So, your top 10 stories then?

[Sadistro]

Well, I obviously don't agree with you about Chibnall. I think the fact his work outside of sci-fi is well regarded and his work inside sci-fi is poorly received tells the whole story.

I also don't have a problem with 'The Hungry Earth'. People have been complaining for ages that the new episodes are too fast, with too much running up and down corridors etc.

But Chibnall gives a properly built and paced episode, and he gets crucified for it?

'Hungry Earth' didn't need much sci-fi. It was about the characters, and setting the scene. 'Cold Blood' on the other hand is far more sci-fi intensive, and he handles it very badly, I fully agree.

Moffat as a showrunner, brings with him an unfortunatly cavalier attitude to the science and plausibility of his plots and solutions (basically, he just shrugs and says 'Time Travel!')

He also blitzes his way through dozens of different ideas in his episodes, leaving half abandoned deas and characters strewn in his wake.

His style lacks the sense of balance that RTD and Cornell have in their scripts. I.e that time travel and space adventure is great and wonderful, but the reality of ordinary human life matters too.

Moffat's characters trend heavily towards the 'Reality sucks, life is boring, so let's screw that and go on adventures!'

This might delight hardcore sci-fi/genre audiences, but it is not a view that mainstream viewers support. RTD was always careful to stress the value of the completely ordinary as being just as important as the fantastical.

That is a view that is hardly ever in evidence in Moffat episodes. His heroines are outsiders and feisty rogues, his opinion of ordinary reality is utterly dismissive.

His version of Doctor Who is of a brat pack of cool characters and oddball outsiders, joyriding their way around the galaxy, quickfire technbabble and 'I can do this because I'm cool' excuses to flout established rules.

In large doses, and in important episodes, it feels childish and irresponsible. He's costing the show its credibility by alienating the mainstream and frustrating those who don't want to see glib, brattish characters 'cooling' their way across the screen.

But I take your point that the ideal choice of showrunner may actually be someone entirely new. I'd like to see them approach Mike Sussman (a Star Trek writer), to see if he's interested.

Sussman's a great writer, and he freely admits to loving Doctor Who. What would be the harm in giving him at least a episode or two to have a crack at?

Anyway, I guess we should let everyone have their thread back! Sorry for getting off track, guys.

 

[DWF]

The Hungry Earth/Cood Blood two parter was a poor copy of the original Silurian storyline IMO, Chibnall is a fine writer on Law&Order: UK but his work on Dr. Who and Torchwood leaves alot to be desired.

 

[Sci]

But I take your point that the ideal choice of showrunner may actually be someone entirely new. I'd like to see them approach Mike Sussman (a Star Trek writer), to see if he's interested.

Sussman's a great writer, and he freely admits to loving Doctor Who. What would be the harm in giving him at least a episode or two to have a crack at?

I don't think Sussman is a great writer. He's good, but his characterization is a bit shallow. He needs another writer to really bring three dimensions to his characters.

And, I'm sorry, but I would worry that having an American showrunner would undermine Doctor Who's uniquely British identity. I wouldn't absolutely rule out an American showrunner, but I'd want, at the very least, for that writer to have been permanently living in the United Kingdom for a long time before taking over.

 

[Starkers]

^^^well I don't think we're every going to agree here having said that I do accept some of what you say, particularly with regards to technobabble, but I fail to see how that's any different to what RTD did most of the time. Both of them place story above plot logic, they just do it in different ways, and frankly both of them annoy me, but I forgive Moffat more readily because he's better at concealing the flaws (but they're still there)

I don't think the Hungry Earth is well paced at all, watch it again and tell me there's anyway the Doctor and a handful of people could string up a village wide surveillence system in the small amount of time they had, not to mention how quickly the kid drew that picture. Like I say, it's so obviously wrong that I actually took it for part of the overall plot of the season--still no more annoying than Gatiss having spitfires outfitted for space in just 2 minutes...

And as for "glib, brattish characters 'cooling' their way across the screen" I'm sorry but 11, Amy and Rory have some way to go before they become anywhere near as glib and annoying as Ten/Rose in Series 2. And as for feisty heroinnes, sorry but Rose and Donna are no less feisty than Amy, obviously Martha wasn't but let's not go there again

As for

Moffat's characters trend heavily towards the 'Reality sucks, life is boring, so let's screw that and go on adventures!'

excuse me but isn't that why Rose and Donna especially went with the Doctor?

And as yet there's no evidence that Moffat is costing the show its credibility and alienating mainstream viewers? Series 5 ratings were comparable with the other series, and it was the most downloaded programme on iplayer as well?

I do hope Moffat tones down the timey/wimey stuff though, and I do think sometimes he's too clever for his own good, but as yet he hasn't actively annoyed me as much as RTD did on occasion.

It will be interesting to see who the next show runner is. You could argue, I suppose, that it doesn't need to be a writer at all, but an Executive producer who just hired 7/8 writers to do the series. Even then they'd probably need to go back to the notion of a script editor to ensure season coherance.

and yeah we really should get back on topic here

 

[Bones2]

So, the relative merits of Ghost Light and Ribos?

They're both 5 star stories in my view, but Ghost Light takes it for being such a big complex story of ideas, all while set in a Victorian house. If there's one thing the BBC does well (and I include new Who, considering that while the story for The Idiot's Lantern was risible, the 50s were evoked perfectly), it's period pieces. Mark of the Rani, Talons, and supposedly even Evil also demonstrate this. Combine that with possibly the most bewilderingly complex story ever and you've got a real winner. Because that's what Doctor Who should be about. Big ideas. Not snogging up chavs on council estates.

 

[Sadistro]

Agree to disagree it is, then!

The debate on whether Moffat is turning the mainstream away is an ongoing and increasingly bitter fought one.

From what I saw, the ratings were in serious decline towards the end of Series 5. But if we open that can, we'll never get it closed.


The only point I do want to make, (and I know I said I was done, but, well you know how it goes...) is that the companions do of course come with the Doctor to escape their mundane lives. But RTD and the other writers always stressed that real life was important too.

The Doctor's speech to the couple in the church in 'Father's Day', Elton's closing speech in 'Love and Monsters', the Doctor's satisfaction just watching people live their lives in 'The Idiot's Lantern' and 'Midnight' etc etc.

That's pretty much what Rose, Jackie, Mickey etc give to the Doctor in the first series. She allows him to rediscover his appreciation for every single life, no matter how simple or apparently dull.

Because he's in a dark, angry place after what happened with the Time War. His ability to appreciate ordinary people and their lives was lacking. His time with the Tylers brings him literally back down to Earth.

Because at first he's all 'You lot just want to eat chips', forgetting people like Mickey even exist, assuming Rose will be fine with everything he does, so long it looks cool etc etc.

Moffat doesn't seem interested at all in having the Doctor speak to ordinary people though. In Moffat episodes, the Doctor still obviously cares, and he is acting on behalf of regular people.

But the only people we ever see him take the time to interact with in Moffat episodes, are the dreamy loners, the feisty insouciant women, michievous loveable rogues and just people who are by no real definition 'ordinary people',

He also sugar coats life, by always having the good guys survive, always having the bad guys get what's coming to them etc etc.

People who do die, usually get romantic, beautiful ,tragic 'cry into your hankerchief' deaths, with plenty of time to say something profound first.

RTD, Cornell etc do use this as well of course, but they also emphasise the brutality of life, that often in this life, people are killed in brutal and cruel ways.

It helps to give substance to the victories, also. If the win has been hard fought and lives have been lost, the relief and the renewed hope for the future is that much greater, when a hero does step forward.

If its just the Doctor and River etc smarming their way around the galaxy, with a variety of get our of jail (literally) gadgets, it starts to feel unbearably lightweight.

Because there's nothing to balance the joy of adventure and the wonder against. It starts to feel like an unhealthy retreat from reality, like it has no relevance to real life.

Anyway, an discussion. We many never see eye to eye on some points, but Doctor Who is a big tent - room enough for all!

And if the next series is great, then I'll be the first to congratulate Moffat.

 

[Starkers]

Anyway, an discussion. We many never see eye to eye on some points, but Doctor Who is a big tent - room enough for all!

Very true

 

[Sci]

Moffat doesn't seem interested at all in having the Doctor speak to ordinary people though. In Moffat episodes, the Doctor still obviously cares, and he is acting on behalf of regular people.

But the only people we ever see him take the time to interact with in Moffat episodes, are the dreamy loners, the feisty insouciant women, michievous loveable rogues and just people who are by no real definition 'ordinary people',

When you mean "dreamy loner," do you mean, "attractive loner?" Or do you mean, "the lone who is full of dreams?" If you mean the latter, Rose was very much that. Well, that and the former, but I digress.

But I don't agree that that's all that Moffat has the Doctor interacting with. Everyone the Doctor met in "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances" is an ordinary person -- it was an ordinary person's love that saved the world, after all. And the Doctor is very empathetic with the other members of River's crew in "Silence in the Library"/"Forest of the Dead," and they're all ordinary people, too. Amelia Pond is very much an ordinary girl (apart from being a bit of a dreamer, like Rose), when the Doctor meets her -- both times. The Doctor rebels against the elites in favor of ordinary children in "The Beast Below," and the Doctor places in faith in ordinary peoples' ability to thwart the will of hostile elites on both the Human and Silurian sides in "The Hungry Earth"/"Cold Blood." And he bonds with Craig and Sophia just fine in "The Lodger."

I will, however, agree that Moffat probably doesn't put as much narrative focus on the idea that ordinary life is itself an extraordinary thing. He's so busy having the Doctor rebel against the idea of living a normal life (particularly in "Amy's Choice") that I think that thread gets lost.

He also sugar coats life, by always having the good guys survive, always having the bad guys get what's coming to them etc etc.

I would never claim that the man who wrote "The Girl in the Fireplace," or the tragic separation of the Doctor from River forever, or the imminent death of Abigail just as she and Karzan can finally be together, could be said to sugar-coat life that way.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

His version of Doctor Who is of a brat pack of cool characters and oddball outsiders, joyriding their way around the galaxy, quickfire technbabble and 'I can do this because I'm cool' excuses to flout established rules.

I'd say the worst overly "cool" TARDIS crew was at the end of Season 1 when it consisted of the guy with the leather jacket, the blonde pop singer, & the handsome bisexual. And then the way they often treated Mickey like he was a 2nd class citizen merely because he was "normal" made me ask myself, "Am I cool enough to watch this show?"

I do hope Moffat tones down the timey/wimey stuff though, and I do think sometimes he's too clever for his own good, but as yet he hasn't actively annoyed me as much as RTD did on occasion.

I love the timey-wimey stuff, especially in "A Christmas Carol" or the non-linear nature of the Doctor/River relationship. Moffat does a great job exploiting the fact that the Doctor is a time traveler. Many of his stories are about time travel itself rather than merely using it as a plot device to drop the Doctor into the alien-invasion-of-the-week plot.

It will be interesting to see who the next show runner is. You could argue, I suppose, that it doesn't need to be a writer at all, but an Executive producer who just hired 7/8 writers to do the series. Even then they'd probably need to go back to the notion of a script editor to ensure season coherance.

Coherence & consistency are irrelevant. Part of what makes the show so brilliant is that it can be anything, anywhere, at any time. Perhaps they would need some guidance for character consistency but that's about it.

But the only people we ever see him take the time to interact with in Moffat episodes, are the dreamy loners, the feisty insouciant women, michievous loveable rogues and just people who are by no real definition 'ordinary people',

He also sugar coats life, by always having the good guys survive, always having the bad guys get what's coming to them etc etc.

People who do die, usually get romantic, beautiful ,tragic 'cry into your hankerchief' deaths, with plenty of time to say something profound first.

You've just described all of my favorite things about TV. I'm surrounded by enough real life in my real life, thank you very much! If I wanted brutal relevance in my sci-fi, I wouldn't be here. I'd be over in the Battlestar Galactica forum.

The reason why I watch Doctor Who is for the escapism. Too much of modern sci-fi has been poisoned by this oppressive notion of "reality," which often translates to a story of society going to hell under the weight of adversity. Look at Battlestar Galactica, Stargate Universe, Children of Men, Torchwood: Children of Earth. Even Doctor Who strayed into that territory with "Turn Left."

Call me crazy, but I still expect my entertainment to be entertaining. And I'm probably not looking for realism in a show about a time traveling alien with a box that's bigger on the inside.

I will, however, agree that Moffat probably doesn't put as much narrative focus on the idea that ordinary life is itself an extraordinary thing. He's so busy having the Doctor rebel against the idea of living a normal life (particularly in "Amy's Choice") that I think that thread gets lost.

It's consistent with the character. The Doctor has always been a rebel. His lifestyle was always a violent rejection of normal Time Lord society.

Besides which, I think the 11th Doctor does think of his life as "ordinary." At least it's ordinary for him. As he says in the Meanwhile in the TARDIS short between "Flesh & Stone" and "The Vampires of Venice," if you make all of time & space your back yard, what you end up with is a back yard. Moffat & Smith are returning the Doctor back to his classic roots as merely a smart, talented space-hobo armed with "overconfidence [...] and a small screwdriver." I find this to be a refreshing dose of humility after all of the THE DOCTOR IS THE GREATEST MAN/PERSON/THING EVER! nonsense from the RTD years (particularly in "Last of the Time Lords"). I was never fond of RTD's "He can see the turn of the universe" deification of the Doctor.

 

[Skellington]

If I wanted brutal relevance in my sci-fi, I wouldn't be here. I'd be over in the Battlestar Galactica forum.

True dat - though the Whoniverse is actually a brutal and Darwinian place if you think about it.

Call me crazy, but I still expect my entertainment to be entertaining. And I'm probably not looking for realism in a show about a time traveling alien with a box that's bigger on the inside.

To me, there are different types of realism. As long as you can accept the characters, it doesn't matter that they just transported Vincent Van Goch to an art gallery in 2010 or whatever.

I find this to be a refreshing dose of humility after all of the THE DOCTOR IS THE GREATEST MAN/PERSON/THING EVER! nonsense from the RTD years (particularly in "Last of the Time Lords").

But he is.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I find this to be a refreshing dose of humility after all of the THE DOCTOR IS THE GREATEST MAN/PERSON/THING EVER! nonsense from the RTD years (particularly in "Last of the Time Lords").

But he is.

Only when the show has enough humility to allow me to make that determination. It's like what Russell Brand once said, you're not really sexually attractive if you have to keep telling people that you're sexually attractive.

 

[DWF]

I find this to be a refreshing dose of humility after all of the THE DOCTOR IS THE GREATEST MAN/PERSON/THING EVER! nonsense from the RTD years (particularly in "Last of the Time Lords").

But he is.

Only when the show has enough humility to allow me to make that determination. It's like what Russell Brand once said, you're not really sexually attractive if you have to keep telling people that you're sexually attractive.

The Doctor's always been arrogant though even to himself in The Five Doctors.

 

[Sci]

I will, however, agree that Moffat probably doesn't put as much narrative focus on the idea that ordinary life is itself an extraordinary thing. He's so busy having the Doctor rebel against the idea of living a normal life (particularly in "Amy's Choice") that I think that thread gets lost.

It's consistent with the character. The Doctor has always been a rebel. His lifestyle was always a violent rejection of normal Time Lord society.

Yeah, but the Doctor's individual characterization is not the same thing as narrative theme. The Doctor may reject the idea of living a normal life, but that doesn't mean that the narrative itself should endorse the idea that normal life is something bad or oppressive.

Besides which, I think the 11th Doctor does think of his life as "ordinary." At least it's ordinary for him. As he says in the Meanwhile in the TARDIS short between "Flesh & Stone" and "The Vampires of Venice," if you make all of time & space your back yard, what you end up with is a back yard.

True -- but I don't think the narrative is doing enough to reinforce the idea of an ordinary life and ordinary people as being themselves extraordinary. We're diverging here into questions about complacency rather than the value of people who do not live uncommon lifestyles.

Moffat & Smith are returning the Doctor back to his classic roots as merely a smart, talented space-hobo armed with "overconfidence [...] and a small screwdriver." I find this to be a refreshing dose of humility after all of the THE DOCTOR IS THE GREATEST MAN/PERSON/THING EVER! nonsense from the RTD years (particularly in "Last of the Time Lords"). I was never fond of RTD's "He can see the turn of the universe" deification of the Doctor.

This has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the narrative ought to depict "normal life" as a good and extraordinary thing.

(Though I would point out that what you claim about what Moffat is doing were the case, we would never have seen the Doctor scare away an entire fleet of alien ships with what amounts to a mildly witty speech over a microphone. "Think about every black day I ever stopped you. And then. And THEN! Do the smart thing: Let someone else try first." I mean, it's positively RTD-ish. )

 

[Starkers]

Well it is, but given that the afformentioned alien battle fleets only held back because it was part of their plan and because they were playing with the Doctor, then it could be seen as a mild pisstake of RTD...but then this is Moffat who gave us the Doctor telling an unstoppable force to look him up in a book!

 

[Sci]

Well it is, but given that the afformentioned alien battle fleets only held back because it was part of their plan and because they were playing with the Doctor, then it could be seen as a mild pisstake of RTD...but then this is Moffat who gave us the Doctor telling an unstoppable force to look him up in a book!

Yep. Moffat is as guilty of "OMG ISN'T THE DOCTOR SO AWESOME?!?!?!?!?!"-ness as RTD.

Moreso, I'd argue, since at least RTD bothered to have the Doctor specifically say that it was humanity that was the real source of his power in "Last of the Time Lords."

 

[Starkers]

Not this again...humanity was the source of his power in the same way coal is a sourse of power, he used us. He used us to save us, but we were mere pawns in his fight with the Master...

 

[Skellington]

^ I feel dirty.

 

[Sci]

Not this again...humanity was the source of his power in the same way coal is a sourse of power, he used us.

More like, humanity used him.

 

[Starkers]

Riiighhht....the Doctor made us all chant his name so he could un-dobby himself and defeat the Master...just for once I'd like it if human beings saved the day rather than the all powerful Doctor just told us poor dumb apes what to do, even Martha was used, just following orders...

 

[DWF]

Riiighhht....the Doctor made us all chant his name so he could un-dobby himself and defeat the Master...just for once I'd like it if human beings saved the day rather than the all powerful Doctor just told us poor dumb apes what to do, even Martha was used, just following orders...

Martha did all the work all the Doctor did was attune himself to the network. And I don't think Martha was used either for that matter, she what she out of love for the Doctor she even said as much.