tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4086344.post8898515999957707303..comments2024-03-02T08:54:41.520-08:00Comments on Soul of Star Trek: Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4086344.post-45038156413420221112010-09-01T23:28:37.657-07:002010-09-01T23:28:37.657-07:00I must say that I was not as impressed as everyone...I must say that I was not as impressed as everyone else was with David Tennant. I felt that Ecclestone was the stronger Doctor, and that Tennant was over the top spastic at times. I found the Lion King comment only semi-funny and the satsuma incident ridiculous. This line continued for me in the awful New Earth, where the overused body swap plot was simply childish. Tennant came into his own in the second episode when he licked the walls and asked people to arm themselves with books. From then on out, his performances varied between adequate and contmeporary, and moments of brilliance. His success obviously bolstered by good looks/contemporary geek-chic dress for the girls and gay crowd, and the fact that for new audiences this became THEIR first long term Doctor with whom they had invested emotion into. Newer audiences have been left with horrible science-fiction which celebrates the fetishistic markers of scince fiction rather than decent stroy telling. While Doctor Who is above par, it too has been dumbed down for newer audiences (timey-wimey - as if!). Tennant ultimately went out on a note of whingeing - WHINGEING about saving a companion. Completely ignoble, and very out of character. the last episodes were a celebration of David Tennant leaving and not the regeneration of the Doctor. <br /><br />It may seem as if I have it out for Tennant - I do not! I honestly enjoyed his term and many of his character quirks. I may have disliked and liked some of the writing, which goes far towards explaining some of my overall distaste for some of Nu-Who (which, although not completely his fault has to be laid at the feet of Russell T. Davies) but overall I thought it was okay. And that's it. Okay. not this great thing the younger set seems to think is mind-blowing, but okay. It's as if they lack the imagination to be able to enjoy the older (many better written) Doctor Who as stories and simlply replace in their minds the special effects. I have actually read on this very blog that the original Star Trek had to rely on acting because of the low level of special effects. What a statement! NO drama should have to rely on special effects - even fantasy/sci-fi which features them heavily. It should ALL come out of story telling and acting. The bias is purely superficial and says more about fickle taste than curent production values or audience attention spans.<br /><br />Matt Smith has proven himself to be a brilliant Doctor - I had reservations about his age as well, but he has smashed them to bits. Better than the bland Peter Davison, his comic timing and sheer alien-ness blow the other two "just a bloke" new Doctors out of the water. His choice of costuming as more of an anti-cool geek thing eschews a contemporary feel, which is more in line with being a time-traveller - and I feel a braver decision. Admirable. While the first episodes harken back to the RTD era probablly because the writers don't know exactly what they are going to do with the new "feel' but also so not to alienate RTD fans - the series ended up finding it's own not-so-dissimilar feet and making this 38 yesr Doctor Who viewer a new believer again.<br /><br />Just my two cents. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com