Very true! It's interesting to see how divided opinions are over Doctors; it seems like every Doctor has some passionate fans and some people who really dislike them.
Yes, pretty much! It gets more split than that too. A good example is Colin Baker, a Doctor who was pretty much universally disliked because of the characterisation/writing. You also had people claiming he was a bad actor. Then Big Finish got involved and did audio stories after the show was cancelled with surviving cast (different Doctors etc). The smallish portion of fanbase who followed the Big Finish stuff will tell you he's an excellent Doctor - when given good material, like the Big Finish stuff is. So you get the people who hate his TV stuff but love his Big Finish stuff. It's interesting.
Yes, that is my opinion on Rose. Also I felt Martha was treated very badly as a result of the mopiness storyline which is deeply unfair, and it meant the character never really got a chance to develop (and I feel it made some new fans dislike her for not being Rose). You don't have to treat all companions in the same way necessarily, you can diversify their relationship to him (as an example, I find Turlough one of the more interesting companions in that he comes in with a story arc of having been ordered to kill the Doctor), but you can't proclaim one is more important to the Doctor than the others. I know I use more Classic Doctor Who examples here than new ones but they are what I generally remember the best!
I had concerns about Moffat becoming showrunner and sadly, I think it just proved it for me. Moffat is had written some excellent standalone episodes, and probably was the consistently best writer by quite a bit with regards to Doctor Who output. But all of those stories were complicated - which is fine for a single story. But applying that to story arcs and general showrunning just makes things complex for the sake of being complex which is alienating. Sadly, that's my view on what happened.
no subject
Yes, pretty much! It gets more split than that too. A good example is Colin Baker, a Doctor who was pretty much universally disliked because of the characterisation/writing. You also had people claiming he was a bad actor. Then Big Finish got involved and did audio stories after the show was cancelled with surviving cast (different Doctors etc). The smallish portion of fanbase who followed the Big Finish stuff will tell you he's an excellent Doctor - when given good material, like the Big Finish stuff is. So you get the people who hate his TV stuff but love his Big Finish stuff. It's interesting.
Yes, that is my opinion on Rose. Also I felt Martha was treated very badly as a result of the mopiness storyline which is deeply unfair, and it meant the character never really got a chance to develop (and I feel it made some new fans dislike her for not being Rose). You don't have to treat all companions in the same way necessarily, you can diversify their relationship to him (as an example, I find Turlough one of the more interesting companions in that he comes in with a story arc of having been ordered to kill the Doctor), but you can't proclaim one is more important to the Doctor than the others. I know I use more Classic Doctor Who examples here than new ones but they are what I generally remember the best!
I had concerns about Moffat becoming showrunner and sadly, I think it just proved it for me. Moffat is had written some excellent standalone episodes, and probably was the consistently best writer by quite a bit with regards to Doctor Who output. But all of those stories were complicated - which is fine for a single story. But applying that to story arcs and general showrunning just makes things complex for the sake of being complex which is alienating. Sadly, that's my view on what happened.