Doctor Who
Can I just say? I checked the BBC's website twice for the Who's timeslot. It was supposed to start at 6:20. I dutifully bookmarked my copy of Becoming Madame Mao at 6:15 and toddled downstairs to the lounge to watch. And I STILL missed the credits. What? :| Remember when DW was on at 7pm? That worked for me. I can remember 7pm. I cannot remember varying timeslots ranging from 6:15 to 6:45. Fuck 'I'd Do Anything'. Put DW on at a decent time, plz. [/rant]
A pertinent conversation with my mum:
Her: "How was Doctor Who?"
Me: "It was alright." (My witty conversational skills. Let me show you them.)
Her: "How was Catherine Tate?"
Me: *big sigh* "She's not an actor. She's a comedian."
That's the problem, see. I think I would feel the same sense of *mehhhhh* if, say, Noel Fielding were the new companion. (Okay, no, I would be thrilled if Noel Fielding were the new companion. Ahahahaha. *imagines*) My point is, being a good comedian =/= being a good actor. Sure, you can learn -- and you probably have a head start at learning if you're a comedian. But the BBC's flagship show is not the place for a mediocre actress to find her footing. There were moments when Tate's performance was genuinely understated and lovely. Unfortunately, there were far more where she was cringingly awful. (It was also glaringly obvious how many takes she required. The edits in the key scene with her grandad were horrible.)
The episode, I enjoyed just fine. The central premise was pretty smart, the fat babies were cute. Parts of it definitely lagged, though. I'm feeling more and more that Who episodes are dividing into two types. There are those that are taut and well put together. And then there are those that hinge on a single note and just fill up the rest of the hour (45 minutes, w/e) with some mild peril (running away from danger! or "oh noes, the Doctor won't stop the evil plan in time!"). This definitely fell into the latter category. I need an episode of the first kind to remind me how good this show can be.
Rose! I'm a total Billie Piper hater (the haaaaaaaaaaaair! sort it out!), but Rose's ghostly appearance was the best part of this episode.
In conclusion: I miss Martha. :(
A pertinent conversation with my mum:
Her: "How was Doctor Who?"
Me: "It was alright." (My witty conversational skills. Let me show you them.)
Her: "How was Catherine Tate?"
Me: *big sigh* "She's not an actor. She's a comedian."
That's the problem, see. I think I would feel the same sense of *mehhhhh* if, say, Noel Fielding were the new companion. (Okay, no, I would be thrilled if Noel Fielding were the new companion. Ahahahaha. *imagines*) My point is, being a good comedian =/= being a good actor. Sure, you can learn -- and you probably have a head start at learning if you're a comedian. But the BBC's flagship show is not the place for a mediocre actress to find her footing. There were moments when Tate's performance was genuinely understated and lovely. Unfortunately, there were far more where she was cringingly awful. (It was also glaringly obvious how many takes she required. The edits in the key scene with her grandad were horrible.)
The episode, I enjoyed just fine. The central premise was pretty smart, the fat babies were cute. Parts of it definitely lagged, though. I'm feeling more and more that Who episodes are dividing into two types. There are those that are taut and well put together. And then there are those that hinge on a single note and just fill up the rest of the hour (45 minutes, w/e) with some mild peril (running away from danger! or "oh noes, the Doctor won't stop the evil plan in time!"). This definitely fell into the latter category. I need an episode of the first kind to remind me how good this show can be.
Rose! I'm a total Billie Piper hater (the haaaaaaaaaaaair! sort it out!), but Rose's ghostly appearance was the best part of this episode.
In conclusion: I miss Martha. :(