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

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.

VicNoir

Well, certainly others do seem to share your view, though you do appear to be in the minority.

Just throwing my opinion into the ring, for any who'll read it.

I only started watching Doctor Who last November, with Blink. So a high starting point. However, I'm a continuity buff in everything I like, so I was very quick to get through the entire new series from Eccelston and Tennant, and then began to familiarise myself with some of the history. To date, I have watched at least one episode/movie with every Doctor save Four (arguably considered the best, I know).

I have also listened to both the Eighth and Sixth Doctor's adventures in Big Finish audios.

So, Tennant was my first Doctor and I enjoyed him a lot. Thought he was one of the best, though with the caveat that he was both my first and the one I'd had most experience of. I still go back and watch the entire series from Rose onwards on occasion (though I tend to skip Fear Her and Love And Monsters, as I just cannot stand them).

I will say that, prior to knowledge of who wrote them, Moffat's episodes were almost always my favourite of each series. Time Crash is even my favourite Children in Need special. RTD's episodes tended to be more bombastic a lot of the time, and I don't really enjoy that sort of thing as much as the understated episodes Moffat's produced.

I should add that the exception to the above rule was Midnight, which is up there against Blink and The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances as my favourite episode of the RTD era. If RTD had written more episodes like this, it would have added to my enjoyment of his era.

Basically, all I can say is that RTD and Moffat have two totally different styles. RTD seems to me to revel in the slightly cheesy sci-fi elements of Doctor Who, while Moffat prefers the more creepy, horror elements.

I'm not saying which is better, but I certainly prefer the horror aspect, so Series Five has certainly been my favourite of the revived series so far, though it does not contain my favourite episodes. However, The Eleventh Hour certainly beats Rose, New Earth, Smith and Jones and Partners in Crime (or any of the Christmas Specials, if you prefer) as best first episode of the revived series.

In response to the poster who disliked Smith's face off with the old-style Daleks, I should point out that Ecclestone in Dalek is probably the high point of this sort of thing. By the end of series 1, he didn't seem all that frightened by them, the Cult of Skaro and the thousands in the box didn't seem to phase Ten at all, the Daleks in Manhattan were too ludicrous for Ten to take seriously and only when they moved the entire planet Earth did everyone start acting as if they were terrifying again (I love that sequence actually, up there with Dalek).

While I didn't particularly like Smith's face off with them either, the revived series (I have little knowledge of previous series) has been remarkably inconsistant with regard to how scared people get of the Daleks. Eccleston made them seem terrifying, Tennant seemed to be more angry with them than scared, while (from what we've seen) Smith has lost respect for them - spanner, jammie dodger, etc.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

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.

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.

That's a ridiculous way to look at - by that logic Rory was never a companion... F**k off - Rory was most definitely a companion... I'd like to see you try to argue that he wasn't...

norrie rugger

iguana wrote: »

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.

So she is an ordinary girl, playing an ordinary girl?

I know noone who dislikes her. In fact after the screaming of Donna (who I loved by the way), the fawning of Martha (not liking so much) and the wide eye routine of Rose; I am finding this spunky, no nonsense, intelligent and vunerable companion a lovely breath of fresh air.
Amy has been acted and written in a much more rounded way, the previous always had 1 particular character trait that was pushed to the fore.

I may be missing it here but Amy just feels more "real". Will regret this if it turns out that she is a creation of the Doctor's enemies lol

Pittens

I think that future generations of Whovians might well see this as the best ever series, particularly if everything comes together in the last episode. There is something great - like a detective story - in getting clues throughout a series that something is amiss. Not just the cracks but the Jacketed doctor in Flesh and Stone, and mysterious figure at the window ( certainly not her aunt) when the Tardis disappears in 11th hour. Some say that is the Doctor, I dont know but what is clear is this: the Doctor will talk to Amy in Flesh and Stone and then, probably go back to the first day he met her, or have just come from then. He said as much in that scene - remember what I said to you when you were 7. You must remember. But did he say that? Not yet as far I am aware...

Its all rocking entertainment. This finale could be the best ever, if it all hangs together.

Or total crap if the Jacketed doctor was a continuity error and Donna Noble re-appears to save the world with levers.

Stark

CaptainNegative wrote: »

That's a ridiculous way to look at - by that logic Rory was never a companion... F**k off - Rory was most definitely a companion... I'd like to see you try to argue that he wasn't...

Well his history with the Doctor was erased

norrie rugger

Stark wrote: »

Well his history with the Doctor was erased

the Doctor remembers him

The Recliner

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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

I kind of liked this bit

Mainly because the Sailsbury plains area where Stonehenge sits has a history of UFO activity so I thought it was a good place to set it

And I thought he was a bit like a Rock Star roaring at the crowd which given Stone Henge's proximity to Glastonbury also struck a chord

Might just have been me reading a bit much into it though

iguana

The Recliner wrote: »

And I thought he was a bit like a Rock Star roaring at the crowd which given Stone Henge's proximity to Glastonbury also struck a chord

They aren't that close to each other? Sure, if you have access to all of time and space 85k+ isn't all that much but they aren't exactly nearby.

The Recliner

iguana wrote: »

They aren't that close to each other? Sure, if you have access to all of time and space 85k+ isn't all that much but they aren't exactly nearby.

More than likely just my mistake, I always thought there was some connection between the two places

iguana

The Recliner wrote: »

More than likely just my mistake, I always thought there was some connection between the two places

Probably thinking of the Tor in Glastonbury. Although if you believe in ley lines I think the Tor and Stonehenge are supposed to be connected.