I don't think you can really compare the two to be honest. They're both different writers. They both have their own strengths, and their own weaknesses.
Though to be perfectly honest, I prefer Moffat. Mostly because his writing tends to make you think. Not everything is spoonfed to you. You have to actuelly think, to understand the story.
After having reviewed both writers work in the Whoniverse, I think that Steven Moffat and Russell Davies should wrestle in the mud half naked with a paying entrance so that some pathetic fans would finally stop comparing them and judge their work for their own merits and faults.
Bit Harsh. He was not slating SM just stating an opinion on how he is handling running the show compared to Davies.
I think its quite fair to have an opinion based after a whole series and christmas special. Obviously after another few series that opinion may change.
Didn't mean it to sound harsh, but you can't really compare two writers' visions when you know one from beginning to end and the other one is far from complete.
After all, the end of Series 5 made is VERY clear that the arc isn't complete. The silence is still out there, so we have no idea of the scale or direction of Moffat's overall vision.
It's like reading the first half of "The Fellowship of the Ring" and claiming that this Tolkein bloke isn't really into epic, grand storylines. You might possibly be right, but its also possible that your lack of knowledge of how the story proceeds might make you look foolish for making such a quick judgement.
Simply put, its too early into Moff's story to judge his overall vision, because we already know we've not seen most of it.
Credit where credit is due. Were it not for RTD, the programme may never have been revived at all, let alone become the flagship that it is. I am old enough to remember the very first episode with William Hartnell and I became a committed Who fan that day. By the time Sylvester McCoy hung up his boots, however, it was utterly worn out and I wasn't sad to see it axed. When the Beeb announced that they were bringing it back, I feared the worst, but how wrong was I? Under RTD's leadership, they really went for it and triumphed.
Having written that, the best episodes of the RTD era were, by general consensus, written by Steven Moffatt, who is, in my opinion, the cleverer writer of the two by some margin. Series 5 could have bombed for all manner of reasons: new head writer, new Doctor and new companion, but I have no complaints with any of them and I think the set-up is now the best that it has ever been. Long may that continue.
I'm not sure you can say one is better than the other but I can make one observation.
With one person I felt pushed along with the story and was supposed to think it was exciting with an increase in volume in areas, with the other it has been a logical and clever progression with good performances.
Maybe their strengths lie in various different areas?
Credit where credit is due. Were it not for RTD, the programme may never have been revived at all, let alone become the flagship that it is. I am old enough to remember the very first episode with William Hartnell and I became a committed Who fan that day. By the time Sylvester McCoy hung up his boots, however, it was utterly worn out and I wasn't sad to see it axed. When the Beeb announced that they were bringing it back, I feared the worst, but how wrong was I? Under RTD's leadership, they really went for it and triumphed.
Having written that, the best episodes of the RTD era were, by general consensus, written by Steven Moffatt, who is, in my opinion, the cleverer writer of the two by some margin. Series 5 could have bombed for all manner of reasons: new head writer, new Doctor and new companion, but I have no complaints with any of them and I think the set-up is now the best that it has ever been. Long may that continue.
It's hard to compare them for me because, in my opinion, Moffat's plots have always been excellent, but I prefer RTD's characters. I got really attached to Rose, Donna, Wilf, Captain Jack and both Doctors in RTD's time more than I have done with Moff's characters. Admittedly, I think they were all portrayed excellently as well as being well written, but I always felt very compelled by and attached to all of them (with the exception of Martha, but again, that's just my opinion).
Over the course of series 5, I've grown to like Matt Smith more and more, and I really do love his Doctor more, but I still don't feel I care about what happens to him as much as I did 9 and 10. And, as for Amy, I've really, really wanted to warm to her, and as much as I find her funny and likeable at times, I just haven't been as attached to her character as I was the others.
All of this is just my opinion, and I know that others have loved Moff's characters, but I think I preferred RTD's seasons because I always watch shows more for the characters than the plot. Having said that, out of RTD's series, the ones penned by Moff have been my favourite, because it's was a combination of the characters I love and truly brilliant plots.
So, to answer the question, I think Moffat is probably the better writer, but I preferred watching the show when RTD was in charge. As I said before, this is all just my opinion, feel free to disagree
RTD did a fantastic job bringing back the show, adding more rounded characters and more emotional elements to help the new audience relate to the show. He also wrote some excellent episodes, Midnight and Turn Left being particular favourites of mine. He also proved most who doubted the casting of Catherine Tate wrong!
He did have weaknesses such as celebrity cameos; some of the deus Ex Machinas (e.g. chanting the doctor's name); bringing Rose back after ending her story so well first time around but his biggest weakness tended to be poor execution of great ideas. In my opinion what RTD lacked, at times, was a strong script editor to get the best out of him.
The Moff produced some of the very best scripts of new Who and has the awards to prove it. He also took over as showrunner having to accomodate the loss of arguably the most popular Doctor ever and a cut in budget from RTD who, whatever criticisms people have of him, attained viewing figures that were pretty damn impressive.
The Moff had overblown expectations for his first series but, a few clunkers aside, it was overall full of very good and good episodes and a couple that were excellent. He also managed to shift the Doctor into being more alien and strange than human and emotional - that is the primary purpose of the companions I believe.
It is entirely possible that the ideal scenario would be if they were each other's script editors with RTD adding more emotional elements to the Moff and the Moff helping in the execution of RTD's big ideas at the end of each series.
Then again there is always the Harry Hill way to settle the argument...
RTD did a fantastic job bringing back the show, adding more rounded characters and more emotional elements to help the new audience relate to the show. He also wrote some excellent episodes, Midnight and Turn Left being particular favourites of mine. He also proved most who doubted the casting of Catherine Tate wrong!
He did have weaknesses such as celebrity cameos; some of the deus Ex Machinas (e.g. chanting the doctor's name); bringing Rose back after ending her story so well first time around but his biggest weakness tended to be poor execution of great ideas. In my opinion what RTD lacked, at times, was a strong script editor to get the best out of him.
The Moff produced some of the very best scripts of new Who and has the awards to prove it. He also took over as showrunner having to accomodate the loss of arguably the most popular Doctor ever and a cut in budget from RTD who, whatever criticisms people have of him, attained viewing figures that were pretty damn impressive.
The Moff had overblown expectations for his first series but, a few clunkers aside, it was overall full of very good and good episodes and a couple that were excellent. He also managed to shift the Doctor into being more alien and strange than human and emotional - that is the primary purpose of the companions I believe.
It is entirely possible that the ideal scenario would be if they were each other's script editors with RTD adding more emotional elements to the Moff and the Moff helping in the execution of RTD's big ideas at the end of each series.
Then again there is always the Harry Hill way to settle the argument...
For me, RTD's era was like a massive, popcorn movie - a times it was OTT and ludicrous, at times you knew it was bad and there was too much flash and not enough substance, but it was tremendous fun and enjoyable all the same.
Moffatt would be more the equivalent of a Tim Burton film - a bit quieter, a bit less flashy, a little more quirky but I love his style.
I try to avoid the whole 'RTD brought it back, so be nice to him' slant on things. Its certainly true, but clouds the judgement on his actual skill in a comparisson to Moffat.
About that, I find the two to be like chalk and cheese and really are not comparable. Whilst I admire Moffat's depth of plot and fairytale approach to things, I tend to prefer RTD's characterisation (I find Amy to be less fleshed out than Donna or Rose), also regarding his guest characters - I cared about the death of the hostess in Midnight, but cannot say the same about...say, the characters in The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood.
Each has their strengths and weaknesses, and they both had massive challenges to overcome.... RTD had a cult audience to impress whilst trying to make a mainstream TV show, whereas Moffat has had to try and mould said show to his own vision without upsetting the now huge mainstream following. Regardless of anyones opinions of them, it cannot be denied that both have done amazingly well since 2005 and right up until this night with ACC. For that, I feel a comparisson would be an insult to them both. :D:D
I'm not sure you can say one is better than the other but I can make one observation.
With one person I felt pushed along with the story and was supposed to think it was exciting with an increase in volume in areas, with the other it has been a logical and clever progression with good performances.
Maybe their strengths lie in various different areas?
I completely agree.
I felt that RTD's stories had a lot of imagination, but sometimes it would go into the realms of being "silly" or "childish".
SM's writing is definitely far more logical, but I also can't help thinking, 'Dream a little bigger.'
However, they both do have their strengths and weaknesses. As well as essentially being rather different writers.
I couldn't possibly say which I think is 'better'; I like them both for different reasons.
If we're going to have this discussion then let's at least act like rational civilised people and drop the name calling..
I thoroughly enjoyed last night's special and it was interesting to see the stylistic differences between RTD and SM.
SM seems far more willing to explore and play with the problems, paradox's and possibilities of time travel. Where as RTD seems slightly more interested in relationships.
It's nice to see that Matt Smith has settled into the role and has made it his own. I'm intrigued to see where he and SM take the Doctor...
I try to avoid the whole 'RTD brought it back, so be nice to him' slant on things. Its certainly true, but clouds the judgement on his actual skill in a comparisson to Moffat.
About that, I find the two to be like chalk and cheese and really are not comparable. Whilst I admire Moffat's depth of plot and fairytale approach to things, I tend to prefer RTD's characterisation (I find Amy to be less fleshed out than Donna or Rose), also regarding his guest characters - I cared about the death of the hostess in Midnight, but cannot say the same about...say, the characters in The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood.
Each has their strengths and weaknesses, and they both had massive challenges to overcome.... RTD had a cult audience to impress whilst trying to make a mainstream TV show, whereas Moffat has had to try and mould said show to his own vision without upsetting the now huge mainstream following. Regardless of anyones opinions of them, it cannot be denied that both have done amazingly well since 2005 and right up until this night with ACC. For that, I feel a comparisson would be an insult to them both. :D:D
Verdict: Draw
For me the big difference is that Moff strories tend to look clever, but the more you explore them, they fall apar at times, and he sometimes shouts his cleverness from the roof top usually through the dialogue (ie Forest of the dead example, where the Doctor goes on about how can the library be the forest for the vashta narada so many times that you know Moff is telling you "watch out for the clever answer" despite working out already that it is the books)....where as i prefer his simple and subtle clever twists, like the whole of the Empty Child Two parter, or the ending of the Girl in the Fireplace, where we really were not expecting to get an answer....but we get it with an one shot of the potrait of Reintte, or the way the Eleventh Doctor sees himself for the first time, not a mirror but the image taken by prisoner zero. But I feel majority of his stories have superficial complexities (with the exception of TEC, TBB and TBB and to an extent ACC whih have some real layers of depth and complex ideas and themes), and not always a lot of depth....while RTD does go mad with his ideas, and he doesn't hide it it on screen and sometimes ofscreen that it is mad and really makes no sense, like the earth being towed, and he does put character before plot, which can be a good or bad thing depending on the story...and on the surface the stories seem very simple a to b.....but I find a lot of depth and complixity underneath, whether it is a political issue, about lfe and death, or relationships (and no this isn't a saop thing....after all a lot of Shakespeare stuff is about relationship)....but I feel they both create maginificant characters, I feel they both love exploring and creating their own Who lore, and both have a sense of fun when making their stories, and heart. both have come up cracker stories.... but the end I agree with your las paragraph wholly....I don't hate either person's vision....there are a number of reasons series 5 is the weakest for me, but Moff's vision isn't one of them...it just happpend to have more stories that I didn't enjoy as much as I have the past.....but hey series 6 looks fantastic.....so thanks RTD for making me a fan, and thanks to Moff keeping me as a fan, with lots to look forward to.
RTD and Tennant = stunning
Moffet and the school boy = A silly children's TV show.
Where has the acting gone? Where is the pathos? Where is the substance that made people care?
Matt Smith = Oops! Mrs! Has anyone seen my camel?
Roll on when we can get an actor back.
I didn't want to get involved and I do like to respect others' opinions but... in this instance... that is the biggest load of rubbish I have read in a long time on this forum... and I've been in the Stargate Universe thread!
People slag off RTD but...did he have a flying shark with half the screwdriver in its belly as the plot payoff?? a shark that swims in fog, no less...? Nope.
People slag off RTD but...did he have a flying shark with half the screwdriver in its belly as the plot payoff?? a shark that swims in fog, no less...? Nope.
People slag off RTD but...did he have a flying shark with half the screwdriver in its belly as the plot payoff?? a shark that swims in fog, no less...? Nope.
No, but he did have a Cyberking as tall as Mount Everest trample over Victorian London. Far worse in my opinion.
Comments
I think that's fair.
Though to be perfectly honest, I prefer Moffat. Mostly because his writing tends to make you think. Not everything is spoonfed to you. You have to actuelly think, to understand the story.
Didn't mean it to sound harsh, but you can't really compare two writers' visions when you know one from beginning to end and the other one is far from complete.
After all, the end of Series 5 made is VERY clear that the arc isn't complete. The silence is still out there, so we have no idea of the scale or direction of Moffat's overall vision.
It's like reading the first half of "The Fellowship of the Ring" and claiming that this Tolkein bloke isn't really into epic, grand storylines. You might possibly be right, but its also possible that your lack of knowledge of how the story proceeds might make you look foolish for making such a quick judgement.
Simply put, its too early into Moff's story to judge his overall vision, because we already know we've not seen most of it.
Russel is to childish for me
Having written that, the best episodes of the RTD era were, by general consensus, written by Steven Moffatt, who is, in my opinion, the cleverer writer of the two by some margin. Series 5 could have bombed for all manner of reasons: new head writer, new Doctor and new companion, but I have no complaints with any of them and I think the set-up is now the best that it has ever been. Long may that continue.
With one person I felt pushed along with the story and was supposed to think it was exciting with an increase in volume in areas, with the other it has been a logical and clever progression with good performances.
Maybe their strengths lie in various different areas?
Agree with pretty much all of this.
Over the course of series 5, I've grown to like Matt Smith more and more, and I really do love his Doctor more, but I still don't feel I care about what happens to him as much as I did 9 and 10. And, as for Amy, I've really, really wanted to warm to her, and as much as I find her funny and likeable at times, I just haven't been as attached to her character as I was the others.
All of this is just my opinion, and I know that others have loved Moff's characters, but I think I preferred RTD's seasons because I always watch shows more for the characters than the plot. Having said that, out of RTD's series, the ones penned by Moff have been my favourite, because it's was a combination of the characters I love and truly brilliant plots.
So, to answer the question, I think Moffat is probably the better writer, but I preferred watching the show when RTD was in charge. As I said before, this is all just my opinion, feel free to disagree
RTD did a fantastic job bringing back the show, adding more rounded characters and more emotional elements to help the new audience relate to the show. He also wrote some excellent episodes, Midnight and Turn Left being particular favourites of mine. He also proved most who doubted the casting of Catherine Tate wrong!
He did have weaknesses such as celebrity cameos; some of the deus Ex Machinas (e.g. chanting the doctor's name); bringing Rose back after ending her story so well first time around but his biggest weakness tended to be poor execution of great ideas. In my opinion what RTD lacked, at times, was a strong script editor to get the best out of him.
The Moff produced some of the very best scripts of new Who and has the awards to prove it. He also took over as showrunner having to accomodate the loss of arguably the most popular Doctor ever and a cut in budget from RTD who, whatever criticisms people have of him, attained viewing figures that were pretty damn impressive.
The Moff had overblown expectations for his first series but, a few clunkers aside, it was overall full of very good and good episodes and a couple that were excellent. He also managed to shift the Doctor into being more alien and strange than human and emotional - that is the primary purpose of the companions I believe.
It is entirely possible that the ideal scenario would be if they were each other's script editors with RTD adding more emotional elements to the Moff and the Moff helping in the execution of RTD's big ideas at the end of each series.
Then again there is always the Harry Hill way to settle the argument...
Wonderfully well thought out post.
Moffatt would be more the equivalent of a Tim Burton film - a bit quieter, a bit less flashy, a little more quirky but I love his style.
About that, I find the two to be like chalk and cheese and really are not comparable. Whilst I admire Moffat's depth of plot and fairytale approach to things, I tend to prefer RTD's characterisation (I find Amy to be less fleshed out than Donna or Rose), also regarding his guest characters - I cared about the death of the hostess in Midnight, but cannot say the same about...say, the characters in The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood.
Each has their strengths and weaknesses, and they both had massive challenges to overcome.... RTD had a cult audience to impress whilst trying to make a mainstream TV show, whereas Moffat has had to try and mould said show to his own vision without upsetting the now huge mainstream following. Regardless of anyones opinions of them, it cannot be denied that both have done amazingly well since 2005 and right up until this night with ACC. For that, I feel a comparisson would be an insult to them both.
Verdict: Draw
Imagine how the story would have developed and ended - and there you get the difference in style and impact.
I completely agree.
I felt that RTD's stories had a lot of imagination, but sometimes it would go into the realms of being "silly" or "childish".
SM's writing is definitely far more logical, but I also can't help thinking, 'Dream a little bigger.'
However, they both do have their strengths and weaknesses. As well as essentially being rather different writers.
I couldn't possibly say which I think is 'better'; I like them both for different reasons.
I thoroughly enjoyed last night's special and it was interesting to see the stylistic differences between RTD and SM.
SM seems far more willing to explore and play with the problems, paradox's and possibilities of time travel. Where as RTD seems slightly more interested in relationships.
It's nice to see that Matt Smith has settled into the role and has made it his own. I'm intrigued to see where he and SM take the Doctor...
Yes. Moffat's strength lies in his writing. But I understand Russell makes a very nice quiche.
RTD seemed to give the scripts more heart and a bit more realism. Season 5 and this Christmas special - for me - is more like a long fairy story.
Moff is very clever and his stories are complex and unpredictable. For me, though, they just don't tug at my heart strings like RTD did.
For me the big difference is that Moff strories tend to look clever, but the more you explore them, they fall apar at times, and he sometimes shouts his cleverness from the roof top usually through the dialogue (ie Forest of the dead example, where the Doctor goes on about how can the library be the forest for the vashta narada so many times that you know Moff is telling you "watch out for the clever answer" despite working out already that it is the books)....where as i prefer his simple and subtle clever twists, like the whole of the Empty Child Two parter, or the ending of the Girl in the Fireplace, where we really were not expecting to get an answer....but we get it with an one shot of the potrait of Reintte, or the way the Eleventh Doctor sees himself for the first time, not a mirror but the image taken by prisoner zero. But I feel majority of his stories have superficial complexities (with the exception of TEC, TBB and TBB and to an extent ACC whih have some real layers of depth and complex ideas and themes), and not always a lot of depth....while RTD does go mad with his ideas, and he doesn't hide it it on screen and sometimes ofscreen that it is mad and really makes no sense, like the earth being towed, and he does put character before plot, which can be a good or bad thing depending on the story...and on the surface the stories seem very simple a to b.....but I find a lot of depth and complixity underneath, whether it is a political issue, about lfe and death, or relationships (and no this isn't a saop thing....after all a lot of Shakespeare stuff is about relationship)....but I feel they both create maginificant characters, I feel they both love exploring and creating their own Who lore, and both have a sense of fun when making their stories, and heart. both have come up cracker stories.... but the end I agree with your las paragraph wholly....I don't hate either person's vision....there are a number of reasons series 5 is the weakest for me, but Moff's vision isn't one of them...it just happpend to have more stories that I didn't enjoy as much as I have the past.....but hey series 6 looks fantastic.....so thanks RTD for making me a fan, and thanks to Moff keeping me as a fan, with lots to look forward to.
RTD and Tennant = stunning
Moffet and the school boy = A silly children's TV show.
Where has the acting gone? Where is the pathos? Where is the substance that made people care?
Matt Smith = Oops! Mrs! Has anyone seen my camel?
Roll on when we can get an actor back.
I didn't want to get involved and I do like to respect others' opinions but... in this instance... that is the biggest load of rubbish I have read in a long time on this forum... and I've been in the Stargate Universe thread!
No, but he did have a Cyberking as tall as Mount Everest trample over Victorian London. Far worse in my opinion.