No, I admit I thought this might have been what was implied-not that I believed it!

Nothing is lacking for me and anything this series doesn't have which the previous ones did, probably doesn't need it anyway imo.

I get a bit suspicious when people use the word 'lacking'. If they don't know what it is they think is missing, then it probably isn't missing it in the first place. Maybe its more a case of not liking change? Who knows just speculation.

Good points. The removal of most of which you mention has improved the show 100% for me.

I am really enjoying the new series. There is certainly nothing lacking as far as I am concerned. I also enjoyed the previous four series since it's re-introduction. I didn't feel there was anything lacking there, either. I will concede that there have been changes since the beginning of the new series, but I feel that the positive improvements balance the negative.

I also feel that some of the elements that appear to have been marginalised this series - such as the lonely god mythos; the constant escalation of peril - were elements that had satisfyingly run their course. I feel it would have been necessary for RTD to have reduced the pathos and scale this series before it became too much - you can only keep increasing the size of things so long. I'm sure there are people who feel he didn't leave soon enough and people that feel he left too soon. However, I think that those elements which RTD so successfully introduced to the show were still working right up untill the climax. It's just that a fresh perspective was necessary to maintain the immediacy of the show, before it had time to grow stale.

It's a real shame that some people don't seem to be enjoying the show anymore - I hope with time you are able to find elements within it that appeal enough to keep you watching. For me, moffat's new perspective was necessary to continue and build upon the wonderful foundation constructed by RTD, and I love series 5 just as much as the four that went before.
Last edited by wildbill_hicock : 20-05-2010 at 11:18

It rings true, not because Rory has researched companions, but because he is one. He's seen what Amy would do for the Doctor, and he brings the subject up at that point because he himself is doing exactly the same thing.


The Doctor's loneliness is what keeps him ticking, he lives in a world of disaster and death and tragedy - it's not just about what makes you human, but about what makes you feel alive that mattered in that scene.

You can deconstruct any episode since time began into "we need to show these scenes that are important to the plot and characters"!
[/quote]

For the first highlighted point, it may be a bug beare for some, but i am not suprised this has happend....mainly becuase it is a new start, and it would be pointless to name drop such people....the whole point of the EOT scene was so there will be no need to ever drop name those people of the past. Moff has to create his own version of the history....and chances are two, three years down the line if Amy has left the Doctor...she too will be mentioned...well if Moff hasn't forgotton River or his Angles....chances are he won;t forget his companion either.

For the second highlighted point....we have only had publicity for "star names" for the specails only, manily because they were touted as companions. Its pointless comparing the lack of promotion of star names to the specials...if you want to compare it, do it with series 1-4, where we had people like Derek Jacobi, Simm, heck Peter Kay, Zoe Wannamaker, Simon Pegg...had the same amount of publicity as the new series does....as in not much at all. So if we see specials of Doctor Eleven who has a guest companion....you bet anything and their will be publicity on the same level as the specails in 2009.

It seems that these are the things that you love, and they are the things that jar for me, the title of the thread is what is it lacking - I can see that yourself and tingra are gushing with excitement for the new series, and I'm happy for you, but you also need to understand and accept that there are those that do not share your glee.

No, you didn't understand what I mean....I can take that he feels Amy and himself try to impress the Doctor....but again the dialougue used was too generic and made it sound less personal experience and something that someone who has know him for years and seen him with many different companions. Again the idea is fine, the way its presented is a little jarring....and takes you out of the moment...well it does for me.



Again, I have no issue with the idea at all. and I agree that every story is about a list what they need to show....but a good story doesn't make you feel that, and everything that happens feels that it has a natural flow...Victory for me did not have a natural flow, and every scene stuck out like a list of what to do... a bit like the Dalek story in series 3.

I'm not gushing with excitement, I appreciate good storytelling and smart pieces of characterisation. I understand and accept that there are those who do not agree, please don't tell me I don't.

Just saying "I don't like it" is not a useful or interesting discussion to have, any more that "I think it's great, but I don't know why".

If I say I like a particular aspect, and someone has reasons why that aspect is actually inappropriate for the character, then have at it.

I don't know if anyone else agrees with this but one thing I am finding a massive 'plus' for Moffats era is that I enjoy the episodes more when I re watch them.

For me this was rarely the case with the 2005-2009 stories.

Take last Saturdays ep for instance. I really didn't rate it much at the time of watching. Then I had a rerun on iPlayer and I found it quite engrossing....

Anyone else experiencing this?

I was hoping this might happne for me when re-watching TEH, Victory, and Flesh and Stone...but nope unfortunatly so far those things that have jarred with me still do. Saying that maybe i need some space between now and the next time I re-watch them. As it literallly took me a year to like Voyage more than I did the first time...and the Daleks story of series 3...although i still wish that both Kylie and the the Tullulah character were not there in those particular stories

I approach this series in the same way I did in 2005, without being too nostalgic.

The series must move with the times or die (as it did in 1989), I will never get the same gut wrenching excitement that I got way back in the 70s because I am now middle aged and times have changed both significantly and radically (without wanting to sound too obvious!). Back then, the Mat Irvine wobbly space ship moving through space on a wire was an amazing sight for an 8 year old. in 2010, a 5 year old would not be impressed by that.

Doctor Who is what it is, escapists nonsense and I love it. May it continue for a long time yet!

I tip my hat to you sir

Some interesting comments in here, along with some predictable sideswipes at RTD and DT ... :yawn:

I don't want RTD or DT to return - because I don't think they have anything else to offer the show. Who is an intense show and, like it or not, they were successful in what they set out to do - the viewing figures are testament to that. But, as history has shown, the series needs refreshing and reinvigorating every now and again.

Matt Smith is great. He was born to play the Doctor. Karen Gillan I'm less convinced of: I really liked her in TEH but, as others have commented, the way her reactions have been scripted in other episodes hasn't been as good. Amy's Choice wasn't a particular favourite of mine, but the moment where she realised she loved Rory was played very well and had an emotional truth to it that has been patchy elsewhere. Mid-term report: must try harder.

It pains me to say that what is lacking for me is the magic that SM brought to the episodes he penned for previous series, which I found consistently brilliant. While I thought both TEH and the Angels two-parter had some moments of sheer genius in them, they weren't as deftly written as his previous scripts. I get the impression that he has struggled a little with the showrunner role and the volume of work RTD carried suddenly landing on his desk. Might this have generated some of the less convincing plot devices and narrative jumps, and the over-use of the word 'fairytale' to cover them?

Add to this the frankly bizarre decision to clear out every single director that previously worked on the show and the show going massively over budget (at least £100,000 - but reportedly more) and I can't help get the feeling that the problems behind the scenes have rather had some bearing on what we are seeing on-screen.

Of course, it's only part-way through the series and, of course, I'll continue watching in the hope that I'll see an episode as good as anything SM's previously written. But I'm just not as engaged as I would like to be ... at the moment.

I think Mat would be deeply offended at any suggestion that such things were seen in episodes he worked on. In the sixties maybe, not in the eighties.

I think the series could do with more double episodes as quite a few episodes seem to struggle to fit everything in.

It would also have the benefit of freeing up some of the budget (as fewer stories would mean fewer locations/actors/enemies are needed).

This, I agree with. I've been thinking this since 2005. The 45 minute episode is not a natural length for a Doctor Who story, it doesn't allow enough time for the story to develop properly most if the time.

I don't find that bizarre at all. It seems natural to me that to put a new stamp on things they would bring in new directors. Its time to give other people a chance.

On a show as complex as DW, it is bizarre. Those directors all knew how the show worked, and how to achieve the shooting schedule in the time available to them. Useful qualities if you want to keep the show within budget.

If you want to refresh the pool of directors, fine. But why clear out each and every one of the old team? Why not go for a mix of old and new?

Given the BBC cut the budget for obvious reasons, I don't think you can compare what a director has had to deal with this series next to directors of previous series who had more budget.

If anything going over budget shows that DW needs more funding.

Simple fact is the budget is primarily the producer's concern. He should have kept an eye on that. If he's allowed a director to go over budget, it clearly need it in the first place.

You seem to be assuming that the new directors were responsible for the show going over budget. That's not my understanding of what went on at all. Nor was it anything to do with the across-the-board cuts the BBC implemented to all programmes. The producer(s) faced budgetary problems because executive decisions were being made very late in the day. Issuing scripts the day before shooting starts (as happened with Amy's Choice - see DWC) isn't the sign of a well-run machine, especially when DW requires many FX shots.

So director who knew the show could have been a useful asset in those circumstances ...

Sorry, I took it from your previous posts that you were suggesting the directors were responsible for the budget problems. My mistake

This is hardly a charge that can be levelled against those of us who have loved Who since the 60s, can it? Those who've lived through and embraced the many change of actors, settings, producer whims...?

I'm not afraid of change in Who, never have been. On the contrary, I love the way it can almost wholly reinvent itself every few years in a way very few other shows can. But it isn't a crime to report if a season of the show isn't quite gelling in one's opinion - although this is necessarily subjective. If people are loving it - great! I love it when Who is successful and popular.

But, alas, this season isn't quite floating my boat... and I wish I could give you a definitive reason why. But one thing is certain, it ain't because I'm scared of change...

I think it's lacking more ghosts...

I appreciate that. I too have watched Doctor Who for over 30 years. I'd be interested to know how many people who think something is 'lacking' in series 5 are only familiar with the show since 2005.

Its interesting to hear that as a fan of classic Who, this series isn't working for you. From my point of view it works better than the past four series because it is reminiscent of old Who.

Its also interesting that you can't find a definitive answer for what you think is missing. Reading through posts, people who do find something missing in general seem to like a lot of the elements in series 5, including praise for the two lead actors.

The more I think about it the differences this series are striking, so I can understand that is doesn't work for everyone. But when someone says it lack something without identifying that element I can only think it is down to change. I didn't mean to imply people are afraid of change, but they don't necessarily like the changes.