Christopher Eccleston: "Sack RTD, Tranter, Collinson and Gardner, and I’ll come back to Doctor Who"
Christopher Eccleston: "Sack RTD, Tranter, Collinson and Gardner, and I’ll come back to Doctor Who"
I guess he got tired of the same question asked over and over again? 🤣
Since it's unlikely the BBC will be sacking the show runner and exec producer, nor severing ties with Bad Wolf, Eccleston's ninth Doctor is indefinitely benched...
Update:
@thisisdee@lemmy.world supplied a link to a recording of the panel, and Eccleston provides a few more details, transcribed below. Just a few minutes in, Eccleston reminisces about looking out for Piper, this being her first big acting gig:
CE: This was pre MeToo, it was pre BlackLivesMatter, it was pre all this mental awareness stuff, wasn't it?
BP: Yeah. […] It was more lawless.
CE: It was lawless, as we found out subsequently.
On the shooting experience of one episode:
CE: We were filming an episode, and because the director was atrocious we ran three hours late. You know, the crew were not happy, we weren't happy.
He says he and Piper were late for the read-through of Dalek because of this, so if anyone is privy to the production schedule they can probably figure out if this is the same guy who was to blame for the exploding sofa...
On the circumstances of Eccleston's departure:
BP: I don't know if you remember this, but when you said you were going, I wanted to go as well.
CE: I didn't know that […] The whole thing was politically manipulated by others. It interfered with our relationship, but that's another story.
On what would be required for him returning to the character of the Doctor:
CE: (without hesitating) Sack Russell T Davies, sack Jane Tranter, sack Phil Collinson, sack Julie Gardner, and I'll come back. So can you arrange that?
Q: Did you find it hard to be associated with the character, given —?
CE: (breaks in) Not at all. I love being associated with the character, just don't like being associated with those people and the politics that went on in the first series. The first series was a mess, and it wasn't to do with me or Billie. It was to do with the people who were supposed to make it, and it was a mess. And the first series of any show […] First series, nobody wants to know. The BBC were like, "We're gonna keep a big distance from this". And then as soon as it was a success, they were all up close going, "I was responsible for that!" but they were all like... at a distance, like "This is a folly" — "Eccleston's folly", "Piper's folly", "Russell T Davies' folly" […] They wouldn't come anywhere near us, and then they'd jump on the bandwagon. Those kind of politics I'm not very good at handling. I can't swallow that shit.
When an audience member expresses hia sympathy at what Eccleston went through on the set:
CE: Listen, it wasn't like being down the pit. It's just politics! Everybody's got a job, you all work with people you don't like. Whether you're an actor, [in] a plastic moulding factory or... You know, a boozer. Listen — I was getting paid a lot of money. It's fine. (Laughs) Please don't feel sorry for me!
Whatever problems existed with some directors on the first series, it was definitely not the case with Joe Ahearne, whose work and aesthetic both Eccleston and Piper wax poetic about; Eccleston has continued working with him and they still have projects in development.
edit — removed the link to the second hand source which was, admittedly, a trash site.
Anyone got a link to the panel? This website is garbage and it'd be better to hear it from the original source
I agree. I've only heard about the panel through word of mouth, like apparently the reporter in the above link. This was the first direct quote I saw from it, however.
If anybody finds a more reliable source, feel free to add it!I added a YouTube video and some select transcription to the OP.I haven’t watched it but I believe it’s this https://youtu.be/uwdjVLqnv_k?si=w1-LQ-5o14dFeGQ6
Oh, that is salient! Adding the link and some transcripts to the OP. Thanks for the heads up!
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRcRSAJc/
I downloaded the clip too, will upload it somewhere other than TT shortly.
ETA this is just him saying his conditions to return. I have not seen the entire panel only snippets.
Obligatory note that not only is he happy to continue to be associated with the character, but has since joined the ranks of Doctor actors who have performed the character in more audio episodes for Big Finish than TV episodes on the BBC. It's nice to experience what he can do with good material, completely free of the crew and circumstances which soured his initial experience as the Doctor, and in his BF behind-the-scenes segments he seems genuinely enthusiastic about the scripts and production.
Absolutely this. In the panel and elsewhere he heaps praise on Big Finish and the quality of their writers' work. His problem is with the four he calls out here and, unfortunately for everybody who wants to see him back on screen as the Doctor, those exact people are back in charge of the show and don't seem to be going anywhere.
The ninth Doctor is probably going to be audio only for good but that ain't hay.
As someone who does not know the drama. Why would these people being sacked be a condition of his?
Neither side is particularly vocal about what happened, so we don't really know and the imagined drama is of course bigger than what may actually have happened.
We know for certain that Eccleston soured on the gig during the shooting of series 1 and didn't want to go on. Contrary to mutual agreements, the BBC announced his departure even before the second episode had aired, using a fabricated quote attributed to Eccleston.
He made the BBC retract the statement, but has since said the false statement hurt his job opportunities and that BBC blacklisted him. He has also said that he was quoted as saying that "he was tired" after one season, but this was not part of the official BBC announcement.
Now, rumours tell us a bit more about the pressure and conditions of making that series: apparently, the director of the first block of episodes (Rose, Aliens in London, and World war three) wasn't used to making scifi shows, and so made a lot of mistakes that wore down the crew and cast. I believe he is the one Eccleston calls "atrocious" in the linked panel and transcript:
By the first week, they were three weeks behind schedule. Lots of scenes had to be reshot by other directors at later dates. One special effects scene involving an explosion went terribly wrong and a sofa flying out a window almost hit a crew member. In the end that scene couldn't even be used.
Eccleston was 40 by this time, a seasoned professional, and a socially conscientious one too. According to the same rumours, he was furious with the conditions of the first block shoot and went to management — which would be Davies, Tranter, Collinson and Gardner, the same foursome that are running the show again now. Whatever he demanded of them, whatever their response was, we don't know for sure — but it appears that wass the straw that broke the camel's back for him.
As he says in the panel recording, there were genuine highlights later in the production but apparently they couldn't outweigh the damage that was done to his working relationship with the showrunner and producers.
Add to all the above that it has since come to light how John Barrowman made it a running joke to get naked on set and come up behind others to put his penis on them. Intended as pranks, sure, but it probably riled up an actor like Eccleston, who has gone on to deny working with "that prick" again.
More seriously Noel Clarke has been accused of sexual harrasment by a score of female crew and colleagues — actions that have taken place on productions such as Doctor who. I'm pretty sure that and Barrowman's non-consentual transgressions is what Eccleston refers to when he talks about "pre MeToo" lawlessness on the production.
All in all, it paints a rather dire picture of a production that wore out its cast and crew, occasionally had hazardous lack of safety on sets, there were not one but two male co-stars stepping over personal and professional boundaries — and when the lead addressed some or all of this to the management, it doesn't seem that anything was done about it.
Like I said, we don't know the full picture, so I've tried to separate fact from rumour as far as I'm able. I think you'll be able to find sources for most of the above. Certainly the Barrowman/Clarke misconduct and harassment accusations are recorded in the press, and seem credible to me.
[Edited to make clear that Barrowman being naked on and around co-workers is also a transgression]
Eccleston was 40 by this time, a seasoned professional, and a socially conscientious one too. According to the same rumours, he was furious with the conditions of the first block shoot and went to management — which would be Davies, Tranter, Collinson and Gardner, the same foursome that are running the show again now. Whatever he demanded of them, whatever their response was, we don’t know for sure — but it appears that wass the straw that broke the camel’s back for him.
As he says in the panel recording, there were genuine highlights later in the production but apparently they couldn’t outweigh the damage that was done to his working relationship with the showrunner and producers.
That's interesting. From this it sort of sounds like it's mutual bad blood between them, not just Eccleston. Regardless, it's a shame that all this happened. Though I don't judge him for being soured on the work environment, he really was great.
Add to all the above that it has since come to light how John Barrowman made it a running joke to get naked on set and come up behind others to put his penis on them. As a prank, sure, but it probably riled up an actor like Eccleston, who has gone on to deny working with “that prick” again.
More seriously Noel Clarke has been accused of sexual harrasment by a score of female crew and colleagues — actions that have taken place on productions such as Doctor who. I’m pretty sure that and Barrowman’s nude pranks is what Eccleston refers to when he talks about “pre MeToo” lawlessness on the production.
Big YIKES. I had no idea about all of that. And while John's "antics" are maybe not surprising, I do feel it's a discredit to everyone else to dismiss those actions as simple pranks. Sexual freedom is all well and good, but it still requires consent, which was clearly not given here. Without that, it's sexual harassment. Period.