**SPOILERS** Series 6, Episode 1 - "The Impossible Astronaut"

Banjo Fella

Marvelous beginning to the series, I loved it! I especially liked Amy and the Doctor's little scene where she solemnly sweared by fish-fingers and custard. Lots of hilarious scenes and lines as usual, despite the dark, unsettling mood. "I'm the King of Okay! Oh, that's a rubbish title... forget that."

*speculation Stetson on!*

I also thought that the kid in the spacesuit could be Amy's daughter... but then I realised something. Er, the spacesuit is very definitely adult-sized. How could a child plod around in it so menacingly and convincingly? It must be some kind of illusion, I doubt whatever's inhabiting the suit is human.

I first picked up on Amy's pregnancy when she felt sick in the Oval Office, but I'm a little confused after watching the episode again. She felt sick immediately after seeing the Silent, just like River did after seeing a group of them later on... is it possible that the Silents can somehow impregnate people? Maybe they need humans to reproduce? They are very humanoid, and for some reason... dressed in dapper suits. Hmm, this sounds even more ridiculous than I thought it would after writing it down. Still, they had no use for menopausal old Joy, and there's that oft-used phrase; "a pregnant silence". Could have some sort of poetic relevance! Or not. It's likely Amy's been trying to tell the Doctor about her pregnancy since the start of the Time/Space Comic Relief short.

Also remembered something during River's speech to Rory about her relationship with the Doctor. When the Doctor met her for the first time in Silence In The Library, they did some catching up and she mentioned the "crash of the Byzantium", and a "picnic at (somewhere)". We've seen the first, but was the picnic at the beginning of this episode the other one she was referring to? If so - Moffat, you clever man! That was broadcast around three years ago!

Too much rampant rambling speculation, sorry, but just one more thing! Presumably Amy will continue to try saving the Doctor's life. If she succeeds, maybe it will destroy the universe? We still don't know what caused the TARDIS to explode in the last series, and that Silent Amy met in the bathroom seemed keen on having her talk the Doctor into a paradox. It doesn't really fit together properly.

So excited about this new series! Can't wait for next Saturday.

aidan_walsh

Your posts on this forum just depress me...

Hopefully a picture of a cat in a stetson will be of some amends.

bren2001

Cookie33 wrote: »

I am very entrigued to know what the tally marks are doing on their skin (river, rory and amy)

perhaps keeping mark of where they are in terms of timeline - could it have an inception feel?

I thought the marks were to represent how many times they see the aliens considering you forget when you stop seeing them. But when they arn't looking at the aliens how do they remember what the marks are? Seemingly another paradox.

mach1982

Banjo Fella wrote: »

M

*speculation Stetson on!*

I

Also remembered something during River's speech to Rory about her relationship with the Doctor. When the Doctor met her for the first time in Silence In The Library, they did some catching up and she mentioned the "crash of the Byzantium", and a "picnic at (somewhere)". We've seen the first, but was the picnic at the beginning of this episode the other one she was referring to? If so - Moffat, you clever man! That was broadcast around three years ago!

.

ivers says
Could be as River says their paths are going in opposite ways , could the next meeting she has with the Doctor be her last or his first.

jasonb

Definitely don't think the sickness is to do with Amy's pregnancy, as River left it too. It must be something to do with seeing and then forgetting the Aliens. That said, Rory didn't feel sick!

I'm pretty certain the line 'You were my second choice for President' was used in The West Wing too.

Haven't we already seen the first time the Doctor met River ( in the Library ), as he didn't know her at all then. And as River said, it did kill her, as she died in that, right? So it's the writers bringing it all together really. If they show us the picnic, we'll know 'cos he'll give her his Sonic Screwdriver ( oo-er! ).

I thought it was a very good episode, quite dark which is good. Not sure how they'll get around him 'properly' dying when he's 1100, or even that he's meant to die as Matt Smith, not some other actor, but sure it's Dr. Who, they'll always figure out a way...

Loved that time has gone from wibbly wobbly to lumpy bumpy!

J.

The Sparrow

I'm clearly in the minority but I'm just not a fan of Moffat's Dr. Who. I loved the episodes he wrote before becoming head writer but I'm just not warming to his head writer stuff. It is far too geeky and self aware for my taste.

This episode was good but lot's of it annoyed me such as the spoiler jokes. I mean, one is bad enough but two is just ridiculous. Everything seems to be written in an attempt to get a wry chuckle out of internet geeks (such as me, I suppose). Like time now being lumpy wumpy instead of wibbly wompy. And that just gets tiresome.

And why do they always have to do these contrived stories that start at the end and work back to the beginning? And lot's of it was contrived. For instance,

forgetting the aliens when you turn around... well actually it wasn't that they forgot them, it is that they saw the opposite of what was there. If you just forgot them, you would look back as you wouldn't be able to remember what was there.

And the pregnancy thing was completely telegraphed.

Killer_banana

Absolutely brilliant. Had me on the edge of my seat the whole time. I don't know how I'll wait a week for the next part though.

When Amy felt nauseous my first thought was pregnancy but then I thought I was being stupid. :P

Not sure who the child could be. The theories that it's either

Amy's child or River both seems plausible but they're also quite obvious which makes me think they're not right. Of course if River is Amy's daughter like some people think both theories could be right which would be a little less obvious. =P

The aliens look like a creepier version of The Gentlemen from Buffy. The Gentlemen gave me nightmares as a kid and still kind of scare me so plenty nightmare fuel from these guys.

Also, I love that the Doctor calls Rory and Amy 'The Ponds' rather than...wait do we know Rory's last name?

aidan_walsh

Williams, isn't it?

Killer_banana

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Williams, isn't it?

I think you're right. Thanks for that.

Bajingo

The control room Rory and River enter in this episode looks a lot like the control room from 'The Lodger' season 5..is this budget constraints or a connection between the aliens of that episode possibly being 'The Silence'?

mach1982

Killer_banana wrote: »

The aliens look like a creepier version of The Gentlemen from Buffy. The Gentlemen gave me nightmares as a kid and still kind of scare me so plenty nightmare fuel from these guys.

I thought that too, an they steal you voice , silence you.

pixelburp

Wow; what a way to start your new series. That was definitely a case of Moffat throwing down the marker and saying "this is not RTD's series anymore". Adult, creepy, dark and throws up far more questions than it answers (although minus points for the "Next Time" trailer utterly negating the dramatic effect of the cliffhanger). What I liked was that it felt grounded; in the sense that the characters weren't getting used to each others boundaries or foibles, and we just got on with the story (River Song notwithstanding - god her "spoilers!" attitude is beginning to get on my wick tbh). Having said that, strange that there was no attempt to fill in the gap between the Christmas episode & this one. Why did Rory / Amy leave the TARDIS? Why did the Doctor go travelling on his own for 200 years?

One thing that struck me though in that episode - there was a distinct lack of running. I do wonder if the kiddies might have found that story a tad boring, because there wasn't a lot of action. Not saying that as a negative mind you, just that the younger demographic may have switched off? Not sure how many kiddies would appreciate who Richard Milhouse Nixon is / was

As for the Big-Bad of the new series; whoah, these guys seem to mean business, and continue Moffat's trend of "gimmick" monsters who have a simple rule to their existence. I wonder though how their presence as a shadow behind humanity fits against all those previous Earth Invasion stories. Going back to the creep/dark element, the Silence's

slow killing of that woman in the bathroom

was just ... ergh. For a 6pm show with no blood or swearing, there was something oddly disturbing and horrifying about that whole execution. Culminating in a splat. Nasty; or maybe it was just me.

I presume that the events of the first 10 minutes get resolved in the cliffhanger; otherwise we will have 5/6 more episodes with

The Doctor's Death

hanging around in the background like a bad smell. Oh and on that note - I totally called it in another thread. Details are a bit off, but my theory was right

Favorite line(s)?
"Why would anybody want to trap us?"
"Let's see if anybody tries to kill us and work backwards."

bren2001

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/videos/p00gk4lg

Pointed out by my girlfriend but this clip

is set 3 months into the future and Amy doesn't show any signs of being pregnant. I don't think Dr. Who will do a miscarriage so is she really pregnant? Is this part of what she "will tell the doctor" from the alien in the bathroom?

deman

Brilliant episode! Loved every minute of it and it definitely did not seem like it was 45 minutes.

But there's only one thing that bothers me....


Why they hell do people not know how to use spoilers?? If they knew anything about what was happening in this episode of Doctor Who they should know that spoilers are used for FUTURE EVENTS and not what just happened. Don't be putting spoiler tags over comments about this episode please. It makes the whole thread horrible to read.

I've put the whole of this comment in spoilers just for the irony and to annoy you :P

Basq

deman wrote: »

Why they hell do people not know how to use spoilers?? If they knew anything about what was happening in this episode of Doctor Who they should know that spoilers are used for FUTURE EVENTS and not what just happened. Don't be putting spoiler tags over comments about this episode please. It makes the whole thread horrible to read.

Well.. the thread title only indicated "Spoilers" recently.

So when a thread title doesn't indicate spoilers, I tend to use spoilers when discussing plotlines in that episode.

Whereas when a thread title indicates spoilers, the episode itself can be discussed without spoilers, but future episodes should be put in spoilers.

It's consistent rules like this that keep the Television forum trucking..

Cookie33

What is the deal with the aliens?

I had a bizarre thought on

who killed the doctor - was it one of the alien's in the space suit?

Also what if the aliens are controlling the little girl in the space suit? it could explain the height? or what if the space suit has a mind of its own

so many what ifs

Basq

Cool, although couldn't put that on my wall! :eek:

Adrian009

I'm REALLY starting to hate "Spoilers", both here and on the show!!!!

Basq

Adrian009 wrote: »

I'm REALLY starting to hate "Spoilers", both here and on the show!!!!

Well.. not to step on any of the mods toes, but from now on, discussion of the episode should not need spoiler tags.

And maybe discussion threads in future can indicate spoilers in the thread title on it's creation.

K-9

I'm confused now!

Seriously, it's okay to talk about the episode after it's shown without spoilers?

A new thread will be set up for the 2nd part anyway.

Basq

K-9 wrote: »

I'm confused now!

Seriously, it's okay to talk about the episode after it's shown without spoilers?

A new thread will be set up for the 2nd part anyway.

These semantics on spoilers will ruin the thread so this is my last input on it.

From the Television forum:

• Just to be completely clear on the use of spoilers:
  - If a thread title has the word "Spoilers" in it, then it is OK to discuss the most recent episode (or older) without using [ spoiler ] tags.
  - If you have news about a future episode (from spoilerfix, ausiello etc.), then most people don't want to know (no, really - they prefer to be surprised by major plot developments and twists).
  - If you feel it should be posted anyway, please use [ spoiler ] tags (to give people the option of reading them or not). Also contextualise the spoiler by saying what it's about outside of the spoiler tag (Spoiler about Season Finale, Spoiler about Character Exit, etc.)
  - Links to interviews, show news etc. are OK (people can decide on whether or not to click them).
  - Posting Youtube clips of "next episode" promos is also OK in the TV forum (people can decide whether or not to watch them).
  - Bear in mind that some show-specific forums in the TV category have their own rules about where promo clips can be posted. Please check their charter if you are not sure.

I think it should apply here also..

TheManWho

I'm going to say that the older Doctor was killed by the younger Doctor in the space suit, who elso would know to shoot again during regeneration so he's proper dead.

Also it went completely over my head that the aliens were 'the silence' from last season. I just thought that they were some monster of the week type season openers, I didn't think they would explain/show the silence so early in the season.

ixoy

Basquille's take on spoilers is what I use on the Stargate forum. Using spoiler space for an episode that's aired makes it very difficult to read a thread and post. It also makes it much more difficult to know if people are spoiling future episodes.

Art_Wolf

Basq wrote: »

From the Television forum

Added to the charter.

Wibbs

ohh I'm about to be popular.... *breathe*

[IMHO]

ixoy wrote: »

Moffat does love messing around with the way people view monsters ("Don't blink" and now "Look behind you!"). Good make up and a neat idea.

I agree on the makeup but the idea? Personally I wouldnt call it messing around with the monsters I'd call it rehashing. For me Moffat is just as much a one trick pony as RTD was. Convoluted timey wimey plot. Again. Utterly fantastic in Blink, but getting a tad repetitive IMHO, so change the record Ted. Next week cue in another Moffat battered to death plot device to tie up the loose ends and it's all getting a little dull for me I gotta be honest And River song? Get to the point already. All this yes dear and fixing bits of the tardis behind him? Ehhh wut? And people complained about the Rose character as a love interest? She does look gooood with that holster on her hip mind....

And I still can't warm to the new Doctor at all, but I think it's not so much him, but I dunno... the self importance in the show now? Actually no for me he's a lot of it. No human juices in him(or Gallifreyan! ), little or no inner life behind the eyes IMHO. While yes Tennants OTT antics could be wearing he's 10 times the actor Smith is. Maybe it's down to who "my" doctor was as a kid? Tom Baker and I really couldn't warm to Peter Davidson at all. I prefer the larger than life Bohemian Who and Smith doesn't fit? I dunno, I still don't rate him acting wise.

I'd also be wondering like Bajingo if the control room has any connection to the lodger time machine? If not new production designer to aisle nine. Varation on a Tardis theme ain't design. It can't be that though surely??

I did like the horror aspect though. More of that pretty please.

[/IMHO] *runs*

DinoRex

Aldebaran

(seeing as it now has been made clear we don't need to use spoiler tags when discussing the current episode I won't be using them in this post, you have been warned!)

I can't believe I forgot this was on this weekend but I somehow did! Only remembered last night while lying in bed and then of course I couldn't sleep knowing I hadn't seen it, so I ended up watching it in a darkened room at 2 a.m. with headphones in and subsequently got freaked the hell out by those Silent creatures, they were genuinely really creepy!

Extremely enjoyable episode overall though, great to have the Doctor back. Anyone else laugh out loud at the River Song's remarks about the Easter Island statues? Poor Matt Smith!

I also caught the fact that the control room was the same as the one used in The Lodger, and if memory serves me correctly wasn't that episode based around someone looking for help in kind of the same way the kid in the spacesuit was in this episode? Could be getting mixed up here as it's been a while since I've seen it.

Also, anyone have any idea what happened to the older Doctor's Tardis?

pixelburp

Wibbs wrote: »

ohh I'm about to be popular....
[...]

And I still can't warm to the new Doctor at all, but I think it's not so much him, but I dunno... the self importance in the show now? Actually no for me he's a lot of it. No human juices in him(or Gallifreyan! ), little or no inner life behind the eyes IMHO. While yes Tennants OTT antics could be wearing he's 10 times the actor Smith is. Maybe it's down to who "my" doctor was as a kid? Tom Baker and I really couldn't warm to Peter Davidson at all. I prefer the larger than life Bohemian Who and Smith doesn't fit? I dunno, I still don't rate him acting wise.

[...]

[/IMHO] *runs*

Haha, no need to run, you're hardly giving the show an un-qualified kicking: I would disagree with you about the self-importance comment. If anything, this new series both promises (and so far, delivers) the idea of de-constructing the Doctor's omnipotence. A facet which the RTD run had in spades; how many times did we see Tennant chewing the scenery as he ranted about being Mr. Last-Timelord, shouting from the rooftops about being the highest authority? To me, a persistent issue with Tennant's reign was hubris that never (really) got addressed. Eccleston was racked with guilt & Tennant swung the other way into arrogance.

Above all else, I think the Doctor had become too powerful & too knowing of his power. This episode seemed to sow a seed that the Doctor's not without faults and weaknesses, and he knows it. I suspect the Silence will see to it that the two-parter leaves us knowing that the Doctor is once again a very vulnerable individual. Without resorting to RTD-style melodrama.

Cookie33

Aldebaran wrote: »

I also caught the fact that the control room was the same as the one used in The Lodger, and if memory serves me correctly wasn't that episode based around someone looking for help in kind of the same way the kid in the spacesuit was in this episode? Could be getting mixed up here as it's been a while since I've seen it.

thats where i remember the control room from.. It was starting to annoy me, I first thought it was it the trailers. Yeah its definetly the same one or at least very similar!

ixoy

pixelburp wrote: »

Haha, no need to run, you're hardly giving the show an un-qualified kicking: I would disagree with you about the self-importance comment. If anything, this new series both promises (and so far, delivers) the idea of de-constructing the Doctor's omnipotence. A facet which the RTD run had in spades; how many times did we see Tennant chewing the scenery as he ranted about being Mr. Last-Timelord, shouting from the rooftops about being the highest authority? To me, a persistent issue with Tennant's reign was hubris that never (really) got addressed. Eccleston was racked with guilt & Tennant swung the other way into arrogance.

Above all else, I think the Doctor had become too powerful & too knowing of his power. This episode seemed to sow a seed that the Doctor's not without faults and weaknesses, and he knows it. I suspect the Silence will see to it that the two-parter leaves us knowing that the Doctor is once again a very vulnerable individual. Without resorting to RTD-style melodrama.

Spot on - I found Tennant's Doctor full of himself, believing in his own importance. Perfect example of the reign was the Doctor being restored from a troll (ugh) by everyone shouting out how brilliant he was. Arrogance in the extreme (as well as just bad writing).
I don't put the blame on Tennant really - he is a good actor, but let down by scripts and a vision I didn't agree with.
Moffat and Smith promise to be more humane to me by cutting that image down, by making the Doctor more accountable (which is why he has to stop running).
Oh and I'm a big Tom Baker fan and wouldn't hold DT's Doctor anywhere near in the same esteem.

DinoRex

I wonder if it is just a memory loss thing with the aliens. The aliens seem to act along the same lines as the cracks. In that anyone swallowed by the cracks never existed. And the aliens cease to have ever existed when someone looks away from them.

Amy has some ability in this area though, her being the one who recalled the Doctor back into existence. So it could be why she's the only one to notice them so far.

We also don't know how much influence they've had over her growing up. Remember the foot prints of the ship that River found outside her house? The baby could be their doing as well.

If they don't actually even exist when not being observed then perhaps their ability to build technology requires them to manipulate other beings and their tech, which could explain a lot of the recycled tech their using.

TheManWho

Moffat has just done the Angels in reverse. They come to life when you see them, and cease to exist when you don't.

Wibbs

ixoy wrote: »

Spot on - I found Tennant's Doctor full of himself, believing in his own importance. Perfect example of the reign was the Doctor being restored from a troll (ugh) by everyone shouting out how brilliant he was. Arrogance in the extreme (as well as just bad writing).

God that was awful alright.

Moffat's been held up as some amazingly better writer than RTD and he is, but he's just as repetitive and a lot more clinical/nerdy. Maybe a this timey wimey spot the clues stuff appeals to a different demographic, but as a constant theme? Not for me. The internal reality of the Who universe, never exactly consistent like other sci fi franchises was at least fun and a little daft, now it's trying for seriousness and scope, but below the upgraded budget, cast and writing don't always have the chops to pull it off. Timey wimey puzzle /= plot, only part of it. The if you're not looking at them... monster thing is clever first time out, but rehashed? Lack of imagination time IMH.

Moffat and Smith promise to be more humane to me by cutting that image down, by making the Doctor more accountable (which is why he has to stop running).

I'm not seeing it yet myself I. Well not beyond Tennants version's accountability towards the end. The lonely god thing was dying off before Moffat took over and kinda came to a head with Waters of Mars and that was an RTD penned episode. His frailty was wheeled out a fair whack, long before Moffat. Yes I think RTD had really awful moments and Tennant turned it up to eleven, but this "Moffat can do no wrong and is sooooo much better" really doesn't fit with me. I do think while he is the better writer, he's just as prone to dodgy and creaky plotting. Too many plot points the characters have to spell out for a start. A lot of "what's this?" dialogue. River song is written at least as irritating as Rose ever was. And Smith? He can barely turn it up to three never mind eleven.

Oh and I'm a big Tom Baker fan and wouldn't hold DT's Doctor anywhere near in the same esteem.

Well Tom can act, really act and had and has great presence. Tennant is one helluvan actor and has the presence thang going on. Davison another good actor and with presence. Smith, really really isn't and doesn't.

bren2001

TheManWho wrote: »

Moffat has just done the Angels in reverse. They come to life when you see them, and cease to exist when you don't.

Thats not quite the case. The angels only "lived" when you couldnt see them. Here they exist at all times, you just forget them. Its quite a clever concept imo.

ixoy

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe a this timey wimey spot the clues stuff appeals to a different demographic, but as a constant theme? Not for me.

Ah well it is for me. I really missed the time travel aspect of the show, non-existent for much of the RTD era. I've always liked time travel paradoxes.

The internal reality of the Who universe, never exactly consistent like other sci fi franchises was at least fun and a little daft, now it's trying for seriousness and scope, but below the upgraded budget, cast and writing don't always have the chops to pull it off.

It's not all seriousness though - there's a good mixture of both. I think it's struck the balance for me. The RTD era leaned too much towards goofiness but this has a nice mixture. Now Moffat's episodes tend towards the darker side but we'll still have lighter ones in the mix. It's the sort of quality that I like in "Supernatural".

The if you're not looking at them... monster thing is clever first time out, but rehashed? Lack of imagination time IMH.

I think these guys are well done... but I would be happy enough to see something a little bit different next time. Something that doesn't play on perception.

The lonely god thing was dying off before Moffat took over and kinda came to a head with Waters of Mars and that was an RTD penned episode.

Actually a lot of it was done off screen which is what made it so infuriating. "Water of Mars" though was good and I said as much at the time. Not everything he penned was crap (just too much for my taste).

I do think while he is the better writer, he's just as prone to dodgy and creaky plotting. Too many plot points the characters have to spell out for a start. A lot of "what's this?" dialogue.

Well the plots are more complicated (or at least more convoluted). That's fine for us sci-fi geeks but guess we need to bear the younger audience in mind, something that you wouldn't have to the same extent with other shows.

River song is written at least as irritating as Rose ever was.

Not remotely as irritating Rose unbalanced the Doctor in a way that just didn't fit with the character I knew. Too much gooey-eyed in this relationship. Here the whole thing is filled with much more pathos as it's operating in reverse. We know she'll die (has died.)

Well Tom can act, really act and had and has great presence. Tennant is one helluvan actor and has the presence thang going on. Davison another good actor and with presence. Smith, really really isn't and doesn't.

No arguments on Tom or Davision. I think Tennant is a good actor but, whether by will or direction, grated on me by the end. I think it was the sheer foolishness that he employed. Tom Baker had no problems chewing the scenery, especially in his later years, but he did do it with such commanding presence that it worked - he always seemed in control whereas DT seemed to fall prey to the whims of RTD's direction.
I'll disagree with your take on Smith - he's not meant to be as extroverted as DT. It's meant to be a quieter Doctor (and yet older one). It does remind again of Troughton- bumbling, appearing somewhat incompetent, but able to use that to his advantage.

deman

This thread has become a lot more readable. Thanks Mod(s)

Really looking forward to the new season.

Seren_

I enjoyed the episode a lot. Kinda had an idea that Amy was pregnant, when the Doctor said about her putting on a few pounds I thought it was pretty obvious why they would put that in. Think it's interesting what some people have said that River Song could be Amy's daughter - it would kind of tie everything together a bit.

ixoy wrote: »

. I think Tennant is a good actor but, whether by will or direction, grated on me by the end. I think it was the sheer foolishness that he employed.

Yep, I'm of the exact same opinion. As much as I love David Tennant (:pac:), his portrayal of the Doctor did seriously annoy me towards the end... Just thinking of his last episode especially, with the gun and the Master. I know he had to play it the way it was written, but still.

amen

Did Amy fire the gun three times? I thought she did.

The doctor died after being hit three times. Has Amy killed the doctor?

off.the.walls

amen wrote: »

Did Amy fire the gun three times? I thought she did.

The doctor died after being hit three times. Has Amy killed the doctor?

The doctor was hit twice... once that started the regeneration and one that killed him during the regeneration

matrim

off.the.walls wrote: »

The doctor was hit twice... once that started the regeneration and one that killed him during the regeneration

Pretty sure it was 3 times. Twice before regeneration and once during

Also, I wonder where the future doctors Tardis is? He turns up on the car and there is no sign or even hint to the tardis being nearby.

jim-jam

matrim wrote: »

Pretty sure it was 3 times. Twice before regeneration and once during

Also, I wonder where the future doctors Tardis is? He turns up on the car and there is no sign or even hint to the tardis being nearby.

I'm guessing since he knew he was going to die he destroyed it like they had to destroy his body.

TheIrishGrover

I the only one who thought that it was

adult River in the Spacesuit. She did say she killed the best man she knew

. Just a thought as I've only watched it the once

pixelburp

Wibbs wrote: »

Well Tom can act, really act and had and has great presence. Tennant is one helluvan actor and has the presence thang going on. Davison another good actor and with presence. Smith, really really isn't and doesn't.

I don't agree to that, and it's a teeny bit unfair to compare actors, like for like. Afterall, one of the enduring elements of the show has been that each actor brings his own presence and mannerisms to the role. Some, more than others, have brought their actual personality into the job. So on that score Tom Baker didn't really "act", he just behaved like Tom Baker; ie, was as mad as a bag of snakes. That ego eventually got out of control of course, but I'd argue that Baker didn't really have to do anything except be himself. Ditto Jon Pertwee who wanted to play The Doctor as his personal action-hero fantasy. Most of the script writers tend to just write the Doctor around the actor, rather than the other way around.

For me, Smith comes in under that category: I think he's just playing with the role as his personal goofball, "cool"-uncle fantasy & is having a ball doing so. As well as that, the 11th Doctor's a bit more bumbling and akward, which is always going to pale in comparison with the intense, !ACTING! of the previous two Docs. I think his scene in the TARDIS, confronting his friends & their motivations, showed that Smith can act perfectly well, he's just not being asked to play the drama-queen.

DinoRex

I absolutely love the delivery of some of his lines.

And the look on his face when he says: "Who's Jim the Fish?" is brilliant.

Wibbs

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't agree to that, and it's a teeny bit unfair to compare actors, like for like.

Yes and no, comparisons are going to be made particularly with the last two of the relaunch. Eccleston is a thunderingly good actor. Bit serious at times, but in a league ahead of Smith. Tennant? Have you seen his Hamlet? Helluva good actor. OTT at times as the Doctor? God yea, but he had a presence and likeability in the role. Smith? For me there's an emptiness behind his acting. Not just in Who either. Its all surface. I just feel he's neither the good enough actor, nor has the presence of many previous incumbents in the role. Put him in the same "Three new Doctors" episode and his limitations would quickly become apparent IMHO.

Funny this morning I got the chance to sit down and read AA Gills TV critic page in the sunday times on this very subject. I don't agree with much of his broader take on the franchise, but I do agree with him when he says [matt smith] "puts the "who?" into Doctor Who".

Doctor DooM

Wibbs, I like you man, but saying that Destro from GI Joe is both too serious and leagues ahead of others doesn't sit right.

Smith for me is clearly channeling the pre Baker bumbling old men doctorers. Personally I think he bringa a genuine warmth and humour to the role which has been missing for ages (Eccleston was always angry with himself, and Tennant was always righteously angry with others. 11's not angry with anyone, he's just saving the world by accident).

Wibbs

We all have our off days/shíte to pay the bills. Michael Caine a really good actor, but we won't mention "the Bees".... What I meant by serious is that I felt ecclestone was uncomfortable in the more jokey humorous bits of the Doctor.

I really don't feel the warmth from Smiths acting at all I have to say DD. Quite the opposite. It's more method by numbers acting for me.

Here's a thought. Maybe Smith is somehow more sci fi "nerd" friendly for the real want of a better description? As are Moffats scripts. RTD's more jokey and often daft OTT scripts especially the relationship ones didn't sit well with that demographic(they didn't sit well with me often enough). Neither did "pretty boy" Tennant. It'll be interesting to see how the viewing figures pan out for his tenure.

DirtyBollox

Doctor DooM wrote: »

11's not angry with anyone, he's just saving the world by accident).

that sums it up quite well.

on another note i must watch the episode again as from what everyone is saying i missed a few things. i think its because it didnt feel like a full episode. for some reason the time seem skewed on the show.

Wibbs

michaelpower wrote: »

for some reason the time seem skewed on the show.

Yea I felt that too. Maybe the script was too dense for 45 mins and the direction ran to catch it? It seemed pretty good on the latter score though.

pixelburp

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and no, comparisons are going to be made particularly with the last two of the relaunch. Eccleston is a thunderingly good actor. Bit serious at times, but in a league ahead of Smith. Tennant? Have you seen his Hamlet? Helluva good actor. OTT at times as the Doctor? God yea, but he had a presence and likeability in the role. Smith? For me there's an emptiness behind his acting. Not just in Who either. Its all surface. I just feel he's neither the good enough actor, nor has the presence of many previous incumbents in the role. Put him in the same "Three new Doctors" episode and his limitations would quickly become apparent IMHO.

Funny this morning I got the chance to sit down and read AA Gills TV critic page in the sunday times on this very subject. I don't agree with much of his broader take on the franchise, but I do agree with him when he says [matt smith] "puts the "who?" into Doctor Who".

Yeah I read AA Gill's article too - his Dr. Who comments, as well as those made about Game of Thrones, do betray a certain dismissive snobbery about genre TV though.

Anyway, as to Smith ...
I'm not going to argue that Smith is as good an actor as Eccles, pound for pound. It goes without saying, GI Joe notwithstanding, that Eccles is one of the best drama actors on British TV. However, I think Smith's strength seems to be something you're not rating: his comic timing. And for that there's warmth

I've long been of the opinion that the hardest job in acting is comedy, not drama. Comedy's more than just emoting your lines or drawing on personal tragedy to give a performance: it's about timing, energy & a physical presence that I believe Smith has in spades. To the jury I present the Stag Night scene in series 5, where the Doctor bursts out of the stripper cake. A witty script helps, but Smith's bubbly energy, clumsiness and physical performance sells the comedy, and the scene in general. Ditto all of the Xmas special. Conversely any time Eccles performed comedy scenes, they were ... well, pretty forced to be honest & just felt wrong coming from #9.

So yeah, if a Three Doctors story got made (here's hoping!), I'm sure Smith would be out-DRAMA'ed by the other two actors, but for any of the warmer, zippier, comedy scenes? Smith would be wiping the floor with Eccles, Tennant being somewhere in-between.

Not having a go at Tennant and Eccleston btw, I just think comparing them with Smith is like chalk and cheese. Pertwee was, ostensibly, not a good actor, but his presence and manner made up for any lack of acting chops. Not to mention a little Venutian Akido ... HAAAA-AIII!