• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The reason why critics like Doctor Who more than fans do

Story is the apple, plot is the arrow through it. Plot is a sequence of events as revealed to the reader, but story is all the stuff in and around that.
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/09/17/25-things-you-should-know-about-worldbuilding/

I think Moffat is good at writing plot, but he doesn't know how to write a story. In military parlance, story is strategy and plot is tactics. There are very few people who are good at both. Usually, a person is good at one, and lousy with the other.

I think it's the other way around; Moffat has a good sense of story, but he's lousy at plot. :).

It's certainly the other way round in military terms- plot is the plan you have for what the characters will do on the field (i.e. strategy), and story is what happens to them in the process, and how they react/interact (i.e. tactics).

As for being hit and miss- that's kind of the show's superpower: if you don't like a story, try the next one, which will (hopefully) be something completely different in tone, style, and even genre.
 
I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has followed the show since 2005 that the majority of the acclaim today for Doctor Who is built largely on the Eccleston/Tennant years laying the groundwork for it.

I would definitely add in the Smith years as well. The only reason we can't add in the Capaldi year is because there hasn't been the time to develop a historical perspective yet. ;)

I wouldn't. I'm not discounting the quality of Smith's performance; certainly just like Capaldi he did the best with what he had to work with. But the real onslaught of praise and acclaim in the mainstream really started during the Matt Smith years (Series 6 was when I started to notice it here). None of which would be possible had the show not already slowly been building its reputation and audience for the previous five seasons.



I'd agree that it's been the strongest under Moffat's tenure. But Series 4 with Donna easily eclipses it for me. Your mileage may vary.

Also: With the notable exception of "The Day of the Doctor," everything since the end of Series 5 has been hit or miss and entirely lacking in consistent quality.
Doctor Who has always been hit or miss. Misses like The Long Game (although I personally like it), Love and Monsters, Fear Her, Daleks in Manhattan, etc. I could go on. But, there have always been both hits and misses in all seasons. It didn't start after series 5. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Mr Awe
I'm not concerning myself with the original run of the show as that was a completely different kind of series.

I found Series 1-4 of nuWho to be largely and consistently well done. The final series of specials with Tennant were all well done ("Planet of the Dead" is the weakest of them for me) and I've already given my praise for Series 5. Everything afterward though has been hit or miss, sometimes even pointless (Looking at these last two episodes of Series 8) whereas "The Day of the Doctor" was simply magnficent.

To each their own of course.
I largely agree with those sentiments. Sure, the RTD years has some real stinkers - some of the worst DW episodes of all time, in fact - but at its very best, that era had a consistent tone and feel. It was a show that appealed to a slightly older audience than Moffat's does, or did with his first two series (5, 6). RTD balanced darkness with humor and romance expertly, and it didn't feel as polarizing or as divisive as this series, frankly, did.

To me, series 1 and 4 are the best of NuWho, and two of the at least seven best Doctor Who seasons of all time. Series 1 with the mysterious Ninth and lovely Rose, Series 4 with a brilliantly mad Tenth and the amazing Donna, they reached peaks still not reached today, collectively.

Moffat's fifth series is his best, no question. It was his best arc, his best collective storytelling, and his consistent in terms of writing and producing. However, it did have stinkers - The Beast Below, the Silurian two-parter, the Venice one... but it also had The Eleventh Hour and that great series finale. I'd say it equalled in consistency with RTD's series 3, which had a stinker one-third of a finale, but was still solid, with classic like the Human Nature two-parter and the great Blink. Not bad, I'd say.

Arguably, RTD's weakest series was series 2, but even there you had the monumental Sarah Jane episode, as well as Moffat's Girl in the Fireplace, a truly brilliant little story. To me, series 8 didn't have that kind of a story. But perhaps I'm wrong.
 
^See, to me, Season 2 was when the series really hit its stride, even though at that stage I was still preferring Eccleston to Tennant. Ah well, to each his or her own.
 
Series 2 is a series in transition. Half the stories feel like they were written with Eccleston in mind (the Sarah Jane in particular) while the rest were reconfigured for a new Doctor. Also, any series that contains "classics" like Love & Monsters is bound to not be one of their best. Plus, and actually more importantly... a sharp nose dive for Rose. From the sympathetic companion of the first series comes this almost psycho version, a Rose who's unhealthily obsessed with the Doctor.

Not that Martha in series 3 was an improvement, but at least the stories weren't directly affected by the characterization the way Rose's is. She's even worse in series 4, but at least she's not there for much of it.

She's ironically best in series 4B. Perfect closure for the character.
 
Well personally I do not like the current Doctor Who. I quit watching midway through series 7, but came back for Capaldi's run to see if the show had improved. It had not. I quit again around the Robin Hood episode. I'll be back when Moffat steps down.

So some fans do dislike the current show, but I'm pretty sure that fans like me are in the minority. General reception for the current series has been very positive overall.

This is me. I could have written this except I stopped watching half way through Hungry Earth and only came back to watch Capaldi's first couple of episodes and left again to come back at the second half of Death in Heaven (which I enjoyed). I'll be back again when Moff has gone.
 
I think the reason that I am harsh with critics, and why I question their credentials has to do with my experience with video games. Have you bought a game based on critical reviews and discovered the game is a buggy, unplayable mess?

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim was highly rated, with it having a 96 at Metacritic.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim

Now, here is a list of the patches and what they fixed in the game.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Patch

How can a game with these many problems be rated highly? I have read that there are still issues with the game. This is unacceptable for a AAA game.

The issue with AAA games not working, yet are getting good reviews continues into the present day.

http://kotaku.com/new-video-games-shouldnt-be-so-broken-1658570535

Look at this year's big holiday releases. Assassin's Creed Unity has issues both hilarious and problematic. Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare has only just become playable on PC. The multiplayer portion of Halo's Master Chief Collection isn't working. And that's before you take into account Sony's Driveclub, a game that was broken for weeks.

Assasin's Creed Unity has a score of 73.
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare has a score between 77 (PC) and 83 (Playstation 4).
Halo's Master Chief Collection has a score of 82.
Driveclub has a score of 70.

It's fun to read reviews, but I am incredulous about the reviewers who are overly praising of a product. One thing I have learned is that critics are willing to be honest with a product when the company doesn't have name recognition.
 
I think the reason that I am harsh with critics, and why I question their credentials has to do with my experience with video games. Have you bought a game based on critical reviews and discovered the game is a buggy, unplayable mess?

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim was highly rated, with it having a 96 at Metacritic.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim

Now, here is a list of the patches and what they fixed in the game.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Patch

How can a game with these many problems be rated highly? I have read that there are still issues with the game. This is unacceptable for a AAA game.

The issue with AAA games not working, yet are getting good reviews continues into the present day.

http://kotaku.com/new-video-games-shouldnt-be-so-broken-1658570535

Look at this year's big holiday releases. Assassin's Creed Unity has issues both hilarious and problematic. Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare has only just become playable on PC. The multiplayer portion of Halo's Master Chief Collection isn't working. And that's before you take into account Sony's Driveclub, a game that was broken for weeks.

Assasin's Creed Unity has a score of 73.
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare has a score between 77 (PC) and 83 (Playstation 4).
Halo's Master Chief Collection has a score of 82.
Driveclub has a score of 70.

It's fun to read reviews, but I am incredulous about the reviewers who are overly praising of a product. One thing I have learned is that critics are willing to be honest with a product when the company doesn't have name recognition. If there is name recognition, the critics are reticent to notice flaws and, where they have to recognize the flaws, will gloss over them.

One of the more hilarious aspects of the fandom’s critique this year has been the idea that things have become overly fixated on Clara, as if the whole success of the show’s revival had not been predicated on the companion being the main character. Yet even though it turned out to be a classic fake-out, when Clara declared herself to be the Doctor and Jenna’s eyes flashing in the opening credits, it did feel a little uncomfortable. Were they really going to go there? In the end it was Clara’s increasingly Doctor-ish nature needed in order to survive, and it was further proof of quite how much the character has changed. The revelation that Missy had selected Clara, picked her to be the Doctor’s undoing, might have felt a little bit forced, but she’s still been on the most complete journey of probably any companion.

Yet as she completes that arc, Steven Moffat, the king of the happy ending, does not allow her one. Cybernised Danny doesn’t get saved, and even though his love sort of saves the day, he declines the opportunity to return, instead giving it to the boy he killed. Clara leaves Tardis life somewhat worse off than when she started. It’s all rather bleak in the end. But with Jenna confirmed to appear at Christmas, maybe that isn’t the end of the story.

This is one of the most praising of the reviews, and it comes from the Guardian. Notice how the critic ridicules the fanbase's criticism that the show has become companion heavy and how a major flaw in the arc, Missy choosing Clara, was glossed over with a brief phrase. http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...ho-recap-series-34-episode-12-death-in-heaven

In this review, from the Telegraph, the critic displayed that he wasn't paying attention when he wrote,

Mr President - or should that be President Who? - eventually zapped his arch enemy out of existence but left sufficient wriggle room for a return.

The critic wrote about the story issues,

A few plot machinations were baffling - a common complaint with writer Steven Moffat and one which this episode didn’t dispel. The bittersweet coda, with the Doctor and Clara going their separate ways, seemed clumsily set up as a cliffhanger. Though there have been rumours that Coleman is leaving the show, she will be back for the Christmas special, so perhaps all will become clear then. Mainly, though, it worked. The world-saving felt suitably epic for a finale and it had emotional heft: heart-rending without being mawkish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...who-review-death-in-heaven-peter-capaldi.html

He mentions plot machinations, yet only mentions one. What were the others?

The reviewer at SFX rates the episode a four out of five stars, then goes into several paragraphs on why the story didn't work.

Possibly, though, the episode was less than the sum of its parts. There was so much going on that the changes in tone were occasionally a little too jarring, some elements (such as Danny returning the boy he shot to the land of the living) felt underdeveloped, and the Cybermen were underused (though their attack on the plane made up for that to some extent, and their guns are cool).
Missy also felt a little wasted. Michelle Gomez is great at “bananas” and she relishes her self-consciously melodramatic dialogue but she seems to have problems dialling down the theatrics to give more intimate scenes a sense of threat. Her motives also seem muddled. If she wants to give the Doctor an army, why try to kill him by blowing up the plane (unless she wanted to see him regenerate into a woman?). And the Mary Poppins moment was unforgivably on-the-nose. It’s a shame, also, that there wasn’t a little bit more of an exploration of how becoming a woman might change the dynamic between the Doctor and the Master, but presumably that’s to come. Certainly an episode about Galifreyan sexual politics would be interesting.

The major problem, though, is the whole “love conquers all” ending. It’s not only comes across as cheesy, it doesn’t even make an awful lot of sense. Admittedly there are precedents for Cyber-conditioning not working: Yvonne Hartman in “Doomsday” and Craig Owens in “Closing Time”. However, both those moments felt cheesy too. Here the Doctor claims that Danny is able to resist because “Love is not an emotion. Love is a promise,” which must rate as one of the most spurious get-out clauses ever. Because, yes, love is an emotion, and what’s more, a promise is a pact based on emotions – love, loyalty guilt, friendship or whatever.

But it we do accept that Danny’s love is strong enough to overcome conditioning, then why not other people’s love as well? Is he the only Cyberman (with one exception; we’ll come to that) who’s left a loved one behind? Maybe we’re supposed to believe that Danny’s love is stronger than other people’s, but then the resolution comes down a massive coincidence – the Doctor’s companion just happens to have the single most useful boyfriend for a situation like this. Or maybe his inhibitor just happened to be the only one on the blink. Either way, unmotivated coincidences in drama are a cheap fix.

Just when you think there’s the possibility that Danny didn’t press DELETE last week may have had some bearing (grasping at straws, yeah), what happens next makes that (and the faulty chip theory) impossible – the Cyber-Brigadier nonsense. Maybe we’re supposed to think the military mind combined with love is the killer combination, but in reality, the real key to Cyber-resistance seems to be “usefulness to the plot”.

It’s a shame, because there’s so much clever scriptwriting going on display in “Death In Heaven” you feel you deserve a cleverer ending too. Series eight has been really strong and inventive in so many ways, but easy fix solutions have been a recurrent jinx (“Robot Of Sherwood”, “The Caretaker”, “Kill The Moon”, “Flatline” and “In The Forest Of The Night”). This doesn’t mean the show should be all about sci-fi technobabble with its denouements, but it would be great to have a few more resolutions where you’re just damned impressed at the Doctor’s ingenuity. Keep the big emotional moments, sure, just steer clear of “love as an energy” pseudo-science.

How can this story rate four out of five stars when so much of the review is negative? Shouldn't it be rated lower? If it wasn't Doctor Who, would it rated be lower? I think it would be.

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2014/11/08/doctor-who-8-12-death-in-heaven-review/

These are the top three reviews.
 
How can this story rate four out of five stars when so much of the review is negative? Shouldn't it be rated lower? If it wasn't Doctor Who, would it rated be lower? I think it would be.
Art doesn't work like science. You can enjoy your meal even if the napkins aren't color-coordinated with the tablecloth. Sometimes fiction works despite its flaws, sometimes it is more than the sum of its parts, a fact that detail-oriented fans tend to ignore.
 
We aren't talking about the napkins color-coordinating with the tablecloth. We are talking about the meal itself. It is from the meal that many people derive enjoyment from.

Did you read the review from SFX? The critic wrote that the episode was possibly less than the sum of its parts. I think most people dont' read the links I provide. Here is the full review.

For one brief moment it looked like the big finale of “Death Of Heaven” was going to be Danny Pink leading the Cybermen in a big synchronised song and dance number to the tune of “All You Need Is Love”. After all, we’d just seen Missy parachute in like Mary Poppins, and then learned that love is, indeed, all you need to overcome Cyber-conditioning (altogether now, “It’s eaaaaassssssyyyyyy!”), so it was wasn’t beyond all realms of possibility. Hell, if it was good enough for “The Prisoner”…?

Danny becoming the champion of the world was a disappointingly glib end for what was for the most part a hugely entertaining episode. Less chilling than “Dark Water”, it instead aimed for a more Russell T Davies crowd-pleaser vibe, both in its ballsy I-can’t-believe-they’ve-actually-done-that spectacle (the dome of St Paul’s opening up like a giant metal flower, flying Cybermen, the Doctor sky-diving sans parachute to reach the TARDIS), outrageous concepts (Clara pretending to be the Doctor, the Doctor as president of the world) and sudden lip-trembling emotion (the Doctor’s moral dilemma over Danny’s situation, the goodbye – “Never trust a hug. It’s just a way to hide your face”).

All of the above worked intensely well, especially the Doctor as President Of Earth, which Moffat mined for all it was worth (“Remember all those years when all you wanted to do was rule the world? … Piece of cake.”). He also has great fun playing with idea of Clara as the Doctor, capitalising on the shock of the “Mistress” reveal last week to make it seem plausible (see also “Would You Credit It?” below).

Moffat is on more Moffaty ground with the Cybermen-as-zombies parallels. Any excuse for a graveyard scene with Moffat (there were three in the space of four stories in series seven). Here the sight of Cybermen emerging from graves has a genuinely chilling effect, effectively captured by director Rachel (please only read my CV from 1996 onwards) Talalay. This is the kind of imagery that will stay with today’s nippers the way Autons crashing out of shop windows and tentacles hatching from alien seed pods did with their parents and grandparents.

Possibly, though, the episode was less than the sum of its parts. There was so much going on that the changes in tone were occasionally a little too jarring, some elements (such as Danny returning the boy he shot to the land of the living) felt underdeveloped, and the Cybermen were underused (though their attack on the plane made up for that to some extent, and their guns are cool).

Missy also felt a little wasted. Michelle Gomez is great at “bananas” and she relishes her self-consciously melodramatic dialogue but she seems to have problems dialling down the theatrics to give more intimate scenes a sense of threat. Her motives also seem muddled. If she wants to give the Doctor an army, why try to kill him by blowing up the plane (unless she wanted to see him regenerate into a woman?). And the Mary Poppins moment was unforgivably on-the-nose. It’s a shame, also, that there wasn’t a little bit more of an exploration of how becoming a woman might change the dynamic between the Doctor and the Master, but presumably that’s to come. Certainly an episode about Galifreyan sexual politics would be interesting.

The major problem, though, is the whole “love conquers all” ending. It’s not only comes across as cheesy, it doesn’t even make an awful lot of sense. Admittedly there are precedents for Cyber-conditioning not working: Yvonne Hartman in “Doomsday” and Craig Owens in “Closing Time”. However, both those moments felt cheesy too. Here the Doctor claims that Danny is able to resist because “Love is not an emotion. Love is a promise,” which must rate as one of the most spurious get-out clauses ever. Because, yes, love is an emotion, and what’s more, a promise is a pact based on emotions – love, loyalty guilt, friendship or whatever.

But it we do accept that Danny’s love is strong enough to overcome conditioning, then why not other people’s love as well? Is he the only Cyberman (with one exception; we’ll come to that) who’s left a loved one behind? Maybe we’re supposed to believe that Danny’s love is stronger than other people’s, but then the resolution comes down a massive coincidence – the Doctor’s companion just happens to have the single most useful boyfriend for a situation like this. Or maybe his inhibitor just happened to be the only one on the blink. Either way, unmotivated coincidences in drama are a cheap fix.

Just when you think there’s the possibility that Danny didn’t press DELETE last week may have had some bearing (grasping at straws, yeah), what happens next makes that (and the faulty chip theory) impossible – the Cyber-Brigadier nonsense. Maybe we’re supposed to think the military mind combined with love is the killer combination, but in reality, the real key to Cyber-resistance seems to be “usefulness to the plot”.

It’s a shame, because there’s so much clever scriptwriting going on display in “Death In Heaven” you feel you deserve a cleverer ending too. Series eight has been really strong and inventive in so many ways, but easy fix solutions have been a recurrent jinx (“Robot Of Sherwood”, “The Caretaker”, “Kill The Moon”, “Flatline” and “In The Forest Of The Night”). This doesn’t mean the show should be all about sci-fi technobabble with its denouements, but it would be great to have a few more resolutions where you’re just damned impressed at the Doctor’s ingenuity. Keep the big emotional moments, sure, just steer clear of “love as an energy” pseudo-science.

Overall, though, “Death In Heaven” is an immensely enjoyable series finale, and – in best Doctor Who tradition – a rollicking spectacle the like of which you won’t see anywhere else on TV this week.

This critic rated the series 4 stars because he enjoyed it, while at the same time pointing out its flaws - the very flaws that detail-oriented fans are "obsessing" over. There is more to the review, which you can read. He loves the speech given by the Doctor in the graveyard until the subject of love arises.

Yes, I can be detail oriented. This is because I read history and watch news, so I am looking at how things work and how things fail when things don't work. I learned tonight that a Secret Service agent was gabbing on a phone using the same ear that would normally hold his speaker phone and left his second radio in his locker, while a man breached the White House fence.

However, every point this reviewer raises has been raised by fans who are less enamored of this episode. I believe in a relationship with something or someone that a person loves they are less critical of the flaws. They take the flaws for guarantee. I think it's healthier in a relationship when the something or someone that is failing for that person to be pushed to the challenge line. I see Doctor Who as having potential, and I see Doctor Who not living to that potential. I am disappointed and angry, yet I still love the franchise.
 
This critic rated the series 4 stars because he enjoyed it, while at the same time pointing out its flaws - the very flaws that detail-oriented fans are "obsessing" over.
Yes, in the end, despite the episode's flaws, the critic looked at the big picture, which is a perfectly reasonable way of reviewing fiction. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.
 
This critic rated the series 4 stars because he enjoyed it, while at the same time pointing out its flaws - the very flaws that detail-oriented fans are "obsessing" over.
Yes, in the end, despite the episode's flaws, the critic looked at the big picture, which is a perfectly reasonable way of reviewing fiction. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

Exactly. I love plenty of things that are as flawed as hell, and dislike other things for no rational reason, they could be well written without a plot hole, well cast well directed yet I still don't get them.

Plenty of things are more than the sum of there parts, and plenty of other things less than the sum of their parts. How often have you seen a film that should have been awesome yet for some reason didn't work, and vice-versa.

In fact often the best stuff is the stuff with flaws, be it music, art, film, literature etc etc.

This whole "How dare the critics disagree with me" notion's just plain ridiculous. We all like different things.
 
We also live in a world where people who hate a show passionately continue to watch it every week and are considered/consider themselves 'fans'. Not that I'm against taking a critical eye to the things we love, of course But usually if I'm as disenfranchised with a show, I stop watching it, and no longer consider myself a fan.
I didn't like any of the Matt Smith stuff. None of it, with the exception of the 50th anniversary episode. But I still watched, in the forlorn hope it would get better. Unfortunately, it was just a long, bizarre mess.

There seem to be four sets of American fan bases.

1. The ones that use to watch it on PBS when it was the 3rd and 4th Doctor onwards.

2. Those tha saw it on the Sci-Fi Channel with the 9th Doctor.

3. Those that watched on the BBC satelite/cable feeds for the 9th and 10th Doctor.

4. Those that started when BBC America promoted the 11th Doctor heavily.

My first full Doctor Who story was The Pirate Planet, on PBS, in 1982. At the time I wasn't familiar with Douglas Adams' kind of humor, so I nearly turned it off. What kept me watching was that I'd made a promise to a friend to watch at least one full Doctor Who story (they were shown in their separate episodes each week day at that time, rather than in the 90-minute ones on Saturday night). I forced myself through that story, but the next one, Stones of Blood, was quite good. It's still one of my favorites, and Professor Amelia Rumford became one of my favorite guest characters.

The only other episode I saw was I think Seeds of Doom Ep 1 with Tom Baker, and the man changing to a plant scared me too much at age 5. Only with the 11th Doctor did I start to see something different that caught my attention.
Seeds of Doom was absolutely creepy, and that story, along with my having read Alan Dean Foster's Midworld novels, is one reason why I don't have houseplants and cut back the vines that were growing along the walls of our house. :wtf:

Also Moffat has tried to tap into the older Who of his age with the new tone of the stories and an older Doctor, which has probably alienated some of the fans who only know Doctor Who from 2005 onwards.
So the new fans are alienated by an older actor, and some of the older fans are alienated by stories that make no sense and a companion who is annoying. Seriously, I'd almost rather listen to Mel's screeching than any more of Clara's soap opera.

Every fan has an idea of what Doctor Who should be like, often a fixed point where it was best from their point of view. Ironically this can be almost anywhere, you will likely find more than a few posters here whose favourite Doctor is Colin Baker. Nothing wrong with that, but it leads to extreme subjectiveness.
It's been said that a fan's favorite Doctor is usually whoever was the first one the fan started watching.

Troughton era ratings seem to be quite low. I'm wondering if that had to do more with people liking Hartnell more, or if the stories seemed worse to the viewers at that time. We had a disadvantage as a lot of those stories are missing. From the audio and stills they seem fine.

Or was it a case that the BBC was just falling behind the advancments in technology? The rating went back up once it was Pertwee and the show was in color.
It also helped that Pertwee didn't have companions who did little but act helpless and do a lot of screaming. The Pertwee era was also a bit of an homage to James Bond, with the Doctor's martial arts and love of gadgets and various kinds of vehicles (ie. Bessie and the Whomobile).
 
Interesting that Sarah pretty much turned into more of a screaming companion in the Tom Baker years, although a lot of the Tom Baker companions after her were pretty strong women.
 
A lot of what some fans are complaining about now (romance stuff, eccentric Doctor, confusing motives for the villains) were in the David Tennant era. It's just that some don't like change, some have their personal reasons (be it racial or otherwise) for not liking changes....(e.g. some posters voiced their opinion that they didn't like handsome Danny(black) in a relationship with the attractive Clara (white) as they felt interracial relationships were being forced - yet, there was little to my knowledge about the forced romance between Rose and The Doctor or the relationships between Rory and Amy).

Of course, there are some fans who are never pleased.

For me, I felt after the Eccleston era, the stories became 'meh.' There were exceptions, and I remember the Matt Smith christmas special with Michael Gambon was pretty emotional. I think that was one of the best written shows on Doctor Who (or any show, whatever the genre, for that matter).

Of course, I'm on board with the current era because I'm a fan of the character Clara Oswald.;)
 
A lot of what some fans are complaining about now (romance stuff, eccentric Doctor, confusing motives for the villains) were in the David Tennant era. It's just that some don't like change, some have their personal reasons (be it racial or otherwise) for not liking changes....(e.g. some posters voiced their opinion that they didn't like handsome Danny(black) in a relationship with the attractive Clara (white) as they felt interracial relationships were being forced - yet, there was little to my knowledge about the forced romance between Rose and The Doctor or the relationships between Rory and Amy).

Of course, there are some fans who are never pleased.

For me, I felt after the Eccleston era, the stories became 'meh.' There were exceptions, and I remember the Matt Smith christmas special with Michael Gambon was pretty emotional. I think that was one of the best written shows on Doctor Who (or any show, whatever the genre, for that matter).

Of course, I'm on board with the current era because I'm a fan of the character Clara Oswald.;)
You're seeing racism where it mostly doesn't exist (since sadly a small number of viewers may indeed prefer non-black characters). The reason a lot of people don't like Danny is because the character was written as a ditherer, with a confusing backstory that took too long to make its point. The "romance" with Clara falls flat for me because Danny is just irritating and Clara was constantly lying to him. I don't care if they're humans of whatever skin color. I dislike the constant "I love him/her but I'm lying/keeping secrets" nonsense. This is supposed to be a science fiction adventure show, not an American soap opera.
 
It also helped that Pertwee didn't have companions who did little but act helpless and do a lot of screaming. The Pertwee era was also a bit of an homage to James Bond, with the Doctor's martial arts and love of gadgets and various kinds of vehicles (ie. Bessie and the Whomobile).

Well taking Liz and Sarah Jane (who was possibly at her most screamy in her first year) you're telling me Jo is less helpless and less prone to screaming than Zoe? Seriously? :confused:
 
It also helped that Pertwee didn't have companions who did little but act helpless and do a lot of screaming. The Pertwee era was also a bit of an homage to James Bond, with the Doctor's martial arts and love of gadgets and various kinds of vehicles (ie. Bessie and the Whomobile).
Well taking Liz and Sarah Jane (who was possibly at her most screamy in her first year) you're telling me Jo is less helpless and less prone to screaming than Zoe? Seriously? :confused:
It's been many years since I saw the Troughton and Pertwee stories. As I recall, Liz was a cool, collected scientist who wasn't prone to screaming and being helpless. Jo was a trained agent who, although a bit clumsy at times, tried to get out of scrapes on her own and her first reaction wasn't usually "Doctor, help me!" Even Romana I can't make that claim. She was a screamer, which is a huge reason why I don't like her anywhere near as much as her successor.

Sarah did do a bit of screaming, but it wasn't constant (like Victoria, for instance, in the stories I recall).
 
Something I have realized is that I have difficulty communicating what I am saying. And, I see on the Death in Heaven thread that people are either ridiculing or trolling the fans who aren't as much in favor of the current series. I had a dream where I was in a discussion with people and I was attempting to express my point of view. As I was more ignored or dismissed, I became more desperate to prove my point. I started screaming, and I woke up immediately. I was perturbed by the dream.

Being on this forum has stopped being fun, as fans like me who have a different take on the franchise, seeing that the mechanics of the episode are not working, are marginalized and mocked as Moffat haters. (Mechanics of an episode are the story, the plot, the characterization, the tone, the themes, and the world building.) Some of us are starting to evaluate why the critics are being so generous with their reviews on the franchise. This evaluation has begun in the video game industry, where games that are broken on release are given generous scores.

It doesn't matter if you say that a person is a Moffat-hater or not; if you don't speak against it, you are letting this prejudice take seed and grow. How can caring about a franchise, wanting to see it fulfull its potential, and seeing that potential not being reached translate into being the hater of a person?
 
Something I have realized is that I have difficulty communicating what I am saying. And, I see on the Death in Heaven thread that people are either ridiculing or trolling the fans who aren't as much in favor of the current series.......

Just because someone disagrees with what you have to say, doesn't mean they're trolling you. We all have the privilege to air are differing opinions here without being called names if said opinion is different.
 
Something I have realized is that I have difficulty communicating what I am saying. And, I see on the Death in Heaven thread that people are either ridiculing or trolling the fans who aren't as much in favor of the current series. I had a dream where I was in a discussion with people and I was attempting to express my point of view. As I was more ignored or dismissed, I became more desperate to prove my point. I started screaming, and I woke up immediately. I was perturbed by the dream.

Being on this forum has stopped being fun, as fans like me who have a different take on the franchise, seeing that the mechanics of the episode are not working, are marginalized and mocked as Moffat haters. (Mechanics of an episode are the story, the plot, the characterization, the tone, the themes, and the world building.) Some of us are starting to evaluate why the critics are being so generous with their reviews on the franchise. This evaluation has begun in the video game industry, where games that are broken on release are given generous scores.

It doesn't matter if you say that a person is a Moffat-hater or not; if you don't speak against it, you are letting this prejudice take seed and grow. How can caring about a franchise, wanting to see it fulfull its potential, and seeing that potential not being reached translate into being the hater of a person?

I profoundly disagree. There can be robust and sometimes ill-tempered exchanges on this forum but I don't see anyone being mocked or marginalised, much less hated as a person.

But look, and I say this in all seriousness in as nice a way as I can - if it has gotten to the stage where you're having bad dreams about discussions on the BBS or any other online forum, you may want to re-evaluate participating there. It's certainly not my intention to dissuade you or anyone from discussions here but you need to remember, we're just a bunch of fans talking about a TV programme. None of this is worth losing sleep over - literally or figuratively.

I also suspect that you're letting negative experiences on gaming forums affect how you perceive the interactions here on the BBS. I don't game much less belong to any gaming forums but I really don't see their relevance to this forum.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top