RTD era - "fans" complain that too much time is spent developing characters.
Moffat era - "fans" complain that too little time is spent developing characters.
The circle of life on fan forums.
I always felt there was an obvious hiccup in many RTD scripts where he'd thought "Right, end of the character stuff, better resolve the plot now". One of the things I particularly liked about Asylum of The Daleks was how resolving Amy and Rory's marriage integrated so seemlessly into the plot (via the nanocloud protectors).
On the wider issue, I actually thought that Series 1 looked pretty good, but the visuals and atmosphere got progressively worse through to Series 4. Series 5 was a step up with, I think, a more coherent visual design (Use of the colour blue for example) and Series 6 seemed to make a leap in CGI effects. I don't recall much integration of CGI and live action during RTD tenure (scenes like the Dalek parliament in aforementioned AOTD). There have been some poor special effects recently, Both Deep Breadth and Into the Dalek had some dodgy scenes with Capaldi, and I did wonder why Moffatt had to rehash the mouth scene of "The Beast Below" in "Into the Dalek" when clearly it hadn't worked first time round ...
The visuals have been incredible since 2005 and there's been some standout moments since Moffat took over - the pyramid in Wedding of River Song was superb and the big interiors of the bank last week was cinema quality. We've also had some incredible prosthetics and "robots' using physical effects.
If I have one criticism of DW under Moffat it's that RTD did a lot better with the music and general sound.
And no matter what else he ever does on DW, Moffat gave us the Silents and they are fantastic
I like and enjoy both eras, but I think Moffat should not be here post-Series 9. RTD left at the right time (though he left on a definite low) and I think 2015 is Moffat's time to leave.
Anyway
RTD
+ Good, fleshed out characters.
+ Story arcs were engaging and easy to follow
+ Pretty much everything was tied up at the end of the season
- Silly monsters like the Slitheen
- The Doctor being portrayed as a God-like being
- The poor handling of Ten's regeneration
Moffat
+ Darker stories
+ Interesting characters such as the Paternoster Gang
+ He can actually handle a regeneration unlike his predecessor
- His female characters always being ''Sassy and Feisty''
- Leaving story arcs in the dust at the end of every season despite questions still lingering.
- The distinct lack of Who we actually have since his era started. Granted, that may not be his fault.
However;
-He doesn't place a lot of emphasis on character development and a lot of his female characters seem to fall back on a "strong, sassy, flirty woman" archetype. -Sometimes his scripts are filled with supposedly witty "one-liners" which just end up being irritating and coming across as quite glib.
-In recent years he seems to have had a noticeable lack of organisation... but I think this seems to have been fixed with Series 8 (by his own admission)
I'm happy with both eras, to be honest, but I do think Moffat should think about leaving. We all know what happened the last time a showrunner stayed too long.
Doctor Who needs to change fairly frequently to keep itself fresh.
BIB: I agree; I think glib is the word. Maybe it felt fresh and witty at the start but almost every line is a one-liner and it's tedious. There might as well be a laughter track.
The visuals have been incredible since 2005 and there's been some standout moments since Moffat took over - the pyramid in Wedding of River Song was superb and the big interiors of the bank last week was cinema quality. We've also had some incredible prosthetics and "robots' using physical effects.
If I have one criticism of DW under Moffat it's that RTD did a lot better with the music and general sound.
And no matter what else he ever does on DW, Moffat gave us the Silents and they are fantastic
Have to say the scenary and editing was first class.
+ He can actually handle a regeneration unlike his predecessor
QUOTE]
I have to very much disagree that RTD couldn't handle regeneration. Not only did ten's score very highly on AI Nine's has to be one of my favourite moments of all of New Who. Courageous, beautiful character driven moment.
+ He can actually handle a regeneration unlike his predecessor
QUOTE]
I have to very much disagree that RTD couldn't handle regeneration. Not only did ten's score very highly on AI Nine's has to be one of my favourite moments of all of New Who. Courageous, beautiful character driven moment.
Nine's regeneration was fantastic (if you'll pardon the pun) so perhaps that was a poor choice of words, but I found Ten's to be very poor indeed. I thought Eleven's was a masterpiece though.
Would that be the half second transformation? Or the part where he wiped out the dalek flagship? (Makes you wonder why all the timelords didn't just regenerate to destroy that fleet in the 50th anniversary special)
I much preferred RTD's tenure. he wrote for the audience with a broad scope, whereas Moff seems to write for himself, with a much more limited vision.
Pretty much agree with this. RTD era seemed to explore different elements of what he thought the audience would want to see whereas Moffat seems to write more for a limited scope of what he thinks will be good regardless of what he thinks the audience would make of it.
Also, I have no idea what the Op is going on about calling the RTD era and it's characters 'childish'. RTD wrote doctors and companions that were easy to almost instantly take to because they felt real and were easy to identify with. Moffat's companions almost seem like him thinking 'IF I WRITE THEM ALL MOODY AND BOSSY PEOPLE WILL THINK THAT'S GROWN UP'. Seems inconsequential to him if they don't much of a personality apart from that one feature .
Also, I have no idea what the Op is going on about calling the RTD era and it's characters 'childish'. RTD wrote doctors and companions that were easy to almost instantly take to because they felt real and were easy to identify with. Moffat's companions almost seem like him thinking 'IF I WRITE THEM ALL MOODY AND BOSSY PEOPLE WILL THINK THAT'S GROWN UP'. Seems inconsequential to him if they don't much of a personality apart from that one feature .
I don't think 'childish', in the sense of something appealing to children, is necessarily a bad thing, and that TV intended for children can be popular with adults as well. Also, working under some restrictions means that you can't rely on the lazy 'Throw a bit of blood and sex and some one-liners' in there that you could get away with in an adult show.
Finding ways to be scary without being gratuitous is actually pretty good if successful. The Innocents doesn't have gratuitous sex or horror and yet it's really creepy and actually does have some sinister sexual undertones. Good television works on different levels.
The production value of the show has changed massively in the change between producers. Moffats look is a lot more professional and refined while RTDs was slightly messy and traditional. Look at at the TARDIS designs and you can see the truth.
I much preferred RTDs but I wouldn't say any of them are better than the other.
RTDs characters are much much better. Amy or Clara don't even come close to Rose, Martha, Jack or Donna.
Even though Moffats look is more refined, I can't say the same for his stories. He makes them needlessly over complicated a lot of the time and it gets annoying really fast.
I think RTDs biggest fault was the need to one up his last series every time. Series 1 was the earth about to be destroyed by an invasion of daleks, series 2 the same thing only with daleks AND cybermen. Series 3 was the TARDIS being stole by his biggest enemy the Master. Series 4 was the end of creation, every planet, every star, every galaxy, every universe, every person. You can't even one up that.
It was refreshing when Moffat made the series arc the doctor running for his life.
One of the directors, I can't remember who, summed up the two best I think, He said that RTD paints with a broad brush, the Moff with a fine one.
Or as I prefer to see it:
RTD = AA Painters and Decorators (in a white van)
Moff = someone who can paint
Sometimes you need the former but the latter's work is generally more valuable.
Valuable only in the sense that someone might deem it more worthy and artistic. If we're using the paint analogy to mean who can write better, I think RTD can comfortably count as an artist- simply a more accessible populist artist.
I definitely preferred the style of RTD. It felt more Sci Fi and less fairy tale. Less complicated storylines that you didn't have to come on here afterwards to find out what the hell was going on, but they still had some genuinely/scary spooky moments (Silence in the library/ Blink/ Waters of Mars)
I loved Matt Smith though. However, I'm not watching any more. I don't find Peter Capaldi attractive and combined with Steven Moffat's style, it just doesn't interest me.
I definitely preferred the style of RTD. It felt more Sci Fi and less fairy tale. Less complicated storylines that you didn't have to come on here afterwards to find out what the hell was going on, but they still had some genuinely/scary spooky moments (Silence in the library/ Blink/ Waters of Mars)
I loved Matt Smith though. However, I'm not watching any more. I don't find Peter Capaldi attractive and combined with Steven Moffat's style, it just doesn't interest me.
Two of the three episods you refer to from the RTD-era are written by Moffat, and by RTD's own admission he barely touched Moffat's scripts.
Your approach to only watching an attractive Doctor seems shallow but each to their own I guess. I'll simply add that Moffat's "style" has quite significantly changed in Series 8. Few could argue that it is definitely more character-driven and harks back to older series in terms of style and structure.
I really struggle to praise or criticise one particular show runner for their 'era' though, as these days it takes so many people to pull a TV show like Doctor Who off that you cannot honestly pin all the efforts to a single man. I grew tired with the direction the show took under Moffat's tenure up until Series 7, and was even tired of his own episodes which I felt were lacklustre. But to his credit Series 8 has been something of a turnaround. It's nothing groundbreaking, but I think that's exactly it - now that Moffat Who isn't trying to outdo itself each and every week it's become massively more consistent and enjoyable. I'm loving the character development (Clara especially), the acting is great, the episodes are diverse even if they're not innovative and there's just a sense of charm about the show again now that it's stopped trying to be a bombastic epic all the time, which it isn't.
I like and enjoy both eras, but I think Moffat should not be here post-Series 9. RTD left at the right time (though he left on a definite low) and I think 2015 is Moffat's time to leave.
.
It's all well and good saying that and I don't instinctively disagree but who will take over? You can't just say 'yeah, he's done his time, bring in the next one.' Who is the next one? Are they as good?
Two of the three episods you refer to from the RTD-era are written by Moffat, and by RTD's own admission he barely touched Moffat's scripts.
Your approach to only watching an attractive Doctor seems shallow but each to their own I guess. I'll simply add that Moffat's "style" has quite significantly changed in Series 8. Few could argue that it is definitely more character-driven and harks back to older series in terms of style and structure.
I really struggle to praise or criticise one particular show runner for their 'era' though, as these days it takes so many people to pull a TV show like Doctor Who off that you cannot honestly pin all the efforts to a single man. I grew tired with the direction the show took under Moffat's tenure up until Series 7, and was even tired of his own episodes which I felt were lacklustre. But to his credit Series 8 has been something of a turnaround. It's nothing groundbreaking, but I think that's exactly it - now that Moffat Who isn't trying to outdo itself each and every week it's become massively more consistent and enjoyable. I'm loving the character development (Clara especially), the acting is great, the episodes are diverse even if they're not innovative and there's just a sense of charm about the show again now that it's stopped trying to be a bombastic epic all the time, which it isn't.
I love the fact Moffat seems to have reigned this in a bit with S8. I loved the RTD era but there was a real sense of trying to out do themselves every year by making everything bigger and more sensational. And it really left the show with nowhere else to go. The constant end of the world or the universe threats cant last forever. RTD sort of put a full stop on that by having Tennants swan song be the END OF TIME.
And ultimately these massive blockbusting attempts to be bigger and better and badder than ever before don't produce the nest episodes. Its why I will always rate the S3 finale above all others from RTD. Yes. It was ridiculous at times and was a whole world being destroyed kind of story but it had purpose and heart. Whereas S4 just seemed like an exercise in throwing everything at the screen and hoping it seems epic. It sadly failed.
Doctor Who isn't Independence Day or Transformers. It doesn't need to compete in that arena anymore. I understand why they reached for that at the time but it really is about time they dialled things back a bit.
I definitely preferred the style of RTD. It felt more Sci Fi and less fairy tale. Less complicated storylines that you didn't have to come on here afterwards to find out what the hell was going on, but they still had some genuinely/scary spooky moments (Silence in the library/ Blink/ Waters of Mars)
I loved Matt Smith though. However, I'm not watching any more. I don't find Peter Capaldi attractive and combined with Steven Moffat's style, it just doesn't interest me.
I preferred RTD's style as well. I am not a sci-fi person at all but he made the show accessible to everyone. It was very much something that the whole family could watch, as it engaged the kids whilst still appealing to adults. Maybe Moffat is simply reacting to a trend- the viewers who were kids back then will be young adults now and the show has taken a turn towards an older audience- so I don't expect him to simply do exactly what RTD did and I don't think that would be right.
Though I found Matt Smith grating at times, he had a very clear tone and style. He looked young but also seemed like an old man at times and he wasn't trying to be a pin-up.
I don't think your point about Capaldi is entirely shallow. Attractive doesn't just have to mean physically attractive, but having an attractive personality. Having the sort of charisma that draws you in. However Capaldi's doctor is defiantly unattractive; most of the time he is just plain rude for no apparant reason other than rudeness may be mistaken for humour. His age hasn't really added anything to the role, even though they were hyping that they'd get rid of all the romance and that he'd have more gravitas and authority- qualities which can be very attractive.
It is possible to create an attractive enigmatic character without everyone wondering when he's going to bed his companion.
I've been watching some Ecclestone episodes and the current series and Dr/companion dynamic have a very similar feel. Ecclestone's Dr was a sod and Dalek trapped Rose with the Dalek as it was the only way to save 'the planet', Rose was always saving the Dr from scrapes, the stories are more about Clara and boyfriend at the moment, the direction is faster cutting than later series. I was underwhelmed with a lot of RTD episodes and I am underwhelmed by the current series.
It is an obvious change 'direction'/overall feel to the show than Moffat's previous series.
However, the rating will still be the same and it will carry on as the vast vast majority of people watch it as a bit of Saturday evening entertainment for 45minutes and that is it...they don't spend ages dissecting episodes like a few people on the internet do.
However, the rating will still be the same and it will carry on as the vast vast majority of people watch it as a bit of Saturday evening entertainment for 45minutes and that is it....
Actually, the ratings show that to be increasingly untrue. Fewer people are watching when broadcast and 'time shifting' their viewing of it, through iplayer or saved on their digibox or whatever (I do both). That actually implies an active audience that are making a conscious decision to seek out the show and watch it, rather than watching it simply 'because it's on'. Such an audience must be presumed to have a more avid interest than for a typical programme because they are making special effort to watch it. They also must be assumed to have a certain degree of Internet savvy (in order to find and watch the show on iplayer or itunes and the like worldwide). This is further borne out by the fact that Doctor Who always performs strongest with the 16 - 54 age group, who are the most likely to have a strong internet presence.
I preferred RTD's style as well. I am not a sci-fi person at all but he made the show accessible to everyone. It was very much something that the whole family could watch, as it engaged the kids whilst still appealing to adults. Maybe Moffat is simply reacting to a trend- the viewers who were kids back then will be young adults now and the show has taken a turn towards an older audience- so I don't expect him to simply do exactly what RTD did and I don't think that would be right.
Though I found Matt Smith grating at times, he had a very clear tone and style. He looked young but also seemed like an old man at times and he wasn't trying to be a pin-up.
I don't think your point about Capaldi is entirely shallow. Attractive doesn't just have to mean physically attractive, but having an attractive personality.Having the sort of charisma that draws you in. However Capaldi's doctor is defiantly unattractive; most of the time he is just plain rude for no apparant reason other than rudeness may be mistaken for humour. His age hasn't really added anything to the role, even though they were hyping that they'd get rid of all the romance and that he'd have more gravitas and authority- qualities which can be very attractive.
It is possible to create an attractive enigmatic character without everyone wondering when he's going to bed his companion.
I totally agree. When I said I didn't find Peter Capaldi's Doctor attractive, that's exactly what I meant. I found David Tennant and Matt Smith's portrayals attractive for different reasons. I enjoyed Matt's geekyness and David's optimistic energy. They both had an optimistic energy actually. I just look at Peter Capaldi and think "Who cares?" I've never really l;iked the actress who plays Clara either, so I guess New Who is over for me until he regenerates again.
Comments
Moffat era - "fans" complain that too little time is spent developing characters.
The circle of life on fan forums.
I always felt there was an obvious hiccup in many RTD scripts where he'd thought "Right, end of the character stuff, better resolve the plot now". One of the things I particularly liked about Asylum of The Daleks was how resolving Amy and Rory's marriage integrated so seemlessly into the plot (via the nanocloud protectors).
On the wider issue, I actually thought that Series 1 looked pretty good, but the visuals and atmosphere got progressively worse through to Series 4. Series 5 was a step up with, I think, a more coherent visual design (Use of the colour blue for example) and Series 6 seemed to make a leap in CGI effects. I don't recall much integration of CGI and live action during RTD tenure (scenes like the Dalek parliament in aforementioned AOTD). There have been some poor special effects recently, Both Deep Breadth and Into the Dalek had some dodgy scenes with Capaldi, and I did wonder why Moffatt had to rehash the mouth scene of "The Beast Below" in "Into the Dalek" when clearly it hadn't worked first time round ...
If I have one criticism of DW under Moffat it's that RTD did a lot better with the music and general sound.
And no matter what else he ever does on DW, Moffat gave us the Silents and they are fantastic
Anyway
RTD
+ Good, fleshed out characters.
+ Story arcs were engaging and easy to follow
+ Pretty much everything was tied up at the end of the season
- Silly monsters like the Slitheen
- The Doctor being portrayed as a God-like being
- The poor handling of Ten's regeneration
Moffat
+ Darker stories
+ Interesting characters such as the Paternoster Gang
+ He can actually handle a regeneration unlike his predecessor
- His female characters always being ''Sassy and Feisty''
- Leaving story arcs in the dust at the end of every season despite questions still lingering.
- The distinct lack of Who we actually have since his era started. Granted, that may not be his fault.
BIB: I agree; I think glib is the word. Maybe it felt fresh and witty at the start but almost every line is a one-liner and it's tedious. There might as well be a laughter track.
Have to say the scenary and editing was first class.
Also, I have no idea what the Op is going on about calling the RTD era and it's characters 'childish'. RTD wrote doctors and companions that were easy to almost instantly take to because they felt real and were easy to identify with. Moffat's companions almost seem like him thinking 'IF I WRITE THEM ALL MOODY AND BOSSY PEOPLE WILL THINK THAT'S GROWN UP'. Seems inconsequential to him if they don't much of a personality apart from that one feature .
I don't think 'childish', in the sense of something appealing to children, is necessarily a bad thing, and that TV intended for children can be popular with adults as well. Also, working under some restrictions means that you can't rely on the lazy 'Throw a bit of blood and sex and some one-liners' in there that you could get away with in an adult show.
Finding ways to be scary without being gratuitous is actually pretty good if successful. The Innocents doesn't have gratuitous sex or horror and yet it's really creepy and actually does have some sinister sexual undertones. Good television works on different levels.
Annoyingly I have to agree, though RTD did piss me off greatly at times .
Yes, who is Mottat ?
Or as I prefer to see it:
RTD = AA Painters and Decorators (in a white van)
Moff = someone who can paint
Sometimes you need the former but the latter's work is generally more valuable.
I much preferred RTDs but I wouldn't say any of them are better than the other.
RTDs characters are much much better. Amy or Clara don't even come close to Rose, Martha, Jack or Donna.
Even though Moffats look is more refined, I can't say the same for his stories. He makes them needlessly over complicated a lot of the time and it gets annoying really fast.
I think RTDs biggest fault was the need to one up his last series every time. Series 1 was the earth about to be destroyed by an invasion of daleks, series 2 the same thing only with daleks AND cybermen. Series 3 was the TARDIS being stole by his biggest enemy the Master. Series 4 was the end of creation, every planet, every star, every galaxy, every universe, every person. You can't even one up that.
It was refreshing when Moffat made the series arc the doctor running for his life.
Valuable only in the sense that someone might deem it more worthy and artistic. If we're using the paint analogy to mean who can write better, I think RTD can comfortably count as an artist- simply a more accessible populist artist.
I loved Matt Smith though. However, I'm not watching any more. I don't find Peter Capaldi attractive and combined with Steven Moffat's style, it just doesn't interest me.
Two of the three episods you refer to from the RTD-era are written by Moffat, and by RTD's own admission he barely touched Moffat's scripts.
Your approach to only watching an attractive Doctor seems shallow but each to their own I guess. I'll simply add that Moffat's "style" has quite significantly changed in Series 8. Few could argue that it is definitely more character-driven and harks back to older series in terms of style and structure.
I really struggle to praise or criticise one particular show runner for their 'era' though, as these days it takes so many people to pull a TV show like Doctor Who off that you cannot honestly pin all the efforts to a single man. I grew tired with the direction the show took under Moffat's tenure up until Series 7, and was even tired of his own episodes which I felt were lacklustre. But to his credit Series 8 has been something of a turnaround. It's nothing groundbreaking, but I think that's exactly it - now that Moffat Who isn't trying to outdo itself each and every week it's become massively more consistent and enjoyable. I'm loving the character development (Clara especially), the acting is great, the episodes are diverse even if they're not innovative and there's just a sense of charm about the show again now that it's stopped trying to be a bombastic epic all the time, which it isn't.
It's all well and good saying that and I don't instinctively disagree but who will take over? You can't just say 'yeah, he's done his time, bring in the next one.' Who is the next one? Are they as good?
I love the fact Moffat seems to have reigned this in a bit with S8. I loved the RTD era but there was a real sense of trying to out do themselves every year by making everything bigger and more sensational. And it really left the show with nowhere else to go. The constant end of the world or the universe threats cant last forever. RTD sort of put a full stop on that by having Tennants swan song be the END OF TIME.
And ultimately these massive blockbusting attempts to be bigger and better and badder than ever before don't produce the nest episodes. Its why I will always rate the S3 finale above all others from RTD. Yes. It was ridiculous at times and was a whole world being destroyed kind of story but it had purpose and heart. Whereas S4 just seemed like an exercise in throwing everything at the screen and hoping it seems epic. It sadly failed.
Doctor Who isn't Independence Day or Transformers. It doesn't need to compete in that arena anymore. I understand why they reached for that at the time but it really is about time they dialled things back a bit.
I preferred RTD's style as well. I am not a sci-fi person at all but he made the show accessible to everyone. It was very much something that the whole family could watch, as it engaged the kids whilst still appealing to adults. Maybe Moffat is simply reacting to a trend- the viewers who were kids back then will be young adults now and the show has taken a turn towards an older audience- so I don't expect him to simply do exactly what RTD did and I don't think that would be right.
Though I found Matt Smith grating at times, he had a very clear tone and style. He looked young but also seemed like an old man at times and he wasn't trying to be a pin-up.
I don't think your point about Capaldi is entirely shallow. Attractive doesn't just have to mean physically attractive, but having an attractive personality. Having the sort of charisma that draws you in. However Capaldi's doctor is defiantly unattractive; most of the time he is just plain rude for no apparant reason other than rudeness may be mistaken for humour. His age hasn't really added anything to the role, even though they were hyping that they'd get rid of all the romance and that he'd have more gravitas and authority- qualities which can be very attractive.
It is possible to create an attractive enigmatic character without everyone wondering when he's going to bed his companion.
It is an obvious change 'direction'/overall feel to the show than Moffat's previous series.
However, the rating will still be the same and it will carry on as the vast vast majority of people watch it as a bit of Saturday evening entertainment for 45minutes and that is it...they don't spend ages dissecting episodes like a few people on the internet do.
Actually, the ratings show that to be increasingly untrue. Fewer people are watching when broadcast and 'time shifting' their viewing of it, through iplayer or saved on their digibox or whatever (I do both). That actually implies an active audience that are making a conscious decision to seek out the show and watch it, rather than watching it simply 'because it's on'. Such an audience must be presumed to have a more avid interest than for a typical programme because they are making special effort to watch it. They also must be assumed to have a certain degree of Internet savvy (in order to find and watch the show on iplayer or itunes and the like worldwide). This is further borne out by the fact that Doctor Who always performs strongest with the 16 - 54 age group, who are the most likely to have a strong internet presence.
I totally agree. When I said I didn't find Peter Capaldi's Doctor attractive, that's exactly what I meant. I found David Tennant and Matt Smith's portrayals attractive for different reasons. I enjoyed Matt's geekyness and David's optimistic energy. They both had an optimistic energy actually. I just look at Peter Capaldi and think "Who cares?" I've never really l;iked the actress who plays Clara either, so I guess New Who is over for me until he regenerates again.