People constantly moan the arcs are confusing which makes me wonder how would you cope with usa shows with 22 episodes a season with arcs sometime spread over a couple of seasons. Shows like supernatural and fringe must really confuse you
Nope. I really enjoyed Fringe in particular.
I don't think the number of episodes makes a difference, usually means more standalone episodes thrown in to fill up the episode order.
For me at least, the problem with some Who arcs isn't so much how long they are going on for. I can deal with story arcs, I'm not stupid, that run for half a series, 2 series or more. What I can't stand is random jumps from one thing to the next with little cohesion. Jumping from one in completed arc to another one and then incoherent "explanation" episodes that make me thing "Uh, what now?".
It's not arcs that confuse me, but arcs written and plotted in confusing ways. Even then, once you have understood the arc and got to the bottom of the things you didn't catch on first watch it's underwhelming.
It's an Emperor's new clothes moment. A story dressed up as something complex is incredibly bland and uninteresting. Unfortunately, that's what the first episode of the new series of Sherlock was to me too, style over substance. Instead of getting on with the story, it decided to tell the story in a rather bizarre way in order to try and look clever.
I'm watching through the Classic Series at the moment and it's so straight forward. No arcs, no shifting about from random place to place, no stupid solitary species from various races, no multi-race stories full stop and everything makes perfect sense. As you say, it has a start, middle and end, everything just follows on from everything else and just progresses. And most importantly, when a story is done with, it is done with and aside from odd references we still don't have to keep going back to something that happened three or four years ago.
As for the OP's comments, don't know whether it was intentional but it does come across as patronising. I've watched series arcs in Buffy and Angel and it's worth pointing out they have more episodes to play with and therefore everything makes perfect sense. I occasionally get confused but that doesn't make me dumb. Sometimes the explanations are rattled out so fast it's worth a rewatch just to try and get a grip on things. Having just rewatched all last years episodes some of them made more sense second time round.
Your comment that rewatching episodes so that you can make more sense of them is exactly what I have to do with many of the Doctor Who episodes that are involved with the story arcs. You almost feel like you have to draw out a flowchart with interconnections to show how each episode is interlinking with the different characters and plot devices.
In my opinion, the story arc could have been improved to so that the story would have been easier to follow. In this Moffat failed us, the viewer. As the head writer and show runner, he was responsible to provide the direction for the show. He failed to properly plan out the arc of the show, and communicate his vision to the writing staff, his plan for the show. Now his plan may have been for four series with Matt and Matt decided to leave after three years and Moffat had to compress his story arc down to three series (from the rumor that Matt left a year early). But the responsibility for the how the story is planned comes down to Moffat.
Thrombin
You disagree with my disagreement of you? That's surprising
Making a complex plot understandable depends on the writer (and I'm not making any claims one way or another about the writing or about whether it was understandable), however, a complex plot is still complex whether it is written to be understandable or not.
But what was complex about any of the arcs.
Setting a few questions then answering them at a later date is not complex. What was complex about the Amy Pond baby story line? The Doctor in a robot to cheat death story line, nothing complex about them. Take the spaceships and aliens out of them and why are they any more complex than an arc on Eastenders or any other drama. Because its sci-fi? no sorry that doesn't wash.
Lets take the River Song/Doctor timelines. The viewer is told at what point, or roughly at what point in the respected timelines they are meeting. We meet River Song, off the top off my head, 4 or 5 times overall during the span of 3 series, it is hardly complex, especially when it sticks closely to a basic synopsis.
The viewer can add as many theories to the scenario that they want, it doesn't make the original concept complex. What may have made it confusing for the viewer is having it spread over three series, most viewers do not re-watch the episodes, most viewers do not buy the box sets so a line from 2 series ago might not register with them. Again that is not complex writing.
The tools are the same in the sense that the letters of the alphabet are the same tools used to write a story. Doesn't make all stories the same level of complexity.
Christmas Carol and the first Back to the Future were fairly linear. The second back to the future, I would argue, did get quite complex. I can't remember the plots of the Time Machine or Wonderful Life and I've never heard of Benjamin Button so I can't comment on those.
Since when is a strand of story not being linear complex? Is it because its sci-fi mumbo jumbo therefore complex drama, Does it somehow become complex if it has aliens and space ships in it? Yes it all has pretty flashing lights but that's about it.
So you are saying that a plot where A leads to B which leads to C is the same level of complexity as a plot where A doesn't lead to B but B happens anyway because it turns out that C led to B which then leads to C which leads to D which prevents A from happening but, never mind, we're at D now so it shouldn't matter.
Well I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. You can state that that isn't complex until the cows come home but you are never going to convince me.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
Spreading such a story line over 3 series and doing it in a slap dash random way, usually involving the protagonists setting exposition with quick cool quips does not make it complex. Leaving the viewer to fill in possible blanks is not complex writing.
Following a story that goes from A to B to G then back to E isn't complex. It is story telling! It is no more complex than A Christmas Carol (Dickens not Moffat) Just because it comes under the tag 'sci-fi’ it becomes complex? Nope sorry.
Again I'll use the River Song/Doctor time line thing, we are shown it, we are introduced to it, we see it happen, all be it in spread over a couple of series and the actual addressing of the time stream element is done with a few lines to establish where they both are, we see how it ends. What was complex about it, was it is was spread over 3 series and popped up every now and again, what is complex about that? And yet when the opportunity arrives in the River Song arc for the possibility of intelligent wring that could delve deeper in to the issues that could arise by two different time-streams what do we get...'Shhhh...spoilers sweetie' Is that the complex writing you are talking about?
The potential for so called 'complex' writing was never explored, it was dispatched with quick one liners and catchphrases. That does not equate to complex writing in my books. Waiting to see how a story resolves and speculating about it isn't complex, waiting to see if the writer ignores or recognises elements of a story that the viewer personally may deem relevant isn't complex writing.
Just because it has a bit of timey wimey chucked in it is still no more complex than following any other 'dramatic' story line, especially on TV.
Was the whole Amy Pond and her Ganger baby complex writing, how did this complex writing come into effect with the characters reactions to losing their baby and the subsequent events. Was it complex how the writer explored the pain of a young couple never to see their child grow or was the writing so complex because it stuck it it basic back of a **** packet synopsis above exploring that scenario in a complex adult way. It stuck to the basic **** packet synopsis didn't it, foregoing believable charter reaction and development. It was not complex it was poor writing.
Placing teasers like having Madame Bovary's (Or whatever her name was) face popping up every now and again isn't complex writing, it's placing teasers. It is no different than having Saxon references, the time Crack popping up at the end of an epsidoe, the bees disappearing, a bad wolf slogan her or there... what ever take your pick, that isn't complex writing.
Was the introduction of Mels complex writing?
What about tediously playing out a large chunk of the story arc in a cartoon world version of Nazi Germany, was that complex writing.
Now if you personally find Doctor Who complex then great, more power to you, but I'm afraid this Saturday afternoon family TV show is far from that, never has been, maybe when I was a kid but not as an adult.
It's interesting that people mention Fringe. The final season began with a jump to a new future/alternate reality with no explanation at all. If DW did that there would (quite rightly) be outrage.
Even Breaking Bad had regular flashbacks/forwards which were initially confusing, but nobody complains about them.
The difference with time travel sci-fi is that some people just don't 'get it' as it's beyond normal experience.
I was a little bit dissappointed with S6 and S7. Think all the storylines got all tangled and mixed together. When I heard Amy and Rorys last episode was in New York I thought great. I really thought they would get their daughter back as a little girl. 11 didn't even heal Amy so Anthony could have been her own biological child instaed of adopted..11's marriage was also a mess built on a paradox. If she hadn't died saving 10 11 would never have known her. "Spoilers" was also dumb. He knew the ultimate spoiler how and when she would meet her doom. Not just dead but trapped as a ghost.Hope S8 keeps the storylines simple. Begining ,Middle End.
Your entire post is basically the equivalent of saying that calculus and quantum physics isn't complex.
I don't care how often you say something that is patently complex isn't complex. It is.
That you don't see it baffles me but there's not much I can do about it, at the end of the day. You're obviously working from a different dictionary to mine.
Your entire post is basically the equivalent of saying that calculus and quantum physics isn't complex.
I don't care how often you say something that is patently complex isn't complex. It is.
That you don't see it baffles me but there's not much I can do about it, at the end of the day. You're obviously working from a different dictionary to mine.
Sorry - genuine question - what was complex about the arcs? I just didn't see any complexity.
Thrombin
Your entire post is basically the equivalent of saying that calculus and quantum physics isn't complex.
No my entire post is saying that the story arcs we have seen in a Saturday family show are not complex. Calculus and quantum physics really, so how did that all play out in this complex multi series arc.
I don't care how often you say something that is patently complex isn't complex. It is.
Then what was patently complex about any of it? How was this complexity explored with the writing beyond the basic synopsis. Maybe you could point out how I have misjudged the complexity of the examples I gave.
That you don't see it baffles me but there's not much I can do about it, at the end of the day. You're obviously working from a different dictionary to mine.
Nope, the same dictionary. I have have explained why I do not think it complex. I am not going to pretend something is complex just because it happens to be a show I watch. Sorry but Doctor Who and complex do not go together, they never have done, it is basic story telling, yes you can add a few fancy spaceships but it is still basic story telling.
Sorry - genuine question - what was complex about the arcs? I just didn't see any complexity.
I will attempt to gather all the salient parts of the arc together into a post to demonstrate its complexity but it's too complex for me to do so right now. Hoepfully I'll have an hour or two to spend on it this evening
I will attempt to gather all the salient parts of the arc together into a post to demonstrate its complexity but it's too complex for me to do so right now. Hoepfully I'll have an hour or two to spend on it this evening
Thanks. It better be worth it. ;-):)
Personally, I don't understand Quantum Physics, though I have tried, but I must be missing something in Moffat's arcs if it's as complex as that.
Your comment that rewatching episodes so that you can make more sense of them is exactly what I have to do with many of the Doctor Who episodes that are involved with the story arcs. You almost feel like you have to draw out a flowchart with interconnections to show how each episode is interlinking with the different characters and plot devices.
In my opinion, the story arc could have been improved to so that the story would have been easier to follow. In this Moffat failed us, the viewer. As the head writer and show runner, he was responsible to provide the direction for the show. He failed to properly plan out the arc of the show, and communicate his vision to the writing staff, his plan for the show. Now his plan may have been for four series with Matt and Matt decided to leave after three years and Moffat had to compress his story arc down to three series (from the rumor that Matt left a year early). But the responsibility for the how the story is planned comes down to Moffat.
I know the split series may not have helped Moffat plan so much but ideally those arcs should have been kept within one Series and then we should just move on, as like when it first came back. So if the unexpected happens like you have said about Smith leaving early, you really haven't got to race around and squeeze everything into one episode.
That's why I preferred Eccleston's Last story. It was the resolution of the Series Arc, told an interesting story in itself which despite numerous references back to the rest of Series 1, didn't dwell on that arc excessively. It just told a story leading upto a regeneration. That's how it should be, imo off course.
I haven't got time for complicated arcs. The problem with those is that the writers are working under the illusion that everybody watches every episode every week. People have lives and so will often end up having to catch-up on demand or maybe skipping an episode altogether. A good show will stand up to that- sure, the viewer may be lost on a point or two but they don't feel completely left in the dark.
It's the golden rule of storytelling: all the best stories have a very simple crux.
People constantly moan the arcs are confusing which makes me wonder how would you cope with usa shows with 22 episodes a season with arcs sometime spread over a couple of seasons. Shows like supernatural and fringe must really confuse you
Not really, quite the opposite because they're on week after week, 9 months a year with constant flashbacks.
I can understand if people find the storyline disappointing. What entertains one may not entertain another.
But being confused by the storyline? That seems strange to me as they were mostly easy to follow and keep track off. I wonder how they would cope with films such as Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire or Donnie Darko.
Inland Empire was a confusing film but it was fun to try and work it out. Debating on internet forums and using them to formulate and opinion on what happened. It is good to have fiction to tax the brain rather than a programme that spoon-feeds easy solutions.
The River Song arc may have been slightly far-fetched but it was simple to follow.
I haven't got time for complicated arcs. The problem with those is that the writers are working under the illusion that everybody watches every episode every week. People have lives and so will often end up having to catch-up on demand or maybe skipping an episode altogether. A good show will stand up to that- sure, the viewer may be lost on a point or two but they don't feel completely left in the dark.
It's the golden rule of storytelling: all the best stories have a very simple crux.
The thing is lady xanax, sci-fi is still excited by the introduction of 'arcs' into the TV genre over the last decade or two. Now everything in sci-fi has to have a multi series prominent arc and the more random and seed planting the better. The funny thing is there is nothing new in these arcs, they are just themes on the basics that TV drama (In all it's forms) has been doing this since day one and cinema long before that. But because it is sci-fi it has to be classed as something else because there is nothing the sci-fi genre and its fans likes better than to feel different, even when there is nothing different about it. It is kind of like when dolls are called action figures.
By the time Doctor Who relaunched frankly I was sick of these US 'next big thing in 'all grown up' sci- fi shows or mind melting arc driven shite like Lost, entertaining and laughable as it was and as good as many of those early shows like X files, Firefly, Buffy and so on were, and still are, but bloody hell talk about a genre flogging a dead horse. If it wasn't dark and broody and had arcs coming out of its arse it just wasn't sci-fi. So for me by the time Doctor Who arrived in 2005 it was a blast of old fashioned fresh air.
My concern with the direction Steven Moffat has, had or is taking the show is simple. Where are those other shows now and all the others that jumped aboard the arc/next big brain twister bandwagon? I keep reading comparisons to US shows and their use of arcs yet what is the average series run for the shows that came later, lets say since 2005. Just think how many have been axed after a series or few, it's quite a lot isn't it.
Hopefully the genre is beginning to grow a bit tired of its latest fad for cod intellectual arcs, especially if the wait of a 3 series arc falls somewhat flat. How long will the average viewer put up with that series after series before they draw the conclusion that it is all the emperors new clothes. Great for sci-fi fans if the show just caters for them but that is a slippery slope, and Doctor Who isn't some niche show tucked away on an third rate satellite channel.
I think it is time Steven moved on from trying to out fox the online community and session panels and concentrated on a solid conscience and contained series that just purrs along with great stories leading up to a corking finale that wraps everything up. That's the journey, it always has been with the show, and I include the classics.
I think it is time Steven moved on from trying to out fox the online community and session panels and concentrated on a solid conscience and contained series that just purrs along with great stories leading up to a corking finale that wraps everything up. That's the journey, it always has been with the show, and I include the classics.
It's interesting that people mention Fringe. The final season began with a jump to a new future/alternate reality with no explanation at all. If DW did that there would (quite rightly) be outrage.
No explanation at all?
Yes there was. Quite a clear movement in the plot from the final 4 episodes of season 4.
The thing is lady xanax, sci-fi is still excited by the introduction of 'arcs' into the TV genre over the last decade or two. Now everything in sci-fi has to have a multi series prominent arc and the more random and seed planting the better. The funny thing is there is nothing new in these arcs, they are just themes on the basics that TV drama (In all it's forms) has been doing this since day one and cinema long before that. But because it is sci-fi it has to be classed as something else because there is nothing the sci-fi genre and its fans likes better than to feel different, even when there is nothing different about it. It is kind of like when dolls are called action figures.
Except the biggest difference between arcs in a sci-fi show and arcs in other TV shows and films are that sci-fi is about fantasy and and contains mythology elements that can quite literally come from anything.
It's something different because sci-fi can be as confusing as hell whereas a random drama set in the real world we don't need to concentrate so much on the mythology and details set up as it's set in the real world we know of. We are immediately accustomed to the "rules" of the world so to speak.
I agree sci-fi and its fans tend to get a little "arty farty" about things but the arcs in the shows are quite clearly a different set up to other genres. Especially when it comes to not even sticking to the rules of the mythology that you set up, like Moffat loves to do. The entire genre gets lost up its own backside on many occasions.
I've always seen the arcs as something as a compromise between those people that liked the format of the classic era of stories that continued over 4-6 weeks and the way the series is made up today of mostly single episode stories. I think one of the ideas behind making series 6 so arc heavy was to reintroduce the cliffhanger endings that are few and far between in nuWho.
It would be nice to have a series that has no arc at all but is made up of two or maybe even the occasional three part story?! But I know I'm living in a dream with that one because the two part stories seem to frequently get the lowest ratings. Real shame that.
For example, how did the Doctor and Clara get out of his time stream? "The Name of the Doctor" made a big deal out of first Clara and then the Doctor going into his time stream and then the obvious question of how they got out wasn't even answered. They just showed up already out of it in "The Day of the Doctor".
I didn't get the impression that it was supposed to be difficult for the Doctor to get out, simply that him being in there was very dangerous to himself and but he refused to leave without Clara.
In fact, what I think happened was that Whithouse/Moffat really didn't have any idea who was in the room during "The God Complex", that it was for the purposes of creating drama only.
What I suspect happened was that Whithouse was told to put that in as part of his brief or he had the idea and left it to decide Moffat what should be in there. Moffat shoehorned it into Matt's final ep, making it fit the plot of that episode best he could.
I'm not confused by the arcs, I just don't like them. Is that okay? Doesn't mean I'm stupid.
In drama in general, I don't actually mind an arc if it's well presented, written and concluded - but the ones we've been given in Dr Who lately have been none of those things. Hence I don't like them.
Comments
Nope. I really enjoyed Fringe in particular.
I don't think the number of episodes makes a difference, usually means more standalone episodes thrown in to fill up the episode order.
For me at least, the problem with some Who arcs isn't so much how long they are going on for. I can deal with story arcs, I'm not stupid, that run for half a series, 2 series or more. What I can't stand is random jumps from one thing to the next with little cohesion. Jumping from one in completed arc to another one and then incoherent "explanation" episodes that make me thing "Uh, what now?".
It's not arcs that confuse me, but arcs written and plotted in confusing ways. Even then, once you have understood the arc and got to the bottom of the things you didn't catch on first watch it's underwhelming.
It's an Emperor's new clothes moment. A story dressed up as something complex is incredibly bland and uninteresting. Unfortunately, that's what the first episode of the new series of Sherlock was to me too, style over substance. Instead of getting on with the story, it decided to tell the story in a rather bizarre way in order to try and look clever.
Your comment that rewatching episodes so that you can make more sense of them is exactly what I have to do with many of the Doctor Who episodes that are involved with the story arcs. You almost feel like you have to draw out a flowchart with interconnections to show how each episode is interlinking with the different characters and plot devices.
In my opinion, the story arc could have been improved to so that the story would have been easier to follow. In this Moffat failed us, the viewer. As the head writer and show runner, he was responsible to provide the direction for the show. He failed to properly plan out the arc of the show, and communicate his vision to the writing staff, his plan for the show. Now his plan may have been for four series with Matt and Matt decided to leave after three years and Moffat had to compress his story arc down to three series (from the rumor that Matt left a year early). But the responsibility for the how the story is planned comes down to Moffat.
But what was complex about any of the arcs.
Setting a few questions then answering them at a later date is not complex. What was complex about the Amy Pond baby story line? The Doctor in a robot to cheat death story line, nothing complex about them. Take the spaceships and aliens out of them and why are they any more complex than an arc on Eastenders or any other drama. Because its sci-fi? no sorry that doesn't wash.
Lets take the River Song/Doctor timelines. The viewer is told at what point, or roughly at what point in the respected timelines they are meeting. We meet River Song, off the top off my head, 4 or 5 times overall during the span of 3 series, it is hardly complex, especially when it sticks closely to a basic synopsis.
The viewer can add as many theories to the scenario that they want, it doesn't make the original concept complex. What may have made it confusing for the viewer is having it spread over three series, most viewers do not re-watch the episodes, most viewers do not buy the box sets so a line from 2 series ago might not register with them. Again that is not complex writing.
Since when is a strand of story not being linear complex? Is it because its sci-fi mumbo jumbo therefore complex drama, Does it somehow become complex if it has aliens and space ships in it? Yes it all has pretty flashing lights but that's about it.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
Spreading such a story line over 3 series and doing it in a slap dash random way, usually involving the protagonists setting exposition with quick cool quips does not make it complex. Leaving the viewer to fill in possible blanks is not complex writing.
Following a story that goes from A to B to G then back to E isn't complex. It is story telling! It is no more complex than A Christmas Carol (Dickens not Moffat) Just because it comes under the tag 'sci-fi’ it becomes complex? Nope sorry.
Again I'll use the River Song/Doctor time line thing, we are shown it, we are introduced to it, we see it happen, all be it in spread over a couple of series and the actual addressing of the time stream element is done with a few lines to establish where they both are, we see how it ends. What was complex about it, was it is was spread over 3 series and popped up every now and again, what is complex about that? And yet when the opportunity arrives in the River Song arc for the possibility of intelligent wring that could delve deeper in to the issues that could arise by two different time-streams what do we get...'Shhhh...spoilers sweetie' Is that the complex writing you are talking about?
The potential for so called 'complex' writing was never explored, it was dispatched with quick one liners and catchphrases. That does not equate to complex writing in my books. Waiting to see how a story resolves and speculating about it isn't complex, waiting to see if the writer ignores or recognises elements of a story that the viewer personally may deem relevant isn't complex writing.
Just because it has a bit of timey wimey chucked in it is still no more complex than following any other 'dramatic' story line, especially on TV.
Was the whole Amy Pond and her Ganger baby complex writing, how did this complex writing come into effect with the characters reactions to losing their baby and the subsequent events. Was it complex how the writer explored the pain of a young couple never to see their child grow or was the writing so complex because it stuck it it basic back of a **** packet synopsis above exploring that scenario in a complex adult way. It stuck to the basic **** packet synopsis didn't it, foregoing believable charter reaction and development. It was not complex it was poor writing.
Placing teasers like having Madame Bovary's (Or whatever her name was) face popping up every now and again isn't complex writing, it's placing teasers. It is no different than having Saxon references, the time Crack popping up at the end of an epsidoe, the bees disappearing, a bad wolf slogan her or there... what ever take your pick, that isn't complex writing.
Was the introduction of Mels complex writing?
What about tediously playing out a large chunk of the story arc in a cartoon world version of Nazi Germany, was that complex writing.
Now if you personally find Doctor Who complex then great, more power to you, but I'm afraid this Saturday afternoon family TV show is far from that, never has been, maybe when I was a kid but not as an adult.
Even Breaking Bad had regular flashbacks/forwards which were initially confusing, but nobody complains about them.
The difference with time travel sci-fi is that some people just don't 'get it' as it's beyond normal experience.
Your entire post is basically the equivalent of saying that calculus and quantum physics isn't complex.
I don't care how often you say something that is patently complex isn't complex. It is.
That you don't see it baffles me but there's not much I can do about it, at the end of the day. You're obviously working from a different dictionary to mine.
Sorry - genuine question - what was complex about the arcs? I just didn't see any complexity.
No my entire post is saying that the story arcs we have seen in a Saturday family show are not complex. Calculus and quantum physics really, so how did that all play out in this complex multi series arc.
Then what was patently complex about any of it? How was this complexity explored with the writing beyond the basic synopsis. Maybe you could point out how I have misjudged the complexity of the examples I gave.
Nope, the same dictionary. I have have explained why I do not think it complex. I am not going to pretend something is complex just because it happens to be a show I watch. Sorry but Doctor Who and complex do not go together, they never have done, it is basic story telling, yes you can add a few fancy spaceships but it is still basic story telling.
I will attempt to gather all the salient parts of the arc together into a post to demonstrate its complexity but it's too complex for me to do so right now. Hoepfully I'll have an hour or two to spend on it this evening
Thanks. It better be worth it. ;-):)
Personally, I don't understand Quantum Physics, though I have tried, but I must be missing something in Moffat's arcs if it's as complex as that.
It's all relative
There are different degrees of complex, the analogy wsn't supposed to be taken quite that literally
I can't cope with complex analogies. I just want them to have a beginning, a middle and an end.
Preferably in that order.
Come on, it's not exactly cheese-making.
I know the split series may not have helped Moffat plan so much but ideally those arcs should have been kept within one Series and then we should just move on, as like when it first came back. So if the unexpected happens like you have said about Smith leaving early, you really haven't got to race around and squeeze everything into one episode.
That's why I preferred Eccleston's Last story. It was the resolution of the Series Arc, told an interesting story in itself which despite numerous references back to the rest of Series 1, didn't dwell on that arc excessively. It just told a story leading upto a regeneration. That's how it should be, imo off course.
You can't stand the confusion in your mind!!!
It's the golden rule of storytelling: all the best stories have a very simple crux.
Not really, quite the opposite because they're on week after week, 9 months a year with constant flashbacks.
But being confused by the storyline? That seems strange to me as they were mostly easy to follow and keep track off. I wonder how they would cope with films such as Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire or Donnie Darko.
Inland Empire was a confusing film but it was fun to try and work it out. Debating on internet forums and using them to formulate and opinion on what happened. It is good to have fiction to tax the brain rather than a programme that spoon-feeds easy solutions.
The River Song arc may have been slightly far-fetched but it was simple to follow.
The thing is lady xanax, sci-fi is still excited by the introduction of 'arcs' into the TV genre over the last decade or two. Now everything in sci-fi has to have a multi series prominent arc and the more random and seed planting the better. The funny thing is there is nothing new in these arcs, they are just themes on the basics that TV drama (In all it's forms) has been doing this since day one and cinema long before that. But because it is sci-fi it has to be classed as something else because there is nothing the sci-fi genre and its fans likes better than to feel different, even when there is nothing different about it. It is kind of like when dolls are called action figures.
By the time Doctor Who relaunched frankly I was sick of these US 'next big thing in 'all grown up' sci- fi shows or mind melting arc driven shite like Lost, entertaining and laughable as it was and as good as many of those early shows like X files, Firefly, Buffy and so on were, and still are, but bloody hell talk about a genre flogging a dead horse. If it wasn't dark and broody and had arcs coming out of its arse it just wasn't sci-fi. So for me by the time Doctor Who arrived in 2005 it was a blast of old fashioned fresh air.
My concern with the direction Steven Moffat has, had or is taking the show is simple. Where are those other shows now and all the others that jumped aboard the arc/next big brain twister bandwagon? I keep reading comparisons to US shows and their use of arcs yet what is the average series run for the shows that came later, lets say since 2005. Just think how many have been axed after a series or few, it's quite a lot isn't it.
Hopefully the genre is beginning to grow a bit tired of its latest fad for cod intellectual arcs, especially if the wait of a 3 series arc falls somewhat flat. How long will the average viewer put up with that series after series before they draw the conclusion that it is all the emperors new clothes. Great for sci-fi fans if the show just caters for them but that is a slippery slope, and Doctor Who isn't some niche show tucked away on an third rate satellite channel.
I think it is time Steven moved on from trying to out fox the online community and session panels and concentrated on a solid conscience and contained series that just purrs along with great stories leading up to a corking finale that wraps everything up. That's the journey, it always has been with the show, and I include the classics.
Exactly. I miss the historical episodes
No explanation at all?
Yes there was. Quite a clear movement in the plot from the final 4 episodes of season 4.
Except the biggest difference between arcs in a sci-fi show and arcs in other TV shows and films are that sci-fi is about fantasy and and contains mythology elements that can quite literally come from anything.
It's something different because sci-fi can be as confusing as hell whereas a random drama set in the real world we don't need to concentrate so much on the mythology and details set up as it's set in the real world we know of. We are immediately accustomed to the "rules" of the world so to speak.
I agree sci-fi and its fans tend to get a little "arty farty" about things but the arcs in the shows are quite clearly a different set up to other genres. Especially when it comes to not even sticking to the rules of the mythology that you set up, like Moffat loves to do. The entire genre gets lost up its own backside on many occasions.
It would be nice to have a series that has no arc at all but is made up of two or maybe even the occasional three part story?! But I know I'm living in a dream with that one because the two part stories seem to frequently get the lowest ratings. Real shame that.
I didn't get the impression that it was supposed to be difficult for the Doctor to get out, simply that him being in there was very dangerous to himself and but he refused to leave without Clara.
What I suspect happened was that Whithouse was told to put that in as part of his brief or he had the idea and left it to decide Moffat what should be in there. Moffat shoehorned it into Matt's final ep, making it fit the plot of that episode best he could.
In drama in general, I don't actually mind an arc if it's well presented, written and concluded - but the ones we've been given in Dr Who lately have been none of those things. Hence I don't like them.