My Matt Smith Era Overview

Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

It’s probably safe to say Moffat’s proven extraordinarily good at casting Doctors, compared to how bad RTD was. Although Eccleston’s performance made Dalek the triumph it was, his refusing any involvement in the 50th made it clear to me he shouldn't have ever been cast.

Smith had an almost Hartnellian face and manner. Something The Big Bang particularly emphasised. It’s unsurprising Moffat’s era was more comfortable acknowledging Classic Who, now we had a leading face that so resembled its beginnings.

He always seemed to be giving everything to his performance and truly becoming the character.

Yet something must’ve gone wrong, because after Smith departed, despite having the capability to do much more, I strangely didn’t care. Like Series 6’s finale, it’s almost like an endured chore is finally over.

So what went wrong, despite the enormous talent behind the era?

Many cited Moffat’s overdone timey-wimey solutions, which can work dramatically if there’s some vague sense of a discernable starting point making the time loop happen. They can’t just happen anytime at whim. Because obstacles, conflict and struggle makes it count dramatically. Not if it’s too easy.

But mostly they hold up. Except one (discussed later).

Time Crash worked dramatically because the story’s about the power of memory. The two Doctors discussing their experiences and accumulated wisdoms that made each who they are, and how one became the other. It's genuinely cathartic when one learns the crucial solution from the other.

Tennant’s solution in Time Crash might’ve been possible without the time loop, if it was a desperate fluke that paid off. If Tennant had erred and the Tardis exploded they’d both die, time would restore to its original path, Tennant wouldn’t exist to cross paths with Davison. Davison’s life would continue as normal, until he grew into Tennant. Time loop happens again. Tennant re-remembers being Davison, including seeing himself get it wrong. So he’d do it differently. Same disaster. Rinse, repeat, until eventually Tennant did it right, and being witnessed by his predecessor, suddenly he always will.

In Blink, Sally only gets gradual snippets of Tennant’s DVD messages perhaps because they’re still a temporal work in progress, reaching completion the more she works at the mystery and approaches the resolution.

Even the Pandorica escape makes sense. The Pandorica keeps its prisoner alive eternally. The Doctor would be alive inside for billions of years, therefore the possibility of the Doctor escaping eventually becomes a probability. The time loop might be instigated from the most distant billion year future point, but once the loop happened, the Doctor’s escape could be instantaneous.

Therefore Moffat’s timey-wimey should be nice and neat.

RTD wasn’t the first to show companions’ families (see Victoria; Nyssa). Likewise Classic Who also had timey-wimey moments. City of Death, Mawdryn Undead, Battlefield.

Indeed Smith’s run was almost a McCoy era redux (which itself was a Troughton redux). Except Smith’s performance was so faultless compared to McCoy’s lesser one, that it didn’t bear comparison. McCoy’s rendition of Matt’s Pandorica speech was poor indeed.

Had the show ended under Moffat, the novels (spearheaded by Gaiman) could’ve mined much material from Smith’s Doctor.

But this became problematic. Moffat’s War Doctor seemed a depressing by-product of Davison fan Moffat taking Warriors of the Deep seriously.

McCoy’s atrocious start perhaps necessitated the later mythical bigging up and retconning of him to superpowerful status, and Survival’s emergency surgery on Ace’s character.

Had the show ended on Remembrance of the Daleks, McCoy’s era would feel more solid and pointed in its improvement curve. But it didn’t stop there. Silver Nemesis degenerated Cartmel’s masterplan into an apocryphal mess, stretching the dark Doctor so thin he barely felt like he existed beyond a hodge-podge of clichés and desperate, contradictory cryptic hints.

I still believe Marc Platt’s Lungbarrow was McCoy’s era’s missing piece. Sure any answer to the purported mysteries was farthest thing from Cartmel’s mind or intent, but in some collective creative astrology zeitgeist sense, I feel the story should’ve happened. It was the solid answer never given, which would’ve justified all the pretentious mystery secret posturing, and revealed new mysteries beneath.

The problem is Series 5 wasn’t like Season 24. Series 5 was fine as it was. Since then Moffat’s been messing with perfection.

Our Lungbarrow redux was Moffat’s Dead Horse Beating of the Doctor trilogy. Unaccounted past faces of the Doctor explained. Sisterhood of Karn revisited. Revelations of the Doctor’s regenerations being recycled, meaning he might’ve had many more pasts and futures than we’d assumed.

Now Day of the Doctor presented Tom Baker’s cameo as a future Doctor that somehow regenerated back into him. Which makes no sense or likelihood and seems destined to happen only because Moffat wishes it so. I initially wondered if it was meant to involve the Zygons’ body-prints and bringing pictures of the past alive, but no cigar.

Time of the Doctor finally told us Matt’s Doctor was incorrectly numbered all along, and is infact the Thirteenth, final Doctor. He expects to die for now. Meaning his meeting with Tom Baker can’t possibly have happened now. Otherwise why’s he expecting to have no future incarnations if he’s already met one?

Unless of course he doesn’t remember encountering Tom Baker anymore than Hurt and Tennant remember him. Especially since it can’t happen at all until the Time Lords intervene and prevent the Trenzalore timeline from happening.

But he’s ultimately gifted with a fresh new regeneration cycle. Suddenly the idea he might re-regenerate into a former body makes perfect sense. There’s plenty of leg-room for it happening, and it fits perfectly the idea of his body’s incarnations being rebooted to old factory settings. It might not even happen just once.

Frustratingly that explanation would’ve been far more useful back in Day of the Doctor during the crucial anniversary tribute event where it didn’t make sense otherwise. Not least because if the Doctor had only two lives left, it’s an unlikely coincidence he’d happen to hit jackpot by re-inhabiting his best incarnation.

This is Moffat’s problem in microcosm. His characters are constantly being retconned to a degree that’s obnoxious. River Song was interesting before we learned she was an assassin agent of the Silence, daughter of Amy, and her best friend at school and… oh just piss off, Moffat!

Amy (and her Ganger), Clara and even Smith got the same treatment. New Who’s always very character driven, but Moffat kept fiddling with who the characters were.

My problem with Moffat’s Sherlock writing, and why I’m oddly unexcited about Series 3’s cliffhanger resolution, is Moffat writes almost everything so deliberately, so knowingly that the show itself seems to all exist within big quotation marks. His Sixth Doctor-esque Sherlock’s so overtly, predictably pathological, arrogant, smartarsed, sociopathic and misogynistic that he’s almost boring.

I’ll enjoy Doctor Who being similarly knowing in small doses. Like City of Death, Blink (Empty Child always felt slightly too indulgent and pristinely laid out to me). But now the entire show’s done like this, with retcons putting the quotation marks earlier, it’s become tiresome.

Tennant’s Doctor was so reactive and ineffectual he never got anything genuinely character-building. It seemed Moffat intended to rectify this immediately for Smith. Whether it’s his winning the day without a Tardis or screwdriver in Eleventh Hour, or saving Amy when she’s seconds away from death in Flesh and Stone, or sacrificing his own existence to save the Universe and restore Amy’s family to her.

Then there’s The Beast Below, which put Smith into an impossible, debate-provoking moral quandary.

Utilitarianism (needs of the many) dictates the Doctor can’t stop the ongoing torture. If the Whale stops, the ark disintegrates in the grinding halt and everyone dies in space. Lobotomising the whale seems the most humane option, but even torturing a vegetable is no less immoral. It’s a terrible thing to do, and the Doctor’s willingness almost makes him complicit with the whale’s original captors. But the survivalist situation demands the Doctor applying a different morality. None of the decent of us could make that decision. And so someone like Smith’s Doctor was needed to make the decision for us.

The Doctor as the cure for a diseased universe. Taken to its conclusion with Hurt’s War Doctor.

But Day of the Doctor’s timey-wimey retcon cop-out undid Smith’s character and his two predecessors, rewrote his past and numbering system, and happened too late to appreciate anything about the change that’s anywhere as interesting as what it replaced. Resultantly, Smith, Tennant, Eccleston are no longer who they were anymore.

Confused Matthew once enjoyed DS9, but in hindsight found it lacked staying power and rather blurred into an overriding arc with scant memorable standout episodes. And also was tainted by a poor final season. He’s said Star Trek’s endpoint should’ve been All Good Things. Indeed much of 90’s Trek’s excessive output created a blurring effect.

DS9 always seemed unsettled in its identity. Comedy and innuendo felt forced and desperate. Many claim it was too dependent on Babylon 5 for inspiration.

Infact it’s very premise was a contradiction. The unwinnable Dominion war could’ve been prevented had Sisko destroyed or mined the wormhole day one. It’s morals were confused. Sisko, like Eccleston’s Doctor was a hot-headed liability, often recklessly antagonising conflicts, prosecuting Starfleet officers and Maquis for their more lunatic fringe methods against the Dominion, even when leaving well alone would’ve saved more lives. Yet in In The Pale Moonlight commits similar illegal acts himself.

But there’s significant similarities with Smith’s era.

Their best stories were character-based, theatrical, intimate ones. In The Pale Moonlight, Girl Who Waited, Rings of Akhaten.

Name of the Doctor was virtually Who’s version of Trials and Tribbleations.

Both shows followed up the hero’s more macho bombastic affairs with sulky retirements to pad seasons out. Power of Three resembled an especially asinine Jake and Nog filler story that the season would’ve been better without. Likewise Trenzalore’s destination point’s reached in Name of the Doctor, then the cliffhanger’s never followed up (betraying all promise that the Anniversary special will be a continuing journey through the Doctor’s time-stream and past, as the trailers suggested).

They’re back to square one, returning to Earth off-screen instead. Then return to Trenzalore because the finale proper needs that climax again. Likewise DS9’s sixth season ended with the Federation besieging Cardassia, yet this remains unmentioned again as the war’s dragged out another season, and we got actual filler arcs to pad stories out, including needless revelations about Sisko’s now retconned mystical origins.

Ironically Time of the Doctor felt like the opposite of DS9 Series 7, more like an entire season crammed unsustainably into one story.

They both lost their staying power to arc overkill, and rushed, sloppy, pat resolution finales. Sisko should’ve ended the war by revealing another ruthless trick up his sleeve to turn the tide against the Dominion, like in In The Pale Moonlight, or like McCoy nuking Skaro. Something unexpected rather than perfunctorily limping to the finish line.

But ultimately DS9, like Smith’s era so internalised and enclosed itself, that only by making its finale an unexpected, personal one could the show be memorable. It failed miserably.

I think the problem’s still that Matt’s character became too excessively rewritten to care anymore. .

The first Star Wars film loses nothing from Empire’s revelation that Vader’s Luke’s father. This contradicts only a small past detail from an unreliable narrator who it makes sense would’ve lied. Dramatic beats remain unchanged, the revised premise still fits.

The Time War’s witnesses, the Doctor, Vissionary and the Daleks all tell the same tale.

Yet they’d all seen it wrong and were all unreliable narrators? Including our hero who’s grieved for years on false grounds? Even after End of Time’s last ditch attempt to ensure Gallifrey’s beyond saving? Utter nonsense!

Basically with Smith’s regeneration, we said goodbye to a lie. The only elation is relief that the slate’s wiped clean.

Really ever since that Christmas adventure on the galactic Orient Express didn’t happen, this promising era’s been taking only wrong turns since.
User avatar
Allons-y
 
 
Posts: 5945
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:28 pm
Contact:

Tanlee wrote:It’s probably safe to say Moffat’s proven extraordinarily good at casting Doctors
Since we haven't seen Capaldi in action, that's a bit of a leap even if you like Smith, with only one Doctor to account for him.
Tanlee wrote:compared to how bad RTD was. Although Eccleston’s performance made Dalek the triumph it was, his refusing any involvement in the 50th made it clear to me he shouldn't have ever been cast.
Sorry, no. RTD did very well indeed, both Eccleston and Tennant outshine Smith any day of the week. I agree that it's a shame Eccleston wouldn't return for the 50th, but what we got was great anyway. Tennant is my favourite Doctor, followed closely by Tom Baker, he did a very good job indeed and Eccleston was a very good Doctor also. Smith on the other hand, has been steadily improving but basically hasn't been all that good, so I'd say that RTD was much better at casting Doctors that Moffat
AMERICA IS AN ANVIL.

:4thDoctor: There's no point in being grown up, if you can't be childish sometimes!
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

Allons-y wrote:
Tanlee wrote:It’s probably safe to say Moffat’s proven extraordinarily good at casting Doctors
Since we haven't seen Capaldi in action, that's a bit of a leap even if you like Smith, with only one Doctor to account for him.
No, we've also seen Hurt in action, who proved to probably be better at the War Doctor role than Eccleston was..
Tanlee wrote:compared to how bad RTD was. Although Eccleston’s performance made Dalek the triumph it was, his refusing any involvement in the 50th made it clear to me he shouldn't have ever been cast.
Sorry, no. RTD did very well indeed, both Eccleston and Tennant outshine Smith any day of the week.
No. Just no.

Seriously Eccleston and Tennant as good as they are often have to try too hard and loudly in the role.

Matt Smith is just effortless and natural.
I agree that it's a shame Eccleston wouldn't return for the 50th, but what we got was great anyway. Tennant is my favourite Doctor, followed closely by Tom Baker, he did a very good job indeed and Eccleston was a very good Doctor also. Smith on the other hand, has been steadily improving but basically hasn't been all that good, so I'd say that RTD was much better at casting Doctors that Moffat
My favourites would be Paul McGann, Matt Smith, Tom Baker, Patrick Troughton, and possibly Christopher Eccleston.

Tennant is far from my favourite. I just found him too cocky and too much like the popular loud-mouthed braggard kid at school. I did admittedly warm to him once he had a more platonic relationship with Donna and loved him especially in Silence in the Library, Midnight, Journey's End and favourite of all The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith.

But the utterly ugly final 20 minutes of End of Time especially made me hate him all over again with a venmgeance.
User avatar
Allons-y
 
 
Posts: 5945
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:28 pm
Contact:

Tanlee wrote:
Allons-y wrote:
Tanlee wrote:It’s probably safe to say Moffat’s proven extraordinarily good at casting Doctors
Since we haven't seen Capaldi in action, that's a bit of a leap even if you like Smith, with only one Doctor to account for him.
No, we've also seen Hurt in action, who proved to probably be better at the War Doctor role than Eccleston was..
Alright I'll give you Hurt, Moffat did well there. But to say he was a better War Doctor than Eccleston is just silly, Eccleston was never meant to be the War Doctor, he always played the recently regenerated survivor of the war (as stated in Rose), he wasn't a worse War Doctor than Hurt because he never was the War Doctor.
Tanlee wrote:
Allons-y wrote:
Tanlee wrote:compared to how bad RTD was. Although Eccleston’s performance made Dalek the triumph it was, his refusing any involvement in the 50th made it clear to me he shouldn't have ever been cast.
Sorry, no. RTD did very well indeed, both Eccleston and Tennant outshine Smith any day of the week.
No. Just no.

Seriously Eccleston and Tennant as good as they are often have to try too hard and loudly in the role.

Matt Smith is just effortless and natural.
Eccleston and Tennant did brilliantly, Smith's performace is awkward and forced.
Tanlee wrote:
Allons-y wrote:I agree that it's a shame Eccleston wouldn't return for the 50th, but what we got was great anyway. Tennant is my favourite Doctor, followed closely by Tom Baker, he did a very good job indeed and Eccleston was a very good Doctor also. Smith on the other hand, has been steadily improving but basically hasn't been all that good, so I'd say that RTD was much better at casting Doctors that Moffat
My favourites would be Paul McGann, Matt Smith, Tom Baker, Patrick Troughton, and possibly Christopher Eccleston.

Tennant is far from my favourite. I just found him too cocky and too much like the popular loud-mouthed braggard kid at school. I did admittedly warm to him once he had a more platonic relationship with Donna and loved him especially in Silence in the Library, Midnight, Journey's End and favourite of all The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith.

But the utterly ugly final 20 minutes of End of Time especially made me hate him all over again with a venmgeance.
The End of Time was terrible.
AMERICA IS AN ANVIL.

:4thDoctor: There's no point in being grown up, if you can't be childish sometimes!
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

Allons-y wrote:Alright I'll give you Hurt, Moffat did well there. But to say he was a better War Doctor than Eccleston is just silly, Eccleston was never meant to be the War Doctor, he always played the recently regenerated survivor of the war (as stated in Rose), he wasn't a worse War Doctor than Hurt because he never was the War Doctor.
He was, according to Moffat. The War Doctor in Day was always meant to be Eccleston. No-one else (presumably the hint being he'd fought the war so long he'd never taken time to look at himself in the mirror before). And as we see in Dalek and Parting of the Ways, he is certainly the Doctor who is *still* fighting that lost war every way he still can.

But he's clearly not as good an actor as his Moffat-chosen replacement Hurt in the role since Hurt actually turned up to play the part and Eccleston did. Ergo Hurt was better casting than Eccleston, and giiven Eccleston's attitude to the show, his casting by RTD begins to look like a bigger mistake than we thought.
Eccleston and Tennant did brilliantly, Smith's performace is awkward and forced.
Eccleston and Tennant were only as good as their material, and half the time their material was RTD's pigslop.

Smith has been brilliant even in the worst material Moffat and Chibnall have given him.
The End of Time was terrible.
That reminds me. I've got another review in the pipeline.
User avatar
iank
 
 
Posts: 6195
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:40 am
Contact:

Again, I simply cannot relate to or remotely comprehend most of your blatherings here. The Smith era began with a vague similarity to the McCoy era (perhaps just by virtue of having a not dissimilar Doctor (at least to start with) and a dollop more surreality than the RTD era, but very quickly ceased to have any relation to it at all. And what you're doing bringing DS9 - widely acknowledged as the best of the Treks by most critics, regardless of your strange view of it - is beyond me. It's really rather insulting to mention DS9 and Sylv's era in the same breath as the spectacular trainwreck that the Smith era turned into. By the end of the McCoy era, any wobbles from its first season (hardly surprising in themselves given how rushed the production team were) had disappeared entirely; the show got better with every season. Smith's era saw Moffat shoot his entire creative bolt on its first season and by its third, he was resorting to ripping off various Series 1 RTD episodes for inspiration, to considerably less effective results. There's simply no comparing the level of creativity and inspiration in these eras. As for your rather tired Sylv bashing, I'm afraid I can't buy the idea that Smith is in any way better than him either. In his first season? He was certainly on a par. But his tiresome overplaying and uber-quick caricaturization (not to mention increasing Tennant-isation) ended up making him uber-annoying as f*ck. Sylv only got better and better in the role (and he wasn't bad to start with). Smith went from the best of the New Doctors to someone who, like Tennant, I couldn't wait to see the back of.

Gimme a frickin' break.
(Doctor Who) has been hijacked and redefined as a lucrative modern franchise. They've literally taken a square peg and painfully made it fit a round hole by taking enormous liberties with much of its fundamental essence. There's no turning back now.

- ozymandias, The Leisure Hive 2010
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

Allons-y wrote:
Tanlee wrote:It’s probably safe to say Moffat’s proven extraordinarily good at casting Doctors
Since we haven't seen Capaldi in action, that's a bit of a leap even if you like Smith, with only one Doctor to account for him.
Tanlee wrote:compared to how bad RTD was. Although Eccleston’s performance made Dalek the triumph it was, his refusing any involvement in the 50th made it clear to me he shouldn't have ever been cast.
Sorry, no. RTD did very well indeed, both Eccleston and Tennant outshine Smith any day of the week. I agree that it's a shame Eccleston wouldn't return for the 50th, but what we got was great anyway. Tennant is my favourite Doctor, followed closely by Tom Baker, he did a very good job indeed and Eccleston was a very good Doctor also. Smith on the other hand, has been steadily improving but basically hasn't been all that good, so I'd say that RTD was much better at casting Doctors that Moffat
I wouldn't. I could put up with Eccleston's Doctor, but hated Tennant. Matt Smith was easily the best Doctor since McGann, and maybe even since Tom Baker.
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

Why do all of Tanlee's reviews seem to contain at least one reference to Warriors of the Deep, and how (supposedly) awful it was?
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

iank wrote:Again, I simply cannot relate to or remotely comprehend most of your blatherings here. The Smith era began with a vague similarity to the McCoy era (perhaps just by virtue of having a not dissimilar Doctor (at least to start with) and a dollop more surreality than the RTD era, but very quickly ceased to have any relation to it at all. And what you're doing bringing DS9 - widely acknowledged as the best of the Treks by most critics, regardless of your strange view of it - is beyond me. It's really rather insulting to mention DS9 and Sylv's era in the same breath as the spectacular trainwreck that the Smith era turned into. By the end of the McCoy era, any wobbles from its first season (hardly surprising in themselves given how rushed the production team were) had disappeared entirely; the show got better with every season. Smith's era saw Moffat shoot his entire creative bolt on its first season and by its third, he was resorting to ripping off various Series 1 RTD episodes for inspiration, to considerably less effective results. There's simply no comparing the level of creativity and inspiration in these eras. As for your rather tired Sylv bashing, I'm afraid I can't buy the idea that Smith is in any way better than him either. In his first season? He was certainly on a par. But his tiresome overplaying and uber-quick caricaturization (not to mention increasing Tennant-isation) ended up making him uber-annoying as f*ck. Sylv only got better and better in the role (and he wasn't bad to start with). Smith went from the best of the New Doctors to someone who, like Tennant, I couldn't wait to see the back of.

Gimme a frickin' break.
First of all I am *not* anti-McCoy. I could take or leave his era, but I also have fond nostalgic memories of watching Remembrance and Battlefield on rotation when I was 11, and whenever writing fanfiction at that age, Ace's presence was always mandatory. I do dislike much of the 80's, but reserve my detest for Seasons 19-21, everything after that tends to fall into the take or leave category.

I have issues with Season 22, and don't really like Season 24 at all. But I do still really like Season 25's bookends, and do like Curse of Fenric and Battlefield (well, at least the original, the uncut version makes Ace come off as obnoxious when she first meets the Brig and chews strips off him out for the *heinous* crime of offering her a blanket), and I liked Survival up until it ended far too abruptly and randomly... I will admit Ghostlight was always rather lost on me. But again there are things about the era I still like about the era and I don't consider it objectionable (well apart from the killing of Fifi, that was a bit mean-spirited).

But I do still think Smith is a better actor than McCoy, and I can't quite agree that Smith himself became tiresome (although there were moments in Bells where he briefly did tax my patience). I always looked forward to him even when the scripts were rubbish and he remains still my favourite New Who Doctor, and I think its a shame he was poorly served.

That said I do think from Rings onward (and I know you don't like that story, but I insist it's an overlooked gem) his run did get consistent and to be honest I think the only reason Day fell so short was because of Eccleston being a pr*ck and refusing to partake. Time was a mess as well, but could have been fixed with just a few rewrites.

As for Deep Space Nine, I think it was brilliant for the most part, except I have never liked Ron Moore's miserable Klingons and frankly found Dax and Worf as a couple quite off-putting (though things got much worse when she died and he became an utter pr*ck about it to everyone). But I did find Season 7 to pour away a lot of what made the show great on filler arcs and padding and saw it end on a dour whimper. Same way I think the Series 6 arc trainwreck was something Smith's era never recovered from .
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

Series six was, for me, the best season of new Who, and one of the best seasons of Who overall. I've liked most of the Moffat/Smith run (though I thought the first half of series seven was weak, with only Asylum and The Angels Take Manhattan redeeming it) but series six, largely due to the wonderfully constructed series arc, was easily the best thing on TV that year and the highest point of the Matt Smith era.
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

tony ingram wrote:Why do all of Tanlee's reviews seem to contain at least one reference to Warriors of the Deep, and how (supposedly) awful it was?
What do you mean 'supposedly'? :?

But since you ask I mention it because its the basin bottom standard of the show. The worst thing to ever happen to the show (or to any show for that matter), just incase my review happens to make out the given story to be the worst story of Doctor Who, I need to mention Warriors just to make it clear what I'm talking about is still not the worst and never will be. I think that's why anyway
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

tony ingram wrote:Series six was, for me, the best season of new Who, and one of the best seasons of Who overall. I've liked most of the Moffat/Smith run (though I thought the first half of series seven was weak, with only Asylum and The Angels Take Manhattan redeeming it) but series six, largely due to the wonderfully constructed series arc, was easily the best thing on TV that year and the highest point of the Matt Smith era.
The thing is I *wish* the Series 6 arc was great. It seemed to have all the makings of it, but I think Moffat botched it in the end. And afterwards I was left thinking that whatever we'd supposedly learned about River, she'd actually been a much more interesting and likeable character beforehand and we just didn't need this arc. And I do think the Ponds suffered badly for it.
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

Tanlee wrote:
tony ingram wrote:Why do all of Tanlee's reviews seem to contain at least one reference to Warriors of the Deep, and how (supposedly) awful it was?
What do you mean 'supposedly'? :?

But since you ask I mention it because its the basin bottom standard of the show. The worst thing to ever happen to the show (or to any show for that matter), just incase my review happens to make out the given story to be the worst story of Doctor Who, I need to mention Warriors just to make it clear what I'm talking about is still not the worst and never will be. I think that's why anyway
But Warriors of the Deep is not the worst thing to ever happen to the show. Not by a long chalk. It's not the best story ever written but there are a lot worse. Ask a random sampling of Doctor Who fans what the worst story ever was and you'll get a lot of different responses. Time and the Rani, Love & Monsters, Time Lash, The Dominators, some particularly misguided types might even say The Gunfighters. I'd probably nominate something by RTD. But nobody, except you, would be likely to say Warriors of the Deep. It's unlikely ever to be in anyone's top ten either, but it's not a particularly bad story, it's not just a very good one.
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

Tanlee wrote:
tony ingram wrote:Series six was, for me, the best season of new Who, and one of the best seasons of Who overall. I've liked most of the Moffat/Smith run (though I thought the first half of series seven was weak, with only Asylum and The Angels Take Manhattan redeeming it) but series six, largely due to the wonderfully constructed series arc, was easily the best thing on TV that year and the highest point of the Matt Smith era.
The thing is I *wish* the Series 6 arc was great. It seemed to have all the makings of it, but I think Moffat botched it in the end. And afterwards I was left thinking that whatever we'd supposedly learned about River, she'd actually been a much more interesting and likeable character beforehand and we just didn't need this arc. And I do think the Ponds suffered badly for it.
Totally disagree.
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

tony ingram wrote:
Tanlee wrote:
tony ingram wrote:Why do all of Tanlee's reviews seem to contain at least one reference to Warriors of the Deep, and how (supposedly) awful it was?
What do you mean 'supposedly'? :?

But since you ask I mention it because its the basin bottom standard of the show. The worst thing to ever happen to the show (or to any show for that matter), just incase my review happens to make out the given story to be the worst story of Doctor Who, I need to mention Warriors just to make it clear what I'm talking about is still not the worst and never will be. I think that's why anyway
But Warriors of the Deep is not the worst thing to ever happen to the show. Not by a long chalk. It's not the best story ever written but there are a lot worse. Ask a random sampling of Doctor Who fans what the worst story ever was and you'll get a lot of different responses. Time and the Rani, Love & Monsters, Time Lash, The Dominators, some particularly misguided types might even say The Gunfighters. I'd probably nominate something by RTD. But nobody, except you, would be likely to say Warriors of the Deep. It's unlikely ever to be in anyone's top ten either, but it's not a particularly bad story, it's not just a very good one.
None of those other examples turn the Doctor into Neville Chamberlain or any other Hitler appeaser/sympathiser, or the UN at their most incompetent during ongoing massacres it was well in their power to prevent. None of them leave me thinking, 'what possessed them to do this to the character of the Doctor, or to any TV protagonist for that matter'. Let alone make him retroactively far less likeable throughout almost his entire run.

Fans will think otherwise because well fans can easily be fooled by a humourless script and a contrived downbeat ending that it's somehow serious and worthy, and also seem to think that Davison's performance redeems the thing, when his convictions as an actor only serve to reinforce the twisted misanthropic convictions of the story.
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

Tanlee wrote:
tony ingram wrote:
Tanlee wrote: What do you mean 'supposedly'? :?

But since you ask I mention it because its the basin bottom standard of the show. The worst thing to ever happen to the show (or to any show for that matter), just incase my review happens to make out the given story to be the worst story of Doctor Who, I need to mention Warriors just to make it clear what I'm talking about is still not the worst and never will be. I think that's why anyway
But Warriors of the Deep is not the worst thing to ever happen to the show. Not by a long chalk. It's not the best story ever written but there are a lot worse. Ask a random sampling of Doctor Who fans what the worst story ever was and you'll get a lot of different responses. Time and the Rani, Love & Monsters, Time Lash, The Dominators, some particularly misguided types might even say The Gunfighters. I'd probably nominate something by RTD. But nobody, except you, would be likely to say Warriors of the Deep. It's unlikely ever to be in anyone's top ten either, but it's not a particularly bad story, it's not just a very good one.
None of those other examples turn the Doctor into Neville Chamberlain or any other Hitler appeaser/sympathiser, or the UN at their most incompetent during ongoing massacres it was well in their power to prevent. None of them leave me thinking, 'what possessed them to do this to the character of the Doctor, or to any TV protagonist for that matter'. Let alone make him retroactively far less likeable throughout almost his entire run.
I just don't see it like that, at all. He was just trying to find a peaceful solution, as he always does. He failed. That's tragic. But it doesn't reflect badly on the Doctor.

Fans will think otherwise because well fans can easily be fooled by a humourless script and a contrived downbeat ending that it's somehow serious and worthy, and also seem to think that Davison's performance redeems the thing, when his convictions as an actor only serve to reinforce the twisted misanthropic convictions of the story.
And this, I'm basically just reading as "other fans don't see it my why, because they're gullible fools", which is, frankly, a feeling I frequentlyget from your comments. It's Tanlee's way, or the highway. You never used to be like this.
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

tony ingram wrote:I just don't see it like that, at all. He was just trying to find a peaceful solution, as he always does. He failed. That's tragic. But it doesn't reflect badly on the Doctor.
You don't find a "peaceful solution" by giving the side who are doing all the massacring free reign over the base (when did Troughton ever do this when this happened in a base under siege scenario?). Not unless your peaceful solution involves one side being totally dead ergo no more fighting, which... actually does seem to be the Doctor's agenda here.

Furthermore the Doctor may often seek the peaceful solution but this has *never* before involved him outright forbidding anyone from defending themselves. Or for that matter been so devoted to pacifism that one of these 'pathetic' humans he scorns, actually ends up having to take a bullet for his procrastinating appeasing ass.
And this, I'm basically just reading as "other fans don't see it my why, because they're gullible fools", which is, frankly, a feeling I frequentlyget from your comments. It's Tanlee's way, or the highway. You never used to be like this.
Okay I guess I've been in a lot of fandom flame wars on particularly worryingly cultish fan communities which have left me a bit more uncompromising and besieged in my stance. And I do feel that the acceptance of Warriors comes under the more cultish side of fandom thinking, where no-one stops to think about what's actually wrong here and just how wrong.
User avatar
Allons-y
 
 
Posts: 5945
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:28 pm
Contact:

tony ingram wrote:Why do all of Tanlee's reviews seem to contain at least one reference to Warriors of the Deep, and how (supposedly) awful it was?
I don't know, perhaps it killed his grandmother. In any case, he sure can bear a grudge, I don't think he hates anything as much.
AMERICA IS AN ANVIL.

:4thDoctor: There's no point in being grown up, if you can't be childish sometimes!
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

Allons-y wrote:
tony ingram wrote:Why do all of Tanlee's reviews seem to contain at least one reference to Warriors of the Deep, and how (supposedly) awful it was?
I don't know, perhaps it killed his grandmother. In any case, he sure can bear a grudge, I don't think he hates anything as much.
It's not as if i'ts at heart any good natured innocent-meant story. It's mean-spirited and scornful toward mankind as a species, not just for having a military war machine, but for having any survival instinct at all, whilst proscribing a 'hero' who sucks up to a bunch of genocidal warmongering lizards and treats their victims as the aggressors who somehow had it coming, and seemingly wilfully fails to save any of the humans just to spite them.

I don't know why I'm expected to be forgiving toward a story that quite clearly is *itself* unforgiving and scornful.
User avatar
Allons-y
 
 
Posts: 5945
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:28 pm
Contact:

Tanlee wrote:
Allons-y wrote:
tony ingram wrote:Why do all of Tanlee's reviews seem to contain at least one reference to Warriors of the Deep, and how (supposedly) awful it was?
I don't know, perhaps it killed his grandmother. In any case, he sure can bear a grudge, I don't think he hates anything as much.
It's not as if i'ts at heart any good natured innocent-meant story. It's mean-spirited and scornful toward mankind as a species, not just for having a military war machine, but for having any survival instinct at all, whilst proscribing a 'hero' who sucks up to a bunch of genocidal warmongering lizards and treats their victims as the aggressors who somehow had it coming, and seemingly wilfully fails to save any of the humans just to spite them.

I don't know why I'm expected to be forgiving toward a story that quite clearly is *itself* unforgiving and scornful.
You don't have to like it, but you sure take it personally.
AMERICA IS AN ANVIL.

:4thDoctor: There's no point in being grown up, if you can't be childish sometimes!
Post Reply

Return to “The Smith Era”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests