I really like Moffat's Who, it was a welcome change to what I felt to be the overly sentimental latter years of RTD's vision.
But I won't deny - going by my sources - that the show isn't as popular as it once was.
One difference I've noticed between the two visions is that a lot of the narrative and emotional focus has been placed on The Doctor - the alien - to the point where the companions more often than not end up as mere plot devices.
This is why I really like Amy's Choice and Vincent and the Doctor. In both instances, the alien threat is insignificant compared to the more human, Earth-bound issues.
Where are the 'Father's Day's, the 'Turn Lefts? I want to care about Amy and Rory, and perhaps I will in 'Let's Kill Hitler'.
After all, they've just discovered River Song - a spacey-wacey gun-totting quasi-Time Lord Archaeologist from the future - is their child, to whom the 909-year-old Doctor will eventually be a... (ahem)... 'manfriend'. Any chance of a remotely normal human life has been taken from them, or so it seems. I look forward to seeing how they get over this, if they do.
I think Doctor Who worked better when there was a stronger, grounded 'human' element running through it.
Really? Then how come when I talk to friends they have the same opinion that Moffatt's regime has stopped them watching?
I think that the casual viewer is struggling, fans will watch regardless, but the friends I talk to who are casual viewers are drifting away from it, I have also noticed the lack of toys in the shops for the younger casual viewer, all there is is the ( not very good) TARDIS, the sonic screwdriver and the tellytubby daleks, where are the wave after wave of action figures we had with series 1-4?
Are they simply not supplying the toy shops because demand has already dropped off?
I would imagine it is well complicated stuff to write, Doctor Who episodes, would take a lot of time and to complete without outside influences, A bubble of wonder in each thought. That is a big task. I think Steven Moffat does a great job, I don't think many people would like to step into his shoes regarding such a task.
I always felt Torchwood was better than Who until 2010! RTDs writing i felt suited that style and that show and i preferred Children Of Earth to anything else RTD ever did!
Moff, Smith and Co have brought Who back to the old skool feel and actually made this show so much more energetic and witty and also intense, intricate and SCARY!
It is as mad as it was in its peak in the Pertwee/Baker years! And Matt Smith i truly feel (and many many many have stated) is one of the most finest actors and the best Doctor IMO. He is MY Doctor i feel, personally, more attached to this darker, madder alien side to him than any other actor has really highlighted for years!
Also a lot of my favourite episodes ever are from series 5 and 6 (and mainly Moff episodes with few exceptions i did like from RTDs 1 - Specials rule) Doctor Who has improved and has reached a new peak i feel! It is everywhere in the media, the marketing etc. the controversies etc. It is EVENT TV! and i absolutely love it!
Also Stateside the show has grown so SO much! Considering the competetiveness over there for ratings etc. Torchwood was more popular over there and now Doctor Who has overtaken it since 2009 and has grown larger and larger, Doctor Who has indeed grown global!
I really like Moffat's Who, it was a welcome change to what I felt to be the overly sentimental latter years of RTD's vision.
But I won't deny - going by my sources - that the show isn't as popular as it once was.
One difference I've noticed between the two visions is that a lot of the narrative and emotional focus has been placed on The Doctor - the alien - to the point where the companions more often than not end up as mere plot devices.
This is why I really like Amy's Choice and Vincent and the Doctor. In both instances, the alien threat is insignificant compared to the more human, Earth-bound issues.
Where are the 'Father's Day's, the 'Turn Lefts? I want to care about Amy and Rory, and perhaps I will in 'Let's Kill Hitler'.
After all, they've just discovered River Song - a spacey-wacey gun-totting quasi-Time Lord Archaeologist from the future - is their child, to whom the 909-year-old Doctor will eventually be a... (ahem)... 'manfriend'. Any chance of a remotely normal human life has been taken from them, or so it seems. I look forward to seeing how they get over this, if they do.
I think Doctor Who worked better when there was a stronger, grounded 'human' element running through it.
I'll repeat - I really like Moffat's Who.
I personally thought their journey as a couple since they have been married was as much a personal journey as any other we have seen. You could not do much with that during S5 because of the way the arc was progressing at that time. Amy's parents didn't exist, so no home life to speak of to show like with Rose. Rory didn't exist for almost half the series so you couldn't show that either.
I felt like they did several interesting things to examine their relationship so far this year (and it's only half over.)
It's going though one of those phases akin to several in Classic Who that I'm not so keen on either. Seasons 3, 7, 11, 14 and 24 are all Seasons I don't rate as highly as all the others.
I think season 14 is as good as any other from that time so i can't quite understand why your not keen on it.
Matt Smith has been a revelation as The Doctor, that's what's really kept me watching. I love the fact he's eccentric and he is better than DT.
Agree with this fully, been interested in the show since 2005 and almost became a fan but then Tennant came along and i just didn't like his portrayal of the Doctor but i still watched most episodes and it wasn't until Matt came along that i became fully interested and kind of a fan again.
I really like Moffat's Who, it was a welcome change to what I felt to be the overly sentimental latter years of RTD's vision.
But I won't deny - going by my sources - that the show isn't as popular as it once was.
One difference I've noticed between the two visions is that a lot of the narrative and emotional focus has been placed on The Doctor - the alien - to the point where the companions more often than not end up as mere plot devices.
This is why I really like Amy's Choice and Vincent and the Doctor. In both instances, the alien threat is insignificant compared to the more human, Earth-bound issues.
Where are the 'Father's Day's, the 'Turn Lefts? I want to care about Amy and Rory, and perhaps I will in 'Let's Kill Hitler'.
After all, they've just discovered River Song - a spacey-wacey gun-totting quasi-Time Lord Archaeologist from the future - is their child, to whom the 909-year-old Doctor will eventually be a... (ahem)... 'manfriend'. Any chance of a remotely normal human life has been taken from them, or so it seems. I look forward to seeing how they get over this, if they do.
I think Doctor Who worked better when there was a stronger, grounded 'human' element running through it.
I'll repeat - I really like Moffat's Who.
How do the viewing figures compare? And I am not asking this because I know the answer, but because I dont.
How do the viewing figures compare? And I am not asking this because I know the answer, but because I dont.
The viewing figures (taking into consideration iPlayer and Sky+ etc..) as far as I know have been about an average of 1 million less than they used to be. I don't know if the explanation for this is that people have stopped watching, or not.
The AI hasn't changed much.
The viewing figures (taking into consideration iPlayer and Sky+ etc..) as far as I know have been about an average of 1 million less than they used to be. I don't know if the explanation for this is that people have stopped watching, or not.
The AI hasn't changed much.
OK, thanks. That doesnt really sound too bad. I didnt think Iplayer was included in viewing figures though.
All nu who has been dire, with the occasional exception.
Mind you, I just watched Ghost Light, also complete crap.
I'm a huge Doctor Who fan. Usually your fave Doctor is the actor who played the part when you were growing up. I'm 42,and my earliest memories of the series is "Planet Of The Spiders ", Pertwee's final story from 1974.
For me Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker and Peter Davison were fantastic in the role. I quite liked Colin Baker but couldn't stand Sylvester McCoy. I'll probably get lynched for this but I feel his interpretation of the Doctor was dreadful.. It was like Charlie Chaplin meets Science Fiction. OK, Tom had his comedy moments but his acting in general was of such a high calibre it was difficult to knock.
A lot o f people say that McCoys Doctor went out on a high because he became more mysterious..I must be lost on this. OK.."Ghostlight" was quite a good story but I still expected McCoy to do a silly jig around his brolley to save the day!
Most of the modern "Who" has been good but I've never struggled so much to like a Doctor since Matt Smith took over. I really want to like him but he just doesn't work for me. Having said that I do love his "Troughtonisms"
Maybe as I settle into my 40's I should stick to Newsnight!!!! :eek:
No, it hasn't. The moaning about it hasn't changed, either. People were bitching about the end of Doctor Who when Tennant took over and - believe it or not - many of them are the same people who are now complaining its not as good since Tennant left.
It reminds me of the way things were when Star Trek: The Next Generation started. It got slagged off no end by so many people (and this before the internet, too!) and yet it ended up breaking records. Eventually, it ended up being the yardstick that other sci-fi shows got judged by - again, often by the same people who originally slagged it off.
People who don't like things are always noisier and more noticable than the generally satisfied - and so end up seeming to be a greater majority. The only proof we ever hear of the series failure goes along this line;
I don't like it as much as I used to and all the people I speak to don't like it as much either.
But that's useless as proof of a general consensus. It's nothing more than anecdotal evidence and every statement of such can be equally countered by people who like the show more anf everyone they know also likes the show more. If anecdotal evidence was ever proof of general consensus, then no-one would ever have bothered compiling ratings or reporting on the opinions of focus groups.
The facts we do have place series 5 and 6 as having ratings at least equal to the average of the rest of Who post-2005. They don't hold the records for best ratings, but they are also above several of the other series, too. If they are doing poorly, then other years of Who have done far worse - and the series wasn't on the verge of cancellation then, either.
AI ratings have also remained very high. Consistent with the series as a whole and far above the average for TV shows across the board. That shows that not only does the viewership remain much the same, but the opinion of the viewers remains equally as high.
So, in conclusion, you simply want to ignore the vocal minority that don't like it. They only seem like a lot because of the proportionally small numbers of members of the internet forums (compared to the size of the total viewership) and because the "negative crowd" are disproportionatly vocal.
The facts are that ratings remain high, viewer share remains high, appreciation remains high and that the series is continuing to break records. Everything else is just individuals' personal opinion simply added with the weight of being able to voice it a lot, thanks to the wonders of the internet.
Or, in other words, pay no heed to the words of a loud minority. The show's popularity is fine
The viewing figures (taking into consideration iPlayer and Sky+ etc..) as far as I know have been about an average of 1 million less than they used to be.
Incorrect. The viewing figures are pretty much the same as ever, and the shows record breaking iplayer ratings of the last two series aren't even included in the viewing figures in any case. All that has changed, in line with wider trends in tv, is that the show time shifts a higher percentage of it's viewers than used to be the case, but final ratings are still much the same on average.
7.94m - Series 1
7.71m - Series 2
7.55m - Series 3
8.05m - Series 4
7.73m - Series 5
7.65m -Series 6 (to date)
I haven't been that keen on Who since Matt Smith took the role as I just can't warm to him, and I can't say I've enjoyed the stories much lately as I detest stories where you don't know if the events are happening or if it's an alternative timeline/parallal universe and which characters are the genuine ones and which aren't which seems to be a common theme lately.
One difference I've noticed between the two visions is that a lot of the narrative and emotional focus has been placed on The Doctor - the alien - to the point where the companions more often than not end up as mere plot devices.
Funny that. When Series 5 came out, people were slagging it off for being too much about the companions, Amy being too competent, the Doctor not being able to save the day without her, etc., etc. How soon we all forget...
SM uses the Big Bad formula in a way more similar to Buffy with many more stories revolving around the arc. This means fewer stand-alones and allows for more in depth arcs. A casual fan may have trouble sitting down for one episode and having any idea what is going on.
I've challenged people before on that, and I will again. You don't have to understand every event that went on in earlier episodes to understand the events of A Good Man Goes to War, as an example, despite it being the culmination of the half-series. With the possible exception of a brief grounding in River's background with the Doctor - which is in itself covered by her meeting with Rory - all you need is there. Amy's been kidnapped and had a baby, Rory and the Doctor are coming to get her.
I haven't been that keen on Who since Matt Smith took the role as I just can't warm to him, and I can't say I've enjoyed the stories much lately as I detest stories where you don't know if the events are happening or if it's an alternative timeline/parallal universe and which characters are the genuine ones and which aren't which seems to be a common theme lately.
Huh? When? There haven't been any fake-out timelines, and the only alternate realities were in one episode where they were clearly flagged up as such right from the start. There was one fake character recently, two if you count the hallucination of ancient mad Rory which lasted all of a few seconds.
Don't get caught in the speculation so much that you lose focus on the story being told.
Incorrect. The viewing figures are pretty much the same as ever, and the shows record breaking iplayer ratings of the last two series aren't even included in the viewing figures in any case. All that has changed, in line with wider trends in tv, is that the show time shifts a higher percentage of it's viewers than used to be the case, but final ratings are still much the same on average.
7.94m - Series 1
7.71m - Series 2
7.55m - Series 3
8.05m - Series 4
7.73m - Series 5
7.65m -Series 6 (to date)
I'm quoting to show agreement. I get on with all of old-Who, the **** end of Pertwee and the first year of C.Baker aside (it's the scripts, you understand, not the man), so I'm perhaps a bit wishy washy but I really like Smith. Tennant was good too, but had worn out a bit; anything after Tate turns up I can't really be bothered with. Moffat's done a good job, he's just done a different job. Inevitably some people think it's a worse job, and people tend to be more likely to speak up when they have a negative opinion. Internet forums also tend to be the worst possible places for trying to engage with opinions other than you're own — everyone's constantly very defensive and usually some idiot wades in to shout at everyone the second any difference of opinion arises.
The thing is, one cannot please everyone all of the time, some people will love it, some people will find a reason not to like it.
I have loved it and will continue to watch it.:D
It is very important when using different writers for certain episodes, that there is a clear and concise theme that flows, if it don't flow then it gets stuck, imagine a record on a deck and the needle gets stuck in the groove. for one, you would have to pick it up and drop it down but not necessarily in the correct place where it was.
But this "very important" thing should not be so important, and it wouldn't be if RTD and SM weren't both so tied up into the idea of the story arc; the "big bad", as someone else pointed out above.
In the classic series, one of the things that was so wonderful was the fact that you really didn't know what would happen next. The Doctor and his companions might be in the distant past in this story, on some alien planet in the next one, hitch a ride on a spaceship in the far future in the one after that, and none of these settings or adventures had to relate to each other in any way. There was a loose association of this story followed that one, because the actors were often dressed the same at the start of the next one as they were at the end of the last one, but the stories themselves could be played in almost any order and still stand as complete and compelling stories.
RTD did give us some stand alone stories in each series, with maybe some subtle clues dropped into them along the way, but SM has structured his almost after the fashion of a short story. What I mean by that, goes back to my highschool literature classes. My teacher pointed out that a short story does not give an author a lot of space for discriptions and banter. If the author makes a point of telling you about an object in a room in any great detail you can bet that someone in the story is going to do something with that object at some point in the story. SM gives us a story about the Silence? The Silence will have a part to play in the final episode. He went to a lot of trouble to show us a new and improved Dalek, but hasn't used them in a while? Don't be too surprised if the Daleks are not somehow behind, in charge of, or in league with the Silence and also in the finale. See how it works? No, I can't predict for you exactly who or what will be in the final episode with any certainty, but I can tell you that something out of every story in the series is somehow related to it.
Incorrect. The viewing figures are pretty much the same as ever, and the shows record breaking iplayer ratings of the last two series aren't even included in the viewing figures in any case. All that has changed, in line with wider trends in tv, is that the show time shifts a higher percentage of it's viewers than used to be the case, but final ratings are still much the same on average.
7.94m - Series 1
7.71m - Series 2
7.55m - Series 3
8.05m - Series 4
7.73m - Series 5
7.65m -Series 6 (to date)
OK, thanks for the detailed figures: as you say there seems to be a clear pattern there of no great change.
RTD did give us some stand alone stories in each series, with maybe some subtle clues dropped into them along the way, but SM has structured his almost after the fashion of a short story. What I mean by that, goes back to my highschool literature classes. My teacher pointed out that a short story does not give an author a lot of space for discriptions and banter. If the author makes a point of telling you about an object in a room in any great detail you can bet that someone in the story is going to do something with that object at some point in the story. SM gives us a story about the Silence? The Silence will have a part to play in the final episode. He went to a lot of trouble to show us a new and improved Dalek, but hasn't used them in a while? Don't be too surprised if the Daleks are not somehow behind, in charge of, or in league with the Silence and also in the finale. See how it works? No, I can't predict for you exactly who or what will be in the final episode with any certainty, but I can tell you that something out of every story in the series is somehow related to it.
Moff changed focus of DW. E.g, he seems to like time paradoxes and anything he can milk from them. It makes clever stories, but I'd rather something human like before, not technical.
I've been watching since 1963, and I've preferred some Doctors to others, enjoyed some serials/episodes and others not so much, liked or disliked various companians, producers or 'showrunners' and I love Matt Smith and Moffat for bringing back what feels more like 'old Who'. I was watching the tail end of Tennant & RTD's tenure out of duty rather than enthusiasm, the Specials grated intensely and I was pleased to see the back of them for that alone. I'm looking forward to it again and I wish they hadn't split the series as I want to know what happens!:o
Comments
Really? Then how come when I talk to friends they have the same opinion that Moffatt's regime has stopped them watching?
But I won't deny - going by my sources - that the show isn't as popular as it once was.
One difference I've noticed between the two visions is that a lot of the narrative and emotional focus has been placed on The Doctor - the alien - to the point where the companions more often than not end up as mere plot devices.
This is why I really like Amy's Choice and Vincent and the Doctor. In both instances, the alien threat is insignificant compared to the more human, Earth-bound issues.
Where are the 'Father's Day's, the 'Turn Lefts? I want to care about Amy and Rory, and perhaps I will in 'Let's Kill Hitler'.
After all, they've just discovered River Song - a spacey-wacey gun-totting quasi-Time Lord Archaeologist from the future - is their child, to whom the 909-year-old Doctor will eventually be a... (ahem)... 'manfriend'. Any chance of a remotely normal human life has been taken from them, or so it seems. I look forward to seeing how they get over this, if they do.
I think Doctor Who worked better when there was a stronger, grounded 'human' element running through it.
I'll repeat - I really like Moffat's Who.
I think that the casual viewer is struggling, fans will watch regardless, but the friends I talk to who are casual viewers are drifting away from it, I have also noticed the lack of toys in the shops for the younger casual viewer, all there is is the ( not very good) TARDIS, the sonic screwdriver and the tellytubby daleks, where are the wave after wave of action figures we had with series 1-4?
Are they simply not supplying the toy shops because demand has already dropped off?
Moff, Smith and Co have brought Who back to the old skool feel and actually made this show so much more energetic and witty and also intense, intricate and SCARY!
It is as mad as it was in its peak in the Pertwee/Baker years! And Matt Smith i truly feel (and many many many have stated) is one of the most finest actors and the best Doctor IMO. He is MY Doctor i feel, personally, more attached to this darker, madder alien side to him than any other actor has really highlighted for years!
Also a lot of my favourite episodes ever are from series 5 and 6 (and mainly Moff episodes with few exceptions i did like from RTDs 1 - Specials rule) Doctor Who has improved and has reached a new peak i feel! It is everywhere in the media, the marketing etc. the controversies etc. It is EVENT TV! and i absolutely love it!
Also Stateside the show has grown so SO much! Considering the competetiveness over there for ratings etc. Torchwood was more popular over there and now Doctor Who has overtaken it since 2009 and has grown larger and larger, Doctor Who has indeed grown global!
And long may it continue!
"16/03/1982 – The Doctor fails to save a much-loved companion. Doctor Who dies."
Hi, Matthew!
nyingy
I personally thought their journey as a couple since they have been married was as much a personal journey as any other we have seen. You could not do much with that during S5 because of the way the arc was progressing at that time. Amy's parents didn't exist, so no home life to speak of to show like with Rose. Rory didn't exist for almost half the series so you couldn't show that either.
I felt like they did several interesting things to examine their relationship so far this year (and it's only half over.)
I think season 14 is as good as any other from that time so i can't quite understand why your not keen on it.
Agree with this fully, been interested in the show since 2005 and almost became a fan but then Tennant came along and i just didn't like his portrayal of the Doctor but i still watched most episodes and it wasn't until Matt came along that i became fully interested and kind of a fan again.
How do the viewing figures compare? And I am not asking this because I know the answer, but because I dont.
The viewing figures (taking into consideration iPlayer and Sky+ etc..) as far as I know have been about an average of 1 million less than they used to be. I don't know if the explanation for this is that people have stopped watching, or not.
The AI hasn't changed much.
OK, thanks. That doesnt really sound too bad. I didnt think Iplayer was included in viewing figures though.
I'm a huge Doctor Who fan. Usually your fave Doctor is the actor who played the part when you were growing up. I'm 42,and my earliest memories of the series is "Planet Of The Spiders ", Pertwee's final story from 1974.
For me Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker and Peter Davison were fantastic in the role. I quite liked Colin Baker but couldn't stand Sylvester McCoy. I'll probably get lynched for this but I feel his interpretation of the Doctor was dreadful.. It was like Charlie Chaplin meets Science Fiction. OK, Tom had his comedy moments but his acting in general was of such a high calibre it was difficult to knock.
A lot o f people say that McCoys Doctor went out on a high because he became more mysterious..I must be lost on this. OK.."Ghostlight" was quite a good story but I still expected McCoy to do a silly jig around his brolley to save the day!
Most of the modern "Who" has been good but I've never struggled so much to like a Doctor since Matt Smith took over. I really want to like him but he just doesn't work for me. Having said that I do love his "Troughtonisms"
Maybe as I settle into my 40's I should stick to Newsnight!!!! :eek:
It reminds me of the way things were when Star Trek: The Next Generation started. It got slagged off no end by so many people (and this before the internet, too!) and yet it ended up breaking records. Eventually, it ended up being the yardstick that other sci-fi shows got judged by - again, often by the same people who originally slagged it off.
People who don't like things are always noisier and more noticable than the generally satisfied - and so end up seeming to be a greater majority. The only proof we ever hear of the series failure goes along this line;
I don't like it as much as I used to and all the people I speak to don't like it as much either.
But that's useless as proof of a general consensus. It's nothing more than anecdotal evidence and every statement of such can be equally countered by people who like the show more anf everyone they know also likes the show more. If anecdotal evidence was ever proof of general consensus, then no-one would ever have bothered compiling ratings or reporting on the opinions of focus groups.
The facts we do have place series 5 and 6 as having ratings at least equal to the average of the rest of Who post-2005. They don't hold the records for best ratings, but they are also above several of the other series, too. If they are doing poorly, then other years of Who have done far worse - and the series wasn't on the verge of cancellation then, either.
AI ratings have also remained very high. Consistent with the series as a whole and far above the average for TV shows across the board. That shows that not only does the viewership remain much the same, but the opinion of the viewers remains equally as high.
So, in conclusion, you simply want to ignore the vocal minority that don't like it. They only seem like a lot because of the proportionally small numbers of members of the internet forums (compared to the size of the total viewership) and because the "negative crowd" are disproportionatly vocal.
The facts are that ratings remain high, viewer share remains high, appreciation remains high and that the series is continuing to break records. Everything else is just individuals' personal opinion simply added with the weight of being able to voice it a lot, thanks to the wonders of the internet.
Or, in other words, pay no heed to the words of a loud minority. The show's popularity is fine
Incorrect. The viewing figures are pretty much the same as ever, and the shows record breaking iplayer ratings of the last two series aren't even included in the viewing figures in any case. All that has changed, in line with wider trends in tv, is that the show time shifts a higher percentage of it's viewers than used to be the case, but final ratings are still much the same on average.
7.94m - Series 1
7.71m - Series 2
7.55m - Series 3
8.05m - Series 4
7.73m - Series 5
7.65m -Series 6 (to date)
I've challenged people before on that, and I will again. You don't have to understand every event that went on in earlier episodes to understand the events of A Good Man Goes to War, as an example, despite it being the culmination of the half-series. With the possible exception of a brief grounding in River's background with the Doctor - which is in itself covered by her meeting with Rory - all you need is there. Amy's been kidnapped and had a baby, Rory and the Doctor are coming to get her.
Huh? When? There haven't been any fake-out timelines, and the only alternate realities were in one episode where they were clearly flagged up as such right from the start. There was one fake character recently, two if you count the hallucination of ancient mad Rory which lasted all of a few seconds.
Don't get caught in the speculation so much that you lose focus on the story being told.
I'm quoting to show agreement. I get on with all of old-Who, the **** end of Pertwee and the first year of C.Baker aside (it's the scripts, you understand, not the man), so I'm perhaps a bit wishy washy but I really like Smith. Tennant was good too, but had worn out a bit; anything after Tate turns up I can't really be bothered with. Moffat's done a good job, he's just done a different job. Inevitably some people think it's a worse job, and people tend to be more likely to speak up when they have a negative opinion. Internet forums also tend to be the worst possible places for trying to engage with opinions other than you're own — everyone's constantly very defensive and usually some idiot wades in to shout at everyone the second any difference of opinion arises.
But this "very important" thing should not be so important, and it wouldn't be if RTD and SM weren't both so tied up into the idea of the story arc; the "big bad", as someone else pointed out above.
In the classic series, one of the things that was so wonderful was the fact that you really didn't know what would happen next. The Doctor and his companions might be in the distant past in this story, on some alien planet in the next one, hitch a ride on a spaceship in the far future in the one after that, and none of these settings or adventures had to relate to each other in any way. There was a loose association of this story followed that one, because the actors were often dressed the same at the start of the next one as they were at the end of the last one, but the stories themselves could be played in almost any order and still stand as complete and compelling stories.
RTD did give us some stand alone stories in each series, with maybe some subtle clues dropped into them along the way, but SM has structured his almost after the fashion of a short story. What I mean by that, goes back to my highschool literature classes. My teacher pointed out that a short story does not give an author a lot of space for discriptions and banter. If the author makes a point of telling you about an object in a room in any great detail you can bet that someone in the story is going to do something with that object at some point in the story. SM gives us a story about the Silence? The Silence will have a part to play in the final episode. He went to a lot of trouble to show us a new and improved Dalek, but hasn't used them in a while? Don't be too surprised if the Daleks are not somehow behind, in charge of, or in league with the Silence and also in the finale. See how it works? No, I can't predict for you exactly who or what will be in the final episode with any certainty, but I can tell you that something out of every story in the series is somehow related to it.
OK, thanks for the detailed figures: as you say there seems to be a clear pattern there of no great change.
http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2011/07/dwn120711230008-doctor-who-best-seller.html
It's called Chekhov's gun.
Moff changed focus of DW. E.g, he seems to like time paradoxes and anything he can milk from them. It makes clever stories, but I'd rather something human like before, not technical.
Of particular note:
which makes a mockery of the claims up thread about DW generating less commercial revenue.