If it had been a popular innovation, the BBC would encourage it. If the BBC have told Moffat to tone it down, it was for a reason.
And the figures haven't fallen for the present series with no intrusive arc, as far as I know.
What I said about people liking it was because the ratings haven't changed, so 'people' DO either like it or don't mind it as a whole. I did also basically say some people will like certain things and others not, so I'm not just saying everyone must like this cos I say so.
The figures also haven't fallen this series either, that's true ( and I also have said this) and I think this has been a great series. (If missing just a little something). there was criticism of the Rings episode, but I loved it and defended it. So the general public, or 'people' DO still like it either way.
What I was saying before, that the opinion which goes 'people think the Moffat era is crap' cannot be proved by just saying 'people think...' because the general public prove this is not the case. They still watch , and are not turning off.
Hopefully this doesn't sound like I'm picking on you, but I think you've come in to the middle of an argument where one side is saying they miss the stronger story arcs, but it's still great, and then some others came in to say no one likes them, it's all crap. ( I think there's a bit of cross over going on between this thread and the media attention thread)
This was a good thread at the beginning, there's not many positive, constructive discussions going on and it was like that.
Lots of people liked series five and six arcs. But there was sufficient concern about a pattern of audience reaction they were seeing that they decided to tone things down. Something of a shame for those that liked it. But as Granny said, if it were a triumph then you'd expect series seven to have continued in a similar fashion.
Moffat said he thought it was because people who didn't like it were stupid and didn't want clever twists. I disagree with him. I think some people just didn't like that particular story told in that particular way. Lots of credit to Moffat for ambition. Slightly less credit to his judgements about what to do with River Song and a pregnant companion.
I'm not missing arcs at all because we're still getting a couple of them: Clara and the GI.
I loved the arcs from series 5 and 6 but I also agree with some of the criticisms. 5's isn't properly finished even now and 6 should have had more time for a proper reaction from the Williams' to the loss of their baby and more time to establish Mel and more time for River to change from programmed Doctor killer into loving him.
Bring on the 50th and Trenzalore and River's final trip before the Library!
I guess for a lot of people it comes down to whether they actually liked the story that was in those particular arcs then? So now you either want more or you don't due to that.
Some will want a strong arc there, no matter how it turns out. Whether they think it's good or bad, as long as there is one.
Some will want a light, hardly there at all, kind of arc that only just joins up stories, coming together in the finale.
Some will want completely stand alone episodes with no trace of any story going on in the background. ( I don't get that one because Dr Who has always had other stuff going on from week to week- even if only for 4 -6 weeks).
That sums it up for me. Happy with no arc, except perhaps character development of the companion and the nearly invisible Bad Wolf, Saxon, Bees type things. Was happy with the series five arc, except that Moffat chose not to wrap it up satisfactorily. Was intrigued by the much heavier arc for series six at first. But didn't like the captive pregnancy, baby kidnap, Mels or River is the daughter things. All poor ideas. I also felt he didn't tell those ideas in a very good way either. But I do appreciate the difficulties he must have had squeezing that stuff into standalone stories etc. Too ambitious perhaps. But even if the mechanics were better done I still would not have liked the ideas.
I wouldn't mind a more prominent arc, but would want a much better one than series six. The current style of arc suits me though.
oh...and also - series six had some fantastic episodes in it - I even liked the Pirate one. The business with Nixon was wonderful. Goo story, God Complex. Doctor's Wife, Girl Who Waited. Even, oddly for me, Wedding of River Song. Lovely stuff. I pretend much of the arc didn't happen though. Even the two episodes with the worst of the arc stuff in it - Goes to War and Hitler - were well made and had bits I liked.
One aspect of series 6 that really didn't satisfy was the question of Amy's baby. The baby was taken from her, and we were apparently meant to feel that this was OK because Amy knew her baby grew up to be River and was therefore OK (if spending much of your life in jail for a murder you didn't commit and then dying prematurely and spending eternity in a computer simulation is OK).
I was convinced that at some stage Amy and Rory would be re-united with their baby and that never happened. That's a pretty sad outcome. I can see that it might complicate the story too much to re-unite them with their child, thus messing up River's already convoluted timeline still further. But maybe it would have been better to avoid such a plotline altogether.
You know, on reflection, I really wouldn't be too bothered about the lack of a strong story arc if it wasn't for the fact that the show is, at the moment in time, just not that good at the moment.
Yes, I think the story arcs made series 5 and 6. They kept me interested and entertained, while Matt Smith's acting was enough to get through the rather poor "filler" episodes such as the Pirates one in series 6.
Series 7 has been a string of Pirate style episodes. The weakest episodes from series 6 have kind of taken over the show. The only episodes I've enjoyed this series have been written by Steven Moffat, The rest of them are not the blockbuster episodes they promised, but weak poorly written ones with nowhere near enough run time to actually be half decent.
The trouble was, the past 2 episodes have simply bored me. I really hate to be critical about DW, a show I really do love. It would be a dark day indeed to hear it had been cancelled, but in all honesty if it doesn't start improving, and fast, it could be heading in that direction. I despise the press for the stick they always seem ready to give it, and Matt Smith, who frankly deserves better than what he's being given, however it's hard not to agree with some of the comments they've made on quality of episodes.
Is it the lack of an arc? Well, yes it is, but it goes deeper as well. I'm not expecting a string of "Doctor's Wife"s, but come on. Last series ended with the Doctor faking his death, and seemed to signal an entirely different direction for the character. Nothing has come of it. Instead, it's average episode after average episode.
EE gets a lot of (very justified) stick on here. That is a show which has had very visible problems for years that do not look like it's getting fixed. The beauty of DW is that it can change. The 50th is coming up, and we still have 5 episodes left of series 7 that may make me eat my words. I hope so. Come on, Moff.
You know, on reflection, I really wouldn't be too bothered about the lack of a strong story arc if it wasn't for the fact that the show is, at the moment in time, just not that good at the moment.
Yes, I think the story arcs made series 5 and 6. They kept me interested and entertained, while Matt Smith's acting was enough to get through the rather poor "filler" episodes such as the Pirates one in series 6.
Series 7 has been a string of Pirate style episodes. The weakest episodes from series 6 have kind of taken over the show. The only episodes I've enjoyed this series have been written by Steven Moffat, The rest of them are not the blockbuster episodes they promised, but weak poorly written ones with nowhere near enough run time to actually be half decent.
The trouble was, the past 2 episodes have simply bored me. I really hate to be critical about DW, a show I really do love. It would be a dark day indeed to hear it had been cancelled, but in all honesty if it doesn't start improving, and fast, it could be heading in that direction. I despise the press for the stick they always seem ready to give it, and Matt Smith, who frankly deserves better than what he's being given, however it's hard not to agree with some of the comments they've made on quality of episodes.
Is it the lack of an arc? Well, yes it is, but it goes deeper as well. I'm not expecting a string of "Doctor's Wife"s, but come on. Last series ended with the Doctor faking his death, and seemed to signal an entirely different direction for the character. Nothing has come of it. Instead, it's average episode after average episode.
EE gets a lot of (very justified) stick on here. That is a show which has had very visible problems for years that do not look like it's getting fixed. The beauty of DW is that it can change. The 50th is coming up, and we still have 5 episodes left of series 7 that may make me eat my words. I hope so. Come on, Moff.
To be fair, if people don't like this format, they can't change it until series 8 now, the rest of them are filmed and edited. I foresee the double parters returning next series.
Do we know for certain there is not a slight background storyline in Clara thats leading somewhere for the finale? I prefer it to be a bit more subtle and the archs to be based on character development rather than glaringly obvious things that are shoehorned in like helicopter pilots refering to bad wolf when there's no possible way for Rose or The Doctor to hear them.
They shuffled around the order of some of the episodes, I think Night Terrors was switched with the pirate one. It would have made some kind of sense for them to be on the lookout for a child, and so therefore a psychic distress call from one would tie into the ongoing narrative, where pirates wouldn't.
Much prefer the slight background arcs, Saxon, Bad Wolf and so on.
In fact one of the most powerful arcs was a simple reintroduction of a fob watch, so simple yet far more impacting than the turgid series long fan fiction bore of series 6.
No problems with the Clara arc so far, although I still do wish as a viewer we are allowed to discover there is a mystery behind the character (like Bad Wolf) rather than be told by the showrunner/team before even the first an episode has aired.
So after the suffocating mess that was the series 6 Pond/Song arc/s, (IMO) the arc in series 7 seems to be doing the do just like Betty Boo.
I too believe that they were the best two examples of Doctor Who series arcs. They were both cleverly interwoven with the episodes where several episodes were pivotal or held big clues in the subtext.
At the end of the series you could look back at previous episodes and you'd think 'Aah', there were things put in place there which you didn't notice at the time.
In hindsight Bad Wolf was really well done with elements such as the religious undertones which hardly anyone noticed as arc clues but would later on be recognised to be a main plot point in regard to the story arc.
Also all the Sun clues littered around. Plus the fact revealed later on near the end that the Daleks were in control of that media satellite in The Long Game which was featured in about episode 3. It was just so rich and cleverly hidden in plain sight.
As you say, the Saxon arc was done well too with many episodes linked together which was something which only became more apparent near the end.
What may appear to be a standalone episode with no relevance to any ongoing arc may actually be more relevant than you think later on. It's just that it doesn't need to be so blatant like the Torchwood nonsense was, which felt more like namedropping Torchwood every now and again, or watching out for the mention of the word 'Silence'.
You may find out that this series these early episodes may hold a lot more than you see on the surface and may possibly produce rewards later on in the series.
Just because something isn't obvious doesn't mean that it's not there.
Saxon and Bad Wolf weren't arcs, just secret words. No mention of Bad Wolf ever advanced the ongoing plot in any way, and as far as Saxon went all we found out was that he was a politician that in one episode was interested in Martha's family. None of these had any bearing on the finale. Any connection was entirely superficial.
The use of the name Torchwood actually was an arc, from revealing the power they wield in Christmas Invasion, to their origins in Tooth and Claw, to their downfall at Canary Wharf.
I agree. The Wolf, Saxon and bees stuff weren't arcs. But they were very satisfying in the way described above by Alrightmate. Quite clever actually because they chime with people rewatching dvd box sets and going "aha! hadn't noticed that Saxon mention before!".
The actual arcs I think of as things involving major character developments (what is it with Donna and her mum? Does Amy really love Rory?) or actual plot mysteries (is the doctor dead? Who was that child?).
Maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on the definition of Arc. Just need a word for "thing that runs through a series until the finale and sometimes beyond".
Saxon and Bad Wolf weren't arcs, just secret words. No mention of Bad Wolf ever advanced the ongoing plot in any way, and as far as Saxon went all we found out was that he was a politician that in one episode was interested in Martha's family. None of these had any bearing on the finale. Any connection was entirely superficial.
The use of the name Torchwood actually was an arc, from revealing the power they wield in Christmas Invasion, to their origins in Tooth and Claw, to their downfall at Canary Wharf.
We simply use those words as a shorthand method to describe the arcs. Which they obviously evidenced were there. I never even said that the mention of the words advanced the story. I even gave examples of plot points.
If you think that an arc is defined by simply mentioning a keyword then I think that you're mistaken.
I don't want an arc to be simply occasional mention of a word. I want a cleverly written narrative that gets us thinking.
Torchwood barely registers as an fully realised arc in itself because it was quite linear and simplistic compared to the other arcs mentioned. Just gradually revealing what Torchwood is was very basic I thought. Not much of a story there compared to the richness of Bad Wolf and Saxon.
I can't believe that you stated that Bad Wolf and Saxon weren't arcs. Are you on a wind-up or something?
They shuffled around the order of some of the episodes, I think Night Terrors was switched with the pirate one. It would have made some kind of sense for them to be on the lookout for a child, and so therefore a psychic distress call from one would tie into the ongoing narrative, where pirates wouldn't.
That would have helped the first half of the series enormously. Actually looking for a child in distress. The pirates story moved to the second half wouldn't have helped that though. But that's mostly because in my opinion after the events of Goes to war and Hitler, the "mechanical" faults with the arc unfolding were of interest, but not the main problem. Good job Wedding of River Song was so enormously pleasing.
I agree. The Wolf, Saxon and bees stuff weren't arcs. But they were very satisfying in the way described above by Alrightmate. Quite clever actually because they chime with people rewatching dvd box sets and going "aha! hadn't noticed that Saxon mention before!".
The actual arcs I think of as things involving major character developments (what is it with Donna and her mum? Does Amy really love Rory?) or actual plot mysteries (is the doctor dead? Who was that child?).
Maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on the definition of Arc. Just need a word for "thing that runs through a series until the finale and sometimes beyond".
I suppose some of us are thinking of character arcs where the character changes, and some of us are speaking of narrative arcs concerning the overall plot.
I think you do the Saxon arc a disservice though because it was a lot more than mentioning the word 'Saxon'. Take for example the events in Utopia and how they spawned events which occurred in episodes prior to it. Like how those robot things are what human beings became. This was a lot more thought out than just mentioning a buzzword now and again.
I thought it was cleverly interwoven together in regards to how episodes linked together.
Character arcs where a character goes through a journey where change is instigated, such as Amy finding out that she's Riversong's mum, I see as something a bit different and as part of the overall series arc. I'd just call that character development.
Comments
What I said about people liking it was because the ratings haven't changed, so 'people' DO either like it or don't mind it as a whole. I did also basically say some people will like certain things and others not, so I'm not just saying everyone must like this cos I say so.
The figures also haven't fallen this series either, that's true ( and I also have said this) and I think this has been a great series. (If missing just a little something). there was criticism of the Rings episode, but I loved it and defended it. So the general public, or 'people' DO still like it either way.
What I was saying before, that the opinion which goes 'people think the Moffat era is crap' cannot be proved by just saying 'people think...' because the general public prove this is not the case. They still watch , and are not turning off.
Hopefully this doesn't sound like I'm picking on you, but I think you've come in to the middle of an argument where one side is saying they miss the stronger story arcs, but it's still great, and then some others came in to say no one likes them, it's all crap. ( I think there's a bit of cross over going on between this thread and the media attention thread)
This was a good thread at the beginning, there's not many positive, constructive discussions going on and it was like that.
Moffat said he thought it was because people who didn't like it were stupid and didn't want clever twists. I disagree with him. I think some people just didn't like that particular story told in that particular way. Lots of credit to Moffat for ambition. Slightly less credit to his judgements about what to do with River Song and a pregnant companion.
I loved the arcs from series 5 and 6 but I also agree with some of the criticisms. 5's isn't properly finished even now and 6 should have had more time for a proper reaction from the Williams' to the loss of their baby and more time to establish Mel and more time for River to change from programmed Doctor killer into loving him.
Bring on the 50th and Trenzalore and River's final trip before the Library!
Some will want a strong arc there, no matter how it turns out. Whether they think it's good or bad, as long as there is one.
Some will want a light, hardly there at all, kind of arc that only just joins up stories, coming together in the finale.
Some will want completely stand alone episodes with no trace of any story going on in the background. ( I don't get that one because Dr Who has always had other stuff going on from week to week- even if only for 4 -6 weeks).
I wouldn't mind a more prominent arc, but would want a much better one than series six. The current style of arc suits me though.
I was convinced that at some stage Amy and Rory would be re-united with their baby and that never happened. That's a pretty sad outcome. I can see that it might complicate the story too much to re-unite them with their child, thus messing up River's already convoluted timeline still further. But maybe it would have been better to avoid such a plotline altogether.
Yes, I think the story arcs made series 5 and 6. They kept me interested and entertained, while Matt Smith's acting was enough to get through the rather poor "filler" episodes such as the Pirates one in series 6.
Series 7 has been a string of Pirate style episodes. The weakest episodes from series 6 have kind of taken over the show. The only episodes I've enjoyed this series have been written by Steven Moffat, The rest of them are not the blockbuster episodes they promised, but weak poorly written ones with nowhere near enough run time to actually be half decent.
The trouble was, the past 2 episodes have simply bored me. I really hate to be critical about DW, a show I really do love. It would be a dark day indeed to hear it had been cancelled, but in all honesty if it doesn't start improving, and fast, it could be heading in that direction. I despise the press for the stick they always seem ready to give it, and Matt Smith, who frankly deserves better than what he's being given, however it's hard not to agree with some of the comments they've made on quality of episodes.
Is it the lack of an arc? Well, yes it is, but it goes deeper as well. I'm not expecting a string of "Doctor's Wife"s, but come on. Last series ended with the Doctor faking his death, and seemed to signal an entirely different direction for the character. Nothing has come of it. Instead, it's average episode after average episode.
EE gets a lot of (very justified) stick on here. That is a show which has had very visible problems for years that do not look like it's getting fixed. The beauty of DW is that it can change. The 50th is coming up, and we still have 5 episodes left of series 7 that may make me eat my words. I hope so. Come on, Moff.
To be fair, if people don't like this format, they can't change it until series 8 now, the rest of them are filmed and edited. I foresee the double parters returning next series.
They shuffled around the order of some of the episodes, I think Night Terrors was switched with the pirate one. It would have made some kind of sense for them to be on the lookout for a child, and so therefore a psychic distress call from one would tie into the ongoing narrative, where pirates wouldn't.
I too believe that they were the best two examples of Doctor Who series arcs. They were both cleverly interwoven with the episodes where several episodes were pivotal or held big clues in the subtext.
At the end of the series you could look back at previous episodes and you'd think 'Aah', there were things put in place there which you didn't notice at the time.
In hindsight Bad Wolf was really well done with elements such as the religious undertones which hardly anyone noticed as arc clues but would later on be recognised to be a main plot point in regard to the story arc.
Also all the Sun clues littered around. Plus the fact revealed later on near the end that the Daleks were in control of that media satellite in The Long Game which was featured in about episode 3. It was just so rich and cleverly hidden in plain sight.
As you say, the Saxon arc was done well too with many episodes linked together which was something which only became more apparent near the end.
What may appear to be a standalone episode with no relevance to any ongoing arc may actually be more relevant than you think later on. It's just that it doesn't need to be so blatant like the Torchwood nonsense was, which felt more like namedropping Torchwood every now and again, or watching out for the mention of the word 'Silence'.
You may find out that this series these early episodes may hold a lot more than you see on the surface and may possibly produce rewards later on in the series.
Just because something isn't obvious doesn't mean that it's not there.
The use of the name Torchwood actually was an arc, from revealing the power they wield in Christmas Invasion, to their origins in Tooth and Claw, to their downfall at Canary Wharf.
The actual arcs I think of as things involving major character developments (what is it with Donna and her mum? Does Amy really love Rory?) or actual plot mysteries (is the doctor dead? Who was that child?).
Maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on the definition of Arc. Just need a word for "thing that runs through a series until the finale and sometimes beyond".
We simply use those words as a shorthand method to describe the arcs. Which they obviously evidenced were there. I never even said that the mention of the words advanced the story. I even gave examples of plot points.
If you think that an arc is defined by simply mentioning a keyword then I think that you're mistaken.
I don't want an arc to be simply occasional mention of a word. I want a cleverly written narrative that gets us thinking.
Torchwood barely registers as an fully realised arc in itself because it was quite linear and simplistic compared to the other arcs mentioned. Just gradually revealing what Torchwood is was very basic I thought. Not much of a story there compared to the richness of Bad Wolf and Saxon.
I can't believe that you stated that Bad Wolf and Saxon weren't arcs. Are you on a wind-up or something?
That would have helped the first half of the series enormously. Actually looking for a child in distress. The pirates story moved to the second half wouldn't have helped that though. But that's mostly because in my opinion after the events of Goes to war and Hitler, the "mechanical" faults with the arc unfolding were of interest, but not the main problem. Good job Wedding of River Song was so enormously pleasing.
I suppose some of us are thinking of character arcs where the character changes, and some of us are speaking of narrative arcs concerning the overall plot.
I think you do the Saxon arc a disservice though because it was a lot more than mentioning the word 'Saxon'. Take for example the events in Utopia and how they spawned events which occurred in episodes prior to it. Like how those robot things are what human beings became. This was a lot more thought out than just mentioning a buzzword now and again.
I thought it was cleverly interwoven together in regards to how episodes linked together.
Character arcs where a character goes through a journey where change is instigated, such as Amy finding out that she's Riversong's mum, I see as something a bit different and as part of the overall series arc. I'd just call that character development.