I think there is a higher degree of subtlety about the series, but I also think that the approach to the series is to hold key information and characterisation back and to only gradually drip this information down. We tended to get a lot more info dumps about characters in prior series.

The episode "Rose" for example in a series of shots demonstrated to us what Roses life was like pretty much in it's entirety, Amy was delibertalty a lot less clearly outlined at the start and we are seeing a gradually process of learning more that will go on to the finale, and it seems clear the mystery around Amy is a key point to the series as a whole.

I don't know, I really don't...I can't put my finger on exactly what it is that's leaving me disappointed. The ideas are there, the new Doctor is up there with the best and yet and yet...

If pushed, I'd have to say the writing is lacking for me; scripts seem all over the place...

The production values and effects are horribly variable - some weeks good, some weeks atrocious...

And then there's Amy....and for me, that's possibly where the major problem lies. I just don't like her. Or Rory. But mostly it's Amy. She gets on my t*ts. Sorry, but there it is. And that's a fundamental problem.

It so grieves me to write theses things because I love Who. I'll stick with it until the end of the run, but my expectation levels from each new episode are lower now than they once were. A pity.

True indeed. I think in the long run its much more satisfying as the pay off will be more rewarding- but thats just because I prefer that style. I can see why some might not.

There's not enough Gayness.

I am loving this series....Series 5 for me......so what I am about to say isn't my own personal opinion of the show, just a fair argument of why I can understand why some people find it to be 'lacking'.....

- Firstly, there is little to no background that the series is working from. It is essentially a reboot rather than a continuation of the RTD franchise, and the crack in time may or may not be a plot device that extends on this. Series 2-4 all had a background to them, set up from the previous series whereby we had a familiar face to lead us into the next series and help introduce a new doctor(s2) or companion (s3,s4,specials). That means we have had 4 years (add on the 2009 specials) to adjust to the style of the series and then this has been totally thrown off course, which takes me to my second point....

- Moffat's interpretation is highly different to that of RTD, who was seemingly a greater fan of the standalone story. With the exception of Series 3, and early series 4, each story of RTD-Who stood well on its own and could have been reassembled in any order pretty much, give or take a few plot points. Moffat has crafted a more intricate story arc that plays an integral role to stories throughout the stories, as opposed to the subtle hints familiar to the Bad Wolf scenario. It is a lot more like the Torchwood Arc of Series 2, but it has come at the expense of the standalone story. Each episode starts or concludes with events that seem to lead pretty much into the next story or are a direct continuation of the last, Amy's Choice aside. This can be quite taxing for the casual viewer, who is likely to dip in and out of the series, and is likely to miss at least one episode of the 13 episodes. The ratio of mainstream viewers and fans is quite a large one. There are far more mainstream viewers with a voice to speak with, and so the idea that this series is lacking something is somewhat amplified.

- Thirdly, there is a distinct lack of familiarity outside of the main two/three characters. The daleks have had a complete revamp which has suffered a marmite effect of either loving it or hating it. Likewise, the angels from this series have had some major adjustments to the mysterious assassins of Blink in Series 3. Even River Song played a bit of a minor role in the two-parter and so there is less for the series to grasp onto in terms of sentimentality. As loathed as Tennant's End of Time 'This is Your Life-esque' concluding scenes were by some people, the general public is a sucker for the sentimentals, and is unphased by Billie Piper making a brief cameo at the end of Tennants tenure. Such cameos are not only absent in the new series, but are not even referenced in the new series. The Doctor has failed to even name drop Rose, Martha, Donna or Wilf, or so I believe. The only references to the RTD era to my recollection are the 'really bad day' scene in The Beast Below, and the mention of the Cyberking in 'Flesh and Stone'. This ties in with the series feeling generally more like a reboot than a continuation.

- Another point, the series seems less reliant on its 'all star' casts. Ian McNiece, Sophie Orkendo, Helen McRory and Alex Kingston among notable others have made brilliant memorable appearances in the series, but it isn't being so shoved in the viewers face as much as it seemed to be a few years ago, or even in 2009. Michelle Ryan and Lindsey Duncan were given excessive publicity that often seemed to be carried over into the show. This seems less so in the current series, as there is a heavier focus on the main rising stars- Matt Smith, Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill. On the contrary, we have little background to these faces and Amy and Rory are only gradually being revealed to us whereas we knew Roses, Marthas and Donnas familys within minutes of their opening series episodes (Rose, Smith and Jones and Partners in Crime). With no safe place to go back to, no domestics, it can be seen that the series is lacking something here too.



Personally for me, what another may describe as 'lacking' I would simply describe as 'different'. Some people are afraid of change, and do not adapt well to it, even reject it unknowingly. I am loving Series 5, and hope that this obscenely long message is a balanced argument.

I'm gonna have to really disagree with you on this point, You might have an argument that some of the CGI has occasionally been a bit off but in general DW has never looked more classy and epic as it does now.

For me the direction and cinematography has a much grander feel to it than previous years.

Sorry, but some of the sets and effects in TBB and the Dalek travesty were woefully wan and shabby in my opinion. The whole enterprise in fact is lacking that certain chutzpah it had in seasons 1-4.

I think 'spitfires in space' is pretty much the definition of chutzpah.

And compare 'Vampires of Venice' to 'The Shakespeare Code'. VOV is like a hollywood epic to TSC school pantomine (though I liked that episode)

It was only really the set of the interior of the dalek set that was a bit off in VotD in terms of production values, it didn't look that great tbf, but, as you say, the money was clearly invested in the Spitfires sequence, which was pretty spectacular in my view.

I would rate TSC and VoV fairly equally as episodes, but would probably say TSC had the better script while VoV had a better look and feel to it.

The idea of spitfires in space reeks of chutzpah and I was almost wetting myself when I heard about it. Sadly, I wanted to bury my head in my hands when I saw how poorly it was executed...

And while I actually quite enjoyed Vampires for what it was, would that it had some of TSC's wit... Or the sheer joie de vivre of the sublime Wasp and the Unicorn...

I must say that Dean Lennox Kelly (not sure ive got that right but too lazy to IMDB it) was magnificent as Shakespeare and I loved the witches and the story in general. I just feel it looks a bit cheap when compared to VoV

What's missing IMO is really scary storylines. Am currently working through the box set of season 1 - 4 and some of those stories seriously spooked me out - Tooth and Claw, The Empty Child (I had to watch through my fingers), The clockwork killers in The Girl in the Fireplace. Even the Cybermen are pretty scary.

I like plenty about the new series, especially Matt Smith as the doctor but it does seem a little different from what went before. The aliens are not quite as menacing even in Time of Angels. I didn't particularly like the pensioners inhabited by aliens in Amy's choice though I loved the idea of the Doctor's alter ego forcing Amy to choose which world she wanted to inhabit.

I didn't like the witches at all....

the Series feels for me like CE Season all over again.

When you look at the mountain this show has climbed its amazing.

1.Budget cuts
2.losing leading actor (and a whole host of well known faces)
3.losing the guy who brought the series back and major writer.

I made myself watch this new series like it was just that a NEW series

the only thing I am annoyed at is that another money maker for lloyd webber is pushing DW out of the way the series deserves centre place on a saturday night with other shows built around it.

Was it time to sound the cliche klaxon in your eyes?

leaving aside the ALW thing, which I am sure we have exchanged views on before, this is actually a fairly major point some people seem to be forgetting.

Thats why I talk about laying foundations down, because essentially that is the principle point of this series more than anything else. I posted the list of the first seven episodes of the RTD era in a thread the other day, and they were, let us be honest, a pretty mixed bag retrospectively! Mind you, Chris Eccleston was, much like Matt Smith, a joy to watch in the role from the word go....

something like that!

I do still enjoy that episode though, as you see the chap who played Shakespeare was terrific. And I just adore the coda with Queen Liz! Such fun!

And even better was the way the Doctor pulled the arrow out the door at the beginning of Gridlock.

Over halfway through the series and I still can't decide whether I like the new Tardis interior or not. I find it distracting on the wide shots , as there's so much detail around the walls and console that I find myself looking elsewhere , when I should be concentrating on what the characters are saying

What this series is "lacking" is forced comedy, of the type that so often spoils perfectly good screenplays like 'Fifth Element' (Ruby Rhod) the "Star Wars" prequels (Jaja Binx) and even "NewWho" (burping wheelybins, Donna Noble saying 'ooh' openmouthed and witty banter between Daleks and Cybermen...)

If taking away something from NewWho makes it as good as this new series is, then I hope SM can find something else to take away and make it even better.

D

For me there isn't anything as such lacking, its just usually I only tend to have one story that doesn't hit the mark for me in a series, but this year there were three in the first half of the series....and all were down to mostly jarring pacing and story structure, and a bit of boredom in TEH...and the concetration on the series arc at the expense of the main story in Flesh and Stone. But the other stories I have enjoyed highly, and for me 4 out of 7 isn't too bad I guess, with another 6 episodes to go, so I am definitely not writing this series off....I guess there was eventaully going to be a time where I would only like a few stories in one series, after five years of liking nearly all but one in each series. And anyway, even if I didn't fully enjoy the likes of TEH, I would rather watch it than most TV programmes out there anyday.





Yep its definitely not a new thing....


Add to that I love PIC and the Sontaran two parter, which I wasn't expecting to like after the Dalek story of series 3.



I will have to disagree with this, as i don't feel its been any more subtle than what we have had in the past. I mean if you compare the two strories, I know more about Amy as a character than I do about Rose from their first stories. For example in Rose, I knew that she lived in a council flat with her mother, she had a boyfriend who was quite protective of her, and she seemed to like him, but seemingly not enough to notice that he is plastic at one point, but feels sad at the fact that he could actually be dead, but then forgets about him quite easily, and she works in a job that gives her no satisfaction, and going with the Doctor offers a new opportunity away from her boring life. As the series delevelops, we see what the relationship between her and her mum is really like, we learn that maybe she did have some intention of saving her dad when she took the Doctor's offer to travel in the Tardis, we saw the caring side of what had seemed like a selfish girl, we saw how selfish she really would be at the same time.....all those things we learnt as the series went on. For Amy, we see her as a little girl, who lives with her aunt, and we are told she doesn't have any parents, but she is attached to that apple that her mum gave her, so she has love for her mum at least, she is able to trust this strange man, because the crack in the wall is the most scariest thing for her, at the age of seven she is used to people abandoning her, due to her encounter with the Doctor, we find out that she has been seeking "help", works as a kissograme, has a boyfriend that she doesn't shout out to the world about, rightly annoyed with the Doctor because he didn't come back in five minutes, so not trusting of him staright away, but what brings that connection back is the apple, we know that she is well known by the whole village really, and that they are like a family to her, and then we know that she is quite reluctant to get married, and happily accepts to travel with the Doctor, despite knowing that he isn't good with his time-keeping. I got to know Amy so much more than I did Rose in their first episodes. Same goes with Martha and Donna.....their life and characters were told over the series, they grew over the series.....we basically/literally saw Amy grow in one episode. For me its been anything but subtle, and its no issue though for me, I like Amy very much. The only mystery surrounding her is what the arc has to do with her....but her personality is well rounded for me to understand her actions.


I think in terms of Amy and those who are not able to relate to her...well I think its no different to those who have never been able to relate to Rose/Martha/Donna...and the basic stuff surrounding their characters is enough for them not to look past them. Especailly Donna....when for example most say that she shouts the whole way through the Runaway Bride....but we both know this isn't true....there is a huge difference between the Donna we see in the Tardis in the beginning, and the Donna we see leaving the Tardis. I think the same case is with Amy....for some she just doesn't work....no matter how much of her life story is fleshed out for some people.


Same could be said about the last four years. Personally, with the excpetion of Prisoner zero, and that scene of Earh at the beginning of TEH....its been mostly top-notch the CGI.

Comedy as with anything is subjective....for example some would argue that the food tasting scene was a "forced Comedy" moment....for me, I'd say it was the annoying nudge nudge wink wink references in TEH that were unfunny and annoying moments...like the Doctor saying "timey Wimey" for no other reason than to remind us fans about who is writing this story. Some felt that the end scene of flesh and stones was forced comedy moment, the amount of inneundo jokes we have had....in the EOT, we had a very subtle reference to the whole reason why Queen Bess was upset in TSC, only for the same point mentioned this series twice alreay....luckily for me I find it funny, mainly because it shows that Moff doesn't care for the fans who are obssessed with showing the Doctor as an asexaul character....but I can't deny that the references are not subtle....

So its all still there, its just a case of what rocks your boat....

I have wondered about what is lacking because there's something that makes some of the stories unsatisfying, and I've come to the following conclusions.

1. The stories seem rushed, as if they are following the tv criteria, 5 mins introduction, 35mins plot and action development, and 5 mins to wrap up all the answers. The problem with this is that the wrap up of the episode and solution to what was happening seems to be plucked out of nowhere, and it gives a kind of what the? instead of a ahhh, that's what was happening.

2. What is not being said by the characters.
There is a lot of 'thinking' going on by the characters, which some people on here get, or assume what their thinking, suppose it's the subtext, but that subtext is so hidden in the acting that it requires a leap of faith to believe that they could get to their next uttered conclusion.
eg Amy in VotD - 'Have you ever loved someone that you shouldn't' This came out of left field, it would have made more sense if it was 'Have you ever obsessed about someone you shouldn't'
Same with the Doctor in Amy's Choice, he stares at the Dreamlord whilst in the campervan, then back in the Tardis he knows exactly who he is. A little hint, perhaps a smile in the campervan would have told so much more than an emotionless face. It's almost as though the actors are hiding too much.

3. Characters - I still don't find Amy believable. I'm still sway as to whether it's the way she is written, or the way Karen Gillan is acting. Amy wasn't believable as a pregnant woman, she moved far to easily for a woman that size, I don't buy into her emotional state, for example when she lost Rory, I didn't care how she felt, I was more sorry for Rory. Even if she is written this way, then I don't think that her character can do much. She also isn't growing as a companion, she's growing slightly in the relationship with Rory.

All in all, it's a must do better from me.

NOTHING .

However I can see people are missing the hyperactivity and headless chicken routines from DT

Yet Matt's Doctor doesn't seem to be the thing that most people don't like...in fact, he has been more or less liked or loved by loads of people.....so how you came to that conclusion is quite hard to understand....