I think we should get badges printed up, well one for you and one for me anyway

Series 3 is an odd one. I think it started off quite weakly and I wasn't impressed until Gridlock. But I liked the daleks story more than most, wasn't a big fan of Lazarus, but loved 42, HN/FoB even more, loved Blink, Utopia and The Sound of Drums. Even Last of the Timelords, which remains my least favourite finale, had its shining moments

Yes it's a strange one for me as well, series 4, imo, is the better series on the whole but there is just something about series 3 that I really like, the overall feel to it I suppose. I don't mind the Dalek two parter either, for me it is as close to a 'classic' episode that 'Nu Who' has come, in terms of structure and the way the story is told, even creating Human Sec was a natural progression for the Daleks, not just a natural progression in Nu Who but from the 'classics' as well.

The ONLY thing that I really dislike is the levitating Doctor bit, and only because it was rather clumsily done on wires,but apart from I love the 'Master trilogy' from start to end.

42 is a very underrated episode imho, and one of my fave underrated episodes. Gridlock is pure brit sci-fi and has a wonderful morality tale underpinning it. Smith and Jones is a corker fun new companion opener (a pensioner sucking blood through a straw, talking rhinos, a hospital on the moon, remind me just why I love this show again) The Lazarus Experiment also very underrated, once able to look past the monster of the week there are some very dark scenes in there, again classic Who.

Then of course there is the phenomenal Human Nature/Family of Blood. And of course Blink.

So as much as I do like series 4 there is something about series three that just pips it every time but I am hard pushed to say exactly what.

Have to agree on most parts here. I will admit I wasn't a fan of Smith and Jones - whilst it wasn't bad, it seemed a little too 'meh' to me. It would have been nice to see a familiar face in there just briefly, like Harriet Jones perhaps. Just something to give it a more gimmicky feel. It sounds like a daft request, but as an opener it feels a little bland. The Judoon were great, Martha was great, and Tennant was a big improvement on his Series 2 performance, but it seemed a little too standard - Series 4 was a bit more daring and put in an alien that was cuter than a Tic Tac with a smiley face!

I do like the Master trilogy, and can see why they went for Simm (to play off of Tennant in terms of age) but I feel that Jacobi was far more effective simply because Simm's comedy outshone his sinister side. This really showed in the final episode, but it did have some great themes in it. It's just a shame that it didn't quite reach the quality of other recent episodes.

The standalones of the series were a strong bunch, although I wasn't a big fan of The Shakespeare Code (I just am not a big fan of The Bard at all) and it seemed too convenient and staged after The Unquiet Dead and Tooth and Claw (and The Girl in the Fireplace) which came before - again Series 4 was more daring with the Agatha Christie episode that dared to be more of a spoof than the dramatic Shakespeare outing. But like you said 42 is under-rated, then there is Blink and Gridlock too. The Lazarus Experiment is full of episodic gold and I think that it is a solid episode, but it lacked something I can't quite put my finger on. At times, the CGI is unusually distracting but thats what our imaginations are for, eh?

The dalek 2 parter was the weakest thread in the dalek saga of the RTD era but I think it gets a lot of undeserved hate from viewers. It was a bit predictable, and could have used some original ideas (it seemed RTD simply handed Helen Raynor a list of things he wanted...Daleks, 1930's Manhattan, Pig People) and was also too soon after Doomsday but then this also worked in the favour of The Stolen Earth / Journeys End. Finally, Human Nature/Family of Blood is a brilliant piece of television that highlighted the best of Tennant and had a brilliant supporting cast, including Thomas Sangster who I happen to know, and he was quite brilliant too

Have to add support to series 3. Family of Blood / Human Nature is undoubtedly the pinnacle of what the show can achieve; brilliant in acting, direction and script departments, thoughtful, clever, intensely sad. Head and shoulders above anything else in the show's history.

I really can't comprehend why people don't get John Simm's Master in the finale. They speak about comedy etc, but it's exactly this unusual take on evil that makes his portrayal so unsettling. Do people really think the Master was genuinely funny, or intending to be so? In my eyes, the "funnier" he acted, the scarier he became. LOTL is not without its faults, but IMO is still the best series finale of Nu Who, probably because we didn;'t have the Daleks predictably shoehorned into it. It's certainly a league above the Big Bang.

Blink, of course, is pure gold. When first viewed I was sure there were lots of plotholes and errors, but watching again, it's pretty watertight, genuinely scary and breathtakingly clever.

42 was a story which I felt very "woteva" about on first vire, again, subsequent viewings made me realise just what a gem this was - it looks great, has fantastic acting and is very claustrophobic and tense.

The Lazarus Experiment was a story that had more bubbling underneath than was on the surface, and I suspect alot of this was simply lost on its detractors. i don't particularly find the monster that poorly realised, it was certainly better than most of the CGI monsters in the last series. Again, it has great acting, and a very subtle script which explores, in very subtle ways, what it is to be human and the loss of this.

That's over half the series which was way above the average, and average NuWho is pretty good in my eyes anyway. Martha took a while to develop, but from 42 onwards became a very strong character, and there were some great scenes for her.

All in all, I'm baffled as to how anybody could pick the last series over season 3, in it's best moments it rarely came close.

Series 3 and Series 5 I find to be quite similar in the sense that they were both very clever, but also lacked some of the heart and soul of other series. Series 3 was too hooked on the loss of Rose, which although true-to-life, became a bit of a drag, more so on repeat viewings knowing that Martha leaves at the end - she was too often seconded by Rose in the Doctor's eyes, and I know this was a major theme, but like the daleks it came across as shoehorned in at times. It certainly cost the series something as we were unable to invest so strongly in the character of Martha. For me personally, I only managed to invest in her from the finale (and then in her Series 4 appearances).
I can totally see where people are coming from with their love for Simm, its just that I personally don't 'get' it. His comical nature surely was rather sinister and this was done brilliantly in the opening scenes of The Sound of Drums. I just think the balance between comedy and evil was poorly directed.

As for Series 5, I also struggled to invest so well in the characters. Smith and Gillan did a brilliant job from the start and I never had any quarrels with the acting quality, even their chemistry was great. It was just that we had less of an emotional attachment to them for some reason, I wasn't as involved as I had been with Ten and Donna or Nine and Rose. And overall, as was kind of with Series 2, there were a good line up of episodes but none that went above and beyond to impress.

So in terms of 3 vs 5, I would have to agree that Series 5 does not come close in terms of top moments. Both had some so-so episodes near their start, Series 5 fell a bit flat around the second two-parter whereas Series 3 stood strong, but Series 5 sustained a good finale whereas LotTL never managed to reach the heights of Utopia before it. I would put Series 1 and 4 before any of the others but 3 certainly comes out on top of 5 and 2.

It is the opposite for me, having liked Martha from the start, and now knowing how the series ends in regards to that character is makes the repeated viewings more interesting. For me the whole 'unrequited love' Martha arc (and lets not forget it was a very slight arc and didn't dominate any particular episodes as some would have us believe) that was more about The Doctor's behaviour than it was Martha being a 'love sick puppy' At times The Doctor was pretty cruel and dismissive towards her even though he invited her along.








Ahhhh that sounds like an invite to a list, and there is nothing we like more than a list.

Series 3
Series 4
Series 1
The Specials
Series 2 joint with series 5, though I would watch series two over series 5. (in fact I haven't re watched any of 5 since it finished)

Again, I don't think you understood my point.....I wasn't trying to compare the acting credentails of both actors....I was talking about the OTTness of Donna's charateristics....and this idea that if Sheen had played those bits, then it wouldn't have been OTT/cartoonish....when in fact the so called loud mouthness were written like that due the fact that it was Donna's mask...so CT played it as that...and if Sheen had been asked to play it like that, the complaint of that part of Donna would still be there....what I mean is that this part of Donna isn't about CT as an actress, but as the character....


in terms of series 3...well I am another one of those who love it, yes its flawed, the Dalek story isn't really my cup of tea (although the Dalek gossip scene is class!!!), and the the finale isn't as well as executed as it could have been....I love all the ideas behind it though....but overall there are osme very strong stories, I love the underdogs like Gridlock, and Lazerous, and 42...and I really love Martha...I think she works really well with Ten, despite the way he is an idiot towrds her, there is a definitely an intualectual respect there, and they look really good togther (not as a couple or anything)....and I loved Martha's unrequieted lovestory arc.....it wasn't, as Camera says, mentioned that much....but it was interesting to see her as a character who was head strong, and how she became flawed due to making the mistake of falling for someone, and trying to get the Doctor to like her, only to realise as time went by that she was better than him, or at least as good as....it was what made her want to stay, and then leave....all made sense character wise, but her travels with the Doctor didn't destroy her...but made her stronger (which is why I find her crying in the Doctor's Daughter really odd). Maybe I was prepared for the unrequited love story, as I had read that this would be the theme for her, and that it would play a part at the end of the series....so yeah, I found the theme very interesting.

Series 4 still beats it hands down, but series 3 is very close behind....oh love the Master too...

Crazzy, while I may have misread your original post, I understood your point before I made the post you just quoted. I'm not directly adressing your point, rather loch's post. I'm also trying to raise another issue, to introduce another element to the discussion - that just because she is delivering the performance required for the role, that does not provide any evidence whether she is an actor capable of greater range or not - to continue the debate, rather than refuting your point. Apologies for any confusion.

Ah okay sorry about that...still a bit dazed and confused...and trapped in a time warp me!!!

Its an interesting debate.....to add my worth, I do feel that Sheen has definitely shown, and has the opprtunity to play so many characters that show his range......but he like anyone else can still be boxed, like I keep seeing Tony Blair in him....depsite him playing other roles to perfection....and yes CT may not be up there with him, but with her I have found it easier to forget about her other characters.....and even though her other roles haven't been as challenging as Sheen's roles have, I don't see Donna in say The Bad Mother's Handbook (loved her in that).....but I guess it could go down to subjectiveness....as sometimes I read some people say that DT hasn't got much range, and I definitely beg to differe there....hey ho...

Loch. Anyway, I'm a great fan of Michael Sheen and I think he is an amazing performer, he really makes me believe that he is all these different people. Why I can appreciate what you are saying, the fact that CT was capable of producing the believable, annoying, vulneralbe and finally likeable IMO character of Donna, shows that she can act. I never compare actors directly if they aren't comparable. CT never had to produce the series range of different characters although she can produce the comedy range. However, if you don't rate her, then you don't rate her, and I'm not trying to convince you.


I don't agree with you about Sheen here, I don't see any of his other characters when he plays his different roles. I definitely agree about CT and Donna though. I watched the last two episodes of series four yesterday and her acting range in that is impressive. I'm really surprised that people can't see that (she goes from desperation to empathy, mania, hyper, fear, heartbreak to annoying stupid Donna). I always understand why people don't like her character, but her acting is actually quite good IMO.

Apologies
To be honest I'm reserving final judgement till I see her in something serious. The same as both you and crazzy, I can't fault her performance in doctor who - it was exactly what was required.

Oh when I say I see Tony Blair in Sheen's performance nowdays, I am not knocking his other performances.....just that he was just soooo good at bliar...even the real blair seems like a fake So I just can't help but notice it in other performances....but he is a fantastic actor...no denying that