After the discussion in the Rumours and News of Season 10 thread, I thought it would be interesting to find out what kind of storytelling we would like from Doctor Who.

Option summaries in the poll itself with fuller descriptions and explanations below.

You may know of specific DW stories that don't fit my sweeping generalisations. Feel free to criticise my definitions and descriptions and offer your own in the discussion! They're just my opinion, after all.

1) Completely separate stories. New planet, new problem to resolve each week. No references to previous events beyond the "traditional" recurring enemies. 1960s DW?

2) Completely separate stories. New planet, new problem to resolve each week. Some references to previous events beyond the "traditional" recurring enemies. Early 1970s DW?

3) Completely separate stories. New planet, new problem to resolve each week. Companion's character development is the only "arc". Some references and nods to previous events. 1980s and late 70s DW?

4) Mostly separate stories. Mostly new planet, new problem each week. Some hints of an arc dropped into the background of most stories and arc resolved in season finale. Companion's background and abilities explored and developed. RTD era DW?

5) Mostly separate stories. Mostly new planet, new problem each week. Stronger arc with recurring characters, locations and links. Companion's story in the foreground and developed over multiple seasons. Arc resolved in season finale. SM era DW?

6) Most stories linked in some way. Arc has true progression beginning with mystery and hints of a threat or jeopardy, then there are advances and setbacks. Occasional separate story. Arc resolved in season finale. Not yet seen in DW.

7) Arc dominant seasons. Multi threaded. Arc threads developed or resolved each episode. Some non-arc stories. Major arc thread resolved in season finale. Some element or mystery remains to link to following season. Not yet seen in DW.

8) Novel for television with a definite beginning, middle and end planned over a number of seasons. Multiple and interlinked threads, some of which are resolved as time goes on to give the overall arc a sense of progression. Multiple recurring characters, spread over many locations and times. A complex arc which develops and is resolved over one or more seasons. Not yet seen in DW.

Character development would still be important regardless if it is stand alone. It is essential for any show unless it is the Simpsons

My usual preference would be "Novel for Television". Ever since Babylon 5 I've absolutely loved fully developed, rich and relatively complex stories like that.

I've also always loved it when, in a "normal", hour long episodic series, you get the occasional two part story that usually comes with bigger, richer or more significant story than the ordinary, so-called "filler" episodes. For me this goes right back to The Menagerie, a two part story from original Star Trek.

That said, Doctor Who is, for me, a bit of a special case and I don't think it's suited to big complex stories of the Novel for Television type. It would change the tone too much and remove part of what Doctor Who is. Doctor Who doesn't take itself quite so seriously because of its family audience and so has a somewhat silly and imaginative side to it that would be too confined by a long term planned arc.

The background type arc stories we've had so far in Doctor Who don't cut it for me. They're too thin and unsatisfying. So, I've gone for option 5. It would give more satisfying arcs without suppressing the truly "out there" stories that Doctor Who now regularly gives us.

It could never, ever happen. A novel has creative freedom. Doctor Who doesn't. A novel has a purity of purpose. Doctor Who doesn't. A novel is a story that has consequence. It comes to an end. Doctor Who doesn't. Doctor who has a status quo that must always been maintained. It can only ever give the illusion of narrative progression. Doctor Who is forever stuck in the middle part of the story, with a beginning that is malleable and an end that is unreachable because it would mean the end of the novel: ie. the end of the show.

On the topic subject I already expressed my views in another thread so I won't repeat them in full, I will just reiterate that the show needs to provide the audience with talking points; it needs to facilitate discussion. It needs to keep the audience involved and it needs to ensure every episode feels essential. As the show is not serialized in the way it used to be this makes some form of 'arc' pretty much essential.

The tough question is how deep should it be? My truthful answer is I don't know. The evidence seems to suggest that Russell Davies was getting it more or less right: a strong storyline for the companion, wherein they can develop over the course of their run from a start point to a satisfying conclusion in a novelistic style, whereupon the process starts anew with a new companion. On top of that a light arc to provide intrigue and anticipation towards the season climax, and compel ritual ('faithful') viewing, with a scattering of recurring characters, themes and plot points to create the impression of a rich, consistent world to give importance and a sense of consequence to the weekly stories.

It was a choice between options 1 or 2 for me.
I ended going for option 1 in the end.
I would love a series to have no hang-ups, no worries of arc continuity, just simply what made the show successful in the first place, unadulterated, no looking back adventures in time and space.

Arguably what made the show successful was the Daleks and then later it's sundry 'bug-eyed monsters'. You're projecting your own taste.

I know I am. It's a poll with opinions, silly!
I can't see where I argue that BEMs weren't part of its success.

Okay, but objective opinions seem more useful.

*handbags* Ooo, get you.
I'll chip in how and when I want, if it's all the same to you. Don't be so condescending.

I think RTD got it right with the way he did the story arcs. That was to have a strong opener hinting at what's to come and then sort of sneak it in other episodes and have some episodes tied to it and others not at all. Then have some teasers here and there as well.

I think the Bad Wolf arc from the first Series was a good example of how I like it to be done. It wasn't overly intrusive and it was built up nicely towards the big finale.

One of the few things I did like about Series 5 is that Moffat continued on that same type of arc but over the last few years the arcs have been all over the place.

So I went for most separate stories with background arc(with a full blown arc related finale) as I think most stories should stand on their own two feet but it's nice to have a little of it here and there. Buffy did this incredibly well every year but they had more episodes so some had to be fully dedicated to the overall arc of the Series. With only(as it is now) 12 episodes that doesn't need to be like that in Doctor Who.

"Objective opinions", Tom?

Hmmm. Don't see many of those about the place!

And so will I. So you can say something, I'll contradict you and we're both happy right?

And, in fact the part of your post I challenged you on wasn't in fact your opinion; it was a dubious assertion: "just simply what made the show successful in the first place, unadulterated, no looking back adventures in time and space". If you make a dubious assertion it is fair game to challenge it.

If I say 'full frontal nudity is what makes Doctor Who popular' you don't have to accept it as my opinion, you can challenge it. I question the accuracy of what you said and it's up to you to justify your assertion. You can't just deflect it with haughty 'I'll say what I want, it's a free country' type statements. Well, you can, but you look silly doing it and if you make a habit of it your 'chippings in' will eventually lose credibility.

I loved the way RTD did his arcs and Series 4 and 1 Bad Wolf and The stars going out, Planets being lost in space aswell as time and bees disapearing. I just loved all of them actually and I like how SM actualy did this in Series 5 and I guess 6ish?????

Really? I thought the stars going out got tedious since it is done like every year. You don't need to say the universe is ending to make it dramatic.

That is also a problem i have with arcs, every season they try and out do the previous by going massive, and now any future story like the universe is ending really isn't going to be enthralling. Because it is been there, done that 50 times

I'd er on the side of Episodic. Doctor Who is basically tailor made for that type of thing. Anywhere, anywhen. That said, it doesn't really matter as long as the story/arcs are good. Give me whatever as long as its compelling story-telling.

I explained what I'd normally go for, but that it wouldn't be right for Doctor Who. In the other thread I explained why, for episodic TV, because it doesn't have a beginning nor an end, the principle characters have to be exactly the same at the end of each story as they were at the start in order to preserve the format of the show. That stricture is the opposite of true drama, where the main characters experience something important that has consequences for them.

Some people here seem to have enjoyed the catchphrase arcs we've had, but I'm thirsting for slightly richer threads and arcs. I really enjoyed River Song's arc and hope for more arcs of that level of intensity and connectedness.

An arc should be more than a word, phrase or prophecy dropped in at random into otherwise non arc related stories whenever the writer felt the need to remind the audience that there actually was an arc. The problem for me with "hybrid" and "bad wolf" was that the Doctor didn't appear to engage with the mystery represented by the words until the finales. Saxon was better done, but had the same issue.

They really need to go all in for the arcs, instead of half arsed arcs saying a few words here and there doesn't constitute a decent arc.

Do it properly, or not at all

Sums it up perfectly for me. RTD has an interesting arc but you could watch any individual episode knowing nothing about the Arc and not think what the hell's going on.
Moffat seemed to get worse as he went along culminating in the awful Impossible Girl shambles. I really liked Matt as a Doctor but have never been inclined to go back and watch his late run because I just didn't care about the arc by the time it had reached it's monotonous end.
So far in Capaldis run Moff seems to have reined himself in a bit

Yes, I think Moffat went a bit crazy especially in Series 6. We had an arc heavy first half, then a arc light second half and then in Closing Time it seemed to be attached the to the last 5-10 minutes which was seemingly a separate story completely. Then the resolution was crammed into one episode rather than two which made for a bit of a mess and I felt could have been told over two episodes to give it more of a finale feel.

I absolutely agree it's improved over the last two series, Series 8 was probably the closest there's been to an RTD Style arc and Missy I felt didn't intrude too much on the episodes she was in prior to the finale.

But there was nothing 'dubious' to challenge, Option 1 is to a degree in the mould of the 1960s (which of course would have included the success of BEMs), your challenge was null, you just stated the obvious to which option I went for.

Well every season of Doctor Who has had character development, especially in the 60's.

I don't like RTD's or SM's catchphrase arcs. It seems to me it's the easiest, simplest kind of arc you can have. Hardly worth the title "arc" at all. It requires little effort on the part of the writer or the audience. Other shows have demonstrated it's quite possible to have less simple arcs and still not "intrude" on the individual stories.

The reason why in Doctor Who most arcs have seemed so "shoe-horned in" is because they've been random things tacked on to unrelated stories:

Bad Wolf
Saxon
Kovarian pops up in a window
The Doctor looks concerned while viewing a TARDIS display
Unknown character (Missy) pops up "off stage"
Knowing looks when hybrid is mentioned

None of these work for me because our protagonists were either completely unaware or apparently taking no action. In either case there's an almost complete disconnect with the story at hand - even the Doctor killing "Amy" came out of the blue. In most of them, nothing happens in the arc story at all till the season finale.

Contrast this with River's arc. She's an active, major participant in each story that she appears in. She's not tacked on to the current story like an afterthought. There are big reveals in the course of her arc (admittedly some not handled very well, like Mels or River's parents). But at least "stuff happened" in her arc.

Doctor Who's season "big bad" arcs are poor, IMO.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Indeed it did, especially with Ian And Barbara, it was quite the odyssey.

Gotta agree with some of the others.
I like RTD's arcs but there's nothing really to them. We overhear the words Bad Wolf or Torchwood. There's nothing else really until the finale. There's no build up really. I think Series 5 and Series 7 had the best arcs. A really interesting problem or scenario set up early on, develops slightly throughout and resolved nicely in the finale. Series 6 arguably went a bit too far the other way and both Series 8 and 9 have lacked any real arc resolution, just a bit of hand-waving. Series 3 was probably the best of the RTD arcs as it was the most engaging for me.