Reviews Series / Doctor Who

Thank you. As much as I have enjoyed some elements of the new series, I am in agreement with you on most of these, good and bad. Crossing my fingers that the Moffatt era will rein some of these in a bit.

Am I the only one who, gets a major Mary Sue vibe from Rose? Partially subverted, because she does have flaws-but is there another explanation for the Doctor, **The Doctor**, for goodness' sake, falling head-over-heels in love with her? (as for who she's a Mary Sue of-YMMV. My own personal theory is that she's RTD, but I'm curious about what others may think.)

I get much stronger Mary Sue vibes from Jenny and River Song, who I believe are both Steven Moffat creations...

I got Readings Are Off The Scale-level Sue vibes from Donna. One true companion, became a time lord (except BETTER), had a huge sense of entitlement which she never really got called on ("I'll have a salute too!" eh?), was the crux of saving all of everything ever ever (Rose Tyler even knuckled under and called her the most important woman in all creation—how does it get more Sue-ish than that?), and apparently people all over the universe are going to be singing songs about how awesome she is forever. Oh, and she gets a tragically tragic fate, which only enhances it, although I get the feeling they're going to have their cake and eat it too by finding a way around the "she'll burn up if she remembers" feeling. The fact that the Companion relationship in her case was handled in a non-romantic way was a nice change-up, except people still thought they were married anyway, for basically no other reason than that they were two people of the opposite sex who knew each other.

</rant>

But yeah, setting almost every story on Earth is a little annoying. Especially since it's so frequently the modern day, London, or both.

That I recall, it was pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that Donna's seeming sense of entitlement is her armor around insecurity, her way of dealing with situations she's unfamiliar with or even uncomfortable with. And people thinking a opposite-gender pair are married isn't exactly unusual; if Donna got that more than the other Companions, I think it simply comes down to her being a more mature woman than the younger type that most of the Companions have been; her and the Doctor look like more of a matched couple in terms of apparent age.

That said, they did ladle on the special specialness a bit, as well as the tragically tragic.

I feel the Doctor falling in love with Rose wasn't Mary Sue; it was simply what most TV shows would do, after all. How often is there NOT a romantic subplot in such? Perhaps RTD thinking 'the fans would love this (because I'm the biggest fan and I want it)', but still.

Jenny was a Stephen Greenhorn creation- saved from death by Steven Moffat.

I've always believed that Doctor Who is one of those shows that has it's faults but deals with it. The original series had it's own problems, what with it's cheap budget, some executive squabbling and some wooden actors. The New Series has the problems you noticed, and I'm sure the new new series will have different problems too.

The important thing is the quality of the show overall, I personally think, and I believe that the series has always had it.

RTD is a brilliant writer, though he has a few faults. He's brilliant at characterizations, even if he can't write a perfect plot like Moffat, who isn't very good at the characterizations (especially with inconsistent Amy). RTD is brilliant in his own way, and he made a successful revival of Doctor Who. I promise that Doctor Who wouldn't be AS successful if someone like Steven Moffat started out as head writer, because Russell T Davies was a idealist, and he created little subtle things that just make his Era so amazing. (Yes, he has written some crap finales, but at least the majority of the viewers seemed to like it)

In agreement with the guy above. RTD's plots can be pretty trashy, but when he's on the ball... well, then we get episodes like Gridlock.

While RTD is an idealist in many ways he also likes to dump in the occaisonal blunt, cold slap in the face from reality -Donna's eventual fate, for example, or the Children of Earth denouement for example, are things I frequently see cited on the Wall Banger, when I can't see them as anything more than just plain depressing. Sontimes these two sides conflicted with uncomfortable results, but hey, I guess it'd be a more boring show if there wasn't stuff to argue about...

A RTD and Moffat co produced script utilising both their strengths would be much appreciated, at this point...

Am I the only one who doesn't really see many differences between RTD's era and Moffat's?

In RTD's era, we get stuff like Aliens in London. In Moffat's era, we get stuff like Vampires in Venice.

In RTD's era, we get an over-the-top series finale that includes massive amounts of continuity porn and a universal threat. In Moffat's era, we get an over-the-top series finale that includes massive amounts of continuity porn and a universal threat.

RTD's directing gave us Love and Monsters, a breather episode featuring a complete nobody coming into contact with the Doctor in personal situations. Moffat's gave us The Lodger, a breather episode featuring a complete nobody coming into contact with the Doctor in personal situations.

I guess RTD gives more of a characterization focus, and Moffat more of a plotting focus, but I felt that the characterization in The Empty Child was amazing.