Moffatt and his vision.....

[JoeZhang]

I think Moffat, like RTD, has a tendency to not let plot logic get in the way of telling a good story, and neither man seems keen on giving us what we expect (neither of these things is inherently a bad thing, but the downside is on occasion they can be).

I think the problem is this whole arc seems to be screaming "look how clever this arc is, look how clever this arc is!" in a way that RTD's stuff didn't - and if you want to play that game with the viewer then the arc story you are telling has to make sense - and so far this doesn't seem to or at least it provides no clues that the viewers can use to work out what's actually going on. If you are going to set up mysteries for the viewer, I always think they should have at least a chance of working out what's going on from the clues on the screen, we don't have that. Moreover, we just seem to adding question after question but no answers - even if we don't get all of the answers, the viewer needs some sort of regular pay-off to keep them engaged.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I think the problem is this whole arc seems to be screaming "look how clever this arc is, look how clever this arc is!"

I'm not getting this impression at all.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

It's a shame we can't have elements of both really.

I think it's a bit unfair. We do have elements of both, in my opinion. Moffat is the one who brought us a Christmas fairytale with flying fishes, a Doctor Who sitcom called The Lodger, a heartbreaking episode with Vincent Van Gogh, romance, catchphrases, a marriage, vampires, and, apparently, pirates.

Doctor Who is still being made with a large audience in mind, even if the raw science-fiction elements and ongoing plot threads seem to be used more prominently than they used to be.

I think the problem has nothing to do with that, actually. The problem is Matt Smith, whom, as far as I'm concerned, is the best actor to play the role since Patrick Troughton. But his Doctor is not the romantic time-travelling protagonist played by Eccleston and Tennant. He's a bit weird, a bit off, a little more alien than the ninth and tenth incarnations, and less likely to take centre stage and be the action hero. He's secretive, he's a bit of a geek and he's a team player. That's an unlikely combination for a main character.

I think that's why it's a little more difficult to relate to the show right now. We've got Space Gandalf, whom we like but can't really understand. We've got Amy, who's basically "the girl you cannot have". And we've got Rory, who is us, and would be the most natural choice to be the focus character in the series right now, but he's not, for some reason. So we're lost.

I think you really nailed it on the head (at least for me). This is precisely why I love the show and especially Moffat's and Smith's takes on it. Smith has already become my third favorite Doctor (behind only T. Baker and Troughton...go figure) and that's saying something considering how much I loved Tennant and he's not even in my top five anymore (Eccleston, too, for that matter). Moffat is a brilliant writer, but I will admit I'm beginning to wonder if I am becoming a Moffat apologist. I know he's not perfect and there's some things about his run that I have quibbles with (and even a few of his own episodes in the last series), but overall I think he's done wonderfully, especially putting is own mark on the show.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

There's something about Moffat's recent "epic" two-parters (the end of last season and the beginning of this season) that has me wondering about the direction of the series. It feels like it has something to do with pacing issues, or it might be characterization issues....but that seems so surface, and I can't help but feel there's something underneath, something fundamental, that's bothering me....except I can't figure out what it is. It's been there since the beginning of last season, but it appears most obviously in these would-be epics. But like I said, I'm not sure what it is that's bothering me. Maybe someone here can help me.

For some reason, I find myself actually not caring during most of these episodes. Now, I've been watching Doctor Who faithfully all my life, and I love the show going back to the Hartnell years. I don't care for Pertwee much (except his glorious first season), but I enjoy the Tom Baker years and love much of Davison. And, I loved most of the Russell Davies years too.

My point is, I have no problem with change. I've embraced the show in most of its different guises over four decades. But somehow, since Moffat has taken over, I can't help but feel that something basic has altered, and it's putting me off, somehow, and I can't articulate to myself what's missing.

I think Matt Smith is great. He has the acting chops and the potential to be among the best Doctors. But then, why is he doing the "running around and speaking too fast" thing that Tennant had turned into an annoying cliche? Why won't he slow down and think for a minute? Why won't the show slow down and allow us to think with him?

I thought Moffat's episodes during Davies' years were the best episodes - Blink and Girl in the Fireplace were masterpieces of emotionally compelling sci-fi, balancing both clever time travel shenanigans with empathetic characterization, and a wonderful sense of pacing. Really great stuff. There were some heavy themes going on there too, which is always appreciated.

So where's that balance? Why have time travel shenanigans become the main course? Where's the pacing? Where are the themes? Where's the sense of characterization? (Realize how much well-rounded a character Sally Sparrow is, from one episode, than any of the current leads of the show.)

It's something abstract, I think - I'm honestly not sure what it is that's preventing me from really getting engaged, but ultimately, that's the result - somehow, I don't care about what I'm seeing, and maybe that's because none of it feels "real" like it used to. Davies made the Doctor and his adventures feel more real than the show had felt since the Hartnell years, but now, for some reason, Doctor Who feels to me like a Scooby Doo episode, mixed with Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. It doesn't feel real. It doesn't feel like there are real stakes, or that these are real people, undergoing real problems. Why is that? Why doesn't it feel real? Even the Tardis doesn't feel like a real place anymore. It feels so wacky, so self-consciously crazy, so off-putting - where am I supposed to ground myself? Alice has to feel like a real little girl if we're going to get involved in her adventures in Wonderland, no?

If there's anyone here who feels like I do, maybe you have a better idea of why we feel this way. 'Cause honestly, I don't have a clue.

I like Matt Smith, too. I'm glad someone else shares my view, to some extent, that the pacing is weird. I've thought it was weird since they resurrected the show, though. It's just constant "go go go" even during the down times where they're just sitting around talking. Just constant dramatic music and running around jabbering really fast, feels like you're watching a one-hour trailer. With a two-part episode, you'd think they'd have time to slow it down at times so that the genuinely exciting parts would seem more exciting. Build up to the climax, y'know. It's just so frantic, all the time. No subtlety whatsoever. But still, I've been enjoying this incarnation of the Doctor. Just started watching a couple weeks ago when BBC America ran the entire Matt Smith first season(series). I liked David Tennant, too, but at times I felt like he was too "human." The thing I liked about Tom Baker was that he was always cool and in control, never let on that anything bothered him. You had a sense that he always knew something the people around him didn't. Tennant was always wearing his emotions on his sleeve.

 

[EnderAKH]

I love musical theater, and to me that's what RTD's Who was. It was big, over the top musical theater that wore its emotions on its sleeve and that's what I liked about it. Moffat's monsters are meant to creep you out, whereas RTD's are meant to spark running and an action sequence. I should have loved Vincent and the Doctor, but I only loved the very end. The rest of the episode, as were many in Season 5 (the Silurian 2 parter, Victory of the Daleks, Vampires of Venice), were just boring. The rest have very little rewatch value for me.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I think Moffat, like RTD, has a tendency to not let plot logic get in the way of telling a good story, and neither man seems keen on giving us what we expect (neither of these things is inherently a bad thing, but the downside is on occasion they can be).

I think the problem is this whole arc seems to be screaming "look how clever this arc is, look how clever this arc is!" in a way that RTD's stuff didn't - and if you want to play that game with the viewer then the arc story you are telling has to make sense - and so far this doesn't seem to or at least it provides no clues that the viewers can use to work out what's actually going on. If you are going to set up mysteries for the viewer, I always think they should have at least a chance of working out what's going on from the clues on the screen, we don't have that. Moreover, we just seem to adding question after question but no answers - even if we don't get all of the answers, the viewer needs some sort of regular pay-off to keep them engaged.

That's exactly how I feel.

 

[Mr Awe]

There's 2 major problems with the opening 2 parter. And, so far, I think what we're discussing is limited to the opening story, not Moffat overall. It's important to keep that in mind. Anyway, 2 major problems:

1) Intentionally adding things in just for the sake of being creepy even if it doesn't make sense, which leads to confusion. What is fun to watch initially falls apart when you think about it. It doesn't always make sense but if it's creepy, he'll put it in.

2) Intentionally leaving too much to be resolve later which leads to too much confusion. Basically, being overally clever thinking that he'll tie things together later. That's fine, but if you leave too much unresolved, it's starts to feel dissatisfying.

Both of these add confusion on their own but these 2 issues interact to add a whole new layer of confusion. You begin to wonder if you're not getting something because it just doesn't make sense when you think about it or you may not be getting something because it's something to resolve later. So, an added layer of confusion.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

I think the problem has nothing to do with that, actually. The problem is Matt Smith, whom, as far as I'm concerned, is the best actor to play the role since Patrick Troughton. But his Doctor is not the romantic time-travelling protagonist played by Eccleston and Tennant. He's a bit weird, a bit off, a little more alien than the ninth and tenth incarnations, and less likely to take centre stage and be the action hero. He's secretive, he's a bit of a geek and he's a team player. That's an unlikely combination for a main character.

I think that's why it's a little more difficult to relate to the show right now. We've got Space Gandalf, whom we like but can't really understand. We've got Amy, who's basically "the girl you cannot have". And we've got Rory, who is us, and would be the most natural choice to be the focus character in the series right now, but he's not, for some reason. So we're lost.

Funny, but I LOVE all of the current characters. I actually think that, with the new series, we have the best Doctor with the best companions. Obviously, that's my own personal opinion but I honestly don't feel disconnected at all from them. Quite the opposite. I hope all of these characters are around for some time.

Your analysis is a bit off. The Doctor has ALWAYS been a bit off and, in the new series, hasn't always been the central character. So, that's no different really.

Amy is the hot young companions. Nothing off putting there! You might feel like that she's the girl that "you cannot have" but that's an issue for you. Attractive people generally add to the appeal for most people.

And, Rory is us, as you say, and he does play a significant role. So, don't see him getting the short stick in characterization at all. In fact, quite the opposite. He started out unlikeable and then a lot of story time was spent on building him up.

No, there are problems with the opening 2 parter but those are more linked to what I wrote about in my post and not so much about the characterization, IMO.

Mr Awe