SJS for me. I've said why in other threads. Just not a very good actress and not a very interesting character. Hazy nostalgia and being in the show at just the right time must have something to do with it.
I love the way you rebel against majority opinions!
Thanks lol, but I only do it sincerely: I won't knock something that I think is good or pretend to like something I don't just to go against the grain.
I actually feel my perception is different to a lot of fans because in a lot of ways it's not coloured as much by nostalgia. I don't say it's better mind, just different. I just watch the episodes, old and new, and say what I think. I don't really have sentimental attachments to certain eras like a lot of people do (maybe in future I will about the 11th Doctor). I did watch Doctor who when I was young, and not casually; I was a very keen fan; it was the McCoy era mainly but Colin Baker too, and I knew the others from videos and so forth, but I'm just not the sort of person who will hold on to a childhood perception for my whole life. I can make a critical judgment of those episodes just the same as any others. In fact, even as a child I knew 'my' Doctor, Sylvester McCoy wasn't one of the best.
Sarah-Jane is just another companion to me, and not one I particularly enjoy. In fact, I find her a little annoying. I take the arguments in her favour but my own argument is, and this is coming from my general perceptions of Doctor Who fandom (indeed, probably any fandom), that you can do quite a simple equation: people's preferences for the show are strongly coloured by what it was like at the time the fell in love with it, usually as a child, and the fact is that more people were watching the show at the time she was in it than at any other time and she was also one of the longest running companions. By pure mathematics, using the model for popularity I just described, she will be one of the most popular. Not because she necessarily defines what a companion should be (ie the ideal) but because she just happened to be what the companions was at that crucial time for the show. So yes, to some extent she defines the companion in the eyes of many; I don't disagree with that, but not necessarily due to any great merit on the part of the character.
And actually, I don't think the' independant' thing lasted very long; she wasn't much of a journalist after that first series with Jon Pertwee (and interestingly, it's with Tom Baker she is most remembered, not for that early portrayal) and became as much a damsel as any other companion was, and certainly more of one than say, Leela, who came immediately afterwards. As for sweet... yes, but it's that kind of faux-little girl sweet that I actually find kind of sickly personally. Those little biting her lip faces and silly voices. Little girls do that to charm and I guess grown women can use the tactic too and it works just as well :P It's not a fault with the character, just my preference. But I get kind of bored with seeing the character put on a pedestal constantly; that companion has been given much more of a legacy in the show than any other, except for perhaps Rose, and yet there's still always seemingly people on hand to say 'what about Sarah-Jane?' if anyone dares to not focus on her. Well, 'what about one of my personal favourites Liz Shaw?' She was at least as independant, intelligent and feisty as Sarah-Jane, but oddly is not as well regarded. Perhaps because she only appeared for one series at a time when the ratings weren't at their highest?
Every companion is someone's favourite, and the companions from the most popular eras will be more people's favourite than the others, it's as simple as that. It doesn't mean that, objectively speaking, they are a great character. Of course, it grows expotentially, because she returned in the current era, and had her spin-off show, which exposes her to more people, thus kind of giving her a second era and extending the character's popularity further. My perception is that people from a similar retrospective kind of viewpoint as mine (described at the top of my post) don't particularly tend to single her out; the people I see who do that tend to be fans from the time. That's telling, and is what confirms my hypothesis to my own personal satisfaction.
But my top choice would be The Master. You know what, maybe I was unfair to Barrowman, John Simm as the Master really was hammy and OTT. I also never liked how we seemed to be expected to feel sorry for him no matter how much bad stuff he did.I've never seen The Master in the classic series, but I didn't like the Eric Roberts version either.
The Cybermen. They're rubbish most of the time.
Good point with both. They've both been pretty awful more often than they've been good.
To be honest, the only Master I really enjoy watching is Roger Delgado's. He was a great villain (and it was mostly in the portrayal by Delgado, rather than the scripts) . The 'Skeletor' Master, as I think of him , from 'Deadly Assassin' and 'Keeper of Traken' was an interesting idea that could have been exploited a little more, but the three actors who have portrayed him since then have all been, to use Anthony Ainley's own phrase: 'incurable hams'. Honestly, I don't care if the character ever returns again. Maybe Roger Delgado set the bar too high; you can't play him 100% straight because that's not how Delgado established him, but subsequent actors seemingly haven't been able to get the level right.
As for the Cybermen, great concept initially, but now so played out and tedious, and not just in Doctor Who. Cyborgs, and the issues pertaining to them, are now one of the hoariest tropes in Sci-Fi.
Thanks lol, but I only do it sincerely: I won't knock something that I think is good or pretend to like something I don't just to go against the grain.
I actually feel my perception is different to a lot of fans because in a lot of ways it's not coloured as much by nostalgia. I don't say it's better mind, just different. I just watch the episodes, old and new, and say what I think. I don't really have sentimental attachments to certain eras like a lot of people do (maybe in future I will about the 11th Doctor). I did watch Doctor who when I was young, and not casually; I was a very keen fan; it was the McCoy era mainly but Colin Baker too, and I knew the others from videos and so forth, but I'm just not the sort of person who will hold on to a childhood perception for my whole life. I can make a critical judgment of those episodes just the same as any others. In fact, even as a child I knew 'my' Doctor, Sylvester McCoy wasn't one of the best.
Sarah-Jane is just another companion to me, and not one I particularly enjoy. In fact, I find her a little annoying. I take the arguments in her favour but my own argument is, and this is coming from my general perceptions of Doctor Who fandom (indeed, probably any fandom), that you can do quite a simple equation: people's preferences for the show are strongly coloured by what it was like at the time the fell in love with it, usually as a child, and the fact is that more people were watching the show at the time she was in it than at any other time and she was also one of the longest running companions. By pure mathematics, using the model for popularity I just described, she will be one of the most popular. Not because she necessarily defines what a companion should be (ie the ideal) but because she just happened to be what the companions was at that crucial time for the show. So yes, to some extent she defines the companion in the eyes of many; I don't disagree with that, but not necessarily due to any great merit on the part of the character.
And actually, I don't think the' independant' thing lasted very long; she wasn't much of a journalist after that first series with Jon Pertwee (and interestingly, it's with Tom Baker she is most remembered, not for that early portrayal) and became as much a damsel as any other companion was, and certainly more of one than say, Leela, who came immediately afterwards. As for sweet... yes, but it's that kind of faux-little girl sweet that I actually find kind of sickly personally. Those little biting her lip faces and silly voices. Little girls do that to charm and I guess grown women can use the tactic too and it works just as well :P It's not a fault with the character, just my preference. But I get kind of bored with seeing the character put on a pedestal constantly; that companion has been given much more of a legacy in the show than any other, except for perhaps Rose, and yet there's still always seemingly people on hand to say 'what about Sarah-Jane?' if anyone dares to not focus on her. Well, 'what about one of my personal favourites Liz Shaw?' She was at least as independant, intelligent and feisty as Sarah-Jane, but oddly is not as well regarded. Perhaps because she only appeared for one series at a time when the ratings weren't at their highest?
Every companion is someone's favourite, and the companions from the most popular eras will be more people's favourite than the others, it's as simple as that. It doesn't mean that, objectively speaking, they are a great character. Of course, it grows expotentially, because she returned in the current era, and had her spin-off show, which exposes her to more people, thus kind of giving her a second era and extending the character's popularity further. My perception is that people from a similar retrospective kind of viewpoint as mine (described at the top of my post) don't particularly tend to single her out; the people I see who do that tend to be fans from the time. That's telling, and is what confirms my hypothesis to my own personal satisfaction.
See where you're coming from on that but I don't totally agree with it. I didn't grow up with Sarah and she could have done just one or two Series and I still would have liked her, therefore Nostalgia cannot cloud my judgement in the same way as Tegan or Peri for example.
If we're really basing that theory on every regular in the show then I really shouldn't like any other character before Peter Davison took over. However, I do like other regulars outside of the 80's because they are likeable as characters and not always because of their reputation either. I dislike several companions for a similar reason. I've often critisised Dodo and Vicki on here, but that's my opinion and not because they have a reputation for being childish and at times boring.
As for Liz, I think she's okay but certainly at the beginning of Season 7 she did come across as uppity and snobby and she was at times very awkward with The Doctor and The Brigadier. She did improve as the Season went on and by Inferno she had lightened quite a bit. I think she needed another to develop the character further but it was not to be. At times, though, she did lack the warmth and humour of Sarah's character and indeed of Jo, who took over from her.
I have a long list. Most of the characters in Nu Who who were recycled, used past their sell by date or turned into non humans. Captain Jack would have been great if they had let him go at the end of the Doctor Dances (turned immortal). River should at most have been given an outing or two after the library just to make sense of what happened there (became a demi time lord). Rose, my god, can't a companion just be a companion, do they have to absorb the time vortex, Donna, 'doctor donna'. I mean really, Rory, how many times did he die....
Most overrated in my opinion is Rose. She is WHO 'legend' yet apart from one or two good shows where she just played the companion, I don't get the fuss, and Tennant, whilst I enjoyed some of his performances, would never be considered one of the best if the memory of him was 30 years old. It is like when they do the all time best list in football...80% of the players are always current..
As for the hate Martha fest. I believe she is the most underrated of all the modern companions. Some of the best Nu Who happened in her series and until Matts' companions she was the only one who stayed human throughout. I believe too, she is unfairly blamed for the love angle. I suspect it wasn't done to show how much Martha doted on the Doctor, but to pay homage to Rose as the ex the doctor couldn't forget.
See where you're coming from on that but I don't totally agree with it. I didn't grow up with Sarah and she could have done just one or two Series and I still would have liked her, therefore Nostalgia cannot cloud my judgement in the same way as Tegan or Peri for example.
If we're really basing that theory on every regular in the show then I really shouldn't like any other character before Peter Davison took over. However, I do like other regulars outside of the 80's because they are likeable as characters and not always because of their reputation either. I dislike several companions for a similar reason. I've often critisised Dodo and Vicki on here, but that's my opinion and not because they have a reputation for being childish and at times boring.
As for Liz, I think she's okay but certainly at the beginning of Season 7 she did come across as uppity and snobby and she was at times very awkward with The Doctor and The Brigadier. She did improve as the Season went on and by Inferno she had lightened quite a bit. I think she needed another to develop the character further but it was not to be. At times, though, she did lack the warmth and humour of Sarah's character and indeed of Jo, who took over from her.
Well, with Vicki at least the childishness was actually part of her character. She was supposed to be as young, at least, or younger, than Adric. Considering Maureen O'Brien was actually playing much younger than her real age it was a very convincing portrayal. I actually think she's one of the best actresses (not necessarily one of the best characters) Doctor Who has had for a companion. She's an odd one for me because I initially didn't like her, something about her mannerisms just irritated me. But I've found she's a character I've really come round to. I now consider her to be a big improvement over Susan, whom she replaced.
With Liz, it's her very awkwardness with the Doctor and the Brig that I love. I like how she teases them and pricks their pomposity, especially in Spearhead from Space. I love that kind of sense of humour in women; my girlfriend is the same way (she has the same name too ).
Of course, I brought her up not so much because I feel people should like her more , but as a counter-point to Sarah-Jane, as they are really very similar but only one gets the attention. You can really see Liz as something of a Sarah-Jane mark 1: intelligent, independant (actually, more so than Sarah-Jane, despite the fact that those are the attributes frequently praised as the big innovation in the character of Sarah-Jane). Sarah-Jane also has something of that Doctor and Brig teasing element: "I know you're a Time-Lord". You couldn't imagine Jo Grant or Leela really doing that. Jo Grant might call him 'an old grumpy' or something
There is also another sad similarity, in that their respective actresses both died last year, except the people who would jump on every little perceived slight against Elizabeth Sladen don't seem bothered about Caroline John being mentioned or not (or indeed Mary Tamm). Whatever her merits as a character, her 'above all other companions' status just isn't justified.
River Song. Couldn't stand the character and her annoying way of talking and her cocky attitude. Every time it was announced she was returning I just thought oh no not again Stop milking it moffatt.
Couldn't stand the toy. Never any use, became dated the first moment it was debuted, irritating, and turns every episode it's in into a young child's episode...
As for the hate Martha fest. I believe she is the most underrated of all the modern companions. Some of the best Nu Who happened in her series and until Matts' companions she was the only one who stayed human throughout. I believe too, she is unfairly blamed for the love angle. I suspect it wasn't done to show how much Martha doted on the Doctor, but to pay homage to Rose as the ex the doctor couldn't forget.
I much preferred her to Rose myself. And I found all the Doctor's moping about after Rose left to be extremely irritating. So much for "I don't look back, I can't."
Well, with Vicki at least the childishness was actually part of her character. She was supposed to be as young, at least, or younger, than Adric. Considering Maureen O'Brien was actually playing much younger than her real age it was a very convincing portrayal. I actually think she's one of the best actresses (not necessarily one of the best characters) Doctor Who has had for a companion. She's an odd one for me because I initially didn't like her, something about her mannerisms just irritated me. But I've found she's a character I've really come round to. I now consider her to be a big improvement over Susan, whom she replaced.
With Liz, it's her very awkwardness with the Doctor and the Brig that I love. I like how she teases them and pricks their pomposity, especially in Spearhead from Space. I love that kind of sense of humour in women; my girlfriend is the same way (she has the same name too ).
Of course, I brought her up not so much because I feel people should like her more , but as a counter-point to Sarah-Jane, as they are really very similar but only one gets the attention. You can really see Liz as something of a Sarah-Jane mark 1: intelligent, independant (actually, more so than Sarah-Jane, despite the fact that those are the attributes frequently praised as the big innovation in the character of Sarah-Jane). Sarah-Jane also has something of that Doctor and Brig teasing element: "I know you're a Time-Lord". You couldn't imagine Jo Grant or Leela really doing that. Jo Grant might call him 'an old grumpy' or something
There is also another sad similarity, in that their respective actresses both died last year, except the people who would jump on every little perceived slight against Elizabeth Sladen don't seem bothered about Caroline John being mentioned or not (or indeed Mary Tamm). Whatever her merits as a character, her 'above all other companions' status just isn't justified.
So on that basis then, that her popularity as a character doesn't mean she should be seen above everyone else, does that mean then that the more popular Doctors like Tom Baker and David Tennant aren't deserving of being seen as 'above all other' Doctors as they quite often top polls and get the chance to come back in 50th Anniversary stories?
As for Liz, I see your point, guess in that case it comes down to preference of character. I don't dislike her, but as she's in a Season that I intensely dislike overall, it's hard to really like her as much as some of the other companions. That's why I said I would like to have seen her in the more lighter stories of Season 8 and 9 with some extra humour attached.
Maureen O Brien I don't have a problem with. It's the character I don't like. I think most of the Female Hartnell companions are a bit childish but that's because it was aimed mostly at a child audience. Barbara was an exception and so was Polly who came along at a time when the show was changing.
The Great Intelligence.
The Cybermen. (Especially New Who)
The Silence (more a wasted character if truth be told)
The Weeping Angels (after their first two stories)
dr who himself. the idea of the last tardis being kept going despite the entire techo infrastructure which previously supported it having gone is inherently improbable .....
Mediocre is probably the best word to describe her, yet she gets tons of praise, 2 spin off shows, and is the only classic companion to feature in New Who. Nothing at all against Liz Sladen who obviously took whatever jobs she could, but the character wasn't special in the slightest.
Jo was far better with 3rd Doctor, and I liked the 4th Doctor and Romana more too. She wasn't a bad companion, but she wasn't the greatest either.
Regarding Rose, I quite liked her to begin with, but I slowly but surely began to dislike her. I started going off her a bit during series 2, but I still thought she was alright. Then we had The Doctor not shutting up about her in series 3, and there was so much nonsense with her return in the finale of series 4 I never wanted to see her again after that.
I agree that Rose is overrated by some because she was the "first" one for new viewers, so a lot will compare everyone who comes after to her. Having said that, as someone who didn't really see much of the classic series, Rose was the first 'proper' companion for me, and I found Martha, Donna, Amy, Rory and Clara a lot more interesting and/or likeable than Rose. They made me realise that, despite what we kept being told, there wasn't really anything special about Rose.
Agreed. Good character but nothing spectacular IMO. I don't get why some fans are so keen to see her back that they begin to imagine every other character who appears on-screen is somehow Sally Sparrow, though I think that's become more of an in-joke now.
Add to that River Song, The Silence and Canton Delaware III.
I have come to the conclusion that this is a very depressing thread. It's sad when people don't like who you like or seem to resent the popularity of someone you think is deserving of that popularity.
There's no real point in arguing against it, either, because simply by posting the example the poster is acknowledging that that person is well liked and popular so there's really no percentage in trying to dissuade them.
It's an interesting exercise in demonstrating that no matter how liked or popular somebody is there is always going to be some one out there who i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶e̶r̶r̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶d̶g̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶ thinks differently
Comments
Thanks lol, but I only do it sincerely: I won't knock something that I think is good or pretend to like something I don't just to go against the grain.
I actually feel my perception is different to a lot of fans because in a lot of ways it's not coloured as much by nostalgia. I don't say it's better mind, just different. I just watch the episodes, old and new, and say what I think. I don't really have sentimental attachments to certain eras like a lot of people do (maybe in future I will about the 11th Doctor). I did watch Doctor who when I was young, and not casually; I was a very keen fan; it was the McCoy era mainly but Colin Baker too, and I knew the others from videos and so forth, but I'm just not the sort of person who will hold on to a childhood perception for my whole life. I can make a critical judgment of those episodes just the same as any others. In fact, even as a child I knew 'my' Doctor, Sylvester McCoy wasn't one of the best.
Sarah-Jane is just another companion to me, and not one I particularly enjoy. In fact, I find her a little annoying. I take the arguments in her favour but my own argument is, and this is coming from my general perceptions of Doctor Who fandom (indeed, probably any fandom), that you can do quite a simple equation: people's preferences for the show are strongly coloured by what it was like at the time the fell in love with it, usually as a child, and the fact is that more people were watching the show at the time she was in it than at any other time and she was also one of the longest running companions. By pure mathematics, using the model for popularity I just described, she will be one of the most popular. Not because she necessarily defines what a companion should be (ie the ideal) but because she just happened to be what the companions was at that crucial time for the show. So yes, to some extent she defines the companion in the eyes of many; I don't disagree with that, but not necessarily due to any great merit on the part of the character.
And actually, I don't think the' independant' thing lasted very long; she wasn't much of a journalist after that first series with Jon Pertwee (and interestingly, it's with Tom Baker she is most remembered, not for that early portrayal) and became as much a damsel as any other companion was, and certainly more of one than say, Leela, who came immediately afterwards. As for sweet... yes, but it's that kind of faux-little girl sweet that I actually find kind of sickly personally. Those little biting her lip faces and silly voices. Little girls do that to charm and I guess grown women can use the tactic too and it works just as well :P It's not a fault with the character, just my preference. But I get kind of bored with seeing the character put on a pedestal constantly; that companion has been given much more of a legacy in the show than any other, except for perhaps Rose, and yet there's still always seemingly people on hand to say 'what about Sarah-Jane?' if anyone dares to not focus on her. Well, 'what about one of my personal favourites Liz Shaw?' She was at least as independant, intelligent and feisty as Sarah-Jane, but oddly is not as well regarded. Perhaps because she only appeared for one series at a time when the ratings weren't at their highest?
Every companion is someone's favourite, and the companions from the most popular eras will be more people's favourite than the others, it's as simple as that. It doesn't mean that, objectively speaking, they are a great character. Of course, it grows expotentially, because she returned in the current era, and had her spin-off show, which exposes her to more people, thus kind of giving her a second era and extending the character's popularity further. My perception is that people from a similar retrospective kind of viewpoint as mine (described at the top of my post) don't particularly tend to single her out; the people I see who do that tend to be fans from the time. That's telling, and is what confirms my hypothesis to my own personal satisfaction.
Good point with both. They've both been pretty awful more often than they've been good.
To be honest, the only Master I really enjoy watching is Roger Delgado's. He was a great villain (and it was mostly in the portrayal by Delgado, rather than the scripts) . The 'Skeletor' Master, as I think of him
As for the Cybermen, great concept initially, but now so played out and tedious, and not just in Doctor Who. Cyborgs, and the issues pertaining to them, are now one of the hoariest tropes in Sci-Fi.
See where you're coming from on that but I don't totally agree with it. I didn't grow up with Sarah and she could have done just one or two Series and I still would have liked her, therefore Nostalgia cannot cloud my judgement in the same way as Tegan or Peri for example.
If we're really basing that theory on every regular in the show then I really shouldn't like any other character before Peter Davison took over. However, I do like other regulars outside of the 80's because they are likeable as characters and not always because of their reputation either. I dislike several companions for a similar reason. I've often critisised Dodo and Vicki on here, but that's my opinion and not because they have a reputation for being childish and at times boring.
As for Liz, I think she's okay but certainly at the beginning of Season 7 she did come across as uppity and snobby and she was at times very awkward with The Doctor and The Brigadier. She did improve as the Season went on and by Inferno she had lightened quite a bit. I think she needed another to develop the character further but it was not to be. At times, though, she did lack the warmth and humour of Sarah's character and indeed of Jo, who took over from her.
Most overrated in my opinion is Rose. She is WHO 'legend' yet apart from one or two good shows where she just played the companion, I don't get the fuss, and Tennant, whilst I enjoyed some of his performances, would never be considered one of the best if the memory of him was 30 years old. It is like when they do the all time best list in football...80% of the players are always current..
As for the hate Martha fest. I believe she is the most underrated of all the modern companions. Some of the best Nu Who happened in her series and until Matts' companions she was the only one who stayed human throughout. I believe too, she is unfairly blamed for the love angle. I suspect it wasn't done to show how much Martha doted on the Doctor, but to pay homage to Rose as the ex the doctor couldn't forget.
Well, with Vicki at least the childishness was actually part of her character. She was supposed to be as young, at least, or younger, than Adric. Considering Maureen O'Brien was actually playing much younger than her real age it was a very convincing portrayal. I actually think she's one of the best actresses (not necessarily one of the best characters) Doctor Who has had for a companion. She's an odd one for me because I initially didn't like her, something about her mannerisms just irritated me. But I've found she's a character I've really come round to. I now consider her to be a big improvement over Susan, whom she replaced.
With Liz, it's her very awkwardness with the Doctor and the Brig that I love. I like how she teases them and pricks their pomposity, especially in Spearhead from Space. I love that kind of sense of humour in women; my girlfriend is the same way (she has the same name too
Of course, I brought her up not so much because I feel people should like her more , but as a counter-point to Sarah-Jane, as they are really very similar but only one gets the attention. You can really see Liz as something of a Sarah-Jane mark 1: intelligent, independant (actually, more so than Sarah-Jane, despite the fact that those are the attributes frequently praised as the big innovation in the character of Sarah-Jane). Sarah-Jane also has something of that Doctor and Brig teasing element: "I know you're a Time-Lord". You couldn't imagine Jo Grant or Leela really doing that. Jo Grant might call him 'an old grumpy' or something
There is also another sad similarity, in that their respective actresses both died last year, except the people who would jump on every little perceived slight against Elizabeth Sladen don't seem bothered about Caroline John being mentioned or not (or indeed Mary Tamm). Whatever her merits as a character, her 'above all other companions' status just isn't justified.
Horrific acting, wishy-washy character.
Couldn't stand the toy. Never any use, became dated the first moment it was debuted, irritating, and turns every episode it's in into a young child's episode...
Sacrilege!
I much preferred her to Rose myself. And I found all the Doctor's moping about after Rose left to be extremely irritating. So much for "I don't look back, I can't."
For me pompous, unlikeable, prone to violence. Not very convincing actor. More style than substance.
So on that basis then, that her popularity as a character doesn't mean she should be seen above everyone else, does that mean then that the more popular Doctors like Tom Baker and David Tennant aren't deserving of being seen as 'above all other' Doctors as they quite often top polls and get the chance to come back in 50th Anniversary stories?
As for Liz, I see your point, guess in that case it comes down to preference of character. I don't dislike her, but as she's in a Season that I intensely dislike overall, it's hard to really like her as much as some of the other companions. That's why I said I would like to have seen her in the more lighter stories of Season 8 and 9 with some extra humour attached.
Maureen O Brien I don't have a problem with. It's the character I don't like. I think most of the Female Hartnell companions are a bit childish but that's because it was aimed mostly at a child audience. Barbara was an exception and so was Polly who came along at a time when the show was changing.
The Cybermen. (Especially New Who)
The Silence (more a wasted character if truth be told)
The Weeping Angels (after their first two stories)
The 11th Doctor
The 4th Doctor
Romana
Davros
The John Simm Master
Mediocre is probably the best word to describe her, yet she gets tons of praise, 2 spin off shows, and is the only classic companion to feature in New Who. Nothing at all against Liz Sladen who obviously took whatever jobs she could, but the character wasn't special in the slightest.
Jo was far better with 3rd Doctor, and I liked the 4th Doctor and Romana more too. She wasn't a bad companion, but she wasn't the greatest either.
Too unrealistic, much prefer the more real companions like Sarah Jane Smith who was the best by a significant distance.
I agree that Rose is overrated by some because she was the "first" one for new viewers, so a lot will compare everyone who comes after to her. Having said that, as someone who didn't really see much of the classic series, Rose was the first 'proper' companion for me, and I found Martha, Donna, Amy, Rory and Clara a lot more interesting and/or likeable than Rose. They made me realise that, despite what we kept being told, there wasn't really anything special about Rose.
Agreed. Good character but nothing spectacular IMO. I don't get why some fans are so keen to see her back that they begin to imagine every other character who appears on-screen is somehow Sally Sparrow, though I think that's become more of an in-joke now.
Add to that River Song, The Silence and Canton Delaware III.
Oh, and of course Rose.
I didn't mind him in series 3, but hated him in TEOT.
There's no real point in arguing against it, either, because simply by posting the example the poster is acknowledging that that person is well liked and popular so there's really no percentage in trying to dissuade them.
It's an interesting exercise in demonstrating that no matter how liked or popular somebody is there is always going to be some one out there who i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶e̶r̶r̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶d̶g̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶ thinks differently