Ummm, no, Moffat comes mostly from a sitcom background, actually.
5x05 Flesh and Stone (Grading/Discussion) SPOILERS!
- Thread starter Count Zero
- Start date
Ummm, no, Moffat comes mostly from a sitcom background, actually.
No, Coupling was basically Friends done right.
Regardless, my point holds. Moffat is really creative but even he sometimes falls back on TV cliché's. You could rationalize it by saying he's really busy running a show but that doesn't mean you have to like it.
Jekyll was the exception. Most of Moffat's work, especially his pre-Who revival work, was in sitcoms:
* Press Gang (1989-1993)
* Joking Apart (1991-1995)
* Chalk (1997)
* Coupling (2000-2004)
He also wrote individual episodes of Stay Luck, a comedy-drama, and Murder Most Horrid, a dark comedy anthology. And, of course, he wrote Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death for Comic Relief in 1999.
In fact, as near as I can tell, "The Empty Child" from Series One of the revived Doctor Who was Moffat's first straight-up dramatic episode of television, and Jekyll was his first straight-up drama series.
Now, having said that, if you had argued that a Doctor/Amy romance was to be expected because Moffat has a history of writing about relationships -- Joking Apart and Coupling both having been directly inspired by his love life, and his Doctor Who episodes almost all being in some way about love and romance -- that would have been thoroughly valid.
But Moffat did not structure the Doctor/Amy relationship the way he did because he came up through the world of soap operas and dramas; he came up through the world of sitcoms.
Has it occurred to you that maybe this isn't a matter of Moffat falling back on a TV cliche because he lacks creativity? Has it occurred to you that maybe the structure of the Doctor/Amy relationship is a deliberate choice made as a result of Moffat having different tastes than you?
Has it occurred to you that we do not know yet exactly where the Doctor/Amy relationship is going, especially in the wake of "The Vampires of Venice," and that we won't know until the end of Series Five airs?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. People being attracted to other people is not a cliché, it's pretty much a fact of life, and the fuel of the majority of stories told since the dawn of time all around the world, not to mention the songs.
Maybe it's the way this particular story is told that irritates you, but even if that's the case, I think it would be fair to wait and see where it's going before judging it too abruptly.
Your exact words were, "I blame the fact that RTD and Moffet all came from dramatic TV (aka soap operas) where this kind of relationship is a staple."
There is no reason to specifically cite "dramatic TV" except to distinguish it from the other major genre of televised fiction, the situation comedy. Logically, you did so in order to claim that Moffat uses these "cliches" specifically because he came from a drama background; your sentence seems to imply that a writer from a non-dramatic background would not use such "cliches."
But now, you're changing gears and claiming that sitcoms use those same "cliches" as dramas.
In other words, you might as well say, "I blame the fact that they write TV this way on the fact that they all came from TV!"
It's possible that he's going to somehow subvert expectations, but at this moment it's equally likely that he's taking a short cut in character development. There is nothing wrong with that if Moffat feels that there are other things more important like the cracks in time or Amy/Rory relationship but it's still lazy writing.
Are you implying Moffat likes stale cliche's?
Has it occurred to you that Doctor Who is a kid show (yes it is still a family show no matter how much you read into it) and that he can't do anything so complex that it goes over the heads of kids. Look at the Doctor/River relationship. A complex non-linear adult relationship that's been boiled down to River is the Doctor's future wife *wink* *wink*.
The Mirrorball I'm not sure what you're referring to here. People being attracted to other people is not a cliché said:
Yes but presenting it as simply as they do in television is cliche.
I think it's fair to be irritated, because Moffat turned a really interesting character like Amy and turned her into another Girl Friday. What's wrong with Amy just being a woman with the jitters. Why do we have to go through the same tired territory that we went through with Rose and Martha. I expected better from Moffat who usually writes really believable independent women.
Right. Because, clearly, real people don't have romantic and sexual feelings for one-another, and don't get pre-occupied with matters of the heart. Only poorly-written TV characters do.
No, I'm implying that he has different tastes than you do. Bear in mind that a large amount of his prior work has been essentially about love, sex, and romance, after all.
That issue has nothing to do with the fact that we don't know where the Doctor/Amy relationship is going and won't until the season finale.
In other words, I proved you wrong so now you're moving the goalposts.
Well yes, that is my point.
Well, gosh, if only those TV writers weren't from TV!
If a real person confronted with traveling through time and space or saving the universe, I don't think that person would be pre-occupied with romantic relationship. Honestly you as a writer have the entire universe to explore and you focus on schoolgirl crushes.
That's no excuse for retreads and tired old cliché's. The River/Doctor relationship shows that Moffat can be creative when he wants to be.
Yes it does since it limits how complex Moffat can go with the Doctor/Amy relationship. First he doesn't have the time and second most of his audience couldn't understand anything deeper than "Amy really likes the Doctor but the Doctor only wants Amy as a friend"
No all you proved is that Moffat has more experience with sitcoms. That's fine since the only work I know him from outside of Doctor Who is "Jekyll" and "Coupling". There is no goal post moving since sitcoms and TV drama's show relationships in the same cliche' manner.
Yes SCI because there are people who are not exclusively TV writes who could write for Doctor Who. Neil Gaiman (who I believe is writing an episode) and Josh Wheldon have experience in different media and the quality shows.
It's simplistic. A cliché is an idea that has become so commonplace in a particular context that is has lost its intended effect. Putting all romances in that category is insane.
Moffat didn't stumble unto the "really interesting character" that is Amy, he created her from scratch, so I'm not seeing the nefarious influence he has had on her, really. And so far, there has been no sign that Amy's story arc has anything to do with Rose's or Martha's.
I didn't say all romances were cliche. I said all relationship in movies and TV shows were cliche. Admittedly I'm being harsh since there are always exceptions.
No writer starts from scratch. Either he based a character on his own experiences or he starts with a basic archetype (in this case "female companion in love with the doctor")
There is nothing nefarious. I just liked Amy's early portrayal in "The Eleventh Hour" as someone who is somewhat cynical about the doctor. Having a somewhat antagonistic relationship was refreshing. Besides we are way past Martha and Rose. Now that we know that Amy has a crush on the doctor, it's either Amy finds out that she really doesn't love the doctor (Martha) or the Doctor strings her along until she gets dumped somewhere (Rose).
Well yes, when you're disregarding an entire art form and all its output for more than a century, there's bound to be a couple exceptions.
I don't see your point. 99% of all creative endeavors end up creating junk. Anytime we are talking about art, we just mention the exceptions.
Now that is a cliché.
Good for you. Meanwhile, in the real world, everyone else knows that you can't just turn off your feelings and that attraction can happen under even the most distracting and extraordinary of circumstances.
Ah, yes, the old "referring to human affection in the most disrespectful and condescending of terms." I certainly hope that's not the vocabulary you use when your friends and loved ones come to you for support with their love lives' problems.
Meanwhile, I would argue that there is nothing in the world so important, nor any type of relationship so complex, as love. In my view, it encompasses all of the others.
No, it's not. But it does mean that not everything you dislike is a retread and a cliche.
River/Doctor? Sweetly condescending woman and overly-earnest man antagonize each other? Now that relationship is a cliche!
You clearly aren't giving children -- or Moffat -- enough credit. And, once again, you're trying to change the topic from the fact that we don't know how the Amy/Doctor relationship will unfold.
Right. Because you tried to claim that he came from the world of drama, and I proved you wrong on that. So now you're trying to move the goalposts by claiming that it doesn't matter that he came from drama, even though it clearly does, because otherwise you would not have specified that he came from drama in the first place if it did not matter where in the TV industry he came from.
In other words, I proved you wrong and now you're moving the goalposts.
I don't know who "Josh Wheldon" is. I know of a writer named Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who got his start writing for film, moved into television where he made his name, and only later started working on comics. So, no, he's a really bad example, as he's basically a TV writer.
I can, however, think of two mostly non-TV writers on Doctor Who: Paul Cornell, who wrote "Father's Day," "Human Nature," and "The Family of Blood," and Rob Shearman, who wrote "Dalek."
Of course, the problem there is, both of them made romance an essential undertone of their episodes -- the Dalek describing Rose as the woman the Doctor loves; Rose claiming that the Doctor was jealous that he wasn't the most important man in Rose's life anymore after she saved Pete; John Smith/Doctor falling in love with Nurse Joan Redfern; and, of course, Martha confessing her unrequited love for the Doctor in "The Family of Blood."
So the idea that a non-TV writer wouldn't go there is, well, unsupported by the evidence.
She's still somewhat antagonistic. You've never seen the way real-life lovers can be cynical and antagonistic towards one-another? Having feelings for the Doctor does not negate her cynicism or antagonism. From "Flesh and Stone:" "Amy, I'll be back." "You always say that."
No, there are plenty of other directions -- everything from, "Amy truly loves both the Doctor and Rory, but chooses Rory" to "Amy loves the Doctor but realizes she must let go and allow herself to love someone else."
Similar threads
- Poll
