There are those who like that sort of procedural show. It's not too thought provoking. It's not too complicated. The plots are simplistic and easy to follow. You know what you're going to get each week. Switch off the fore-brain and watch. Veg out in front of the TV.

Each to their own, but for me such shows are formulaic and uninteresting.

The only time they become "event television" is when something major happens to one of the central characters.

And it's not "sheep" thinking. It's just better, more creative storytelling.

Some of the more complex shows of the kind I like get huge followings and the audience gets rewarded for paying attention. The creatives get rewarded for the extra effort they put in by the appreciation from the fandoms that develop.

I've some sympathy with this. You don't see Poirot's audience demanding intricate plots woven through each series. Nor that Poirot, his childhood, his back story, his enemies need be the central fascination of the thing. The story comes first. And the story is rarely a bloody great twelve week convoluted plot against Poirot.

Now, having said that - I'm not holding Poirot up as the epitome of quality TV drama. There's something about his stasis that is rather dull - despite that it appeals to an audience that appreciates repetition and the status quo more than other demographics.

But it does rather make the producers focus on quality stories with interesting set ups. And characters the audience wants to invite into their home each week. (Poirot is a good example here - he's a bit of a git, but people love him. Tom Baker!)

I tend to favour Paperskin's view.

I'm just using detective shows as an example (I don't actually watch them except for Sherlock) obviously the stories that DW would/should be doing are a lot more challenging fun and weird than procedural shows. But the format of having un-connected cases/adventures is what suits DW. Which has been proven in its past and could easily be the case now, its just RTD went with inspiration from Buffy when reviving the show and that's stuck. But it doesn't have to be the status quo and is something I think hurts the show rather than serve.

I don't think shoe horning-in a few lines or scenes into each episode to create a arc and tease the finale is "creative writing" ...making well told entertaining interesting stories with characters that we love and want to see have more entertaining stories is creative writing.

Look at Moffat output, what was more entertaining his one-off adventures where he concentrated on telling the best story he could, a story that stood on its own two feet, such as the gas mask story, girl in the fireplace, blink, beast below or his messy convoluted arc stories like series 6/7.

There are detective shows that I do enjoy, but I'm not as invested in them as I am with Doctor Who (or certain other well-known science fiction shows).

For example, I like both Sherlock and Elementary.

Elementary is basically "solve the case of the week". The individual cases each week are interesting, often with unusual twists, but there isn't normally any plot connecting each episode except for the central characters' private lives. Its versions of Watson and Sherlock and the secondary characters have developed over time and their portrayal are interesting enough to keep me watching.

Sherlock is quite different. In its first two seasons the extra length allowed for more character and plot than Elementary delivers. I still enjoyed later iterations, including the latest special, even though it's become self indulgent, I enjoy the characters and in jokes and self references. It's fun and a bit more challenging than Elementary.

BIB: If you read my earlier posts, you know that I already agree with your there. DW's arcs have not been done particularly well in either era.

can we please have no more f'ing daleks.

Nothing wrong in Davison returning. He was great in that Time Crash episode. If only we had a full episode with him & Tennant.

But isn't that the kind of arc's we get and will continue to get by choosing to do them in DW.... again due to the nature of DW that's the kind of arc stuff it promotes.. because there is suppose to be some diversity in where they go and to allow some stories to be set apart the writer(s) are left only with the option of putting arc catchphrases in-order to tease and get people going ooh and talking about it but ultimately its hollow... was the Tardis telling Rory that the only water in the forest is the river have any significant pay-off, did play in was it important.. or was it just a superficial pointless tease that did nothing to enhance the story, as that what it felt like to me to be honest, it felt cheap and out of place in an episode that was doing its own thing.

The alternative to doing catchphrase arcs and little teases is to do a whole series in the style of Moffat's 5 episodes of series 6.... and considering how that turned out it doesn't fill me with confidence... and personally I'd be less interested as the show would just feel like all other shows on TV, rather than the incredible unpredictable massive sand box it could actually be.

Though I don't think arcs are necessary in DW, How would you see arc's working in DW as you say you feel they haven't been done quite right but you do want arcs?

I do think mostly we'll have to agree to disagree as we do seem to just have different preferences, and that's fine too. But I bring up what you said about Buffy, as I think it's a show that exemplifies how arcs can play out to different extents and in different ways - something I felt was less formulaic than what Doctor Who does most of the time. An 'arc' by definition, and thinking about why it's even called that, is simply a recurring plot or story element that culminates around the end - the arc doesn't have to concern the 'big bad' (a term derived from Buffy again, but appropriate for Doctor Who as well) or even have a complete and proper by-the-numbers culmination. As an example, Buffy had season arcs that did indeed simply shoehorn in villain references that built up to its finale (Season 1), it also had arcs where seemingly unrelated plot aspects all came into play in the conclusion (Season 5), it had arcs where the big bad revealed themselves early on and the arc was simply a much more intense and ongoing serial (Season 7, something Doctor Who should avoid replicating as it just wouldn't work) and it had arcs that simply involved the gradual progression of the protagonists (Season 6, Willow and her poorly-alluding-to-drug-addiction arc - which like yourself I actually quite enjoyed more or less).

Doctor Who has done similar to some extent, but never quite so well for me. Series 8's arc could easily be defined as Clara's struggle to accept the new Doctor, but it instead opted for the allusions to a growing sense of threat by shoehorning Missy in now and again. A better handled arc remains subtle and relevant - something experienced by the characters as a result of their more standalone adventures. You can have a romp on the moon and it can impact the characters in such a way that it leads to a huge falling out between them at the end. These themes build upon the characters, and ultimately should feed into what makes the finale event so special. I agree that by opting to seed Missy throughout the series they opted for something much simpler, and to be honest ineffective as it's not something the protagonists experience themselves and only serves to be intriguing by teasing the viewer with more information than the characters are getting.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that overall, the concept of an arc is far better and far broader than Doctor Who gives it credit for most of the time. Moffat's arcs have been poor in this regard, and RTD's were a bit better but not mindblowing. If character arcs were less concerned with the build up to a huge villain reveal every time, and more with the characters that are on-screen most regularly then they would work much better.

To quote you;
You have the journey of the characters, how travelling with the Doctor and living the Tardis life effects the companion, that's the arc, how the characters grow by the adventures.
This is absolutely fine by me, when the writers are competent enough to handle it in a less standalone fashion (which Moffat did reasonably well with Clara for me, especially in Series 8). When I say I am keen to maintain an arc in the series, it's with this broader definition in mind - I certainly am less keen on a planted word/device/prophecy each and every series that builds up in the exact same formulaic fashion. Sometimes that can work well, but not each and every series. But those series where it's less utilised, there would need to be much stronger character writing than we're usually afforded - Series 7 made few allusions to its Trenzalore arc before it actually headed there, but the character writing was so distinctly lacking that Clara completely lacked personality and even the Doctor had become a caricature of himself. It lacked an arc for the most part and was standalone in nature, but also failed to show any sense of progression or character growth - maybe the typical, formulaic arc covers that up a little too often, and in doing so maybe I agree with you a little more than seemed obvious when I first posted


In The Forest of the Night still made a small allusion to Missy once again - reminding us she was there. It was small, but it was something. Similarly Fear Her tacked on the lame but prophetic 'storm is approaching' scene at its end.

Talking about it in context of 'penultimate stories', Series 7 remains the only one that doesn't even manage a lame hint that something bigger is coming. It plays its standalone card until the very last minute, and you go into the final story of the series without feeling like what came before has all built up to this big moment. It's just *BOOM*Gallifrey scene*BOOM*Doctor/Clara montage.
Boom Town distinctly reminds us that Bad Wolf is a recurring theme (and played well enough to work as it was only the first time it was explicitly mentioned), Fear Her has its lame prophetic moment, Utopia was a surprise reveal as a three-part finale, Turn Left does the same for Series 4, The Lodger closes with a shot of the crack in the wall heading into the Series 5 finale, Closing Time distinctly takes us back to the events of Lake Silencio in Series 6, In The Forest of the Night reminds us that Missy is lurking about at the end of Series 8, and Series 9 played the three-parter card again with Face the Raven. The seventh series has no lead in, no build up - effectively you could more or less move episodes around and it wouldn't matter what order they were in, as they're so inconsequential of eachother. And it's a fair conclusion to also say that Clara as a character at that point was not sufficiently fleshed out either - so the show wasn't able to fall back on rich character writing either as a means to say they weren't running a convention over-arching story that year.

More simply, I think Series 7 was the wrong side of 'simple' for my liking. It literally had crumbs linking its stories together. Aside from the obvious companion transition, the latter half of the series never felt like it was going anywhere or building to anything. Even its finale only serves to be a lead in to the 50th anniversary events, and so on its own was never too satisfying - for me at least. It was the year I enjoyed the show least without a doubt.

I think the only problem with arcs in DW is that, to date, they've not been done well enough. "Catchphrase" arcs (such as "Hybrid" or "Bad Wolf") aren't subtle, they're lame. I don't agree that always has to be the case. The only DW example to date of a more complex arc that could and should have been more satisfying was clumsily executed.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

I don't see that DW is inherently so different from other shows that arcs could never work. If an arc is done well, there's no reason for it not to work in DW.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And go forward in our beliefs.

You can't really compare Doctor Who to Buffy as they are completely different shows, as one is primarily a character based story and the other focuses more on the plot.

The problem with Doctor Who arcs apart from the obvious, is they are half done. By that i mean most of the series is still alien of the week and then they try and force the arc into that and it just creates a mess. You either go all in on the arc, or you stick to a serial based series.

Me personally i would like it go back to serial based series and the arc is just the characters development through every adventure. And then maybe every 2-3 seasons there is an arc which takes over the majority of the season. Sort of like Trial of a Timelord or Key to Time in the sense that this will essentially be a season long thing. But that doesn't mean there can't be any non connected story in the series.

But this is the viewpoint of someone who enjoys contributing to online discussion forums. Most people do not go into that level of depth.

A typical conversation about a doctor Who episode would go like this (and I know because I have them with people who are into the show but not Internet discussion forum level into it):

What did you think of the last episode? I liked this and this and didn't didn't like this and thought this was a bit silly. It was a good / bad / okay episode. The other person responds in kind. And that is basically the end of the conversation. There's nothing else to say. He gives his opinion. I give mine. Now we talk about something else. But with the arc, the ongoing storyline we talk about what will happen net, what this means, what that means, if that had significance, is such and such will show up again and so on.

The majority of people do not do excessive analyzing but they will discuss an ongoing storyline. They will speculate.

The show needs discussion points.

Also, I have to ask what is the difference between an arc and the 'arc of the characters'? Why do you distinguish these things? A sub-plot involving a character's progression is okay and a sub-plot involving plot points is not? Why? That just sounds like a value judgement based on your personal tastes. But different people enjoy different things. A lot of people were uninterested in Clara's character development but were very intrigued or excited to learn the status of Gallifrey. For others it was the other way around. Different people have different tastes. A good season should have something to interest all of them.

You didn't have to care about the fate of Gallifrey. It was a very small background plot point, not affecting the individual storylines one iota. Why shouldn't it be there? This is why I dislike sweeping statements like 'I wish they wouldn't have arcs'. It always ends up just being one person's value judgement.

Your argument reads to me like someone who cannot see beyond their own mindset, their own tastes, someone who cannot be objective.


As for your other point about two-parters, I also disagree. I was strongly against the idea of a season of two-parters and I feel like my reasoning was borne out and it is thus:

Every episode of Doctor Who may hit or miss. The quality varies, the show is quite broad and different stories have different tones, settings etc. But if i happen to not enjoy Doctor Who on any given week it doesn't really matter: I know it will be different next week: different setting, different story, different writer. If I found it too silly this week it will probably be more serious next week. If I found it to too dry it will probably be more humorous next week. If it was a writer I don't enjoy this week then it's okay because it's a writer I do like next week.

However, this is not the case with a two-part episode. If I didn't like it this week I know I won't like it next week and my enthusiasm is lessened. If it's back to back two-parters that I didn't care for? Then the series is dying for me. This did in fact happen for me this past season, with the whole middle portion. Not only was I not really enjoying the episodes but I didn't have hope or expectation of enjoying it next week because it will be more of the same from this week.

A key art of Doctor Who is variety and two-parters does not play into that.

Now let's put both of your professed preferences together: totally stand-alone stories that are all two-parters. So if i don't happen to like a story or a run of stories what happens then? Not only did I not enjoy Doctor Who for four weeks but I also gained nothing from watching it because none of it will have consequence later in the series. I literally wasted my time watching it because none of it will even have relevance or pay-off! Does this really sound like a good model for keeping the audience captivated?

Your surmisings assume all episodes will be brilliant and have a wonderful story capable of captivating people on its own - but that is not the case.

People need something to talk about and they need variety and they need to have faith in the show in that if they see a mediocre episode this week, or if it simply didn't appeal to them, then it it won't be mediocre again next week or will be soemthing more to their taste.

Two-parters are fine for the occasional large story that merits it but the common currency should be single part episodes.

About your first point about not true at all, i mean ltierally here we are still talking and analysing stories that happened 50 years ago, just because you don't talk more about an episode other than it was good or bad, that is you, others may talk a lot more about an episode. While with Doctor Who Arcs all you discuss is wild speculations, it is essentially fan fiction.

Your second point what is the difference about character development which is what he means and an Arc. Well the massive difference is character development is essential for the success of any show, and every episode whether it is stand alone or not must show character growth or change and not them being a genius one episode and as smart as a caveman the next. A story can contain an a seasonal arc, but every story must contain charcter growth and development, it is essential unless it is a show like The Simpsons. That was horribly explained by me, but i hope you get the point.

Your point about the Two Parters not really withstanding at all. Everything you mentioned comes down to the quality writing, which is just as much a 40 minute episode problem. I found myself from S6 onwards for the most part not enjoying most of the episodes as the episodes weren't that good, and even though different stories were all similar in the fact it was basically the same settings, with some of these characters in these stories being terribly developed.

What for me personally made two parters great in Classic Who was, even if it was a weak episode every part offered something new and every story i enjoyed the growth of every character, and i had a connection to them so even if it wasn't great it was worth watching.

So your complaint shouldn't be directed towards the use of two parters, simply the quality of the writing. Which i think in S9 was done al right. The opener which i didn't feel was a good story, still offered some new insight, had variety even though there was a lot of padding and a messy opening part, it was still intriguing. The second 2 parter had a brilliant set up episode which was creepy, new and you connected with the Characters. Then the second part comes and we explore new ideas and settings but you have that connection the characters to make it worthwhile. Anyway you get my point by now

This thread has gone way off topic it's supposed to be about any rumors regarding the next series, I assume there is no more information on this?
Also if this thread isnt going to go back to the original topic it might as well be closed.

I agree with pretty much everything here especially the first point

Are you not enjoying the discussion? If you feel strongly enough then why not create another thread for the standalones vs arcs debate.

There nothing new about series 10 apparently. If this thread is still running when news or rumours come in no doubt it'll resume normal service then. Unless the poster of that info or rumour can't be bothered to find this thread. In the meantime this thread is serving a different purpose.

Yes that's exactly what it is, is there something wrong with that... I have not once claimed that what I think is what others want I've simply expressed what I think/would like to see, this is a DW forum after all which is the place to do so.

I find you saying I read as someone who cannot see past their own mindset and can't be objective to be an over-dramatic/dismissive reaction to what I have written (poorly no doubt) in this thread. I've enjoyed debating with others on this topic and said to Abomination that I saw his point and where he's coming from (which was the opposite to mine) in his well reasoned responses to my posts.

Regarding two-parters I agree with what Sam_Gee1 said in his response to your post, your point doesn't really stand and talks more about the quality of writing.

Or just better use them.

I liked them in The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar but they were just tacked on in Hell Bent though.

I think 2 (or more) part stories should be reserved for the "bigger" stories. They should not be the mainstay of the series as they were in series 9. To have practically all of them as 2 parters was a mistake.

That said, I also think that there have been lots of stories, certainly many in the SM era, that could have done with at least 5 or 10 minutes longer (e.g. best examples of this issue being Victory of the Daleks and The Power of 3). And some two part stories that should have been shorter (Rebel Flesh / The Almost People) .

I agree with the points in Tom's post, apart from his comments about mindset and lack of objectivity. You've offered your opinions in a reasonable and thoughtful manner.

In my opinion, that is.

Normally I would engage with discussions on standalones and acrs ect but not this time.
Part of the issue is I see this thread has new posts and think "oh is there news on series 10?" when I find out thats not the case I just get annoyed.

Would the people discussing standalones and acrs ect mind if I created a new thread and they move to that?

I don't care what sort or arc we get next, could be Noah's as far as I care, I just want a full season this year.

If we all vote for Doctor Who in the NTA (nominated in Best Drama category), and the show wins, maybe Steven Moffat might announce something as he clutches a well deserved award.

I've just voted - link is on DoctorWho TV.

http://www.nationaltvawards.com/vote...a717622a777722

all Tennant has to do is pass gas to get one of these things lol

What?? I do get Tennant is up for an award again though, I saw him it one of the categories.