Doctor Who Series Three
The third series premiere premiered on July 6 (they showed "The Runaway Bride" and "Smith & Jones" back to back, and showed "The Shakespeare Code" last week)....it's been very good so far.....
Yet, i've been hearing that the third series isn't as good as the first two.
is this true?
Yet, i've been hearing that the third series isn't as good as the first two.
is this true?
Post edited by usspeccyfan on
Comments
Series three does contain a lot of rubbish (mostly Russell T. Davies' stories, as usual). But the statues episode is superb, and the double parter based on the book "Human Nature" is very good, especially the ending which improves on the book, the Dalek double parter wasn't too bad, though it should have been much better.
I was very dissapointed in the Masters' episodes, though, but I did think John Simms was much better than I'd expected him to be. A shame he never grew a beard though - the Master should have a goaty beard, it's his trademark!
there were no 'bum' episodes that i would never watch again ( like the awful 'Love and Monsters' and to a lesser extent 'Fear Her' from season two
Good all rounder... And you'll love the angels.... the angels were fantastic
She's kinda calmed down at the end of the show, so lets hope she's still that little bit calmer when she bumps into the Doctor again.
And to agree with everyone else - Blink is an absolutely fantastic episode. If you don't see any of the others it doesn't matter (well, it does really), just watch this one and don't blink!
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
Its like the golden age of Tom Baker all over again (only better! ** :o ** )
Blink was a really amazing episode.
Necros.
also one of my freinds said that David Tennant was the second best Doctor ever (the first is of course Tom Baker, the worst is probably the fifth or sixth Doctors)
Necros.
There, I had to say it. I'm a fan of late-Baker and Peter Davison Who, and some of the McCoy era, but the new Who just sucks for me. The stories, sets, actors, music, photography... everything is just terrible.
A personal opinion, of course :p
So, you didn't like what are often regarded as the golden years of classic Who, which were the early Tom Baker years seasons 12 to 15, and yet you have the gaul to express a preference for some of the McCoy era? Its clear you have dubious taste in your choice of preferred classic Doctor Who eras, and after displaying such bad taste, it is no surprise to me that you don't like the excellent (and multiple BAFTA award winning) new Doctor Who series. :p
Just because it wins awards doesn't mean it's any good :-P
But, yes it is fab.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
or one of the many who consider Tennant to be one of the best Doctors since Baker (not alot of people know who the Doctor is in America - and those who do: 1) Call the charecter Doctor Who and 2) Usually think of Tom Baker's potrayal of the Doctor) And besides, "Doctor Who" is saving Sci-Fi Channel's "Battlestar Galactica"-less arse (similar to the fact that the highest rated show on HBO post-"Sopranos" is "Flight of the Conchords")
It'd be inappropriate for me to judge "series 3" since I haven't watched any of it yet.
I disliked the first two new series to be honest, so gave up on the new Dr Who a while back (mainly because I'm usually out or doing something else when it is on). But, I do think "Love & Monsters" was the final nail in the coffin for me, when I stopped even bothering to record it. I'm not a great fan of either Eccleston or Tennant as the Doctor, as I'll always think that older actors would somehow be more suited to the role..
However that's not to take anything away from the fact that the new Who undoubtedly has a huge following, and is adored by millions. Even in the two series I did watch, I saw some occasional good episodes (mainly non-RTD ones).
But, like you Mark1974, I find that overall it just ain't for me, and am in agreement with most of the points that you mention.
Of the original series, my favourite doctors are probably Hartnell, Troughton and Pertwee. Probably "Daleks Master Plan", "The Tenth planet" and then later on any episodes with Roger Delgado as the Master being amongst my all time favourites.
But really they were different shows altogether from what Dr Who has now become. And although Dr Who could often be considered "childrens TV" back then, it just seemed well more enjoyable, IMHO of course!
I'll probably watch the new series three at some point in the future though, because, well I have to out of curiosity at some point.
Seriously? You jammy git, CB is my favourite Doctor, I think his portrayal was by far the best, followed by Tom Baker. My third favourite is harder to decide, Sylvester McCoy's Doctor was brilliant, in later episodes (in his first episodes he played the Doctor as a clown, which was rubbish, but later on as a background manipulator, which transformed the series), but I really liked what I saw of Patrick Troughton's Doctor, and Peter Davidson's portrayal was far better than generally given credit, I think.
I think Christopher Eccleston did a very good job of largely dodgy scripts, especailly in view of the faults in the writing where the Doctor's character was concerned - the Doctor had four major characteristics, his morality, his intelligence, his ability to improvise, and his eccentricity, and throughout most of Eccleston's season (and most of of Tenant's three seasons, too), the Doctor is frequently shown as incapable of improvising, except when he pulls out an inexplicable Deus Ex Machina, usually with the Sonic Screwdriver (the current "get out" button for when the Doctor Who writer can't think of what happens next, or when time is short in an episode), often lacks intelligence (although he does exhibit arcane knowledge, but knowledge is very different from intelligence), and sometimes is cold and callous, which is totally at odds with the real spirit of Doctor Who. Even Colin Baker's Doctor Who, who was known for being impatient and cold, still possessed the true compassion and the respect for all life of previous Doctors, even if he kept it hidden most of the time (and it's all credit to Colin Baker's acting that he could portray this so effectively, just like Niles Crane's actor on Fraiser manages to portray Niles as both a total snob, and a heartfelt humanitarian, two contradictory traits merged together believably).
Regarding CB, by the way, I won't mention the awful, disgusting way the BBC treated him, as that's been gone over many times by the fans, but it does have to be said that if he'd have had the scripts to support his acting ability and the strength his Doctor showed, Doctor Who could have have reached new heights of success. But of course, the BBC didn't care about Doctor Who, they've always seen science fiction as beneath them, and not true "intellectual nourishment". And they put Bonnie Langford on Doctor Who :-x :-x :-x :-x :-x
Anyway, to me the new Doctor Who series (Eccleston and onwards) isn't true Doctor Who, it's too glitzy, lightweight, flashy and shallow. I much prefer the older series, although more than that I prefer the post 1989 books, most especially the Virgin New Adventures with the seventh Doctor (McCoy), Ace and Benny. Still, I'll watch the new episodes when they're on, but most of them I'd never watch again, with a few exceptions, such as Eccleston's Blitz double-parter ("Are you my mummy?"), The Girl in the Fireplace, and Blink (three superb episodes, all worthy to be classed as true Who canon, and all by the same author), Human Nature, The Family of Blood and the double Bill starting with the "The Impossible Planet".
Still, if nothing else, Doctor Who is back on the air, and even if some of us don't like the new format, at least it's being seen and enjoyed by a new generation. And you can't argue with it's popularity, the kids love it. Just like we did when we were kids. So we shouldn't complain. Well, not too much.
Is he still making his mind up?
Or is that the bucks fizz press?
Didn't the Peter Davison era have what's considered the best Who story, 'The Caves of Androzani'?
Clearly, you aren't tolerant of other people's opinions. And if you think the new Who is excellent, I really feel sorry for your taste in television; you must really be desperate :p
Torchwood is classic, too, right?
Opinions vary, of course, but the most frequent winner of the "best DW story" polls is Tom Baker's The Genesis of the Daleks, an excellent (aprt from the slight padding to stretch it out to six episodes) story. Caves of Androzani was very good, but not Davidson's best, if you ask me.
I got that on vid last year from a mate that got it for nowt.
I was impressed with that story. Can't remember most of it now, but I thought it was better that Carnival of Monsters (Pertwee) and The Leisure Hive (Tom Baker).
Which is surprising 'cos I grew up with a mum who loved Tom's Dr Who the best (and I thought so too).
About the only things I remembered from Davidson's Dr was the cricket stuff.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
That wasn't that good....
I mean like half an hour in, I knew it would be a two parter
is the second part better (and faster moving)?
It's a weak two-parter.
So far "Grildlock" was the best this season