Moffat's too obsessed with his own monsters to ever bring back something from the RTD era. We're lucky he even agreed to use the Daleks or Cybermen.
Do you really hate Moffat that much. You're always so negative about him, what makes him so much worse than RTD? Anyway, surely bringing classic monsters back is better than bringing back the Krilitanes and the crappy Slitheen.
Moffat's too obsessed with his own monsters to ever bring back something from the RTD era. We're lucky he even agreed to use the Daleks or Cybermen.
Or Judoon, or Sontarans, or Silurians? Hell, the Big Bang namechecked almost every major race the Doctor's faced, even the ones without costumes.
And from Moffat? Silence and Angels, and some one-offs. I think your claim doesn't hold water.
Yes! The Cybermen! They just haven't had a decent story, Nightmare In Silver wasn't a bad episode but it was quite disappointing. I feel like they need their equivalent of Asylum Of The Daleks, it was such a fantastic episode, The Cybermen need something like that.
I personally think the Cybermen need a good two-part story.
I still maintain you can tell a decent story in 45 minutes, but with legendary enemies like The Cybermen or the Daleks or the Master you need a good two-parter with an excellent cliffhanger.
I still quite like Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel. I still think it is the best New Who cybermen story because it is two parts and is solely about the cybermen, even if they were pointless parallel versions which have been forgotten about.
The point I am making is that when Moffat's been interviewed in the past about the best Doctor Who monsters, he talks about his own creations first - before Daleks, Cybermen, Yeti, Sontarans. He's actually quite dismissive about using classic monsters or those that were created by other people (e.g. RTD and the team).
Four of the five monsters listed in the article that started this thread are from the RTD era: Krillitanes, Raxacoricofallapatorians, Sycorax and Hath (the fifth was the Sontarans).
My view is that no matter how good a new monster was in the RTD era, Moffat wouldn't base an entire story around it when he's got his own amazing creations to re-use, like the Weeping Angels and . . . erm . . . er . . . all the others that are equally as memorable (although I guess technically the Weeping Angels are from the RTD era).
The point I am making is that when Moffat's been interviewed in the past about the best Doctor Who monsters, he talks about his own creations first - before Daleks, Cybermen, Yeti, Sontarans. He's actually quite dismissive about using classic monsters or those that were created by other people (e.g. RTD and the team).
I don't see what's wrong with that, if he feels more comfortable as a writer using his own creations, then do it. Churning out episodes with old enemies for the sake of it is bad in my mind. I'd feel the same if I was in his shoes, go with what I know well - things I've created.
My view is that no matter how good a new monster was in the RTD era, Moffat wouldn't base an entire story around it when he's got his own amazing creations to re-use, like the Weeping Angels and . . . erm . . . er . . . all the others that are equally as memorable (although I guess technically the Weeping Angels are from the RTD era).
Again, what is the problem with that? It just feels that your dislike for him is clouding any sort of sense about what Moffat wants to do as head writer on DW. If he doesn't want to use things from RTD's era, he doesn't have to. This is just like your comment on that Torchwood thread recently where you were saying he was blatantly ignoring it or erasing it from the show at present. He writes DW as he wants, there is no need to keep bringing old enemies back. He prefers new ones, I'd be the same.
He doesn't have to reference RTD's era in anyway whatsoever...this just feels like your dislike for the man is in the way of your arguement.
He doesn't have to reference RTD's era in anyway whatsoever...this just feels like your dislike for the man is in the way of your arguement.
I don't dislike him particularly, and I actually think he's an amazing writer given the right programme (Sherlock is one of my all-time favourite shows).
I just really dislike his version of Doctor Who. It seems as though he is too pre-occupied with his own vision of Who rather than respecting what's gone before.
The Daleks are a good example. For me, RTD's update of the Daleks felt genuine, respectful and necessary. It delivered a new level of threat and cleverness that was necessary for a modern audience and made the Daleks massively popular again - the remote control Dalek was the must-have Christmas present of Christmas 2005, and RTD did that!
Moffat's update just a few years later (the disco Daleks) seemed pointless and somewhat churlish. It seemed he was trying to stamp his own design onto the Daleks rather than accept that RTD and his team had actually done a superb job that didn't need to be 'exterminated'. I felt his update had been completely pointless, driven by ego rather than necessity.
By Asylum, of course, he had to drop his own 'disco Daleks' into the background and put the gold RTD Daleks centre stage again. I doubt he would have done this if the reaction to his 'disco Daleks' hadn't been so overwhelmingly negative.
I don't dislike him particularly, and I actually think he's an amazing writer given the right programme (Sherlock is one of my all-time favourite shows).
I just really dislike his version of Doctor Who. It seems as though he is too pre-occupied with his own vision of Who rather than respecting what's gone before.
The Daleks are a good example. For me, RTD's update of the Daleks felt genuine, respectful and necessary. It delivered a new level of threat and cleverness that was necessary for a modern audience and made the Daleks massively popular again - the remote control Dalek was the must-have Christmas present of Christmas 2005, and RTD did that!
Moffat's update - just a few years later - seemed pointless and somewhat churlish. It seemed he was trying to stamp his own design onto the Daleks rather than accept that RTD and his team had actually done a superb job that didn't need to be 'exterminated'.
By Asylum he had to drop his own 'disco Daleks' into the background and put the gold RTD Daleks centre stage showed me (at least) that his update had been completely pointless and was driven by ego rather than necessity.
I would have thought the design was more of a BBC decision. I have no idea how that works though.
In any case, the Daleks were not and have never been used well in New Who. This is entirely my own opinion of course. They're lame and entirely non-threatening. They look like 60's rejects -- because they are. The fanbase won't allow them to be modernised. So whenever they appear they look ridiculous.
As for "monsters" I'd like to see again. Vashta Nerada. I'd also quite like to see the Angels before they evolved in to quantum locked( or whatever ? ) creatures.
I don't dislike him particularly, and I actually think he's an amazing writer given the right programme (Sherlock is one of my all-time favourite shows).
I just really dislike his version of Doctor Who. It seems as though he is too pre-occupied with his own vision of Who rather than respecting what's gone before.
The Daleks are a good example. For me, RTD's update of the Daleks felt genuine, respectful and necessary. It delivered a new level of threat and cleverness that was necessary for a modern audience and made the Daleks massively popular again - the remote control Dalek was the must-have Christmas present of Christmas 2005, and RTD did that!
Moffat's update - just a few years later - seemed pointless and somewhat churlish. It seemed he was trying to stamp his own design onto the Daleks rather than accept that RTD and his team had actually done a superb job that didn't need to be 'exterminated'.
By Asylum he had to drop his own 'disco Daleks' into the background and put the gold RTD Daleks centre stage showed me (at least) that his update had been completely pointless and was driven by ego rather than necessity.
So according to you, Moffat redesigned the Daleks to boost his own ego? That just sounds utterly ridiculous. Do you not think that orders from above made the redesign happen? That's more likely than an idea from Moff to do it just because...
You seem to think he's done everything he has just to spite Russell and his tenure. It just sounds daft...it is sounding more and more like a personal dislike of yours is clouding everything about his tenure in your mind.
I just really dislike his version of Doctor Who. It seems as though he is too pre-occupied with his own vision of Who rather than respecting what's gone before.
What is wrong with that? What you described is essential not just to Doctor Who but to all of the senior jobs in the world. Who can get away with relying on old ideas? You need new ideas to keep something going and I have no issue with Moffat's take on Doctor Who. If we focus on the past more than creating new ideas Doctor Who will end.
So according to you, Moffat redesigned the Daleks to boost his own ego? That just sounds utterly ridiculous. Do you not think that orders from above made the redesign happen? That's more likely than an idea from Moff to do it just because...
You seem to think he's done everything he has just to spite Russell and his tenure. It just sounds daft...it is sounding more and more like a personal dislike of yours is clouding everything about his tenure in your mind.
Its an opinion based on 4 years of his version of Who and many interviews he has given, both in print and online. Sadly, he does come across (to me at least) as being somewhat arrogant. I don't think he's got anything against RTD, I think he's simply driven by a need to stamp his own mark onto everything in the show - and that sometimes means making (in my opinion) pointless changes.
By the way, the idea that there's some BBC department issuing instructions from on-high to Moffat that he must redesign the Daleks is simply ridiculous (and I'm a former BBC employee).
What is wrong with that? You need new ideas to keep something going and I have no issue with Moffat's take on Doctor Who. If we focus on the past more than creating new ideas Doctor Who will end.
We're not talking about new ideas, we're talking about updates. And pointless ones at that.
We're not talking about new ideas, we're talking about updates. And pointless ones at that.
The bit I quoted was talking about ideas. That is why I quoted it. Also how do you know an update is pointless in television until you tested it with the audience? If you can tell projects will fail or succeed before they are even attempted then you must be very rich.
The bit I quoted was talking about ideas. That is why I quoted it. Also how do you know an update is pointless in television until you tested it with the audience?
There's an old adage; If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
There's an old adage; If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
That doesn't explain anything though. You need new ideas especially in television. You can't get away with repeating the same type of doctor who over 50+ years. You need a new direction, yes some people dislike some producers over another but I think it is silly to say someone driving their own vision is a bad thing. Doctor Who is about change if you cannot grasp that concept then I wouldn't say you were a Doctor Who fan.
There's also an insinuation here that RTD didn't do exactly the same thing and stamp himself firmly in to Who. You seem to be forgetting this is the man that killed off Gallifrey and the entire Time Lord species.
There's also an insinuation here that RTD didn't do exactly the same thing and stamp himself firmly in to Who. You seem to be forgetting this is the man that killed off Gallifrey and the entire Time Lord species.
To be fair, RTD had the task of updating a show that had been off the air for 16 years, axed because it was old fashioned, unpopular and no longer taken seriously. Bringing the show back - as it was - simply wasn't an option.
There was a need for change (and big change) in 2005 that simply wasn't there when RTD handed the reigns to Moffat.
As an aside, its amazing how many new members with very few posts seem to be expressing exactly the same opinions!
To be fair, RTD had the task of updating a show that had been off the air for 16 years, axed because it was old fashioned, unpopular and no longer taken seriously. Bringing the show back - as it was - simply wasn't an option.
There was a need for change (and big change) in 2005 that simply wasn't there when he handed the reigns to Moffat.
But removing Gallifrey and the Time Lords isn't what made New Who popular. Turning it in to a populist soap was( nothing wrong with this in my opinion ).
You seem to be saying it's fine for RTD to do these things but it's not fine for Moffat. Personally I like both eras.
To be fair, RTD had the task of updating a show that had been off the air for 16 years, axed because it was old fashioned, unpopular and no longer taken seriously. Bringing the show back - as it was - simply wasn't an option.
There was a need for change (and big change) in 2005 that simply wasn't there when RTD handed the reigns to Moffat.
As an aside, its amazing how many new members with very few posts seem to be expressing exactly the same opinions!
Hang on a minute isn't that driving their own vision and not relying mostly on the past. How can RTD be allowed to do it and Moffat can't? Also it shows clearly your argument is flawed when you have to talk about forum members.
To be fair, RTD had the task of updating a show that had been off the air for 16 years, axed because it was old fashioned, unpopular and no longer taken seriously. Bringing the show back - as it was - simply wasn't an option.
There was a need for change (and big change) in 2005 that simply wasn't there when RTD handed the reigns to Moffat.
As an aside, its amazing how many new members with very few posts seem to be expressing exactly the same opinions!
So the show should have carried on and played safe when Moff took over - try nothing new, become unadventurous, stale etc, etc because RTD set up it's return to the screens?
It does seem to be one rule for RTD and one rule for Moffat according to you...
But removing Gallifrey and the Time Lords isn't what made New Who popular. Turning it in to a populist soap was( nothing wrong with this in my opinion ).
You seem to be saying it's fine for RTD to do these things but it's not fine for Moffat. Personally I like both eras.
I have no problem with clever, smart, necessary change. My point is that this hasn't always been the case with Moffat's version of Who.
Some of his changes (in my opinion) have been driven by a personal need to stamp his own vision onto the show rather than accepting and working with those things that had already made the show popular and massively successful.
This feeds into his use of monsters (and hence the point of this thread) and which monsters he prioritises/has most interest in.
I have no problem with clever, smart, necessary change. My point is that this hasn't always been the case with Moffat's version of Who.
Some of his changes (in my opinion) have been driven by a personal need to stamp his own vision onto the show rather than accepting and working with those things that had already made the show popular and massively successful.
This feeds into his use of monsters (and hence the point of this thread) and which monsters he prioritises/has most interest in.
I don't understand how removing the Time Lords was clever, smart or necessary. He could have just not used or mentioned them. Removing them was specifically stamping his own vision on to the show. It's pretty much defined New Who. But in any case, don't all new lead producers/head writers stamp their own vision on to the show -- isn't that what Who is about.
I don't understand how removing the Time Lords was clever, smart or necessary. He could have just not used or mentioned them. Removing them was specifically stamping his own vision on to the show. It's pretty much defined New Who. But in any case, don't all new lead producers/head writers stamp their own vision on to the show -- isn't that what Who is about.
I think making the Doctor the last of his race was clever, smart and necessary. It gave his character a sense of loss and loneliness that has worked beautifully for the past eight years. The time war itself gave the show an ongoing theme that, again, has worked beautifully. Clearly the time war is an element of RTD's Who that Moffat's happy to work with.
I would say, again, that there is a massive difference between picking up and running with an already successful show and re-launching a show that's been off-air for 16 years. RTD and Moffat were in completely different situations when they each took over the show.
Comments
Do you really hate Moffat that much. You're always so negative about him, what makes him so much worse than RTD? Anyway, surely bringing classic monsters back is better than bringing back the Krilitanes and the crappy Slitheen.
Or Judoon, or Sontarans, or Silurians? Hell, the Big Bang namechecked almost every major race the Doctor's faced, even the ones without costumes.
And from Moffat? Silence and Angels, and some one-offs. I think your claim doesn't hold water.
I personally think the Cybermen need a good two-part story.
I still maintain you can tell a decent story in 45 minutes, but with legendary enemies like The Cybermen or the Daleks or the Master you need a good two-parter with an excellent cliffhanger.
I still quite like Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel. I still think it is the best New Who cybermen story because it is two parts and is solely about the cybermen, even if they were pointless parallel versions which have been forgotten about.
The point I am making is that when Moffat's been interviewed in the past about the best Doctor Who monsters, he talks about his own creations first - before Daleks, Cybermen, Yeti, Sontarans. He's actually quite dismissive about using classic monsters or those that were created by other people (e.g. RTD and the team).
Four of the five monsters listed in the article that started this thread are from the RTD era: Krillitanes, Raxacoricofallapatorians, Sycorax and Hath (the fifth was the Sontarans).
My view is that no matter how good a new monster was in the RTD era, Moffat wouldn't base an entire story around it when he's got his own amazing creations to re-use, like the Weeping Angels and . . . erm . . . er . . . all the others that are equally as memorable (although I guess technically the Weeping Angels are from the RTD era).
He would be excellent in a Christmas special I think.
I don't see what's wrong with that, if he feels more comfortable as a writer using his own creations, then do it. Churning out episodes with old enemies for the sake of it is bad in my mind. I'd feel the same if I was in his shoes, go with what I know well - things I've created.
Again, what is the problem with that? It just feels that your dislike for him is clouding any sort of sense about what Moffat wants to do as head writer on DW. If he doesn't want to use things from RTD's era, he doesn't have to. This is just like your comment on that Torchwood thread recently where you were saying he was blatantly ignoring it or erasing it from the show at present. He writes DW as he wants, there is no need to keep bringing old enemies back. He prefers new ones, I'd be the same.
He doesn't have to reference RTD's era in anyway whatsoever...this just feels like your dislike for the man is in the way of your arguement.
I don't dislike him particularly, and I actually think he's an amazing writer given the right programme (Sherlock is one of my all-time favourite shows).
I just really dislike his version of Doctor Who. It seems as though he is too pre-occupied with his own vision of Who rather than respecting what's gone before.
The Daleks are a good example. For me, RTD's update of the Daleks felt genuine, respectful and necessary. It delivered a new level of threat and cleverness that was necessary for a modern audience and made the Daleks massively popular again - the remote control Dalek was the must-have Christmas present of Christmas 2005, and RTD did that!
Moffat's update just a few years later (the disco Daleks) seemed pointless and somewhat churlish. It seemed he was trying to stamp his own design onto the Daleks rather than accept that RTD and his team had actually done a superb job that didn't need to be 'exterminated'. I felt his update had been completely pointless, driven by ego rather than necessity.
By Asylum, of course, he had to drop his own 'disco Daleks' into the background and put the gold RTD Daleks centre stage again. I doubt he would have done this if the reaction to his 'disco Daleks' hadn't been so overwhelmingly negative.
But that's my view on Moffat and monsters.
I would have thought the design was more of a BBC decision. I have no idea how that works though.
In any case, the Daleks were not and have never been used well in New Who. This is entirely my own opinion of course. They're lame and entirely non-threatening. They look like 60's rejects -- because they are. The fanbase won't allow them to be modernised. So whenever they appear they look ridiculous.
As for "monsters" I'd like to see again. Vashta Nerada. I'd also quite like to see the Angels before they evolved in to quantum locked( or whatever ? ) creatures.
So according to you, Moffat redesigned the Daleks to boost his own ego? That just sounds utterly ridiculous. Do you not think that orders from above made the redesign happen? That's more likely than an idea from Moff to do it just because...
You seem to think he's done everything he has just to spite Russell and his tenure. It just sounds daft...it is sounding more and more like a personal dislike of yours is clouding everything about his tenure in your mind.
What is wrong with that? What you described is essential not just to Doctor Who but to all of the senior jobs in the world. Who can get away with relying on old ideas? You need new ideas to keep something going and I have no issue with Moffat's take on Doctor Who. If we focus on the past more than creating new ideas Doctor Who will end.
Its an opinion based on 4 years of his version of Who and many interviews he has given, both in print and online. Sadly, he does come across (to me at least) as being somewhat arrogant. I don't think he's got anything against RTD, I think he's simply driven by a need to stamp his own mark onto everything in the show - and that sometimes means making (in my opinion) pointless changes.
By the way, the idea that there's some BBC department issuing instructions from on-high to Moffat that he must redesign the Daleks is simply ridiculous (and I'm a former BBC employee).
We're not talking about new ideas, we're talking about updates. And pointless ones at that.
The bit I quoted was talking about ideas. That is why I quoted it. Also how do you know an update is pointless in television until you tested it with the audience? If you can tell projects will fail or succeed before they are even attempted then you must be very rich.
There's an old adage; If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
That doesn't explain anything though. You need new ideas especially in television. You can't get away with repeating the same type of doctor who over 50+ years. You need a new direction, yes some people dislike some producers over another but I think it is silly to say someone driving their own vision is a bad thing. Doctor Who is about change if you cannot grasp that concept then I wouldn't say you were a Doctor Who fan.
Funny, because I'd say the same about someone who demands change for the sake of it.
So basically in a show that changes often you say someone isn't a fan because they are used to and expects regular changes to the programme.
To be fair, RTD had the task of updating a show that had been off the air for 16 years, axed because it was old fashioned, unpopular and no longer taken seriously. Bringing the show back - as it was - simply wasn't an option.
There was a need for change (and big change) in 2005 that simply wasn't there when RTD handed the reigns to Moffat.
As an aside, its amazing how many new members with very few posts seem to be expressing exactly the same opinions!
But removing Gallifrey and the Time Lords isn't what made New Who popular. Turning it in to a populist soap was( nothing wrong with this in my opinion ).
You seem to be saying it's fine for RTD to do these things but it's not fine for Moffat. Personally I like both eras.
I hope you're not calling me a sock puppet.
Hang on a minute isn't that driving their own vision and not relying mostly on the past. How can RTD be allowed to do it and Moffat can't? Also it shows clearly your argument is flawed when you have to talk about forum members.
So the show should have carried on and played safe when Moff took over - try nothing new, become unadventurous, stale etc, etc because RTD set up it's return to the screens?
It does seem to be one rule for RTD and one rule for Moffat according to you...
I have no problem with clever, smart, necessary change. My point is that this hasn't always been the case with Moffat's version of Who.
Some of his changes (in my opinion) have been driven by a personal need to stamp his own vision onto the show rather than accepting and working with those things that had already made the show popular and massively successful.
This feeds into his use of monsters (and hence the point of this thread) and which monsters he prioritises/has most interest in.
I don't understand how removing the Time Lords was clever, smart or necessary. He could have just not used or mentioned them. Removing them was specifically stamping his own vision on to the show. It's pretty much defined New Who. But in any case, don't all new lead producers/head writers stamp their own vision on to the show -- isn't that what Who is about.
I think making the Doctor the last of his race was clever, smart and necessary. It gave his character a sense of loss and loneliness that has worked beautifully for the past eight years. The time war itself gave the show an ongoing theme that, again, has worked beautifully. Clearly the time war is an element of RTD's Who that Moffat's happy to work with.
I would say, again, that there is a massive difference between picking up and running with an already successful show and re-launching a show that's been off-air for 16 years. RTD and Moffat were in completely different situations when they each took over the show.