I want to stress that I have no problem whatsoever with the elements I'm going to talk about appearing in any era of of the show, but of late, especially since Steven Moffat took over I've noticed quite a few people 'looking the other way' with things they would have slated in series 1-4. Again I have no complaints about Moffat doing these things.




Sooo.................





Things RTD would have been slated for by the same people that appear now have no problem with in series 5-6.


Complete reboot of an entire series. An entire series!!!!

Complaints about series 1-4 being 'more about the companion than the Doctor' yet bizarrely enough series 5 and 6 have been THE most companion heavy in terms of story and arcs.

Star Wars homages. RTD does a canteena homage, and a space battle homage it means he has run out of ideas and is a rip off merchant, yet when Star Wars homages appear in Moffats era....


Stunt casting - James Cordon. Katherine Jenkins. The musical number by her alone would have been absolutely slated, all it needed was The Muppets to make an appearance in Victorian garb and Bob's your uncle. Not to mention the entire 'sloppy love story premise of the episode, because as we know Doctor Who should do emotion like that.

Overuse of the Sonic Screw Driver

Gay references.

Sexual innuendo 'I'm a bit of a screamer'

The Doctor kissing,(or actually being kissed) hang on wasn't RTD criticized for having The Doctor kissing people. What's changed?

I can just imagine the uproar from classic fans if it had been made apparent that Rose and Mickey had had sex in the Tardis.

Flying Sharks pulling Santa sledges

Calling the Tardis 'Sexy' therefore fandom now also calling it 'sexy'. This would have drove critics of series 1-4 mad if RTD had done this.

The Doctor getting teary eyed on many occasions now, The Doctor should NOT do emotions like that.

Big 'kitchen sink' finales, what happened to the quite non epic finales the RTD critics said would happen once Moffat took over..they haven't happened so where are the criticisms of Kitchen sink big epic finales now?

Rory and Amy and their relationship is just as 'soap' as Rose, Mickey and her family. Having a family in drama doesn't mean it is soap, it has become more than apparent when anyone that says that it really means that cannot even grasp the basic elements of drama.

The Doctor and River Song being an item, yet mention Rose and then it is 'The Doctor shouldn't fall in love'


Now I personally do not have a problem with any of them featuring in any tenure of Doctor Who, but it seems some have changed their tune all of a sudden come series 5/6 compared with series 1-4, I just wonder why that is, along with new DS names.




'The Doctor is now more alien' like he used to be is probably THE most incorrect thing I have read when it comes to Doctor Who, The Doctor has never been overtly portrayed as an alien, that is unless aliens are bumbling professors, Grandads, cheery uncle and 70's velvet clad karate dandymen.....and so on.






The 'Less stories set on Earth' and 'no more Monster of The Week' myth.

Could we stop this myth that under SM there are less Earth set stories than under RTD, there aren't. Just two episode in series 5 were not set on Earth. The Beast Below and The Time of Angels/ Flesh and Stone. The same goes for he does less Earth at peril stories.

Series 5
Earth Based

The Eleventh Hour - Earth at peril/ Monster of The week - Prisoner Zero
Victory of the Daleks - Actually, what was the peril in that story???? A bomb? A Dalek? London? .
The Vampires of Venice - Earth at Peril - Monster Of The Week - Fish people
Amy's Choice - Monster of The week - The Dream bloke.
The Hungry Earth/ Cold Blood -- Earth at peril from invasion/Monster of the week -The Silurians
Vincent and the Doctor - Monster of the week - ChickenMonster thing.
The Lodger - Monster of The week - The Guy up stairs
The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang - The Earth and Universe at peril/ Monster of the week...form a list.


Two episodes in series one was not earth based
The Beast Below - Monster Of The Week - Grinners.
The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone Monster of the week - The weeping angels.






When Who first came back RTD had to ensure that a wide range of audience watched it, if it was just to appeal to classic who fans/sci-fi fans then it would have been dead in the water.

So he wisely, imo, took two things that made the classics work at certain stages in the shows history.

Series one (new Who) was very from the viewpoint of the companion (Rose) as a means to introduce the Doctor to a new audience that will not have otherwise known who The Doctor is (the entire UK is are not classic Who fans and pretty much couldn't give a stuff about the old shows, painful truth and many of the younger audience will not have know anything about Doctor Who whatsoever)

So the introduction of The Doctor via the companions story was very much taken from Hartnell first series. Why...because it worked for a new audience, kids, teens and adults. As a fan and TV writer RTD understood this.

As for the Earth based stories,and the Earth invasion stories these were very much inspired from the Earth bound Pertwee era. An era that worked after it was hit and miss if the show would continue after Troughton as it had become stale. As a fan and TV writer RTD understood this.

So both those moves by RTD were very shrewd in terms of creating a new audience and making the show popular again.






Now take it as you want but I'm an everyday average fan, I watch the show, I dont care who wrote what, don't care who is running the show, I don't have fanboyish attachments or personal dislike to actors/writers, I don't collect toys, books and comics. So I'm approaching this purely as something Ive noticed on the forum. I collect the DVDs and post in this forum to pass time when waiting for things to happen at work. That's it. I don't live and breath the show, for me it is a TV show. So I'm just calling it as I see it.

Bloody hell, it's a TV show. Just enjoy your life.

I do enjoy my life thanks, very much so in fact. Nothing wrong with passing time on an intern forum is there, just as you do on subjects you want to talk about.

Not being funny but i have seen Moffat slated on here every bit as much as RTD, so i fail to see why there were any myths that needed busting. Just seems like another excuse to fan the RTD vs Moffat flames again.

I think the issue for me is that I love both RTD's and Moff's tenure. I honestly havent found any issues with what you have raised. I think both of them do it equal.
innuendos- I love them especially when it comes from River Song but that might have something to do with a tiny crush I have on her....
Gay Agenda-Being a lesbian woman I certainly have no issues with this but then again I am baised.
Romance- I never had a problem with the Doctor and Rose-I think at the time it worked. The Doctor was so wounded due to the Timewar he need her but he doesnt need her anymore. He moved on when he regenerated. In my opinion though River Song and The Doctor make more sense especially now we know her unique status.
Emotions- I think I can honestly count on one hand the amount of times I have seen 11 Doctor cry.

Camera your right. Moffat doesn't get touched for any of the things RTD got shouted at for. Even Moffat did a reset button. A future version of him came back to save him! What? He's doing the same things as RTD yet it's OK when he does it.

And you're right about Rose and Mickey. If they had been revealed as having sex in the TARDIS RTD would have been hung. Now it's ok.

Still, I enjoy Moffat and Russell. But treat them fairly, Moffat is just as good/bad as Russell and they both should be treated the same.

Thanks for listening

that is absolute cobblers.

Oh yeah, what about Vampires of Venice? If that had happened in RTD's day he would have been shouted at for that. Just like Fear her or Love and Monsters.


But worse...

Actually, I get your point about seeming hypocricy in some ares of fandom.

And I fully agree with you that both - RTD and Moffat - have done the same things, basically.

And by and large, both have produced interesting and enjoyable stories - as well as some not so enjoyable ones (for me at last).

So, yes, I agree with C.O. on the similarities between the two showrunners

Oh not at all Muttley76, I'm just curious as to why one thing is deemed ok to critise in one tenure of the show and the very same thing is Ok in another tenure. Be it new vs new or new vs classic.

So for example, and I'll use classic Who.

Take Robot (Tom Baker) a great fun episode with a giant robot, yet some classic fans dismissed the giant Cyberman robot in The Next Doctor. Yes the Robot in Tom Bakers episode was a man in a suit and it roamed open fields, but if they had the technology then we would have seen a giant Robot trampling over a city, no doubt. So why is one deemed Ok and the other not, is it because of who the writer is, is it because it is new Who, is it because....and so on.

Because I look at that as a homage to classic Who, doing something they wanted to do if they were able.

I have no intention of any flaming, ( I genuinely do not) in fact I made no mention of criticizing series 5/6 or Moffat or any of the actors in my OP as flaming was not my intention.

So another example.
Why is romance between companions (Rory/Amy) now seen as exceptable by the very critics that say the romance between Mickey/Rose was soap? Its a curious thing?

there were plenty of people lining up to criticise that episode.

But likes/dislikes of episodes are subjective things, and therefore your view that it should be seen in the same bracket as Fear Her or Love and Monsters isn't really within the boundaries of what this thread is even about, tbh.

be that as it may, i guarantee thats where this thread will have gone by the time i get back from work tonight. Already happening.

Yep I agree. It's got nothing to do with it sorry.

Can't actually think of one to be honest. Only the Rose and Mickey one really. And the Deux ex machima/reset button thing.

but there have been thread after thread after thread slagging off the The Big Bang on here, so much so i had almost got to the point i thought people on here hated the episode till i went back and looked at the episode poll and saw it was actually one of the most popular episodes, so no, i really don't think thats is true either.

there may be a handful of posters who now claim to like things that they didn't in a prior era, but the suggestion that this is somehow a wide spread thing on this forum is extremely wide of the mark.

I dare say you might be right Mutley, but at the moment no one is critising either or any writer and I hope it stays that way.

I've been posting here long enough that I hope other regular posters know that I don't bait, critise for the sake of it, troll other threads. I really think/ thought it might make an intersect discussion. Like you I hope and don't want to see this thread turn into a writer vs writer being better or worse than another writer because that isnt what my OP was about.

I made no criticism of any writers and would like the thread to stay that way, If it turns into 'he's crap that's why, he good that's why' (you know the usual) I will ask the mods to kindly delete the thread.

I agree, apologies my intention wasn't to make general sweeping statements on the whole of fandom, but unfortunately sometimes in the rush of posting it comes out that way at times. Not my intention.

ah okay, cause thats how i read your OP.


Thing is the same is s true in reverse though, there are handful of people here who now attack this era of the show for things they were fine about in the past.....so it works both ways definitely.

I agree with the OP 100%, the hypocrisy and double standards shown by certain posters on this forum is breathtaking at times, it really is.

I have said before that I rate RTD and SM very highly, and whilst both are capable of writing brilliance both can also come up with the occasional clunker.

For me, on this particular issue, I did like both romances so was grand with them both. But I understand were critics go with the soap thing. Sometimes the acting and story just seemed soapy. But for Rory/Amy, I believe, for me, the acting is more realistic, and the relationship seems to have a huge baring on the whole story line. But thats just me

just my take.. maybe its the different ways they are written and filmed that makes them more acceptable, as in different styles of portraying the things you mentioned..

Plus you have to look at society in reality.. sex is becoming more acceptable as a whole, look at eastenders and the christain/syed relationship. (not that im slating it just using it as a point). maybe instead of looking at the writers /directors you should look at the way society is changing and peoples views and morals in everday life, there you will have your answer!

I totally agree with the OP.
I believe that most people actually don't care who writes the episodes, and are happy enough with both RTD's and Moffat's style. I really like both writers, and, like most of you on this thread, acutally don't find them that different.

Some people obviously dislike one or the other, and that is fine too.

However, there is a small - but highly active - community of fans who get slightly obsessed with the show. Whenever something changes (writers, actors, characters), they have to take side immediately, either condemning the new style ("it's not the same show anymore, the show has been ruined, how dare he..." etc.) or fiercly believing in the new, forgetting they ever liked what came before (even if they never complained about it then). I don't understand such behavior at all, especially from people who call themselves fans of the show. But I'm afraid we'll have the same reaction when the next writer or Dr. 12 arrives.
And I wouldn't be surprised if "team Moffat" then turns on him as well.

On the other hand, a small group of people (yourself not included camera) have taken it upon themselves to spill vitriol all over the new series as an act of revenge against those who (admittedly unfairly) slated RTD week in week out. It all seems to be a bit petty, but I think the expression I'm looking for is "swings and roundabouts".

Nb: I've loved the show since its regeneration, and I think we can reasonably say each lead writer has their own strengths and weaknesses.

The thing is had RTD done some of what Moffat had done in some of the series 5 episodes it wouldn't have been an exact copy but an RTD version. Merely what some people are saying is that RTD would have written it differently and it wouldn't have been as good. With Moffat's reset also it meant that he could go back to a world in which pretty much everyone is oblivious to the existance of aliens (explaining why Amy didn't recognise the Daleks, timey wimey) apart from a select few. The problem with the RTD reset button was that he used it too much, or rather the basic concept. I am aware that some people do just want any excuse to slag RTD off and would say anything to do so and that is hypocrisy. I think a major point that has been over looked on the whole here is that RTD would have done things in a different manner and it is that difference in manner which allows Moffat to get away with things that RTD wouldn't have done. I will admit, if Moffat were to press the reset button again then I would think less of him but that is another issue. Personally I just about let Moffat off for Victory of the Daleks and thought on the whole it wasn't all that bad an episode - I however was not so ammused to here Danny Boy back in A good man goes to war.

Rant over.

I don't want to get involved in any arguments, as I always lose and then feel miffed.....sorry, not relevant.

However, I do see CAMERA's point, and would love to see on this thread a post from someone who hated series 1-4 for various reasons (overtly emotional, too sexual, ridiculously overblown finales etc) explaining why they don't think that about series 5&6, whento some (including me) these elements were still there. (Not a complaint, btw - I love all that stuff!)

I don't think the OP meant that some people don't slate the current showrunner - of course they do, and are free to do so on an open forum if they like - I think he was just asking why they saw series 5&6 as different when I and others see it as a continuation.

As I said, I am also curious on that point, and would like to see a reply.

I found those posts from a notorious RTD hater, but the reason they gave for it was just that SM was 'more subtle'. Was not true in that case at all, especially as SM most the most unsubtle references in the RTD era. But you cannot argue with that particular moron as he takes it all personally, throws a strop and leaves.