Moffat's Season better than all of RTD Combined?

[Phily B]

I think RTD's approach was better too, he approached it almost Whedon-esque which suits a show like Who.

No it doesn't. I like Whedon's stuff but the idea that Doctor Who should be a disposable show full of youngsters cracking wise is mental.

I was talking more dialogue wise. I much prefered, RTD showed he can write some really good episodes from a traditional point of view, but I prefer stuff like "Turn Left" etc being the exception with more fun episodes.

The way old Who was done is a gone by era in TV, I don't think having every episode as some creepy mystery is going to work, and is going the wrong way for Who.

 

[Shazam!]

I don't think having every episode as some creepy mystery is going to work, and is going the wrong way for Who.

I massively disagree.

 

[Bones2]

This season is better than RTD's era by default. The fact that we don't see his massive grinning face in every interview on Confidential elevates it infinitely.

That much is true. Not seeing him booming about how marvellous he is and how his latest piece of third rate hackery should be used to teach scriptwriting is a relief. That said, the Confidential after Flesh and Stone was a difficult watch; just a sycophantic Moffat love-in, going over his greatest hits - which, of course, is all of them.

 

[Phily B]

I don't think having every episode as some creepy mystery is going to work, and is going the wrong way for Who.

I massively disagree.

It's what has propelled the show to becoming one of the most popular shows on British TV, and rather popular in the states...It is what the revival was all about, it brought it into the 21st century.

 

[Starkers]

Yes or No, me, I think it is.... So far classic Who feel, it is rocking the house, Moffat is the Manny Coto of Doctor Who, who is with me?

Not me.

Wake me up when there's an episode half as good as "Midnight" or "Turn Left" and a Companion who's more than a collection of one-liners in a short skirt.

I'd rate The Beast Below above both of those (going by my memory of them at least), and as for Amy, none of the others were any better. Rose was a thick chav who was the feeble attempt at a love interest in RTD's attempt to turn DW into a soap opera. Martha was an improvement, except she fell in unrequited love with the gurning prancer within about half an episode. As for Donna, she was just a vehicle for Tate's "comedy" shtick, as if confining it to her woefully unfunny sketch show of tedious catchphrases wasn't enough for the smug luvvie types at the BBC.

Oh God I know I shouldn't bite, but seriously I have to know. What or who fucked you up, dude. Seriously what life changing event made you such an angry person?

I don't expect an answer but like Khan it tasks me...

 

[23skidoo]

The season has been fine so far, but I refuse to buy into the "let's all bash RTD now he's gone" or "let's bash SM because he's the new guy" fad. It's one of the reasons why websites like TVTropes.com use Doctor Who fandom as an example of "Bad Fandom".

Ask this question again after Moffat has completed three seasons and we can give an honest assessment. Until then, why are some people incapable of just enjoying the show? Who gives a shit whether it's better than RTD or not?

The important thing is the season hasn't sucked, IMO, so at worst it's been status quo with RTD, which is pretty damn good because RTD produced some of the best Doctor Who ever. But Moffat hasn't delivered Blink 2.0 yet. Then again, it took RTD 3 seasons to deliver Blink 1.0. On the other hand, again IMO, Moffat hasn't delivered a Fear Her yet, either.

I will however note that Moffat seems to have garnered an impressive run of "excellent-grade" Appreciation Index figures. I don't know if RTD managed such an unbroken string of them (I know Amy's Choice didn't make the 85 "excellent" threshold, coming in at 84, but IMO that falls within margin of error, so I consider it an excellent rating anyway).

Alex

 

[DWF]

I've been underwhelmed by this season so far in my mind the Silurian two parter was a step up as was Amy's Choice.

 

[StCoop]

I will however note that Moffat seems to have garnered an impressive run of "excellent-grade" Appreciation Index figures. I don't know if RTD managed such an unbroken string of them (I know Amy's Choice didn't make the 85 "excellent" threshold, coming in at 84, but IMO that falls within margin of error, so I consider it an excellent rating anyway).

If you want to compare RTD scripts to Moffat scripts, the former beats him with higher AIs, with the 91 for "Journey's End" being one of the highest for any British drama ever.

Comparing the series as a whole; the averages are pretty much identical.

 

[Starkers]

The season has been fine so far, but I refuse to buy into the "let's all bash RTD now he's gone" or "let's bash SM because he's the new guy" fad. It's one of the reasons why websites like TVTropes.com use Doctor Who fandom as an example of "Bad Fandom".

Ask this question again after Moffat has completed three seasons and we can give an honest assessment. Until then, why are some people incapable of just enjoying the show? Who gives a shit whether it's better than RTD or not?

The important thing is the season hasn't sucked, IMO, so at worst it's been status quo with RTD, which is pretty damn good because RTD produced some of the best Doctor Who ever. But Moffat hasn't delivered Blink 2.0 yet. Then again, it took RTD 3 seasons to deliver Blink 1.0. On the other hand, again IMO, Moffat hasn't delivered a Fear Her yet, either.

I will however note that Moffat seems to have garnered an impressive run of "excellent-grade" Appreciation Index figures. I don't know if RTD managed such an unbroken string of them (I know Amy's Choice didn't make the 85 "excellent" threshold, coming in at 84, but IMO that falls within margin of error, so I consider it an excellent rating anyway).

Alex

Very well put, Alex

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

It's not a competition, jeeeze.

 

[Shazam!]

The season has been fine so far, but I refuse to buy into the "let's all bash RTD now he's gone" or "let's bash SM because he's the new guy" fad. It's one of the reasons why websites like TVTropes.com use Doctor Who fandom as an example of "Bad Fandom".

I think you'll find we were bashing RTD whilst he was there.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I always thought I was pretty crticial of RTD but I also gave him credit where due. There were some definite highs to go with the lows. I think people go a bit too far with the Moffat vs RTD and I think Moffat's run this season has had similarly mixed results.

 

[Deckerd]

The poll looks fairly emphatic so far.

 

[The]

Why limit ourselves? I mean, if we're going to be silly enough to compare four-years of RTD to half-a-season of Moffat, why stop there? What about John Nathan-Turner? Graham Williams? Phillip Hinchcliffe? Barry Letts? Verity Lambert?

I mean, it would make just as much sense...

 

[HappyDayRiot]

As for Donna, she was just a vehicle for Tate's "comedy" shtick, as if confining it to her woefully unfunny sketch show of tedious catchphrases wasn't enough for the smug luvvie types at the BBC.

Hang on now, did you watch the 4th series? If you did - and you did so in something approaching an objective manner - you'd surely see how bizarre this statement is.

Firstly, Tate exhibited a much wider range of acting skills in Doctor Who than on her godawful sketch show. She is not just a comedian, she is an actor and has been in plenty of other productions, both TV and theatre.

Second, she was never just comedic relief and sure as hell never had any catchphrases. Other than the running, inconsequential joke about Donna and the Doctor being married, I'm struggling to think of any instances of straight-out comedy she was even involved in. And I've just rewatched that series from start to finish.

Third, Tate has been on various shows on BBC and C4 for years and was hardly picked because of her sketch show success or its brand of humour. Ever heard of Big Train, just to pick one of the many successful programmes she's been in that is nothing like her show?

Fourth, what does 'smug luvvies' even mean?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if you never gave Tate the slightest of chances to impress or grow on you as Donna. You'd hardly be the only one who couldn't look past her sketch show and, in my opinion, missed out on the best RTD-era companion. To relate to the thread's topic, to date, she is considerably more entertaining than Amy has been, and I say that as someone who likes Amy.

To be clear, I am not picking on you here. I simply disagree with your assessment of Donna Noble as companion.

 

[HappyDayRiot]

The poll looks fairly emphatic so far.

That's because most people can see it's crazy to compare 7-9 episodes with 60.

 

[tomalak301]

Everyone says this season has brought back a certain "classic" quality to the series. Well, I don't know what that means since I started watching in the Eccleston era so classic would be something like Season 1. In that sense, no, this season has not reminded me of Season 1 at all.

As for comparing it to the RTD seasons, not really. Still like Season 1 and 4 before Season 5, even though the overarcing theme of the crack, if done really well, will be the best story of all the seasons. I can't put a finger on it, but there was a certain fun quality that seems lacking in this season, but that's not a bad thing. Don't really want to compare though.

 

[FalTorPan]

From a writing perspective, this season has been more of a mixed bag than all four prior seasons, which were generally better written.

 

[cultcross]

Everyone says this season has brought back a certain "classic" quality to the series. Well, I don't know what that means since I started watching in the Eccleston era so classic would be something like Season 1. In that sense, no, this season has not reminded me of Season 1 at all.

I'm assuming the comparisons are to Classic Who as in pre-Eccleston. And to be fair, the show now bears more similarity to those old shows than Eccleston or Tennant did. Whether that is a good, bad, or indifferent thing remains to be seen, imho. It's almost certainly partly because of significantly reduced budgets, but then I can't think that Blink or Midnight were particularly expensive either. Cheap can be good - it can force creativity rather than reliance on effects.

 

[captcalhoun]

no it's not 'better', but it is 'as good as'.