It's probably a good time to frame my high opinion of it in context of the fact that I do indeed have a mild form of bipolar myself, and loved how the episode handled the issue with sensitivity - whilst not betraying the family-friendly guise of the show.

There were a lot of things about it that worked outside of that though. I think the episode works particularly well as a Matt Smith story - the contrast in tone to his rather energetic, hyperactive Doctor meant the episode was never bereft of energy or activity. I think it would have worked without a monster at all, but I guess this would have played into the hands of critics who already found it somewhat dull.

It's not an episode I'd go back to again, and again and again. But I enjoy it when I do, and it works especially well to ground the series if you're watching the whole thing. I also think it was the first time I genuinely cared about anything going on in Series 5 which had largely left me cold up until this point. It was great to see something with a bit more heart to it. But then this is all just my personal opinion here.

I think for me, there's a certain attachment to Vincent and the Doctor because Von Gogh was always my favourite artist growing up. Regardless of that, I do think it was a brilliantly constructed episode (and to think the monster is a giant invisible chicken) and a highlight of Series 5.

Similarly, I had a certain bias towards The Unquiet Dead because of Charles Dickens being one of my favourite authors, but it was still a good episode. Not quite on the level of Vincent and the Doctor, but still solid.

I don't think we've had much more of the recreational type of historic figures being used in New Who, especially of late. The only other instances I can think of off the top of my head are Shakespeare and Agatha Christie, but they were not very good episodes at all in my opinion.

Charles Dickens is one of my favourite writers too, and I think that contributes to my love for The Unquiet Dead. But I do also think the acting was spot on, the writing was good from Gatiss, and there was a real sense of wonder about it both then and now (baring in mind when I first saw it Doctor Who had only been a thing in my life for two weeks).

I do enjoy The Unicorn and the Wasp as well, as I think it's unashamedly fun and mocking of the genre. I don't know whether it was that it suited Tennant and Tate, or that Tennant and Tate were able to just make anything work. That being said as a whole I've soured on Gareth Roberts over time (his later efforts feel very safe and stale, and without making a big fuss his personal outlook on things hasn't had me clambering to have him back) and would love to see what other writers do with a historical figure. RTD gave us Queen Victoria, Moffat gave us Madame de Pompadour, Chibnall likes to think he gave us Nefertiti, and Moffat and Gatiss took liberties with Queen Elizabeth and Robin Hood respectively.

I think an outside voice from someone with a unique passion for the historical figure serves their appearance well. Someone who won't chuck them in as a token identity but who crafts a story around them. It's been so long since we last had that now.

The show has never featured a historical character or artist that I have a particular affinity for so I can only speculate how I would respond to that but my suspicion is it would simply annoy me unless I felt the character was VERY well handled. For instance, on the old Confidential show Mark Gattis talked about how much research he did on Winston Churchill for 'Victory of the Daleks' before conceding that he subsequently pretty much ignored it all and went for a romanticized portrayal instead, which he believed (and I strongly disagree with) was appropriate for Doctor Who. That would absolutely drive me mad if they did that with a historical figure I cared about.

I only have a cursory knowledge of Van Gogh's life, but from what I understand he was portrayed fairly well. I think that pretty much anyone could see that Shakespeare, in contrast, was portrayed absolutely idiotically. In summary I think I only want o see historical characters if they are well written, and truthfully written. Otherwise, forget it.

Midnight. I hated it. It was boring, slow, the people were typical RTD, like the families of the companions, niggly, unpleasant and not very interesting. Yes the psychological premise was good and the situation increasingly claustrophobic but I really, really don't understand the love for it.
Granted I was at the stage that I wished the 10th Doctor would just go, but I really enjoyed other episodes that series.

Human Nature/Family of Blood. Again, I understand the storyline, it was powerful and it was inevitable the whole thing would fall apart once the Doctor realised who he really was, but it left me cold except for the way he dealt with the Family of Blood itself.

Heaven Sent.

I can't understand the love for this episode. It is well put together, but the entire premise is so faulty to me that it is beyond ludicrous. To me, only a small child could believe in the premise.

I definitely understand why people don't like this episode as it definitely got a few problems. But what i and others enjoy about it is the risks the episode takes, and the journey The Doctor goes through.

I don't know about anyone else liking it but I absolutely abhor The Idiot's Lantern.

Brain of morbius.
Boring Frankinstein rip off with bad sets some hammer horror nuns thrown in..
never understood why this considered a classic its dire.

I do like it but I agree it's overrated. When talking about classic Who (and indeed the earlier seasons of the current series by this point) there's always going to be the nostalgia factor keeping memories of the show fond. My biggest problem with it is it simply gets a little boring, especially all of the scenes involving the Sisterhood of Karn. Sarah-Jane's incredible mobility whilst blind also stretches my credulity a bit too much.

It's a good serial but not a 5 star classic in my reckoning.

The three doctors. Recently rewatched and time has not been kind to it. The gell guards are embarrassingly bad, the brigadier is nothing like the version we had in Pertwee's first season and here is just a bumbling idiot only here for comedy value. Not impressed with the fight between Pertwee and the dark side of omegas mind. The organism which transports things to omegas world is a very poor effect. Stephen thorne totally hams it up as omega. Hartnell should not have been brought back, sad to see him like that. The only thing going for it is seeing Pertwee and troughton interacting on screen. The target novelization is so much a better version of this story as it's not brought down by its production values. Oh also the time Lords. No wonder rtd wrote them out in his version of dr who. Come across as incompetent beaurocrats.

Definitely. I have to agree with everything you said about Heaven Sent. It's part of the reason I have NO desire to ever ever watch this series again

That's about six of us now for Heaven Sent. I can't tell you how lovely it is to hear other forum members say they didn't like it either. I don't mean that in a mean spirited way at all. But it's good to know I'm not alone!

I am with you on this one. The entire premise is faulty, the idea is insane and the probability is unlikely. It is a great idea if you are drunk, but a problematic mess if you are sober. Heaven Sent is simply a Moffat extremity.

The War Games

I know it's considered one of the all time classics, but 10 episodes is just too long with too much padding, I found myself just willing earlier episodes to be over so we could get to the interesting last couple, it could easily have been trimmed down to 5 or 6 episodes with no detriment to the story. I don't hate/dislike it as such but it's not one that I'm eager to watch again.

It was originally supposed to be around 6 episodes but another story fell through, hence all the numerous padding in the middle episodes in particular and episode eight which is one long padfest.

I agree, the last two episodes stand really well on their own two feet and it's a shame it wasn't six episodes because without all the padding in earlier episodes it could have been an all time great.

I still like it though.

I want "a Moffat extremity" to become a thing


I think the word 'classic' is used far too much for my liking. When Doctor Who Weekly/Monthly first started, it referred to every old story as a 'Doctor Who Classic'. Even the really rubbish ones. I guess it is tricky to know what the criteria is for a truly classic Doctor Who story, but simply being old isn't one of them.

Given that in the recent(ish) DWM best ever episodes poll, out of more than 200 stories old and new The War Games was voted the 9th best of all time, then yes it is considered as a classic. It would be well down my personal list though, I think I voted it a 6/10.

I've never felt The War Games to be that dragged out myself. It runs at a better pace in ten episodes than, for example, Underworld does in four. It's one I find riveting from start to finish and I think it does help it runs in acts.

I was v pleased to snap this up when it came out on VHS as it wasn't a story I'd got hold of during my 'bootleg' years. Not only was I aware of it's pivotal part in Wholore, but this was TEN episodes of the (even more depleted than it is now; yay!) Troughton era.

I took it steadily, watching an episode at a time, and was impressed. But knowing what was in store, ended up watching the last 4 episodes in one hit and was completely absorbed. An absolute favourite of mine. I slightly favour the Hartnell era overall, but this was an epic end to the terrific black and white era of the show.

Been watching listen and just saw AWESOME PINK. Even WORSE than Danny pink

Well, it's a word that only has subjective meaning., as such there is no criteria. The usefulness of the word lies in conveying to someone the strength of your personal feeling. If I say to you 'this week's episode was good' I'm only giving it broad approval. If I say to you 'This week's episode was a classic' I'm telling you that I give my highest recommendation to it. It's a useful designation in that sense but of course it has no objective value and you can't expect it to. Arguing whether a given thing deserves the label of 'classic' is entirely pointless. It's just a good way to communicate how you feel about something and nothing more.

How much value a given persons 'classic' endorsement carries is entirely relative to how much respect you have for that person's opinion and how closely their tastes match up to yours. Me and you (Mullet) have very different tastes and sensibilities, judging just from your comments on Heaven Sent, and so are not likely to have very much correlation in terms of what we regard as high watermarks for Doctor Who (or anything else in all likelihood). For example your criticisms of that episode are as meaningless to me as no doubt the things I love about it will be to you. You don't value the same things I do and vice versa. No-one really has any business being the arbiter of what is and isn't 'classic'. I regard that episode as a classic and so it is - to me. it doesn't matter whether 6 people express agreement with me :P Or a hundred or a thousand. I think it's rather petty how you take glee in an average AI rating. Isn't that rather insecure to feel such a need for others to validate your own opinions? To take 'comfort' in an AI rating? Come on, are you really that needy?

I'm content to give my own assessment and valuation of things, and indeed a forum like this is a good way to share that... but to expect the world to line up in agreement with my assessment would be rather naive and silly. Better to just be secure in oneself and maintain perspective and remember it is all just subjective.

On a wider note I will say that your tone is generally over-dogmatic. You seem to have a very rigid view of how the show should be. But one of the strengths of the show, by my reckoning, is its potential for versatility and is perhaps one of the reasons for its broad audience. We are very, very different people I'm sure and yet we would both regard this one show as among our favourites... that says something for the broad appeal. And the thing about that broad appeal is they have to cater somewhat to the entirety of that audience. So what if a given episode got a lower AI rating when it was wildly acclaimed in other quarters? The critical acclaim it received justified it because it showed that it was appreciated, just as a high AI would show a different episode was appreciated too. That episode was appealing to a certain part of the audience, servicing that part of the audience. I doubt they care at all about the AI rating when it got such praise and acclaim. It seems childish to even have to be saying this, but not everyone is like you. Aren't the people who loved that episode entitled to an episode built to appeal to them? What is so wrong with creating an episode not in the identikit Doctor Who formula? Humanity is a broad church as they say and they try to give us all a little something to adore.

Maintaining a little bit of objectivity and perspective is very useful in life.

Its got to be Rose. Its the return of Who on tv and the sodding companion does all the saving. YUK!

But that is the modern formula. The Doctor is there, but it is always the woman who saves the day. The men cower in the corner while the woman saves the world. Sigh.

The Caves Of Androzani.