Why where S1-S4 being childish nor a problem? Because most of us where children! Now most of us are not. That covers it all.

When they brought it back, they somehow managed to cater for ALL. Young and old fans and young and old casual viewers.

Hell, when they brought it back even my brother, who had never watched an episode in all his life as that sort of thing just didn't appeal to him, watch it and said what fantastic TV it was. But when Smith and Mofatt took over, he stopped watching, saying it was crap.

It was great TV - Stunning... now it's not.

I wasn't a child when S1-4 aired. Nor were many of the millions who watch the show. Also your brother isn't a barometer of the success of Doctor Who. I have just as many examples of my own of people who wouldn't watch DW without sniggering and mocking during Tennants time. They have since become fans during the Moffat era. Neither of our examples prove anything except people like different things.

yeah, this is what I was trying to say, RTD made you care naturally, whereas moffat tries to force you to care at certain points, almost realising he hasn't done the job well all along.

I actually think the opposite and often felt that RTD needed to reign it back a bit, lest it descend into melodrama. Moffat sometimes does the reverse and occasionally seems to mask characters emotion too much, making their feelings less obvious.

Rose, for instance, I thought had a wonderful natural relationship with 9, but thought we were browbeaten with what we were supposed to think of he relationship with 10. Great character in series 1, but I began to detest her towards the end of series 2.

On Moffat's side, I think he often overlooked Amy's feelings in many episodes (particularly in series 5) and it made her come across as harsh. Actually, I'd say "very understated," would be better than overlooked. As a whole, you can see Amy's emotional story when watching all of series 5. You can see that the idea was that she put on a harsh front and kept her emotions hidden behind bravado. Then we only got to see them in the odd occasion.

Personally, I'm more a fan of Moffat's style, but really it just comes down to a personal preference. One style isn't better than the other and different people will respond in different ways.

This is what I think as well, though I do agree with other posters that you need something extra to that to mix it up a bit.

I do miss the days from Classic Who when The Doctor used to just turn up and the story would be all about the adventure and not all on The Doctor as has been the case mainly over the last year or so. With the change in format to the mainly one story episodes I know things had to alter a bit from Classic Who but I think the focus needs to move of The Doctor and his companion and maybe just needs to return to the story themselves a lot more.

I give you a really good example of how a theme can be used sparingly over the course of a Series. In the 70's, The Incredible Hulk got it just right. Most weeks David Banner would turn up, help someone in need, Hulkout twice an episode, but a lot of the time his problem wasn't the basis of the adventure. However, every few weeks we would get an episode that was directly connected to his problem and his search for a cure. Plus also, the fugitive aspect of being chased by Jack McGee didn't happen every episode, he wasn't in every episode. That just allowed the series to breath, the overall theme to be kept to a background and just allowed the right mix of main theme and independent stories. The focus wasn't on Banner every week.

Buffy was very similar in this regard and I wish Doctor Who would get back to it too. Off course in both these cases there were more episodes to play with but for me that's where RTD got the balance right and SM just plain wrong. Series 5 was far too reliant of that ruddy crack in time appearing nearly every episode. Series 6 Part 1 was too arc heavy and then Part 2 not arc heavy enough and in the anniversary year as you would expect, the focus has been all on the Doctor.

Time to get back to basics and balance it all out.

Audience-wise I don't think the demographics have changed much from the classic era, ie. children up to 15, and adults 34-45.

I have a reference for that somewhere (in Chapman's book) but it's not to hand.

That's UK, of course, NuWho in the USA and elsewhere seems to have captured the college kids.

I think the way I see this, it's just that the 'sense of wonder' is taken far too much for granted these days. That's not an RTD or a Moffat problem, but more the way episodes are written by individual writers, or perhaps edited. I love those little scenes with Donna, Wilf or Rose where they'd be going mental or happily catatonic at the mere sight of an alien world.

(My favourite example of a scene like this from Planet of the Ood:
Image: http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...eOod-00060.jpg
Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlvBGGXPgJc )

I think that's taken a bit too much for granted in recent series. It's often now more like "there's an alien planet, but what cool things can we find on it?". It's not gone entirely, The Rings of Akhaten had a lovely scene between Eleven and Clara that dealt with this... I would love to see more of that again. Scenes like that, or like the one in The Runaway Bride where Donna trivialises humanity when she watches the Earth form. I want to restore that sense of wonder, awe and scale to the Universe and the opportunity to explore it.

Definitely. The writers should have confidence that this is still an exciting concept.

This is a good point. I think lately they've been trying to make the assistant's too 'cool' to the extent that they shrug off seeing alien's or new planet's as if they were just everyday things when realistically any type of character would be impressed/amazed. This I think also feed's into the audience perception as we see thing's mostly through the eye's of the companion so if their not impressed, it tell's us not to be impressed

I wish RTD would come back I miss him!!!!

But at what point does it get tiresome? Every episode with the companion being wide eyed and full of wonder while the Doctor has to explain stuff? They have a plot to get on with. And this was never a problem in the Classic series. And it didn't take long for Rose to start acting like a seasoned space traveller within a few episodes to the extent that in S2 she was annoyingly blase about the whole thing. Where are all these episodes where the companions are full of starry eyed awe? There aren't many. Each companion gets a couple in the same way as they get the obligatory Tardis line. Then they get on with it. Of course in real life it would take most people weeks to get over the novelty of the Tardis let alone get their head around the concept. In the show they get one surprised reaction shot, a snazzy one liner from the doctor and that's it. They then spend the rest of the time acting as if its no different to riding the bus. Because no one wants every episode to have a 'yeah but Doctor...tell me how this Tardis thing works again will you?'.

And as for conveying a sense of wonder I think Eleven himself helped get that across on screen. There were moments where even the Doctor seemed surprised or taken aback not only by a planet or a character but even by a simple moment of earth bound beauty as in Vincent and that magical scene with the sky. Here was a Doctor still enthusiastic and fascinated by what he encountered. Too often in Tens era it felt a bit like a slightly cocky but slightly jaded tour guide showing someone the sights. 'You wanna go to the Crystalline Water Gardens of Ghestinferathera? You'll love it!'. He seemed to take everything in his stride and a bit of a know it all. Charlie Brooker did a bit on it. To Youtube!

Edit-

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=79XAEN9gAx0

'Oh its a Saaaaaanctuary base!'

Cringe.

"Ahhh!"

"Ahh!"

"Ahhhhhh!"

"AHHHHH!"

I suppose the advantage that the Ninth Doctor had is he was able to enter the show completely confidently. I'm not really a fan of all the re-generations where he keeps pondering who he is. He's regenerated 12 times, he should know what to expect! At least in the TVM, he had a little more reason to be concerned because he woke up naked in a morgue.

Seeing as Capaldi is part of this new cycle, I can see why you'd want that confusion, but it wasn't played dramatically. Ha ha, the rule book has gone out of the window! If the rule book is always going to go out of the window, why should I care as a viewer?

I think what saladfingers was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong, saladfingers!) was that sometimes ten came across like he already knew everything, had seen it all before and it was all a bit mundane to him. In classic Who, the Doctor clearly didn't know every corner of the universe and it was much a journey of exploration for him as it was any of the companions. I don't think he was on about the Doctor pondering who he is after a regeneration.

As for the rule book - I'm sorry, but did somebody mention the rules? This is Doctor Who, there's never been a rule book!

You wouldn't know that from half the comments on here!

Not really. You appeared to suggest that it was something about location that made London more soapy than Ledworth for me.

Lets just agree that location is not significant.


Well, yes. What's your point? I was and am not objecting to your drawing parallels.


Of course they're not your storylines. I know where they originate.


There you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Those are two of the things that define "soap" for me. They aren't the sole disciminators though.


I agree. It also involves mundane events, 'ship events and the occaisional exceptional event to stimulate audience interest. I would also say it doesn't have a final dramatic resolution - in common with most episodic TV. Unless it's "Albion Market". Yes characters come and go, individual plot threads come and go, but largely, they just go on.


I'd prefer a debate without any barbs, thanks.

RTD's main characters, apart from the Doctor himself of course, are mostly firmly set in a family background whereas SM's tend to be quite the opposite. He usually makes them fairly isolated:

RTD:

Rose - Lives at home with Mum, has a boyfriend and a dead Dad
Mickey - Lives at home with Mum, has a (dead) gran, has a girlfriend
Martha - OK lives on her own but we met Mum, Dad, Dad's new girlfirned, Martha's sister, and brother if I'remember correctly
Donna - Lives with Mum and Grandad (Wilf)

With the exceptions of Wilf and Rose's dead Dad, those secondary characters mainly serve to amplify the jeopardy for the audience. We care about them because the main characters do. They serve merely to be in danger and scream for help. They're the 21st century equivalent of the classic "Who" companions, but they're not really central to the plot.

SM:

Amy - lives with an Aunt we never see, has a boyfriend, and a friend we eventually meet
Rory - Lives (where?), we (eventualy) meet Dad, has a girlfriend
River/Melody - lives in a cell, has a Mum and Dad, loves the Doctor
Clara - lives with a family (not hers), has a dead Mum and (Dad?)

Not only are the main characters quite isolated, but the secondary characters end up being central to major plot threads, even the ones who we only see in flashbacks. They don't just get put in jeopardy, they're central to the plot.


True, but my point is the difference in how the secondary are used. I repeat - I did not say RTD's era was soap, just that it had a greater degree of soapy stuff than SM's era.

It's just a difference in emphasis. Not a black and white, either/or.


Once again, I prefer a debate without any barbs.

I think I've illustrated the difference the way the characters are handled.


It's down to how it's handled. Darth Vader is a main character, Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen are not. Those two are equivalent to Rose's Mum, Martha's Mum and Donna's Mum. Darth Vader is not. He's a main character like Luke, Mickey or the Master (as Vader starts as a pure villain).


No, I'm not. I'm well aware of what is a soap, and that they frequently use fantastic revelations in an attempt to achieve excitement. One famously resorted to the use of alien abduction. Ironic isn't it? Some people who like soaps and dislike imaginative shows, criticise shows like Doctor Who for unbelievable plots and characters. As you said below, many types of drama use shock twists and reveals, so it's not useful in deciding if something is soapy or not. It's not what I use anyway.


As by now I hope I've illustrated, simply having a family constitutes a soap is not my only discriminator. Yes, Amy Pond's story has elements of "soap" too. What I've been talking about is a difference in emphasis. It's more subtle than "either it's a soap or it's not" which you always seem to be driving me towards. I don't accept the false dilemma.

I like both eras for different reasons.

Actually, if there's one event that I'd criticise SM for, it's the apparent low key reaction from Amy and Rory to the loss of their baby. That was a character/emotion event that needed to be developed rather more than it was.

Can we not have an appreciation for the man who brought back Doctor Who without it turning into a Moffat v RTD squabble?

An interesting discussion is not the same thing as a squabble.

(I think it's interesting, anyway. )

When I saw this thread title, I thought Russell had decided to change his surname! Maybe to Russell "The" Legacy? Egomaniac!

One of the boring ones who think both RTD and SM have brought so much to the table and like both eras, even though Matt's is my personal favourite.

And both of them rather brilliantly took the p*ss out of themselves in 'The Five(ish) Doctors'. Clearly don't take themselves *too* seriously and both obviously love the programme. Gonna be hard acts to follow.

No squabble. I like both eras, but I like to think I see them both with a critical and appreciative eye. If you look back at my first post in this thread I only noted one of the differences. It was not code for being an RTD or SM basher.

Actually the debate's been useful for me, as it forced me to really analyse why I think RTD's era was more soapy.

Just commenting on the 'soap' factor, there's no doubt it was prominent during RTD's time on the show but it was more an issue of degree I think.

Though Classic Who stayed clear of any real in depth soap style drama it came ruddy close at times. I thought about some examples which may prove how close it came and this is what I came up with:

1) Susan's departure-Possibly the closest to Rose's in New Who in terms of emotive drama and the build upto this departure with Susan falling for David(great name by the way) was built steadily into preceding episodes but not overdone.

2) Sara's reaction to having killed her own brother in The Dalek Masterplan. Just for a couple of minutes it was soap style stuff as Steven forces her to confront the issue that she had to kill Bret Vyon before she does reveal he was her brother.

3) Jo's departure-This is the closest I think Doctor Who ever came to soap style in Classic Who. Jo falling in love and The Doctor's reaction, plus a hint of jealousy, at times, plus his reaction in the final episode of The Green Death as he drives away in his car. I found the whole Doctor-Jo thing at times an almost unspoken love and at times they did get very chummy in certain scenes.

4) The Adric and Tegan arguments with each other and The Doctor. JNT did say he was striving not to make it too soap like and yet with these companions it did feel like an episode of EastEnders where arguments seemed to happen nearly every story. If it wasn't Tegan falling out with The Doctor, it was Adric and if they weren't falling out with him, they were with each other. Lucky Nyssa was on hand to calm things down!

Then there were all those departures and regenerations which surely must have caused emotive moments for all fans of the characters concerned.

So finally trying to get to my point, RTD was in a way carrying on these soapy moments but then taking it to a whole new level.It was nothing new really aside The Doctor suddenly getting all romantic. However, I still think there have been some during Moffat's time, the Amy-Rory thing is one as has been pointed out.

It seems to me people are calling soap what is actually drama.

With regards to RTD's legacy, I haven't read through all the posts here yet but I haven't noticed this getting brought up - the Time War. It's really been interwoven through everything Steven Moffat has done. Every regeneration from Paul McGann to John Hurt onward has been connected to it in some way, and the whole cracks in the skin of the universe thing is inextricably linked to how the Time War actually ended. Gallifrey is still missing and we can assume future storylines will deal with its discovery, so we're not by any means done with the legacy of the Time War yet.

yep, the only arc type thing during the moffat era which is coherent and dosen't take a thousand word's to explain the in's and out's of, and suprise, suprise, it's a leftover rusell idea

Nope. Just... no.

It is an extension and adaptation of an RTD idea*. It's not like RTD said to Moff: "I did the Time War thing as I had this idea spanning the next few years then this happens..." and then SM did it.

What happened was RTD came up with the Time War to get rid of the cumbersome Timelords, to freshen up the show for a newer audience. This worked, and SM thought that the audience was now sophisticated enough to bring back the Timelords (in an in-universely coherent way), so created a storyline to do it.

RTD did fantastically well in bringing it back, but had he carried on any longer, he would not have done anything like SM has done. Which is how it should be, otherwise there would be no point in changing the showrunner.

*Before you say anything about SM having to steal/use someone else's idea, Doctor Who and it's affiliations aren't exactly RTD's own original idea, are they?