|
tsmith120 said:
If by 'better', you mean 'more dramatic' or 'epic', then definitely no. Much as I thought it was very touching, it really didn't help fans come to terms with the fact that not only were we getting a new Doctor, but we were also getting a new head of the series - and said head of the series seemed to go out of their way to avoid any connection to the previous series for no adequately explained reason. 'I don't want to go' - really? Much as it was a sad moment, The Doctor's regeneration is not meant to be something over dramatized. It's a big thing in his life and for the fans, for sure, but personally I thought Eccleston's was much better because it showed him being regretful, but trying to cope with it. It was emotional, but downplayed far more than Tennant's, who caused the TARDIS to explode. Despite the fact that he has regenerated in that same machine on numerous occasions.
I'm sure there are many reasons for the differences, but I don't think it needed to be overplayed any more than it was. It would feel too much like pandering to Tennant fans, who feel he was the greatest Doctor of all time and can never be replaced.
|
|