Poll: Should Eccleston have been in The Day of The Doctor?

[Rob McCow]

Most of us should have seen the 50th Anniversary Special by now. There's been a lot of love for it and in my opinion it was just about perfect. Everything that they could have done well, they did. Just as it wouldn't have been possible to bring back Hartnell, Troughton and Pertwee, I don't think bringing back any of the older Doctors would have made much sense - except of course, in context, bringing back the one they did was rather wonderful! But to have had them all there throughout the adventure would have been an awful mess.



Which leads us on to Christopher Eccleston. I heard that they asked him to come back, but that he said no. Fair enough. It left us with Mr Regret and Mr Forget, Smith and Tennant, plus a new Doctor in the shape of John Hurt.

If Eccleston had decided to come back, we'd have been denied an extra Doctor, which I found pretty damn exciting. It made for a cracking cliffhanger at the end of The Name of The Doctor and it added the magnificent John Hurt to the canon of Doctors Who. Even with his guilt and angst, Eccleston felt too fresh-faced and energetic in Rose to have been the convincing, worn-down, battle-scared War Doctor.

So perhaps he could have appeared, like Smith and Tennant, as one of the 'Future' Doctors. This would have lead to four Doctors running around, causing mischief. In my view, the scenes with Tennant, Hurt and Smith were wonderful. Very nicely balanced. To have added the 9th Doctor in to this would have made a bit of a mess. What's more, the other two both know what happened to Rose, so they would have needed to deal with that as well. The back story would have become a bit too heavy.

In my opinion, things worked out for the best.

But what do you think?

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I agree - it would not have worked with 4 Doctors, and had we had Eccleston, we would have been denied John Hurt. And Hurt was just spectacular.

[Wayne]

This is perhaps not the place to discuss this, but I recently read this paragraph, which was part of a longer document on the Doctor Who Archive website.

http://doctorwhoarchive.com/2013/11/...of-doctor-who/

There were claims that Caroline (Skinner) and Steven (Moffat) were responsible for Christopher Eccleston not returning in Day, yet it seems the argument that led to her departure was promoted by her displeasure in Moffat’s refusal to compromise on assurances Eccleston wanted before he would agree to appear in the show.

I appreciate this is little more than gossip, but if there's any truth in it, then it seems that Eccleston was at least at the table, rather than just a flat out 'No'.

(If this post is not appropriate here, please feel free to remove it, or whatever)

Btw... I voted Yes, just because I liked Eccleston's Doctor, but I'd much rather have seen McGann in place of Hurt, tbh.

[Dino]

I voted no because... the story didn't really need him. I've still no idea who said what and how that happened over his planned appearance, but we've still got the first series to remember him by. And plus, I'd rather see him in something that celebrates the reboot becoming ten in a couple of years time. Not that there will be anything that celebrates the reboot etc!

[Andrew Curnow]

I'm assuming that if he'd been in it, Eccleston would have been the 'Time War' Doctor - from a character point of view, it would have been rather appropriate to round his time off with the reveal that he didn't do what he thought he had done. And as a fan, I'd have loved to see him back again, because against all my pre-2005 expectations I really enjoyed him as the Doctor.

On the other hand, we'd have been deprived of John Hurt's incarnation (not to mention the four or five months of feverish debate after the end of Name of the Doctor) and also all that dialogue about kissing & sonics wouldn't have worked.

So it would have been nice, but it didn't happen, so there we go.

[Nyder]

I voted YES. Although it would have been a tragedy not to have Hurt, a celebratory episode needed Doctor Nine there - I would have been fascinated to see his interactions between his future selves.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I voted yes just because it would have made it more of a "proper anniversary adventure", but really it would only have worked if he had filled the Hurt role. Another Doctor thrown in the mix would have been too jumbled.

But then I remembered how his comment about his ears in Rose were very clearly indicating that he'd only recently regenerated, so it wouldn't actually have made much sense. So I'd like to change it to a no please

[Dirk Gently]

But then I remembered how his comment about his ears in Rose were very clearly indicating that he'd only recently regenerated, so it wouldn't actually have made much sense.

I would have loved to have him back just one last time, but as ZH said he couldn't have been the War Doctor because of the start of Rose. So the whole episode would have had to be rewritten to accommodate him, much like 5 Doctors was.
That's not to say if he had been in it the episode would have been bad. I guess that's always going to be a personal thing whether you think 4 Doctors would have been too much or not. I would have loved to have all 4 of the new Doctors...But I really wanted the episode to have started with McGann regen'ing in to Hurt, but there we are.

[Jon Masters]

No - he should have been in the story we would have got for the 50th anniversary, had he chosen to appear in it. DotD just wouldn't work with him in as well, but we could have had a 3-4 Doctor story of some kind that he would have worked in.

[Perry Vale]

Many aspects of DotD felt, to me, like they'd been written for Eccleston. Reading other forums, some people suggest he had initially agreed to appear, and that Caroline Skinner's departure was something to do with Moffat refusing to give assurances to him that he wanted in condition for appearing. Although Skinner's departure seems to have been linked to everything but the war in Syria...

And wasn't Hurt hired only a week before it went into production, or very late in the day?

[Rob McCow]

Interesting spectrum of opinions here. I enjoyed Day of The Doctor way too much to consider changing it, although that shot of the three of them with their hands on the Moment would have been irresistible with Eccleston as well.

And wasn't Hurt hired only a week before it went into production, or very late in the day?

So how did they squeeze him into The Name of The Doctor then? Or would that have been Eccleston? It would have taken the sting out of the tail of that story.

I don't think it adds up, personally.

[MacNimon]

While I would have loved to have seen Eccleston in this, I think the story would have been structured slightly differently to accomodate him. I'm not quite so sure personally that the Hurt role was originally earmarked for Eccleston (or McGann for that matter) and that we would have seen Hurt anyway. I think Eccleston would have been used as a slightly more serious character trying to rein in the childishness/hyperactivity excesses of Tennant and Smith, rather like Hartnell running the show from the background in The Three Doctors.

I think Moffat would have had his plotline in place some considerable time ago, but the fine detail/interaction between characters etc would only have been worked out once he finally knew exactly who was on board. So I don't think it's just as simple as saying that Eccleston would have taken Hurt's place, and that Hurt wouldn't have appeared because of this...

But to answer the question, I'd say "Yes"...simply because it was the anniversary and I'd have loved to see him.

[Philipnet]

To have added the 9th Doctor in to this would have made a bit of a mess. What's more, the other two both know what happened to Rose, so they would have needed to deal with that as well.

I just want to nit-pick this statement

Rose could have been dealt with with one or two lines.
A simple "She left", because all companions leave (except Adric who died).
Or "Spoilers!" ( and a 'look' from 10th or 11th) which then could have turned into a joke as the 9th Doctor hadn't met River and so "Spoilers!" would have meant nothing to him.

Even Billie Piper as Bad Wolf could have made a comment or too to the War Doctor.

So shoe horning the 9th Doctor in and the fallout from Rose, can be dealt with

[Philipnet]

Which leads us on to Christopher Eccleston. I heard that they asked him to come back, but that he said no. Fair enough. It left us with Mr Regret and Mr Forget, Smith and Tennant, plus a new Doctor in the shape of John Hurt.

It would have made Eccleston Mr Regret or perhaps Mr Guilt - which doesn't rhyme with Forget/Regret, so perhaps Mr Wrecked ?

If Eccleston had decided to come back, we'd have been denied an extra Doctor, which I found pretty damn exciting. It made for a cracking cliffhanger at the end of The Name of The Doctor and it added the magnificent John Hurt to the canon of Doctors Who. Even with his guilt and angst, Eccleston felt too fresh-faced and energetic in Rose to have been the convincing, worn-down, battle-scared War Doctor.

To make the Time War play out, we need a Doctor just for it.
Remember, what he did, he did not do in the name of The Doctor.
In The Night of the Doctor we see the start of that - and a some point John Hurt should have regenerate into Christopher Eccleston.

[Perry Vale]

To make the Time War play out, we need a Doctor just for it.
Remember, what he did, he did not do in the name of The Doctor.

Well that's not true, for the previous 8 years of NuWho he had ended the Time War IN HIS NAME. The cliffhanger to 'Name' was a massive retcon.

[johnnybear]

Moffat wasn't bothered about Eccleston's refusal to appear as he created a new Doctor and then turned David Tennant's Doctor avoiding regeneration into two and then he got to be the 'writer' who addressed the thirteen lives rule and brought in the second cycle of lives gifted from the slumbering Time Lords on Gallifrey which was hidden away in a pocket dimension...apparently!
JB

[tony ingram]

Eccleston wasn't needed. I was quite happy with Hurt, and if we could have got any other older Doctor back, I'd have preferred McGann.

[johnnybear]

McGann should have been the Doctor who fought in the conflict. Not an unknown one that upset the continuity of the Doctor's many lives. But Moffhack didn't see him as the Doctor who had survived in the battles and won. He thought of him as more whimsical rather than as a time warrior dedicated to the destruction of the Daleks!
Moffat was clearly not a real fan of the series. He ridiculed the character's ability to regenerate. He couldn't write a decent second episode and went out of his way to alienate long time fans!
JB