Rate Vincent and the Doctor

Rate Vincent and The Doctor

10
79
36%
9
63
29%
8
40
18%
7
24
11%
6
8
4%
5
2
1%
4
2
1%
3
0
No votes
2
0
No votes
1
3
1%
 
Total votes: 221
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20964
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Well, that answers the perennial question "what would you do if you had a TARDIS?"

My 11-year old son told me before I watched this: "you know how in a lot of stories you really want someone to do something, but they don't? Well, in this, they do!"

And by the end, I not only realised what he meant, I had to agree. I mean, yes, the invisible monster was a bit meh, although perfectly OK compared to the excuse to rope in the Doctor in many celebrity historicals (and I love the way he spotted something nasty in a painting - "I know evil when I see it!" - better keep him away from the Francis Bacons and H. R. Gigers :lol: !) And why did van Gogh have a Scottish accent, again? (I'm beginning to suspect Moffat has a "Gael agenda"...) And how come Bill Nighy, wonderful as always, failed to pronounce "van Gogh" correctly*, given that he was supposed to be an expert?

Quibbles, quibbles. Compared to last week's load of Chibnalls, this was brilliant. Compared to almost all of new-Who, this was brilliant. Even compared to quite a lot of old Who, this was brilliant. It made me laugh, it made me cry, it made me talk to the TV. It made me think "if only this wasn't just a story...!"

Excuse me, I may be squeeing.

My first 10/10, I can't really give it less.

*It's roughly like "van Hoff" with some added throat clearing. Trust me, I watch "QI".
Kafka
 
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:54 pm
Contact:

This season just keeps on getting better and better. Bloody brilliant. 10/10. :D :D :D
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

I think Vincent and the Doctor will go down in history as the best of what Doctor Who can be.

Now if it only had a better title. I like "This Evil Undying" where the evil is depression.
redbicpen
 
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:55 pm
Contact:

10 out of 10 from me.

Beautiful.

Turned my heart upside down.

Bill Nighy, Tony Curran, Matt Smith and Karen Gillan were all outstanding. Outstanding.

Matt Smith is one of the best Dr Who's ever. Karen Gillan is one of the best companions ever.

A new level has been set. This episode was ground-breaking and paves the way for future episodes and seasons which, I'm sure, will stretch the show creatively in directions we couldn't dream.

That was gold.

Brian.
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20964
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

OK, I've stopped squeeing now, and in the cold light of day I may be getting the same reaction I got when I watched "Parting of the Ways" way back when. Completely knocked out by the endorphin high, but . . . hang on a bleedin' minute.

Before I say anything, this was brilliantly acted, well written and produced, and if the blind chicken monster wasn't all that wonderful - and died furiously tugging our heartstrings like the Dalek in "Dalek" :roll: - it was still a lot better than Agatha Christie's wasp.

But there is the little matter of furiously mangling history to produce something that pushes all the right emo buttons. Richard Curtis makes Russell T Davies look like a beginner in the emo button department, but eventually I emerged from the warm fuzzy haze, and . . . well. So much for "Won't get fooled again".

If I'd studied art history a bit more attentively this might have struck me immediately, but I was young and bored, and anyway we only touched lightly on the Impressionists*. But anyway, (a) van Gogh should have only had one and a half ears in 1890, and (b) he cut it off because of a row with Gauguin, or something similar, and gave it to a prostitute called Rachel, and he probably had syphilis to boot, and how romantic is that, eh, Amy? Yet no mention of the seamy underbelly of VvG's life from Mr Curtis, not even a hint (well, not that I noticed, at least). And (c) was there, in fact, any mention whatsoever in VatD of his brother Theo, his lifelong supporter and friend, to whom he wrote hundreds of letters in Dutch, French, and, er - English (which means he could converse with Amy and the Doctor without any help from the TARDIS, come to think of it. OK, minor point, but what about the bleedin' ear?) And to whom he said his last words - "The sadness will last forever" ?

Oh, and Vincent actually started painting sunflowers in 1887.

So I may have to downgrade this to, well, let's say 7/10. Still pretty good, especially since it featured Matt Smith a lot, but could have been far better - and more poignant - with an attempt at historical accuracy.

*Sorry, couldn't resist. But true nonetheless.
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Killjoy! :)
Nobbend
 
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:57 pm
Contact:

LizR wrote:OK, I've stopped squeeing now, and in the cold light of day I may be getting the same reaction I got when I watched "Parting of the Ways" way back when. Completely knocked out by the endorphin high, but . . . hang on a bleedin' minute.

Before I say anything, this was brilliantly acted, well written and produced, and if the blind chicken monster wasn't all that wonderful - and died furiously tugging our heartstrings like the Dalek in "Dalek" :roll: - it was still a lot better than Agatha Christie's wasp.

But there is the little matter of furiously mangling history to produce something that pushes all the right emo buttons. Richard Curtis makes Russell T Davies look like a beginner in the emo button department, but eventually I emerged from the warm fuzzy haze, and . . . well. So much for "Won't get fooled again".

If I'd studied art history a bit more attentively this might have struck me immediately, but I was young and bored, and anyway we only touched lightly on the Impressionists*. But anyway, (a) van Gogh should have only had one and a half ears in 1890, and (b) he cut it off because of a row with Gauguin, or something similar, and gave it to a prostitute called Rachel, and he probably had syphilis to boot, and how romantic is that, eh, Amy? Yet no mention of the seamy underbelly of VvG's life from Mr Curtis, not even a hint (well, not that I noticed, at least). And (c) was there, in fact, any mention whatsoever in VatD of his brother Theo, his lifelong supporter and friend, to whom he wrote hundreds of letters in Dutch, French, and, er - English (which means he could converse with Amy and the Doctor without any help from the TARDIS, come to think of it. OK, minor point, but what about the bleedin' ear?) And to whom he said his last words - "The sadness will last forever" ?

Oh, and Vincent actually started painting sunflowers in 1887.

So I may have to downgrade this to, well, let's say 7/10. Still pretty good, especially since it featured Matt Smith a lot, but could have been far better - and more poignant - with an attempt at historical accuracy.

*Sorry, couldn't resist. But true nonetheless.
Things happen differently in the Dr Who reality.
Zenith
 
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:21 pm
Contact:

Nobbend wrote:
LizR wrote:OK, I've stopped squeeing now, and in the cold light of day I may be getting the same reaction I got when I watched "Parting of the Ways" way back when. Completely knocked out by the endorphin high, but . . . hang on a bleedin' minute.

Before I say anything, this was brilliantly acted, well written and produced, and if the blind chicken monster wasn't all that wonderful - and died furiously tugging our heartstrings like the Dalek in "Dalek" :roll: - it was still a lot better than Agatha Christie's wasp.

But there is the little matter of furiously mangling history to produce something that pushes all the right emo buttons. Richard Curtis makes Russell T Davies look like a beginner in the emo button department, but eventually I emerged from the warm fuzzy haze, and . . . well. So much for "Won't get fooled again".

If I'd studied art history a bit more attentively this might have struck me immediately, but I was young and bored, and anyway we only touched lightly on the Impressionists*. But anyway, (a) van Gogh should have only had one and a half ears in 1890, and (b) he cut it off because of a row with Gauguin, or something similar, and gave it to a prostitute called Rachel, and he probably had syphilis to boot, and how romantic is that, eh, Amy? Yet no mention of the seamy underbelly of VvG's life from Mr Curtis, not even a hint (well, not that I noticed, at least). And (c) was there, in fact, any mention whatsoever in VatD of his brother Theo, his lifelong supporter and friend, to whom he wrote hundreds of letters in Dutch, French, and, er - English (which means he could converse with Amy and the Doctor without any help from the TARDIS, come to think of it. OK, minor point, but what about the bleedin' ear?) And to whom he said his last words - "The sadness will last forever" ?

Oh, and Vincent actually started painting sunflowers in 1887.

So I may have to downgrade this to, well, let's say 7/10. Still pretty good, especially since it featured Matt Smith a lot, but could have been far better - and more poignant - with an attempt at historical accuracy.

*Sorry, couldn't resist. But true nonetheless.
Things happen differently in the Dr Who reality.

I think that goes without saying!

I think myself I am just used to this lax approach from Doctor Who now, I know what to expect. But the fact is there is absolutely no reason to mangle basic history like this in the name of entertainment. You can still be accurate and tell the same story after all...

I think in that regard it was a shame not to be more diligent as this new series is being pitched as a bit more restrained than the previous era and should be a bit more responsible with the facts of basic history. :4thDoctor:
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20964
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Nobbend wrote:Things happen differently in the Dr Who reality.
Well, yes, I don't think there are really cybermen in the closet . . . most nights.
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Not YET.... :o
User avatar
abominable snowman
 
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:38 pm
Location: Blackpool
Contact:

toxicspurge wrote:
THE DALEK SUPREME wrote:An unofficial overnight on BBC 1 of 4.7 million with an additional 0.3 million watching the simulcast on BBC HD giving Vincent and the Doctor an unofficial overnight of 5 million.

Other new series tenth episodes

The Doctor Dances 6.8m
Love & Monsters 6.6m
Blink 6.6m
Midnight 8.05m

Vincent and the Doctor has an unofficial overnight of 5 million. The unofficial overnights tend to rise by around 2 million when the finals are released.

So if Vincent and the Doctor gets a final figure of between 6.5m and 7m I don't see what the problem is.

That's because there is no problem.
I don't understand the mentality of some fans who keep talking the show down this year.

Negatives:

New music
New titles
New Daleks
New Silurians

For me everything else is either okay/mostly good or excellant.

Matt Smith is brill.
Karen is getting better she was really good in the last episode.

The final viewing figures are very good/good.
The AI's are excellant/very good.
The audience share has been down a bit because of the weather.

There is no problem 8-)
User avatar
Zarius
 
 
Posts: 2053
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:11 am
Contact:

It's like The Doctor Who Order

"Nothing to see here, EVERYTHING is alright, EVERYTHING-IS-ALRIGHT. IT'S. FINE."
Nobbend
 
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:57 pm
Contact:

Zenith wrote:
Nobbend wrote:
LizR wrote:OK, I've stopped squeeing now, and in the cold light of day I may be getting the same reaction I got when I watched "Parting of the Ways" way back when. Completely knocked out by the endorphin high, but . . . hang on a bleedin' minute.

Before I say anything, this was brilliantly acted, well written and produced, and if the blind chicken monster wasn't all that wonderful - and died furiously tugging our heartstrings like the Dalek in "Dalek" :roll: - it was still a lot better than Agatha Christie's wasp.

But there is the little matter of furiously mangling history to produce something that pushes all the right emo buttons. Richard Curtis makes Russell T Davies look like a beginner in the emo button department, but eventually I emerged from the warm fuzzy haze, and . . . well. So much for "Won't get fooled again".

If I'd studied art history a bit more attentively this might have struck me immediately, but I was young and bored, and anyway we only touched lightly on the Impressionists*. But anyway, (a) van Gogh should have only had one and a half ears in 1890, and (b) he cut it off because of a row with Gauguin, or something similar, and gave it to a prostitute called Rachel, and he probably had syphilis to boot, and how romantic is that, eh, Amy? Yet no mention of the seamy underbelly of VvG's life from Mr Curtis, not even a hint (well, not that I noticed, at least). And (c) was there, in fact, any mention whatsoever in VatD of his brother Theo, his lifelong supporter and friend, to whom he wrote hundreds of letters in Dutch, French, and, er - English (which means he could converse with Amy and the Doctor without any help from the TARDIS, come to think of it. OK, minor point, but what about the bleedin' ear?) And to whom he said his last words - "The sadness will last forever" ?

Oh, and Vincent actually started painting sunflowers in 1887.

So I may have to downgrade this to, well, let's say 7/10. Still pretty good, especially since it featured Matt Smith a lot, but could have been far better - and more poignant - with an attempt at historical accuracy.

*Sorry, couldn't resist. But true nonetheless.
Things happen differently in the Dr Who reality.

I think that goes without saying!

I think myself I am just used to this lax approach from Doctor Who now, I know what to expect. But the fact is there is absolutely no reason to mangle basic history like this in the name of entertainment. You can still be accurate and tell the same story after all...

I think in that regard it was a shame not to be more diligent as this new series is being pitched as a bit more restrained than the previous era and should be a bit more responsible with the facts of basic history. :4thDoctor:
I don't think many of the historicals in the classic series were very accurate either. e.g. where were Marco Polo's father and brother?
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20964
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

abominable snowman wrote:I don't understand the mentality of some fans who keep talking the show down this year.
They are entitled to their opinions, as are we all.
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Makkabee is our town historian. I know he's critical of many of the historicals, including The Reign of Terror. As I recall (and I could be wrong) he's a big fan of Marco Polo.
User avatar
abominable snowman
 
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:38 pm
Location: Blackpool
Contact:

LizR wrote:
abominable snowman wrote:I don't understand the mentality of some fans who keep talking the show down this year.
They are entitled to their opinions, as are we all.
If someone didn't like this episode because they found it boring I don't have a problem with that. I'm referring to those people who are saying things like the ratings are collapsing and the programme is in trouble. No it's not, in terms of ratings, ai's and audience share it's turning out to be pretty much the same as the previous four full seasons. Some people will love it and others might hate it but the end isn't nigh, the stats don't show a dip in the shows popularity.
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The idea that the current season is worse in ratings than previous seasons of New Who is just nonsense with no factual substantiation. The AI's are good and the final market share is good. That's all that matters.
User avatar
abominable snowman
 
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:38 pm
Location: Blackpool
Contact:

toxicspurge wrote:The idea that the current season is worse in ratings than previous seasons of New Who is just nonsense with no factual substantiation. The AI's are good and the final market share is good. That's all that matters.
If someone doesn't like it I don't have problems with that, it's their opinion and fair play to them, but using overnights to start shouting the end is nigh is laughable, the overnights have been going up by about 2 million when the final ratings come out. The AI's are good/excellant and the audience share is pretty much the same as usual.
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20964
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

abominable snowman wrote:
LizR wrote:
abominable snowman wrote:I don't understand the mentality of some fans who keep talking the show down this year.
They are entitled to their opinions, as are we all.
If someone didn't like this episode because they found it boring I don't have a problem with that. I'm referring to those people who are saying things like the ratings are collapsing and the programme is in trouble. No it's not, in terms of ratings, ai's and audience share it's turning out to be pretty much the same as the previous four full seasons. Some people will love it and others might hate it but the end isn't nigh, the stats don't show a dip in the shows popularity.
I was objecting to the comment "I don't understand the mentality of some fans who..." - purely because it's an ad hominem remark, rather than something neutral (e.g. "I disagree with those fans who...")
Zenith
 
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:21 pm
Contact:

abominable snowman wrote:
toxicspurge wrote:The idea that the current season is worse in ratings than previous seasons of New Who is just nonsense with no factual substantiation. The AI's are good and the final market share is good. That's all that matters.
If someone doesn't like it I don't have problems with that, it's their opinion and fair play to them, but using overnights to start shouting the end is nigh is laughable, the overnights have been going up by about 2 million when the final ratings come out. The AI's are good/excellant and the audience share is pretty much the same as usual.
I don't pay too much attention to the ratings, I think (saturday) television these days is more dependendent on the 'Buzz' factor, whether a show is being talked about... Doctor Who is doing okay in this regard but I'm not quite sensing the same level of enthusiasm and energy we had in the Tennant era. Nobody at my works is talking about it anymore and the press coverage has dropped off somewhat compared to last season, where are the interviews and three-quarter-page exclusive pics? No, I can see perfectly well why there's some serious discussion on the shows popularity and strength of quality. Just because Doctor Who has had a strong run as a series so far we all know it is not invulnerable to a reversal of fortune and frankly it would be very odd if *fans* weren't carefully monitoring all this! The 6-7pm Saturday evening slot is notoriously a bit of a bearpit, where a n adventure television drama's success is dependant on being better than merely "okay" to watch....

:Drunk:
Post Reply

Return to “SERIES 5”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests