I've already said I discount time of the doctor in my moaning beacuse it was a beatifully emotional ep (the doctor not having the strength to pull a cracker did it for me) and the fact of this and that clara was more emotional in day of the doctor, gives me hope that moffat has finally figured out how to do it consistently

Look away now if you are easily moved to tears:

http://lost-neverlander.tumblr.com/post/72219994525

http://claraoswaldds.tumblr.com/post...anding-there-i

http://xshrinkinguniverse.tumblr.com...nd-dont-let-go

I'm glad the 'TARDIS doors' issue is being discussed here. This really bugged me for pretty much the whole of Season 1 of the new series. I was so used to the big double doors that (I thought) it made the TARDIS look cheaper having police box doors instead.

Certainly, over the years in the classic series, it did change as to whether or not the doors opened directly onto the outside space.

Earlier on, they clearly did. In fact, I remember as late as the third Doctor years that this happened. I am sure there is an episode where Jo Grant is alone in the TARDIS, and when she opens the doors and we see the planet landscape directly outside (Colony in Space?).

It was interesting that when the doors flipped inwards, you could see the white 'roundal' design on the outside too. Clearly the chameleon circuit only disguised the TARDIS for people looking from the outside.

I don't think that set-up ever really made sense, though. There were always continuity issues with it. Both doors would open inside the TARDIS, but it was rare both doors would be open when the Doctor and his companion stepped outside.

The idea of a 'dead space' between the big white console room doors and the Police Box doors probably came about during the Tom Baker years. It was definitely implied that there was a 'dead space' in Earthshock when they Cybermen first storm the TARDIS because there was a gun fight going on between the Police Box doors and the inner console room.

Anyway, I absolutely hated RTDs 'console room' when the show first came back. I wanted something glossy and clean - and the interior Police Box doors were just dreadful (I thought at the time). But by the end of season 1 I had adjusted and now I really like seeing them. It makes sense, and also shows the Doctor has given up trying to fix the chameleon circuit and just accepted that the TARDIS should look like a Police Box.

RTD's legacy?

You only need to see the 50th to see his legacy. Not only did it dominate it's content but also it's tone and style which was pure RTD esque with Moffat's 'timey wimey' chucked in for good measure.

I was just watching the scene in TPOTW where the Doctor sends Rose home. That is RTD' s legacy. That kind of emotion and character connection . Top notch.

Russell's writing, characters and the actors did this emotion extremely well. I felt an emotional connection to these scenes and characters aswell. Not so much with moffatts writing and characters. They just seem fake to me. A lot of them I couldn't care less about. I was genuinely sad when Rose and Martha left.

I'd go with RTD's era tending to be more sentimental than SM's era. I never thought I'd get emotional over the fate of a single Dalek. CE's performance when he discovered what was in that cell, chained up was electrifying. He went from sympathy to fear to anger and rage in the one scene. Brilliant!

RTD is more soap and sentiment than plot. SM's is still emotional, but I think he's less inclined to deliberately manipulate the audience's heart strings. He does, however, love teasing the audience and so gets the audience going in a different way.

I love them both and don't understand the naysayers of either. We all have different opinions about what makes a good story. In my book, both have served the show extremely well.

I remember when he was a scriptwriter for 90's children's soap Children's Ward. Unfortunately, he's never bettered this.

I could say the same about Moffat as he did write for another fantastic children's program called Press Gang, but then the double episode in series 1 (The Dr Dances, The Empty Child) is my favourite from Moffat

To be fair, the use of the doors inside the Tardis goes right the way back to the first Doctor's era. If memory serves, the idea was first used in the two Amicus "Doctor Who" films.
As a lifelong fan of the series I was ecstatic when the series came back. It hit the ground running right from "Rose".
RTD's greatest legacy IS the revived series.
If that sounds extreme, just read a few of the interviews where it was made plain how close we were to NOT getting the revived series. There were an awful lot of people in the higher BBC management who were actively against reviving it. It was only due to a lot of strategic lying by Russell and his allies that got it back.

Apologies for snipping your post GDK.

I have never really understood the 'soap' tag that is often used to describe the RTD era.

Having characters with family lives isn't soap, it is drama. Having characters that interact with each other using dialogue that involves human emotion isn't soap it is drama.



Let's take two basic synopsis about the 'first' companions from each modern era, Rose and Amy. Take out the sci-fi gubbings and look at it from its basic premise of character arc.

Which one is more 'soap'

Young girl growing up on a London estate finds herself in a rut and yearns to escape. She has a nice boyfriend but not really husband material. She has a mum that loves her and a father that passed away when she was young. She meets another man and goes traveling with him. Are her emotional attachments to this new guy one of love or the need of a father figure. Eventually she and her boyfriend grow apart. She and the person she is traveling with loose contact with each other and they reunite years later.


Young girl living in a quiet village, she has a nice boyfriend but is unsure about getting married to him and at times treats him with embarrassment and distain, until she eventually realises how much she loves him and they marry.
In the meantime she meets another man and goes traveling with him.
She becomes pregnant by her boyfriend but the baby is kidnapped and swapped with another 'baby'. The real baby turns out to be the wife of the guy she is traveling with, and as it turns out this wife/Amy ponds baby originally wanted to kill the guy our protagonist is traveling with. And also it turns out to be a long childhood friend of our companion.
Eventually she and her husband divorce and then get back together.

Which synopsis needs the Eastenders drums at the end.



Why it that the one set on a London council estate is deemed more soap than the other?
It's it because Eastenders is set in London so therefore it is an easier link to make, maybe I don't know.

'Soap' is not having a family with human emotions built around a character.

What a good post. (BTW liked your post on the Sherlock forum about this forum 'escaping' last night. Very funny.)

I personally think there are more similiarities than differences when considering both C21 eras thus far. I've enjoyed both, so am with GDK on this one. The Matt Smith era has been my favourite since Peter Davison's time, but of course that doesn't automatically mean I'm denigrating Russell "The" Davies' era. Far from it. He created Donna, for a start! Big plus for me.

I agree 100%. I've never really agreed with the idea of the RTD era being 'soap'. It was just good drama that looked beyond the Doctor/Companion relationship and at the impact a companion's decision to travel with the Doctor had on her broader family. In all honesty, that needed to be a part of a show aimed at a more sophisticated modern audience. Viewers today would question much more strongly how Rose (for instance) could drop everything and run off for years with the Doctor without giving her family/friends a second thought. I think that's what I found strange about Amy when her parents were restored - we never saw them again!

And I agree that there was just as much with Amy and now Clara, the only difference being (I think) that Moffat added a lot more 'timey-whimeyness' into the mix too. I don't think its been as effective with Amy/Clara as it was with Rose/Martha/Donna but its still there.

I much prefer the RTD series in the same way that I prefer the earlier Harry Potter films- because they were a lot simpler and they were more about characters and situations than lots of over-complicated fantasy/sci-fi ideas.

The best ideas are always simple- golden rule of storytelling.

exactly, the reason why the whole show has lasted so long is because at it's core it's the simple premise of a time traveling alien having adventure's

I think you misunderstand my reference to "soap". In my book it has nothing to do with whether the setting is a comfortable middle class village or a run down council estate. I think your own prejudices are showing there!

It's about the type of narrative - not the setting.

For me there are two main characteristics of a "soap opera":
1) focus is on character/relationships - usually in a prosaic setting
2) on going serial nature

Characteristics of a drama:
1) One central event or episode in a character's life (or characters' lives) with a definite resolution.
2) The characters are changed forever by the event

By that definition soaps, and in fact most episodic TV series, are not dramas.

Genre TV shows (crime, science fiction, other) in particular don't focus much on the central characters' relationships. Instead each week a situation is setup and resolved in which the regular characters get involved and help resolve. The situation is dramatic for that week's guest characters but not the series regulars. In order to keep the episodic format going, the last thing required is to fundamentally change a central character or the central situation.

Doctor Who is a bit unusual in that regard, but the central premise always remains the same - a guy travelling the universe in a blue box with sometime companions.

Things are bit more muddied in TV these days with many series adopting arcs through which the central characters do develop and change and come and go.

The trick for any writer of series TV is to keep the drama interesting and yet not develop things too much. I guess Doctor Who is some kind of hybrid. The Doctor stays the same for long periods, but the companions come, develop and go.

For me the adventure is the thing, but you also must have enough "human interest" to make you care about the outcome.

Really? The Doctor in Narnia wasn't mawkishly sentimental?

And what about all that "clap your hands if you believe that bombs can be human" stuff?

I feel vomit-inducing sentiment rather than real emotion is a failing of Moffat's (see the current Sherlock series for further examples).

And it plays on the wish-fulfilment of being whisked away by a brilliant genius who's going to show you the entire universe and time and history.

I think that excitement has gone out of the show. Maybe it's just because I was younger when I watched the 9th and early 10th Doctors, but each episode felt like a different adventure, that you were exploring another era or another world. It didn't try to be 'clever'.

Sorry, no prejudice just wondering why one era is deemed soap and the other not.





Indeed, which is why I gave a synopsis of two character narratives. Which one would you deem the more soap opera in terms of character arcs and 'SHOCK' soap esque twists and turns.







Then how does this apply to the RTD era and not the Moffat era? Was the Ponds arc not about their relationship? What about the Doctor and River Song, River Song and the Ponds?
Why do you class the Tylers/RTD as soap and the The Ponds/River Song Moffat era drama.

I thought it was not about the setting, yet you imply that because the Tylers were in a mundane setting therefore it is soap? So my 'Eastenders' remark maybe carried a bit more weight then you want to admit, it does fit part of your definition of soap.




That is a very limited definition of drama, maybe your own prejudices are showing there

How does your definition of drama only apply to the Moffat era and not the RTD era? Why is one soap and the other not.




Focusing on central characters relationships is not soap, it is drama. Some of the greatest dramas have been solely based on the relationship between characters. The most important thing to any drama is belief in the charterers, this is done by engaging the audience on an emotional level. It isn't exclusive to soap operas.





I agree, but you deem it soap when done in the RTD era and not when done in the Moffat era.

What is the difference.

Thank you, you just reminded me of how skillful a story teller RTD is. I've never seen Children's Ward, but was particularly impressed with the SJA. I wish American writers treated me with such respect when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's.

And looking over some of the other comments, it's always fascinating to me to see what works for some people and not others. That's what makes life exciting.

agreed, and I don't think it's because you were younger. it was because as you said it didn't try to be over clever and then tie itself up in knots(*cough moffat cough*). The focus was on the adventure of the story and the various personalities of the character's, and it was an easier(but by no means dumber), more enjoyable watch as a result. in fact the irony of moffat's era is that he seem's to get himself in a tangle trying to prove how clever he can be, and yet on the whole,the stories in rusell's era looked more intelligent, because they have a start, middle and end which make sense and can be easily explained

Sorry but I think you were. Why else would you have offered those two particular settings? A soap opera can be set in any number of settings: a northern town, the east end of London, a farm, a fire station, a holiday complex in Spain, a market, a hospital, a vets, a GP practise, a police station, or even a space station.

Leadworth is no more or less mundane than a block of flats in London. The setting has almost nothing to do with whether a series is a soap or not. It's about how the story deals with the characters. Whether 'ships are more prominent than the adventure or jeopardy.

And you are putting words in my mouth: I didn't say RTD's era was a soap opera, just that it tended to have more soapy elements than SM's era. SM chose to have Amy as a rather isolated character, whereas Rose was embedded in her family. Clara's rather similar to Amy in that respect (at least until the Christmas episode).

SM still has 'ships and character development of course just less emphasis than RTD. In the end it's the characters that make you care about the outcome of the situations they find themselves in.


Neither. The setting has nothing to do with it being a soap or not soap. You do seem fixated on this false dichotomy. You're looking for something in my arguments that really isn't there.


Please see my answer above.


Again you're inferring something I neither said nor implied. You're forcing your interpretation, your prejudice onto my words. It has nothing to do with the physical setting.


Soaps and Doctor Who are often referred to as drama, but technically they're not, because they're ongoing serials and designed to be so. It doesn't mean I think either of them are less or more worthy than a so called true drama. They can be and often are dramatic.

I only give the technical definition. It's not my definition. And there you go again accusing me of showing my prejudice when there is none to show. You're making too much of this.


Asked and answered. I refer you to my answers above.

You have completely ignored the points I then when on to make about those characters. I was not using the locations for any other reason just stating where both of the characters came from. It has no relevance on something being soap or not in my view.

Which one of those basic character synopsis comes closer to being 'soap'. Is it the girl from London or the girl from the countryside.



But neither of those are soapy elements, they are drama. Why is one soapy and the other not. Are you saying that because one was embedded in her family therefore it is more 'soap'

To be honest, I think it is a straight forward question.



I agree, but neither of them are soap elements, they are drama. Just because one or the other made the viewer care more about the characters does not make it soap, where it is set does not make it soap, if the character is isolated or outgoing does not make it a soap.

I don't think you actually know what the term 'soap' really means. I genuinely do not intend to be rude when I say that either, but I think you are mistaken. Soap in terms of how something is actually written has nothing to do with any of the points you have made.

I feel this could go on in circles.
I don't think I have ever written the word soap so many times, I feel like a dirty soap perv.





I know the setting has nothing to do with it, I never said it had. I gave two simple basic character synopsis and asked which one you felt was the most soapy..ooerrr. Skip where they lived then if you are struggling to get past it.

Which one would you say had the most 'soapy elements' (sounds like a porn film)






Remember 'soapy elements' what were they we have established that it was not the location..what were the soapy elements? She had a family that featured heavily?







No Luke I am your Father.

I think it's fascinating to be able to look back on the different approaches taken by RTD and Moffat across their respective tenures. While we fundamentally have the same show now as we did in 2005, both have crafted a brilliant TV series that embraces change and new perspectives and throws itself in the deep end at trying to impress the audience. Before I say anything else, I would just like to congratulate them both for doing a fantastic job. It was RTD that got me hooked, and Moffat that has kept me here until today. For whatever issues I have with the show, I can't deny that I'm excited to see what Series 8, 9 and beyond will bring.

For me, RTD offered up my preferred Doctor Who recipe. It took me until some way into Series 7 to realise that, so Moffat has done a good job at keeping me reeling but for me I have to say that RTD just edges it, and it all boils down to my satisfaction as a viewer. Watching the first four series of NuWho are massively more satisfying for me, and that is hugely down to the way it was written. I prefer both Matt Smith and Christopher Eccleston to David Tennant, so to admit that Series 1-4 (which is over 75%-Tennant) is my preferred time in the shows past is quite odd to me.
I think the sense of resolution and pay-off was often far better in RTD's Who. Sure, he was guilty of some very ridiculous solutions in the series finales but then Doctor Who has ridiculous written all over it, so it really didn't have a lasting negative impact. Behind ever deux ex machina was a well written character who was beautifully acted, and who was able to evoke a strong emotional response. There was a real sense of loss when a character departed, and even recurring characters like Jackie were made to matter. Far from making the universe feel small by revisiting Chiswick or the Powell Estate every few episodes, RTD made it so that these places put the sheer awe of the universe in context. It made traveling the stars a wondrous gift, and gave scale to the events that unfolded long before RTD decided to try and upstage his own finales every year.

Moffat's strength tends to lay in plotting, as was evident in his stories from within the RTD era. Each of his stories from then introduced something that became hugely important or influential to ongoing Doctor Who. Captain Jack in Series 1, the timey-wimey concept in Series 2, the Weeping Angels in Series 3 and River Song in Series 4...all of these were important aspects of NuWho and it was Moffat who first wrote for them all. In his time as show runner he has mainly stuck to the arc-heavy episodes, not venturing off for many standalone jaunts at all really (while RTD was giving us the likes of The End of the World, Tooth and Claw, Love & Monsters and Midnight as extras). In addition, Moffat has also focused his efforts far more on leaving his own mark on Doctor Who's "canon"... he's taken the Timelord/Time War story to new places, aged The Doctor significantly more than any other writer has done, introduced a secret incarnation of The Doctor and many more examples besides. It's all plot-heavy, but I feel to the point that it has cost Doctor Who a bit of its emotional gravitas. Now and again Moffat-era episodes try out for sentimental, but gravitas is something else and I can't say I've seen it done even comparably well once within Moffat Who. We have storylines involving kidnapped children that simply don't work without turning Doctor Who into a soap or making the characters completely two-dimensional. We have continues examples of character deaths that could leave a huge impact, but they're quickly resurrected...cheating death is okay once in a while but the Eleventh Doctor did it in all three of his finales, while examples like Jenny in The Name of the Doctor go to show how death has become incredibly cheapened, and the sense of threat and menace has gone from the show. Amy and Rory's exit was drawn out in a similar manner to that of Tennant, so that by the time of their final scene I really didn't care as much as I could/should have done. And even then, Moffat is so keen to move the plot along that we scenes that are cut too short, or cut altogether (or resigned to the realm of the Minisode) because they're emotive but they aren't plot-centric. For me, that's the sole issue with Moffat. Clever plots have come first, and even then aren't actually that clever at all. RTD-Era Who can be dipped in and out of on repeat viewing, whilst rewarding you with ongoing stories if you care to watch the lot. Moffat Who is far more demanding in that regard, and with less emotive characters I can't attach to it as he might like me to as a viewer.

I've been rambling a while now so I'll just summarise that I think that both have done a wonderful job in running the series and have delivered some great stories (and a few clunkers each too). I have my issues with both, but none great enough to stop me from watching. I still look forward to seeing what Moffat offers up next, perhaps not quite as excited as maybe he himself is... but an avid viewer all the same.

Yes, you've got it. It's because Rose was embedded in her family that there are more soapy elements in RTD's era than SM's.

Drama
1.
a play for theatre, radio, or television.
"a gritty urban drama about growing up in Harlem"
synonyms: play, show, piece, theatrical work, spectacle, dramatization;
plays as a genre or style of literature.
"Renaissance drama"
the activity of acting.
"teachers who use drama are working in partnership with pupils"
synonyms: acting, the theatre, the stage, the performing arts, dramatic art, dramatics, dramaturgy, stagecraft, theatricals, theatrics, the thespian art, show business; More

Episodic TV shows like soaps and Doctor Who are technically not dramas because they are serials. Soaps feature 'ships and the mundane heavily, Doctor Who doesn't.

I always think that whatever you thought of his Era as showrunner that the guy deserves credit for getting the show back in the first place. There have been a few posters over the years, one in particular, who seemed to hate everything RTD, who refused to acknowledge that and that's a shame.

Looking at the good things RTD did first. Well, I always felt he gave his episodes a lot of emotive drama, which would hit you for six. The departures of Rose and Donna are just superb and no departure since then has had the same punch. For me, emotive drama is what makes good drama. That's what made the Hartnell Drama on anniversary week so much better than the 50th Anniversary story, because it had an emotional impact. Off course, not every story should be like that but the important episodes where there is a departure etc should convey it to the viewer. Imo, that just hasn't happened with Moffat. Amy's and Rory's departure left me stone cold and despite a nice final speech from Matt Smith at Xmas, his departure was even less dramatic.

He also gave them an exciting, action packed edge to conclude the episodes and even those of a slower pace were still good enough to hold your interest. Father's Day was a good example of this. Together these two elements made the show a lot more enjoyable than it is at the moment.

Someone also mentioned the TARDIS doors earlier in the thread. I thought he done the right thing making them normal doors. The one thing that always jarred in Classic Who was the doors whirring open from the inside and then closing as normal doors on the outside. It just never made sense, so it was good RTD corrected that.

However, unlike fans of certain showrunners, I don't think RTD was perfect. Aside from writing certain clunkers which I despise, the whole use of the News in every Earth story drove me crazy. I get the idea that he was now trying to make humans aware of every invasion but he overused it far too much and that is one thing I'm glad to see cut out on Moffat's Watch. Plus The Doctor never seemed to visit other alien planets much and that is now happening.

Yes, perhaps it was a bit soapy at times but I find myself more involved with those characters and what happened to them than I do now. The whole romance thing didn't bother me that much, it was really just a continuation of what had started in the TV Movie, though I'm glad it didn't carry on.

I just hope whoever comes in after Moffat will at least bring some excitement back to the show that RTD brought to the Series. I can live with a change of style most of the time but when it doesn't excite me, that's when the show bores me and it has rarely done that over the years, except in the case of individual stories, off course. I'm talking about a Series as a whole though.