Quick disclaimer: I love Doctor Who. I have watched every episode produced since An Unearthly Child multiple times, and I am still watching it today. So, I am not just picking on something from an outsider's perspective, but rather genuinely criticizing something that I love, something that has continued, over 5 decades, to fail to live up to its own potential. What is it that fans seem to expect from any given Doctor Who episode? The expectations are actually extremely stringent, and the episodes, as a result, are written from what I would consider to be an extremely formulaic mindset. We, the audience, expect: a) a monster, b) some thrills, c) a few laughs, d) some witty repartee between the Doctor and his companion, e) some extremely basic morality playing, almost always surrounding the question of whether it's ever right to kill someone, and f) a happy ending, usually stemming from the Doctor defeating the monster. Most of all, there is a deliberate and consistent refusal to ever go too in-depth into the questions posed by the episode. Regardless of what the episode evokes, the impetus to keep watching always stems from the question, "How will the good guys beat the bad guys?" There are always good guys, and there are always bad guys, and the question is always pragmatic - how the good guys will win. Now, there are exceptions to these rules. A few. And those exceptions stand out, usually, as the very best the series has ever produced. Think about The Aztecs or The War Games. Think about The Caves of Androzani. Think about Blink. The fans love these episodes. But why? Because they fulfill our expectations? No. Because they break them, almost completely. And yet - fans still continue to EXPECT certain things from a Doctor Who episode, as if ever getting exactly what you want from a piece of art has ever actually led to the creation of any good art. So - why is Doctor Who so formulaic? Why is it (usually) so shallow, so adverse to changes in formula, to in-depth dialogue, to grayer shades of morality? Why does it flirt with, but usually refuse to commit to, adult sensibilities? Why must there always be a monster? Why must it always be so quick, and so witty, and so pulpy, and so repetitive? Take a recent example. Compare Into the Dalek with a similar premise from a more adult science fiction show, I, Borg, from Star Trek: TNG. In the TNG episode, the entire hour revolves around Picard's moral dilemma. It is approached from multiple angles, in discussions with various different characters, and Picard needs to make important, long-lasting decisions based on his feelings that will have real, serious consequences in the future. Into the Dalek, instead, mentions the dilemma only to solve it in 45 seconds, and then lead us to the next exciting action sequence of people running up and down corridors waving a sonic screwdriver around. Why? Why the comic book tone? Why the simplicity? Why the refusal to slow down and contemplate? Look at great science fiction shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine, X-Files, Lost, Battlestar Galactica...I'm not saying these shows are perfect, but they seem to be playing on a different level entirely. They take their premises seriously, they attempt (not always succeeding) to tell new and interesting stories, with deeper ramifications and constant character examination. Doctor Who, on the other hand, seems to thrive on variations on the exact same themes and tropes. Every episode is like a slightly different flavor of a very old and very comfortable kind of ice cream. Why the need for predictability, and comfort? Why do fans LIKE repeating villains and monsters and plots for over 50 years? I honestly don't understand why Doctor Who still looks basically the same as it did in the 60's, with very little evidence of growth or change or maturity. There was clearly a quantum leap forward in characterization when the show came back in 2005, but since then, it has stagnated again. What is it about Doctor Who as a property that, unlike other great shows, somehow resists experimentation, genuine surprise, depth, maturity, and change? What makes Doctor Who rely so very much on formula? My feeling is that this reality has prevented the show from ever really attaining greatness, and after all this time, with just a handful of brilliant exceptions, the show still feels, strangely, unhappily, like a guilty pleasure, like something mindless and fun, that exists solely to fill up air time and gain revenue, and to have people waste an hour of their lives every week with a brain turned to low and a big goofy smile on their face. It feels like filler, like popcorn, like a boredom-killer, and because I love the show, and I know how great it has very occasionally been, I feel like it can be so, so much more than it is. Does anyone else have the same nagging feeling about this that I do?
If people still watch and enjoy the show, why change it? And if you don't enjoy the show for what it is, why watch it?
Well, it's not exactly the same. It's what Ubik said plus the companions now have more character development than when the show started! Mr Awe
Shows like Doctor Who and the Star Trek series do raise many questions, but in end it's up you to answer them for yourself. TV shows are there to entertain first and foremost, if they make you ask questions to much the better but they really solve problems, but they can present many points of view.
Wasn't Doctor Who always considered a children's show during it's earliest years? I've only seen a few during the Tom Baker era. I've only seen the Quatermass films, never its series, but that seemed aimed at an older audience than Who.
Some people can simply outgrow a show that they loved earlier, be it Doctor Who or whatever. In such a case, they usually just move on to something else.
Still is http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013...en-moffat---but-that-doesnt-mean-its-childish http://io9.com/5028464/exclusive-interview-with-doctor-whos-steven-moffat
Doctor Who is considered a children's show by its current and previous showrunner. One can argue, and people have that it's more family oriented, and indeed Phillip Morris's recent infamous rant argues this is what it should be, but the Party Line from those in authority over the franchise is that it is of kids. Which is fine, it's what works and its what makes the show its best. Maybe sometimes it can be a bit formulaic with generic monsters of the week needing to be dealt with every week, but I'd rather watch RTD or Moffat at their worse than see Doctor Who become dreary and depressing like BSG or start tackling moral dilemmas or matters of hard science. That's not what Doctor Who is, nor should it be. Sure, there's plenty of different story methods the show could do, for instance we really should see another pure historical at some point, but I don't see this as a priority. It'd be nice if it happened, that's all. Besides, the franchise's previous attempts at being "grown-up and mature" in the from of the Virgin New Adventures novels or even Torchwood produced mixed results at best which sometimes came off as laughable.
Yup, it's a kids show, that's why instead of deep and meaningful scenes we have people running up and down corridors waving a sonic screwdriver around as you so brilliantly out it. Oh and farting aliens. (it's only really people who watched it from being a kid who are now adults and want the show to carry on growing up as they did)
If The Next Generation's "morality plays in beige hotel rooms" formula is what is considered fiction for grown-ups nowadays, I think I'll stick with Doctor Who.
Yeah TNG is an odd one to cite. Don't get me wrong, the show will always have a special places in my heart(s) but of all the Trek shows I think it’s the one that's dated worst and I think both TOS and DS9 were more ground-breaking. I’m a fan of Lost but that increasingly came down to the love I had for the characters rather than the grand mystery, and I’m not sure you could ever call it a great science fiction show. As for BSG, the most depressing nihilistic TV show I’ve ever watched. Why would you ever want Who to be like that? The OP’s basic premise is hilarious though. “Why doesn’t this show that’s been successful for 50 years change?” Well it does change, it changes every time the Doctor and/or the show runner change. Beyond this the format works. It’s a show that can do different things every week, horror one week, wacky comedy the next, and as great as Blink is, if the show was Blink every week I suspect people would start turning off. It isn’t a show for adults, it’s a show for everyone, which is not something you could ever say about NuBSG, and sometimes I don’t think certain fans understand that this is a show for everyone, and I don’t think the show runners, be it Moffat, RTD or whoever get enough credit sometimes for producing a show that appeals across the board, that tries to include everyone in its audience. That must be so much harder than writing BSG: Episode 15, everyone is depressed, Tigh is drunk. Episode 25, everyone is depressed, Tigh is a Cylon. Episode 32, everyone is depressed, Tigh is a drunk Cylon… Dr Who is FUN, and that’s what I love about it. Seeing Guardians of the Galaxy just reiterated to me how few genuinely 'this is just fun' films and tv shows are out there. We need more not less of this.
Perhaps the OP might like the novels or audios better, they are aimed at a smaller, more mature audience.
^He may well do, but from my own experience, I find the books a bit of a slog. Some of the audio stuff is very good though, especially the stuff on Radio4extra if you can get it (don't know if that is Big Finish stuff or not, sorry). I think that one of the major factors that makes many fans switch off from ‘nuWho’, especially in the Moffat era, are money and the date. Wonky cardboard sets that wobbled were fine when the show was driven by dialogue rather than the flashy SFX that are so easy to produce these days. Of course it’s a double edged sword – without it looking like a product of today, many people would not watch it arguably, but more importantly, the focus groups that now run the BBC would never commission it. You have to get value, don’t you know. If you want to compare nuWho with oldWho, I think the best place to start is the comparison of Moffat with Nathan-Turner (ground which I am sure has been trodden before now). JNT attempted, with some successes, to just keep churning out the same sort of thing over and over, because that was (in his mind) what the fans wanted. He did this for a decade and it meant the show got stagnant and led to essentially retooling the show three times, and we all know how it ended. It’s more complicated than this, with politics, sex and an indifferent to anti Doctor Who staff at the BBC. The sadest thing is that if JNT had left after, say Peter Davidson, or Colin Bakers first season, the show would have most likely ended then, and thus we were ‘stuck’ with JNT (which is a harsh but perhaps honest way of looking at it). Today Moffat has is in the same position, except he is giving us his vision of what the people want. He is much better at it than JNT, and unlike then Doctor Who is a flagship property, and not something of an embarrassment to Auntie. There is perhaps an argument for saying too that we are more accepting of it today too. Audiences have changed over the past 50 years, and the show has too – it has had to otherwise we wouldn’t still be talking about it. There are other issues too, such as the need to make it saleable to the US, Canada and all the other markets it is so huge in. There are a lot of people who think that nuWho is more of a pastiche of the way others see British people – eccentric clever clogs (i.e. Doctors 10 and 11). There may be some truth in that, but whatever, he’s an alien, he can be whatever he wants. What I will say is this – the quality of writing is not as good as it was. Last week’s episode, Inside the Dalek, had more besides the usual big set pieces than we have seen recently, but it didn’t work for me. The Pink-Jenna thing was more like Hollyoaks than Doctor Who – it’s written like a soap opera. It’s also been formulaic for the past few seasons, ore like a detective show, where the viewer picks up the clues as they go along to work out what the big arc will be. This big arc is often confusing, predictable (yes, I realise the juxtaposition), somewhat contrived, and usually either riddled with plot holes or just a big reset. Consider this – I have many old Doctor Who DVDs. I often go back and watch them, including some of the better ones from the JNT era. I also own nuWho seasons 1-4. Then I gave up because I realised I just wasn’t playing them.
In fact, I just realise I put the actress' name instead of the character for Clara. That might betray my indifference to the Impossible Girl.
Not only that, but it's a show where anything can happen, and usually does. A company which owns multiple suns is taxing the inhabitants of Pluto to desperation! A traffic jam lasts for decades and cars get eaten by gigantic crabs! Time travelers see their future selves displayed as exhibits in a museum! It's like A Christmas Carol, but with flying sharks and Marilyn Monroe! I've recently watched the Library two-parter with my wife, and it's INSANE: shadows that eat people! Zombies repeating their last living words in a loop! A computer who thinks she's a little girl! A moon who's a sentient antivirus! A woman who has a love story with a time traveller in reverse order! All in the same episode. It's like, four or five ideas for horror movies jammed together. I think we've gotten so accustomed to Doctor Who that we think it's normal. It's not. Millions of people watch NCIS every week. This is something else.
I couldn't say these two sentences better so I'm just quoting them. I think any time there is something that works, it's foolish to change it for change's sake, and I am fine with your points of complaint. I like monsters and I like to see them defeated or at least differences resolved so they are no longer bad monsters. I can imagine, a few hundred years from now The Doctor will be a bedtime story like Snow White or The Three Bears would be, maybe even sooner, maybe even now.
The storylines of the old series were like watching a long Flash Gordon serial, but with a stagey play-like vibe to it. It was punctuated equilibrium in which lots of standing around and talking was interrupted with some action now and then. This allowed you to immerse yourself into the world enough to give it a sort of faux-epic-sweep to it before you're yanked out and into the next plot-line. These days it's wham-bam-thank-you-mam which is just a byproduct of people's shorter attention-spans.
I agree the show probably does feel a little too breezy and inconsequential at times, and I have at times wished it was a bit more weighty and complex. Or that the show would break from it's usual structure to give us more episodes like Blink or Human Nature. But then I remember that this is a show about a mad man traveling through time and space in a phone box, which is such an inherently silly idea to begin with. And that it's already one of the most unique and original TV shows ever made, with a refreshingly hopeful and optimistic message that you just can't really find anywhere else these days. Ultimately as long as the writers strive to make the stories as fun and clever as they can (which I think RTD and Moffat have largely managed to do these past 10 years), then I think that's probably enough.
I think I'd read producers were pretty up front about it in the old days. The show was aimed at kids, the pretty female companions were only there to draw the dads in.