Each of The Doctor's have been able to have their characters summarised, as each has had their own unique interpretations of The Doctor.



The First Doctor - The irrascible and cantankerous school teacher

The Second Doctor - The cosmic clown

The Thrird Doctor - The dandy and man of action

The Fourth Doctor - The bohemian

The Fifth Doctor - Vulnerable and dashing

The Sixth Doctor - Over the top and egotistical

The Seventh Doctor - The dark and mysterious clown

The Eight Doctor - The George Lazenby of Dr Who

The Ninth Doctor - Angry and attitude - filled



..........now how do we summarise the 10th Doctor's character.



He's eccentric. He's amusing. He has moral fibre. He also has a dark side - and he knows how to use a sword!

.............so how can his interpretation be summarised?

I've just been on The Eye of Horus website and they describe the Tenth Doctor as a "jovial, witty, honest and determined man".



Is this a fairly accurate description/summary?

Jimmy date=05/08/2006 12:32 : ..........now how do we summarise the 10th Doctor's character. He's eccentric. He's amusing. He has moral fibre. He also has a dark side - and he knows how to use a sword! .............so how can his interpretation be summarised?

Rather simple isn't it, he's Darth Vader

Darth Vader without asthma.

Ross says "Bob Monkhouse".

Maybe the 10th Doctor is Batman... dark, eccentric, amusing, raising morale, role model... though I am not sure I've seen Batman use a sword....

Or maybe just Casanova in the Tardis??? :-P



How about 'Heroic yet vunerable'????

he could be from blackpool drinking from the goblet of fire.

or he could simply be waking up the asylum

Well, I think I'll go with Sneb's summary.

Except, what is it exactly about the Tenth Doctor that makes him 'vulnerable'?

This is a very relevant question cos to my mind the

8th doctor is Chris Eccleston. That means Tennant is the ninth Doctor.

Before anyone wants to dispute this cast your minds back to 1960 something when Peter Cushing played the Doctor in the feature film.

So,... If  McGann qualifies as Dr Who then so should Cushing. Which then answers the question!

Eccleston, by this reckoning would be the tenth Doctor.

      Is this right or What  ?    ?

There's a very good reason not to count Cushing; the movies were remakes of Hartnell stories. McGann's claim is pretty strong considering we saw McCoy regenerate into him; something McCoy didn't even get!



A better controversy is the one over Richard E. Grant, who the BBC annointed as the official ninth Doctor less than two years before deciding the real ninth one was Eccleston!

There never was a regeneration scene from McGann to the Eccelston doctor.



Wouldn't it be interesting if it was discovered that the Eccelston dr was the first Doctor of a new regenerational cycle?



There is no evidence of the Eccelston doctor actually being the regeneration after the McGann one.

I like your thinking axel

Okay,so,... Dr Cushing is actually Dr Hartnell (#1).

I can accept that. It must then logically follow that Dr Eccleston is actually Dr McGann (#8) since, as was noted, there was no portrayal of either death or regeneration. See the pattern? Movie Doctors are the same doctor as their series` counterpart.



By the way, though I thought the Dr McGann movie was a flop along with Dr McCoys` series ( he`s a Time Lord damnit!! not a ships` surgeon, ) I actually felt that Sylvester McCoy came across as interesting in the movie. But of course he wasn`t a Hollywood sort of Doctor Who, was he? Any one agree?

This is the biggest problem with the Dr who Universe. where does Cushing actually fit in? he could be the 1st or any doctor up to Hartnell, or he could be the Doctor between McGann and Eccleston, or a futre Doctor. We just don't know.



Or He could be the Doctor from a parallel universe.

Well we could either ignore him, as the writers,producers and even the BBC have done or we can accept him in either one of two forms. A seperate Doctor from an alternate reality as suggested or as a proxy for Dr Hartnell. The problem with the former suggestion though is that, during Dr Tennants visit to a parallel London he makes no mention of his own visit to a parallel universe, though he did say it happened all the time before the Time Lords were exterminated.

However, somebody may have information to prove me wrong on this.

Either way I would suggest that my first idea of Dr Cushing stepping in for Hartnell and Dr Ecclestone stepping in for McGann would square the circle best.

    But then, I would, wouldn`t I.

Ignoring him would be fair--he totally ignored the role in his autobiography!

Tetchy aren`t we.

Do you think for a minute that someone who has had such a wide ranging career would mention a fifth rate film. If, perhaps, he`d wanted to spin his memoirs to six volumes then he may have found room to slip it in.

Sorry, enjoyable though it undoubtedly is, Doctor Who isn`t the highlight of everyone`s life.

WOW, I missed a big chunk of the pie here :-O But to Jimmy's question. What makes him vulnerable, I think we see this in the last episode and it was very pronounced.



This Doctor seems to 'wear his heart on his sleeve' if this is the correct way of saying it?



He seemed to fall head over hells for Madame P. quickly and the Reunion with Sarah Jane Smith seemed to cause some emotions resurface that we are not used to seeing the Doctor visualise.



It wouldn't surprise me to if he breaks down and cries somewhere in this season.



Not that he is a sissy, more of a Sensitive New Age Guy.



That's what I mean by vulnerable