Freema Talks About Surviving Dr. Who

[DWF]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/11/22/nosplit/bvtvsatfeat22.xml

There is life after Doctor Who, as Billie Piper has proved, but Agyeman seems to have had a harder time of it. Following the popular Piper, Agyeman appeared as the Doctor’s sidekick Martha Jones for just one series before she was replaced by Catherine Tate. Although she rejoined them for some episodes and appeared in the Who spin-off Torchwood, rumours started that Jones had been written out because she wasn’t popular enough – a rumour which Agyeman dismisses: “I found out what was actually happening to Martha quite quickly after I started. It was really positive moving on to Torchwood although I know that is not how it was portrayed.”

I'd say she knew from the start that she would only have one season on the show.

 

[Brendan Moody]

There is life after Doctor Who, as Billie Piper has proved, but Agyeman seems to have had a harder time of it.

That's a silly angle for the Telegraph to take. Agyeman was doing Doctor Who and Torchwood pretty continuously until earlier this year; since then she's gotten roles in three prominent new dramas. That's at least as good as Billie Piper's post-Who resume. The only reason to think otherwise, is, well, the absurd tabloid rumors. Which the paper repeats, of course, under cover of dismissing them.

 

[wamdue]

yes she is going quite well, off the top of my head, Little Dorrit, Survivors (obviously) & L&O: London.

Also like all good British actors she has been in both Casualty & theBill.

 

[HappyDayRiot]

And like all good British actors, she was in Crossroads!

 

[wamdue]

And like all good British actors, she was in Crossroads!

fair point

 

[Bacl]

I always felt Freema was a great actress (and fraking hawt!) but that the character suffered from too much Rose obsession (both on the part of the fans and the writers). Rose was mentioned in nearly every episode, each time casting a negative light on Martha, while at the same time her "unknown" love for the Doctor made her seem kind of flimsy and weak.

It is too bad they couldn't conceive of her character as something other than "Not Rose."

 

[Brendan Moody]

Rose was mentioned in nearly every episode, each time casting a negative light on Martha

No. Rose is used against Martha by the Doctor exactly twice, at the end of "Smith and Jones" and in the inn scene in "The Shakespeare Code." After that Rose is brought up by Martha herself (in "Gridlock" and "Evolution of the Daleks") or by other characters (John Smith and Joan in "Human Nature," Captain Jack in "Utopia") without any denigration of Martha. For all the fan talk of how Rose was constantly mentioned in the year after she left, Martha had a far more prominent role in the year following her departure, and no one complained about Donna being overshadowed by it.

It is too bad they couldn't conceive of her character as something other than "Not Rose."

While I think Martha's unrequited love for the Doctor was overplayed in series three, this is a little much. There's more to Martha than "Not Rose," but it gets overlooked by fan focus on unrequited love and Rose references. Again, a comparison to Donna is useful. The first few episodes of series four are pretty blatant about ways in which this character is "Not Rose or Martha," but there's other stuff in the mix as well. Which is unsurprising: when you change out prominent characters every year, you need to sharply define their differences so the audience can adjust.

 

[The]

Rose was mentioned in nearly every episode, each time casting a negative light on Martha

No. Rose is used against Martha by the Doctor exactly twice, at the end of "Smith and Jones" and in the inn scene in "The Shakespeare Code." After that Rose is brought up by Martha herself (in "Gridlock" and "Evolution of the Daleks") or by other characters (John Smith and Joan in "Human Nature," Captain Jack in "Utopia") without any denigration of Martha.

I believe the point he was making was that by any of the characters mentioning Rose, or by the story reminding the audience of her (again), the constant inference of her absence took too much of what should have been Martha's spotlight. It's not like Eccleston went around moaning about Charley, or Grace, or Ace, and neither did the writers.

For all the fan talk of how Rose was constantly mentioned in the year after she left, Martha had a far more prominent role in the year following her departure, and no one complained about Donna being overshadowed by it.

How did Martha appearing in four episodes, versus Donna's thirteen, allow her to play a "far more prominent role"? I disagree...

 

[Sci]

Rose was mentioned in nearly every episode, each time casting a negative light on Martha

No. Rose is used against Martha by the Doctor exactly twice, at the end of "Smith and Jones" and in the inn scene in "The Shakespeare Code." After that Rose is brought up by Martha herself (in "Gridlock" and "Evolution of the Daleks") or by other characters (John Smith and Joan in "Human Nature," Captain Jack in "Utopia") without any denigration of Martha.

I believe the point he was making was that by any of the characters mentioning Rose, or by the story reminding the audience of her (again), the constant inference of her absence took too much of what should have been Martha's spotlight. It's not like Eccleston went around moaning about Charley, or Grace, or Ace, and neither did the writers.

For all the fan talk of how Rose was constantly mentioned in the year after she left, Martha had a far more prominent role in the year following her departure, and no one complained about Donna being overshadowed by it.

How did Martha appearing in four episodes, versus Donna's thirteen, allow her to play a "far more prominent role"? I disagree...

He means that Martha played a more prominent role in Donna's season than Rose played in Martha's season.

 

[The]

Ah! Okay, sure, I'll agree with that, since Martha physically appeared in the show that year...

 

[Bacl]

Rose was mentioned in nearly every episode, each time casting a negative light on Martha

No. Rose is used against Martha by the Doctor exactly twice, at the end of "Smith and Jones" and in the inn scene in "The Shakespeare Code." After that Rose is brought up by Martha herself (in "Gridlock" and "Evolution of the Daleks") or by other characters (John Smith and Joan in "Human Nature," Captain Jack in "Utopia") without any denigration of Martha.

I believe the point he was making was that by any of the characters mentioning Rose, or by the story reminding the audience of her (again), the constant inference of her absence took too much of what should have been Martha's spotlight. It's not like Eccleston went around moaning about Charley, or Grace, or Ace, and neither did the writers.

That's exactly what I meant. Rose was mentioned and alluded to again and again, and I feel this detracted from Martha. Her character was indeed "Not Rose" and we the audience were constantly reminded of it.

I think that if Martha had been given a clean start, where she joined the Doctor in the same way as did Rose, i.e. a companion not trying to live down the ghosts of those that came before, then she might have been more popular and more better received.

As it is, everyone ends up saying "I'd prefer Rose," because that is what we were constantly asked.

 

[auntiehill]

Well, I actually liked Martha as a character a little more than Rose. I think she was a stronger person, a smarter person, more likable and a better role model for girls.

It never occurred to me that people wouldn't like her.

 

[Winterwind]

I didn't care for either the character or the actress. In fact, for me, some of her scenes are painful to watch.

 

[WillsBabe]

I'm afraid that I really didn't care for Martha at all on Who. However, I started to take to her much more in Torchwood, and I actually enjoyed her Who episodes with Donna. I dunno whether I'll be tuning into Survivors. The old series is one of my favourites of all time, so I'm in two minds.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I'm afraid that I really didn't care for Martha at all on Who. However, I started to take to her much more in Torchwood, and I actually enjoyed her Who episodes with Donna. I dunno whether I'll be tuning into Survivors. The old series is one of my favourites of all time, so I'm in two minds.

Go on, you know you want to. Even if it's out of morbid curiosity.

 

[WillsBabe]

Go on, you know you want to. Even if it's out of morbid curiosity.

I'll be impressed if they do Law and Order.

 

[Mitty]

I love Freema, but the one line I just winced at was the woeful "I'm bringing you back to Earth". Okay the line itself wasn't so great, but her delivery of it was even worse.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I believe the point he was making was that by any of the characters mentioning Rose, or by the story reminding the audience of her (again), the constant inference of her absence took too much of what should have been Martha's spotlight. It's not like Eccleston went around moaning about Charley, or Grace, or Ace, and neither did the writers.

There were sound reasons not to mention Charley or Grace or Ace.

Less than one percent of people watching the first season of the new Doctor Who would have even heard of Charley. And while a decent percentage would have watched the 1996 film, and a lesser percentage "Surival" in 1989, these characters really do belong to another time. The audience has moved on from them. The production has moved on from them.

 

[Brendan Moody]

^Indeed. The Rose references are about acknowledging her importance as a character in the new series, not as the last person to fill the companion role. It is, quite frankly, a limitation of the character work in the classic series that the Doctor evidently got over every companion's departure the second it happened. Modern audiences would never buy it.

I think that if Martha had been given a clean start, where she joined the Doctor in the same way as did Rose, i.e. a companion not trying to live down the ghosts of those that came before, then she might have been more popular and more better received.

Well, she was plenty popular and well-received; there's absolutely no reason to think that the general audience for whom the character was devised liked her any less than Rose. It's only in fandom that people have turned on Martha, and only recently; during the broadcast of series three the tone in fandom was very much "Yay Martha, she's so much better than icky old Rose."

As I said above, I don't think the audience for whom Rose had been the way into Doctor Who would have accepted a new companion who entered in the same way and had the same basic arc. Not only is it repetitive, it undermines what came before it.

As it is, everyone ends up saying "I'd prefer Rose," because that is what we were constantly asked.

I don't hear everyone, or even much of anyone, saying that, actually.

I get that some people don't like the decision to have part (again, part: there's more to Martha that people ignore in discussions like this) of Martha's arc be about recognizing her own worth vis-a-vis the idea of Rose. That's cool. But I do think people are prone to exaggerate what actually happened in making that argument.

 

[Starkers]

yes she is going quite well, off the top of my head, Little Dorrit, Survivors (obviously) & L&O: London.

Also like all good British actors she has been in both Casualty & theBill.

Well I didn't watch Dorrit, but from the trailers it seemed a minor role, I'm willing to be corrected on that. As for survivors...

Spoiler: Survivors spoilers

She's in it for all of 5 minutes...hardly a big role

Be interesting to see how big her role is in L&O, no doubt she'll play a prosecuter the same way she played a doctor/ teacher etc...ie badly!