The doctor? Doctor who?

[Andiferous]

While I'm finding the new stories entertaining enough, I often find the writing akin to a gratuitous puzzle pretending to greatness but lacking any meaningful clues. I occasionally smell out bits of foreshadowing, but I haven't quite gotten over being burned by the last season finale... Argh. I really tried to logic that one out, but the result was beyond my comprehension. The cinematography is pretty impressive, though.

But I guess this is Doctor Who, defying all universal explanation.

In defense, the previous seasons were at least consistently random and sort of lacked condescension.

 

[Finger]

While I'm finding the new stories entertaining enough, I often find the writing akin to a gratuitous puzzle pretending to greatness but lacking any meaningful clues. I occasionally smell out bits of foreshadowing, but I haven't quite gotten over being burned by the last season finale... Argh. I really tried to logic that one out, but the result was beyond my comprehension. The cinematography is pretty impressive, though.

But I guess this is Doctor Who, defying all universal explanation.

In defense, the previous seasons were at least consistently random and sort of lacked condescension.

Ha ha! I was just going to write something similar.

But yeah, I can't stand the new Doctor. It's like everything of substance was replaced with schlock. The tedious-twist-and turn storytelling, the fanservice, and the overly-climactic speeches. Seriously, count the climactic speeches. There are so many that follow this exact format:


But probably the biggest problem I have with it is the character development. Or rather, the lack of character development. I like character-driven stories. That's why I loved the "first" 4 seasons so much. The stories were almost always strong character stories which made me look past any schlock that might have crept in. An example of what I'm talking about is the way each team of writers handled the "historical figure" episodes. In the first four seasons, whenever the Doctor meets some famous historical figure -- Charles Dickens, Queen Victoria, Shakespeare, Agatha Christie -- they are treated as an important character in the story, with their arc closely tied to the overall narrative of the episode. Charles Dickens gains a fresh, invigorating perspective on the world, the Queen also gains a fresh, but terrifying, perspective on the world, Shakespear comes to terms with his son's death, and Agetha Christie... well, her character arc sort of gets erased along with her memory at the end. But the point is that they all had real character development.

Now look at Winston Churchill in season 5. What sort of arc did he have? None. No exploration into Churchill the man, no story elements uniquely connected to him; He's just there, smoking a cigar and being a caricature of Churchill. Like a Family Guy joke. "Hey, remember that time when Winston Churchill [blah blah] Daleks?" The same thing goes for Richard Nixon in the premier of season 6. He's not a character, he's a cheap reference.

And unfortunately the 11th Doctor is little more than a cheap reference too. The writers of the first four seasons made great effort to distance Doctors 9 and 10 respectively from their past incarnations. They wanted us, the audience, to like each Doctor on his own terms. But the writers of seasons 5 and 6 take the easy rout. They can't go five minutes without reminding us about all the other doctors that came before. It's an incredibly pretentious writing style. We're suppose to like this Doctor just because he's another Doctor. It's likethe show was written by fanboys. "Oh doood! Let's make him say, 'would you like a Jellybaby?' And what if we put him up against every villain in the season finale? That would be cooool!"

Ugh. I didn't mean to rant this much. Sorry. But I could keep going on Amelia Pond alone.

 

[Andiferous]

Oh I can guess that rant.

Of course, everyone has different tastes, and every doctor brought something different to the franchise. But I do agree with the opinion that Matt's doctor is a bit cartoony (or cliche, as you point out) for my liking. I'm embarassed to say that David's doctor actually had me in tears... in the good episodes.

 

[Prolescum]

You Tennant fangirls seem to think there were no annoying, overused tropes during his period... Thankfully no one noticed them in amongst all the pining for Rose.

It's fairly obvious that they are in the process of removing that 'I'm the Doctor, this world is protected' stuff; I'd even go as far as to suggest that the reason it's been so prevalent this past incarnation is precisely to get rid of that overhang from Tennant's lonely god era, build it up to show how destructive it is to the character. You'd probably have to stop crying to notice it, though. :lol:

[centre][/centre]

 

[Andiferous]

You Tennant fangirls seem to think there were no annoying, overused tropes during his period... Thankfully no one noticed them in amongst all the pining for Rose.

It's fairly obvious that they are in the process of removing that 'I'm the Doctor, this world is protected' stuff; I'd even go as far as to suggest that the reason it's been so prevalent this past incarnation is precisely to get rid of that overhang from Tennant's lonely god era; build it up to show how destructive it is to the character. You'd probably have to stop crying to notice it, though. :lol:

Fangirls, bleurgh. Everyone on the internet is male, right?

Besides, who is to say that Who Tennant didn't remind me, personally, of someone or something else? This is surely a legitimate explanaton for emotionalism.

 

[kenandkids]

Fangirls, bleurgh. Everyone on the internet is male, right?

We'd both likely be wealthy if we had a shared nickel for every time you get called "he" or "him" ...

 

[Prolescum]

Fangirls, bleurgh. Everyone on the internet is male, right?

Well, everyone except Tennant fangirls.

Besides, who is to say that Who Tennant didn't remind me, personally, of someone or something else? This is surely a legitimate explanaton for emotionalism.

Oh there are many legitimate reasons for all that. There are legitimate reasons for disliking Matt Smith's Doctor/era too, just not the left over character quirks from Tennant/Eccleston

We'd both likely be wealthy if we had a shared nickel for every time you get called "he" or "him" ...

I've known Andi longer than this forum has existed

 

[Andiferous]

Heh, we could have a boy vs. girl fight on who really gets it. But I'll take the high road and stop my tears long enough to leggo Tennant (and excessive baggage, along with a cool pretend-not-Scot accent and crazy eyes) enough and measure Matt for all his Who qualities.

Ken's totally right, I should be independantly wealthy at this point.

 

[Prolescum]

... I'll take the high road ...

Are you suggesting I've hit below the belt?

 

[Andiferous]

... I'll take the high road ...

Are you suggesting I've hit below the belt?

Humm...

 

[Prolescum]

Sorry, my boxing references are a little outdated...

 

[Andiferous]

The rules changed?

 

[Prolescum]

Well I still use the Marquess of Queensberry rules...

 

[Andiferous]

Queensberry has an interesting point to this thread. I thank you muchly for the rules of engagement.

 

[Ibis3]

Is there some reason why, in this forum about a science fiction show on a forum supposedly populated by rationalists, the conversation devolves yet again into sexism?

 

[australopithecus]

Yes, because no one is actually being serious....

There are legitimate reasons for disliking Matt Smith's Doctor/era too...

There are? Really?

The last season and the first part of this one have blown the past ones out the water (with the exception of those in the RTD era that were written by Moffatt anyway. Oh, and Human Nature/Family of Blood). Matt Smith is, in my opinion, the finest Doctor of modern times and equally as good as Tom Baker and Patrick Troughton. There have been a few bumps but on the whole it's been epic. Vincent and The Doctor.....need I say more?

Also, The Doctor is always at his best when he's having a righteous indignant rant:

 

[Prolescum]

Is there some reason why, in this forum about a science fiction show on a forum supposedly populated by rationalists, the conversation devolves yet again into sexism?

And over-reaction monthly's Ms July is...

Now, that could be construed as sexist. However, given its (illustrative) context, it shouldn't be.

Were she a lad, the only change I would've made would be to refer to her as a fanboy.

The target isn't her gender, I just know which it is.

As Austra said, it was a gentle poke at Tennant fans (with obvious over-generalisation) for fun.

There are legitimate reasons for disliking Matt Smith's Doctor/era too...

There are? Really?

Fear of bow ties...?

 

[Finger]

Fear of bow ties...?

That and the constant coattail-riding of the old doctors, a general lack of character development in the supporting cast, and the overindulgent, forced, "epic-ness" shoehorned into every episode.


[EDIT]And I think, australopithecus, that those videos you posted, side-by-side, demonstrate just how much Eccleston leaves Smith in the dust.[/EDIT]

 

[Prolescum]

That and the constant coattail-riding of the old doctors

Rationale: Large publicity splash in a (for want of a better term) new territory - America - and the current arc-heavy formula (and the current arc specifically) suggests to me that the production staff think his ability to regenerate needs regular airing and it's presented in various ways so no complaints from me. Now you can argue whether this is necessary...

a general lack of character development in the supporting cast

Categorically disagree. Case in point: River Song.

and the overindulgent, forced, "epic-ness" shoehorned into every episode.

Already gave a valid (and accurate) reason behind this. Moffat noticed the RTD trope of making things bigger and louder each season and has set in motion its fall. The last episode pointed this out specifically; Doctor doesn't mean healer in the future that River comes from, it means great warrior - the man who can raise an army purely on the mention of his name. The man who never touches guns but turns people into weapons.

 

[australopithecus]

That and the constant coattail-riding of the old doctors

I don't see it that way. Let's be honest, Doctor Who is primarily a kids show. Always has been, always will. Difference is it's also got a big adult following, though the fact is that kids wont remember anything pre-Ecclestone. Personally I like the fact they reference the Doctors 1-10 (it is the same character after all) plus it's not like they've made a 2/3/4/5 Doctors episode yet (which would be awesome). I don't see it as coat-tail riding, it's referencing the characters past.

a general lack of character development in the supporting cast

I disagree, I think Rory specifically has had a lot of development (in between being killed). Rory from The Eleventh Hour and Rory from A Good Man Goes to War is radically different. Even Amy has become more mature and less shouty/pouty. Besides, how much development did Rose/Matha/Donna get? Cpt Jack got some, but through Torchwood, not Who.

and the overindulgent, forced, "epic-ness" shoehorned into every episode.

I don't think you can force epic-ness. Either it is or it isn't. That the scale of the episodes has widened doesn't indicate trying to force anything epic in my opinion.

And I think, australopithecus, that those videos you posted, side-by-side, demonstrate just how much Eccleston leaves Smith in the dust.

Really? Personally, and I've said it before, I think Matt Smith has blown Tennant and Ecclestone out the water. He is consistently awesome and has acted everyone off screen with the exception of Tony Curran and Toby Jones.