RTD address criticism about his writing style

[davejames]

While I definitely think Russell's stories could get a bit overblown at times (mostly in the finales), in general I thought his freewheeling, high-energy style was a PERFECT fit for the show.

He brought a real sense of magic and wonder and fun to DW, which is something I had always thought was lacking (and yes, high production standards didn't hurt either). Before, it was only really the concept and character that interested me; the dreary tone and lack of energy in the storytelling was always something I had to struggle with.

That said, I do think it's time for a different approach, and to maybe tone things down a bit from the crazy RTD era.

 

[Professor Zoom]

There's also the argument that having nonsense stories that look flashy but don't make sense have more general appeal, because a lot of people are idiots. Doesn't make the stories any good, merely appealing to the undemanding.

Ah. So, what're saying is, we're idiots if we like what you don't like.

Gotcha.

 

[Checkmate]

<shrugs> Whatever.

Despite the nerdy defenders of his, there's a fantastically huge reason that when people list their favorite episodes, they consist almost entirely of episodes written by someone else (Moffatt most notably). While, incidently enough, a list of the worst episodes are usually chock-full of stuff he's written. Unless, of course, it's a thread like this where the same nerdy defenders will vomit up a list of episodes to vindicate themselves, even if they wouldn't come up with the same list if asked honestly in a non-related discussion.

Regardless, I can't wait for the new series. So long RTD. Will be nice to have some real talent behind the franchise.

 

[Jim Steele]

"nerdy defenders"

Love it.

So, what're saying is, we're idiots if we like what you don't like.

It's the TrekBBS mantra, alive and kicking in this thread certainly.

I'm thinking back to all those years of being reviled like a pantomime villain as RTD's biggest critic on here and chuckling. Just a wee bit. Just a tiny, wee bit.

 

[davejames]

<shrugs> Whatever.

Despite the nerdy defenders of his, there's a fantastically huge reason that when people list their favorite episodes, they consist almost entirely of episodes written by someone else (Moffatt most notably). While, incidently enough, a list of the worst episodes are usually chock-full of stuff he's written. Unless, of course, it's a thread like this where the same nerdy defenders will vomit up a list of episodes to vindicate themselves, even if they wouldn't come up with the same list if asked honestly in a non-related discussion.

Regardless, I can't wait for the new series. So long RTD. Will be nice to have some real talent behind the franchise.

I'm sure, like any head writer, he probably had a hand in every script that was written. At the very least, they all (clearly) carried his style and sensibility.

It's hard to watch an episode and NOT see some strong RTD influence in there somewhere.

 

[Jim Steele]

^

In the writers tale he talks of this a lot. Apparently the only scripts he didn't do rewrites on were Moffat's, which would explain the sheer difference in tone between Moff's and the rest.

I guess that's just nerdy defence though, it's far more likely that he, as the producer, had no part whatsoever in the success of his hit show...

 

[Mr Awe]

RTD is a mixed bag.

He's really, really good at characters, dialog, and the premise of a story. He's not so good at plotting. So you get nice set ups, character interactions, etc but bad plotting that leads to lame resolutions. And, I don't buy his excuses about all of those things being planned and better. I think it was laziness, to be honest.

Overall, I've enjoyed Doctor Who during his tenure and I'm glad that he had his time. He brought Who back from the dead, and made it popular and enjoyable for old and new fans a like. That's a very tall order and he succeeded beyond my wildest imagination. Thank goodness for RTD.

But, I'm also glad that he is stepping down. I'm ready for a new flavor. Some of the trappings of the old flavor have started to grate after repeated exposure.

But, overall, I give RTD a

Mr Awe

 

[Jim Steele]

^

Agreed on every single point. End of Time part 1 is a perfect example. Pile of shit from the outset, but the Wilf/Doctor moments just make it worth it. Not to mention the Master/Doctor stuff.

 

[Sci]

So long RTD. Will be nice to have some real talent behind the franchise.

The man's won the Siân Phillips Award for Outstanding Contribution to Network Television at the BAFTA Cymru Awards, the Dennis Potter Award for Outstanding Writing for Television at the 2006 BAFTAs, an Honorary Fellowship from Cardiff University, an appointment as Officer of the Order of the British Empire, was nominated for "Best Writer" at the 2006 BAFTA Television Craft Awards, and his show won Best Drama Series and the Pioneer Audience Award at the 2006 BAFTAs.

I'm sorry, but you don't get that sort of professional recognition in the industry if you don't have talent. It may not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean that he is without talent.

ETA:

And, I don't buy his excuses about all of those things being planned and better.

He didn't make any excuses. An excuse would be to say, "Well, I would have done it this way, but the network made me do this, or the money kept me from doing that."

What RTD said was that he has a certain style that he deliberately chooses to use when writing Doctor Who because, in his opinion, the benefits of that style outweigh the benefits of other styles. That's not making an excuse, that's explaining that a creative decision is made on the basis of his own subjective opinion.

 

[Jim Steele]

^

That's all sympathy votes man. Those accolades are a dime a dozen.

 

[Pingfah]

The brand name of a cheap, poorly-written, cheesily-acted children's program that had been off the air for a decade and a half and which had represented hammy productions with incredibly small, geeky, niche audiences when it was on.

You're mostly correct. Except for the ratings, Doctor Who has had up to 15 million at times during the 1970s, and regularly attracted audiences of 10 - 12 million over it's original run.

That's a fifth of the population, know many American shows that regularly draw 60 million viewers?

 

[Jim Steele]

^

There's no doubting that classic Who was a massively popular show at its peak, but it's worth remembering that viewing figures are inflated the further back you go.

 

[Mr Awe]

What RTD said was that he has a certain style that he deliberately chooses to use when writing Doctor Who because, in his opinion, the benefits of that style outweigh the benefits of other styles. That's not making an excuse, that's explaining that a creative decision is made on the basis of his own subjective opinion.

What I'm saying is that calling it his choosen style and leaving the plot as a mess because it's better that way is an excuse for not actually plotting things out better.

He could actually keep a lot his style the same, the characters, interactions, set ups, but, in addition to those, plug up those plot holes and ditch those magic (but oh so easy to write) plot resolutions.

Mr Awe

 

[Pingfah]

^

There's no doubting that classic Who was a massively popular show at its peak, but it's worth remembering that viewing figures are inflated the further back you go.

Do you mean they are more inaccurate, or that they mean less because there was less choice?

 

[Jim Steele]

A bit of both I suspect, but certainly these days the bewildering number of home entertainment options has reduced the viewing figures needed to be considered a success.

 

[Sci]

The brand name of a cheap, poorly-written, cheesily-acted children's program that had been off the air for a decade and a half and which had represented hammy productions with incredibly small, geeky, niche audiences when it was on.

You're mostly correct. Except for the ratings, Doctor Who has had up to 15 million at times during the 1970s, and regularly attracted audiences of 10 - 12 million over it's original run.

And Star Trek: The Next Generation was massively popular in the early 1990s. This does not change the fact that by the time of Star Trek: Enterprise, Star Trek had become a brand name known for stilted plots, two-dimensional characterization, adolescent sexuality, and an all-around lack of creativity, to the point where very few people were left watching it and Trek fans themselves were seen as a geeky, niche, cult-like audience with exceedingly poor taste.

J.J. Abrams's ST09 managed to bring Star Trek back from the dead in the same manner that Russell T. Davies's nuWho managed to bring Doctor Who back from the dead. But the fact is that both did so in spite of their brand names, not because of them.

What RTD said was that he has a certain style that he deliberately chooses to use when writing Doctor Who because, in his opinion, the benefits of that style outweigh the benefits of other styles. That's not making an excuse, that's explaining that a creative decision is made on the basis of his own subjective opinion.

What I'm saying is that calling it his choosen style and leaving the plot as a mess

The plot is a mess in your opinion. It is not in mine, and it is not in others'.

You may not like it, and that's absolutely your right. That does not mean that a decision to write in that manner is a result of laziness or that he's making excuses when he explains why he writes the way he does. He has a subjective opinion of the quality of results it produces upon which he makes his choice. You have your subjective opinion and would make a different writing choice in his position; that's fine. But you can hold that opinion without insulting the man.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It will be fun to see all the literary geniuses with all their published successful work come in here to poo poo him.

I hate this attitude. I can't criticise his work unless I have a comparable career?

Well, of course you do.

You can criticize all you want. This is the Internet, and it's cheap. As far as can be told, though, far more people are more interested in amputee porn than in the structural criticisms of tv viewers...but then, if you're into that sort of thing, porn delivers.

 

[davejames]

What I'm saying is that calling it his choosen style and leaving the plot as a mess because it's better that way is an excuse for not actually plotting things out better.

He could actually keep a lot his style the same, the characters, interactions, set ups, but, in addition to those, plug up those plot holes and ditch those magic (but oh so easy to write) plot resolutions.

Mr Awe

Eh, personally I've never seen this as the kind of show that needed to have air-tight plots to maintain it's credibility.

Unlike the Treks, DW has never taken itself all that terribly seriously, and doesn't really require the same high level of internal logic to function. I think the fans pay more attention to that stuff than the writers of DW EVER have.

 

[Jim Steele]

Well, of course you do.

You can criticize all you want. This is the Internet, and it's cheap. As far as can be told, though, far more people are more interested in amputee porn than in the structural criticisms of tv viewers...but then, if you're into that sort of thing, porn delivers.

I just hate that whole shitty chestnut. Because basically, eventually, inevitably, the only person allowed to criticise anything will be Steven fucking Spielberg. And he be dead soon.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to tell me here either.

 

[Sci]

Well, of course you do.

You can criticize all you want. This is the Internet, and it's cheap. As far as can be told, though, far more people are more interested in amputee porn than in the structural criticisms of tv viewers...but then, if you're into that sort of thing, porn delivers.

I just hate that whole shitty chestnut. Because basically, eventually, inevitably, the only person allowed to criticise anything will be Steven fucking Spielberg. And he be dead soon.

Don't be silly. He's way too commercialized.