Or the anti-David tennant brigade.

I think this a very nice counterbalance to the thread I started. Nice one OP for thinking of it!

And just to prove to those people who think I hate the series I'm gonna list below what I DO like about it as compared to the previous one so you know I don't think it's ALL bad news!

1) Matt Smith-Brilliant Choice of Doctor. Love his quirky one-liners and his antics(such as trying to catch Amy's unborn child in Amy's Choice) Like the less emotional baggage that seemed to overcome Tennant's Doctor in his final two years

2) Amy- Love her quirky sense of humour. Love the chemistry between her and The Doctor. Prefer this partnership rather than Donna and Tennant and considerably less earache. . I do also like the idea family isn't involved as much compared to Donna's and the others.

3) .The fact that the annoying 'News Coverage' from Season 1-4 has not yet made an appearance this series.

4) Realistic monsters. No silly little fatty monsters type creatures(so far)

5) The TARDIS set. Loving that.

6) Know some people hate this being mentioned, but it has a 'Classic series' essence to it compared to the last four.

There, I got to six! That's not bad going!

I like the emerging distinct overall story arc - even though I don't know yet how it will play out, but it is keeping me intringued

I agree with this, I do feel that the series arc is more firmly connected to the series as a whole this year.

It's been hijacked by moaners moaning about moaners.

Chris Ecclestone was THE Doctor, and more alien than Tennant. He is the same as Matt Smith I think.

I loved Chris Ecclestone's Doctor but I don't think he was terribly alien, he was kind of one step from the bloke on the street tbh.

I do think Matt Smith is easily the most alien of the post 2005 Docs, to be fair.

I agree. The arc seems to actually develop-it's moved from
"Crack in time" to "Amy and Rory's destiny". In the RTD days
the arc was basically a word that was repeated throughout the
season-now it feels more like an actual subplot. And the S5
arc is not so complex that the non-fan viewer will be confused.

I'd say that this is critical part of the programme. Classic DW always had cliff hangers (because they were mostly 4 parters) and that means you think about what happens next. It sets it apart from the likes of ST, where most episodes are standalone, and by the end everything is solved.
The thread is better too, personally I don't want to examine every frame for tell-tale words etc, like Badwolf.

Multi-companion is also good, although I'd prefer independent companions, not ones with a linking backstory . I'd also like an alien (or a different viewpoint, maybe a human from a different era than present day - maybe from the past, even).

Personally I think this series is radically different to the previous 4 new series. The darker fairy tale element adds a distinctive edge and, if anything, this series is pushing the fantasy element harder which I love. I watch tv mostly to escape the hum drum element which this country seems to thrive on so the more "other worldly" the better. I totally agree that it is much less "soapy" because although there is an element of that with Amy's wedding it clearly is dealt with and yet may be more significant plot wise than we realise. Bottom line is i do not watch doctor who for eastenders style storylines.

I have to agree. The idea of showing us the companion's family and their reactions to the Doctor was interesting in
Season 1, but it ended up getting in the way of the science-fiction elements in later stories.

Soaps are alright, but there are loads of them on British TV-
Doctor Who is the only show that can go to any time and
any planet. Also, I felt the RTD seasons were too focused on London and Cardiff (why not, say, Manchester or Edinburgh? ).

Or Ipswich.

But in a way the classic stories didn't always have a certian theme running throughout the series/season....yes a particular story would be a four parter/six parter.....but more than on one occasion the next story wouldn't be linked....or it will be a trilogy linking a couple of the stories form a season....but not the entire run. So the Cliffhangers, really of the calssic series were just an interesting point to end...and sometimes even forced becuase they needed a cliffhanger even though the story didn't require it. Here in series 5, its slightly different, its taken the arc stuff started by RTD...little signs or words...or a visual...and built it into the cliffhangers....so stories that supoosedly get resolved, like the Beast Below, have a crack shown at the end, telling the audience to think about the bigger picture....like Bad Wolf, or Torchwood, or Saxon did, but dring the episode...(execpt for Lazaurus experiment, 42, where the arc played a part in a sort of cliffhanger ending)....while in classic Who, it was "ohhh what will happen next?" as in the next minute....so this is very different to that as well.
I have to admit if I miss anything, its standalone stories, even Classic Who feels very standalone, despite the four/six parters....and it has helped someone like me watching it as a newbie to be able to delve into any part of the classic series without feeling left out if i haven't seen a previous story. So far the balance hasn't been too bad....although I don't know how a newcomer who's first episode may have been Time of Angels and Flesh and stone....and how the arc may have made them feel....
But thankfully we have at least three standalone stories, with the arc thing not being prominant.....



What makes somethimg soapy....pleaople keep saying, but not enough to justify it.....

Surely, putting in families that actually since series 2, haven't been that prominent unless the story required them (look at the jones's, only made appearances after the first episode when the Saxon arc was developing, or Donna's family, who were very much part of the story when they appeared) why is it that Rory and Amy's relatioship is being forgiven because its part of the plot? When we had a whole episode dedicated (not really even prper sci-fi, but a character story, as it was just two dreams) to seeing how Amy and Rory's relationship develops. It doesn't matter how the arc plays at it....they still focused on it, the plot was about them, and therefore it seems so is the arc....not about adventures in Time and Space, but how Rory and Amy are going to sort themselves out to get married....
Putting families into a show doesn't make something soapy...if that is the case then Hungry Earth is a soap...not only do we have a married couple with a child, but also a romance between two co-workers developing (do we really need that, couldn't they just have been friends?). Shakespeare was full of family drama....but to this day I have never really heard his playes be called soaps....People have families, its hardly a revelation is it? People fall in love too...

Its been a long time since I have sat and watched a soap, but the thing that put me off them was that every story involeved someone having an affair....not love stories....just affairs, or talking about getting cancer, or someone setting houses on fire.....Soaps are more unrealistic to real life than Sci-fi is....

Yes Doctor Who has had families, and love stories, character stories, showing emotion to something happening....but that doesn't make it soapy....its just a thing that happens...

What else has made the show soapy? Please elaborate....


Ihave to say that I know people often say that the families take up too much of the plot, if you think about it they don't really take up too much as people make it out to be....Its just that if you don't like it, then it seems to much...just like when someone once said that Martha's Family are in the show too much in series three, when in fact they make the least amount of appearances....Smith and Jones (ending and beginning), Lazurus Experiment (building of the arc, and the mistrust that Francine develops playing a part later on), 42 (Martha using her Mother to help her in a sticky situation, but again buliding part of the plot) and then the next time we see them is Sound of drums, where the Master is using them as weapons against Martha....and TLOTTL, not a lot, and not pointless to the extent that they take up valuable story time....

while i agree with your post in the main, I do feel that they took up valuable story time that could have been given to Jack, who had sod all to do all episode.

I won't argue with that....I'd say even the Master and the Doctor had too much time that would have been great spent on Jack!!!!

Hee hee!

seriously though, when you think of Utopia and the issue he and The Doctor had over him wanting to shoot the Futurekind, it would have been more interesting from a dramatic point of view for it to have been Jack rather than Martha's mother that wanted to shoot The Master and was talked out if...because it would have symbolized the regained trust between Jack and The Doctor.

Probably the weak spot with series 3 was Marthas family though, thinking back - they didn't really work in the way the family's in series 1/2 and 4 did.

I see your point about Jack....but for me that point of trust became obvious when the Doctor basically asked Jack to take down the paradox machine....they way he called him captain, trusting him to do the job, and the way Jack took the orders, as showing how he respects the Doctor as a leader again....

For me the Francine thing worked too, because she was also mistrustful of the Doctor because of Saxon, so for me that was symbolic of her doing something drastic in a way to repent for trusting the wrong man.....who had made them all see hell....

I agree on a whole that the family dynamic/characters wasn't as strongly developed in series 3 as the others...and its probably why they appeared less than the others alltogether troughout a series....and in all fairness apart from Tish, the others weren't that fantastic of actors either IMO.

The strength of a soap opera is its ability to focus on real life
and develop domestic issues in a believable fashion (hence Crossroads and Brookside were repeatedly criticised for a percieved lack of realistic plotting). The strength of science-fiction is the exact opposite- it is to develop an imaginary world that might happen in the future, and tell an interesting story about that imaginary world.

Hence when fans accuse Doctor Who of being "soapy" (an accusation that goes back to JNT's Tegan storylines, so it's
not an new complaint) they feel the show is focusing too much on the companions' families' domestic issues instead of the sci-fi aspects. "Boom Town" was the worst-the lengthy
relationship scenes between Mickey and Rose added nothing to the story's plot and felt exactly like stuff from
Eastenders or even Hollyoaks.

I get that thats what they were trying to convey but it didn't work really for me...there was a scene that tried to establish the motive for it earlier in the episode (were Jack is once again totally shoved to the side!) but it falls so flat that when she points the gun at the master it just makes me my eyes.


The actress who played Martha's mum was rather good in other things I have seen her in, I think from a character perspective she was made too unlikeable so that by the finale you weren't that fussed about her. The the tv presenter who played the brother of Martha was the worst, what a useless character! I understand the guy also double booked himself and left the show in the lurch for filming of the last episode and thats why his character disappears off the face of the earth....not very professional I must say!

But then so was Amy's Choice...because really there was no plot if you think about it...it was a character story...none of it was real, like the Doctor said that it didn't have actual powers, they couldn't ever die from any of the events....everything was about the building of relationships....like a marraige counselling session in the Tardis....and an exploration of the Doctor's dark side....in the end no matter what decsion they made they wouldn't have dies....they would have woken up...why choose to base it on those aspects...surely we have had the Mind Robber to prove that you can have a good mind twisting story not based around the relatioships itself....
And Boom town was pretty much in the same realms, exploring actual character moments, not just Mickey and Rose, but the Doctor and his right to take someone to be executed....but at least it had actual real danger that had to be solved....even if it was an out of the blue resolution, brought in for the finale....Like Amy's Choice put an end to the whole "will Amy fall for the Doctor?" this put an end to the whole "will Mickey and Rose be always an off and on couple?"....and so Rose and Mickey ended up knowing where they stood with each other just like Amy and Rory did.


Like I said its not the same as soaps....in soaps characters and relationship don't add anything to nither the plot or character...because one minute they are getting married then they are divorced and again and again with tons of affairs inbtween...with no character delevlopment....but all the so called "reationship" stuff in Doctor Who has ended up some where, if not the plot than at least character wise....For example Martha's unrequited love....in the end it became the very reason that helped her to move on...and not look back....if it had been a soap...she would have been in love with the Doctor all over again in series 4....completely ignoring the development....


And actually Sci-fi...real proper sci-fi....tends to reflect the real world...makes statements about politics, religion, enviroment, society....and how sometimes relationships do get entagled in that.....after all when the series started, we had the Doctor...an alien, travelling with his grandaughter, we had Barabar and Ian shaping his character as we know him today....we had Susan falling for a Human, and the Doctor recognising the importance of her to have a "normal" life"


So yes....these things that are being called "soapy" in new Who are certainly not new....

She was good as the Cat nun!!!! She wasn't horrendus at acting, but wasn't very strong as francine I agree...although I still liked her, I saw her as being protective...and from what seemed obvious from her own relationship with her ex, its understandable that she is quite mistrustful of older men hanging around younger women...(imagine if she knew how old he really was!!!)...it was Donna's mum who I hated, untill I read the book Beautiful Caous...and it made all the more sense why she was so bitter...(now that book definitely does concentrate on family and real life issues than the series has ever)

Sorry to be a bit simplistic about this, but what do I prefer about season 5 . . .?

Matt Smith.

What a Doctor. I've been there from the start watching WH. Number 11, he's got it.

I don't know. Almost everything about this series - from the theme to the way the new doctor is being written/acted - have been taken in a direction I'm not as fond of and find a bit uninspired by comparison.
Racking my brain trying to think of what I DO like about it :

1 Karen Gillan. - Comes across completely dippy in interviews but she can certainly act and I like her facial expressions.

2. The story about the Star Whale. It's an awful shame that episode wasn't executed better but as a story I thought it was beautiful.

Thought of another thing:

The DW logo. I was never very keen on the old one due to the colours used, I like the shade of blue and the way they have made the D and W form the Tardis, very clever!

I did enjoy series 1-4, despite Rose and Jackie Tyler who did make DW into a soap opera. The Amy's wedding night scenario was a plot device which ultimately resulted in Rory travelling in the tardis and had quite a different feel. So I'm with those who appreciate series 5 for being truer to the SF genre.

Casting Matt as the Doctor was pure genius. I hadn't seen him before so it was never Matt Smith playing the Doctor. Matt Smith IS the Doctor! I love his more alien manner, flashes of anger, madness and vulnerability. Amy and Rory are great companions, devoid of cloying sentimentality.

For me DW is now back on track after going downhill during the specials. Every series has one or two unappealing episodes but has been good overall.