S5E10 Vincent and the Doctor

[Agamemnon]

Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In
fact if he'd lived in Roman times he would have made a pretty good mural
painter.

The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill Nighy
in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough to see
the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful music.

I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over and
over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If Murry
Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do it
somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.

Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.

9.5/10

Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope I'm
wrong.

[Phil Bowles]

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

No, I caught no traces of any Blackadder-style gags, more's the pity -
few enough gags of any kind, at that.

Post by Agamemnon
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10

Wow, it must have been bad.

Post by Agamemnon
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope I'm
wrong.

You? Wrong? Surely not! Besides, we know that if Amy's in practically
every scene you'll still spend your review stressing how right you
were that it would be a companion-lite episode...

Companion-lite, I suspect, but the description of the story suggests
it will be Doctor-heavy. Since Amy could have been absent for most of
the season without what passes for the plots actually registering her
absence, that in itself isn't revealing. What will be more important
is ensuring the secondary characters break the habit of most of the
season to date (the latest episode aside) and actually display some
personality.

Phil

[Agamemnon]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

They're crap paintings technically speaking, but they are the only thing in
colour that shows what the period and places really looked like.

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

No, I caught no traces of any Blackadder-style gags, more's the pity -

That's because you don't understand the medium of comedy. The gags are there
in the script and anyone who can do comic timing properly (something lacking
in 99% of modern so-called comedy actors) can pull them off, but Matt Smith
and the director of the episode chose not to interpret them that way since
they are not in keeping with the Doctor's character.

Post by Phil Bowles
few enough gags of any kind, at that.

The fewer the better.

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10

Wow, it must have been bad.

Post by Agamemnon
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope I'm
wrong.

You? Wrong? Surely not! Besides, we know that if Amy's in practically
every scene you'll still spend your review stressing how right you
were that it would be a companion-lite episode...
Companion-lite, I suspect, but the description of the story suggests
it will be Doctor-heavy. Since Amy could have been absent for most of
the season without what passes for the plots actually registering her
absence, that in itself isn't revealing. What will be more important
is ensuring the secondary characters break the habit of most of the
season to date (the latest episode aside) and actually display some
personality.
Phil

[Phil Bowles]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

They're crap paintings technically speaking, but they are the only thing in
colour that shows what the period and places really looked like.

I don't think the stars were that yellow back then. And it's not much
of a revelation that sunflowers were yellow then as well...

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

No, I caught no traces of any Blackadder-style gags, more's the pity -

That's because you don't understand the medium of comedy.

Really? Where were the characteristically bizarre analogies? The
ironic quips about historical people and places? The knowing satire on
modern life? Aside from the slapstick with Baldrick, Blackadder's
humour was all in the dialogue - more than most sitcoms, if it was
there it would be easily detectable regardless of how well the actors
delivered it. But then, you only watch sitcoms for the slapstick and
innuendo, don't you? Maybe Blackadder just went over your head.

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Phil Bowles
few enough gags of any kind, at that.

The fewer the better.

What's wrong with comedy in Dr Who? The Romans was deathly dull until
it turned into Carry On Nero - I kept imagining his character being
played by Sid James. There's nothing as blatant as that here. Besides,
The Doctor Dances and City of Death are both practically pure sitcom,
and rank among Dr Who's finest stories.

Phil

[Agamemnon]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those
of
Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations
can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape
painters
of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

They're crap paintings technically speaking, but they are the only thing in
colour that shows what the period and places really looked like.

I don't think the stars were that yellow back then. And it's not much

He was probably looking through an out of focus telescope, and an unsteady
one at that and seeing some sort of galaxies.

Post by Phil Bowles
of a revelation that sunflowers were yellow then as well...

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson
just
for
one episode.

No, I caught no traces of any Blackadder-style gags, more's the pity -

That's because you don't understand the medium of comedy.

Really? Where were the characteristically bizarre analogies? The
ironic quips about historical people and places? The knowing satire on
modern life? Aside from the slapstick with Baldrick, Blackadder's
humour was all in the dialogue - more than most sitcoms, if it was
there it would be easily detectable regardless of how well the actors
delivered it. But then, you only watch sitcoms for the slapstick and
innuendo, don't you? Maybe Blackadder just went over your head.

Given that you still think that Being Human was purely a drama despite the
fact that it was billed as a comedy drama, whereas I picked up on the fact
that it was supposed to be a sit com from the start, it is obvious why you
don't understand comedy. The ralitiy is that Being Human was crap comedy but
because you can't notice where the jokes were supposed to be, either pulled
off or written badly you think it's purley drama. You have no idea what were
supposed to be jokes whereas I do, and I don't find them either funny or
well done so I see it as crap comedy.

The Blackadder stuff was there, but it was neither good, nor did Matt Smith
or the Director chose to interpret it as comedy because that is not how they
felt the episode or the character should be.

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Phil Bowles
few enough gags of any kind, at that.

The fewer the better.

What's wrong with comedy in Dr Who? The Romans was deathly dull until
it turned into Carry On Nero - I kept imagining his character being
played by Sid James. There's nothing as blatant as that here. Besides,
The Doctor Dances and City of Death are both practically pure sitcom,
and rank among Dr Who's finest stories.
Phil

[marc_CH]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Phil Bowles
I don't think the stars were that yellow back then. And it's not much

He was probably looking through an out of focus telescope, and an
unsteady one at that and seeing some sort of galaxies.

Or maybe he was an impressionist who didn't have to literally paint what
he *sees* but what he *thinks he sees or wants to see*.

[tosh]

On 06/06/2010 00:26, Agamemnon did say:
"Blah de blah"

Well we now no you also know fuck all about art or comedy, you also know
fuck all about Richard Curtis as he didn't write the funny stuff in
Blackadder that was written by Ben Elton. Any episode of 'The Vicar of
Dibley' should be enough to show you Curtis's idea of comedy.

[AlfyDoor]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those
of
Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations
can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape
painters
of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

They're crap paintings technically speaking, but they are the only thing in
colour that shows what the period and places really looked like.

I don't think the stars were that yellow back then. And it's not much
of a revelation that sunflowers were yellow then as well...

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson
just
for
one episode.

No, I caught no traces of any Blackadder-style gags, more's the pity -

That's because you don't understand the medium of comedy.

Really? Where were the characteristically bizarre analogies? The
ironic quips about historical people and places? The knowing satire on
modern life? Aside from the slapstick with Baldrick, Blackadder's
humour was all in the dialogue - more than most sitcoms, if it was
there it would be easily detectable regardless of how well the actors
delivered it. But then, you only watch sitcoms for the slapstick and
innuendo, don't you? Maybe Blackadder just went over your head.

Aggy is a big Terry And June fan. Any subsequent comedy critiques from him
should be digested with this in mind...

[Stephen Wilson]

Post by AlfyDoor
Aggy is a big Terry And June fan. Any subsequent comedy critiques from
him should be digested with this in mind...

Not to forget "Are You Being Served"...

[The Doctor]

Post by Stephen Wilson

Post by AlfyDoor
Aggy is a big Terry And June fan. Any subsequent comedy critiques from
him should be digested with this in mind...

Not to forget "Are You Being Served"...

You would be in queue all day.

[marc_CH]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Phil Bowles
I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

They're crap paintings technically speaking, but they are the only thing
in colour that shows what the period and places really looked like.

'Technically speaking'?

'Technically speaking' what makes a painting - or any other form of art
- non-crap?

[Soze]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

I care little for celebrated art...neither Van Gogh nor Picasso paintings do
jack for me personally. I did make a glib comment in another thread about
how I`d rather look at Dave Gibbon`s art but to be honest...I wasn`t joking!
If it were up to me art galleries would be full of paintings by John Buscema
and Chuck Jones.

[Phil Bowles]

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

I care little for celebrated art...neither Van Gogh nor Picasso paintings do
jack for me personally. I did make a glib comment in another thread about
how I`d rather look at Dave Gibbon`s art but to be honest...I wasn`t joking!
If it were up to me art galleries would be full of paintings by John Buscema
and Chuck Jones.

Never heard of any of them (except van Gogh and Picasso that is...)
but I think I've worked out the effect Curtis was going for with this
episode - it's the TV equivalent of a van Gogh painting! Technically
not very good, somewhat dull, and yet at the same time visually
pleasing and indefinably hard to actively dislike.

Phil

[Ross]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

I care little for celebrated art...neither Van Gogh nor Picasso paintings do
jack for me personally. I did make a glib comment in another thread about
how I`d rather look at Dave Gibbon`s art but to be honest...I wasn`t joking!
If it were up to me art galleries would be full of paintings by John Buscema
and Chuck Jones.

Never heard of any of them (except van Gogh and Picasso that is...)
but I think I've worked out the effect Curtis was going for with this
episode - it's the TV equivalent of a van Gogh painting! Technically
not very good, somewhat dull, and yet at the same time visually
pleasing and indefinably hard to actively dislike.
Phil

Well, i'll agree that it was hard to dislike. Another piece of
evidence for my hypothesis that the big issue this season has been the
lack of a good supporting cast. I've no idea how historically accurate
van Gogh was, but he was a compelling character -- you could really
feel the weird admixture of misery and majesty.

Amy was really just painfully annoying in the early parts of the
episode, but then she seemed to get it out of her system and was able
to behave like a human being for most of the episode. There were also
quite a few painful scenes from the Doctor (My wife was shouting at
the television during the "Are we there yet?" sequence while Vincent
was painting the church), but I think that he was *mostly* spot-on,
pretty much from the confessional booths onward.

The ending struck me as very intentionally reminiscent of The Unquiet
Dead, parallel to Rose's realization that Dickens is going to die the
next year, with the Doctor's good things/bad things speech giving the
same sentiment in response as the ninth doctor gave Rose. This time,
though, they gave a lot more weight to it, which is really in keeping
with this episode in general: it's not so much about the monsters,
it's about the characters.

That's the real weakness of this episode, of course. We needed the
monster to get the doctor and amy there, and to give them something to
do while they grew close to vincent, but the monster could have pretty
much been anything. The story would have worked equally well with
pretty much anything, and the whole "Oh, the horrible monster is blind
and scared." feels sort of artificial in light of that.

But again, it's a lively episode, one which made me care about what
happened. There's a long way to go, but I'd say the season *is*
improving after weeks of dragging limply.

[Phil Bowles]

Post by Ross

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

I care little for celebrated art...neither Van Gogh nor Picasso paintings do
jack for me personally. I did make a glib comment in another thread about
how I`d rather look at Dave Gibbon`s art but to be honest...I wasn`t joking!
If it were up to me art galleries would be full of paintings by John Buscema
and Chuck Jones.

Never heard of any of them (except van Gogh and Picasso that is...)
but I think I've worked out the effect Curtis was going for with this
episode - it's the TV equivalent of a van Gogh painting! Technically
not very good, somewhat dull, and yet at the same time visually
pleasing and indefinably hard to actively dislike.
Phil

Well, i'll agree that it was hard to dislike. Another piece of
evidence for my hypothesis that the big issue this season has been the
lack of a good supporting cast.

It's certainly a big issue - and this episode was entertaining for
breaking that trend. But it missed other crucial elements: the
character was good, but I didn't find the dynamic between the two
stars believable. Plus there was basically no story.

Post by Ross
Amy was really just painfully annoying in the early parts of the
episode, but then she seemed to get it out of her system and was able
to behave like a human being for most of the episode. There were also
quite a few painful scenes from the Doctor (My wife was shouting at
the television during the "Are we there yet?" sequence while Vincent
was painting the church),

Really? I found that the only amusing part of the episode, and rather
more Doctorish than the time he spent running around getting scared
when Amy startled him or hiding in cupboards.

Post by Ross
The ending struck me as very intentionally reminiscent of The Unquiet
Dead, parallel to Rose's realization that Dickens is going to die the
next year, with the Doctor's good things/bad things speech giving the
same sentiment in response as the ninth doctor gave Rose. ]

As I say, I found Smith's delivery in that scene really wasn't up to
the job.

Phil

[john smith]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those
of
Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations
can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape
painters
of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

I care little for celebrated art...neither Van Gogh nor Picasso paintings do
jack for me personally. I did make a glib comment in another thread about
how I`d rather look at Dave Gibbon`s art but to be honest...I wasn`t joking!
If it were up to me art galleries would be full of paintings by John Buscema
and Chuck Jones.

Never heard of any of them (except van Gogh and Picasso that is...)
but I think I've worked out the effect Curtis was going for with this
episode - it's the TV equivalent of a van Gogh painting! Technically
not very good, somewhat dull, and yet at the same time visually
pleasing and indefinably hard to actively dislike.
Phil

That's a bit cruel. I'd say it's the TV equivalent of a guy reading a
biography on van Gogh and then thinking to himself: "I know! I'll write a
'Doctor Who' story out of that and make a few bob as well as impressing the
kids/grandkids..."

What's wrong with that?

[Soze]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those
of
Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations
can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape
painters
of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

I care little for celebrated art...neither Van Gogh nor Picasso paintings do
jack for me personally. I did make a glib comment in another thread about
how I`d rather look at Dave Gibbon`s art but to be honest...I wasn`t joking!
If it were up to me art galleries would be full of paintings by John Buscema
and Chuck Jones.

Never heard of any of them (except van Gogh and Picasso that is...)

Never heard of Chuck Jones? Were you born an adult?

[Ian B]

Post by Soze

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Ditto.

Also, it could have had a nasty twist in it where Van Gock kills himself
because Amy left. That would've cast a nice dark pall over the proceedings.

Anyway; they really don't have to have a monster every week, do they?


Ian

[Monsieur Tabernac]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 02:56:11 +0100, "Ian B"

Post by Ian B

Post by Soze

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Ditto.
Also, it could have had a nasty twist in it where Van Gock kills himself
because Amy left. That would've cast a nice dark pall over the proceedings.

I was waiting for him to present her with an ear.

[marc_CH]

Post by Ian B
Also, it could have had a nasty twist in it where Van Gock kills himself
because Amy left. That would've cast a nice dark pall over the proceedings.

I was half-expecting them to go back to the museum to find a painting of
Amy there.

[Ian B]

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had
access to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any
schools from the time still have their former pupils artwork for
comparison. That said Van Gough still outperforms today's modern
so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours
stayed true to life and give a better feeling of actually being
there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any
of the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable
paintings, sufficiently representational to capture the interest,
but not anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being
special.

I care little for celebrated art...neither Van Gogh nor Picasso
paintings do jack for me personally. I did make a glib comment in
another thread about how I`d rather look at Dave Gibbon`s art but to
be honest...I wasn`t joking! If it were up to me art galleries would
be full of paintings by John Buscema and Chuck Jones.

That's because fine art is a test of what Marxists call class consciousness.
If you can see the Emperor's clothes, you're one of us. If you can't, you're
one of them.


Ian

[john smith]

Post by Ian B

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had
access to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any
schools from the time still have their former pupils artwork for
comparison. That said Van Gough still outperforms today's modern
so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours
stayed true to life and give a better feeling of actually being
there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any
of the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable
paintings, sufficiently representational to capture the interest,
but not anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being
special.

I care little for celebrated art...neither Van Gogh nor Picasso
paintings do jack for me personally. I did make a glib comment in
another thread about how I`d rather look at Dave Gibbon`s art but to
be honest...I wasn`t joking! If it were up to me art galleries would
be full of paintings by John Buscema and Chuck Jones.

That's because fine art is a test of what Marxists call class
consciousness. If you can see the Emperor's clothes, you're one of us. If
you can't, you're one of them.
Ian

What a quite fascinating insight! I'd never thought of it like that
before - thanks!

[john smith]

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

Christ, I agree with Aggy 100%!

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

I care little for celebrated art...neither Van Gogh nor Picasso paintings
do jack for me personally. I did make a glib comment in another thread
about how I`d rather look at Dave Gibbon`s art but to be honest...I wasn`t
joking! If it were up to me art galleries would be full of paintings by
John Buscema and Chuck Jones.

And Mike Mignola... and Dave McKean... and David Mazzuchelli... and... etc.,
etc....

[marc_CH]

Post by Phil Bowles
I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

Odd how someone who says 'I know little about and have less interest in
art' can go on to give his opinions, isn't it?

[Phil Bowles]

Post by marc_CH

Post by Phil Bowles
I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

Odd how someone who says 'I know little about and have less interest in
art' can go on to give his opinions, isn't it?

No, not very. I've seen the pictures, which is the only criterion one
needs for presenting an opinion on them regardless of any background
knowledge.

Phil

[marc_CH]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by marc_CH
Odd how someone who says 'I know little about and have less interest in
art' can go on to give his opinions, isn't it?

No, not very. I've seen the pictures, which is the only criterion one
needs for presenting an opinion on them regardless of any background
knowledge.

Maybe you'd like to write to a University and demand an MA if that's the
case.

[Stephen Wilson]

Post by marc_CH

Post by Phil Bowles
I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

Odd how someone who says 'I know little about and have less interest in
art' can go on to give his opinions, isn't it?

Anybody can give an opinion on art. Or music. You don't have to be an
expert - just know what you like and what you don't.

[marc_CH]

Post by Stephen Wilson

Post by marc_CH
Odd how someone who says 'I know little about and have less interest in
art' can go on to give his opinions, isn't it?

Anybody can give an opinion on art. Or music. You don't have to be an
expert - just know what you like and what you don't.

He actually said he has 'no interest' in art, so that seems to be a bit
suspect.

[john smith]

Post by marc_CH

Post by Phil Bowles
I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

Odd how someone who says 'I know little about and have less interest in
art' can go on to give his opinions, isn't it?

Well, this *is* the internet...

Post by marc_CH
--
marc
"Wrong. The anus was made to shit, not to fuck. Now if someone decided to
fuck their guitar instead of using it to play music, that would be
immoral." -- Aggy

[The Doctor]

Post by john smith

Post by marc_CH

Post by Phil Bowles
I know little about and have less interest in art; I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc. They're just quite likeable paintings,
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

Odd how someone who says 'I know little about and have less interest in
art' can go on to give his opinions, isn't it?

Well, this *is* the internet...

10/10 .

[solar penguin]

Post by The Doctor

Post by john smith
Well, this *is* the internet...

10/10 .

Yads agrees with john smith!!!

Civilisation as we know it is coming to an end!

[marc_CH]

Post by solar penguin
Yads agrees with john smith!!!
Civilisation as we know it is coming to an end!

I also just agreed with Aggy.

I feel unclean.

[john smith]

Post by marc_CH

Post by solar penguin
Yads agrees with john smith!!!
Civilisation as we know it is coming to an end!

I also just agreed with Aggy.
I feel unclean.
--
marc

Nothing a bottle of bleach, a cheese grater and some high-grade skunk won't
take care of...

[The Doctor]

Post by marc_CH

Post by solar penguin
Yads agrees with john smith!!!
Civilisation as we know it is coming to an end!

I also just agreed with Aggy.
I feel unclean.
--
marc

Clean yourself up using the chemical warfare Web PAge.

[john smith]

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by john smith
Well, this *is* the internet...

10/10 .

Yads agrees with john smith!!!
Civilisation as we know it is coming to an end!

You agree with me... Yads agrees with me... I guess I'm just an all-round
agreeable guy this week, eh? ;-)

[The Doctor]

Post by john smith

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by john smith
Well, this *is* the internet...

10/10 .

Yads agrees with john smith!!!
Civilisation as we know it is coming to an end!

You agree with me... Yads agrees with me... I guess I'm just an all-round
agreeable guy this week, eh? ;-)

God is alive!!

[The Doctor]

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by john smith
Well, this *is* the internet...

10/10 .

Yads agrees with john smith!!!
Civilisation as we know it is coming to an end!

HAL is malfunctioning!

[Ignis Fatuus]

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by john smith
Well, this *is* the internet...

10/10 .

Yads agrees with john smith!!!
Civilisation as we know it is coming to an end!

HAL is malfunctioning!

Lost his lelujah...

[The Doctor]

Post by Ignis Fatuus

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by john smith
Well, this *is* the internet...

10/10 .

Yads agrees with john smith!!!
Civilisation as we know it is coming to an end!

HAL is malfunctioning!

Lost his lelujah...

Quotefile!!

[john smith]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art;

Wow! That's quite an admission. Poor you!



I didn't get any of

Post by Phil Bowles
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc.

Pretentious - how? That was the theme of the entire episode! Didn't you
*get* it?



They're just quite likeable paintings,

Post by Phil Bowles
sufficiently representational to capture the interest, but not
anything I'd have passed comment on or flagged up as being special.

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

No, I caught no traces of any Blackadder-style gags, more's the pity -
few enough gags of any kind, at that.

Good! "Gags" weren't needed...

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10

Wow, it must have been bad.

Post by Agamemnon
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope I'm
wrong.

You? Wrong? Surely not! Besides, we know that if Amy's in practically
every scene you'll still spend your review stressing how right you
were that it would be a companion-lite episode...
Companion-lite, I suspect, but the description of the story suggests
it will be Doctor-heavy. Since Amy could have been absent for most of
the season without what passes for the plots actually registering her
absence, that in itself isn't revealing.

Read back what you've written there and think about it... You've just
described this whole season's mystery story arc...



What will be more important

Post by Phil Bowles
is ensuring the secondary characters break the habit of most of the
season to date (the latest episode aside) and actually display some
personality.
Phil

True enough!

[p***@aol.com]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art;

Wow!  That's quite an admission.  Poor you!

Really? Why? If I'd felt I was missing something I'd have looked into
it. There's a bizarre double standard that a journalist interviewing
Martin Rees recently pointed out - that people don't seem bothered to
admit they don't know anything about science when they'd be
embarrassed to admit similar ignorance about other subjects. Why
should it be any great admission that someone doesn't know much about
or have an interest in art? Would you regard it as similarly strange
if someone said they didn't have much interest in, say, photography,
or couldn't identify Frans Lanting by name, even though they find the
final product visually appealling? What is there about putting blobs
of paint on canvas that's so uniquely sacrosanct or deserving of
acclaim? It's an interest like any other - shared by some but not
others - and I get rather tired of the predominantly arts-background
media's hero worship of artists and insistence that an interest in
paintings represents the zenith of cultural sophistication. When pop
celebrities create bad music we satirise them for it; 'pop' is even a
byword for 'dross' in musical terms. Yet if the pop celebrity is
someone who paints pictures it seems politically incorrect to have a
bad word to say about them; that sort of scorn is reserved for the
people who claim beds and lightbulbs are art; painters seem completely
immune from criticism.

I didn't get any of

Post by Phil Bowles
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc.

Pretentious - how?  That was the theme of the entire episode!  Didn't you
*get* it?

The whole 'turning depression into pretty pictures' thing - it's
gibberish. No one would say that, say, Alan Turing expressed his
depression through computing. van Gogh was a depressive who happened
to paint pictures; there's no fundamental link between the two facts.
No one needs to know he was a depressive to appreciate his paintings;
knowing he suffered from mental illness hasn't made me suddenly like
the Sunflowers or improved my appreciation for that picture of the
church.

Phil

[solar penguin]

Post by p***@aol.com

news:6c61f92a-af02-40db-

Post by Phil Bowles
I know little about and have less interest in art;

Wow!  That's quite an admission.  Poor you!

Really? Why? If I'd felt I was missing something I'd have looked into
it. There's a bizarre double standard that a journalist interviewing
Martin Rees recently pointed out - that people don't seem bothered to
admit they don't know anything about science when they'd be embarrassed
to admit similar ignorance about other subjects. Why should it be any
great admission that someone doesn't know much about or have an interest
in art?

Because art covers a much much, wider area of subjects than science.
After all, science is restricted to those things which are supposed to
really exist, while art includes everything the mind can conceive,
whether it's supposed to exist or not.

Post by p***@aol.com
Would you regard it as similarly strange if someone said they
didn't have much interest in, say, photography, or couldn't identify
Frans Lanting by name, even though they find the final product visually
appealling?

Photography is one form of art. But even if you're not interested in
that particular artform, there are still so many others that you're bound
to be interested in some of them, just by the law of averages.

Post by p***@aol.com
What is there about putting blobs of paint on canvas that's
so uniquely sacrosanct or deserving of acclaim?

You didn't say you weren't interested in painting. You said you weren't
interested in art in general. Big difference.


(SNIP rest of long whinge based on the idea that art=painting.)

Post by p***@aol.com

Post by Phil Bowles
I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc.

Pretentious - how?  That was the theme of the entire episode!  Didn't
you *get* it?

The whole 'turning depression into pretty pictures' thing - it's
gibberish.

Well, if you're going to reduce it to that ridiculously simplified level,
then of course you're going to turn it into gibberish.

Post by p***@aol.com
No one would say that, say, Alan Turing expressed his
depression through computing.

Unfortunately you're right, they wouldn't say that, but maybe they should
because that probably is exactly what happened.

(Although, now I come to think of it, didn't the EDA The Turing Test have
that as one of its central premises? It's been more than a few years
since I read the book, so I don't remember the details.)

Post by p***@aol.com
van Gogh was a depressive who happened to
paint pictures; there's no fundamental link between the two facts.

I take it you've never actually suffered from depression yourself. The
fundamental link would be obvious if you had. (In fact, didn't you once
say your Aspergers' syndrome meant you felt emotions _less_ intensely
than other people?)

Post by p***@aol.com
No
one needs to know he was a depressive to appreciate his paintings;
knowing he suffered from mental illness hasn't made me suddenly like the
Sunflowers or improved my appreciation for that picture of the church.

You don't have to like the paintings to understand how people with
depression have a strong subconscious compulsion to re-interpret the
world into something much less depressing.

This re-interpretation can take the form of painting, writing, acting, or
even (as in the case of Turing) computing. The details don't matter,
just the obsession with finding a new way to perceive or appreciate what
would otherwise be a bleak and depressing world.

That's the fundamental link you failed to see, even though I thought it
was very well expressed throughout the episode (especially the brilliant
starry night sequence.)

[p***@aol.com]

Post by p***@aol.com

news:6c61f92a-af02-40db-

Post by Phil Bowles
I know little about and have less interest in art;

Wow!  That's quite an admission.  Poor you!

Really? Why? If I'd felt I was missing something I'd have looked into
it. There's a bizarre double standard that a journalist interviewing
Martin Rees recently pointed out - that people don't seem bothered to
admit they don't know anything about science when they'd be embarrassed
to admit similar ignorance about other subjects. Why should it be any
great admission that someone doesn't know much about or have an interest
in art?

Because art covers a much much, wider area of subjects than science.  

I'm extending the example to art; the one the journalist actually gave
as a comparison was, of all things, politics - if anything, it often
goes further and ignorance of science is treated as a badge of honour
by people who wouldn't confess to ignorance of any other sphere of
cultural or current affairs.

Post by p***@aol.com
Would you regard it as similarly strange if someone said they
didn't have much interest in, say, photography, or couldn't identify
Frans Lanting by name, even though they find the final product visually
appealling?

Photography is one form of art.

'art' in the general sense of 'the arts', but shows with names like
'Tim Marlow on Art' don't feature photography, and for that matter
when people talk of popular art from, say, the 1920s, you can bet
they're more likely to be talking about Pablo Picasso than Robert
Johnson - my complaint isn't with the way the arts as a discipline are
portrayed, it's with the subset (mainly paintings and sculpture) that
is elevated with curious cultural pretensiousness, not only above 'non-
artistic' disciplines, but above such things as photography (I believe
artists traditionally resisted photography as a medium altogether on
the basis of its utilitarian, technological origins) or music.

Post by p***@aol.com

Post by Phil Bowles
I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc.

Pretentious - how?  That was the theme of the entire episode!  Didn't
you *get* it?

The whole 'turning depression into pretty pictures' thing - it's
gibberish.

Well, if you're going to reduce it to that ridiculously simplified level,
then of course you're going to turn it into gibberish.

Isn't that a near-exact quote from the episode? I think from what he
said Iggy interpreted that scene as satire, but not only did it sound
pretty much identical to the things art critics really do say, it was
too important a character point in the episode to have been intended
as a joke.

Post by p***@aol.com
van Gogh was a depressive who happened to
paint pictures; there's no fundamental link between the two facts.

I take it you've never actually suffered from depression yourself.  

Not in any way that prompted me to paint pictures, no.

The

fundamental link would be obvious if you had.  (In fact, didn't you once
say your Aspergers' syndrome meant you felt emotions _less_ intensely
than other people?)

I might have; it's an impression I've had from the way other people
seem sensitive to odd things and seem to imbue emotions into the way
they interpret others' behaviour while I hypothesise about motives in
the same situations. On the other hand, few people I've known seem to
get genuinely enthusiastic about their interests in the way I do
either, so maybe it's more a question of being intense about different
things. But is that relevant? There are different intensities of
depression, as with any mental state.

Post by p***@aol.com
No
one needs to know he was a depressive to appreciate his paintings;
knowing he suffered from mental illness hasn't made me suddenly like the
Sunflowers or improved my appreciation for that picture of the church.

You don't have to like the paintings to understand how people with
depression have a strong subconscious compulsion to re-interpret the
world into something much less depressing.

If that's, as it sounds, a way of saying that depressed people paint
cheerful or colourful pictures, it's not exactly profound, is it?

Phil

[Ross]

Post by p***@aol.com
Isn't that a near-exact quote from the episode? I think from what he
said Iggy interpreted that scene as satire, but not only did it sound
pretty much identical to the things art critics really do say, it was
too important a character point in the episode to have been intended
as a joke.

In the episode, it's a single sentence giving a precis for an argument
being made by the whole of the episode, not the entirety of the
thesis. You might as well say "Meh. 'War is bad'? Trite and worthless.
Tolstoy's a hack."

[Ignis Fatuus]

Post by p***@aol.com
Isn't that a near-exact quote from the episode? I think from what he
said Iggy interpreted that scene as satire, but not only did it sound
pretty much identical to the things art critics really do say, it was
too important a character point in the episode to have been intended
as a joke.

Of course it was a joke. The whole point of the character was that he
was so inflated with his own self-importance that he couldn't see what
was under his nose. His expertise was squarely focused on making
himself the centre of attention. Vincent was dead and gone - and he
never gained any kind of benefit from his own talent. The critic was
strutting around in a spotlight of reflected glory.

[The Doctor]

Post by Ignis Fatuus

Post by p***@aol.com
Isn't that a near-exact quote from the episode? I think from what he
said Iggy interpreted that scene as satire, but not only did it sound
pretty much identical to the things art critics really do say, it was
too important a character point in the episode to have been intended
as a joke.

Of course it was a joke. The whole point of the character was that he
was so inflated with his own self-importance that he couldn't see what
was under his nose. His expertise was squarely focused on making
himself the centre of attention. Vincent was dead and gone - and he
never gained any kind of benefit from his own talent. The critic was
strutting around in a spotlight of reflected glory.

Good Ben Laurie.

[john smith]

Post by solar penguin

Post by p***@aol.com

news:6c61f92a-af02-40db-

Post by Phil Bowles
I know little about and have less interest in art;

Wow! Â That's quite an admission. Â Poor you!

Really? Why? If I'd felt I was missing something I'd have looked into
it. There's a bizarre double standard that a journalist interviewing
Martin Rees recently pointed out - that people don't seem bothered to
admit they don't know anything about science when they'd be embarrassed
to admit similar ignorance about other subjects. Why should it be any
great admission that someone doesn't know much about or have an interest
in art?

Because art covers a much much, wider area of subjects than science.
After all, science is restricted to those things which are supposed to
really exist, while art includes everything the mind can conceive,
whether it's supposed to exist or not.

Post by p***@aol.com
Would you regard it as similarly strange if someone said they
didn't have much interest in, say, photography, or couldn't identify
Frans Lanting by name, even though they find the final product visually
appealling?

Photography is one form of art. But even if you're not interested in
that particular artform, there are still so many others that you're bound
to be interested in some of them, just by the law of averages.

Post by p***@aol.com
What is there about putting blobs of paint on canvas that's
so uniquely sacrosanct or deserving of acclaim?

You didn't say you weren't interested in painting. You said you weren't
interested in art in general. Big difference.
(SNIP rest of long whinge based on the idea that art=painting.)

Post by p***@aol.com

Post by Phil Bowles
I didn't get any of
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc.

Pretentious - how? Â That was the theme of the entire episode! Â Didn't
you *get* it?

The whole 'turning depression into pretty pictures' thing - it's
gibberish.

Well, if you're going to reduce it to that ridiculously simplified level,
then of course you're going to turn it into gibberish.

Post by p***@aol.com
No one would say that, say, Alan Turing expressed his
depression through computing.

Unfortunately you're right, they wouldn't say that, but maybe they should
because that probably is exactly what happened.
(Although, now I come to think of it, didn't the EDA The Turing Test have
that as one of its central premises? It's been more than a few years
since I read the book, so I don't remember the details.)

Post by p***@aol.com
van Gogh was a depressive who happened to
paint pictures; there's no fundamental link between the two facts.

I take it you've never actually suffered from depression yourself. The
fundamental link would be obvious if you had. (In fact, didn't you once
say your Aspergers' syndrome meant you felt emotions _less_ intensely
than other people?)

Post by p***@aol.com
No
one needs to know he was a depressive to appreciate his paintings;
knowing he suffered from mental illness hasn't made me suddenly like the
Sunflowers or improved my appreciation for that picture of the church.

You don't have to like the paintings to understand how people with
depression have a strong subconscious compulsion to re-interpret the
world into something much less depressing.
This re-interpretation can take the form of painting, writing, acting, or
even (as in the case of Turing) computing. The details don't matter,
just the obsession with finding a new way to perceive or appreciate what
would otherwise be a bleak and depressing world.
That's the fundamental link you failed to see, even though I thought it
was very well expressed throughout the episode (especially the brilliant
starry night sequence.)

Yeah - what you said, SP! ;-)

(I've been writing all day and really can't be arsed justifying myself
against one of Phil's oh-so-long-winded tirades! I come on this newsgroup
for fun - not to make more work for myself!)

[john smith]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those
of
Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations
can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I know little about and have less interest in art;

Wow! That's quite an admission. Poor you!

Really? Why? If I'd felt I was missing something I'd have looked into
it.


***Like I said: poor you! Don't even know that you're "missing
something"!***




There's a bizarre double standard that a journalist interviewing
Martin Rees recently pointed out - that people don't seem bothered to
admit they don't know anything about science when they'd be
embarrassed to admit similar ignorance about other subjects.


***Enough with the science stuff already! We *get* you're a scientist: why
so defensive all the time? You're missing the point entirely...***



Why
should it be any great admission that someone doesn't know much about
or have an interest in art? Would you regard it as similarly strange
if someone said they didn't have much interest in, say, photography,
or couldn't identify Frans Lanting by name, even though they find the
final product visually appealling? What is there about putting blobs
of paint on canvas that's so uniquely sacrosanct or deserving of
acclaim? It's an interest like any other - shared by some but not
others - and I get rather tired of the predominantly arts-background
media's hero worship of artists and insistence that an interest in
paintings represents the zenith of cultural sophistication. When pop
celebrities create bad music we satirise them for it; 'pop' is even a
byword for 'dross' in musical terms. Yet if the pop celebrity is
someone who paints pictures it seems politically incorrect to have a
bad word to say about them; that sort of scorn is reserved for the
people who claim beds and lightbulbs are art; painters seem completely
immune from criticism.


***You don't know much about art criticism, do you?***

I didn't get any of

Post by Phil Bowles
the pretentious waffle at the end about van Gogh portraying his
depression through his art etc.

Pretentious - how? That was the theme of the entire episode! Didn't you
*get* it?

The whole 'turning depression into pretty pictures' thing - it's
gibberish. No one would say that, say, Alan Turing expressed his
depression through computing.


***Why not? It makes perfect sense that he *would*. In fact, the
definitive biography on him makes the connection between the two (plus his
struggle with and persecution over his homosexuality) quite clear:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alan-Turing-Enigma-Andrew-Hodges/dp/0099116413/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275953396&sr=1-1***




van Gogh was a depressive who happened
to paint pictures; there's no fundamental link between the two facts.
No one needs to know he was a depressive to appreciate his paintings;
knowing he suffered from mental illness hasn't made me suddenly like
the Sunflowers or improved my appreciation for that picture of the
church.

Phil

[AC]

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.

Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.

AC

[Phil Bowles]

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.

Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) - I found it a lot weaker the
second time around, and the people I watched it with were likewise
unimpressed (though did feel it was rather like a bad romantic comedy,
so Curtis-like in that regard). It's possible I was predisposed to
like it more the first time because I have tended to like Curtis'
stuff (though possibly not, since I've also rather strongly disliked
some of his stuff).

Phil

[Soze]

Post by Phil Bowles
Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) -

Really? By and large I`ve quite enjoyed this series whereas you seem to have
slagged it off for the most part...yet I have to say I`ve felt no desire to
re-watch any of it as yet....let alone any one episode twice in the same
night.

[Phil Bowles]

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles
Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) -

Really? By and large I`ve quite enjoyed this series whereas you seem to have
slagged it off for the most part...yet I have to say I`ve felt no desire to
re-watch any of it as yet....let alone any one episode twice in the same
night.

It's something I do with all episodes, even the ones I find bad on
first viewing (though Victory of the Daleks was a struggle - I think I
left that a week or so before rewatching), in case looking at it
critically on first viewing influences my enjoyment. Then again, I
have generally liked rewatching recent Who quite frequently - this
year I've only been tempted to go back after initial viewings with
three episodes.

Phil

[john smith]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles
Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) -

Really? By and large I`ve quite enjoyed this series whereas you seem to have
slagged it off for the most part...yet I have to say I`ve felt no desire to
re-watch any of it as yet....let alone any one episode twice in the same
night.

It's something I do with all episodes, even the ones I find bad on
first viewing (though Victory of the Daleks was a struggle - I think I
left that a week or so before rewatching), in case looking at it
critically on first viewing influences my enjoyment. Then again, I
have generally liked rewatching recent Who quite frequently - this
year I've only been tempted to go back after initial viewings with
three episodes.
Phil

Let me guess... "Vampires in Venice" was one of them...

I have to hold my hand (singular!) up here and say that I've watched most of
them twice, usually the Sunday repeat, like today, just to see if they
really are as bad as I thought they were on first viewing... It's a weird
perverse activity that I hardly ever experienced during the RTD era... I
really don't know why it is, to be honest... Maybe something to do with
reading this newsgroup and then going back to the story with other people's
opinions in mind? If so - Christ! What a terrible grip rec.arts.drwho can
have, eh? ;-)

[p***@aol.com]

Post by john smith

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Soze

Post by Phil Bowles
Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) -

Really? By and large I`ve quite enjoyed this series whereas you seem to have
slagged it off for the most part...yet I have to say I`ve felt no desire to
re-watch any of it as yet....let alone any one episode twice in the same
night.

It's something I do with all episodes, even the ones I find bad on
first viewing (though Victory of the Daleks was a struggle - I think I
left that a week or so before rewatching), in case looking at it
critically on first viewing influences my enjoyment. Then again, I
have generally liked rewatching recent Who quite frequently - this
year I've only been tempted to go back after initial viewings with
three episodes.
Phil

Let me guess... "Vampires in Venice" was one of them...

Yep, Eleventh Hour and Time of Angels being the others (I like
River...) - only trouble being, of course, that I don't particularly
want to rewatch Flesh and Stone (a real shame since Smith puts in his
best performance - the rest of the material just isn't up to much).

Phil

[AlfyDoor]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.

Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) -

Sorry, but I think that's a lousy way to watch a tv show! I watch purely
with a view to (hopefully) enjoying what I'm watching. Were I a professional
critic I dare say my point of view would be different. Even if I were
somehow contractually obliged to review something, I'd hope my first viewing
at least would be with a watcher's/fan's eye. The notebook can come out for
the second viewing.

Post by Phil Bowles
I found it a lot weaker the
second time around, and the people I watched it with were likewise
unimpressed (though did feel it was rather like a bad romantic comedy,
so Curtis-like in that regard). It's possible I was predisposed to
like it more the first time because I have tended to like Curtis'
stuff (though possibly not, since I've also rather strongly disliked
some of his stuff).
Phil

[Phil Bowles]

Post by AlfyDoor

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.

Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) -

Sorry, but I think that's a lousy way to watch a tv show! I watch purely
with a view to (hopefully) enjoying what I'm watching. Were I a professional
critic I dare say my point of view would be different. Even if I were
somehow contractually obliged to review something, I'd hope my first viewing
at least would be with a watcher's/fan's eye. The notebook can come out for
the second viewing.

For some reason, despite looking at the episodes critically the first
time round, for most of this season I've found I've preferred the
episodes on first viewing. I think maybe it's because my analytical
nature keeps me occupied - when I just sit down to enjoy the show I'm
finding that for the most part it's simply not very enjoyable, in a
way I never have in any previous Who era. I might already have given
it up as a dead loss if I took your approach.

Phil

[AlfyDoor]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by AlfyDoor

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster,
or
a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as
those
of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8
year
old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't
belong.
If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go
and
do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there
is
no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.

Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) -

Sorry, but I think that's a lousy way to watch a tv show! I watch purely
with a view to (hopefully) enjoying what I'm watching. Were I a professional
critic I dare say my point of view would be different. Even if I were
somehow contractually obliged to review something, I'd hope my first viewing
at least would be with a watcher's/fan's eye. The notebook can come out for
the second viewing.

For some reason, despite looking at the episodes critically the first
time round, for most of this season I've found I've preferred the
episodes on first viewing. I think maybe it's because my analytical
nature keeps me occupied - when I just sit down to enjoy the show I'm
finding that for the most part it's simply not very enjoyable, in a
way I never have in any previous Who era. I might already have given
it up as a dead loss if I took your approach.
Phil

I guess that's why I'm not ready to blanketedly condemn the whole thing -
because I generally enjoy what I'm watching as I'm watching it (with a
couple of exceptions). Whether that's a telling indictment of my tastes or
critical faculties I dunno, but first and foremost I see the principal
function of the creative/media arts, certainly tv, as entertainment.

I've loved Dr Who pretty much all my life because it has always entertained
me while watching. Most tv outstays its welcome, and in the fag-end of their
run shows become unbelievable and unwatchable, or at least something of a
chore to watch. Many are saying that of Dr Who now of course, and I don't
understand why they're still watching. When it happened for me - in the
CBaker/McCoy days - I stopped. I didn't believe it anymore and it seemed, to
quote Verity Lambert, that nobody involved seemed to believe in what they
were doing.

Since the relaunch, Dr Who has been restored for me. It's far from perfect,
and many episodes are a one-watch only, but for the most part it still
greatly entertains me, and on occasions, some episodes lift it to the status
of the highest quality tv drama. Really poor episodes have been a rarity.

There are comedy shows, there are conventional dramas, there are soaps,
there are pure shoot-em-up SF shows; in Dr Who you get the whole shebang.
What's not to love?!

[Phil Bowles]

Post by AlfyDoor
Since the relaunch, Dr Who has been restored for me. It's far from perfect,
and many episodes are a one-watch only, but for the most part it still
greatly entertains me, and on occasions, some episodes lift it to the status
of the highest quality tv drama. Really poor episodes have been a rarity.

I've yet to see anything from this season that I can say has the
status of "the highest quality tv drama", and my arbiter for success
isn't ultimately whether a show lacks really poor episodes, but
whether the rest are good enough to hold the interest. I still look
forward to seeing the new episodes each week, but increasingly even
the campy pantomime McCoy episodes were enjoyable in a way these
aren't - they don't engage me, and you don't need an analytical
mindset to be put off by such things as poor plotting and weak
characterisation - that's why storytelling has evolved to present
strong characters and plots in the first place. Evena strong sense of
atmosphere has been too often lacking.

Post by AlfyDoor
There are comedy shows, there are conventional dramas, there are soaps,
there are pure shoot-em-up SF shows; in Dr Who you get the whole shebang.
What's not to love?!

Well, at the moment it's pretty light in most of those categories -
given the guy running the show and the writers he's signed up, the
lack of humour relative to the RTD era (and especially relative to
Moffatt's scripts in the RTD era) is particularly puzzling.

Phil

[Ignis Fatuus]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.

Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) - I found it a lot weaker the
second time around, and the people I watched it with were likewise
unimpressed (though did feel it was rather like a bad romantic comedy,
so Curtis-like in that regard). It's possible I was predisposed to
like it more the first time because I have tended to like Curtis'
stuff (though possibly not, since I've also rather strongly disliked
some of his stuff).

At least you've kept your options open - in a schizophrenic sort of
way.

[The Doctor]

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.

Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) - I found it a lot weaker the
second time around, and the people I watched it with were likewise
unimpressed (though did feel it was rather like a bad romantic comedy,
so Curtis-like in that regard). It's possible I was predisposed to
like it more the first time because I have tended to like Curtis'
stuff (though possibly not, since I've also rather strongly disliked
some of his stuff).

At least you've kept your options open - in a schizophrenic sort of
way.

That's evil!!

[p***@aol.com]

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.

Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) - I found it a lot weaker the
second time around, and the people I watched it with were likewise
unimpressed (though did feel it was rather like a bad romantic comedy,
so Curtis-like in that regard). It's possible I was predisposed to
like it more the first time because I have tended to like Curtis'
stuff (though possibly not, since I've also rather strongly disliked
some of his stuff).

At least you've kept your options open - in a schizophrenic sort of
way.

It's a wonderful insight into the way you think, Iggy, if you regard
it as 'schizophrenic' to like some things by a particular individual
but not others...

Phil

[Ignis Fatuus]

Post by p***@aol.com

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.

Just rewatched it, as I typically do after first viewing (when I have
my mind partly on my subsequent review) - I found it a lot weaker the
second time around, and the people I watched it with were likewise
unimpressed (though did feel it was rather like a bad romantic comedy,
so Curtis-like in that regard). It's possible I was predisposed to
like it more the first time because I have tended to like Curtis'
stuff (though possibly not, since I've also rather strongly disliked
some of his stuff).

At least you've kept your options open - in a schizophrenic sort of
way.

It's a wonderful insight into the way you think, Iggy, if you regard
it as 'schizophrenic' to like some things by a particular individual
but not others...

It's the conflict in your motives for watching that seemed a little
schizophrenic - as if two independent personalities had declared their
reasons. No doubt you'll resolve the issue and let us know the outcome
in due course. Perhaps you could assign a different sig to each
personality.

[The Doctor]

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.
AC

Death to the stupid viewer.

[AC]

Post by The Doctor

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.
AC

Death to the stupid viewer.

Why stupid? Because I don't pour over the internet and media spoiling the
show before its aired? Stupid because I didn't not have preconceptions and
got to judge it honestly, unlike you?

Post after post, stupid is clearly you, since clearly you agree with my post
but don't have the guts to say so.

AC

[The Doctor]

Post by AC

Post by The Doctor

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.
AC

Death to the stupid viewer.

Why stupid? Because I don't pour over the internet and media spoiling the
show before its aired? Stupid because I didn't not have preconceptions and
got to judge it honestly, unlike you?
Post after post, stupid is clearly you, since clearly you agree with my post
but don't have the guts to say so.
AC

You forget the line from Blackadder "Death to the stupid prince"

[AC]

Post by The Doctor

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.
AC

Death to the stupid viewer.

Why stupid? Because I don't pour over the internet and media spoiling the
show before its aired? Stupid because I didn't not have preconceptions and
got to judge it honestly, unlike you?

Post after post, stupid is clearly you, since clearly you agree with my post
but don't have the guts to say so.

AC

[john smith]

Post by The Doctor

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.
AC

Death to the stupid viewer.
--

Is that said in the same tone as: "Death to the infidel!"?

You really are an absolute fucking disgrace to the human race, Yads... I'd
quite happily punch you in the throat if I ever met you...

Post by The Doctor
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Since 1 June 1995

[The Doctor]

Post by john smith

Post by The Doctor

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.
AC

Death to the stupid viewer.
--

Is that said in the same tone as: "Death to the infidel!"?
You really are an absolute disgrace to the human race, Yads... I'd
quite happily punch you in the throat if I ever met you...

Post by The Doctor
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Since 1 June 1995

Then you forgot from BlackAdder : "Death to the stupid prince"

And BTW troll john smith, if you are as think as a rake,
you and I can reinact a The Daemons theme.

[john smith]

Post by AC

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of
course an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as
those of Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have
had access to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any
schools from the time still have their former pupils artwork for
comparison. That said Van Gough still outperforms today's modern
so-called artists who's creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey
let alone an 8 year old child, and the thing about Van Gough is that
while the portrait and landscape painters of his time always used dark
dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the
things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and
give a better feeling of actually being there in the time than the works
of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd
lived in Roman times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van
Gough to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's
awful music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope
I'm wrong.

I had no idea Curtis wrote this episode until I looked here. Nothing was
Blackadder or Curtis like, even in retrospect to me It just seemed like a
normal average filler episode to me.
Seems like a wasted opportunity. If I had know in advance, and been some
sort of Curtis fan, I'd have been pretty disappointed.
AC

I'm not... so I wasn't...

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a purely
historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of Van
Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access to
all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from the
time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said Van
Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's creations can
be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old child, and the
thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and landscape painters of
his time always used dark dreary colours which hardly resembled most peoples
perceptions of the things they were depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed
true to life and give a better feeling of actually being there in the time
than the works of most other artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In
fact if he'd lived in Roman times he would have made a pretty good mural
painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill Nighy
in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough to see
the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over and
over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If Murry
Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do it
somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10
Next week looks like it's going to be Doctor and Companion light. I hope I'm
wrong.

Noted.

[AlfyDoor]

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10

And it 'still' gets 9.5/10!!

You're a class act Aggs.

[The Doctor]

Post by AlfyDoor

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it? Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or a
manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life. Of course
an 8 year old child could have painted pictures just as good as those of
Van Gough's if not better, but would an 8 year old in 1889 have had access
to all the new fangled bright colour paint. I wonder if any schools from
the time still have their former pupils artwork for comparison. That said
Van Gough still outperforms today's modern so-called artists who's
creations can be bettered by an 8 year old monkey let alone an 8 year old
child, and the thing about Van Gough is that while the portrait and
landscape painters of his time always used dark dreary colours which
hardly resembled most peoples perceptions of the things they were
depicting, Van Gough's colours stayed true to life and give a better
feeling of actually being there in the time than the works of most other
artists since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact if he'd lived in Roman
times he would have made a pretty good mural painter.
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van Gough
to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's awful
music.
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong. If
Murry Gold wants to write 5th rate 60's Brit Pop why doesn't he go and do
it somewhere else instead of inflicting it on Doctor Who? It's about time
Doctor Who had a new composer.
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.
Oh, and no sign of Amy's crack.
9.5/10

And it 'still' gets 9.5/10!!
You're a class act Aggs.

Are you being sarcastic or saying Ag is spot on?

[Ignis Fatuus]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

[Phil Bowles]

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

Phil

[Ignis Fatuus]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range. Just watching the
contract scene in silence shows how much subliminal narrative a couple
of seasoned performers can pump into a pretty basic script. One of the
hallmarks of this season has been reaching for an Eccleston or a
Tennant after watching the lacklustre Smith.

And as for 'toning it down'... Since when did You become the arbiter
of opinions permitted in this forum. Climb down off you High Horse..
it makes you look like a dwarf on an elephant.

[Phil Bowles]

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range.

The major reason the material is so poor is that the plots have so
many giant holes in them - what does that have to do with anything in
the range of the actors involved? What does it have to do with the
main actors' range that the secondary characters have mostly been
devoid of any? What does it have to do with the main actors' range
that there's so little humour in the scripts (and most of what is
there, and is well-delivered, is in Smith's lines)? We know you
dislike Smith, but be realistic about what his limitations contribute
to the weaknesses of this season rather than blaming him for
everything.

Just watching the

Post by Ignis Fatuus
contract scene in silence shows how much subliminal narrative a couple
of seasoned performers can pump into a pretty basic script. One of the
hallmarks of this season has been reaching for an Eccleston or a
Tennant after watching the lacklustre Smith.

I've occasionally had the same impulse, but for reasons that have
little or nothing to do with the actor and a lot to do with the fact
that Moffatt is simply failing to deliver - as a package, an average
RTD-era story is simply more enjoyable to watch than most Moffatt-era
ones; as you note, this is the case regardless of which lead actor,
Eccleston or Tennant, is in the part.

Post by Ignis Fatuus
And as for 'toning it down'... Since when did You become the arbiter
of opinions permitted in this forum.

We all know your opinions. It's just boring listening to a broken
record.

Phil

[Ignis Fatuus]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 05:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range.

The major reason the material is so poor is that the plots have so
many giant holes in them - what does that have to do with anything in
the range of the actors involved? What does it have to do with the
main actors' range that the secondary characters have mostly been
devoid of any? What does it have to do with the main actors' range
that there's so little humour in the scripts (and most of what is
there, and is well-delivered, is in Smith's lines)? We know you
dislike Smith, but be realistic about what his limitations contribute
to the weaknesses of this season rather than blaming him for
everything.

There's plenty of humour in the scripts - that's just lost in the
black hole of Smith's performance.

As for 'supporting' characters... the season's been all about
showcasing Smith with minimal supporting cast. It's the Pertweee/Baker
era all over again. Just look at the cast lists compared with the last
four seasons. You can play the sycophantic Smith apologist all you
like; but that's just turning your back on the real problem.

Post by Phil Bowles
Just watching the

Post by Ignis Fatuus
contract scene in silence shows how much subliminal narrative a couple
of seasoned performers can pump into a pretty basic script. One of the
hallmarks of this season has been reaching for an Eccleston or a
Tennant after watching the lacklustre Smith.

I've occasionally had the same impulse, but for reasons that have
little or nothing to do with the actor and a lot to do with the fact
that Moffatt is simply failing to deliver - as a package, an average
RTD-era story is simply more enjoyable to watch than most Moffatt-era
ones; as you note, this is the case regardless of which lead actor,
Eccleston or Tennant, is in the part.

Not at all. Tennant's performance was pretty underwhelming until he
was given some decent support and started rising to the occasion.
Runaway bride was the turning point - but that Jacobi/Simm Masters
finally brought his Doctor to life.

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
And as for 'toning it down'... Since when did You become the arbiter
of opinions permitted in this forum.

We all know your opinions. It's just boring listening to a broken
record.

but a good deal less time consuming than your own vacuous longwinded
ramblings.

[Phil Bowles]

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 05:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range.

The major reason the material is so poor is that the plots have so
many giant holes in them - what does that have to do with anything in
the range of the actors involved? What does it have to do with the
main actors' range that the secondary characters have mostly been
devoid of any? What does it have to do with the main actors' range
that there's so little humour in the scripts (and most of what is
there, and is well-delivered, is in Smith's lines)? We know you
dislike Smith, but be realistic about what his limitations contribute
to the weaknesses of this season rather than blaming him for
everything.

There's plenty of humour in the scripts - that's just lost in the
black hole of Smith's performance.

Care to give a few examples?

Post by Ignis Fatuus
As for 'supporting' characters... the season's been all about
showcasing Smith with minimal supporting cast. It's the Pertweee/Baker
era all over again. Just look at the cast lists compared with the last
four seasons. You can play the sycophantic Smith apologist all you
like; but that's just turning your back on the real problem.

Now you're really stretching. A production decision to focus on the
lead character is somehow the fault of the actor? Thanks once again
for making a point I would have - the same thing happened in previous
eras with different lead actors. Are you going to blame Pertwee or
Baker for that, or the production team whose decision it was?

Post by Ignis Fatuus

Post by Phil Bowles
Just watching the

Post by Ignis Fatuus
contract scene in silence shows how much subliminal narrative a couple
of seasoned performers can pump into a pretty basic script. One of the
hallmarks of this season has been reaching for an Eccleston or a
Tennant after watching the lacklustre Smith.

I've occasionally had the same impulse, but for reasons that have
little or nothing to do with the actor and a lot to do with the fact
that Moffatt is simply failing to deliver - as a package, an average
RTD-era story is simply more enjoyable to watch than most Moffatt-era
ones; as you note, this is the case regardless of which lead actor,
Eccleston or Tennant, is in the part.

Not at all. Tennant's performance was pretty underwhelming until he
was given some decent support and started rising to the occasion.

And yet the episodes he was in were still more entertaining than those
this year - thanks for making my point.

Phil

[Ignis Fatuus]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 06:08:37 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 05:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range.

The major reason the material is so poor is that the plots have so
many giant holes in them - what does that have to do with anything in
the range of the actors involved? What does it have to do with the
main actors' range that the secondary characters have mostly been
devoid of any? What does it have to do with the main actors' range
that there's so little humour in the scripts (and most of what is
there, and is well-delivered, is in Smith's lines)? We know you
dislike Smith, but be realistic about what his limitations contribute
to the weaknesses of this season rather than blaming him for
everything.

There's plenty of humour in the scripts - that's just lost in the
black hole of Smith's performance.

Care to give a few examples?

Post by Ignis Fatuus
As for 'supporting' characters... the season's been all about
showcasing Smith with minimal supporting cast. It's the Pertweee/Baker
era all over again. Just look at the cast lists compared with the last
four seasons. You can play the sycophantic Smith apologist all you
like; but that's just turning your back on the real problem.

Now you're really stretching. A production decision to focus on the
lead character is somehow the fault of the actor? Thanks once again
for making a point I would have - the same thing happened in previous
eras with different lead actors. Are you going to blame Pertwee or
Baker for that, or the production team whose decision it was?

Have I blamed Smith for anything. It's not as if He was responsible
for the gross misjudgment that attained him a leading role for which
he's so obviously inadequate... and I can hardly 'blame' him for his
inadequacies. I might just as well blame the moon for causing the
tides.

In a way I feel sorry for him. He's squandered his apprenticeship on a
fast track to obscurity.

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus

Post by Phil Bowles
Just watching the

Post by Ignis Fatuus
contract scene in silence shows how much subliminal narrative a couple
of seasoned performers can pump into a pretty basic script. One of the
hallmarks of this season has been reaching for an Eccleston or a
Tennant after watching the lacklustre Smith.

I've occasionally had the same impulse, but for reasons that have
little or nothing to do with the actor and a lot to do with the fact
that Moffatt is simply failing to deliver - as a package, an average
RTD-era story is simply more enjoyable to watch than most Moffatt-era
ones; as you note, this is the case regardless of which lead actor,
Eccleston or Tennant, is in the part.

Not at all. Tennant's performance was pretty underwhelming until he
was given some decent support and started rising to the occasion.

And yet the episodes he was in were still more entertaining than those
this year - thanks for making my point.

Yes; Tennant at his worst was still more entertaining than Smith.

[p***@aol.com]

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 06:08:37 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 05:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range.

The major reason the material is so poor is that the plots have so
many giant holes in them - what does that have to do with anything in
the range of the actors involved? What does it have to do with the
main actors' range that the secondary characters have mostly been
devoid of any? What does it have to do with the main actors' range
that there's so little humour in the scripts (and most of what is
there, and is well-delivered, is in Smith's lines)? We know you
dislike Smith, but be realistic about what his limitations contribute
to the weaknesses of this season rather than blaming him for
everything.

There's plenty of humour in the scripts - that's just lost in the
black hole of Smith's performance.

Care to give a few examples?

Post by Ignis Fatuus
As for 'supporting' characters... the season's been all about
showcasing Smith with minimal supporting cast. It's the Pertweee/Baker
era all over again. Just look at the cast lists compared with the last
four seasons. You can play the sycophantic Smith apologist all you
like; but that's just turning your back on the real problem.

Now you're really stretching. A production decision to focus on the
lead character is somehow the fault of the actor? Thanks once again
for making a point I would have - the same thing happened in previous
eras with different lead actors. Are you going to blame Pertwee or
Baker for that, or the production team whose decision it was?

Have I blamed Smith for anything. It's not as if He was responsible
for the gross misjudgment that attained him a leading role for which
he's so obviously inadequate... and I can hardly 'blame' him for his
inadequacies. I might just as well blame the moon for causing the
tides.

That's not what I was taking issue with - your assertion was that the
series was in trouble because it neglects supporting cast in favour of
Smith's Doctor. That's incorrect. It neglects supporting cast in
favour of *The Doctor*. Had Moffatt cast somebody else (Nighy, say), I
see no reason to believe he would have chosen a format which focused
less on the lead character - he clearly believes that Doctor Who
should be first and foremost about the character. Whether you blame
Smith or cast him as an unwitting stooge in Moffatt's evil plan to
bring down Dr Who, you insist on claiming that if Smith wasn't there
those problems wouldn't be there - and I see no reason to believe
that's anything but complete rubbish.

And even if it weren't, pointing out that the show uses small casts to
focus on the Doctor wouldn't explain why so many of those supporting
characters who *are* there are given no discernible personality by
either the scripts or the performances.

Post by Ignis Fatuus

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus

Post by Phil Bowles
Just watching the

Post by Ignis Fatuus
contract scene in silence shows how much subliminal narrative a couple
of seasoned performers can pump into a pretty basic script. One of the
hallmarks of this season has been reaching for an Eccleston or a
Tennant after watching the lacklustre Smith.

I've occasionally had the same impulse, but for reasons that have
little or nothing to do with the actor and a lot to do with the fact
that Moffatt is simply failing to deliver - as a package, an average
RTD-era story is simply more enjoyable to watch than most Moffatt-era
ones; as you note, this is the case regardless of which lead actor,
Eccleston or Tennant, is in the part.

Not at all. Tennant's performance was pretty underwhelming until he
was given some decent support and started rising to the occasion.

And yet the episodes he was in were still more entertaining than those
this year - thanks for making my point.

Yes; Tennant at his worst was still more entertaining than Smith.

Note my phrasing - "the episodes he was in..." The overall product was
more enjoyable, not necessarily the lead's performance.

Phil

[Ignis Fatuus]

Post by p***@aol.com

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 06:08:37 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 05:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range.

The major reason the material is so poor is that the plots have so
many giant holes in them - what does that have to do with anything in
the range of the actors involved? What does it have to do with the
main actors' range that the secondary characters have mostly been
devoid of any? What does it have to do with the main actors' range
that there's so little humour in the scripts (and most of what is
there, and is well-delivered, is in Smith's lines)? We know you
dislike Smith, but be realistic about what his limitations contribute
to the weaknesses of this season rather than blaming him for
everything.

There's plenty of humour in the scripts - that's just lost in the
black hole of Smith's performance.

Care to give a few examples?

Post by Ignis Fatuus
As for 'supporting' characters... the season's been all about
showcasing Smith with minimal supporting cast. It's the Pertweee/Baker
era all over again. Just look at the cast lists compared with the last
four seasons. You can play the sycophantic Smith apologist all you
like; but that's just turning your back on the real problem.

Now you're really stretching. A production decision to focus on the
lead character is somehow the fault of the actor? Thanks once again
for making a point I would have - the same thing happened in previous
eras with different lead actors. Are you going to blame Pertwee or
Baker for that, or the production team whose decision it was?

Have I blamed Smith for anything. It's not as if He was responsible
for the gross misjudgment that attained him a leading role for which
he's so obviously inadequate... and I can hardly 'blame' him for his
inadequacies. I might just as well blame the moon for causing the
tides.

That's not what I was taking issue with - your assertion was that the
series was in trouble because it neglects supporting cast in favour of
Smith's Doctor. That's incorrect. It neglects supporting cast in
favour of *The Doctor*.

There's no difference. In my opinion the producers have cast two weak
personalities (Smith and Gillen) in the leads, and compounded the
error by cutting back on the number of secondary characters in each
episode, to give them more prominence than the Doctor and Companion
had in the Eccleston/Tennant seasons. The result is a couple of rather
dull characters at the centre of some rather weak stories.

Putting it another way, I think that Tennant and Tate would have made
a far better job of Vincent, even with the same weak script. The
running gag of their era - the 'old married couple' who aren't -
suited them perfectly, and they could deliver a complete subtext with
a few gestures and glances that are completely beyond the range of
Smith and Gillen.

This pair are too young for such subtleties, and apart from the
godawful scene when Amy threw herself at the Doctor, the writers have
avoided any sexual tensions between them - but they haven't found
anything to replace that scenario. River Song was evidently a
replacement for Donna, and she worked very well with Tennant; but with
Smith she came across as the Doctor's maiden aunt.

What we're left with is the adventures of a couple of kids on a school
outing. OK for the pre-teens, but there's nothing there to engage an
adult audience. I'm sure the scripts could be beefed up to suit a more
interesting cast of thirty-somethings (or older); but I'm equally sure
that Smith and Gillen would be embarrassing in the parts.

Post by p***@aol.com
Had Moffatt cast somebody else (Nighy, say), I
see no reason to believe he would have chosen a format which focused
less on the lead character - he clearly believes that Doctor Who
should be first and foremost about the character. Whether you blame
Smith or cast him as an unwitting stooge in Moffatt's evil plan to
bring down Dr Who, you insist on claiming that if Smith wasn't there
those problems wouldn't be there - and I see no reason to believe
that's anything but complete rubbish.
And even if it weren't, pointing out that the show uses small casts to
focus on the Doctor wouldn't explain why so many of those supporting
characters who *are* there are given no discernible personality by
either the scripts or the performances.

Post by Ignis Fatuus

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus

Post by Phil Bowles
Just watching the

Post by Ignis Fatuus
contract scene in silence shows how much subliminal narrative a couple
of seasoned performers can pump into a pretty basic script. One of the
hallmarks of this season has been reaching for an Eccleston or a
Tennant after watching the lacklustre Smith.

I've occasionally had the same impulse, but for reasons that have
little or nothing to do with the actor and a lot to do with the fact
that Moffatt is simply failing to deliver - as a package, an average
RTD-era story is simply more enjoyable to watch than most Moffatt-era
ones; as you note, this is the case regardless of which lead actor,
Eccleston or Tennant, is in the part.

Not at all. Tennant's performance was pretty underwhelming until he
was given some decent support and started rising to the occasion.

And yet the episodes he was in were still more entertaining than those
this year - thanks for making my point.

Yes; Tennant at his worst was still more entertaining than Smith.

Note my phrasing - "the episodes he was in..." The overall product was
more enjoyable, not necessarily the lead's performance.
Phil

[Ross]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range.

The major reason the material is so poor is that the plots have so
many giant holes in them - what does that have to do with anything in
the range of the actors involved? What does it have to do with the
main actors' range that the secondary characters have mostly been
devoid of any? What does it have to do with the main actors' range
that there's so little humour in the scripts (and most of what is
there, and is well-delivered, is in Smith's lines)? We know you
dislike Smith, but be realistic about what his limitations contribute
to the weaknesses of this season rather than blaming him for
everything.

Oh, I heartily disagree with that -- not that the plots aren't full of
holes, of course they are, and they're much more obvious and gaping
holes than you got even at RTD's most plot-swiss-cheeseish (I always
got the impression that RTD's plot holes were purely a function of him
feeling he had better things to do with his time than spackle over the
plot holes). I just don't think that they're the major reason the
material is so poor. I tend to look at plot as a kind of vehicle for
conveying characters through a story. So long as it's servicable
enough to get us there, it's not important that it be fully polished
or devoid of holes -- those things are nice, but not essential. What's
really important is *where you go* and *what you put in that vehicle*.
What this season has really lacked is, at the risk of using a business
buzzword, "synergy". Smith's mostly okay, Amy's mostly okay (well,
maybe "okay half the time"), the plot's mostly okay, the monsters are
(this one excepted) mostly okay. And the stories all seem to go
*somewhere*, but it never seems to be anywhere worth going. Victory of
the Daleks, as a story, was a kind of race to the finish line: get the
daleks back in a permanent sort of way, and to hell with story,
characters, actually making us feel involved. The others are largely
similar. The individual pieces are fine, but they're all just shoved
together. The plot's good enough to get the characters where they're
going, but *I don't actually care if they get there*.

[john smith]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range.

The major reason the material is so poor is that the plots have so
many giant holes in them - what does that have to do with anything in
the range of the actors involved? What does it have to do with the
main actors' range that the secondary characters have mostly been
devoid of any? What does it have to do with the main actors' range
that there's so little humour in the scripts (and most of what is
there, and is well-delivered, is in Smith's lines)? We know you
dislike Smith, but be realistic about what his limitations contribute
to the weaknesses of this season rather than blaming him for
everything.

Oh, I heartily disagree with that -- not that the plots aren't full of
holes, of course they are, and they're much more obvious and gaping
holes than you got even at RTD's most plot-swiss-cheeseish (I always
got the impression that RTD's plot holes were purely a function of him
feeling he had better things to do with his time than spackle over the
plot holes). I just don't think that they're the major reason the
material is so poor. I tend to look at plot as a kind of vehicle for
conveying characters through a story. So long as it's servicable
enough to get us there, it's not important that it be fully polished
or devoid of holes -- those things are nice, but not essential. What's
really important is *where you go* and *what you put in that vehicle*.
What this season has really lacked is, at the risk of using a business
buzzword, "synergy". Smith's mostly okay, Amy's mostly okay (well,
maybe "okay half the time"), the plot's mostly okay, the monsters are
(this one excepted) mostly okay. And the stories all seem to go
*somewhere*, but it never seems to be anywhere worth going. Victory of
the Daleks, as a story, was a kind of race to the finish line: get the
daleks back in a permanent sort of way, and to hell with story,
characters, actually making us feel involved. The others are largely
similar. The individual pieces are fine, but they're all just shoved
together. The plot's good enough to get the characters where they're
going, but *I don't actually care if they get there*.



Hmmm... I get what you're saying, but perhaps - go with me on this, it may
be contentious! - it's something to do with the fact that RTD "rebooted" the
series and used all the best (worst, in Iggy's opinion!) baggage of the
show - Daleks, Cybermen, parallel realities, Gallifrey, that sole
survivor/last-of-the-Time Lords guff - for himself. Let's face it... his
stories - or rather, story arcs - were great fun, but also hugely
over-the-top and bombastic TV "experiences". Moffat has no choice but to
adopt a more low-key approach...

I've not thought this through properly (yet) - but that has to have some
bearing on the programme, surely?

[p***@aol.com]

Post by Ross

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson
just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range.

The major reason the material is so poor is that the plots have so
many giant holes in them - what does that have to do with anything in
the range of the actors involved? What does it have to do with the
main actors' range that the secondary characters have mostly been
devoid of any? What does it have to do with the main actors' range
that there's so little humour in the scripts (and most of what is
there, and is well-delivered, is in Smith's lines)? We know you
dislike Smith, but be realistic about what his limitations contribute
to the weaknesses of this season rather than blaming him for
everything.

Oh, I heartily disagree with that -- not that the plots aren't full of
holes, of course they are, and they're much more obvious and gaping
holes than you got even at RTD's most plot-swiss-cheeseish (I always
got the impression that RTD's plot holes were purely a function of him
feeling he had better things to do with his time than spackle over the
plot holes).  I just don't think that they're the major reason the
material is so poor. I tend to look at plot as a kind of vehicle for
conveying characters through a story. So long as it's servicable
enough to get us there, it's not important that it be fully polished
or devoid of holes -- those things are nice, but not essential. What's
really important is *where you go* and *what you put in that vehicle*.
What this season has really lacked is, at the risk of using a business
buzzword, "synergy". Smith's mostly okay, Amy's mostly okay (well,
maybe "okay half the time"), the plot's mostly okay, the monsters are
(this one excepted) mostly okay. And the stories all seem to go
*somewhere*, but it never seems to be anywhere worth going. Victory of
the Daleks, as a story, was a kind of race to the finish line: get the
daleks back in a permanent sort of way, and to hell with story,
characters, actually making us feel involved. The others are largely
similar. The individual pieces are fine, but they're all just shoved
together. The plot's good enough to get the characters where they're
going, but *I don't actually care if they get there*.
Hmmm...  I get what you're saying, but perhaps - go with me on this, it may
be contentious! - it's something to do with the fact that RTD "rebooted" the
series and used all the best (worst, in Iggy's opinion!) baggage of the
show - Daleks, Cybermen, parallel realities, Gallifrey, that sole
survivor/last-of-the-Time Lords guff - for himself.  Let's face it... his
stories - or rather, story arcs - were great fun, but also hugely
over-the-top and bombastic TV "experiences".  Moffat has no choice but to
adopt a more low-key approach...
I've not thought this through properly (yet) - but that has to have some
bearing on the programme, surely?

What? Where is *any* sign that there is anything remotely low-key
about Moffatt's approach? Millions of Silurians, hundreds of Weeping
Angels, a finale including half the monsters from the Dr Who universe?
He's not trying to do anything different - he's trying to ape RTD and
failing miserably.

Phil

[john smith]

Post by Ross

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to
be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson
just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...

A major reason for the poor material is scripts that have been dumbed
down to suit Smith and Gillen's miniscule range.

The major reason the material is so poor is that the plots have so
many giant holes in them - what does that have to do with anything in
the range of the actors involved? What does it have to do with the
main actors' range that the secondary characters have mostly been
devoid of any? What does it have to do with the main actors' range
that there's so little humour in the scripts (and most of what is
there, and is well-delivered, is in Smith's lines)? We know you
dislike Smith, but be realistic about what his limitations contribute
to the weaknesses of this season rather than blaming him for
everything.

Oh, I heartily disagree with that -- not that the plots aren't full of
holes, of course they are, and they're much more obvious and gaping
holes than you got even at RTD's most plot-swiss-cheeseish (I always
got the impression that RTD's plot holes were purely a function of him
feeling he had better things to do with his time than spackle over the
plot holes). I just don't think that they're the major reason the
material is so poor. I tend to look at plot as a kind of vehicle for
conveying characters through a story. So long as it's servicable
enough to get us there, it's not important that it be fully polished
or devoid of holes -- those things are nice, but not essential. What's
really important is *where you go* and *what you put in that vehicle*.
What this season has really lacked is, at the risk of using a business
buzzword, "synergy". Smith's mostly okay, Amy's mostly okay (well,
maybe "okay half the time"), the plot's mostly okay, the monsters are
(this one excepted) mostly okay. And the stories all seem to go
*somewhere*, but it never seems to be anywhere worth going. Victory of
the Daleks, as a story, was a kind of race to the finish line: get the
daleks back in a permanent sort of way, and to hell with story,
characters, actually making us feel involved. The others are largely
similar. The individual pieces are fine, but they're all just shoved
together. The plot's good enough to get the characters where they're
going, but *I don't actually care if they get there*.
Hmmm... I get what you're saying, but perhaps - go with me on this, it may
be contentious! - it's something to do with the fact that RTD "rebooted" the
series and used all the best (worst, in Iggy's opinion!) baggage of the
show - Daleks, Cybermen, parallel realities, Gallifrey, that sole
survivor/last-of-the-Time Lords guff - for himself. Let's face it... his
stories - or rather, story arcs - were great fun, but also hugely
over-the-top and bombastic TV "experiences". Moffat has no choice but to
adopt a more low-key approach...
I've not thought this through properly (yet) - but that has to have some
bearing on the programme, surely?

What? Where is *any* sign that there is anything remotely low-key
about Moffatt's approach? Millions of Silurians, hundreds of Weeping
Angels, a finale including half the monsters from the Dr Who universe?
He's not trying to do anything different - he's trying to ape RTD and
failing miserably.

Phil





***No he isn't - he's trying to put his own Pertwee-esque spin on things and
failing miserably...***

[AC]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...
Phil

The dire scripts are not responsible for such a terrible miscasting. All one
can say is that a better actor might have been able to make more of the
scripts but that's all. Oh, perhaps the awful Smith is masking how terrible
the scripts are? Maybe that's a good thing. Feck knows.

To be honest, I didn't like the idea of CE or DT immediately, but it only
took me 1 episode with CE and 2 with DT to get in to them. 10 eps in and
Smith is still not working at all for me at all.

This season has become a chore. I don't even care if I miss it and have to
catch up later on. I used to block out the time to watch, now I don't really
care. I liked Amy to start with, but she has become a virtually forgotten
add on who is little more than eye candy. Never happened with the others.

No its not Smiths fault, its a casting fault. But Smith is the man on screen
ruining the show. So he wont get left alone.

AC

[p***@aol.com]

Post by AC

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...
Phil

The dire scripts are not responsible for such a terrible miscasting.

Come on, Gillan's not *that* bad...

All one

Post by AC
can say is that a better actor might have been able to make more of the
scripts but that's all. Oh, perhaps the awful Smith is masking how terrible
the scripts are? Maybe that's a good thing. Feck knows.

I'm finding Smith the only reason to continue watching, frankly -
whatever your personal impressions of him are, the scripts really
*are* far worse. All anyone can ever really blame an actor for is
being unable to bring their character effectively to life; that is not
even close to being among the big problems with this season. Indeed,
the supporting cast has been so uniformly lifeless up until van Gogh
that Smith's energetic performance has stood out as being the best
character of the lot - and I say that as someone who's pointed out
before that Smith shows little potential as an actor, as such; he
does, however, have a personality well-suited to the part.

Post by AC
To be honest, I didn't like the idea of CE or DT immediately, but it only
took me 1 episode with CE and 2 with DT to get in to them. 10 eps in and
Smith is still not working at all for me at all.

Strange, I got on with Smith straight from the get-go - and it took me
two or three episodes to get on with Tennant.

Post by AC
This season has become a chore. I don't even care if I miss it and have to
catch up later on. I used to block out the time to watch, now I don't really
care. I liked Amy to start with, but she has become a virtually forgotten
add on who is little more than eye candy. Never happened with the others.
No its not Smiths fault, its a casting fault. But Smith is the man on screen
ruining the show. So he wont get left alone.

Right now, he seems to be the only thing saving it from being a
complete disaster (rather than a near-complete one). I used to watch
Dr Who primarily for the stories, the humour and the monsters, now I
only watch for the lead actor - the story concepts are bad, the
plotting dismal, the scripts dreadful and light on humour (Iggy may
want to blame Smith's delivery, but he's the only one whose lines Ive
found funny - why aren't any comic lines being given to other
characters?) sthe secondary characters nonexistent, and aside from the
location filming, the production values poor.

Phil

[john smith]

Post by Phil Bowles

Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:55:11 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt Smith's
Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed to be
written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no way Matt
Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan Atkinson just for
one episode.

And there's no way Smith Could deliver a personality like Atkinson if
he tried for a lifetime.

Give it a rest, Iggy. Your grudge match against Smith hasn't even been
necessary to run your enjoyment of the show for most of this year,
since as you repeatedly point out most of the material isn't up to
scratch. If we'd been given the same material with Nighy as the
Doctor, would you be praising it to the ground? Leave the poor boy
alone...
Phil

Isn't that a "Dad's Army" line? ;-)

[marc_CH]

Agamemnon wrote:

I have to sit down and take deep breaths for this.

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it?

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
Why couldn't it have been a
purely historical story for once and made the presence of a monster, or
a manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness ambiguous?

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life.

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van
Gough to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's
awful music.

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong.

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
9.5/10

Phew. Just in time. How can you knock something the way you did and
still give it near perfect marks?

[Stephen Wilson]

Post by marc_CH
I have to sit down and take deep breaths for this.

Post by Agamemnon
Why did it have to have a monster in it?

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
Why couldn't it have been a purely historical story for once and made the
presence of a monster, or a manifestation of Van Gaugh's madness
ambiguous?

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
It did a good job recreating Van Gough's paintings in real life.

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
The trip around the museum was reminiscent of City of Death with Bill
Nighy in the John Cleese part, but the part when the Doctor took Van
Gough to see the exhibition of his paintings was ruined by Murry Gold's
awful music.

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
I've had enough of hearing the same old Murry Gold themes repeated over
and over and over again, and always in places where they don't belong.

I agree with Aggy.

Post by Agamemnon
Could have been improved without the futile attempts at comedy. Matt
Smith's Doctor is not Edmund Blackadder and Richard Curtis's gags seemed
to be written to be performed that way and fell flat because there is no
way Matt Smith was going to change his character into that of Rowan
Atkinson just for one episode.

I agree with Aggy.

Bloody hell! I feel like I've fallen into an alternative reality...

Post by marc_CH

Post by Agamemnon
9.5/10

Phew. Just in time. How can you knock something the way you did and still
give it near perfect marks?

Because RTD is no longer in charge. Therefore even a crap story gets a
minimum of 9.5/10 from Aggy
.

[marc_CH]

Post by Stephen Wilson

Post by marc_CH
I agree with Aggy.

Bloody hell! I feel like I've fallen into an alternative reality...

Bear in mind that Aggy once threatened to rape me. So how do you think I
feel about all of this?

Post by Stephen Wilson
Because RTD is no longer in charge. Therefore even a crap story gets a
minimum of 9.5/10 from Aggy

He's so gay really.

[The Doctor]

Post by marc_CH

Post by Stephen Wilson

Post by marc_CH
I agree with Aggy.

Bloody hell! I feel like I've fallen into an alternative reality...

Bear in mind that Aggy once threatened to rape me. So how do you think I
feel about all of this?

Post by Stephen Wilson
Because RTD is no longer in charge. Therefore even a crap story gets a
minimum of 9.5/10 from Aggy

He's so gay really.
--
marc

iThe anti-Aggers kick into action.

[AC]

Post by Stephen Wilson

Post by marc_CH

Post by Agamemnon
9.5/10

Phew. Just in time. How can you knock something the way you did and still
give it near perfect marks?

Because RTD is no longer in charge. Therefore even a crap story gets a
minimum of 9.5/10 from Aggy

I detect a lot of that going on here. Like it would be awful if the messiah
Muffet got it wrong. Can't possibly say that could we? No way could it turn
out that RTD did know what he was doing.

AC

[Ignis Fatuus]

Post by AC

Post by Stephen Wilson

Post by marc_CH

Post by Agamemnon
9.5/10

Phew. Just in time. How can you knock something the way you did and still
give it near perfect marks?

Because RTD is no longer in charge. Therefore even a crap story gets a
minimum of 9.5/10 from Aggy

I detect a lot of that going on here. Like it would be awful if the messiah
Muffet got it wrong. Can't possibly say that could we? No way could it turn
out that RTD did know what he was doing.

If you look back a year or so, a lot of the current RTD critics
wouldn't have a word said against him.

[The Doctor]

Post by Ignis Fatuus

Post by AC

Post by Stephen Wilson

Post by marc_CH

Post by Agamemnon
9.5/10

Phew. Just in time. How can you knock something the way you did and still
give it near perfect marks?

Because RTD is no longer in charge. Therefore even a crap story gets a
minimum of 9.5/10 from Aggy

I detect a lot of that going on here. Like it would be awful if the messiah
Muffet got it wrong. Can't possibly say that could we? No way could it turn
out that RTD did know what he was doing.

If you look back a year or so, a lot of the current RTD critics
wouldn't have a word said against him.

2 years ago you mean.

[The Doctor]

Post by AC

Post by Stephen Wilson

Post by marc_CH

Post by Agamemnon
9.5/10

Phew. Just in time. How can you knock something the way you did and still
give it near perfect marks?

Because RTD is no longer in charge. Therefore even a crap story gets a
minimum of 9.5/10 from Aggy

I detect a lot of that going on here. Like it would be awful if the messiah
Muffet got it wrong. Can't possibly say that could we? No way could it turn
out that RTD did know what he was doing.
AC

Actually Space interviewwed Moffatt. He is a man with a plan.

[Ross]

Post by marc_CH

Post by Agamemnon
9.5/10

Phew. Just in time. How can you knock something the way you did and
still give it near perfect marks?
--
marc

I'm amazed that Aggy didn't go on one of his little homophobic rants.
That last scene with Vincent, The Doctor, and Amy looking up at the
stars, Vinnie was practically asking for a three-way.

[marc_CH]

Post by Ross
That last scene with Vincent, The Doctor, and Amy looking up at the
stars, Vinnie was practically asking for a three-way.

Yes. With reach-around too.

[p***@aol.com]

Post by Ross

Post by marc_CH

Post by Agamemnon
9.5/10

Phew. Just in time. How can you knock something the way you did and
still give it near perfect marks?
--
marc

I'm amazed that Aggy didn't go on one of his little homophobic rants.
That last scene with Vincent, The Doctor, and Amy looking up at the
stars, Vinnie was practically asking for a three-way.

Plus all that male-male kissing and hugging. Rermember how Aggy went
nuts over just one kiss in Parting of the Ways?

Phil

[The Doctor]

Keep the spoilers up. I love it!