Least Favourite Story of Series 5.

[matthewsch]

I meant to make this poll last week to complement my other one. What was your least favourite story of the 2010 series, and why?

[Perry Vale]

Easy, peasey, lemon squeezey. Cold Blood/Hungry Earth by a considerable distance. About 21 miles, I'd say.

[SiHart]

I agree with Steve!

Si xx

[Rob McCow]

I'm with the Anti-Chibnall Brigade. We're kind of like the Fire Brigade, with hoses that squirt pure vitriol.

In truth, I think Chibnall could be a first-rate horror writer. Get him doing one of the Saw movies, or a remake of Hellraiser and I reckon he'd do a good job.

[Awesome Wells]

Victory of the Daleks. Admittedly, there were a few good things about this episode - Winston and the space fight sequences - but the story itself was paper-thin and the Daleks were Mister Creosote-fat. A Gatiss-trophe of a story.

[Si Hunt]

It's something of a relief to see that tastes don't differ THAT much after all - next to the dissapointing "The Lodger", for me it was "Victory". It takes quite a genius to screw up a story with Daleks in, yet after a promising start showing them in Churchill's bunker, the rest of a humdrum episode was taken up with some piffle with an android and a gigantic "showroom" sequence showcasing a lousy new design. The story had few twists and turns, the Daleks didn't DO anything other than arrive and then leave, the Doctor didn't fix anything and... well, what was the point of it all? A monumental waste of potential for the WW2/Daleks idea.

On the other hand, I thought "Cold Blood" ended up a half-decent yarn, certainly on a par with "Vampires from Venice" and "The Eleventh Hour".

Si.

[Stuart Wallis]

The Eleventh Hour - the first and worst of a handful of episodes this season that I wanted to switch off.

[Perry Vale]

well, what was the point of it all?

It's all in the title. The Daleks defeated the Doctor, and claimed their victory.

It looks like this poll is going to be a two horse race!

[SiHart]

Victory was better than a poor retread of The Silurains that wasn't as good as the original.

Si xx

[Perry Vale]

I agree, of course.

I wonder, and I'm honestly not aiming this at anyone here, how much better Victory's reception would have been amongst the older parts of fandom as a story, if people had liked the new Dalek design more? Or if it had been followed up quickly with a Terrance Dicks Target novelisation?

[Si Hunt]

That wasn't why I didn't like it - I've been fonder of the new designs than most - as I mentioned in my post, it was because nothing really happened. It had what I call the "Storm Warning" factor - where, rather than being played out in exciting scenes, the whole story is just "told" in words while everyone stands in a big room. You say "the Daleks defeated the Doctor, and claimed their victory", but I wouldn't mind if they did this in an interesting way - if it involved a scrape with a Dalek being pushed over a cliff, someone changing their allegences dramatically or a devious Dalek trap leading to a much-loved characters demise. But there was no story! Just a setup, zoom off to a spaceship, a chat and then that was it. If the Daleks were able to judge the quality of their Doctor Who adventures, it would still have been a victory, but a very hollow one.

Si.

[MinaHarker]

Victory of the Daleks. I'm sure people remember my rant so I won't repeat it!

[Jason Thompson]

I agree with Si. Victory was the poorest Dalek story I have ever seen, and unfortunately this was magnified by the superb premise of the first fifteen minutes. The Daleks are pretending to be servants in the war rooms, asking if you want tea and begging the Doctor to stop hitting them. Then what happens? The Doctor zips off to the spaceship, has a chat where the Daleks explain their whole plan, then they say 'by the way, there's a big bomb on Earth so you can't chase us and save Earth: choose one' and sod off while he's dealing with the bomb.

We also have the whole 'spitfires in space' sequence, the terrible new Daleks, and the silly business with a jammy dodger. And my pet peeve: the Doctor surrounded by Daleks for about a third of the episode, and they don't even try to kill him apart from a half-hearted effort as he's running out of the door! No, they just sit there and calmly explain their plan. They all have guns built in. They can all fire their guns with a single thought. He wouldn't even have the warning of hearing a gun being cocked or anything like that. but no, they just have a chat!

So I think for me it's the worst because it should have been better. It couldn't even live up to the promise of its first act. The ridiculous new Daleks are just the crowning turd in the sewage plant really.

[Dino]

Apart from The Beast Below,and I can't understand how the Eleventh Hour has one vote, I agree with all the stories that have got no votes. They were the highlights. There is a just about equal amounts of episodes that didn't work.
I was tempted to vote for Victory. I'm still crushed by it and the Dalek designs. I do remember reading in Private Eye Moffatt was given an email from BBC Marketing whilst the series was being written? (I can find it and type out the story if you want?) It still contained at least half an hour's worth of good Doctor Who.
And then I thought of The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood. Cold Blood was the lowest point for me. Apart from the ending and even that could have been written into the story before The Hungry Earth? But that said, the monsters and designs made up for some of it. Perhaps I was forgiving on "42" as it was just one episode?
There were no monsters and James Corden in the option I went for though. Simple reason. It seemed like a pilot episode for a remake of Doctor Who in the the 90's? As if the BBC had given up totally and it got remade by the writers of "loaded"?
"Yeah you know, that Doctor Who shit! All that campy bollocks! It was done on the cheap wasn't it? Sod it! We can do that too!" is how I'd imagine the production meeting of that would go.
So The Lodger then.
Still have hope next series improves. I'm aware Daddy RTD is gone for "good", but I am sure I gave this series a fair chance.
I still have faith in the series however, as I know if all the things wrong with the episodes were put right... it would be the greatest series of Doctor Who ever! That's more than enough to keep it going!
And as it can't be bought to attention enough, Matt Smith IS The Doctor.
He did it perfectly. Although here's an interesting fact...

I know of women who never said they felt anything for Matt Smith until he was pleading for his life in the Panopticon?...
Make of that what you will internet historians.

[Perry Vale]

When I see the phrase 'worst Dalek story' without the word 'Manhatten' in the surrounding sentences, I realise there's no point in me saying anything more on the subject.

So instead, I'll elaborate as to why THE/CB was my least favourite, as asked in the original post.

Firstly, the 'future' Amy/Rory scene. It was just far too distracting, for me, and hung over the two episodes like an unwelcome gatecrasher at a party. This, coupled with some of the weakest character writing of the series, left me unable to engage with any of the events unfolding.

Secondly, unlike every other story in the series, it didn't follow the 'Checkov's Gun' formula that I found so pleasing elsewhere. The solution came from nowhere, as far as I can see. And on top of that, there seemed to be many unexplained things, and strands, such as why it wasn't really hot so deep underground, or the blue grass.

Thirdly, the whole 'Earth Conference' part I just found very tedious, and badly played. It was just filling time, as you knew that it wouldn't happen, even with the awful, cheesey voiceover at the start of the episode.

Additionally, it just never felt like the other 11 episodes in style and tone, and I suspect Chibbers was still writing in some way for RTD, rather than Moffat. The revelation from DW:C that 15 minutes of filmed footage had to be cut, is very worrying and speaks volumes I think.

Having said all that, I did enjoy it more than any of his previous scripts, but that's only damning with faint praise. And in his defence, this time, I'm sure the 'future' Amy/Rory stuff & time crack dovetailing were imposed on him from Moffat, which can't have helped.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

It takes quite a genius to screw up a story with Daleks in.

Well many do say RTD is a genius

I've gone for The Vampires of Venice, which nobody else seems to have minded. Perhaps it's because of its sheer blandness that nobody really hates it, but that's why I chose it.

[Andrew Curnow]

In terms of the episode I came away from most disappointed, I have to say that was Vincent and the Doctor - probably because I was really looking forward to it, and therefore found it a big let down. In terms of a weak story though, I'm afraid I have to chime in with the Victory brigade.

One thing that has occurred to me - The Eleventh Hour was an hour and a bit long; we know they cut about 15 minutes from The Hungry Earth; and Victory feels far too rushed, as if it needed another 15 minutes. I wonder whether there was at one point an attempt to secure an hour slot for the show, which never materialised?

[Perry Vale]

Not heard anything about that, but Victory did appear to suffer a minute cut to it's running time to accomodate for that BBC Adventure Game trailer, didn't it?

The Eleventh Hour warranted it's extra minutes, I'd say, as it was (as described by Moffat on DW:C) intended as a 'jumping on' point for new viewers, and territories, as well as providing much of the backstory for later in the series.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

We still have 3 episodes left - but to me The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone has been the most dissapointing story so far. In fact so dissapointing it's caused us to stop watching it in advance, and start waiting for PRIME TV to screen it.

Simply it took a lot of the intriguing elements from Moffats previous stories - the Weeping Angels and River Song, but then misfired badly. Personally hope they never bring the Weeping Angels back on the back of this story which seemed to just throw out everything that was established about them in Blink.

[Larry]

Victory of the Daleks pretty much for the same reasons Si Hunt has already mentioned also try as I do I just can't except Ian Mcneice as Churchill. I'm not saying he wasn't good but once you've seen the exclent Albert Finney, in the part as Churchill, everybody else just dosen't even come close.

[Mike Saville]

I went for Victory. Again, mostly because I really don't much like Dalek stories, though the Eccleston ones shone out well. Dalek is actually one of my all time greats.

Like others here, Victory had a great premise, and the first 15 minutes had me so enthralled. Then freefall. Oh my, what a plummet.

A lot of the stories had huge plot holes in that ensured they fell apart on second viewing, but most at least held up for the 45 minutes at least. The Beast Below was a candidate, but had enough on transmission to hold my attention, including a remarkable performance from Smith.

[Jason Thompson]

Like others here, Victory had a great premise, and the first 15 minutes had me so enthralled. Then freefall. Oh my, what a plummet.

I think that's the big problem with Victory. Other rather poor Dalek stories were poor throughout (Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks), whereas this one started brilliantly and then just turned to real crap.

[Larry]

have to say of all the stories in series 5 the only one I have not seen more than once is Vincent and the Doctor, I do like this story and will watch it again at some point but it's not one I'm in any hurry to see again.