And 'Rose' differed from this template how?

but that's what's the show is basically about. The doctor shows up, saves world/companion and leaves.

Not according to johnysaucepan & saladfingers81!

I personally really liked this two-parter and the writing and acting is phenomenal, but I do think it's overrated (along with the rest of Series 3's later episodes). I love the idea but think it could have been explored a lot more, especially over the two episodes it was given. It's also a rare situation where I think more is more - I'd have actually have liked to have seen the true form of The Family...it would have served as a wonderful contrast with an otherwise very human story.

Basically, or frequently? There's a difference.

Repeating the same story structure might "keep the show going", but it won't help it thrive. You need to offer something different, or at least strong enough themes to distract from the repetition.

There nothing wrong in liking old Who, I too like the origional series, I have all the available DVD's and in fact have watched it since it started way back in 63, that wasn't what I said. I was commenting on the fact that you thought the two stories that you mention were poor and I responded by saying that most people thought they were great. Old Who was never mentioned !

I'm not saying it did. What I am saying is that if every episode followed a rigid formula like that I don't think it would last very much longer. People have already stated some episodes which deviated from such a tired template most of which are seen as classics. I'm not saying it should stray too far from that but if that's all it is week in week out then its a poor showing and it won't stand up to more sophisticated television shows. Audiences have moved on and expect more now. This isn't a Road Runner cartoon that should hit the exact beats repeatedly and never waver. My original point was that it seemed odd to dislike the episode for what it didn't have (ie something that we get most of the time) and miss what it did have (stuff we don't always get to see alot of).

yes but human nature isn't just save the companion. Its has quite a few different themes running through it, the futality of war, what makes us human, what makes us love. I personally love this episode, but I don't understand the argument that its too basic, that could be said of most doctor who.

And becoming what you fear most. Just like the Doctor's alternate identity having to give up a 'normal' future in order to save the people around him, and the kids at the school having to do the same to become soldiers in the war.

I think the two parter was rushed in places, like they just wanted to get the story told, then get the Doctor back going away into Space with Martha again.

Personally for me, as I've said before, I wasn't, and am still not, a huge fan of this two-parter. I've read some of the pdf file, of the 1995 book, and it seems better.

I read a lot of the New Adventures and it's interesting to see how many writers cut their teeth there. How ideas generated there were later brought into the new TV series.

I thought the (Paul Cornell) Human Nature book was good. I probably still have it in the basement somewhere. Bernice Summerfield was a strong character in her own right.
It would be good to see a TV companion with her intelligence and independence.

I've not read the New/Missing adventures but I am about a third of the way through each range in the EDA/PDA range. They are not really canon, but still very good for the most part.

As for Human Nature / Stone of Blood. I wasn't a fan.