Finger
New Member
Coat-tails
That may be true, but the frequency and artificiality of the references is indistinguishable from the arbitrary fanservice common to any other big-name, high-budgeted franchise. I just see it as equivalent to throwing C3PO and R2D2 into the Star Wars prequels. Even if you contrive some logical rationalization for them to be there, they were still only ever there to pander to the fan base. Which is, again, fine if kept in moderation. But very annoying to me when overused.Prolescum said:
That's just it. It's not the same character. That's what's great about regeneration. Each one is a different character. It therefore allows the show itself a chance to "regenerate" and change in style too. One version he can be more light-hearted while another version is more serious. One can be politically charged, while another is relatively apathetic. One can be action-oriented (complete with martial arts fight scenes,) and another can be more intellectual. Each "era" is its own show, in that respect. Like a spin-off. And a spin-off that can distance itself from its source material is stronger than one that is constantly pandering to the success and recognizably of the original show.australopithecus said:
Character Development
I disagree, even though I like River Song in this series. Character development is not the same thing as character exposition. We can learn about a character by learning their backstory, but they still need an arc in order to develop as a character. Your protagonists need to grow and change believaby through personal conflict derived from their experiences. This is not the case with River. She had a great arc in The Library, but in this series she exists primarily as a teaser. She teases the audience with hints of things to come. Do not mistake the gradual exposition of an enigmatic character's backstory with character development.Prolescum said:
My problem with Amy and Rory is that they were rushed. We never get a chance to really know them the way we did with the previous companions. That's because the previous era was told from the companions' perspective. When we met Rose, we got to know her before she mets the Doctor. We see her normal life and the people in her life (the domestic approach.) Then we see her thrust into the Doctor's world and we watch her deal with it. We see her marvel at the parts that are fantastic and struggle with the parts that are terrifying. Because we got to know her personally, it feels more real. So when she's returned to her former life at the end of the season, when she has the opportunity to go back to being just a girl in a shop, we understand her refusal to accept that outcome. In other words, her character has arced. So yes, Rose got some character development. As did all the other companions of her era. Micky, Martha, Donna, even Jack and Harriet Jones. We meet each of them before their lives are changed forever so we have something to compare their lives with the Doctor to.australopithecus said:
We didn't get that with Amy and Rory. The reason we didn't get it with Amy was because the writers wanted to set up that twist with her parents. So already, a crucial aspect of her character development was sacrificed for the plot. But we still never see her before she gets thrust into the Doctor's world. The most we see of her are her legs. Yes, stuff is revealed about her later, but that is, again, centered around a plot twist. Same with her relationship with Rory. We get only a few episodes for their relationship to develop, which simply isn't enough for a long-form cereal TV show, then Rory is "killed" off and there's very little reason to be upset about it because we barely know him. Yes, again, we see more of them without the Doctor later, but by then it's too late. It's backtracking at that point. This reflects a fundamental difference between the writing styles of this series and the last one. In this series, the characters are only there to serve the plot, when before it was the other way around. It's ok if you like that approach. But I don't. I want to be made to care about the characters. Without that, I don't care about the plot and I loose interest. Gimmicky plot-twists just don't do it for me.
Then there's also the general way the show treats the various one-shot characters. I explained everything I needed to in the earlier bit about Winston Churchill.
Epic-ness
You can do that without repeating the same climactic speech over and over again in exactly the same style. Again, my problem here is that it's overused to the point where it becomes cheap. "When everything is epic, nothing is."Prolescum said:
Yes you can force epicness. Case in point:australopithecus said:
The epicness of a scene is derived from the core conflict between the characters and story elements involved. "I amyour father!" would have been epic even if it had taken place in some boring hallway with no musical score. The same cannot be said of the Phantom Menace fight scene. Take away all the glamour and it's just three undeveloped characters fighting for reasons that aren't very clear. There's some conflict when Maul finally kills Qui-gon, but it's still not as personal as, "Now I am the master" or "Give in to your haaaaate!"
This new Doctor Who series has the same problem (a problem which, I'll admit, started during Tennant's reign.) It contrives the before-mentioned climactic speeches around stuff that isn't even that epic to begin with. Which wouldn't bother me as much if it was kept to a minimum, but it happens so much that it looses its effect and becomes boring.
Acting
And yet, what you presented as the "best of" Matt Smith was a two-line rant, the second line of which was screamed angrily. By contrast, the Eccleston scene is a complex, engaging rant where he brings himself from fear, to joy, to anger, to megalomania, to grief, to false pity, then back to anger, and even more megalomania, all told through some thoughtful shot construction and editing. I don't know about you, but one is more impressive to me than the other.australopithecus said:
