RTD vs Mottat Tone

scott26985scott26985 Posts: 1,012
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Ive been re-watching some of the tennet eps after not having seen them in a long time. I was amazed by how much The RTD period now looks like a children's programme. The look, tone and particularly the acting all feel very child focused. Im not talking about tennet himself but rather all the co-stars (Martha and her family for example seem to be in the CBBC frame of acting). By comparison Mottat's stuff feels much more like a major international TV show.

The look of the show was a shock to the memory. Matt's episodes look beautiful and like they belong on prime-time TV. Tennet's episodes by compassion look basic and rather cartoon-like in places. Im not taking about the CG but things like the lighting, camera angles and sets.

Ive just been watching 'The Lazarus Experiment' and it really does feel like something that would be more at home on CBBC.

Maybe Im being unfair and this isnt a moan but rather just an observation on my part. I loved Tennet's Doctor (still do) but the show doesn't really compare to the Matt Smith times. Anyone else feel this way?
«13

Comments

  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Of course the RTD era was different, it's called family entertainment.

    The show has definitely gone in the direction of US-style adult-focussed science-fiction series. It'll be cancelled soon, just to complete the whole "US look".
  • Joe_ZelJoe_Zel Posts: 20,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the actual tone is not too different between them.

    The major difference is the CGI, cinematography which has a hell of a lot more money thrown into it in recent years that it didn't have before. So not really an RTD/Moffat thing but budget.

    I agree about Martha and her family. Awful.

    But the earlier episodes do have that "real ness" to the picture, like in a soap but recent years are more "filmic".
  • HypnosssHypnosss Posts: 1,202
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Is Tennet the new Davidson?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,830
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I much preferred RTD's tenure. he wrote for the audience with a broad scope, whereas Moff seems to write for himself, with a much more limited vision.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,895
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's fluctuated for me. RTD DW was just getting that more darker and more mature road toward the end of S4 and the following specials. Still definitely aimed towards younger audiences but turned into something a bit darker and deeper than what was before.

    I adore the tone of S5 and 6 though. It was fantastical with huge elements of light and dark not to mention more cinematic. It was also more intimate with smaller scale episodes which I liked.

    However recently from probably 7B onwards it's felt more kiddy than ever. It maybe more visually appealing than the standard BBCesque look of the RTD era but the way the characters talk, the plot and even stuff like sound effects makes it feel childish to me.
    The zanyness and quick nature of the episode is perfect for kids who just want to watch some fluff on a Saturday night but I loved it when Moffat gave more for the adult.

    Go back to The Impossible astronaut yes there were moments of childishness but it gave a storyline genuinely appealing for all ages. Yesterday I couldn't tell you what the story was. The Doctor turns up in a dinosaur and there are some robots who happen to be there who now the doctor has to stop. Basic plot but that is it stretched out to 80 minutes. Now back to TIA yes it had a basic plot with The Doctor and the kid who is missing but it was peppered with some genuinely unnerving moments, touch character interactions, moments of actual danger.

    I get it was supposed to be a harmless romp but I swear that is how Moffat has described his last 4 or 5 episodes. A fun harmless romp shouldn't be confused with a series of wacky consecutive scenes. If you're making it fun, make it at least work. Dont put a t rex in there because it will look cool cause it just ends up unnecessary.

    I have the same issues with the last 3 Smith episodes and Moffat's ep of Sherlock S3. On that he spent an entire episode reintroducing the characters (that is how the described it) which was stupid as in 1 episode time they'd all be leaving again.

    If you are gonna market the series as a darker direction with a darker older Doctor dont undermine that by having every word out of his be as manic and ridiculous as Smith's. Tone it back. Maybe where people would have the witty quip, Capaldi's would stay silent or be very very deadpan. It would be different from what Smith's brought which would have made him feel different which IMO was the issue most had. Which was that he was 12 with 11's mouth.
  • codename_47codename_47 Posts: 9,678
    Forum Member
    Hypnosss wrote: »
    Is Tennet the new Davidson?

    Welllll.....If he was a very modern man and took his wife's family name after Marriage, he could be :p

    I'll make no secret this was my favourite era, everything just seemed a lot more "fun" and enjoyable back then, some eps were borderline sci-fi sit-com (which for me was a massive plus)

    But as others have said, I don't see a massive difference between the 9-10-11 era.
    Minor, stylistic things might changed (theme/titles, look of the tardis, filming techniques etc) but the heart and very core of the show is as rooted in the seeds that were planted in Rose as ever.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 500
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Welllll.....If he was a very modern man and took his wife's family name after Marriage, he could be :p

    I'll make no secret this was my favourite era, everything just seemed a lot more "fun" and enjoyable back then, some eps were borderline sci-fi sit-com (which for me was a massive plus)

    But as others have said, I don't see a massive difference between the 9-10-11 era.
    Minor, stylistic things might changed (theme/titles, look of the tardis, filming techniques etc) but the heart and very core of the show is as rooted in the seeds that were planted in Rose as ever.

    Pity Georgia was called Moffett and not Davidson :p
  • codename_47codename_47 Posts: 9,678
    Forum Member
    Pity Georgia was called Moffett and not Davidson :p

    Huh, I assumed she was just Georgia Davison and she had to change to Moffat for equity.

    Ah well, can't win 'em all ;)
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,911
    Forum Member
    Tassium wrote: »
    Of course the RTD era was different, it's called family entertainment.

    The show has definitely gone in the direction of US-style adult-focussed science-fiction series. It'll be cancelled soon, just to complete the whole "US look".

    Funny thing is that the more frequent complaint is that the show is too childish now, but for you it is too adult. But no the show won't be cancelled soon just because you don't like it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 36
    Forum Member
    I much preferred the RTD era if I'm honest. No need for overblown, nonsensical story arcs and had great character development.
    I'm not totally going against Moffat, I enjoyed most of series 5. I also think there was poor CGI in both eras, but RTD has much more of an excuse for it because of the drastically lower budget, as well as technology restrictions. I though the CGI in the Van Gogh episode was pretty damn awful as well.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 24,080
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Personally I prefer Mofatts direction....RTD did feel very open/accessable and childlike in approach....bar exceptions...and i never really fell in love with the new episodes of Doctor Who until 2010 ...ever since then i have really enjoyed it...although Series 7 had a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on and felt disjointed and looser than the tighter handled 5 and 6...it was still great.

    The Moff also handled the 50th superbly and has allowed to translate the show worldwide like never before....Deep Breath also IMO Is such a class act of an episode .....series 8 is proving the show is going from strenvth to strength....adore the steampunk/gothic vibes...it really feels like DOCTOR WHO...scary/eerie, action but also quirky and fun and very BRITISH...i love it.
  • Xmas_TrenzaloreXmas_Trenzalore Posts: 550
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    They both have their pros and cons.

    I think RTD had a better grasp at marrying the domestic family side of the show with the science fiction, but sometimes allowed the overblown emotional side to take precedent over the plot, leading to some rushed endings with quick solutions.

    I think Moffat's era does some more ambitious out of the box stuff, but is sometimes so dead set on being clever and game changing that it just ends up being exhausting due to delayed gratification and over-hyping.
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    RTD Era Pro's and Con's

    + Brilliant character writing, all the way through to family members and guest characters.
    + Appreciation for zany and over-the-top concepts about the future.
    + Often quite simple but powerful concepts.
    - Restricted by a tighter budget.
    - Sometimes character-driven crossed the border into soapy.
    - Some ideas went over-the-top - Slitheen, Absorbaloff...I'm looking at you.

    Moffat Era Pro's and Con's

    + Genuine sense of scale and spectacle.
    + Some brilliant ideas and a sense of fun most of the time.
    + When the clever ideas pay off, they're very good.
    - Less coherent (usually character) writing, sometimes genuinely very poor.
    - Sometimes style over substance, particularly in the last year or two.
    - Sometimes over-ambitious. Stories become too complicated, CGI/green screen over used so it looks too artificial (Deep Breath one of the biggest culprits).

    There we go, three balanced pros and cons from each side. They both have a lot to offer, but neither are perfect. It boils down to personal preference, and currently RTD still holds the crown for me. I think it has the upper edge where the standard of writing was concerned, and also in terms of characters. I'm happy to let Series 8 sway my opinion on thatm but we'll wait and see.
  • Michael_EveMichael_Eve Posts: 14,412
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There was a lot I enjoyed in the RTD era, which I thought reached it's peak with Series 4 and the Ten/Donna combination (and Wilf, of course!) Some of the early stories I agree feel a bit Cartoonish in retrospect, but the programme had to find it's feet. Waters of Mars aside, felt things tailed off with the Specials, and it was the right time for a change.

    I immediately loved the fairy tale vibe of The Eleventh Hour and Series 5 remains my favourite C21 series and overall I would say I prefer the Moffat era. It's not perfect either, no era is IMO, and despite being a bit underwhelmed by some of Series 7, the recent specials I loved and things look interesting for this series and Capaldi.

    Nice to read the thoughtful posts up thread. No RTD was dreadful, No Moffat is a hack tediousness for once.

    Still, it's early yet. ;-)
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What Moffat did at first with season 5 was fine, but I sense he was taken to task by the suits at the BBC for the complexity and adultness of tone. He was being very self-indulgent I think.

    So since last season each episode feels somewhat empty and child-like with regards the human interaction and dialogue. The story is thin.

    But then Moffat sprinkles sex over the whole thing... It's a very bizarre combination.
  • jpljpl Posts: 286
    Forum Member
    Going back to the OP The big change in the look between RTD and Moffat's era was down to camera selection. Tennant's episodes for filmed with typical TV cameras with smaller resolution and smaller sensors.

    The cameras the used from TEH onwards have bigger sensors which are around the size of traditional Film and they used different lenses with a lot of primes being used (prime lenses are fixed and can't be zoomed in our out)

    the larger sensor and the lenses used have allowed the director to have shallow depth of field which basically means they can make the background or other elements more drastically out of focus. In the RTD era the camera had more in focus giving a 'flatter' image

    That means you could see the doctor's face very sharp while everyone behind him in the shot is blurred, it means the viewer knows exactly who they are supposed to concentrate on and as that changes the director can change who is in focus. It also creates depth in the frame as the further away something is from the person or object in focus the greater they blurred

    This 'look' is often described as 'filmic' and gives a more expensive feel to it. along with lighting and colour grading it is the main reason the two eras look so different


    Hope that makes sense, I've tried to keep it simple as I can
  • CorwinCorwin Posts: 16,573
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I much preferred the RTD era if I'm honest. No need for overblown, nonsensical story arcs and had great character development.
    I'm not totally going against Moffat, I enjoyed most of series 5. I also think there was poor CGI in both eras, but RTD has much more of an excuse for it because of the drastically lower budget, as well as technology restrictions. I though the CGI in the Van Gogh episode was pretty damn awful as well.

    What drastically lower budget? From what I recall the show (along with all BBC shows) had it's budget cut in the last few years so I doubt Moffat has much (if any) more money to work with than RTD did.
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yep, it amuses me that all the comparisons people made when the new series began, about how much better it all looked compared to the classic series, can now be convincingly made between Moffat's and RTD's eras. Issues with writing aside, the show undoubtedly looks its very best these days, whereas Eccleston and Tennant's stories look positively primitive.
  • MulettMulett Posts: 9,055
    Forum Member
    You have to remember the show has been on air for almost a decade now and there have been constant developments during that time to CGI technology as well as the techniques used to make prosthetics.

    I certainly don't feel there was anything childish about the RTD era. If anything the emphasis on character and the relationships between the Doctor, his companions and their friends and family was perhaps a little more adult.

    I do agree that the show is a little more American now with more emphasis on story arcs than characterisation, although I do feel there was a big shift in 'Deep Breath' back towards character-based drama which I personally welcome.
  • TheSilentFezTheSilentFez Posts: 11,102
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There are bits and pieces of both eras I like and bits and pieces of both eras I do not like:

    RTD
    -He wrote excellent characters
    -His series as a whole felt very coherent and finished.
    -He seemed to appeal to the general masses a lot more

    However;
    -He seemed to have this idea of making each finale bigger and more explosive than the last, which often came at the cost of the actual story.
    -IMO, RTD at his lowest was worse than Moffat at his lowest.
    -Some episodes did come across as a bit childish (Adipose, Slitheen etc.), but then you have episodes like Midnight and The Waters of Mars which really don't.


    Moffat
    -He often writes very clever scripts (though sometimes he tries to be too clever and this backfires)
    -I like that he plans more complicated story arcs (although, I prefer it when he actually wraps them up properly)
    -I like a lot more of Moffat's individual episodes than RTD

    However;
    -He doesn't place a lot of emphasis on character development and a lot of his female characters seem to fall back on a "strong, sassy, flirty woman" archetype.
    -Sometimes his scripts are filled with supposedly witty "one-liners" which just end up being irritating and coming across as quite glib.
    -In recent years he seems to have had a noticeable lack of organisation... but I think this seems to have been fixed with Series 8 (by his own admission)

    I'm happy with both eras, to be honest, but I do think Moffat should think about leaving. We all know what happened the last time a showrunner stayed too long.
    Doctor Who needs to change fairly frequently to keep itself fresh.
  • doctor blue boxdoctor blue box Posts: 7,203
    Forum Member
    petertard wrote: »
    I much preferred RTD's tenure. he wrote for the audience with a broad scope, whereas Moff seems to write for himself, with a much more limited vision.

    I agree. RTD era had much more scope. Occasional silly alien's for the kids. Epic drama in both the characterization and in the plots for everyone else. Moffat era has yet to make me care so much about the characters of either the doctor or his companions quite as much as I did with eccleston/tennant and their companions. Also the Moffat seems to write for himself thing rings true. stuff like the multi series bit part arc and the 'impossible girl' storyline feel like things he thought would be cool to see rather than thinking/caring about how the audience would take it, or more importantly whether he could actually write it coherently when it came down to it.

    With all that being said though, I have to say that I like to think that Moffat is now 'getting it' and indeed there was that article the other day where he said he felt he'd finally got a handle on things. Based on episode 1 (which I liked) I do feel and hope that the characterization involved with the relationship between 12 and Clara looks like it will be so much better than 11 and Clara.

    As long as the resolution to the 'missy' story is made simple yet interesting rather than over complex and as a result boring, and 12 and Clara's relationship continue's to flourish I feel like this could be Moffat's best series so far.
  • Joe_ZelJoe_Zel Posts: 20,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Corwin wrote: »
    What drastically lower budget? From what I recall the show (along with all BBC shows) had it's budget cut in the last few years so I doubt Moffat has much (if any) more money to work with than RTD did.

    There is no way on earth Moffat has had his budget cut back to what RTD was working with at the beginning.
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,911
    Forum Member
    Joe_Zel wrote: »
    There is no way on earth Moffat has had his budget cut back to what RTD was working with at the beginning.

    I've no idea what the budget was in 2005 or what it is now but there was a cut before series 5:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8580299.stm

    I expect it also had an impact on costs when they went to HD.
  • Joe_ZelJoe_Zel Posts: 20,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DiscoP wrote: »
    I've no idea what the budget was in 2005 or what it is now but there was a cut before series 5:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8580299.stm

    I expect it also had an impact on costs when they went to HD.

    Prior to series 5, I doubt the budget is as squeezed as that now, what with its growing worldwide popularity and shooting episodes abroad.
  • tszujmetszujme Posts: 1,221
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Huh, I assumed she was just Georgia Davison and she had to change to Moffat for equity.

    Ah well, can't win 'em all ;)

    Moffett (not Moffat) is Georgia and Peter's real surname. Davison is just a stage name. PD's young sons, who are both aspiring actors, do use Davison as their stage names though (they go by Moffett in real life), I guess because it helps make them stand out, to have a famous name. Of course Georgia uses her husband's stage name now and also changed her actor son's name to that. They are quite intent on building a dynasty!
Sign In or Register to comment.