RDA Era Vs Moffat Era

[Sci]

I've enjoyed series 5 & 6 but I think it's lost the spark that the RTD era had; I don't know how to describe it but it's like something's missing.

What's missing is that there's no point-of-view character, no emotional anchor.

Strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly disagree.

Amy has been the clear point-of-view character since we first saw her praying to Santa Claus in "The Eleventh Hour." She's the character who introduces us to the Eleventh Doctor; she's the one who introduces us to the world of Leadworth and its community; she's the one to whom the Doctor introduces his world; she's the one whose life drives the arc of Series Five -- it was all leading up to her wedding, after all; she's the one who re-introduces us to the Doctor and River in "The Impossible Astronaut;" she's the one whose perceptions we see through Series Six (Madam Kevorian's appearances in walls); she's the one whose family life drives the Series Six arc; she's the one whose relationships bind the TARDIS crew together.

You may not like her, she may not work for you, but the show has been very clearly told from her point of view since Moffat's era began.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Amy has been the clear point-of-view character since we first saw her praying to Santa Claus in "The Eleventh Hour." She's the character who introduces us to the Eleventh Doctor; she's the one who introduces us to the world of Leadworth and its community; she's the one to whom the Doctor introduces his world; she's the one whose life drives the arc of Series Five -- it was all leading up to her wedding, after all; she's the one who re-introduces us to the Doctor and River in "The Impossible Astronaut;" she's the one whose perceptions we see through Series Six (Madam Kevorian's appearances in walls); she's the one whose family life drives the Series Six arc; she's the one whose relationships bind the TARDIS crew together.

You may not like her, she may not work for you, but the show has been very clearly told from her point of view since Moffat's era began.

I like her, she works for me, and yes, she's clearly been written as the protagonist, the narrative anchor, the character that drives the action, but she's not the point-of-view character, the emotional anchor, the one we're empathizing with. Amy is a mercurial, sassy, acerbic, narcissistic character, she's hard to impress and we are not privy to her thoughts. Which is perfectly fine, but it means that we can't see all these adventures through her eyes, we can only watch her live them. Right now, Doctor Who (a show I find immensely entertaining, it should be noted) is a bit like Sherlock Holmes narrated by Irene Adler.

 

[Checkmate]

As opposed to any of the other companions since the reboot? Because, quite frankly, I haven't had any connection with any of them whatsoever. Especially in the way you're inferring.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

As opposed to any of the other companions since the reboot? Because, quite frankly, I haven't had any connection with any of them whatsoever. Especially in the way you're inferring.

Well, that's very sad, but I wasn't talking about personal taste as much as I was talking about authorial intent. Those many characters you couldn't connect to were meant as point-of-view characters, Amy is not.

 

[Checkmate]

I don't see it though. They all suffered from the same things you were going on about, particularly not knowing what they were thinking. And we didn't see anything through their eyes more often than we have through Amy's.

I think the favortism based on personal taste is more on your end.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I don't see it though. They all suffered from the same things you were going on about, particularly not knowing what they were thinking. And we didn't see anything through their eyes more often than we have through Amy's.

Yes, we have. I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Those characters, Rose, Mickey, Martha, Donna were all very emotional, very open, very sincere. You always knew exactly what they were thinking, because they were showing it and more often than not, telling it explicitely. When they were sad, they looked and acted sad, when they were having fun, they looked like they were having fun, when they were in awe of the incredible things the Doctor was showing them, they said as much.

Amy doesn't work like that. Amy keeps most of that to herself or expresses it through snarky one-liners. Again, it's not a bad thing, it just makes her ineffective as a point-of-view character most of the time.

And it's certainly not "favoritism based on personal taste", which would be absurd. I don't have any horse in this race, I love all those characters, and I probably like Amy a little more than the others.

 

[Mr Light]

"You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry! "

 

[Rowan Sjet]

That's actually a pretty good quotation considering the context. I've always felt that RTD Who wasn't just space opera or soap opera, but very much like an actual opera.

 

[GabeHimself]

RTD era hands down.

You can like the Moffat era more -- but that means you prefer story telling that is less successful and less popular than the methods employed from 2005-2010.

I think Moffat's era has only been entertaining when it tried to be more like RTD's era: like the past three-four episodes we've had.

 

[Neroon]

But who decides what is and is not "less successful?" From the perspective of a variety of others, the opposite is true or at the very least it's too close to call.

 

[DWF]

But who decides what is and is not "less successful?" From the perspective of a variety of others, the opposite is true or at the very least it's too close to call.

In the end, time will tell it always does with Dr. Who. For example when Robert Holmes was alive his stories were well received he's since gone on to be considered as one of if not the best Dr. Who writer of all time. The Moffat are will be need to be looked at over a course of time as all the other eras of the series have been over the years.

 

[Starkers]

But who decides what is and is not "less successful?" From the perspective of a variety of others, the opposite is true or at the very least it's too close to call.

Yes interesting isn't it, who does decide this, and I must have missed the BBC announcement that Who is being cancelled due to falling ratings as I was under the impression it was still rather popular….

And the fact that ten million people watch program A but only nine million watch B doesn't really make it better.

RTD was, I don't think anyone would deny, probably better at making Who accessible to the masses, but this sometimes backfired in terms of the episodes themselves, and in addition RTD had the added problem of having to create a viewership for Dr Who, Moffat had that viewership gift wrapped, millions of people were already watching so he didn't need to go out and lower every common denominator to get them. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a criticism of RTD, he's a showman who does simple spectacle very well, but he's also overly simplistic at times, and by the end his Who was awfully repetitive.

Moffat is trying to do something different. He may not always succeed but he should be applauded for not just giving us more of the same, because however much people loved RTD/Tennant, another few series of the same old same old and people would have stopped watching in droves.

Who as a concept has worked for so long precisely because each Doctor and each producer is different, and we can see from classic Who what happens when an actor or a producer stays in the role too long (see Tom Baker and JNT for further details) which is why much as I love Smith and Moffat I hope both of them will be gone within 2 to 3 years at most.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Perhaps Amy's not as emotionally developed as the other companions have been? She's also written as a very different type of companion than the others in that she sees the Doctor in more of a fairy tale type manner than the previous ones did. She's also more emotionally attached to him given that she first met him as a child...the others did not meet the Doctor when they were children. He appeared, then just as quickly he vanished after promising her that he would be right back. Amy expresses her thoughts very differently than the previous companions did as well. sure maybe we're not privy to her views on specific things but she's not exactly shy about being direct with the Doctor either about subjects. She reminds me a lot of Donna in that sense. Amy's kind of subdued...perhaps a bit insecure still and still evolving.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

But who decides what is and is not "less successful?" From the perspective of a variety of others, the opposite is true or at the very least it's too close to call.

Yes interesting isn't it, who does decide this, and I must have missed the BBC announcement that Who is being cancelled due to falling ratings as I was under the impression it was still rather popular….

And the fact that ten million people watch program A but only nine million watch B doesn't really make it better.

RTD was, I don't think anyone would deny, probably better at making Who accessible to the masses, but this sometimes backfired in terms of the episodes themselves, and in addition RTD had the added problem of having to create a viewership for Dr Who, Moffat had that viewership gift wrapped, millions of people were already watching so he didn't need to go out and lower every common denominator to get them. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a criticism of RTD, he's a showman who does simple spectacle very well, but he's also overly simplistic at times, and by the end his Who was awfully repetitive.

Moffat is trying to do something different. He may not always succeed but he should be applauded for not just giving us more of the same, because however much people loved RTD/Tennant, another few series of the same old same old and people would have stopped watching in droves.

Who as a concept has worked for so long precisely because each Doctor and each producer is different, and we can see from classic Who what happens when an actor or a producer stays in the role too long (see Tom Baker and JNT for further details) which is why much as I love Smith and Moffat I hope both of them will be gone within 2 to 3 years at most.

Also, if you're taking the view that rating = success and the ratings are down that isn't factually correct either. Once you remove specials out of the equation, and compare the final numbers + iPlayer the average viewing figures across series it's fairly on par, maybe even slightly higher for series 6 than for series 1, 2, 3 and 5 and 4's average is thrown off by a huge upswing for the final episode, apparently.

 

[Sindatur]

But who decides what is and is not "less successful?" From the perspective of a variety of others, the opposite is true or at the very least it's too close to call.

Yes interesting isn't it, who does decide this, and I must have missed the BBC announcement that Who is being cancelled due to falling ratings as I was under the impression it was still rather popular….

And the fact that ten million people watch program A but only nine million watch B doesn't really make it better.

RTD was, I don't think anyone would deny, probably better at making Who accessible to the masses, but this sometimes backfired in terms of the episodes themselves, and in addition RTD had the added problem of having to create a viewership for Dr Who, Moffat had that viewership gift wrapped, millions of people were already watching so he didn't need to go out and lower every common denominator to get them. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a criticism of RTD, he's a showman who does simple spectacle very well, but he's also overly simplistic at times, and by the end his Who was awfully repetitive.

Moffat is trying to do something different. He may not always succeed but he should be applauded for not just giving us more of the same, because however much people loved RTD/Tennant, another few series of the same old same old and people would have stopped watching in droves.

Who as a concept has worked for so long precisely because each Doctor and each producer is different, and we can see from classic Who what happens when an actor or a producer stays in the role too long (see Tom Baker and JNT for further details) which is why much as I love Smith and Moffat I hope both of them will be gone within 2 to 3 years at most.

Also, if you're taking the view that rating = success and the ratings are down that isn't factually correct either. Once you remove specials out of the equation, and compare the final numbers + iPlayer the average viewing figures across series it's fairly on par, maybe even slightly higher for series 6 than for series 1, 2, 3 and 5 and 4's average is thrown off by a huge upswing for the final episode, apparently.

Plus, ratings are down across the board live veiwership-wise and American Ratings are definitely up.

 

[Savage Jaw]

I have enjoyed both the RTD and Moffat eras, but I have to give Moffat the edge. RTD's problem is that he is slightly too much focused on the characters at the expense of plot. It is as if when he is writing an episode his mind is thinking "get through this bit as quickly and as simply as possible, it doesn't matter, get to the important character bits". Torchwood: Miracle Day is the best example of this - brilliant character moments and performances by the cast - but RTD's plot was all over the place.

Moffat had the perfect balance of character and plot until Let's Kill Hitler. While I really liked the episode, the scene in the TARDIS at the end, where the Doctor is saying they have to let River find her own way was completely wrong. Amy and Rory should have been distraught in that scene as they have lost the chance to properly raise their daughter, and the Doctor should have been forced to explain to them exactly why they cannot go and find Melody as a young child. Maybe this will be explored in the finale, but if it isn't its something Moffat missed, and as a parent himself it is odd how he hasn't dealt with it.

But who decides what is and is not "less successful?" From the perspective of a variety of others, the opposite is true or at the very least it's too close to call.

Yes interesting isn't it, who does decide this, and I must have missed the BBC announcement that Who is being cancelled due to falling ratings as I was under the impression it was still rather popular….

And the fact that ten million people watch program A but only nine million watch B doesn't really make it better.

RTD was, I don't think anyone would deny, probably better at making Who accessible to the masses, but this sometimes backfired in terms of the episodes themselves, and in addition RTD had the added problem of having to create a viewership for Dr Who, Moffat had that viewership gift wrapped, millions of people were already watching so he didn't need to go out and lower every common denominator to get them. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a criticism of RTD, he's a showman who does simple spectacle very well, but he's also overly simplistic at times, and by the end his Who was awfully repetitive.

Moffat is trying to do something different. He may not always succeed but he should be applauded for not just giving us more of the same, because however much people loved RTD/Tennant, another few series of the same old same old and people would have stopped watching in droves.

Who as a concept has worked for so long precisely because each Doctor and each producer is different, and we can see from classic Who what happens when an actor or a producer stays in the role too long (see Tom Baker and JNT for further details) which is why much as I love Smith and Moffat I hope both of them will be gone within 2 to 3 years at most.

Also, if you're taking the view that rating = success and the ratings are down that isn't factually correct either. Once you remove specials out of the equation, and compare the final numbers + iPlayer the average viewing figures across series it's fairly on par, maybe even slightly higher for series 6 than for series 1, 2, 3 and 5 and 4's average is thrown off by a huge upswing for the final episode, apparently.

The BBC could save themselves a whole lot of bother over the myth of "falling ratings" by releasing their Live +7 figures for each episode of Doctor Who and all their other programmes. Live +7 adds together the final BARB figures for the first broadcast and in-week repeats of the same episode on all BBC channels, and also includes an adjusted iPlayer figure which takes into account how many iPlayer requests were unique and not repeat viewers. They have only released a Live +7 figure for one episode, back in the first half of Series 6, and it shows that that episode was watched by about 9-10 million people if I remember right, up from around 6 million overnight viewers, and from nearly 8 million viewers as recorded by BARB consolidated ratings.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Wouldn't make a difference, they don't have Live +7 and iPlayer data for 2 to 6 weeks after it's aired and by that point the papers don't care, they've had their story out of it.

 

[Savage Jaw]

Wouldn't make a difference, they don't have Live +7 and iPlayer data for 2 to 6 weeks after it's aired and by that point the papers don't care, they've had their story out of it.

Live +7 is available within the BBC around two weeks after an episode is first broadcast.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Wouldn't make a difference, they don't have Live +7 and iPlayer data for 2 to 6 weeks after it's aired and by that point the papers don't care, they've had their story out of it.

Live +7 is available within the BBC around two weeks after an episode is first broadcast.

Live +7 yes, but final iPlayer stats aren't in for weeks or months depending on if it's a catch up series. If someone can watch episode one 8 weeks later you need to give it 9 weeks for final viewing data.

 

[Mitty]

Hm, difficult question. Both have their plusses and minuses. Agreed with someone above that this question can't really be answered until we get another two seasons (which we hopefully will). On balance, I'd probably say that they pretty similar. However, looking at individual episodes I think seasons 5 and 6 have the edge right now. The Doctors Wife, God Complex, Closing Time... I just love them all. I can't think of many RTD episodes I'd watch over and over (apart perhaps from Blink, and we all know who wrote that).

I love Amy to death, and she's second only to Donna in my opinion. But Rory is awesome. If anything happens to him I'll be devestated.