I want to compare the story-styles in modern Who. This is a reflection about story-telling styles. It's a reflection, not really meant as a 'criticism' of one style or another. And it's about styles, not content. Though I think I do want to ask the question whether such a complete change in style is a good idea for an audience accustomed to one approach.
First up, RTD's style. It's what you might call “Classical”. It has touches of epic, certainly elements of romance (almost bordering on Mills and Boon) and reasonable characterisations. What makes it classical for me is the story shape. RTD's stories have a beginning, a middle and an end. And oh, what an End! RTD is big on ends. He almost gets carried away in trying to create the Big Bang Complete Ending, drawing in everything that's gone before, tying it up with a bow.
And mostly, RTD's ending are happy endings. He goes over the top in his desperate need to make the resolution an ending where they all lived happily ever after (Everybody Lives!) – perhaps to the discomfort of his audience when he does strange things like create a duplicate character so his romantic interest can get her man. But even his unhappy endings (such as Donna's story) have a sense of rightness, completion, resolution. At the end of an RTD story, be it an episode, two-parter or whole series there's that 'ahh' of completion that you get as the curtain falls at the end of a Shakespeare play or Greek tragedy, or as you turn the last page on a great novel.
Now, we turn to Moffat's story telling. It's different. Moffat's style is relatively modern, the story that never ends. You answer one question and two more pop up. You solve one crisis and there's another drama down the road. It's a good style, that has kept certain TV shows on air for decades. It is, arguably, more true to life, where one person is replaced by another, where life and death go on in unending circle, where just when you think you've got the shot lined up someone moves the goal posts. There are no happily ever afters – you no sooner kiss your handsome prince than you discover he's a toad.
And plenty of people have committed to shows that tell a never-ending story. They are quite happy to tune in 3 times a week knowing that while individual plot-lines may achieve resolution, the story as a whole will go on. Scheherezade leaves us on a cliff hanger for 1001 nights to ensure that we will tune in again next week. Actors open their scripts with impatience to see who 'gets' the cliff-hanger moment in each episode (known in Eastenders, for example as “Getting the douff douffs” named for the percussion that starts the closing credits.)
My question is not one of which style is 'better'. Both have their merits. Both certainly have their place and their fans. But I confess to wondering whether the puppeteers behind the scene at the BBC have made a wise choice in switching from someone so completely committed to one style to someone utterly sold on the other. After several years of RTD's Beginnings, Middles and Oh-So-Huge-Endings, it somehow doesn't sit quite so comfortably to be in a world where we no sooner find the answer to one problem than there's 2 more to address. It feels just a little as if they're playing to the wrong audience. So Scheherezade comes across as just a little paranoid, afraid of being executed if she allows the story to be resolved, yet risking that we'll get bored waiting for the sense of an 'ending' and stop listening. There's no expected “ahh” of completion, of it all making sense, of emotional pay-off.
Don't get me wrong. If Doctor Who had been a 'never-ending story' from its revival, I'm sure it would have been fine and good. Certainly Stephen Moffat has demonstrated tremendous ability in the style. My concern is something about the existing audience and the new audience. Like a church which suddenly abandons its hymnbook and pipe organ in favour of modern choruses and a praise band, only to find the people they are trying to attract don't notice while the regular congregation goes elsewhere. Somehow, I'm not sure there's a Coronation Street in Gallifrey town centre.
Discuss!
First up, RTD's style. It's what you might call “Classical”. It has touches of epic, certainly elements of romance (almost bordering on Mills and Boon) and reasonable characterisations. What makes it classical for me is the story shape. RTD's stories have a beginning, a middle and an end. And oh, what an End! RTD is big on ends. He almost gets carried away in trying to create the Big Bang Complete Ending, drawing in everything that's gone before, tying it up with a bow.
And mostly, RTD's ending are happy endings. He goes over the top in his desperate need to make the resolution an ending where they all lived happily ever after (Everybody Lives!) – perhaps to the discomfort of his audience when he does strange things like create a duplicate character so his romantic interest can get her man. But even his unhappy endings (such as Donna's story) have a sense of rightness, completion, resolution. At the end of an RTD story, be it an episode, two-parter or whole series there's that 'ahh' of completion that you get as the curtain falls at the end of a Shakespeare play or Greek tragedy, or as you turn the last page on a great novel.
Now, we turn to Moffat's story telling. It's different. Moffat's style is relatively modern, the story that never ends. You answer one question and two more pop up. You solve one crisis and there's another drama down the road. It's a good style, that has kept certain TV shows on air for decades. It is, arguably, more true to life, where one person is replaced by another, where life and death go on in unending circle, where just when you think you've got the shot lined up someone moves the goal posts. There are no happily ever afters – you no sooner kiss your handsome prince than you discover he's a toad.
And plenty of people have committed to shows that tell a never-ending story. They are quite happy to tune in 3 times a week knowing that while individual plot-lines may achieve resolution, the story as a whole will go on. Scheherezade leaves us on a cliff hanger for 1001 nights to ensure that we will tune in again next week. Actors open their scripts with impatience to see who 'gets' the cliff-hanger moment in each episode (known in Eastenders, for example as “Getting the douff douffs” named for the percussion that starts the closing credits.)
My question is not one of which style is 'better'. Both have their merits. Both certainly have their place and their fans. But I confess to wondering whether the puppeteers behind the scene at the BBC have made a wise choice in switching from someone so completely committed to one style to someone utterly sold on the other. After several years of RTD's Beginnings, Middles and Oh-So-Huge-Endings, it somehow doesn't sit quite so comfortably to be in a world where we no sooner find the answer to one problem than there's 2 more to address. It feels just a little as if they're playing to the wrong audience. So Scheherezade comes across as just a little paranoid, afraid of being executed if she allows the story to be resolved, yet risking that we'll get bored waiting for the sense of an 'ending' and stop listening. There's no expected “ahh” of completion, of it all making sense, of emotional pay-off.
Don't get me wrong. If Doctor Who had been a 'never-ending story' from its revival, I'm sure it would have been fine and good. Certainly Stephen Moffat has demonstrated tremendous ability in the style. My concern is something about the existing audience and the new audience. Like a church which suddenly abandons its hymnbook and pipe organ in favour of modern choruses and a praise band, only to find the people they are trying to attract don't notice while the regular congregation goes elsewhere. Somehow, I'm not sure there's a Coronation Street in Gallifrey town centre.
Discuss!
I invited debate.
) and killing people for the sake of it can be just as annoying (Oscar getting stabbed in the Two Doctors for exemple). I don't disagree though, Moffat's always been a bit too clever at not killing people, though when he does it he does it very well, Father Octavian for example, not to mention several characters in A Good Man Goes to War. 
