How to ''fix'' Who
Tiernan_Mccarth
Posts: 218 Forum Member
✭
It is very evident that there is a few problems that need to be tweaked with the show and I have some suggestions.
Two Parters
Since the first half of series 6 we haven't had one two part story. Which means we haven't had a two part story since JUNE 2011!!! That's 3 years without one. Sure this would be less of a problem if the single episodes were good, but some of them are atrocious. Episodes like Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, A Town Called Mercy, The Rings of Akhaten, The Crimson Horror and Journey to the Centre of the Tardis were just mind numbingly horrendous. I'm not slating Moffat, in fact most of these episodes are other writers, but he really needs to get his act together.
Lack of Reference to RTD Era
Aside from a few holograms in the Tardis of RTD companions we have barely any reference to the Russell T Davies era. Moffat repetitively tells us that it's ''about looking forward more than back'' but with a show based around time and space travel you'd expect a pretty fair spread. Russell invented many new aliens but Moffat seems more focused on his own creations. I'm not saying that he should ignore his own creations but he seems to have overused them to the point where the weeping angels seem to appear more than the Daleks and Silents are as entertaining as someone pulling a push door. With a wide variety of creatures to pick from such as Slitheen, ood, Judoon, Hath, Hoix, Cat people and the Shadow Proclomation it's not like Moffat is struggling to find any.
Mark Gatiss
Since working with Gatiss on Sherlock Moffat seems to be throwing a lot of his scripts in there. I'm not saying that Gatiss is a horrible writer, in fact he is the opposite. I loved an adventure in time and space and I loved The Unquiet Dead. However Gatiss should not be donating so many scripts. He especially should not be given episodes like recreating the Daleks and reintroducing the Ice Warriors. Both episodes could have been written much much better. Gatiss also had a lot of input into the new daleks design which is horrible. The new Daleks look like they came to London to visit Pride this weekend and following newer Dalek episodes I can see Moffat understands his mistake by reverting to their old look.
RANT OVER. Your Thoughts?
Two Parters
Since the first half of series 6 we haven't had one two part story. Which means we haven't had a two part story since JUNE 2011!!! That's 3 years without one. Sure this would be less of a problem if the single episodes were good, but some of them are atrocious. Episodes like Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, A Town Called Mercy, The Rings of Akhaten, The Crimson Horror and Journey to the Centre of the Tardis were just mind numbingly horrendous. I'm not slating Moffat, in fact most of these episodes are other writers, but he really needs to get his act together.
Lack of Reference to RTD Era
Aside from a few holograms in the Tardis of RTD companions we have barely any reference to the Russell T Davies era. Moffat repetitively tells us that it's ''about looking forward more than back'' but with a show based around time and space travel you'd expect a pretty fair spread. Russell invented many new aliens but Moffat seems more focused on his own creations. I'm not saying that he should ignore his own creations but he seems to have overused them to the point where the weeping angels seem to appear more than the Daleks and Silents are as entertaining as someone pulling a push door. With a wide variety of creatures to pick from such as Slitheen, ood, Judoon, Hath, Hoix, Cat people and the Shadow Proclomation it's not like Moffat is struggling to find any.
Mark Gatiss
Since working with Gatiss on Sherlock Moffat seems to be throwing a lot of his scripts in there. I'm not saying that Gatiss is a horrible writer, in fact he is the opposite. I loved an adventure in time and space and I loved The Unquiet Dead. However Gatiss should not be donating so many scripts. He especially should not be given episodes like recreating the Daleks and reintroducing the Ice Warriors. Both episodes could have been written much much better. Gatiss also had a lot of input into the new daleks design which is horrible. The new Daleks look like they came to London to visit Pride this weekend and following newer Dalek episodes I can see Moffat understands his mistake by reverting to their old look.
RANT OVER. Your Thoughts?
0
Comments
RTD era gets referenced enough to be honest, but I do think it's time for creature like the Weeping Angels and Silence to be rested. We do need to see the Master and Davros though.
I don't mind Gatiss but I do feel he doesn't challenge himself when it comes to his scripts. I'd like him to write something that genuinely would surprise me though.
In terms of future companions - someone from the past or far future or even a non British companion would be a nice change.
I'd quite like an alien companion for the Doctor and a possibly a return from Jack (seeing as he is partly Moffat's Character). I'd love for Davros or the Master to be brought back but I don't think Moffat is strong enough to write an above average story for them. For characters like the Master and Davros you need a really strong writer who doesn't write himself into a corner and then punch his way out
Well I believe there is a problem with pacing in some episodes but there is no serious issues with the show. As for Gatiss did he have input into the new daleks? And if he did then his decisions would have to be approved not only by Moffat but people at the BBC as well. As for the one parters you mentioned, you are presenting your own opinion of them as if it is fact.
Ahem. Sorry. As an admirer of Matt's era, am obviously going to disagree with a lot of that, but....
1. As a number of 2 parters are right up there for me in C21 Who (Child/Dances; Impossible/Satan; Human/Blood; Time/Flesh; Pandorica/Bang;Astronaut/Moon..) I'd be happy to see them return.
2. Why? Doctor Who moves on. If they kept referencing Hartnell's era in Troughton's era, it would have been completely backward looking. Same with any other 2 eras you might want to mention. The navel-gazing that started in Peter D's era (which is my era and I love it, but I admit this) lead IMO to some stultifying, continuity laden stories, particularly in Season 22. You've gotta keep moving!
3. Looking at his most recent work, I enjoyed 'Cold War'; very traditional, very Troughton,; no classic but good fun. And The Crimson Horror is probably my favourite Gattis episode so far. I think it's great.
Still, it's all so subjective. If you don't like recent Who, it needs fixing. If you like recent Who, it doesn't.
I just want the show to continue to change, surprise and entertain. Not long now before I can see if, IMO, it does. Which is nice. :kitty:
2)drop anything to do with revealing the doctors name, as there obviously never going to say a name, and episodes with that tease have already become a bore,
3)most importantly make sure every story and every arc has a concrete and clear to see start, middle and end.
Apart from that things are okay. Moffat has the creativity in spades, but he just needs to make sure his stories are interesting yet coherent, and with episodes with twists, turns and mysteries he needs to be sure that at the end of the episode/arc, everything that took place is now clear and we have the answers which we followed the arc along to get.
It depends on the story.
From my experience, most two parters were either very good or very bad.
YES!!!!!
I LOVE Moffat, but he made a HUGE mistake when he changed everything in one point. Change is good, but it has to be done progressively, not in in some points. We should avoid creating eras because it is very bad for continuity. When the new Doctor is introduced, nothing else should be changed (like in Eccleston/Tennant regeneration -> Rose and her family saved continuity in series 2, although she had a much better chemistry with 9th). Moffat era was brilliant, but it was just too much change in Eleventh Hour. Changing the Doctor, TARDIS console, all characters, complete storyline and Daleks was just too much. As I said, I SUPPORT CHANGE, but PROGRESSIVELY, not in some points.
Not only do I think Moffat should plan out the main events of the story arc well in advance so less of the plot developments feel like they've just been made up on the spot, I think he should also share his ideas with the other writers so they too know what's going to happen. This didn't seem to be the case with much of Series 7. I think I remember that Neil Gaiman initially wrote Nightmare in Silver with Clara the Victorian barmaid, but there then had to be a hasty re-write as Moffat decided right at the last moment to make Clara from the present day. The last minute changes to Name of the Doctor also meant that in Nightmare in Silver, the Cyberplanner in the Doctor's head said something like "you've had 10 complete rejigs", but then in the very next episode the War Doctor is revealed. Neil Gaiman would not have included that "ten complete rejigs" line if he knew about the War Doctor. In Nightmare in Silver, the Doctor threatens to regenerate, but then in Time of the Doctor it is revealed that the Doctor can no longer regenerate.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I'd like it if where possible (and I know it isn't always possible) there should be better planning and fewer last-minute rewrites and better sharing of ideas.
The disjointedness of the past few years might be part of the reason for this, so I'm confident that Series 8 will be a lot better structured and thought out. Moffat also claims to have just come up with the finale of Series 9 so I suppose that means he is indeed planning well ahead, which is good news.
Personally, I think I'd prefer it if Doctor Who were written by a team of writers rather than just one main showrunner who delegates jobs out to other "guest" writers.
The ratings for the Day of the Doctor were quite high. I think there were over 16 million viewers watching in the UK alone.
As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
No sex references! End the damn kissing between Doctor & Companion. It seems so perverted!
2. As a fanboy of that era I sort of agree, but judging it from a detached perspective, I think there is ENOUGH references, especially for a show thats whole nature constantly changes and runs to pastures new, though I have to admit I would like a few little references to rose or donna here and there.
3. Agree. Though, the thing is, I actually like basically all of Gatiss episodes - they are usually very enjoyable, quirky little episodes. But also somewhat frustrating as he is a very good writer, certainly more capable of writing better stuff than he has presented us with so far. The dialogue in his episodes is usually very funny, with nice little quirky plots, but they have all basically had almost a complete lack of substance or anything REALLY, truly strong about the. They are never the worst, but never the best either.
Exactly he just loves change. Obviously the show needs some change but he goes on overkill. We saw that 9+10 shared 1 tardis a sonic and companion. 11 has had two tardises, a new sonic and two costumes.
Yes, but David had chosen to leave, my beloved Donna had been written out (damn) and the TARDIS console room had blown up by the end of Ten's swansong. How could it not change?
Now we have Twelve with Clara and a console room that crosses eras. As for Eleven's costume; it evolved like Tom's and Jon's did. Just wish that happened a bit more with later Doctors.....particularly Colin!
If this continues through to series 8, and people don't take to Capaldi (and, believe me, this is exceedingly unlikely), I'm not sure if the show has the long future that the 50th promised. Still, the teaser trailer looks very intriguing - I do love the idea of a darker, more unpredictable Doctor, and Capaldi is bursting with talent.
2. I don't get what you mean? What, did you expect them to still have Rose popping up every now and again? To have John Barrowman continue to appear in every season final? It was a new era. The show was moving on. There were still plenty of references - it wasn't like the new X Man movie, for instance, that blatantly re-wrote/forgot things. Plus - is anyone really chomping at the bit to see Slitheen again? Really?
3. Gatiss does not have the best of track records with Who, so I can agree there. It's nothing against him - Who just isn't for everyone. Look at Chris Chibnall. Some of the weakest episodes in both RTD and Moff's eras have come from him, and he wrote Broadchurch (though, I'll admit... I didn't think this was as amazing as everyone seems to think it is).
I think "quite successful" is a fair, un-hyperbolic assessment of the current situation.
Not being snarky, because I like these sort of debates and it's all subjective, but do wish the internet had been around in the 60's and 70's. The Hinchcliffe v Williams or Hartnell v Troughton threads would have been very lively and interesting reading, methinks!
Definitely stop the dr kissing/falling in love with companions or vice versa - its just not right.
Everything else is ok.
Not as successful as it was. Viewing figures have dropped by a few million. An example is series finale's.
Series 1- 6.91 million
Series 2- 8.22 million (up)
Series 3- 8.61 million (up)
Series 4- 10.57 million (up)
Series 5- 6.70 million (down)
Series 6- 7.67 million (up)
Series 7- 7.45 million (down)
Also the ''more people watch on iplayer'' statement is almost void as by the end of series 4 and beyond that Doctor Who was getting around 1 million or more request.
Even ''The Day of the Doctor'' was beaten by ''The Next Doctor''. Also Matts regeneration was over 1 million less than Davids.
Had it not been for the 10th doctor era, even the 9th doctor era, then Who certainly would not have the success stigma it has today.
Yes the show is still a good bit successful but not the heights seen between 2005-2010.
I'm not deliberately favouring the 2005-10 era but the facts support it. The steep decline from 10 million to 6 million in the space of 2 years is worrying, as is the fact that Moffat's series finale high of 7.67 million is almost 3 million less than RTD height.
I prefer the 9/10 era myself but the BIB is pure guesswork.
Most shows see somewhat of a drop ratings when it's been on the air for a few years in succession. The finale of the latest series was still higher than the first Who finale so the drop isn't as great as you'd have us believe.
If the Matt Smith/Moffat era came first we don't know if it would have given Doctor Who the same comeback success but your list of finale ratings is no proof it wouldn't have.
The huge frenzy around the finale of series 4/Tennant's departure isn't something that can be replicated time and time again. It's a once in a blue moon thing that requires several factors to coincide to make it happen.
Episodes/series after this not generating as much hype if by no means any indication of quality whatsoever.
Also, just doing the finales is a very skewed way of doing things - series averages are the best method. But regardless...
Finales:
Series 5 rise from 6.70 to 9.51
Series 6 rise from 7.67 to 9.58
Series 7A rise from 7.82 to 8.92
Series 7B rise from 7.48 to 8.64
(Figures extracted from Gallifrey Base)
This huge drop you speak of does not really exist.
Also, you should note that RTD has the LOWEST rated individual episodes of the new series (Satan Pit, Silence in the Library both at just about 6 million). So just using the finales is again, pretty biased and negligent of the series as a whole.
Work out the averages if want to see the true story, and factor the live+7 figures for the more technical story.
So really, ratings are a moot argument, especially in the light of Day and Time of the Doctor's 10+ million ratings each.
Clara and Paternoster Gang will save continuity in season 8 (and I am very happy for that), just like Rose, her family and the same TARDIS console saved continuity in season 2.
But in season 5, there was nobody to save continuity. Except maybe River, but she made appearance in one episode only during RTD era, so I don't count her.
Crossing eras is very important for me (although I think that we don't need eras at all, change should be progressive, not in some points)