Moffat is still the best writer we have so any change would be deterioration.
When the writer who is better than Moffat and wants to be a showrunner, than (s)he should replace Moffat. Until then, Moffat should stay! When RTD left, Moffat was logical choice because he wrote the most popular episodes and he was the best writer in RTD era. Now, in Moffat era, I can't see any writer that stands out for being better than the others or better than Moffat. Always the best writer should be a showrunner, no matter how long. It is as simple as that.
Now you are all criticizing him. But when he actually leaves, you will all cry after one season without his clever and imaginative storylines. Because, most of you think that change is necessarily an improvement. But it doesn't has to be. Moffat is an excellent writer and showrunner and it will be difficult to find someone who is better then him. And until we find a better writter, Moffat should stay, because we do not want the show to be worse.
Just because you are a good writer does not mean that you will make a good showrunner. And I think that Moffat is a great example of that statement. He is a good writer, but I think that when he is in (more or less) complete control, that he tries to be too clever by far and it all ends up falling flat.
Just because you are a good writer does not mean that you will make a good showrunner. And I think that Moffat is a great example of that statement. He is a good writer, but I think that when he is in (more or less) complete control, that he tries to be too clever by far and it all ends up falling flat.
Agreed. I think Moffat's problem is that he's nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is. He simply does not have the capacity to write intricate, complex storylines without them becoming complicated and ultimately nonsensical.
Agreed. I think Moffat's problem is that he's nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is. He simply does not have the capacity to write intricate, complex storylines without them becoming complicated and ultimately nonsensical.
Sometimes it might be too complicated (River's story), but I can't see anything nonsensical. If you think of time paradoxes, I strongly disagree. Time paradoxes ("Timey-wimey") are a good thing in a show about time travel IMO. Because time paradoxes and non-linear timelines make DW unique - different from all other sci-fi shows. Also, all time paradoxes are explained. You just need to accept the fact that in show about time travel, consequences may cause the cause. And, as I said, that is what makes DW different from Star Trek and other sci-fi shows. And Moffat is the only one who is properly using time travel in his storylines IMO.
Sometimes it might be too complicated (River's story), but I can't see anything nonsensical. If you think of time paradoxes, I strongly disagree. Time paradoxes ("Timey-wimey") are a good thing in a show about time travel IMO. Because time paradoxes and non-linear timelines make DW unique - different from all other sci-fi shows. Also, all time paradoxes are explained. You just need to accept the fact that in show about time travel, consequences may cause the cause. And, as I said, that is what makes DW different from Star Trek and other sci-fi shows. And Moffat is the only one who is properly using time travel in his storylines IMO.
I find he often uses paradoxes as a convenient way out of a plot cul-de-sac. I think the one that had people rolling their eyes the most was when the Doctor escapes from the Pandorica using his own sonic screwdriver. Yes, it relied on a paradox but I suspect many people expected Moffat to come up with an ingenious plot solution. As it was, the solution was 'it's a paradox'.
Agreed. I think Moffat's problem is that he's nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is. He simply does not have the capacity to write intricate, complex storylines without them becoming complicated and ultimately nonsensical.
I must admit that as a fan of long running series such as Lost and Game of Thrones I was under the impression that Moffat had things better planned out than seemed to be the case, but the last couple of episodes of Matt Smith's era seemed to expose Moffat's short comings (actually the writers of Lost didn't seem to have things as planned out as I first hoped either, but that's a subject for another forum) but I feel like Capaldi's era has been quite a large reset to that style of story telling, and everything feels much fresher and simpler. It strikes me that you are not a massive fan of Moffat's but do you appreciate this new approach?
Being that this board has survived such events as "Nu Who isn't Real Who," "David Tennant is a gurning imbecile," "RTD has a gay agenda," "Moffat is a hack," and "Matt Smith is like a CBBC caricature," I'm sure it will manage the latest round of Who-bashing
The board has been well-toughened by years and years of this!
You've left out Steven Moffet's insidious heterosexual relationships and marriage agenda :mad:
I know he's had some same sex and trans-species couples in Doctor Who but he's predominantly been continually ramming down his heinous agenda down people's throats since coupling
"Coupling is a British television sitcom written by Steven Moffat that aired on BBC2 from 12 May 2000 to 14 June 2004. Produced by Hartswood Films for the BBC, the show centres on the dating and sexual adventures and mishaps of six friends in their late twenties"
"[Jekyll] stars James Nesbitt as Tom Jackman, a modern-day descendant of Dr. Jekyll, who has recently begun transforming into a version of Mr. Hyde (also played by Nesbitt). Jackman is aided by psychiatric nurse Katherine Reimer, played by Michelle Ryan. Gina Bellman also appears as Claire, Tom's wife"
Seriously, you got this sort of crap when Russell was on the show. Every week, there was vitriol and bile splurged everywhere about his agendas, love of pop culture, dumbing down of the show, weak plots, dues ex machina, god complex Doctors, mary-sue companions etc.
A lot of Doctor Who fans are a very... pernickety sort. And I've always personally thought that because they wrap themselves up so much in the show, they have an idea of what it should ultimately be. A showrunner complex. They don't just see it as being 'not their cup of tea' they rant and moan and swipe at people, they blame people, they can't handle that its all subjective.
Steven has not in any way, shape or form, RUINED a 50 year old format that can rejig and renew itself whenever it needs to. He has imprinted his own stylistic choices and creative decisions and for most it has worked (resulting in a wider worldwide exposure and following) and for some it has not. The critics are louder because the show is a mammoth success and has been for 10 years. The internet critics have been there since 2005.
I find he often uses paradoxes as a convenient way out of a plot cul-de-sac. I think the one that had people rolling their eyes the most was when the Doctor escapes from the Pandorica using his own sonic screwdriver. Yes, it relied on a paradox but I suspect many people expected Moffat to come up with an ingenious plot solution. As it was, the solution was 'it's a paradox'.
The plot is not a puzzle to be solved. If you think it is, then yes, Moffat is not the writer for you. (Or to be more specific, paradox cannot be the solution since it is the cause. Which in itself sounds more paradoxical than it actually is.)
Moffat plays with time travel conceits and framing devices in order to create suspense and curiosity in the viewer - beyond the level of foreshadowing or showing the audience flashbacks, the characters themselves actually experience events in the wrong order. 'Paradoxes' are nothing more than the engine used to make this happen.
A lot of Doctor Who fans are a very... pernickety sort. And I've always personally thought that because they wrap themselves up so much in the show, they have an idea of what it should ultimately be. A showrunner complex. They don't just see it as being 'not their cup of tea' they rant and moan and swipe at people, they blame people, they can't handle that its all subjective.
Steven has not in any way, shape or form, RUINED a 50 year old format that can rejig and renew itself whenever it needs to. He has imprinted his own stylistic choices and creative decisions and for most it has worked (resulting in a wider worldwide exposure and following) and for some it has not. The critics are louder because the show is a mammoth success and has been for 10 years. The internet critics have been there since 2005.
And yet if you read post 15 of this very thread you will see that the OP is chastising Doctor Who fans for being easily pleased and lapping up everything that the Showrunner gives us:
But he knows how to play into the hands of the die hard Whovians who to be fair will suck up more than your average viewer so long as he gives them nuggets of nostalgia and little throw back nodds to previous doctors and gives them what they want to see each episode then I think the fanboys will keep wetting themselves everytime there's a remote reference to Tom Baker's scarf or a fleeting appearance of a previous incarnation. Personally I find it's lazy writing and I'm sick and tired of the constant same thing all the time. There's only so many times you can keep recycling the same old stories and ideas before it gets tediously boring yet the hardcore fans seem to keep lapping it up. More of the same please?
I do expect that there will be some time-jiggery that will allow the plot to be resolved, rather than genuinely believing that anyone is in real trouble. But maybe that's because I'm older.
I agree. We need to get back to stories where the Doctor has a normal assistant whom he just happens to pick up on his travels, none of this 'Impossible Girl' nonsense. Just give us 12 good individual stories each year without any of the story arcs that Moffat is obsessed with. Bad Wolf was fine but since then it's just got silly.
The plot is not a puzzle to be solved. If you think it is, then yes, Moffat is not the writer for you.
Yes and no.
Much of the "silence" arc was a detective story - the Doctor was looking for clues and some of them really were "hidden in plain sight" only to be revealed later (more Agatha Christie than Doyle) - so there were a few solvable puzzles in there. In fact, he even gave fairly direct puzzles - some in the script and some via the DW website.
I find he often uses paradoxes as a convenient way out of a plot cul-de-sac. I think the one that had people rolling their eyes the most was when the Doctor escapes from the Pandorica using his own sonic screwdriver. Yes, it relied on a paradox but I suspect many people expected Moffat to come up with an ingenious plot solution. As it was, the solution was 'it's a paradox'.
I don't think that's a fair representation of what happened in that story. There's an unfair implication that he'd stupidly written himself into a corner and had no alternative but to "use a paradox" to enable his escape. Having the Doctor go back in time, having escaped, in order to give himself the means to escape is actually a pretty clever use of one aspect of time travel itself as a ingenious means of escape and plot "device". Something rarely, if ever, done in DW until SM's tenure.
Common enough in SF literature.
It's best not to overuse it though as it could get to be like K9 or the sonic screwdriver - the ultimate omni-purpose handy dandy plot resolution device for when things get dicey.:)
And by the way It's not strictly a paradox. Events played out exactly as they should. Nothing changed. Nothing lead to contradictory results.
Much of the "silence" arc was a detective story - the Doctor was looking for clues and some of them really were "hidden in plain sight" only to be revealed later (more Agatha Christie than Doyle) - so there were a few solvable puzzles in there. In fact, he even gave fairly direct puzzles - some in the script and some via the DW website.
Ah - but "the plot is not something to be solved" is not the same as saying "something needing solved is the plot".
The first is for the writer, the second is for the audience.
OP is suffering from a common human perceptual frailty called "confirmation bias".
To wit:
"I don't like the current stories" (fine)
"Everyone really does agree with me" (doubt it)
"Everything the writer/showrunner does is crap" (not fine)
"Therefore the writer/showrunner is an egotistical power mad maniac and not a very nice person" (not fine)
"Ratings are down" (not actually true)
"The show is doomed" (ludicrous)
Well apart from your first point which is my prerogative, I haven't claimed that everyone agrees with me, I never called him an egomaniac, that was somebody else, I never mentioned ratings and I never said the show is doomed. I just don't like it's present format/writing. No doubt with a better writer I'd possibly enjoy it again but for now he's ruined my enjoyment of the show. That's not to say it can't change.
As I wrote elsewhere - moffat has had to work around the mess created by RTD (good at the time but left too many problems for writers).
I'm not blindly backing Moffat and I'm far from anti RTD but the poor beggars couldn't write a scene with the Doctor tying his shoelace without there being a "fixed point" contravention or some convoluted BS ploy required to get around the timelock.
Besides - if you judge by the "fans" on this forum, there's no point him writing anything original and new cos every character is immediately assumed to be someone we've already had before - 10 seconds of screentime and it's already "impossible" for Missy to be a new character.
Maybe Moffat's doing fine and some people need to stop demanding the same thing every week.
Well apart from your first point which is my prerogative, I haven't claimed that everyone agrees with me, I never called him an egomaniac, that was somebody else, I never mentioned ratings and I never said the show is doomed. I just don't like it's present format/writing. No doubt with a better writer I'd possibly enjoy it again but for now he's ruined my enjoyment of the show. That's not to say it can't change.
You keep getting it wrong. You mean different writer who is more to your taste. It's a subjective opinion. Objectively, Moff has won all sort of writing awards throughout an illustrious career. There really aren't that many 'better' tv writers out there.
If you don't know the difference between subjective and objective, I'm glad you're not writing for the show...
You keep getting it wrong. You mean different writer who is more to your taste. It's a subjective opinion. Objectively, Moff has won all sort of writing awards throughout an illustrious career. There really aren't that many 'better' tv writers out there.
If you don't know the difference between subjective and objective, I'm glad you're not writing for the show...
Oh I think there are many many better TV writers out there. And you are getting it wrong yourself - winning all sorts of writing awards is based on subjective judgements not objective ones.
The plot is not a puzzle to be solved. If you think it is, then yes, Moffat is not the writer for you. (Or to be more specific, paradox cannot be the solution since it is the cause. Which in itself sounds more paradoxical than it actually is.)
Moffat plays with time travel conceits and framing devices in order to create suspense and curiosity in the viewer - beyond the level of foreshadowing or showing the audience flashbacks, the characters themselves actually experience events in the wrong order. 'Paradoxes' are nothing more than the engine used to make this happen.
Moffat has created suspense? I must have missed those five minutes. What also annoys me about Moffat's so called clever use of time travel conceits is why does the Doctor keep meeting the same companions all the time - Amy and Rory, River, that lodger guy and now Clara. Why, for example, doesn't he meet Ian one week, Jamie the next, Jo the week after, etc
Oh I think there are many many better TV writers out there. And you are getting it wrong yourself - winning all sorts of writing awards is based on subjective judgements not objective ones.
Yes, but a series of subjective judgements made over time by different groups or individuals adds up to an objective viewpoint.
You would only be right if they were all awards from the same group of people over and over again. They're not.
Oh, and your opening phrase: epitome of subjective. Just so you know.
What also annoys me about Moffat's so called clever use of time travel conceits is why does the Doctor keep meeting the same companions all the time - Amy and Rory, River, that lodger guy and now Clara. Why, for example, doesn't he meet Ian one week, Jamie the next, Jo the week after, etc
You are aware that the Doctor has always been able to travel through time, aren't you? That it's not a new thing that it might be technically possible for the First Doctor to bump into Ace, or the Sixth to walk past Zoe without noticing?
Why doesn't he? Because while the characters can time travel, the actors can't.
Unfortunately a lot of people just come across as a little sulky that as much as they hate Steven Moffat and his style of Doctor Who, he's still popular and successful, even going so far as to insult the intelligence of people who enjoy his stuff (ex. 'lapping up everything he does or some rubbish like that').
The simple fact is, some people love him, others hate him, but overall he's had a lot of success with the show and when he's gone he'll be seen as a god-like relic of the past, just like Russel T Davies is now despite the criticisms he had back when he was showrunner.
And another thing, whether he is a good showrunner or not is also an opinion, not a fact as some people believe.
I personally don't find RTD's era of Doctor Who to my taste and I find a lot of things in it I strongly dislike, but I appreciate he's a very successful writer, and he did amazing things for the show by bringing it back. I love Moffat's Who far more, but it does take a lot from RTD's era and it wouldn't be around without him.
So much hate on this thread, for something so trivial.
For me it's nothing to do with the changes of who plays Who, bit the quality of the writing and the story lines. I think Moffat has ruined Dr Who with his convoluted writing and messing around with the story lines too much sending the viewer on a head tangling goose chase..
I don't find it too hard what's going on... or at least, when storylines are wrapped up they make sense to me. Anyway, the only time I was ever close to feeling Doctor Who had been ruined and that I was about to stop watching was when I saw Voyage of the Damned and Partners in Crime. It's all been good ever since.
Comments
Just because you are a good writer does not mean that you will make a good showrunner. And I think that Moffat is a great example of that statement. He is a good writer, but I think that when he is in (more or less) complete control, that he tries to be too clever by far and it all ends up falling flat.
Agreed. I think Moffat's problem is that he's nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is. He simply does not have the capacity to write intricate, complex storylines without them becoming complicated and ultimately nonsensical.
Sometimes it might be too complicated (River's story), but I can't see anything nonsensical. If you think of time paradoxes, I strongly disagree. Time paradoxes ("Timey-wimey") are a good thing in a show about time travel IMO. Because time paradoxes and non-linear timelines make DW unique - different from all other sci-fi shows. Also, all time paradoxes are explained. You just need to accept the fact that in show about time travel, consequences may cause the cause. And, as I said, that is what makes DW different from Star Trek and other sci-fi shows. And Moffat is the only one who is properly using time travel in his storylines IMO.
I find he often uses paradoxes as a convenient way out of a plot cul-de-sac. I think the one that had people rolling their eyes the most was when the Doctor escapes from the Pandorica using his own sonic screwdriver. Yes, it relied on a paradox but I suspect many people expected Moffat to come up with an ingenious plot solution. As it was, the solution was 'it's a paradox'.
I must admit that as a fan of long running series such as Lost and Game of Thrones I was under the impression that Moffat had things better planned out than seemed to be the case, but the last couple of episodes of Matt Smith's era seemed to expose Moffat's short comings (actually the writers of Lost didn't seem to have things as planned out as I first hoped either, but that's a subject for another forum) but I feel like Capaldi's era has been quite a large reset to that style of story telling, and everything feels much fresher and simpler. It strikes me that you are not a massive fan of Moffat's but do you appreciate this new approach?
I know he's had some same sex and trans-species couples in Doctor Who but he's predominantly been continually ramming down his heinous agenda down people's throats since coupling
"Coupling is a British television sitcom written by Steven Moffat that aired on BBC2 from 12 May 2000 to 14 June 2004. Produced by Hartswood Films for the BBC, the show centres on the dating and sexual adventures and mishaps of six friends in their late twenties"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_%28UK_TV_series%29
"[Jekyll] stars James Nesbitt as Tom Jackman, a modern-day descendant of Dr. Jekyll, who has recently begun transforming into a version of Mr. Hyde (also played by Nesbitt). Jackman is aided by psychiatric nurse Katherine Reimer, played by Michelle Ryan. Gina Bellman also appears as Claire, Tom's wife"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_%28TV_series%29
Sherlock - also filled with girlfriends and a wife.
It's only episode two and Twelve (Peter Capaldi's Doctor) has a girlfriend "Missy or Miss C" and Clara has got a date with Mr Pink :eek:
Seriously, you got this sort of crap when Russell was on the show. Every week, there was vitriol and bile splurged everywhere about his agendas, love of pop culture, dumbing down of the show, weak plots, dues ex machina, god complex Doctors, mary-sue companions etc.
A lot of Doctor Who fans are a very... pernickety sort. And I've always personally thought that because they wrap themselves up so much in the show, they have an idea of what it should ultimately be. A showrunner complex. They don't just see it as being 'not their cup of tea' they rant and moan and swipe at people, they blame people, they can't handle that its all subjective.
Steven has not in any way, shape or form, RUINED a 50 year old format that can rejig and renew itself whenever it needs to. He has imprinted his own stylistic choices and creative decisions and for most it has worked (resulting in a wider worldwide exposure and following) and for some it has not. The critics are louder because the show is a mammoth success and has been for 10 years. The internet critics have been there since 2005.
The plot is not a puzzle to be solved. If you think it is, then yes, Moffat is not the writer for you. (Or to be more specific, paradox cannot be the solution since it is the cause. Which in itself sounds more paradoxical than it actually is.)
Moffat plays with time travel conceits and framing devices in order to create suspense and curiosity in the viewer - beyond the level of foreshadowing or showing the audience flashbacks, the characters themselves actually experience events in the wrong order. 'Paradoxes' are nothing more than the engine used to make this happen.
And yet if you read post 15 of this very thread you will see that the OP is chastising Doctor Who fans for being easily pleased and lapping up everything that the Showrunner gives us:
I think this whole thread has become a paradox...
Yes and no.
Much of the "silence" arc was a detective story - the Doctor was looking for clues and some of them really were "hidden in plain sight" only to be revealed later (more Agatha Christie than Doyle) - so there were a few solvable puzzles in there. In fact, he even gave fairly direct puzzles - some in the script and some via the DW website.
I don't think that's a fair representation of what happened in that story. There's an unfair implication that he'd stupidly written himself into a corner and had no alternative but to "use a paradox" to enable his escape. Having the Doctor go back in time, having escaped, in order to give himself the means to escape is actually a pretty clever use of one aspect of time travel itself as a ingenious means of escape and plot "device". Something rarely, if ever, done in DW until SM's tenure.
Common enough in SF literature.
It's best not to overuse it though as it could get to be like K9 or the sonic screwdriver - the ultimate omni-purpose handy dandy plot resolution device for when things get dicey.:)
And by the way It's not strictly a paradox.
Ah - but "the plot is not something to be solved" is not the same as saying "something needing solved is the plot".
The first is for the writer, the second is for the audience.
It is not the writing that gets worse but your perception of what is being said.
Well apart from your first point which is my prerogative, I haven't claimed that everyone agrees with me, I never called him an egomaniac, that was somebody else, I never mentioned ratings and I never said the show is doomed. I just don't like it's present format/writing. No doubt with a better writer I'd possibly enjoy it again but for now he's ruined my enjoyment of the show. That's not to say it can't change.
I'm not blindly backing Moffat and I'm far from anti RTD but the poor beggars couldn't write a scene with the Doctor tying his shoelace without there being a "fixed point" contravention or some convoluted BS ploy required to get around the timelock.
Besides - if you judge by the "fans" on this forum, there's no point him writing anything original and new cos every character is immediately assumed to be someone we've already had before - 10 seconds of screentime and it's already "impossible" for Missy to be a new character.
Maybe Moffat's doing fine and some people need to stop demanding the same thing every week.
You keep getting it wrong. You mean different writer who is more to your taste. It's a subjective opinion. Objectively, Moff has won all sort of writing awards throughout an illustrious career. There really aren't that many 'better' tv writers out there.
If you don't know the difference between subjective and objective, I'm glad you're not writing for the show...
Oh I think there are many many better TV writers out there. And you are getting it wrong yourself - winning all sorts of writing awards is based on subjective judgements not objective ones.
Moffat has created suspense? I must have missed those five minutes. What also annoys me about Moffat's so called clever use of time travel conceits is why does the Doctor keep meeting the same companions all the time - Amy and Rory, River, that lodger guy and now Clara. Why, for example, doesn't he meet Ian one week, Jamie the next, Jo the week after, etc
Yes, but a series of subjective judgements made over time by different groups or individuals adds up to an objective viewpoint.
You would only be right if they were all awards from the same group of people over and over again. They're not.
Oh, and your opening phrase: epitome of subjective. Just so you know.
You are aware that the Doctor has always been able to travel through time, aren't you? That it's not a new thing that it might be technically possible for the First Doctor to bump into Ace, or the Sixth to walk past Zoe without noticing?
Why doesn't he? Because while the characters can time travel, the actors can't.
The simple fact is, some people love him, others hate him, but overall he's had a lot of success with the show and when he's gone he'll be seen as a god-like relic of the past, just like Russel T Davies is now despite the criticisms he had back when he was showrunner.
And another thing, whether he is a good showrunner or not is also an opinion, not a fact as some people believe.
I personally don't find RTD's era of Doctor Who to my taste and I find a lot of things in it I strongly dislike, but I appreciate he's a very successful writer, and he did amazing things for the show by bringing it back. I love Moffat's Who far more, but it does take a lot from RTD's era and it wouldn't be around without him.
So much hate on this thread, for something so trivial.
I don't find it too hard what's going on... or at least, when storylines are wrapped up they make sense to me. Anyway, the only time I was ever close to feeling Doctor Who had been ruined and that I was about to stop watching was when I saw Voyage of the Damned and Partners in Crime. It's all been good ever since.