......I think we can clearly see how the programme has evolved for the better!! AND I am a massive RTD fan and of all the series he was in charge of!

I 100% agree with you, the show has come on leaps and bounds since series 1 and this series has been amazing.

but I think we needed the show to be like how it was in "Rose" to introduce a new generation to Dr. Who, if they had re-launched the show with an opening like TIA I don't think people would've got it, it needed to progress naturally to how it is now.

I love RTD's era, but I am in awe of Steve Moffatt and think he is an absolute genius in what he has done with the show, long may in continue to evolve and develop over the next few years!

totally agree....rose was needed for the reboot and everything that followed - but everyhing we see today is just the evolution of doc who and anyone who complains should go and watch something else! simple as

I don't know. Rose wasn't a very strong story, and the farting bins and plastic Mickey weren't great. But it had the hard job of reintroducing the Doctor to a new generation. I think it did well enough, though Smith and Jones was a much better series opener for me.

The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon had moments that nothing in Rose could live up to. But at least it stood up on its own as a story. It didn't have big gaps waiting to be filled in later. Until we've seen this whole arc, how can we fairly assess a story so consumed by it?

What has prompted this thread?

We could of course say that to anyone who disliked any story.

I think, but I'm not 100% here, somebody may have watched Rose and then watched TIA

So basically, this is another RTD v SM thread (in a sense!)

Rose had two lead characters that we had not met before, and had to introduce supporting characters. It also had to introduce the show to a new generation. TIA had three characters that have been in a series together and a character who has been reoccuring since 2008. And it is the six series of a show that has been running nearly seven years. How can they be compared?

And why are they being compared, this is a perplexing thread

I think OP was just comparing the first new who episode to the latest ones we have, to see how much the show has evolved.

And, in my humble opinion, it has improved a great deal. Watching 'Rose' back now, though I love that episode, I cringe to think what sort of reviews and comments it would get, particularly on these forums, were it aired as an episode this far into new who

I think it's more of an evolution from (NW) Series 1 through to (NW) Series 6 rather than from "Rose" to "The Impossible Astronaut" - pedantic I know .

There is a definite correlation between the time it's been running since the reboot and the complexity of the storylines IMO.

We needed some fairly straight forward, stand alone stories in (NW) Series 1 to get us used to the characters (including the [re]introduction of the Doctor) and to set its feet on the ground. OK, some of the episodes were a bit 'basic' but then we had - for me - standout episodes such as "Dalek", "Father's Day" and "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances.

As it moved through the series, although we still had the 'basic' episodes it definitely got more adventurous and taxing. By the time we get to Series 5 (and a new Doctor) it seemed to be 'pedal to the metal' time. It's still got (ostensibly) one off stories which, as we now know in hindsight, all form part of the series arc.

I've firmly put my faith and trust in the writers, directors and producers - as well as the actors of course, to deliver something which not only entertains but challenges. It's SO exciting .

lol exactly. Theyre not the same kind of episode. TIA and DOTM were very plot heavy where as Rose is plot light and character heavy.

Completely agree, its just the OP looks like it should be a mid thread post, not an OP

Don't forget "Rose" had an actual story that could be followed from beginning to end with all major plot points resolved, whereas this series opener tried far too hard to be clever-clever and left a lot of the plot flapping free. The old Doctor Who had an internal logic that made sense, whereas SM's show does away with that and expects the viewer not to question the gaping plot holes and downright daftness of the villains.

But yes, superior programme...blah, blah, blah...

For me, RTD had a remit to make the show hip and happening and largely succeeded, whereas Moff seems intent on pushing the format back to the bad old days (thinks mid to late 80s). Plus, he spends a lot of time re-riffing on themes he's already explored which is a bit dull and underwhelming.

It's a hard job this Doc Who show runner business...

I don't believe Doctor Who would have made quite such an impact if it had come back with what we have as series 5 or 6. RTD's overhaul was necessary and I loved the street-clothes look of Eccles Doctor and the idea of expanding the companion's role to include their friends and family was inspired - Jackie, Micky and Wilf are a big part of the success of the new series. David T did something incredible with the role - he made the Doctor "sexy" in a trendy, boyish way and he definitely advanced the character for a lot of viewers who wouldn't normally have bothered with such a boys-only program.

I wasn't too sure about Matt Smith - he seemd too young and series 5 looked cheaper than we'd become accustomed to but I went back and watched them all again after the series had ended and enjoyed them a lot more - I think that - in part - it was about seeing him as the Doctor and not Matt Smith.

Is Impossible Astronaut better than Rose?

No - even though Impossible Astronaut and Day of the Moon are my all time favourite episodes, they come from a different place.

Rose wasn't just a series openner - it was an introduction to the entire cast for everyone - and to the entire Doctor Who concept for some people. It was lumbered - for want of a better word - with the task of balancing us old timers and the new kids on the block and of justifying the gamble of pre-financing a series that had run out of steam years before (long before it was cancelled in many people's opinion).

It might seem strange but this is the first time since the 2005 "come-back" that we've had the same main characters as the previous series. Series 1 was completely new, series 2 had a new Doctor, series 3 had a new companion, series 4 had a new companion and series 4.5 (what happened there???) was all over the place.

Bottom line for me...

Moffat has taken Doctor Who in another new direction. In many ways it's nearer to the 60s/70's version than RTD's but it's faster paced - which modern audiences prefer. I'm now totally "into" Matt Smith's Doctor and the Amy/Rory married companions twist works for me. The only thing that make it better for me would be to see a lot more of Canton Delaware - and get rid of the garish hunchback Daleks cos they're just nasty

Alternatively watch The Parting of the Ways then watch The Impossible Astronaut and see how it has evolved for the worse?

It's not a very good way to judge the series at the best of times but especially when you deliberately choose a weaker episode to skew your results.

Agree with you guys, how perplexing. If Rose was compared to TEH then I could see where the OP is coming from.

Anyway, can I like both or do I have to chose one over the other.

This is absolutely spot on. "Rose" was just what the show needed to be back then, just as "The Impossible Astronaut" is exactly how it needs to be now. And i hope it keeps progressing.

i was going to post a reply but i think this says it all.

The programme has really evolved over the series AND through each writer

Agreed.

I remember getting very cross with RTD when I heard comments he made about Rose being a new kind of assistant, who was strong, independent, yada yada and nothing like old companions, screaming and having to be rescued all the time! However later I realised he was fully aware of how strong some companions had been but had to say what he said to deal with the state of public opinion at the time.

I much prefer series 1 if I'm honest. Matt Smith just doesn't do it for me, either do Amy and Rory as companions. I guess I'm just watching for River.

Each to our own

I don't think Rose and the Impossible Astronaut are a fair comparison really. Rose had to introduce a whole new audience to Who, there were so many boxes to tick as well as hooking as big an audience as possible right from the start. If Rose had received poor viewing figures, that could have been the end right there, the BBC's commitment to the show may have been considerably less, etc.

Let's face it, Rose was a good opener, but not the best of the series, whereas most people would probably be quite happy if The Impossible Astronaut was the best episode of this season as it was so damn good (though of course we can hope things will get even better!) If you compare The Empty Child with The Impossible Astronaut, is there still suh an obvious improvement over the years? Or indeed comparing Rose to the Black Spot episode - Rose is far, far superior.

So no - I don't agree at all, the first series of NuWho was of an amazingly high standard, which may well be repeated with this series, but no certainty there.

Indeed.

On a broader note, I don't think the show would necessarily have been so successful if season 1 had kicked off like season 6. What RTD understood, very well, is that the (largely new) audience needed to be introduced to the Doctor and his world slowly, without taking anything for granted.

The 1996 TV movie is a perfect example of how not to relaunch the show to a new audience.

Rose was a brilliant companion because she was very much our eyes and ears into this strange new world. And I think the way the Doctor gradually revealed his story over the next few years (Gallifrey, the time war, Daleks, regeneration etc) was perfectly handled.

Moffatt, I think, takes a lot more for granted. But then - to be fair - I think he can take more for granted because of all the brilliant stories RTD produced for five years which built up a massive new following for the show and established an enormous amount of knowledge about the Doctor - but without giving everything away.

I think the show, now, is more sophisticated in its story telling but I do think it lacks the heart and soul of the RTD years. That said, a change is a good as a rest!