That's exactly how I feel about Amy, I like her, I just prefer the way characters were developed in the previous series, or in another words, if I may borrow that expression, RTD's "simplistic charm". There's nothing wrong with how it's done in the current series, it's only a matter of personal preferences. Like it usually is, with everything.

Sure, for me this series is lacking something. It's probably lacking the things that makes it "perfect" instead of just "good". But those "perfect" ingredients are highly subjective, and yes, sometimes even difficult to describe. Although Crazzy just proved that it's also an individual thing because she described the whole "companion development issue" perfectly, which I haven't been able to do for weeks...

Funnily enough, I completely agree with Muttley's first post (except for the "shame" part ), even though we seem to be on the opposite sides. There's nothing wrong with DW in general, it's only a bit of role reversal. Even though I'm in the "opposition" now, I still think it's only fair: some people waited 4 years for the new series to "click" for them, I don't mind waiting either, if it's my turn. I just hope that no one minds me being slightly more critical for a while, just like I didn't mind others doing that before...

"Distracting" is a good word, the best one I came up with so far is "overwhelming".
I know it's bigger, but there's so much stuff in it, it feels smaller. I dread the usual turbulence/malfunction scenes, when Tardis starts throwing people around the console! I suspect there's enough space there for them not to bang their heads on million things, but the possibility of this actually happening still scares me!

Thankfully in Amy's Choice we only had people gently dropping on the floor, I was very grateful for that.


I'm tempted to say that comedy is actually the most subjective of all aspects, if it was possible to measure subjectivity.

We could even discuss the words "forced" and "comedy" forever... In TEH, for me the food scene wasn't forced, it just wasn't funny... But it's only a matter of preferences again, I don't find spitting on purpose funny, just like some people didn't laugh at the farthing Slitheen. Nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, I'd say the opening, pre-credit sequence was definitely forced.


Yet somehow that headless chicken never walked into a tree, interesting...

I had a similar problem on couple occasions, although I'm not even sure if it counts as rushed or what's not being said...

The biggest one in the Beast Below: the reactions at the end, both Amy's and the Doctor's were completely out of the blue for me. I haven't seen the Doctor THAT angry at his companion since Father's Day, I think. Yet what was completely understandable in Father's Day (I knew exactly why Rose did it, why Nine got mad and I was even able to sympathize with both of them), made no sense in the Beast Below...
And how exactly Amy made the connection between the whale and the Doctor? (I'm completely ignoring the fact that it really should be the Doctor pushing that button, but never mind). Yes, it makes sense when you've watched the series before, we know that the Doctor is very old and lonely, but how did Amy know that? Did I miss the point when he told her everything? Should I assume she somehow gained that knowledge off screen, in a rather ridiculously short amount of time? It can't be, Eleven seemed to be avoiding questions and only laying first rules, so...

Another, slightly less annoying but still out of the blue moment was when Rory had the angry speech in VoV, about how the Doctor treats his companions. I mean, it was a very good speech, it made sense, for me, because what Rory said was plausible and you sort of expect that kind of speeches from companions sometimes. But at the same time, hearing that generalization coming from someone who basically only just met the Doctor... Not very convincing.

My two pence:

IMO nothing is lacking this series. I think we have an amazing new doctor, and I've also thoroughly enjoyed each single episode (although there were moments, which didn't quite work for me, e.g. diffusion of bomb). It took me some while to take to Amy, but I'm starting to get and like her now, and I'm certainly pleased that we don't get a repetition of the Doctor, Rose & Mikey dynamic (not that the dynamic was wrong, but a repetition would be boring and predictable). I also think that Rory is an excellent addtion to the tardis (I always enjoyed the multiple companion stories).

However, I understand that some people aren't getting it, and that they might be unable to put their finger on it. If it was just the new doctor or the new companion you don't like then it's easy to say, I don't like them. On the other hand, if it is a combination of different things, it might be difficult to pinpoint it. I know it's easy to say, just don't watch it if you don't like it, but if you love Dr Who, you might want to like it and might be disappointed that it isn't working for you at this point in time. I think perseverance is the key, after all a disappointing Dr Who episode IMO is still better than most other rubbish on TV.

I think this series needs more episodes set in London and the Doctor should use his sonic screwdriver more.

I agree, and I much prefer this approach. There is nothing 'lacking' about the show, it has changed and changed for the better. Doctor Who doesn't need to be 'event' television in order to work, it doesn't need big name guest stars or huge spectacle, it just needs good writing and actors who believe it, and it has both.

Spot on, loving Matt Smith, but the sewing up of the stories are pretty poor, take the Smilers, what was the point of them?. Then you have the Dreamlord, fantastic start, but then ended with a squib that it was some small minerals in the console that caused it. Every episode starts off really well, but the end seems rushed, almost like what happened there? I think Steven is an amazing creator of alien characters, but not necessarily the best story writer for such short episodes. His first episode with Matt Smith was awesome as he had 65 mins to play with. Give Steven time though, he will soon get used to it.

I think time is really the issue here, not the quality of SM.

Series 2 of Doctor Who (New) was terrible, at least the first series of Matt Smiths doctor is good.

I don't find much lacking, and I'm pleased, unlike in the RTD era, we're getting some questions answered earlier, I.e. what the cracks are and what is causing them.

I always find that the episodes flow better, can't really explain that, but there seems to be more connection between episodes like a continuing story, rather than 9 / 10 individual stories.

Although Rory hadn't just met the Doctor, he first met him two years ago. Amy met him fourteen(?) years ago. They had a long time to brood, and ponder, and work themselves up a head of steam to go at him with.

Well The Doctor has always spent a lot of time saying how wonderful humans are, certainly DT put a lot of gurning into loudly announcing "You're great you are".

In doing so he tends to overlook that a lot of the time human's aren't that great, sometimes they do bloody awful things (granted this was also covered with the ood storyline). But sometimes he has to confront that fact, and he may not like the fact that the race he has chosen to champion can actually be b/\stards

So I think his "No one human..." rant was put into highlight that this incarnation might not be all lovely dovey humans are number 1!

First off, I am loving this new series. The first time since the end of series three that I watch episodes more than once and the first series since even before then that I also can be pretty sure that there won't be a bit in the show which I'll have to fast forward (usually the 'woe is me without my Rose' reference.)

Now though, I like the writing, find myself engaging with the stories, am intrigued by the companions and I love Matt Smiths Doctor to the point where he may be becoming my favourite! So yep, it's a big thumbs up for me for the new series.

And yet....strangely I agree with the OP, there is something lacking and I think that it's a continuity of sorts; a reference to the past. You see, now everything old is new again, sure the show has the same name, the same (updated) props but we could easily be watching a completely new show. There have been some references to the Doctors past, but interestingly they have been to much older incarnations like Hartnell on the library card and references to Bessie and K9.Even when they'd had the opportunity to do so like it seems like they've studiously avoided all references to more recent times beyond an in joke or two like the Tennant/Cassanova line and for me and perhaps some others it's like I'm watching a whole new character. I sometimes have to remind myself that the Doctor is the same man. Now, I don't mind that but at the same time I can see how some might be finding it hard to connect the old with the new and perhaps that's whats lacking a bit for them.

Oh I'm not for one moment suggesting that the scripts should be -shoehorning in two or three old character references every week, TBH much as I love Tennant that sort of melancholy was what put me off his final shows but still, a few more nods to the recent past would maybe help, no? Or would that work against the show? I feel torn, because I'm enjoying it so much more than I have for a while, but as I said I can see what some are saying when they say it's lacking something, and for me what that is is the firm connection to the past.

And yet that is the the one criticism most often levelled against RTD stories. The episodes are the same length they've always been. I can't say I've seen any episodes where the ending has come out of 'nowhere'.

What she actually says is "Have you ever fancied someone that you shouldn't?", which is closer to what you would prefer. It's hardly a leap of faith anyway - she took what the Doctor was doing and turned it around, using what she felt. There was nothing hidden there.

He knew who the Dreamlord was. What he didn't know is how he could be there.


She's developed in each episode - from recognising that the Doctor's pain makes him kind, to putting her faith in the Doctor when she's dying, to knowing what it's like to be afraid and alone, to losing part of that faith in the Doctor. Their relationship has changed a lot.

But the vocal minority reacted badly to them shoehorning in a Rose mention every other week after she left, so they may be hesitant to go down that road again.

However they have mentioned the (not universally liked) Queen Elizabeth deflowering throwaway plot from The End of Time not once (mentioned by Liz 10 in The Beast Below) but twice (also referred to by The Dream Lord in Amy's Choice) so I don't think you can accuse then of pretending Tennant never happened.

From my point of view it was understandable, what they (humans) did was pretty horrendeous. They tortured that poor animal for 200 years continuously, and then chose to forget about it (so double whammy, you torture, but you don't even bear the consequences). If I had any bugbear with the last 4 years and particularly the DT years, then it would be this "humans are great and should always be saved" attitude. The doctor is a timelord, and although humans look like timelords and thus he probably has more affinity with them (much like humans and chimpanzees; whereas we don't have that much affinity with an insect), he should still consider humans as another species that should be saved, but not necessarily always to the detriminent of another species. In TBB he seemed to blame the humans for the choice he had to make. Well that's my interpretation, as such I loved that interaction.

The 'event' with good queen Bess happened prior to The End of Time and has been mentioned twice already, he's also referenced the Dalek invasion from The Stolen Earth and the Cyberking as major hooks for the arc plot. Grav globes, too, are not new. Not to mention River Song and the Angels, of course!

You can't go making use of past events and characters unless they're actually relevant to the plot, otherwise you alienate members in the audience who haven't seen those episodes. A few passing remarks are fine, but too many become glaring and forced.

Yeah, that's exactly it. Which is why he was angry at Amy - she made exactly the same decisions the rest of the humans made. By choosing to forget (given that they didn't know the consequences of protesting, of course), they gave their consent to the torture.

I think the Doctor still loves and adores humans, but yes, he certainly hates their weaknesses.

Fair point, and I was one of those 'vocal minority' as you call them because yes I did think that the character of Rose was allowed to dominate the show far too much even when gone, but anyway the reference doesn't have to be to Rose. The Dreamlord could have mentioned Donna for instance.


I don't think that at all, although to be fair the Elizabeth mention was a bit obscure, I just think that so much has changed that perhaps some people are finding it hard to make that connection, that's all.

The only thing this season is missing is a decent theme tune. Argh its awful, worse than the worse 80s one. I've nearly got to the stage where I can ignore it.


Seriously though this season has been very good so far and the only people I can find that aren't enjoying it exist on the internet. This has not been true for previous seasons. Make of that what you will.

Oh yes! and what about that bit where the doctor saved the villagers from the alien-pensioners-from-hell and got them in the back of the van only for them never to be seen again and with no explanation of what happened to them. What a plothole that was!


Oh, no, wait.......

I didn't use it as a derogatory term, when it comes to the overuse of Rose over four series I'm in full agreement with you

There is a firm connection to the past though, as you said-it just isn't necessarily the recent past. And that's nothing new, it has happened with pretty much every era of Who prior to the new series. Pertwee's first season was effectively a whole new show from the one audiences had seen in the sixties-not just a new Doctor (which had been done before) but a new way of doing things, a new regular setting, the coming of colour, a whole new team working on the show. It was a much bigger wrench than this one. Then with Philip hinchcliffe took over in 1974, a whole new tone for the show again, and the dropping of the regular supporting cast who'd been there for five years. When JNT took over in the eighties, the comedic excesses of the Tom Baker era were dropped in favour of a more serious sci-fi approach. When McCoy took over, it changed again. It's a deliberate attempt to allow the new team to put their own stamp on it by distancing it from its immediate past slightly, and I think it's absolutely necessary. And the changes this time around are really not as great as some of those past instances I've mentioned-it's still much the same show, superficially speaking, as it has been since 2005. They're obviously trying not to jar the audience too much.

I agree!!


I'm guessing your being sarcastic



Yet this show has been described just as that "event television" for some who felt that this is what the last five years were lacking or lost half way through. And the big stars are still there, and so are big spectactle....spitfires in space anyone?



I don't we have got any more answers than a basic...as much as we knew what exactly Torchwood was by episode 2 in series 2...and the delevelopment of the saxon mystry in series 3....only series 1 and 4 were very vague, and answers were mostly left at the end. In fact that was one of my annoyance of Flesh and Stone, that the story all of a sudden became about the arc...and the angels became useful to get rid of the crack for now.


I'd argue that the Rory thing was a bit too strong....unless there is obviously more to him that meets the eye....but as for now, he has only Amy and the Doctor's interaction to go on....so to suggest that everyone tries to impress the Doctor, which we as the audience know is true....but so far doesn't ring true of Rory saying it. If he had just said "Amy is probably in trouble because all her life she has been looking up to you, and now to impress you she put her life in danger! or something along those lines that was personal....a bit like Rose questioning the Doctor in school reunion, or at least with Mickey when he said that he had done research on the Doctor, but all we know about Rory is that he has done research on scientific theories....has he also done soem research on the Doctor's companions? Guess we will find out....but i have a feeling that it may not the case at all, but would love to be proved wrong.
As for Amy, I can understand....the connection she made, but it was still a leap of faith, and actually admits that she was guessing, to compare the Doctor and the star whale...it was nothing more than emotional logic.


And End of the World, Dalek, the Long Game, Father's Day, Christmas Invasion, Rise of the Cybermen, The Idiot's Lantern, Army of Ghosts (Yvonne/TW), Gridlock, Lazarus Experiment, Last of the Time Lords (the toclafane), POTO, The Doctor's Daughter, Turn Left, Midnight, and now the Beast Below...and since we haven't had one...untill proabably this weekend.

So so far all of the Doctor have explored this notion, and yet even Eleven has said how brilliant they are, thinking of Victory especially. Its a theme that will continue (hopefully), and definitely not an eleven thing only



I think the problem with me for that scene in Victory was that it was one of the many things that seem to have come out of nowhere...I don't have a problem with the principle idea....but the whole story was fixed togther in a badly made puzzle, that every scene felt so forced as to say "Oh we need to shwo a bit where the Doctor gets angry, we need to shwo a bit of spitfires in space, we need to show how Amy feels being human is about the happy stuff side compared to the Doctor thinking about loss that makes humans" so every scene for me just jarred with the next, that I can understand why it feels it comes out of nowhere, and not in a "wow" way...which can be the case sometimes if thinsg come out of nowhere...like the FOB watch in Utopia.


The only time that reference was obscure was in EOT itself...since then with the assertions of Liz Ten and the Dream Lord pointing how naughty he is, and that he loves Red heads, with Liz not being the first....is anything but obsecure....loved them none the less.

Was I the only one who thought this might ber a sneaky reference to Liz Shaw?

Yeah, Moffat should have used 'the pretty one', not Rory But seriously, I do not care about anybody in this series, not even the Doctor. Moffat made sure he cut his series away from anything before, but did not make me care for anybody yet. I need to make a connection with somebody/something to really fully enjoy what I am watching. I am just an observer now and that's not enough.

Ahh so you do admit that even the third Doctor got jiggy with his assisstants!!!!!