Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Doctor Who
- Thread starter Feek
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
debatable. none of the 'comedic' actors in who have been any good. Tate, Lucas, Walsh..all awful. So if they are hiring comedians trying to act over actually good actors but they aren't doing it for views, what are they doing it for?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,380
- Location
- ST4
Why bother? They could hire a turd in a box (pretty much a description of the latest Dr Who) and steve5425 would still defend it as the best thing to ever happen. He's drank way too much of the Kool-Aid.
Well I guess it depends whether you like the actors in anything else. If you already dislike them, then your opinion isn't going to change. Tate was great in Who. I hated her in the Christmas episode but when she became a fulltime companion she was a lot better.
Don't talk such crap(literally)
It's only your opinion that it's crap I am allowed to like something that you don't.
Also I have not been drinking Kool Aid.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
No, it doesnt. I'm judging their performances in Who, not anything else.
So if the beeb arent hiring them for views, what are they hiring them for?
Agree Bradley is an actor Law and Order UK .... was great, good in who too,
but looking at John Bishop acting pedigree I can just about recollect his inconspicuous prasence in Skins
maybe he is there to make Jodie look better.
Well in a way it does matter. If you don't like an actor or celebrity then it doesn't matter what they do. You will instantly dislike it. Doesn't matter how good or bad the writing is or whether the production team is well skilled.
Walsh was really good in the UK version of Law and Order.
Walsh was really good in the UK version of Law and Order.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
speak for yourself. You might be incapable of judging a performance on it's own merit, but I'm certainly not.
Are you going to tell us why you think the BBC are hiring comedians if not for views, or not?
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,055
If it looks like a duck, moves like a duck, quacks like duck chances are its a duck. Now obviously there is no official poll or scientific data to correlate on whether it happens to be a duck or not and its only someones opinion but the chances are... its a duck.
I certainly am capable of deciding if something is good on its own merit.
classic Who was always filled with well known actors both serious and Comedy backgrounds.
However my point still stands. If someone say dislikes Nic Cage then they will never likely watch a movie featuring him. Or if you do end up watching then you will already have made up your mind as to what you think.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
So what, nobody else is?
^^^. come on
Irrelevant.
You maybe. Not all of us. Not a good point at all and not relevant. You're trying to imply that the opinions of people who dont like the performances of the cast in *WHO* are somehow devalued because they may not have liked the previous performances of those cast members in other shows, and you're doing it in a way to infer you are somehow above that same criticism. Well, you're not and i think you're actually projecting a little there, because you happily reject just about every criticism towards the show or the cast seemingly with little or no objective reasoning to back it up. Case in point; You reject any notion of Walsh being terrible because you happened to like him in some previous show he was in. Additionally I said Tate, Lucas and Walsh were rubbish and instead of addressing that directly, you tell me that 'there's always been comedy actors in who' as if that's some kind of justification for anything, and you do this while pretending that the BBC are for some bizarre reason not hiring for parts to drive the viewing figures up without any reasonable (or, actually, any) explanation as to why they wouldn't want to do that. 'Makes no logical sense, does it?
Fourth time asking.
Last edited:
Walsh has been the only current companion that I actually like. I really don't like the other two. So no I don't like everything and everyone in Who. I also don't enjoy every episode or story idea.
I also did answer. Hiring comedians in Who is not new they have featured comedians in classic 80s Who. They can at times give good serious performances and shouldn't always be noted as just a comedian.
I also did answer. Hiring comedians in Who is not new they have featured comedians in classic 80s Who. They can at times give good serious performances and shouldn't always be noted as just a comedian.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Right so you think the BBC isnt hiring to drive viewing figures, instead they are hiring because that's what they've always done. That's what you think ? You know how ridiculous that sounds, right?
Viewing figures and reviews say otherwise. Many people think it is crap.
was thinking about comedians who have made the switch into drama coogan/Dee/Mitchell/Brydon/Coltraine/Walsh ... Bishop is B list (accompanied by Corden imhop).
WHO doesn't even help out with a good who producer/writer - would Vinnie have succeeded w/o Guy Ritchie.
WHO doesn't even help out with a good who producer/writer - would Vinnie have succeeded w/o Guy Ritchie.
yea they are boosted by bots and people who worked on the shows.
Wrong. My wife detests Jim Carrey but really likes the Truman Show. It's the only thing she can stand him in.
Chibs could write an episode which has the doctor sitting on a deckchair reading a newspaper for 45 minutes and you'd still praise it.
Well no. That's just daft. As I've said there are plenty of episodes I didn't enjoy. I just don't moan about them online.