The Eleventh Hour - A Full Introduction To Matt Smith's Doctor
Back In January, I wrote a piece slamming the haters of Matt Smith due to the brief amount of screen time he'd had up to that point. Now I'm back to question, was I right to defend him?
The answer is, basically yes. Absolutely.
Previously I feel David Tennant had to earn my support as the Doctor after being brilliantly played by Christopher Eccleston. He did eventually grow on me and I was dispointed when he announced he was leaving, he would definately be a hard act to follow for any seasoned actor, let alone one as young as Matt Smith.
Yet he does the job brilliantly, The combination of whatever he does just goes with the role like a spaghetti does with bolognaise (sorry couldn't think of a better analogy).
The only critisisms I have with the episode are production based, hopefully that'll improve
However as my closing remark I would like to say, Matt Smith job well done. I salute you.
To see my original article, please follow this link: http://www.liverpoolstudentmedia.com/hes-doctor-now-get-over-it
© 2008-2010. LSMEDIA is written, designed and produced independently by the students of the University of Liverpool.
Comments
er... is that it? What is the point of this piece of journalism? Tom's insight into Matt Smith in his role as The Doctor amounts to "he does the job brilliantly", and is developed into an insightful piece with the stunning revelation that "the combination of whatever he does just goes with the role like...". Honestly, a child the age of Amelia Pond could have done a better job.
Is this journalism?
nice to see people criticising anonymously. the point of this piece was a follow up to a piece i wrote in january 'He's The Doctor Now. Get Over It' just a short piece to determine if he deserved my support back then.
Next time you're going to criticise someone elses work, don't do it anonymously. that makes you a coward.
Tom,
As a piece of stand-alone journalism I see no point to it. That's my opinion. That's what the "Post new comment" function is for. A news item or feature simply saying "I was right all along" and "Matt Smith does the job brilliantly" is hardly going to set the world of journalism alight. OK, so it's a follow-up to something you did in January, but at least give a link to the original piece so we can put it in context and make our own judgements.
As a journalist (if that's how you see yourself) you shouldn't be posting on a forum that allows anonymous comments if you're not willing to accept them. Actually, this site even *encourages* anonymous comments as the default name in the "Post new comment" name box is 'Anonymous'. In my view, the fact that you're willing to call someone a coward for posting anonymously shows how insecure you are at your own ability.
I must say, boys, that I agree with both of you on this one.
Yes, it seems fair that criticism be given with a name so that a debate can occur- this, after all, is the beauty of journalism. However I do think that this piece is too brief in not actually supporting the opinions shared with evidence. For example, it's fair enough if you think that there were faults in the production, but tell us about them and explain why you didn't like them, otherwise this appears to be more of a blog entry than a carefully crafted review.
Rosaleen x
Thanks, Rosaleen. Nice to know it's not just me who couldn't see the point in the 'article'. Interesting that Tom was quick to respond to my original post but has been quiet ever since. What's also interesting is that you assume we are both boys. I think Tom probably is (can you confirm that, Tom) but what about me, Ann Nonymous?
pffff. alright lets get this sorted then. you say I've gone quiet? I've more impprtant things to worry about than checking comments every day.
the fact basically is, you don't like what i've written? don't read it. you complained about no link to the previous article, take a little look to the left of the page.
and in response to the defence of anonymous posting, the only reason I believe anyone would is to prevent said comments being associated with them, its very easy to not be anonymous, make an account. its free and takes literally a couple of minutes. I call anonymous critisiers cowards becasue simply, thats what they are for that very reason. I know for a fact i'm not the only person who believes this.
Brief as this article may be it was always intended as a follow up, nothing more. I'm just giving my own opinion on how Matt Smith performed, nothing more, nothing less. don't like that? as i said before, don't read it
I think you've got your view of things upside down. You are posting articles on a platform that is there for people to read, whether they agree with what you've written or not. The same platform also allows readers to add their comments. Those comments are moderated to make sure they aren't abusive or illegal, but disagreements and contrary opinions are expected alongside support and praise.
"the fact basically is, you don't like what i've written? don't read it."
Tom, apart from the fact that it's not possible to un-read something after it has been read, in the real world the basic fact is, if *you* don't like anonymous comments then don't post your articles on a platform that allows and actually ENCOURAGES(!!!) anonymous comments by having 'anonymous' as the default name in the comment box.
Registering for an account also saves me from having to remember to check for and then manually approve each comment :P
I'm sure you both have better things to do that argue the merit of allowing anonymous comments or not!
Although 'Anonymous' is the default name, it does also say 'Your name:' above the form field, so I don't think there's a great argument that LSMedia are encouraging anon. comments, it's just more of a suitable default than an actual name or something bland like 'LSMedia User'.
The point is, Phil, the 'your name' field doesn't need a default entry. It can be blank like the rest of the fields.
Yeah I think you are right about that, it's not much effort to type your own name though ;) I'll look into changing the default value though.
I've just looked and with our content management system there has to be a default value for anonymous commenters, it could be Anonymous or it could be Guest but really it all means the same thing so I'm leaving it as it is. We could code a workaround but it's really not worth it! Anyone who wants to use an alternative pseudonym or their real name without registering will just have to spent five seconds typing it in...
Registering can actually be quicker though, as you don't have to do the anti-spam CAPTCHA (typing in the scrambled text) each time.
Sorry for my previous comment Ann Nonymous, looking back I really don't know why I assumed you were a boy as there isn't anything particularly male or female about your response haha.
Tom it's all very well that you intended this article as a follow up of a previous article, but look at it from my point of view for one moment. Take the likes of Scream and Scream 2, the films. Yes, Scream 2 is intended as a sequel to Scream, but you can still enjoy it without having watched Scream because it reinforces previous parts of the story during the process of continuing it. This piece unfortunately doesn't work in that way. As a stand alone article this is not really informative. You could have included at least some of the statements from the previous article and then justified why you were right to defend him without having to re-tell the story all over again, although yes it was helpful to have the related content link to the left, I'll give you that. Considering that this is in the Arts-TV section, probably where most people are looking for guidance and tips for good things to watch on TV, you haven't really provided any valid arguments or reasons for what you've said. Remember that this is a website for journalists to upload their creative work, not just a Facebook comment or text message to a friend.
Rosaleen x
Tom, take it from someone who knows: the worst thing you can do in the face of criticism is get defensive and angry. It's better to get greasy and horny and pole-dance for minimum wage. At least there's some pride in that, even if some of the girls are selling their bodies for hard cash after work.
And it was me who wrote "Is this journalism?".
But Matt you can't really talk as the author of the infamous LSMedia article!! As much as your article generated both positive and negative feedback, there is no denying that it was well articulated (despite admittedly being somewhat offensive at times) and that people enjoyed it. Your article caused a stir because it was a controversial piece written with flair and a creative style. How can you possibly defend this article?! It isn't on the same scale as yours, it provokes entirely different questions about what is appropriate to upload as content. Come on Tom, surely you can understand where I'm coming from on this? I want to hear your thoughts.
Rosaleen x
Post new comment