I think you're considering only extreme cases here - the 'story' doesn't have to cover the entire future of Doctor Who, only a standalone series. There are plenty of novels that pick up a character already in existence, put them through adventures, and then put them back more or less where they started, older and wiser. Most licensed novels do this. Hell, Doctor Who novels do this.

Perhaps a better term would be 'single serialised story'.

They do, but the biggest consequence of such stories usually happen to that story's guest character, not the series principle characters. Most serial detective novels, for example, progress the story of the main recurring characters very little.

Similarly, the story of the Doctor himself remains largely untold, despite hints, teases and glimpses, even after 50 years.

If such a thing were ever to be attempted for Doctor Who (which I don't think it ever will for the reasons I gave in earlier posts), it would have to be the story of someone or something other than the Doctor and the TARDIS. The story would have to be a big enough concept to warrant spending multiple seasons telling it. And it would actually be about this other character (or situation) and have a beginning, middle and end for that character (or situation).

Regular Doctor Who stories are like this (on a smaller scale) anyway, with the actual drama being about the guest characters' situation, not the Doctor's or the companion's progression. The Doctor and companion, while being key to the resolution, are actually always the guest stars in someone else's story.

That's why both RTD and SM both say Doctor Who is really the companions' story and not the Doctor's, as he, largely, remains unchanged. By the time you get to the end of the companion's story, he's back to where he was, and the series' format is preserved, ready for the next companion.

It's the way companions have been treated in C21 Doctor Who. They have a character arc which could be viewed as a novel about them.

Went for the the RTD style mostly separate stories with background arc. I think it struck the right balance. Give a hint of something that's significant, but at the same time make it a passing thing that can be ignored or glossed over by the casual viewer who has only tuned in for this episode half way through the series, yet still want's to understand the episode and everything in it.

Plus I always think of how people watch individual Classic who stories now, including people too young to remember them originally such as myself, and I think that if people who perhaps haven't even been born yet are, in the future, wanting to watch some good individual stories from the 2005-2015 period, the more arc heavy series 6 and series 7 part 2 contain episodes almost unwatchable without knowledge of the arc whereas the RTD era stuff and series 9 lend themselves to that sort of thing much better.

I don't think that is how you should do an arc, if you want to do one, do it properly. And generally a good arc might keep viewing figures higher during the middle of a season.

But they have the problem that they want to actively target the casual viewer every single week in the hopes that ratings will be higher, but at the same time want to reward and keep engaged those who faithfully tune in every week. That is why I feel the background RTD era/series 9 type arcs are the perfect balance. Go too arc heavy and you lose the chance of letting in new viewers once the series has started. I know other shows don't worry about that sort of thing, but we know with this show they do, and like to use the 'different story, every week or two' design of the show to their benefit, by hoping that each new story is a potential chance for someone to watch who didn't bother with the previous one.

It is for the same sort of reasons, I feel episodes and arc's about new things, are better than those that seem to require a heavy knowledge of history about the show to be fully enjoyed.

I agree that Doctor Who shouldn't do arc heavy themes, but if people don't understand a week it might give them incentive to catch up.

Also the main Moffat arc of season 8 and 9 are i'd say identical to RTD arcs. Bad Wolf, Torchwood, Saxon, compared to Hybrid, and Missy popping up. To the point i wouldn't call them arcs. Season 4's arc had a little more to it, so did season 3 for that matter in which The Doctor knows something is up and events prior are actually meaningful to the climax.

I actually enjoyed season 5's arc, i felt it intertwined the arc of the season into the stand alone episodes and even allowed us to piece things together. But from Season 6 onwards the arcs have gone downhill, so i wouldn't mind a season 5 type arc (obviously not the same thing) where you still have the stand alone nature of episodes, an intriguing arc to grasp all the audience and those who like arcs and can keep interest up higher throughout the middle of the season.

It's a difficult balance to achieve. It was always received wisdom that in episodic TV you kept the stories self contained so that you can capture new casual viewers more easily because they don't need to be aware of complex back stories or of what has happened so far.

I think that situation has changed somewhat. Many recent successful TV series have had stories which proceed over one or more seasons and in doing so proven the old wisdom is wrong - or at least that it's not right in all situations. They're simple enough that "Previously on..." intros are enough to bring new audience members up to speed. TV has learned that casual viewers are as easily lost as gained and committed viewers are really desirable.

I'm not lobbying for Novel for Television, BTW. For example I would hesitate to jump into the current series of GoT, given that I've not seen any of it.

I just want season arcs for Doctor Who with just a bit more connectedness and complexity than we've had with the catchphrase arcs.

If you treat TV as something ephemeral, disposable and of no artistic or cultural significance, then individual "bullet" episodic TV is expected. It's just another product to be churned out alongside any other mass produced and marketed product.

If a TV show is more intelligent and planned as a "proper" drama, your audience may not be so large, but, if done well, it will be more committed and it will be the type of person some advertisers would give their eye-teeth to reach. (So called ABC 1's).

Most of the series arc stories we have had, excluding Series 6, which had a different set of problems, have been incredibly simple stories. We get get a hint here and there, not related to the story at hand, and then nothing significant happens until the series finale. Each hint has no consequence. The arc story doesn't progress. There's no interaction with our protagonists. Worse, they tend to feel shoe-horned in or tacked-on to the story in which they appear because they're not connected to that story. Basically the hints serve as a reminder from the writer that there is an arc and to create talking points. It's fine to begin arc stories that way, but there should be worthwhile progression before you get the finale.

And the winner is....



..somewhat surprisingly for me.

Series 4 had a more prominent thread running through with it's hint's and the beauty of that particular arc is that we did realise all of those hint's were prominent important hint's until the final reveal.

In many way's I think that was probably the best handled arc so far, as it catered to both camps. On the one hand there was seemingly no evidence of any arc in most of the episodes right up to turn left, meaning that people could randomly tune in any week not having seen any episode and not be confronted with any arc stuff (not even a shoehorned in word or phrase) (yes there were the scattered rose scene's, but they were more to do with hyping her return than the arc itself and made just as much or as little sense whether you'd watched one episode or the whole series) and they all seemed standalone, yet when the finale came we realised that the series had the things you say you want - hint's that had come up in their stories naturally rather than forced e.g bee's/planets disappearing, the doctor and donna finding each other again etc, and all led to something bigger in the grand scheme of things all along. It was kind of perfect. not sure if they could ever pull off something like that again though.

Personally I'm okay with mostly standalone with the odd word, phrase or hint. Given that the finale is what an arc build's too, I'm always far more interested in whether the finale is any good, because if it isn't then the whole arc is a waste anyway.

Take series 9 for example. The arc of 'the hybrid' sounded increasingly interesting throughout and we were hinted at the possibility of seeing a proper gallifrey story and a possible half dalek half timelord during the course of the series. Then when the final episode came, it was basically an epilogue to face the raven rather than a story in it's own right and 'the hybrid' pretty much came to nothing of any significance, meaning that for me, the previous good work in making the arc seem interesting was a complete waste.

Whether you agree with me on that particular example is neither here or there. My basic point is that big arc/small arc/intrusive/ made to seem standalone, however it's done, what matters for me, more than anything else about an arc is the pay off and if the finale is underwhelming, and the arc has hyped the finale more than it deserves, than the effort put into the arc, however much or little effort was put in, was all a complete waste anyway.

All mystery stories, regardless of whether they're an arc or not, need a satisfying payoff. In that sense I think the distinction you've made is a false one. That we've not always had decent arc payoffs in Doctor Who is nothing to do with arcs particularly.

I think the Saxon arc is one of the best in Doctor Who. It's like some of the foreshadowing seen in Babylon 5 for some of its threads, where you only see the connections on subsequent rewatches.

Fair point. The word 'novel' to me recalls Joyce or Dickens or Orwell or Woolf and so on... a self-contained and complete work of literature, of art. But yes, it also applies in the context you outline.

I like the term you used here better though: 'single serialized story'.

I would have no problem personally with such a format but I can see it being received very poorly. I don't think the audience en masse wants to make that sort of weekly commitment to the show.

Not surprising when you consider the show is hugely successful. It would not be hugely successful if it had a format that alienated a lot of people. Ergo, abductive reasoning tells us that in a poll such as this the most commonly used format will perform strongly, because a large audience must be getting what they want.

Remember, every opinion you ever read on the Internet is a minority opinion of one single person. It's easy to think that the prepoderance of single opinions one reads that align with each other suggests a majority opinion, but in fact the majority is nearly always silent, as very few members of the audience voice a loud or public opinion.

BIB: Episodic TV and soap operas are the opposite of literary drama. In "true" drama the central characters are changed by or "learn something important" (or sometimes fail to "learn something important") from the events in the story. In episodic TV, TV without an arc that progresses towards a resolution, the central characters must be more or less the same at end of each episode as they were at the start, otherwise you risk destroying the format of the show. Each episode is really about the guest characters and their situation each week and it's their story that's wrapped up by the end of the episode.

The Doctor and his companion remain, in essence, the same throughout the series. Doctor Who's clever format, that allows rotating Doctor's and companions while keeping the show's premise the same, creates and sustains the necessary illusion of dramatic progress of our central characters.

After 50+ years the show, despite changes in appearance, style and tone is still fundamentally the Doctor and companion, travelling the universe and having imaginative and exciting adventures.

I recognise it's only my personal preference and my "surprise" is partly my disappointment at the lack of support for something a little more complex than the simplistic catchphrase arcs we've tended to get in Doctor Who. I just thought there'd be more support for that, given there's so much concern about the current state of Doctor Who expressed around here.

There are some really successful shows in recent years that have adopted the more complex arc approach. Some going even further with that too. I'm not arguing for that in this case as it would not be right for Doctor Who. It's just not that "heavy" and "serious" a show to succeed with that approach. I just want arcs that are a bit more engaging. Something more than Bad Wolf or The Hybrid or Missy in series 8, but less than River Song's arc (or perhaps better executed).

If you look at those catchphrase arcs we've had and imagine them as standalone stories, each made into a single episode, the arc bits would all be in the pre-credits teaser and the rest would be the finales pretty much as they stand.

The reason most would like to go with that as it has worked in the past, and i am not sure many would trust Moffat with a more serious arc.

But after all, i think there are 2 ways to do an arc.

1. You go all in with the arc, make it important.
2. Or sort of like the Season 5 arc, where what was happening was evident quite often, it allowed you to try and piece things together, the Doctor actually knew the threat and so does the audience. We had episodes prior to the finale to explore what is happening.

But none of this catchphrase crap, if i could replace the catchphrase with a "pen contains ink" and it would have just as much relevance, then you know it is a useless arc.

Agreed entirely with this.
I've had different stances in regards to the arcs over the past ten years of the show. As examples go, I found Bad Wolf in Series 1 to be compelling - it didn't distract my enjoyment from the individual stories, was satisfying in small ways when I was fed the illusion that I'd 'spotted' a grander scheme in play later on, and above all (this is where it gets subjected to individual tastes) the finale delivered a satisfying conclusion to it. In retrospect it didn't force-feed the arc down your throat as you went along so there wasn't heightened expectation. And it eventually delivered a decent finale, a rewarding pay-off.

Skip ahead a few years, and we have the Series 5 arc. Far from being subtle it signposted itself absolutely everywhere it could. That build up was mostly okay even if the antidote to subtlety. Cracks in the wall in The Beast Below and Victory of the Daleks were nice little nods to something greater - admittedly it's mostly tacked on hype, but in the moment you enjoy it. And ultimately the finale would more or less pay off as well as one of the better ones in the past decade. The build up though was jarring for me, with the Weeping Angels completely undermined by the threat of the crack in the Byzantium, and then later Rory's death feeling formulaic and tacked on as a result of that same arc. It went to show that the build-up of the arc was every bit as important as its resolution.

Series 6 would prove just one year later what happens when it all goes wrong, and the arc becomes the main event. The show wanted to have its cake and eat it all at once, chuck us in the deep end with a compelling and potentially show-shifting storyline, whilst maintaining the monster-of-the-week status quo it had always had. It was a choppy, bumpy ride filled with annoying hype references along the way ("the only water in the forest is the river", The Doctor's Wife) and Day of the Moon undermined the format of the entire show itself by asking whether it was best to explore the mystery of the little spacesuit girl, or have "some adventures". It immediately drew a divide between the two, putting the arc on a pedestal and them worst of all it fundamentally failed to deliver a satisfying conclusion too - resulting in an uneven series with some superb standalone stories but an arc that got it wrong on so many levels (for me at least).

Series 9, as has already been said, struck a very good balance again. It didn't feel repetitive like we were going through the arc-motions, nor did it feel like it had become all-consuming. The hybrid arc was intriguing in the same way Bad Wolf was - signposted but not obnoxiously so for the most part. The finale comes along and as episodes go it did a lot right - as a Clara fan I felt I should have enjoyed it, but all the same I didn't. Why? Because the episode dropped the ball in terms of the satisfying build up it had had up to that point. The arc that had been teased went next to nowhere in favour of a plot point that had hit its tragic but dramatic high in the previous two episodes. All these teases of Gallifrey, revelations about the Hybrid, much less subtle but nonetheless interesting build up to where Ashildr's character could be headed - all these little elements came together for sure (and in many ways I feel this was the same with Series 4 - another arc that burnt out too early, as Journey's End managed to feel dull for much of its runtime compared to what came before) but they ultimately played second fiddle to something else, and unecessarily so.

All in all it's about balance. As Tom Tit has said, the mainstream audience seems to respond rather well to the format of the show - which doesn't need changing if it isn't broken (Moffat treads a fair few fine lines in this regard - but in retrospect I appreciate that he keeps the show feeling rather fresh most of the time as a result). I do think though that the show needs another finale that really delivers a sold resolution to its build up again. Series 9 came so close to getting it right - if it had done so it would possibly have been the strongest series for me - but it stumbled with perhaps one too many two-parters that made the whole thing a little clunky and ultimately a finale that focused on the wrong plotlines (again, said as a Clara fan) and didn't live up to the hype, expectations and possibly even the promise of what had come before.

Interesting - my feelings are almost entirely the opposite!

To me, Series 1 felt hollow because there was a certain promise in the repetition that was never delivered - the words must be significant, what's connecting them, what other clues can we find?

The answer was, of course, that there was no meaning behind Bad Wolf, it was just a nonsense phrase, and one of those predestination paradoxes that people these days suddenly have such a problem with. It's presence in the episodes were there solely to screw with the fanboys - and while I utterly respect that, it was still a let-down!

From a plot point of view, it wasn't even required - since when did Rose need a paradox to persuade her not to give up on the Doctor?

In contrast, Series 5 wove clues into the plot - not just in ominous references that the lead characters didn't see, but in actually having an impact on the stories, in refreshingly unexpected ways. We learned new things about it each time, and they really did add up to being important in the climax.

I think Series 1, 4 and 5 had the best arc in their year. Series 1 was so spooky and scary hearing the bad wolf theme. I still remember Gwenyth and that blue guy talking about some Bad Wolf Scenario aswell as Margaret picking the name Blaidd Drwg and The Doctor and Rose finally adressed the problem after it was shoved in their faces for weeks.

I liked the Bad Wolf one as it was done quite ominously and it was the first "arc" as such, so there was a lot of mystery behind it, but repeating the exact same formula for the next four years but with a different phrase just felt clumbsy and had me wondering "what's the point?" when it didn't lead up to anything but another finale involving the Daleks or the Master invading Earth.

I remember how much Series 5 and 6 had me engaged with their stories arcs though, with the way we learnt more and more as the series went on besides just a phrase being repeated, and I was quite disappointed that Series 7 didn't follow this so much.

I personally love strong arcs (most shows have them these days) and I'd say season 6 was perhaps my favourite because of it ..

..but the problem for Who in regards to decent arcs... is the core element of time travel.

When you can flit through time and space it's very difficult to create a consistant arc as you don't have worlds, characters or races who evolve naturally.

I suspect a major reason why so much emphasis in new Who has been placed on the companions/their home life & The Master/Missy (and Ashildir in this series) ...is because those are the only characters/situations that have any kind of natural growth upon a similar timeline to The Doctor. Pretty much every other villain/location has a complete refresh and starts from scratch because the timelines are so out of order.

If you want decent arcs in Who, you really need for the Doctor to be chased through time, be chasing someone through time, searching for something/clues through time...or cut off his ability to travel through time so his enemies are evolving on the same timeline. It's damn hard to have the same strong arc that most other genre shows have ...when there's no stable timeline to follow.

There was slightly more nuance in the RTD era.

Aside Badwolf, there was the emergence of the Doctor's past and the Time War, along with the Daleks, the Slitheen, Rose struggling her new view of the world.

Then alongside Torchowood (and Sarah Jane, both of which spun off into their own shows), there was Pete's World, jumping off Father's Day, which fed into the Cybermen and the Cult of Skaro, which fed into the Series 4 finale and so on.

Charcter like Mickey, Donna, Matha had arcs. Stray episodes like the Lazarus Experiment, and The Long Game linked into other episodes. Characters remembered big invasion events, most prominently on display in Turn Left.

It wasn't just buzz words. These were recurring threads, which lent more gravitas to some stories as they built on the events prior. But the recurring elements in future series felt less like they were progressing forwards, and more like static islands of characters that are visited from time to time (UNIT, Paternoster Gang, River).

Other than the main arc, the only example of extra story progression I can think of, was Craig from the Lodger, who got married and had a kid.

Every character has arcs, we are discussing the big bad of the season or whatever you want to call it. The main arc so to speak.

There are background arcs which carry through for seasons, but the seasonal arc for badwolf is badwolf. There may have been an episode in the space station prior, but that has NO effect on the finale. They are just sharing a similar location for the finale we have no idea about or the Doctor. I wouldn't even call it an arc, if the finale can take place and be just as good without the mention of Bad Wolf or that trip to the Space Station, then you know it is meaningless. It is just a dalek story in the finale, that is all.

Season 2 definitely had more foreshadowing, but again the Cyberman we never knew would be co villains in the finale. They just happened to be in multiple stories, not really part of the seasonal arc, just a background cyberman arc with parallel worlds. The Cult of Skaro again, just had more than one appearance. They didn't add to the arc, they were just happened to be in the finale. And Torchwood could have appeared in the finale without being mentioned at all prior in the series and it wouldn't have made a difference.

Season 3 had more too it with The Doctor knowing that maybe he isn't the last Time Lord, we learn as the audience someone is trying to get to the Doctor with Martha's mother, and how the Lazarus experiment was a trap. At the end of the day it had a bit more than a catchphrase arc, but it was still just a weak arc, The Doctor didn't know about Saxon and we had no indication as to what the threat was. All this arc did was it had more impact come the finale.

Season 4 had a better arc than the previous 3 seasons as we and the Doctor throughout the season actually knew something was going on with the Planets, but then there was also couple meaningless repeated words which are so forced and not necessary at all and is just weak foreshadowing to something no one could guess. But this season the foreshadowing was definitely up a notch.

I think its reductive to just focus on the 'main arc', when the relationship between episodic story telling and inter-locking continuity is such a rich and invigorating topic.

If that's what the thread is restricted to, fair enough, but the title says 'arcs vs stand alones'. We could debate which aspects of interlocking stories are more important, or token than others, but to just focus solely on "Bad Wolf", a boot strap paradox that serves as a message of hope, seems odd to me, when its meaningless without the context of the stories around it.

I never said that at all. Every season needs these background arcs, but they aren't the focus of the season or series.

You name me any show which isn't a comedy, and there will be evident background arcs, to accompany the main arc of the season which has a lot of focus, as it is the main arc.

The mention of Bad Wolf isn't an arc, sorry but it isn't. If the finale can happen without the events of catchphrases then it isn't an arc.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for one scene. In the park, when Rose is resigned to give up, seeing Bad Wolf gives her the kick up the pants she needs to keep trying. It's not much. Neat really but nothing more. I'd hardy call it the main arc, when the reintroduction of the Doctor, his relationship with Rose, and the fallout of the Time War are all much more prominent throughout the series.