|
||||||||
Is Doctor Who Losing People's Interest? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#401 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,080
|
Quote:
This!! All you Moffat fanboys, just read this and try and understand!
Just saying. I don't do the 'big red button' stuff myself. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#402 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 413
|
Quote:
I know loads of Freemasons too, most of them at the lower levels, and they just strike you as ordinary folk. If you've researched the higher level occult stuff though some of it's very blatant in Moffat's Who. I'm actually really surprised I've never read it mentioned on here.
I'm still not sure though. I just think of Moffat as someone with a very vivid and wide imagination that draws on many themes..... |
|
|
|
|
#403 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,703
|
Quote:
Well I've not researched very far into them, it was only meeting them to organise PR (which for Freemasons still seems odd to me) but I'll take your word on it about the higher level occult stuff.
I'm still not sure though. I just think of Moffat as someone with a very vivid and wide imagination that draws on many themes..... Anyway! It doesn't really matter in terms of the quality of the show I'm sure! I was just making the general point really that certain 'cosy contacts' (which can be of many types, so I'm not 'picking on' Freemasons) can lead to good reviews when the audience isn't particularly impressed, which is the same point you made ![]() E.g. I mostly liked Heaven Sent myself (until I saw the film Triangle - what a rip off!) but was staggered at the critical acclaim in the press. |
|
|
|
|
|
#404 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
|
Quote:
Look, this can be an interesting place to debate and often said that I've enjoyed C21 Who in general; maybe the Moffat era has the edge for me, and a lot of that has something to do with Smith being my favourite C21 Doctor. I think both 'eras' have their merits and flaws, like any other Who era IMO. But going for the 'fanboy' stuff I don't find helpful personally. And it's against the T & C's of this place.
Just saying. I don't do the 'big red button' stuff myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
#405 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 413
|
Quote:
He does have a great imagination, and without knowing some occult stuff you'd never spot it, but it runs throughout his Who and Sherlock, even down to the way certain shots are framed.
Anyway! It doesn't really matter in terms of the quality of the show I'm sure! I was just making the general point really that certain 'cosy contacts' (which can be of many types, so I'm not 'picking on' Freemasons) can lead to good reviews when the audience isn't particularly impressed, which is the same point you made ![]() E.g. I mostly liked Heaven Sent myself (until I saw the film Triangle - what a rip off!) but was staggered at the critical acclaim in the press. |
|
|
|
|
#406 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,506
|
Quote:
I have continuously referenced the critical acclaim that the show has had over the past few years. The problem I have is what I see as the disconnect between those critical reviews and the audience enjoyment of the show.
Heaven Sent got amazing reviews but had the second lowest AI of season 9. Even the truly appalling Sleep No More (lowest AI in years) failed to get a stronger critical review than 'not the strongest episode of the year'. And it is important to remember than 1.25m viewers didn't come back for season 9, and the show/lead actors are no longer getting shortlisted for popular awards (never mind actually winning). The critical acclaim is also somewhat distorted by the fact that many of the TV critics are also Steven Moffat fans. As an example, The Guardian's Dan Martin writes most of that paper's Doctor Who reviews and has also written whole articles about his love for Moffat's writing, even falsely crediting Moffat for making Doctor Who an international hit. And I don't personally feel we need to look to TV critics to make 'well reasoned points'. I've often seen on this very forum some beautifully crafted, passionate and well reasoned reviews of episodes, critiques of entire seasons or praise/criticism of particular writers (including RTD and Moffat). Just because someone writes for a paper or online, doesn't mean their point of view is any more valid than anyone on here. |
|
|
|
|
|
#407 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 8,406
|
Quote:
I would point out that it was Moffat writing badly that came before the general dislike. Most people were disposed to like Moffat because he'd been so good under RTD's showrunnership.
The stuff he came up with was disappointing; people felt let down. That's when they went off him in droves. It wasn't that they decided to hate him for no reason, and didn't give him a chance. Quote:
Well, Freemason is a new one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#408 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,295
|
Well I've given up on Doctor Who now, but I started watching Sherlock yesterday AND ITS AMAZING! I LOVE IT! I'll admit SM is good in Sherlock
|
|
|
|
|
|
#409 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,076
|
Well I liked Heaven Sent, that was the one note worthy episode of series 9, but I was surprised by the continued well praise of all of series 9 episodes in the press...
Its like am I watching a completely different show to you people, to the point where now I haven't bothered to read any DW reviews for the Xmas episode because they just seem so far out of touch... that's not to say they all have to like what I like or not like what I don't like, that's not the case at all, in past years there was constructive criticism of stuff that I did like and praise for stuff that I didn't like but I could see where their point of view was coming from at least, but with series 9 the reviews didn't marry up at all to the episodes, it was kind of odd. Anyway this thread has gone in a weird direction, conspiracy theories haha. |
|
|
|
|
|
#410 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,506
|
Quote:
The second quote is why people accuse you of the first. You just cannot accept any criticism of your Lord Moffat. There were lots and lots of posts in the Sherlock thread explaining WHY people didn't like it but you just casually ignore all these and pretend they didn't exist. And your condescending views that people who don't like Moffat's work are too thick to understand it really don't help support your viewpoints.
I really don't see myself to be as much of a Moffat fanboy as you paint me to be. Yes, I enjoy his work, particularly on Doctor Who, and whether it makes you happy or not I prefer him vastly to RTD. But I also think he's far from perfect, having made his fair share of mistakes during his time, and I think Doctor Who has had much better writers in the likenesses of Robert Holmes, Terrance Dicks, David Whitaker, etc. So why aren't you calling me a fanboy of those? Oh, oh course, you don't get your knickers twisted when you see someone praise them. I think the problem is you can't accept people offering anyhing other than criticism of Moffat, which is why you're so quick to jump on people who say they like his work and actively mock them. You're literally threatened by the thought of people enjoying his era of Who, and it's weird. And my "condescending views" were more directed at the people who claim ludicrous stuff like they don't understand what's happening when they're five minutes in and typing away on DS. But if the shoe fits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#411 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 8,406
|
Quote:
Why does a TV critic being a fan of Moffat make their opinion any less valid? Perhaps there's a reason Moffat has made so many fans amongst TV critics, people who make a career out of studying the intricacies of a TV show?
I didn't mean to suggest a TV critic's opinion is less valid because he or she is a fan of a particular TV writer. But I think context is important, and it is worth reflecting on why we still have such overwhelmingly positive reviews for Doctor Who during a period where we have seen a significant decline in the show's viewership and (in my opinion) its popular appeal. For me, Heaven Sent remains a perfect example of this divergence. Also important to remember that most TV critics aren't full time TV critics. Its not their job, it's just something they do on top of lots of other writing. Journalism is overwhelmingly a job where you are a jack of all trades/master of none. So I wouldn't ever consider a TV critic to be an expert in TV writing. When I was a journalist I was often asked to write film reviews, restaurant reviews and even book reviews. And I would certainly not call myself an expert in any of those fields. |
|
|
|
|
|
#412 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,076
|
Quote:
Well I've given up on Doctor Who now, but I started watching Sherlock yesterday AND ITS AMAZING! I LOVE IT! I'll admit SM is good in Sherlock
And then with series 3 you may find there's some problems that develop in similar ways to how Moffat problems developed in DW.... Or you may like that as well who knows... But for me the first two series are great, the third series is good with some great moments but also the program starts to crack, and introduces a character and plot point that shouldn't of been done which spoils the show, the Xmas special while having some good bits kind of disappears up its own behind, and the first episode of series 4 (that aired recently) is flawed/has problems and the magic of the show as kind of gone.... but I'm hoping for better things with the next two episodes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#413 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
This!! All you Moffat fanboys, just read this and try and understand!
It's hardly helpful to your case to dismiss all those who don't share your extreme viewpoint as "fanboys". Without the invective, both sides can argue and debate fairly and have good points to make. |
|
|
|
|
|
#414 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
|
Quote:
Can't I? I thought The Girl in the Fireplace was overrated. I thought Blink was great but not as much as the Human Nature two-parter that came before it. I thought The Beast Below, TDtWatW and The Girl Who Died were pieces of crap. I feel S6 did sort of lose the plot a bit towards the end. I feel S7 was a bit of a decline in quality and Clara just wasn't a very good character in it. I absolutely hated the creepy scene at the end of Flesh and Stone when Amy tried to shag the Doctor and thinks it's one of the cringiest scenes in New Who.
I really don't see myself to be as much of a Moffat fanboy as you paint me to be. Yes, I enjoy his work, particularly on Doctor Who, and whether it makes you happy or not I prefer him vastly to RTD. But I also think he's far from perfect, having made his fair share of mistakes during his time, and I think Doctor Who has had much better writers in the likenesses of Robert Holmes, Terrance Dicks, David Whitaker, etc. So why aren't you calling me a fanboy of those? Oh, oh course, you don't get your knickers twisted when you see someone praise them. I think the problem is you can't accept people offering anyhing other than criticism of Moffat, which is why you're so quick to jump on people who say they like his work and actively mock them. You're literally threatened by the thought of people enjoying his era of Who, and it's weird. And my "condescending views" were more directed at the people who claim ludicrous stuff like they don't understand what's happening when they're five minutes in and typing away on DS. But if the shoe fits. ![]() My gripes are with the people who have a go at other people who don't like Moffat's work. Instead of attacking other posters they should say why they liked it or why criticisms may be harsh. But that it too much hard work for a lot of people, much easier to just have a go at other posters. And posts like yours about Sherlock that claimed that everyone was saying how bad it was without providing reasons when reasons were clearly given. I have never posted about a programme whist it is still being broadcast. |
|
|
|
|
|
#415 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
|
Quote:
I've no problem with Granny's post. Each to their own. YMMV, etc, etc.
It's hardly helpful to your case to dismiss all those who don't share your extreme viewpoint as "fanboys". Without the invective, both sides can argue and debate fairly and have good points to make. |
|
|
|
|
|
#416 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,076
|
Quote:
This is me, exactly. I went into season 5 with such high hopes. Perhaps too high. But by the end of season 5 I wasn't as engaged by the show as I had been, and with each passing season I have found myself less and less engaged. And, as I've said before, I remain a huge Sherlock fan. For me its not Moffat himself or even Moffat as a writer, per se, that I've struggled with. For me, it's simply Moffat as Doctor Who's executive producer that hasn't worked.
Now in hindsight (which is 20/20) I think Moffat was a bad choice to be the show runner, he's simply not up to the job, he can't handle it like RTD and other people could, he had an extra long time to do series 5 (which remains his best and most stable series) but as soon as he had to do the show on a yearly basis he fell apart.... Also even series 5 which had all that extra time still failed on the promise of a Moffat run DW, the episodes were nothing special just ranging from good to decent and the arc was a load of bunk, with the final episode of the series being a bunch of nonsense.. And sadly the bunch of nonsense thing became a stable of the Moffat era to where now we have the moon as a space dragons egg (a dragon that can poop out a egg bigger than itself just after being born no less), magic trees of no consequence (the earth should of been devastated and the human population should of had a big percentage cut out of it), sleep eye monsters, Clara being responsible for everything the Doctor ever did (yes that's an exaggeration ) the iconic Tardis sound is just because the Doctor leaves the breaks on (and so does every time lord apparently), arc after arc that make no sense and peter out in a very un-climatic way, a Mother and Father who don't care that they didn't get to raise their daughter, sonic shades, a secret Doctor, the Tardis as a woman, Time War rendered to nothing, Galifrey is back and it no big deal... and so on and so on (I could keep going for ages)But not to be all negative, there is some brilliant stuff in the era too, I love The God Complex, Amy's Choice, Orient Express and Flatline. Imo it would of been better of having someone else be the show runner and Moffat stayed as a great contributor each year delivering a story for the show (or two), he just wasn't right as being the show runner. |
|
|
|
|
|
#417 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
Well I've given up on Doctor Who now, but I started watching Sherlock yesterday AND ITS AMAZING! I LOVE IT! I'll admit SM is good in Sherlock
|
|
|
|
|
|
#418 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
Re-read Granny's post that I was replying to. Then tell me exactly what is "extreme" about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#419 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
|
Quote:
Well I've given up on Doctor Who now, but I started watching Sherlock yesterday AND ITS AMAZING! I LOVE IT! I'll admit SM is good in Sherlock
Don't know if you're aware there's a Sherlock thread in the TV:UK forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#420 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,703
|
Quote:
Sherlock is awful for all the reasons Moffat's writing is usually awful and Moffat needs to be binned from Doctor Who ASAP.
Alas, then Cumbercucumber became a 'superstar' and we were delivered the dross that was series 3... |
|
|
|
|
|
#421 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
|
Quote:
I've no problem with Granny's post. Each to their own. YMMV, etc, etc.
It's hardly helpful to your case to dismiss all those who don't share your extreme viewpoint as "fanboys". Without the invective, both sides can argue and debate fairly and have good points to make. Quote:
Please re-read mine. I didn't say Granny's post was extreme. Quite the opposite, in fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#422 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,295
|
Quote:
As in started watching from the very beginning, not just started the first episode of series 4.... well if you've started watching from the very beginning enjoy, the first two series are great,..
And then with series 3 you may find there's some problems that develop in similar ways to how Moffat problems developed in DW.... Or you may like that as well who knows... But for me the first two series are great, the third series is good with some great moments but also the program starts to crack, and introduces a character and plot point that shouldn't of been done which spoils the show, the Xmas special while having some good bits kind of disappears up its own behind, and the first episode of series 4 (that aired recently) is flawed/has problems and the magic of the show as kind of gone.... but I'm hoping for better things with the next two episodes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#423 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Steven Moffats pantry
Posts: 8,808
|
Quote:
I would rather take the opinions of genuine Doctor Who fans than someone who is paid to write things about TV for money. Why should this person's opinion be any more worthwhile than anyone else's?
Personally I feel someone who has studied and worked all their life in a particular field, which Lawson has, and is highly respected in his chosen profession does have a more worthwhile opinion than the man on the street/forum who struggles to muster anything beyond 'worst episode ever' cliches and 'he's ruining Doctor Who' hyperbole. It's like the person on the street who doesn't care for art- they are perfectly entitled to spout their opinion but they're unlikely to be given a documentary on BBC4 because they don't now what they're talking about. Too many people these days think the fact they now have a wider platform for their views or opinions gives said opinions ay extra merit. They are sorely mistaken. Social media and forums are like Speakers Corner. Amusing for a bit and you'll hear some interesting stuff. But if you really want to learn about something you'll be going elsewhere (and I include both the pro, anti and inbetween groups in this btw). Someone who posts 'Doctor who is so rubbish now, bring back Rose tyler....thats proper doctor who' is equally cretinous as someone who posts 'OMG Crying os much Jenna is best companion in history and best actress ever. shes saved the show'. |
|
|
|
|
|
#424 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Steven Moffats pantry
Posts: 8,808
|
Freemasonry! It'll be moon landings and ritual child sacrifice next. The desperation is laughable!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#425 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,999
|
Well, I'm a Freemason. Moffatt's writing has been convoluted, non-sensical twaddle of late!
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:08.






) the iconic Tardis sound is just because the Doctor leaves the breaks on (and so does every time lord apparently), arc after arc that make no sense and peter out in a very un-climatic way, a Mother and Father who don't care that they didn't get to raise their daughter, sonic shades, a secret Doctor, the Tardis as a woman, Time War rendered to nothing, Galifrey is back and it no big deal... and so on and so on (I could keep going for ages)