites an unnamed BBC source rather than an official spokesman) probably isn't a comment on the plot.