A little appreciation for Mr Moffat

13»

Comments

  • Adam KelleherAdam Kelleher Posts: 1,488
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Helbore wrote: »

    I also think the chemistry between Matt Smith and Karen Gillan is far better than between the Doctor and any of the other companions since the show returned in 2005 -and considering the Doctor and his companion are the only two recurring characters, I consider it a major point in the quality of the show (not that I disliked any of the other companions, though. I just don't feel they clicked as a pair in the same way these two have).

    What chemistry is that? I certainly didn't see much in the last two episodes. I think it would be hard to beat the Tennant - Tate chemistry.
  • tingramretrotingramretro Posts: 10,974
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Helbore wrote: »
    I have yet to put my finger on what it is, but there is just something about this new series that makes me think of the Doctor Who of old. It also has that something that just makes me more excited than I have been about Who for a while.

    In fact, I haven't had the excitement about "next week's episode" since Eccelstone's one season. No knock to David Tennant, BTW, I still loved him as the Doctor. But it just seemed to slip away from "must-see TV" to "something I watched on a Saturday with dinner."

    Perhaps it's just the feeling that it's all fresh that is making me enjoy it so much more. Or perhaps it's because the opening episodes of seasons 2-4 have been so poor, in my opinion. The Eleventh Hour was easily my most enjoyable opening of a New Who season to date.

    I also think the chemistry between Matt Smith and Karen Gillan is far better than between the Doctor and any of the other companions since the show returned in 2005 -and considering the Doctor and his companion are the only two recurring characters, I consider it a major point in the quality of the show (not that I disliked any of the other companions, though. I just don't feel they clicked as a pair in the same way these two have).

    Very well put. And yes, these two just work together. Karen is by far the best companion in new Who so far.
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What chemistry is that? I certainly didn't see much in the last two episodes. I think it would be hard to beat the Tennant - Tate chemistry.

    It's the chemistry that I saw and you didn't, obviously :rolleyes: Hence the "I think" I put in the sentance. I thought I was careful enough to make sure I was stating my personal opinion, as opposed to a "false fact" that has to be criticised.

    BTW, Tate was my favourite companion of New Who so far, so I'm not part of the "Tate-Hate" brigade or anything!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,991
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Helbore wrote: »
    I have yet to put my finger on what it is, but there is just something about this new series that makes me think of the Doctor Who of old. It also has that something that just makes me more excited than I have been about Who for a while.

    In fact, I haven't had the excitement about "next week's episode" since Eccelstone's one season. No knock to David Tennant, BTW, I still loved him as the Doctor. But it just seemed to slip away from "must-see TV" to "something I watched on a Saturday with dinner."

    Perhaps it's just the feeling that it's all fresh that is making me enjoy it so much more. Or perhaps it's because the opening episodes of seasons 2-4 have been so poor, in my opinion. The Eleventh Hour was easily my most enjoyable opening of a New Who season to date.

    I also think the chemistry between Matt Smith and Karen Gillan is far better than between the Doctor and any of the other companions since the show returned in 2005 -and considering the Doctor and his companion are the only two recurring characters, I consider it a major point in the quality of the show (not that I disliked any of the other companions, though. I just don't feel they clicked as a pair in the same way these two have).

    And I have yet to hear what exactly that thing is that makes this more closer to classic who than the last five years have been. I have been reading people either saying this as a positive or as a criticism.....but seriously no one has actually pointed out one could piece of evidence that makes this series more closer to Calssic Who than the last five years were....its people saying "it's like the classic series again"
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    crazzyaz7 wrote: »
    And I have yet to hear what exactly that thing is that makes this more closer to classic who than the last five years have been. I have been reading people either saying this as a positive or as a criticism.....but seriously no one has actually pointed out one could piece of evidence that makes this series more closer to Calssic Who than the last five years were....its people saying "it's like the classic series again"

    Hence the reason I started the sentence, "I have yet to put my finger on what it is..." :D

    I don't know what it is about it, but it's just a vibe I get whilst watching it. Perhaps something will click eventually and I'll go "aha, THAT'S what it is!" But until then, it's just an undefined feeling I get whilst watching the program.
  • tingramretrotingramretro Posts: 10,974
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    crazzyaz7 wrote: »
    And I have yet to hear what exactly that thing is that makes this more closer to classic who than the last five years have been. I have been reading people either saying this as a positive or as a criticism.....but seriously no one has actually pointed out one could piece of evidence that makes this series more closer to Calssic Who than the last five years were....its people saying "it's like the classic series again"

    I can't quite put my finger on it. There's just something. But if I work out what it is, I'll let you know...
  • Adam KelleherAdam Kelleher Posts: 1,488
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Helbore wrote: »
    It's the chemistry that I saw and you didn't, obviously :rolleyes: Hence the "I think" I put in the sentance. I thought I was careful enough to make sure I was stating my personal opinion, as opposed to a "false fact" that has to be criticised.

    BTW, Tate was my favourite companion of New Who so far, so I'm not part of the "Tate-Hate" brigade or anything!

    OK, sorry for that!:)
  • Adam KelleherAdam Kelleher Posts: 1,488
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I can't quite put my finger on it. There's just something. But if I work out what it is, I'll let you know...

    Yes please do! It's funny how you keep mentioning it but don't know what exactly it is.
  • bokononbokonon Posts: 2,370
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    crazzyaz7 wrote: »
    And I have yet to hear what exactly that thing is that makes this more closer to classic who than the last five years have been. I have been reading people either saying this as a positive or as a criticism.....but seriously no one has actually pointed out one could piece of evidence that makes this series more closer to Calssic Who than the last five years were....its people saying "it's like the classic series again"

    Well for me, and in only my second post, its the Doctor himself. Tennant and particularly Eccleston were sort of 21st century blokish that you might meet in a pub (not completely but am just sketching out the direction.) If you met the Smith, Baker, Pertwee or Troughton Whos you would think they were nutters. The doctor isnt supposed to be the sort of person you bump into in the pub.
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bokonon wrote: »
    Well for me, and in only my second post, its the Doctor himself. Tennant and particularly Eccleston were sort of 21st century blokish that you might meet in a pub (not completely but am just sketching out the direction.) If you met the Smith, Baker, Pertwee or Troughton Whos you would think they were nutters. The doctor isnt supposed to be the sort of person you bump into in the pub.

    Actually, I think that is a big part of it for me, too. Tennant's Doctor, in particular, seemed like much more of a recognisable hero. He was manic, yes. But he was also cool and good looking. He was a more traditional image of a hero.

    Whereas Matt's Doctor clearly thinks he's cool, but really isn't. He wears a bow tie and thinks he's the shit! He shouts out "who da man" to an audience of stunned silence. His coolness comes from being decidedly uncool. I think that reminds me more of the old Doctors.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,991
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes please do! It's funny how you keep mentioning it but don't know what exactly it is.

    :D
    bokonon wrote: »
    Well for me, and in only my second post, its the Doctor himself. Tennant and particularly Eccleston were sort of 21st century blokish that you might meet in a pub (not completely but am just sketching out the direction.) If you met the Smith, Baker, Pertwee or Troughton Whos you would think they were nutters. The doctor isnt supposed to be the sort of person you bump into in the pub.

    Sorry when I put that question to you I wasn't being rude or anything, it was a general question that I have been raising since poeple have been going on about how close it is to the classic era...and I forgot to mention the usual "apart from the Doctor and the exterior of the tardis"...becauseI know that Matt is very much like the old Doctors...but then I think that comes down to how we as the viewer interpretates the character, as many say he is too like Tennant, and saome say he is very much like Troughton. For me I'd say he is lot like Troughton, with bits of Tennant, and the Bakers. While Tennant apart from his obvious look, he was alot like Four and Five, and a bit of Two. On a personal level I would if I met any of the Doctors, assume that they are mad.....mainly because all of them are OTT in whatever way possible...all of them are very geeky...and the words that they would come up with would do the trick.....but because they are all fun I wouldn't mind hanging out with any of them...well except the earlier days of Colin Baker;):D
  • NewbieCanuckNewbieCanuck Posts: 6,698
    Forum Member
    I wouldn't think of Pertwee's Doctor as very geeky.

    Except maybe when he says "reverse the polarity."

    Which is like 90% of the time.

    Oh.

    Never mind then.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,991
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I wouldn't think of Pertwee's Doctor as very geeky.

    Except maybe when he says "reverse the polarity."

    Which is like 90% of the time.

    Oh.

    Never mind then.

    LOL :D
  • Residents FanResidents Fan Posts: 9,204
    Forum Member
    solgang wrote: »
    This has always been a programme that is never going to please everyone, so in that respect SM has done well to keep that tradition going!

    Yeah. Anyway, don't older fans remember the time
    that some fans were denouncing Graham Williams and
    John Nathan-Turner for "ruining Doctor Who forever"?

    Of course, fans have the right to criticise the DW production
    team if they believe they are making a poor program, but
    some of the stuff that happened in the late 80s was
    embarassingly OTT.You had fanzines calling for JNT to sacked as producer and trying to sue the BBC and this
    minority of extremist fans may helped get the show
    cancelled as much Grade and Creegan did. :(
  • tingramretrotingramretro Posts: 10,974
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bokonon wrote: »
    Well for me, and in only my second post, its the Doctor himself. Tennant and particularly Eccleston were sort of 21st century blokish that you might meet in a pub (not completely but am just sketching out the direction.) If you met the Smith, Baker, Pertwee or Troughton Whos you would think they were nutters. The doctor isnt supposed to be the sort of person you bump into in the pub.

    Yes, this is a big part of it-it's why Smith works for me, he's playing the crazy alien nutty professor which, to a certain extent, the Doctor always was-and which the last two really weren't! He's the youngest ever actor to play the part, but i believe in him as the centuries old, on-his-second-childhood Doctor in a way I just didn't with Tennant or Eccleston. And he has that quintessentially English quality to him, which just fits the character somehow. That's not all of it, but it's definitely a part of it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 614
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As an older fan I can't see the chemistry quite yet, there are sparks but there seems to be inconsistent behaviour from Matt and Karen. That maybe down to scripting.
    Maybe Matt is like classic Doctor as he is old fashioned and rather posh and CE was northern and DT had the esturary accent.

    I actually enjoy both the old and new Doctors, try not to slag off the older Doctors just to support the latest. Matt's already proved alot to the doubters.
  • poppycodpoppycod Posts: 1,267
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bokonon wrote: »
    Well for me, and in only my second post, its the Doctor himself. Tennant and particularly Eccleston were sort of 21st century blokish that you might meet in a pub (not completely but am just sketching out the direction.) If you met the Smith, Baker, Pertwee or Troughton Whos you would think they were nutters. The doctor isnt supposed to be the sort of person you bump into in the pub.

    Excellent point bonkon.

    Also Amy is the best new assistant so far.
Sign In or Register to comment.