When the 1st Doctor Who was Replaced?

[The Bat]

A question for all you Dr.Who Fans out there...how did you feel when the replaced the 1st Dr.Who? Where you OUTRAGED? Did you swear you wouldn't watch the show anymore? Or have some of the replacements over the years become your new favorite Doctor?

Even though Dr.Who has obviously never reached the Iconic level of Star Trek...I can't deny that it certianly has it's Fanbase. And the replacement of it's lead Star hasn't stopped the show from continuing all these years.

Opinions?

[Mikey]

The first Doctor was replaced in 1966

I was 1 year old at the time.

I took it very hard --- I cried and even pooped in my pants (several times thoughout that year)

[clemso]

Is this a trick question to show our age?
I was too young to remember how I felt when William Hartnell was replaced by Patrick Troughton, but I do remember watching the original show on our then B&W tv. My memories are more ingrained in the Pertwee/Baker era. But the whole regeneration thing was easy to accept. If were talking later on, I was deeply disappointed when Eccleston left and was replaced by Tennant. I think Eccleston had the makings to be one of the great Doctors.

Clem

[Gorn Captain]

Even though Dr.Who has obviously never reached the Iconic level of Star Trek...I can't deny that it certianly has it's Fanbase.
Opinions?

You're obviously not British.....
If Brits had to choose between the Queen and Dr. Who, I think the answer would be simple....
And I'd feel the same way!

I think that establishing from very early on that regeneration was a integral part of Dr. Who, certainly helped any further changes in the lead actor (from Throughton on).

None of us are old enough to really have "experienced" Hartnell departure, so we'd have to ask fans who were born around 1955 or before that.

It's a unique feature, that's certain.
Maybe fans then were so surprised that something like that happened, that they just "went with the flow"?

[The Bat]

The first Doctor was replaced in 1966

I was 1 year old at the time.

I took it very hard --- I cried and even pooped in my pants (several times thoughout that year)

[spotter]

when Tom bakre became Peter Davison ( I saw logopolis around 83 in the states ) i was very angry ( we had not yet met Pertwee in Phila yet) so thinking "how could they do that?". I always resented peter's first season. but I grew to like him quite a bit thereafter. once I saw some Pertwee eps I was hooked and the concept no longer bothered me

I am actually a bigger Jon Pertwee fan than Tom fan now.

[YANOULI]

I'm sure people were probably a bit upset that the Doctor changed into a totally different person it was a pretty radical thing to do, to change the lead actor in a tv show yet keep him as the same character. I'm not sure it had ever been done before.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

I'd seen a mix of the first four guys, so the idea of him changing wasn't too much of a shock to me. It wasn't 'til near the end of the Tom Baker run that I started seeing them in order.

I didn't care so much for the Davison Doctor though. Too dry. Didn't mind Colin, and McCoy is still my favourite.

Don C.

[jwyblejr]

Never got into Doctor Who until I was a teenager in the 80s. Somehow or another I would miss episodes,so I never saw any of the regenerations. One moment,I'd see a Tom Baker episode,then a Peter Davison,then Colin Baker then Sylvester McCoy and I never really put much thought into it.

[JPkempo]

I'll assume your talking the relaunch of the show.
Didn't bother me that much only one season didn't get attached to that Dr.
The look (age) from one to the next wasn't that different.
If you go back to the old show the age of each actor had to be about the same from Baker on.
I think that is why this change is annoying the age that has worked well for so long than go much younger.
Is the new actor younger than the actress who played his daughter in the last season?

[Joe90]

No, there wasn't any outrage. The show hadn't been as deeply ingrained in the viewership psyche as Star Trek has become. After all, it was only on the fan radar for 3 years -- not 43... And it was a different time: we had already seen Cathy Bale replaced by Emma Peel on The Avengers, and Adam had already left The Ponderosa.

I suppose if William Hartnell had solely been associated with the Dr Who franchise for 43 years there would be some resistance to change. I enjoy Star Trek, TOS, but wouldn't consider myself anything more than a 1960's television fan. I found that the later incarnations of Star Trek were smug in their political correctness and too often fell back on the Malfunctioning Holo-Deck plot device to generate episodes. Bogus...

I will see Abrams Star Trek -- on DVD. I'll avoid the theatre not because I feel that he has desecrated the Holy of Holiest -- it's because I feel the Temporal Shift plot device is even lamer than the Malfunctioning Holo-Deck schtick.

[bobws]

I first saw 4 out of 6 episodes of a tom baker story and then somehow later found the show on pbs. somewhere from that and through reading somewhere else i found out that changing the lead actor was something the show did so i just accepted it. but they're wonderful chaps... all of them.

[jds1911a1]

Even though Dr.Who has obviously never reached the Iconic level of Star Trek...I can't deny that it certianly has it's Fanbase. And the replacement of it's lead Star hasn't stopped the show from continuing all these years.

Opinions?

1st - whether or not Doctor Who is as iconic as star trek - in the US no , worldwide yes it is as iconic as star trek (on a much lower budget I might add). It continued boradcast through the decades of ST drought in the 70's

As a yank I never saw the show till the 80's but for some historical perspective .
in England not every household even had a TV in 66 (Sylvester Mccoy said he never saw a Hartnell episode as his family didn't get a tele till 67)
The replacement of Hartnell occurred in 1966 in the 3rd year of the show. where are this new trek is coming after 40 years of the same cast making it a much tougher pill to swallow.
The viewership of the show was sollid for a saturday afternoon kids show but kids are more forgiving of changes (I think the constant rollover of companions helped ease the transition too)
The fact that they announced hartnell's retirement was due to his ill health (as easily noted by older fans who caught him messing up his lines so often in the end) probably helped
The transition was explained away in a way to allow Troughton (and all successive Doctors) to make the role their own. New trek is stuck to modelling the characters as evolved by Shatner, Nimy and co.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

>worldwide yes it is as iconic as star trek

It's always surprising to me when I hear about shows from other countries. It SHOULDN'T be, but egocentrism being what it is.... Doctor Who, Ultraman throughout Asia, Perry Rhodan throughout Europe.... all were kinda second string shows here; but have insanely huge followings, histories, stories, merchandaising....

And yet; only one crappy Perry Rhodan movie.

>kids are more forgiving of changes

I think most people used to be; prior to the establishing of an "educated" fan base. Nowadays it seems like folks complain over the damndest things.... little things that don't really matter so much. But I think that's 'cos we're spoiled. Most of our shows today are processed, focus grouped and blogged into perfectly pandering pablum. We're very seldom confronted with ANYTHING that might make us feel bad.

Don C.

[Mikey]

I totally agree

The same can be said for MANY rock bands and actors.

Most American's think if they're not popular here they're not really that popular - which is so untrue.

American's have a bad habit of thinking the whole world looks to them as the centre of everything.

The United States plays a big game, but it's not the only game in town.