The reason why critics like Doctor Who more than fans do

[Timewalker]

I also suspect that you're letting negative experiences on gaming forums affect how you perceive the interactions here on the BBS. I don't game much less belong to any gaming forums but I really don't see their relevance to this forum.

I see the relevance in that the poster was referring to games that get released (and praised by critics) when it's obvious that there are still problems with them - they still need tweaking to make them work right. I've encountered that on occasion on one of the gaming sites I belong to, and when I see something I beta tested and gave low scores for some aspect of it, released with that problem still unfixed.

For some of the nuWho stories are shown on TV, there are people who feel they weren't properly finished, that the script still needed tweaking and rewriting in some places, yet the critics praise it.

 

[USS KG5]

For some of the nuWho stories are shown on TV, there are people who feel they weren't properly finished, that the script still needed tweaking and rewriting in some places, yet the critics praise it.

Perhaps the problem is, some people treat the two things as mutually exclusive when they are not.

For something to be without flaws, it would need to be perfect. If the standard used for "worthy of critical praise" is "perfect" then very little, in any field of endeavour, is worthy of critical praise!

 

[Timewalker]

For some of the nuWho stories are shown on TV, there are people who feel they weren't properly finished, that the script still needed tweaking and rewriting in some places, yet the critics praise it.

Perhaps the problem is, some people treat the two things as mutually exclusive when they are not.

For something to be without flaws, it would need to be perfect. If the standard used for "worthy of critical praise" is "perfect" then very little, in any field of endeavour, is worthy of critical praise!

It doesn't have to be flawless. It just has to be entertaining without making the viewer think "wtf" at the plot holes, mischaracterizations, and getting the impression that the writers etc. think the audience is stupid and won't notice obvious scientific or historical errors.

 

[Mr Awe]

Being on this forum has stopped being fun, as fans like me who have a different take on the franchise, seeing that the mechanics of the episode are not working, are marginalized and mocked as Moffat haters.

While I generally enjoy Moffat's work, this season I've been very vocal about some of the stories that just didn't work for me at all, including the finale. However, I never felt marginalized and from what I've seen, I don't see evidence that you've been marginalized either. You've had your say, just like I did, some people agree, others disagree. Such is life.

A couple bits of advice. You can express yourself perfectly but that doesn't mean everyone will agree with you. And, your enjoyment of a BBS shouldn't depend on how many people you persuade to agree with you. That would be frustrating! Some people just aren't going to agree with you no matter what!

In terms of Moffat, I like his work in general, but I think series 9 should be his last season. I don't know if it will be or not, but I think it's time to shakeup the series with a new showrunner.

For some of the nuWho stories are shown on TV, there are people who feel they weren't properly finished, that the script still needed tweaking and rewriting in some places, yet the critics praise it.

I would agree with that assessment. For myself, I simply could not enjoy several episodes thanks to those problems. However, it appears that many people still enjoyed those stories.

It's a personal, subjective issue. Some people place more value on making sure that story stands up to scrutiny whereas others don't mind if it doesn't withstand the scrutiny as long as the overall look and feel of the story is fun and interesting.

Because it's fiction and not science, there is no right or wrong answer. It comes down to what aspects of storytelling each viewer values the most.

Which gets us back to Lakenheath. No amount of convincing is likely to change someone's relative valuation of these different aspects of storytelling! So, don't get too wrapped up into changing people's minds and I think you'll have more fun. There is no correct answer here, just different opinions.

Mr Awe

 

[drt]

I think some fans would have preferred Season Eight better if they'd dropped Pink and focused more on Clara trying to build a relationship with the "new" Doctor. They could have kept her unassuredness regarding Twelve and saved Pink as the wedge in Season Nine, and Eight would have been less "busy" (if you will) overall. Although, it probably makes more "real life" sense for such things to be concurrent.

 

[Mr Awe]

^ I would've dropped Pink for good. I wouldn't want to see him in S9 either. However, I can see what they were going for and many have enjoyed his character.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

I spoke with my psychiatrist. He thinks that I don't have a simplicity view of things, that I am not able to simply enjoy things. That I can care deeply about and apply what I learned about history, for instance, to evaluate things. I have dealt with, since I was little, not people wanting to hear what I have to say. It continues with my mother, who says that I don't talk, that I babble.

I don't spend time on gaming forums. That would be worse.

I am taking what I am learning about what is happening in the video game industry and seeing the same pattern here. I believe that there are serious mechanical flaws with the story telling this year. Moffat admitted in an interview that he created a character before the story - this is something that writers are taught not to do in Storytelling 101. It explains why there was a shift in the arc, for he was changing his mind on where the arc was going.

And, I am troubled by the portrayal of Danny Pink and the military. As a sergeant, he would have served in the military a longer time. He would have ordered a squad to breach a house. (Only in video games does a military character, played by the player, breaches a structure.) If his squad did kill a children, they would be in a world of s--t. This would have created a diplomatic crisis, and Pink's team would be placed under investigation.

Finally, it wasn't necessary to kill Osgood. Fans who had been following the show since either the franchise's inception or the nu Doctor Who premiered would know that the Master was a sociopath who hurt and killed others. Moffat admitted that he had the Master kill Osgood to prove how much of an evil person the Time Lord is.

The point I make in earlier posts is that critics will overlook serious mechanical flaws in a story, because they take a simplicity approach to the thing, resulting in a rating that can be argued as being duplicitous. The job of a critic is to rate not only the entertainment factor of a thing; it is to evaluate as well the mechanics of the thing. If the show in question was not Doctor Who, would they rate it as highly? I have doubts.

This ties with the video game industry where critics rate the enjoyment factor of a thing, while downplaying mechanical flaws. For fans of Halo, the steak is multiplayer and the potatoes is single player campaign. The critics rated the game highly, even when the multiplayer was broken. A fan who saw the rating would think the collection was a great value and investment, when in actual fact it wasn't.

As fans of Doctor Who, I believe we place value and investment in the franchise. When critics rate the episodes as highly as they do, I believe they aren't being honest in the valuation of the thing. If the franchise is to reach its potential, it needs to be rated critically and mechanical flaws shouldn't be allowed to slide. I believe it is becoming clear from Moffat's own words that he is becoming more complacent with Doctor Who, making mistakes which are more common with first time writers. and taking the fans for granted, accepting that they will take whatever they are given.

 

[Mr Awe]

^ The mechanical details of how something works is much more important if you're designing a new plane than for writing a fictional story. You have to apply different standards based on the context.

With a plane, if the sub-parts don't work, it crashes. However, with fiction, you can break the rules and sometimes it's still an entertaining story. You should try to understand this concept even if you don't agree with someone's opinion of a story.

That said, I do agree with you that some stories this season were simply unenjoyable to me because too many parts were broken. However, because it's fiction, it's alright if other people enjoy it. There is no correct answer for fiction. A successful story teller is simply someone who keeps a sufficient number of people entertained.

By this standard, Moffat is still a successful storyteller.

Mr Awe

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Mechanics of a story is the grammar; while, for tv shows, the elements are called tv tropes.

As I read the list of tv tropes for "Dead in Heaven", I felt my stomach drop. I was born with high level autism, and, as I read the tv tropes, I realized that my condition was getting in the way of me enjoying the show in the same way as normals. For me, this was and is an important revelation.

I am only able to comprehend the show partially, which means that I am losing much in translation. The language of normals will never be a language that I can understand fully, and I feel more isolated. I am not in a position to answer the question, which means I never should have entered into this discussion.

 

[Professor Zoom]

IMoffat admitted in an interview that he created a character before the story - this is something that writers are taught not to do in Storytelling 101.

Sorry, I have to jump in here. This isn't true. As a writer and a teacher of writing, this just isn't true. There is no "right" way to begin writing a story. Some writers might start from a character, some might start from the story and "fill in" the characters later.

But to suggest there is only one way that writers are taught in this mythical Storytelling 101 class, it just isn't true.

 

[Ithekro]

And in Doctor Who, the writers don't have a choice in the matter. The Doctor, the main character, existed, in some cases, before the writers were born. They have to write to the character and made a new story around him. They have to come up with a new companion ever few years and them make stories around that companion to fit in with the existing Doctor. And sometimes you come up with an idea for a character, an then try to make a story up for that character to fit into Doctor Who.

Other times you might have a plot or general sense of a story. And then craft character to move that plot along or to fill in places to interact with the Doctor or his companion during that plot. Or to bring in a new or old villain to fit the plot.

There are many ways to go about it. Many depend on the style of writing used, and with Doctor Who, a writer can literally go anywhere in time and space. They are constrained by so little really. Just that it can be told using a man in a box.

As for Danny and the boy and the accuracy of his rank and duties....

One: Combat doesn't always follow procedures.

Two: Wartime makes promotions happen outside the general rules the British Army website gives.

Three: Mistakes happen in combat.

Four: We didn't see all that much in the flashback to begin with. Danny seems to be giving orders, but was the only one that looked like he was in a position to act, so he acted. We did not see the inside of the house, so it is possible that Danny got the one that was shooting at his men, but also the kid. It happens in urban warfare. Especially if insurgents use their own homes, or other peoples homes as their places to fight.

Five: Even with all we got, we never got the full story on Danny Pink. Just pieces. We get to fill in the blanks with Clara.

(Six: The style of the warfare used looked more like an American operation than a British one, but that might a fault in my observation, since I don't see a lot of modern British military in action on film. Just a lot of Americans in action on film)

 

[Starkers]

IMoffat admitted in an interview that he created a character before the story - this is something that writers are taught not to do in Storytelling 101.

Sorry, I have to jump in here. This isn't true. As a writer and a teacher of writing, this just isn't true. There is no "right" way to begin writing a story. Some writers might start from a character, some might start from the story and "fill in" the characters later.

But to suggest there is only one way that writers are taught in this mythical Storytelling 101 class, it just isn't true.

Yeah it there was just one way of writing we’d all be reading books written by robots. Plenty of writers plan their stories to the nth degree, know exactly where they’re going and every single plot point along the way, whilst others make it up as they go. Some writers care more about character than story and some care more about plot that their characters, who see them as just chess pieces to carry the story along. Writers of all types win awards and writers of all types end up with a hundred rejection slips because our enjoyment of any story comes more down to just pure mechanics, and sometimes those stories that are meticulously planned can be the ones that are the most boring, because the plot can seem very obvious.

Moffat is much like RTD in that neither man lets the mechanics of plot get in the way of telling the story they want to tell, that annoys me sometimes and not others, it depends on the rest of the story. I don’t think Doctor Who circa 2014 makes any less sense than Doctor Who circa 2005 or Doctor Who circa 1987 or earlier. Plenty of classic era stories have gaping holes in the logic of the plot. (Why are you hanging off that cliff Doctor? Do you really think materialising the Tardis under the Thames and opening the door is a good idea? Why is the Master in disguise when no one there should have a clue who he is anyway?)

I liked series 8, but have to admit feeling a smidgen more ambivalent towards the show than I did. That’s really down to a matter of casting though more than anything. I like Capaldi, and he is a good fit for the Doctor, the series has been slickly made and as a rule of thumb has about the same number of decent episodes vs rubbish ones as any other series of Who. Clara is a good companion, and if anything Jenna has been much better this year. Yet I miss the bonkers exuberance than Matt Smith bought to the show. Series 6 might not be perceived as a high watermark in terms of plot consistency, yet I love it because it reaches out and grabs you by the throat.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And in Doctor Who, the writers don't have a choice in the matter. The Doctor, the main character, existed, in some cases, before the writers were born.

I like this observation. It puts the check and mate to Lakenheath 72's "Storytelling 101" notion straight away.

Moffat admitted in an interview that he created a character before the story - this is something that writers are taught not to do in Storytelling 101.

 

[DimesDan]

And in Doctor Who, the writers don't have a choice in the matter. The Doctor, the main character, existed, in some cases, before the writers were born.

I like this observation. It puts the check and mate to Lakenheath 72's "Storytelling 101" notion straight away.

Moffat admitted in an interview that he created a character before the story - this is something that writers are taught not to do in Storytelling 101.

Precisely.

There is a little known book, released in two editions that chronologies some writer by the name of Russell T. Davis that follows the creative process of Doctor Who's series Four and the Specials and to be utterly frank, it pisses all over the notion that there is just one way of writing a story.

 

[Mr Light]

I read that book and it was utterly fascinating to read! I just wish he covered the writing of the earlier years that way as S4/4B were not my favorite part of the RTD Era.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

After thinking over the matter, and acknowledging that I am incapable of conversing with normals in any meaningful way, I can no longer stand by my comments. Please disregard any and all things I said earlier. Thanks.

Paraphrasing Monty Python, "I wil now return you to your regularly scheduled posting."

 

[DimesDan]

After thinking over the matter, and acknowledging that I am incapable of conversing with normals in any meaningful way........

Sorry, but what?

 

[Lakenheath 72]

I am an autistic individual. In my tribe, there used to be a time when people like me referred to members of other tribes who weren't like us as "normals". Our tribe is now referring to these people as "neurotypical". Eventually, this word became adopted by other tribes whose members have atypical neurology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical

http://www.autism.org.uk/news-and-events/media-centre/how-to-talk-about-autism.aspx

As I wrote to my psychiatrist this morning,

Yesterday, after reading a post by another poster in the thread "The reason why critics like Doctor Who more than fans do" (www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=258808) , I did a search with the question, "What are the mechanics of a story?" I learned that I was wrong, that what I was referring to as mechanics was named elements, and, in TV scripts, these elements were named TV tropes. (Tropes weren't and aren't isolated to tv scrips alone; there are tropes for every form of media, written and visual/auditory.) As I read the TV tropes for the episode "Death in Heaven" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/DoctorWhoS34E12DeathInHeaven), I felt my "stomach drop". In terms that I can understand, in today's video games, the multiplayer, which is the main component of many games today, is the "steak" and the single player campaign, which is the tutorial for the game mechanics, is the "potato". It was and is in multiplayer that the full experience of the game can be achieved. Applying this to tv episodes, the tv tropes are the "steak" and the mechanics and facts of the story are the "potato". I am capable of tasting and enjoying the potato; however, I can't say the same for the steak. Being unable to even taste the steak, because of my condition, I am deprived of the most important and sustaining portion of the episode, therefore I am incapable of feeling and understanding the complexities of an episode. Normals can do both, so for them, they can truly be said of having the capacity of experiencing and relaying that experience to others.

 

[DWF]

At times I do think that fans can more critical of the series than the critics are generally and that opinions can and do change over time. Here's some reveiws of The Deadly Assassin.

The Deadly Assassin is a landmark Doctor Who story. 'There are many parts of Doctor Who lore... now taken for granted that saw their introduction in [this story],' wrote David Saunders in Shada 18, dated July 1984. 'It had been hinted at in The Brain of Morbius that regeneration might have its limits, but it is The Deadly Assassin which establishes the figure at twelve. The ranks and chapters of the Time Lords are outlined here for the first time, as are their ceremonial costumes and those of the Chancellery guards.'
'The revered Rassilon... and his bequeathed symbols of presidential office... have their first mentions in this Gallifreyan tale, as does the location and function of the Panopticon... This is the first serial to give actual names to individual Time Lords and we must not overlook the establishment of the Doctor as a member of the Prydonian chapter [who] was expelled from the Academy [or the fact] that the TARDIS is listed for the first time as a Type 40 capsule.'
At the time of the story's original transmission, however, many fans took the view that it contradicted the minimal details that had previously been revealed about the Doctor's race, and were absolutely infuriated by this. 'What must have happened is that at the end of The Hand of Fear the Doctor was knocked out when the TARDIS took off and had a crazy mixed up nightmare about Gallifrey,' suggested Jan Vincent-Rudzki in TARDIS Volume 2 Number 1 in 1977.
'As a Doctor Who story, The Deadly Assassin is just not worth considering. I've spoken to many people... and they all said how this story shattered their illusions of the Time Lords and lowered them to ordinary people. Once, Time Lords were all-powerful, awe-inspiring beings, capable of imprisoning planets forever in force fields, defenders of truth and good (when called in). Now, they are petty, squabbling, feeble-minded, doddering old fools. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE MAGIC OF DOCTOR WHO?' These outspoken criticisms from someone who was, at the time, President of the Doctor Who Appreciation Society had a very influential effect and were echoed and expanded upon by numerous other reviewers, including David Fychan in Oracle Number 12, dated September 1978:
'Here was a whole four episodes about the Time Lords; a chance to gaze deep into a society of immeasurable age; a chance to see what the Doctor left behind; an insight into the Doctor's mentality (why does he prefer the human race?) - and as such, it was incredibly, unbelievably wasted. It failed badly as anything but a thriller-SF story about an Earthly society. Time Lords were really only humans - for every emotion they showed, for every motive they possessed, there are clear parallels simply on Earth...
'What we "learnt" in The Deadly Assassin was quite revealing: no Time Ladies; a stiff caste system; a fact-adjusting society; torture; a constitution; a police force; Shabogan hooligans - all these go to make up the Gallifrey that we found...
'So, the most important question about the adventure is not "How does it fit in?" but "Is it worth trying to fit in?". The Deadly Assassin is an incongruity in Doctor Who.'
With the passage of time, the story has been re-evaluated, as was recognised by John C Harding in Frontier Worlds 9, dated June 1981: 'All civilisations rise and fall, and the idea of showing the Time Lords at the nadir of their civilisation was, in theory, a good one. At the time... I - like most fans - was incensed at this treatment of these previously god-like beings. It [was], however, a logical progression.'
'The degeneration of the Time Lord race is portrayed reasonably and realistically,' agreed Saunders, 'if one assumes that those seen in The War Games with the almost omniscient powers in fact belonged to the Celestial Intervention Agency [as referred to in this story]... This would seem to have been the reason for casting Erik Chitty and the (ever fascinating) George Pravda - I just love his intonation - as well as the two Prydonians from whom the Doctor "borrowed" his ceremonial robes. That our mysterious, pacifistic observers have now, in the main, become a bunch of old dodderers... would seem to explain the necessity of the Chancellery Guard.'
Harding also liked the way in which the principal Time Lords in this story were portrayed: 'By far my favourite character was Spandrell. Although at times the dry accent of George Pravda brought [it] close to going over the top, for the most [part] he maintained a sardonic and superbly cynical character... Cardinal Borusa (Angus MacKay) was perhaps the strongest character - a Gallifreyan Disraeli. He had the rare ability to bridge the gap between appearances and reality, although he was too ready to tip the balance in favour of appearances. He was played with disdainfully reserved authority, which is the only way to treat such a character without demeaning him: it is impossible to work behind the scenes and be seen as powerful at the same time.'

Personally I'm not too fond of the Matt Smith era, but I do think that might change over time.

 

[DimesDan]

I am an autistic individual. In my tribe, there used to be a time when people like me referred to members of other tribes who weren't like us as "normals". Our tribe is now referring to these people as "neurotypical". Eventually, this word became adopted by other tribes whose members have atypical neurology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical

http://www.autism.org.uk/news-and-events/media-centre/how-to-talk-about-autism.aspx

As I wrote to my psychiatrist this morning,

Yesterday, after reading a post by another poster in the thread "The reason why critics like Doctor Who more than fans do" (www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=258808) , I did a search with the question, "What are the mechanics of a story?" I learned that I was wrong, that what I was referring to as mechanics was named elements, and, in TV scripts, these elements were named TV tropes. (Tropes weren't and aren't isolated to tv scrips alone; there are tropes for every form of media, written and visual/auditory.) As I read the TV tropes for the episode "Death in Heaven" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/DoctorWhoS34E12DeathInHeaven), I felt my "stomach drop". In terms that I can understand, in today's video games, the multiplayer, which is the main component of many games today, is the "steak" and the single player campaign, which is the tutorial for the game mechanics, is the "potato". It was and is in multiplayer that the full experience of the game can be achieved. Applying this to tv episodes, the tv tropes are the "steak" and the mechanics and facts of the story are the "potato". I am capable of tasting and enjoying the potato; however, I can't say the same for the steak. Being unable to even taste the steak, because of my condition, I am deprived of the most important and sustaining portion of the episode, therefore I am incapable of feeling and understanding the complexities of an episode. Normals can do both, so for them, they can truly be said of having the capacity of experiencing and relaying that experience to others.

Ah right, yes. I know what autism is thanks. Explains a lot really.