Am I the only person in the world who hates the new series?

markw999

Seriously, am I?

Apart from the weeping angels two-parter, I haven't liked a single episode. I miss RTD, desperately, but lots of people prefer Moffat et al, and I know people who've only started watching it now because of the new series.

I find the direction of the show boring, the Pandorica theme a bit crap, the new Doctor alright, Amy annoying and, just, so disappointing. Anyone else?

ixoy

No, there's nobody else.

Curious: What in the name of Borus' belt was better about the Season 27-30 (the "RTD era")? The plot threads though-out the season were far less cohesive and the stories could be more ludicrous (and with farting aliens just more stupidly childish which is not the same as capturing the child-like sense of wonder that I think Moffat has).

Stark

markw999 wrote: »

Seriously, am I?

Yes

spooky donkey

well I do think the new season had a few dodfy monents, like the WW2 Daleks epp. But im liking Amy a lot, still not sure about the new DOC bring back David Tennant i say.

dancingmonkey08

I dont hate it like you do, but I will admit it has lost something. I still really enjoy it, but without David Tennant it has taken some getting used to. Matt is still great though, just not as good as David

I am also not impressed by the amount of Earth in this season. I know it is to do with the budget but after watching Firefly for the last week and seeing them go to tonnes of aliens worlds, I sorta want Doctor Who to go to a few more alien worlds.

I know some of you guys dont like Series 4 but at least half the season was on really cool alien worlds

Cavehill Red

I don't hate it. I'm just not watching it. I always said when they introduced a doctor who looked younger than I did, it was time to walk away, so I did.
Don't think I'm the only one either, tbh.
I'd have liked to see a female doctor this time, or maybe a black doctor.
A child doctor snapped my belief-suspenders, sadly.

qwertplaywert

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A child doctor snapped my belief-suspenders, sadly.

Sounds a bit over the top, hes young looking, but no younger looking than mid 20s!

ixoy

dancingmonkey08 wrote: »

I am also not impressed by the amount of Earth in this season. I know it is to do with the budget but after watching Firefly for the last week and seeing them go to tonnes of aliens worlds, I sorta want Doctor Who to go to a few more alien worlds.

It's always been that way since it came back - the majority have been on earth. I too would like to see more alien worlds but we only really saw them in the specials and not many other times. A shame but there ya go!

Raphael

ixoy wrote: »

It's always been that way since it came back - the majority have been on earth. I too would like to see more alien worlds but we only really saw them in the specials and not many other times. A shame but there ya go!

Hell, Season 1 never went beyond Earth Orbit.

pixelburp

Actually yes, I do understand why people would hate the new series: the RTD era was loud, bombastic, simplistic and juvenile. I don't want to sound like I'm trying to insult the OP or anyone who agrees with him, but the RTD era was not subtle or understated (or let you take a breath much), so it was easy TV just to go along with for the ride.

Moffat's tenure has been adult, better paced, subtler and it throttled back the melodrama & frankly pantomime plots. It's a show that doesn't feel the need to bombard the audience with lights and noise. So it's such a gear change it's not hard to see why some people don't like it.

As for the complaint about it being set on Earth - well uhh, so was the entirety of Series 1 and 2, bar one story in Series 2. So Series 5 had more offworld stuff with the Spaceship UK episode, The Weeping Angels and that brief trip to the forest-world in tonight's episode.

doctorwhogirl

I loved RTD's era. I did. Hand on heart.
It was a great era for Doctor Who and brought it back to it's rightful place at the top of the Beeb's saturday night billing.

But this series, it's just everything that's right with Who.

BlitzKrieg

Its different to the RTD era granted but I think the only major shift has been with the doctor himself.

Tennant really played up the *force of nature* element of the doctor and the stories naturally countered that, with a good chunk of them addressing the consequences of his choices and power (the time war relapses, torchwood, the return of the daleks (x3) the master are all consequences of him throwing around his power.)

Smith plays more towards the 'trickster' aspect of the doctor (hence the line about a trickster goblin in the latest episode struck me so obviously in the latest episode) so the episodes tend to have less of him putting his foot down and solving things (case in point the spaceship britain episode had amy disobeying him as the hungry earth essentially had him f*cking up completely). Really only the opening episode has a *doctor triumphant* moment every other one has had him bein limited by areas of grey.


I like both. Tennant makes the force of nature really enjoyable to watch and there is no doubt that episodes like the family of blood when this force of nature is shown uncontained it is exciting, charasmatic and very satisfying. Problem was if you keep pushing up and up and up letting him go more and more, there's a point when it just starts getting absurd which by the specials had become quite apparent, the last RTD episodes were plauged with OTT moments which had become cringeworthy at this stage and the extent the plot had to go to make it seem some what challanging just got stupid. RTD was bigger shinier and very bombastic...but it burns the material out far too quickly. The new series under Moffet can run alot longer without overdoing things.

iguana

pixelburp wrote: »

Moffat's tenure has been adult, better paced, subtler and it throttled back the melodrama & frankly pantomime plots. It's a show that doesn't feel the need to bombard the audience with lights and noise. So it's such a gear change it's not hard to see why some people don't like it.

Seriously???????? This series feels like it's aimed at idiots. They keep going back over the same bits over and over again, reminding us of what just happened ten minutes ago. I don't need a flash back in minute 38 of something that happened in minute 12, I don't have ADD.:mad: (I have a suspicion as to why it's happening but even if that's right it doesn't justify the way we are being slapped around the face with it.)

The last few series had few pretensions. Occasionally it was excellent, sometimes it was unbelievably crap but overall if I had to pick just one word to describe it, it would be fun. If I had to pick one word to describe this season it would be smug. Which would be fine if it had the goods to back it up but it's just not half as clever as it thinks it is.

Nevyn

Am I the only person in the world who hates the new series?

No your not and I can't stand dr frankenemofetus either.

pixelburp

iguana wrote: »

Seriously???????? This series feels like it's aimed at idiots. They keep going back over the same bits over and over again, reminding us of what just happened ten minutes ago. I don't need a flash back in minute 38 of something that happened in minute 12, I don't have ADD.:mad: (I have a suspicion as to why it's happening but even if that's right it doesn't justify the way we are being slapped around the face with it.)

The last few series had few pretensions. Occasionally it was excellent, sometimes it was unbelievably crap but overall if I had to pick just one word to describe it, it would be fun. If I had to pick one word to describe this season it would be smug. Which would be fine if it had the goods to back it up but it's just not half as clever as it thinks it is.

Yes seriously; flashbacks are a standard narrative device, and quite handy - not everyone watching the show are like us, posting discussion threads on each episode & dissecting it furiously! It's handy for the casual viewer to know where the plot / character links occurred & have nothing against it.

And I disagree, Series 5 is notable because it doesn't treat the viewers like idiots - specifically the children & the adults watching too. RTD's stories were written in that classic fashion of "oh, it's for children so don't worry if the plots utter gubbins, they won't care", and so you got ridiculously plotting, resolutions, science, dialogue - in fact just look at the climax of Tennant's era to see a perfect example of how little RTD thought of his audience.

iguana

pixelburp wrote: »

Yes seriously; flashbacks are a standard narrative device, and quite handy - not everyone watching the show are like us, posting discussion threads on each episode & dissecting it furiously! It's handy for the casual viewer to know where the plot / character links occurred & have nothing against it.

Yes, I've been watching tv for 3 decades I'm aware of what flashbacks are, how they work and what their purpose is. But I have never, ever experienced them in such insulting frequency, apart from when watching American network news. They show flashbacks of stuff that happened only a few minutes ago and has been discussed between the occurrence and the flashback. It's awful!

This series has been pretty poor, I'm utterly underwhelmed by it. Smith is so-so, Gillan is dreadful, the stories are flat and un-involving. I was often highly critical of a lot of RTD's work. The Rose love baffled me, I hated Martha and while I like Donna's character I despised Tate's portrayal. But it was still more enjoyable that this series. I just don't care about what is happening at all. This series feels like I'm watching a technical exercise rather than something I could ever care about. Most people I know in RL have said pretty much the same.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

Can I ask if the people who dislike the current serious, watched any Doctor Who prior to the 2005 revival?
Because this season has recaptured the essence of Doctor Who - something that had been lacking during the RTD era...
This season has been amazing - it had one disappointing episode early on with the introduction of the iDaleks, but apart from that it has been incredibly brilliant...
I've rewatched nearly all the episodes 3 or 4 times this season - something I wouldn't have been able to do with the majority of the RTD seasons...

doctorwhogirl

iguana wrote: »

I was often highly critical of a lot of RTD's work. The Rose love baffled me, I hated Martha and while I like Donna's character I despised Tate's portrayal. But it was still more enjoyable that this series. I just don't care about what is happening at all. This series feels like I'm watching a technical exercise rather than something I could ever care about. Most people I know in RL have said pretty much the same.

Sounds like you have as many bones to pick with the old series aswell as the new one!

Completely disagree that the series treats people like idiots. For me it's back to the Baker/Davison era. The language hasn't been dumbed down at all like it was from time to time in RTD's work. There's a lot more scientific babble, and I like it!

Also the stories are flat!?! There is huge depth to this series. I also feel this series is the most unified and cohesive one in many, many years. All the episodes work very well together. And while initially I thought that the whole crack in every episode thing was ridiculous I now appreciate all the work and thought that went into it and it really works at making the whole series one great unit of work.

ixoy

CaptainNegative wrote: »

Can I ask if the people who dislike the current serious, watched any Doctor Who prior to the 2005 revival?
Because this season has recaptured the essence of Doctor Who - something that had been lacking during the RTD era...

Couldn't agree more! I watched Doctor Who up until its cancellation in '89, and then tried to catch repeats where I could (thank you Super Channel and BBC Gold!)
I liked when the show came back but only now has it truly felt like the show I remembered. A lot of that is down to Smith's slightly neurotic uncertain Doctor (recalling the previous Doctors rather than DT's or CE's). It's also though down to the tone of the show - this season has had a slight touch of more horror than before, echoing some of the older Pertwee stories or Tom Baker's era coupled with some of the more thoughtful aspect of Peter Davison's.

I really would be interested though if there's anyone who watched the show prior to RTD's revival who prefers RTD's take on it over Moffat's?

mr.spids

yes you are the only 1, your special

markw999 wrote: »

Seriously, am I?

Apart from the weeping angels two-parter, I haven't liked a single episode. I miss RTD, desperately, but lots of people prefer Moffat et al, and I know people who've only started watching it now because of the new series.

I find the direction of the show boring, the Pandorica theme a bit crap, the new Doctor alright, Amy annoying and, just, so disappointing. Anyone else?

Doctor DooM

Again not wanting to sound superior, but it's amazing how the the vast majority of people who were posting here alot during the RTD era all seem to love the new series, whereas the people who are complaining are all relatively new.

Where were you when it was the series you loved so?

norrie rugger

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Again not wanting to sound superior, but it's amazing how the the vast majority of people who were posting here alot during the RTD era all seem to love the new series, whereas the people who are complaining are all relatively new.

Where were you when it was the series you loved so?

I am relatively new but love the new series:P

Doctor DooM

norrie rugger wrote: »

I am relatively new but love the new series:P

I am not saying all the new people are complaining about this series, just an observation that all the people who were here posting regularly since I started here seem to enjoy this series much more than the last.

I only started watching from this series and I love it...I don't know what it was like beforehand, and I do plan on catching up on some of the previous series over the summer, but I don't really get all the complaints I guess! I think it's very clever, and the acting is class.

Wibbs

ixoy wrote: »

I really would be interested though if there's anyone who watched the show prior to RTD's revival who prefers RTD's take on it over Moffat's?

Yep I have. Since the latter end of Pertwee's tenure, up to Davison.

TBH I dunno why RTD gets so much static. I mean without the chap its very unlikely we'd be even having new stuff to look at. I certainly know why people get irritated with the RTD finales(and some of his OTT quirks) . They were usually a bit daft, but the new doctor franchise is mostly his baby. He had a large hand in production design and direction of the show. He even balanced out and added to the companion relationship in a way the old Who never could.

Moffat is the more considered writer alright, though I dont think he's as good with relationships. He's more a technical writer. Brilliantly so in the case of something like Blink.

This series and new doctor kinda reminds me of my take on the change from Baker to Davison. The scripts got tighter after some low points towards the end of Bakers tenure, the budget went up and the FX techniques got better. But all too often I was watching and wondering what Baker would have done with a particular script. I'm getting a similar vibe at the mo.

Smith has handled it better than I expected, but I'm still seeing the "acting" more than with the previous encumbents. People accuse Tennant of nervous tics, but smith's performance is all too often one big tic. The previous weeks outing a good example. Tricksy, jaded and OTT scenes pushing his non humanity down the audience throat. IMHO he doesnt have the gravitas by comparison. If Ecclestone, Tennant, Baker, even Davison made a weighted statement they had the force behind it. They also did the "alien, but looks human" thing far better. Like I said IMHO Smith doesnt have that charisma. He varies so I think it may be a direction issue. Tennant is by far the better actor in general in the roles he has taken(including a bloody good hamlet). Ecclestone is another bloody good actor and of the three the most measured Doctor in my humble. Basically I watch smith and I think of my Davison time(though I rate the latter more).

I'd be interested to see the MS ratings in comparison to the DT era.

Pittens

This whole thread is kinda weird, tbh.

I started watching the revival in series 3. Loved it. Went back to Eccelstone. Loved it.
Disliked very few episodes ( but did dislike some, particular the finales - the penultimate episodes were always great).

Moved onto this series. Was prepared to dislike it. Loved it even more. It's clearly great. The new revival is great in total.

Smith is great. the dislike of Amy is absurd. She's great. I dont get it.

It must be that some people had so much in their favourite Doctor that they are not prepared to give this series a chance. The series has gotten better as it went on ( and the first episode was pretty good) and that seems to be dogmatism. Very few commentators on this forum, with some exceptions, who started off disliking Smith have come to like Smith. They took agin him, and have continued to do so.

The opposite reaction is from the anti-RTD guys, who now, even though they have watched the entire revival have decided to hate the entire opus of RTD. Absurd.

This series feels like I'm watching a technical exercise rather than something I could ever care about. Most people I know in RL have said pretty much the same

I could link to the Guardian comments pages on the latest episode ifI could be assed . The 300 comments are universally in awe.

Wibbs

Maybe MS/Moffat combo tends to appeal more to the hard core fanbois. The more general audience would tend towards DT/RTD?

Daemos

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe MS/Moffat combo tends to appeal more to the hard core fanbois. The more general audience would tend towards DT/RTD?

Depends on your definition of "hard core fanbois", tbh

I only started watching Dr Who in the past few years, a friend of mine showed me a few episodes and I was hooked. Now I was a big fan of the RTD era, and Tennant was my first doctor. And although I still love the majority of episodes in the RTD era, I think that this series has been the best so far, without doubt.

The episodes have been more consistently good, and the major story arc has been complicated enough to keep us guessing, without leaving us frustrated.

iguana

Pittens wrote: »

the dislike of Amy is absurd. She's great. I dont get it.

The fact that Gillan's acting is terrible and Amy is a fantastically annoying person.

Pittens wrote: »

It must be that some people had so much in their favourite Doctor that they are not prepared to give this series a chance.

Why would you assume that when people have given their actual reasons for not liking the new series? Smith's fine, he's nothing special but he isn't awful. His reaction to the Daleks in the Churchill episode was piss-poor compared to Eccleston's in Dalek, he's fine, I accept him as the Doctor but he doesn't wow me. He was actually very good last night as he was being imprisoned, he fear at what was about to happen was very good. I think Smith's youth worked for him as he had a desperation and terror which came in part from how young he actually is. Tennant never particularly wowed me at any point either.

Pittens wrote: »

I could link to the Guardian comments pages on the latest episode ifI could be assed . The 300 comments are universally in awe.

We all know that lots of people love the series the internet is full of them. But most people I know in RL are as unimpressed as I am.

CaptainNegative wrote:

Can I ask if the people who dislike the current serious, watched any Doctor Who prior to the 2005 revival?
Because this season has recaptured the essence of Doctor Who - something that had been lacking during the RTD era...

I was never a huge fan, I watched some of it but it never really did it for me. I also have a very early memory of watching an episode where a regeneration happened when I was a toddler and it really creeped me out, not in a hide behind the couch way, but in a skin-crawling, desire to vomit way. Baker to Davison I think it was, just really put me off the show. I would probably have not watched at all if my husband hadn't always been such a massive fan. And he's pretty underwhelmed by this series. Two of my friends are also long-term fans and they say at this point they are watching it out a sort of sense of obligation and aren't really enjoying it at all.

Pittens

We all know that lots of people love the series the internet is full of them. But most people I know in RL are as unimpressed as I am.

i mentioned the comments section of the guardian for a reason. The section is a general talk blog - a live blog - on whatever big event is on TV at the time. TV fans, but not necessarily Dr. Who fans. Also they exist in RL. So this is a statistic, not an anecdote.

no idea why Amy is disliked, or why the acting is considered bad. I think she is interesting and acts very well. I have theories however, and it is related to the sex of the people who dislike her, but in that case I cant point to the exact statistics.

Doctor DooM

Look, I have and will continue to defend some of RTD's work on Who and I will forever be thankful for the effort he put in to get my beloved childhood program back.

But the average quality of this series is simply way above that of the last 4. I can't see it any other way, this is the truth of it in my admittedly completely unimportant opinion. I can't see whats so wrong with any of it, especially in comparison to RTD.

iguana

Pittens wrote: »

I have theories however, and it is related to the sex of the people who dislike her, but in that case I cant point to the exact statistics.

You have a lot of unsubstantiated theories don't you? My husband doesn't like her neither do my two male friends. Was that your theory? That 75% of people who don't like her are male?

She's an awful actor, I don't know if it's Gillan or the direction but she constantly does this weird thing where she has her shoulders slumped, hangs her hair in her face and looks up through it in a way that I think is meant to be cute but makes her look mentally challenged. And she makes this annoying 'durrrrrrr' sound all the time.

ixoy

iguana wrote: »

She's an awful actor, I don't know if it's Gillan or the direction but she constantly does this weird thing where she has her shoulders slumped, hangs her hair in her face and looks up through it in a way that I think is meant to be cute but makes her look mentally challenged. And she makes this annoying 'durrrrrrr' sound all the time.

Which companion do you think was a good actor? Of the new series, I think Tate's probably the best as an actor (much to my surprise). I don't rate Martha too much.
Of the original series, they were generally poor up until the later Pertwee era when we got the wonderful Sladen as Sarah-Jane Smith. Even after that though the acting could be sketchy.

iguana

ixoy wrote: »

Which companion do you think was a good actor? Of the new series, I think Tate's probably the best as an actor (much to my surprise). I don't rate Martha too much.

Wilf.

And not a companion but Sally Sparrow.

Doctor DooM

iguana wrote: »

Wilf.

And not a companion but Sally Sparrow.

It'd be pretty easy to argue neither of them really count as companions.

Wibbs

DaPoolRulz wrote: »

Depends on your definition of "hard core fanbois", tbh

Oh I dont mean it in a pejorative sense. I mean not the casual TV watcher. In this case I agree with most here that moffats writing is very much better. The conjecture on various things so far in the series and what they might turn out to be is there because moffat is sooo good at that stuff. The other time machine may not have been explained much as it is important or maybe its a red herring etc. He is brilliant at weaving myriad story threads into a whole. I think IMH anyway he's less good with character reationships.

On the Amy front, I find her OK as a sidekick. Acting wise she's a bit similar to smith in that there's not a lot of subtlety IMHO. I'd agree with ixoy as far as Tate was concerned. She defo surprised and impressed me. She had a very good range going on. Well in scenes with a scene stealer and seriously good actor like bernard cribbens she held her own. As did Tennant. I think Smith would struggle. I know I may not be popular for this but I found Piper pretty good at times too. *runs*

If gun to my head someone asked me to cast a Dr Who movie? If it was actually taken from the point of a serious sci fi flick with a script aimed more at adults, Id have ecclestone as the Dr, with tate as his assistant. For more mainstream I'd have Tennant again with Tate. It would want to be a big gun to my head to cast Smith TBH(Of the original guys at their peak Baker or Davison, sladen as the assistant).

iguana

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It'd be pretty easy to argue neither of them really count as companions.

Bernard Cribbins was the titled companion in the Xmas and NY specials.

pixelburp

iguana wrote: »

Yes, I've been watching tv for 3 decades I'm aware of what flashbacks are, how they work and what their purpose is. But I have never, ever experienced them in such insulting frequency, apart from when watching American network news. They show flashbacks of stuff that happened only a few minutes ago and has been discussed between the occurrence and the flashback. It's awful!

It's not an original narrative device, but I don't agree in the slightest that it treats the audience as idiots. I don't accept that assertion considering how not so long ago we had ressurection potions, the Doctor surviving a paradive from midair and ... ugh... diarrhetic dialogue about Obama's speeches (to name but three instances of scripting detritus). I'd watch a thousand flashbacks if it propelled the story, against even one more RTD story that felt like it was written by a hyerpactive 12 year old. Hackneyed scripting techniques are nothing compared to contempt for the audience in bad writing.

iguana wrote: »

This series has been pretty poor, I'm utterly underwhelmed by it. Smith is so-so, Gillan is dreadful, the stories are flat and un-involving. I was often highly critical of a lot of RTD's work. The Rose love baffled me, I hated Martha and while I like Donna's character I despised Tate's portrayal. But it was still more enjoyable that this series. I just don't care about what is happening at all. This series feels like I'm watching a technical exercise rather than something I could ever care about.

Can I ask a quick question - did you enjoy Series 1 of the New Series? I ask because personally, I can't look at that series anymore as to me, it was total rubbish. It took everyone by surprise by being entertaining, but the most of the episodes were awful.
Compare the Autons in Saturday's episode against ... ugh, the man-eating plastic bin.

I ask because to be fair to Moffat, it's worth remembering that this is his first foray as lead writer & producer. I imagine a lot of this series was his attempt to throttle back from the insane excess that we saw in Tennant's last stories.

iguana wrote: »

Most people I know in RL have said pretty much the same.

Well if we're speaking anecdotely, then most people I have spoken to have enjoyed Series 5 immensely; in fact a number of them have came back to the show after abandoning it when RTD started pretending to be Gareth Marenghi.

As another poster pointed out, the general consensus has been the same - that Smith / Moffat have breathed new life into it. The kids are still watching it which is the main thing & happily Moffat is doing his best to scare the sh*te out of them (though even I found the skull in the Cyberman's helmet a bit scary )

K-9

iguana wrote: »

Bernard Cribbins was the titled companion in the Xmas and NY specials.

It is unfair to compare Cribbins. He's an established, experienced actor.
You can't expect the same nuances. Indeed part of the brilliance of Cribbins is his elder years. He was chosen for that role, for a reason!

Amy is perfectly fine, (very fine indeed!), for her age and role.

Penn

Wibbs wrote: »

Smith has handled it better than I expected, but I'm still seeing the "acting" more than with the previous encumbents. People accuse Tennant of nervous tics, but smith's performance is all too often one big tic. The previous weeks outing a good example. Tricksy, jaded and OTT scenes pushing his non humanity down the audience throat. IMHO he doesnt have the gravitas by comparison. If Ecclestone, Tennant, Baker, even Davison made a weighted statement they had the force behind it. They also did the "alien, but looks human" thing far better. Like I said IMHO Smith doesnt have that charisma. He varies so I think it may be a direction issue. Tennant is by far the better actor in general in the roles he has taken(including a bloody good hamlet). Ecclestone is another bloody good actor and of the three the most measured Doctor in my humble. Basically I watch smith and I think of my Davison time(though I rate the latter more).

I'd be interested to see the MS ratings in comparison to the DT era.

I agree with most of this. I think Smith has actually been really good, and his acting as he was being put into the Pandorica was brilliant. But the scene with all the alien ships above Stonehenge.... it really annoyed me because he just sounded like a drunk guy yelling at a bouncer who kicked him out of the pub. I just couldn't help but think what Tennant or Ecclestone could have done with that scene

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

It is unfair to compare Cribbins. He's an established, experienced actor.
You can't expect the same nuances. Indeed part of the brilliance of Cribbins is his elder years. He was chosen for that role, for a reason!

And IIRC back in the day was one of the names up to play the doctor instead they chose Tom Baker. Plus technically he was a companion if you consider the peter cushing movies.... Jesus I know too much! :eek:

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

And IIRC back in the day was one of the names up to play the doctor instead they chose Tom Baker. Plus technically he was a companion if you consider the peter cushing movies.... Jesus I know too much! :eek:

Did you notice a couple of nods to Hammer Horrors in this one?

The skull and the music? Very Hammer!

ixoy

iguana wrote: »

Wilf.

I don't think he can count as he wasn't really established enough, no more than say I'd count Adam as a companion.
I would have loved to have seen him as a long-term companion though. Wilf was the only good thing about the Xmas special.

And not a companion but Sally Sparrow.

We saw too little of her to really judge but even so, she's Moffat's creation so go Moffat!

GSPfan

Matt Smith, Karen Gillian, Series 5.

All of the above have been highly rated by critics and fans. The majority love them, the minority hate them.

I have loved it so far and I've converted my girlfriend and brother. Both of which hated Doctor Who and generally don't like many tv shows.

To say that this series has been written for idiots (flashbacks) is ridiculous. You're just watching a show that makes sense for a change. The reason you couldn't predict what was going on in the RTD era was because it didn't make sense. A lot of it was random. But also brilliant at times. Mainly when Moffat wrote the episodes!

iguana

pixelburp wrote: »

Can I ask a quick question - did you enjoy Series 1 of the New Series?

Good question. Certainly not initially, there were good bits but overall it wasn't great. I really liked most of Dalek (I hated how it transpired that Rose's soul had infected it and made it unable to kill her because she was so lovely) but Ecclestone was fantastic in that episode. It wasn't until Moffat's two-parter that I actually really liked it. Those episodes were great.

There were undeniably some really awful episodes and plenty of so-so episodes but when it was good it was so very, very good. It also had a sense of fun that was very captivating and made it more enjoyable than it would otherwise have been.

This series hasn't had any really great episodes. Some of the stories are interesting but it's lacking any hook to draw me in. It has had one truly terrible episode, Victory of the Daleks. The Beast Below was poorly written, it had the wonderfully creepy smilers for absolutely no reason whatsoever, so it just felt like a really cheap shot. I really hated the Angels two-parter and have decided to file them in a dark room in my brain alongside Terminator 3, The Matrix sequels and the Star Wars prequels lest they ruin one of the best episodes for me. The Vampires of Venice was meh, Amy's Choice was a missed opportunity, Hungry Earth/Cold Blood was dull, Vincent and the Doctor was Richard Curtis schmaltz. Leaving only two episodes that I found enjoyable but not great and I won't judge The Pandorica Opens until next week.

GSPfan

iguana wrote: »

Good question. Certainly not initially, there were good bits but overall it wasn't great. I really liked most of Dalek (I hated how it transpired that Rose's soul had infected it and made it unable to kill her because she was so lovely) but Ecclestone was fantastic in that episode. It wasn't until Moffat's two-parter that I actually really liked it. Those episodes were great.

There were undeniably some really awful episodes and plenty of so-so episodes but when it was good it was so very, very good. It also had a sense of fun that was very captivating and made it more enjoyable than it would otherwise have been.

This series hasn't had any really great episodes. Some of the stories are interesting but it's lacking any hook to draw me in. It has had one truly terrible episode, Victory of the Daleks. The Beast Below was poorly written, it had the wonderfully creepy smilers for absolutely no reason whatsoever, so it just felt like a really cheap shot. I really hated the Angels two-parter and have decided to file them in a dark room in my brain alongside Terminator 3, The Matrix sequels and the Star Wars prequels lest they ruin one of the best episodes for me. The Vampires of Venice was meh, Amy's Choice was a missed opportunity, Hungry Earth/Cold Blood was dull, Vincent and the Doctor was Richard Curtis schmaltz. Leaving only two episodes that I found enjoyable but not great and I won't judge The Pandorica Opens until next week.

I seriously don't know why you bother watching this show at all. You seem to hate it.

iguana

ixoy wrote: »

I don't think he can count as he wasn't really established enough, no more than say I'd count Adam as a companion.

His name was in the opening credits in the specials, just him and Tennant. That makes him count as a companion.

ixoy wrote: »

We saw too little of her to really judge but even so, she's Moffat's creation so go Moffat!

Mulligan is a BAFTA winning, Academy Award nominated actor. I've seen her in other things and she is certainly very talented at what she does. Far beyond most of the other actors in the show. And I do think Moffat is a wonderful writer, The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances, The Girl in The Fireplace and Blink are some of my favourite episodes. But I have not enjoyed anything in this series as much as those episodes, not by a long way. Therefore I prefer the previous series.

Stark

I enjoyed the first two seasons of RTD Who, but my god, Series 3 was 10 episodes of pure ****e. I'm not even sure if the excellent "Human Nature" two-parter and "Blink" made up for it. Series 4 was a little more watchable but still continued the trend into the absurd. Tennant in particular couldn't seem to decide what role he was playing and took every opportunity to shout this out. Series 5 has been a breath of fresh air with things dialled back a notch.

Doctor DooM

iguana wrote: »

His name was in the opening credits in the specials, just him and Tennant. That makes him count as a companion.

lol.

Well I am glad you're round to sort out this argument thats been going on for years!

What about characters who never appeared on tv? Not allowed be a companion?

EDIT: Furthermore by this criteria, John Simm is a companion in the same episode.

iguana

Doctor DooM wrote: »

lol.

Well I am glad you're round to sort out this argument thats been going on for years!

What about characters who never appeared on tv? Not allowed be a companion?

It's been pretty clear in how the do their opening sequences that the actual companions have their names in the title sequence. The way actors are credited in the titles of any show is huge deal and has enormous implications to their contracts and how they are treated and how episodes are written. It's clear the producers intended for him to be a companion due to his importance in the episodes and his title credit.

And even if he is no more of a companion than Adam it's irrelevant. He's the one I'd rate highest, he was better than any of the companions who were in the newer series by a very wide margin.

Doctor DooM

iguana wrote: »

It's been pretty clear in how the do their opening sequences that the actual companions have their names in the title sequence. The way actors are credited in the titles of any show is huge deal and has enormous implications to their contracts and how they are treated and how episodes are written. It's clear the producers intended for him to be a companion due to his importance in the episodes and his title credit.

John Simm is credited in the end of time.


Are you telling me the Master is considered a companion?

You're making up arbitrary rules, sorry.

Furthermore- tying in with the very nature of this thread- even if RTD started out with this as his intention, he always ignored his own logic and rules anyway.