On 12/5/2013 10:30 AM, Paul Braun wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> ...and some essential reading on why modern Who is crap…
>>
>> http://thequietus.com/articles/13940-dr-who-anniversary-bbc-taylor-parkes
One man's opinions, which you are welcome to share, but which have no
particular weight with me just because he's found
a soap box.
Here's a few alternates. Hartnell is almost unwatchable. I don't much like his
character, the acting is clunky, camera
work the same, and the video quality is awful. OK, so much of that may be due
to not yet finding their feet and working
with no budget in a closet. Decent excuses, but they don't make it any better.
Troughton didn't come off as such a great actor to me, but maybe it was the
writing. Watchable, but uninteresting.
Pertwee starts to become interesting. Part of that may well be just me and my
reaction to the advent of colour. I saw an
interview with him. He said he never 'got' the whole Dr. thing, was
uninterested in sci-fi and science, but enjoyed
playing the role. Perhaps being only engaged in the script, people and
situations made him better than if he'd been
working at some more meta level.
With Tom Baker, the whole thing comes alive. Not just the panache and ambiguity
he brings to the character, but it gets
out of London, and out into the universe.
Peter Davison isn't outstanding, but a perfectly enjoyable Doctor.
No, Colin Baker isn't a very good actor, and the visual character is bizarre,
Carnaby St. meets space Rococo?
McCoy is not such a bad actor, and the episodes are far more watchable than the
first two Docs.
I'm a blank on McGann. I must have seen that movie, but have no recollection.
> I rather enjoy most of New Who.
As do I
> Some things don't sit right,
Hasn't that always been the case, whenever Doctors and styles changed?
> like Matt Smith, but overall, I've enjoyed it.
Ah well, he is a bit of a puppy, and we could wish for something better, but
that too isn't new. A bit like Davison, in
his youthfulness, if even more jejune, but his terrific enthusiasm for the role
make up for a lot. Carol observes that
he has become a better actor and poorer Doctor in his tenure.
> We'll see how the new Doc plays out.
Of course we will!
> Of the new era, Tennant was the actor that really did it for me.
It's Eccleston for me. He SEEMs sort of alien, and brings a depth of mixed
light and dark no other Doctor has had. Carol
agrees, in spite of her big crush on David Tennant. ;-) I can see why he got
out soon; he should have bigger acting fish
to fry.
Tennant is more than just fine, but not great. A perfectly good actor, but with
little depth. His efforts to carry the
weight and pain of all those years just don't convince me. Good in the other
aspects, though. Seeing him in Blackpool
and Broadchurch, I thought again that he's more than just competent and less
than large enough for the potential in some
of his roles.
As to the 50th. Anniversary show. What did anybody expect? We enjoyed it. Take
something like Dr Who seriously, and you
kill it. As a bit of overly pretentious fun, in the vein of the current Whovian
weltanschauung, it was fun.
Today's test question: Did the show pull John Hurt down, or did he elevate the
show? Compare and contrast.
How long before the Daleks spring back from oblivion?
Will Stavros be the last being left standing as the Universe ends? At least I
don't recall seeing him at the Restaurant
at the End of the Universe. Maybe he had a private table?
Who ? Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|