Kids make up a small % o the total audience, so they can all hate it far as I care. I want Who to be silly, fun and complex, dumbing down TV has already ruined it for so many lets not go any further.
Who Is Moffat Making The Series For?
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
- Status
Kids make up a small % o the total audience, so they can all hate it far as I care. I want Who to be silly, fun and complex, dumbing down TV has already ruined it for so many lets not go any further.
and that always ends well
not strictly true. several times the DS9 two-parters were aired as a feature-length episode (Improbable Cause/The Die is Cast for one), Heroes had double bills on at elast 2 or 3 occassions, the recent Robin Hood series had double-bills for the 2nd and 3rd season finales...
there's probably other examples...
No, sorry. I'm convinced he's making this show for ME!
Seriously, folks. I've been watching since '76 and I've never been more entertained by DW than I am right now. I'm not getting all the hate here. It's a dream come true that this show has gotten as popular as it is. And, as an American, I'm glad they FINALLY are doing a season catered to me. I realize the show could never afford overseas filming in the past, but, it's good it's finally arrived at last. DW really took off internationally when the #1 economy started embracing it in the early 80s. It was overdue an American storyline.
And to all the folks who disliked the Diner- let's face it, Denny's would have been more appropriate but lacks the charm.
When you say the 'old episodes' do you mean the 60s and 70s stuff?
Series 1-4, sorry I assumed everyone knew what Watch was (UK cable channel)
See, the show seems substantively about the same. The Star Whale episode, for example, could have been any season. Same with a few others. The other difference is the greater role of River Song.
Re: Complaining about "Americanization"
I've noticed what I consider to be a couple of "Americanisations" over the years (and I'm not referring to the show being set in the US). In last night's episode petrol was referred to as gasoline, and in a Tennant episode, possibly Human Nature, a date is given in the American format.
I've noticed what I consider to be a couple of "Americanisations" over the years (and I'm not referring to the show being set in the US). In last night's episode petrol was referred to as gasoline, and in a Tennant episode, possibly Human Nature, a date is given in the American format.
No, sorry. I'm convinced he's making this show for ME!
Seriously, folks. I've been watching since '76 and I've never been more entertained by DW than I am right now. I'm not getting all the hate here. It's a dream come true that this show has gotten as popular as it is. And, as an American, I'm glad they FINALLY are doing a season catered to me. I realize the show could never afford overseas filming in the past, but, it's good it's finally arrived at last. DW really took off internationally when the #1 economy started embracing it in the early 80s. It was overdue an American storyline.
And to all the folks who disliked the Diner- let's face it, Denny's would have been more appropriate but lacks the charm.
Amen, although I have it on good authority, that Moffat writes only for ME!
even if i've only been watching since '86. i agree: it is a dream come true - especially for us over on this side of the pond.See, the story opened in the most beautiful part of my country:
and then i saw Data's grandpa - a Soul Hunter - and i thought: things just can't get any better!
but it did get better, cause his younger self was played by grandpa's actual son - Badger (or Romo Lamkin)!!!!
Now, add in a little flirtatious banter with love-interest River Song, plus Richard M. Nixon, and frankly, everything is awesome!
Plus, and i can't stress this enough, Amy finally put on a little meat
Now I wouldn't say this episode is up there with Girl in the Fireplace (for romance) or Blink (for scary), or Pandorica for timey-wimey stuff, because, quite frankly
and
but i trust in the moffat. the moffat writes for us.
I have Watch, but I just wanted to confirm which 'old' episodes you were referring just so I could make the following point:
The show is made for kids. If today's kids are 'bored' by it then the fault is with them because relative to the 60s / 70s stuff (which kids digested with no problem) the modern series is positively ADD.
Re: Complaining about "Americanization"
true. although considering that this is the 50th anniversary of the first manned flight in space - and that was by the russians, i think a russia-based episode would have probably been (from a strictly historical perspective) a more honest idea.
that said, USA! USA! USA!
loved the episode
true. although considering that this is the 50th anniversary of the first manned flight in space - and that was by the russians, i think a russia-based episode would have probably been (from a strictly historical perspective) a more honest idea.
that said, USA! USA! USA!
loved the episode
I'm sorry, but since when do non-SF loving people watch Doctor Who?
Well, so were a lot of adults. It's only part 1 of a 2 part episode, and part 1 of a 13 episode arc. Be patient!
Yeah, us damn Americans and our demand for quality SciFi. So sorry.
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think it's far better than it was under RTD's reign. Series 2 almost made me quit watching it was so bad, and I've been watching since the '70's. It takes a lot to push me to that point.
I know, we're so dumb over here!
No, probably not, but it *will* happen unless they can prevent whatever it was that caused the Doctor to voluntarily walk up to his own executioner knowing full well what was going to happen. Without actually causing the event that brought this all about in the first place. I love time paradox stories like this!
This isn't the first time it was filmed outside of Britain - last season they filmed "Vampires in Venice" in Croatia, for example. Are they "Italianizing" the show because it was supposed to take place in old Venice? I really don't get this complaint. Doctor Who is supposed to take place over all of time and space. *One* two-parter set in America isn't going to kill it!!
Totally agree! Besides, give them a few years, they'll get it. There is so little quality TV out there these days, especially if you're a SciFi fan.
And me!
Same here! Season 5 (and from what I've seen of season 6) IMO are right up there with some of the best SciFi shows ever. It's come a long way from the campy cardboard sets of the '70's. I like shows that make me think and try to figure out what's going to happen next week. I can't think of a show since "Babylon 5" that's done that for me.
And that's my whole point. Doctor Who isn't supposed to be for "us". It's supposed to be for everybody. That's how it became a massive 21st century success. Not by overly complex SF storylines that require you to watch and remember every single episode to follow them. By appealing to people who'd never even dream of watching any other SF series and to children and adults equally.
Re: Complaining about "Americanization"
This!
Seriously, whatever happened to "All of time and space, anything that ever happened or ever will..." Surely all of it didn't happen in Britain?
This!
Seriously, whatever happened to "All of time and space, anything that ever happened or ever will..." Surely all of it didn't happen in Britain?
I was talking about Doctor Who.
What's wrong with making you think though? Moffat has talked about the children being part of the demographic before in previous interviews. We know he's used his own son as a gauge for various ideas and episodes. I personally (and maybe I'm being a little naive here) think Moffat is making the current incarnation of the series for everyone. There are things in the series for everyone. I dunno. It's an interesting question to ask.
And my very next paragraph in what I wrote earlier addressed that very question.
Not really. Braga was writing timey-wimey stories long before Moffat wrote "Continuity Errors," though Moffat is a vastly more talented writer than Braga. But timey-wimey-ness isn't why I compared Moffat and Braga in my blog post.
Rather, I felt that "The Impossible Astronaut" aped a narrative structure that Braga pioneered on Star Trek: Enterprise, where Braga eschewed the traditional five act structure common to television drama; rather than having rising tension and incident, ending each act (which coincides with the commerical break) on a dramatic note to hook the audience, Braga would structure his scripts so that there was no narrative momentum and no rising tension, and the story beats would be muted. And that's what bothered me about "The Impossible Astronaut"; there are events that happen, but they don't develop the narrative and push it forward, and the episode gives us no pay offs. When I describe "The Impossible Astronaut" as "incidentless," that's what I mean.
I disagree, because there are some things that the script could have and should have done that it didn't.
Over on Gallifrey Base, someone quotes Moffat as saying during Confidential that "What the Silents represent is a far, far bigger deal." Really? I wish Moffat had gone to some effort in this episode to make the Silents any sort of deal. As it is, other than vaporizing Joy, they're just creepy aliens with a cool power.
Yes, it is a clever narrative conceit to have a "big bad" that the audience knows about but the characters don't, which is why I'm coming around to the idea that Moffat really needed to end the episode with the characters unambiguously recognizing and remembering the Silents rather than Amy shooting at a space-suited girl. (Which, by the way, I'm not convinced is real -- a little girl wouldn't fit in that suit.)
As it is, the more I think about this episode, the more I feel like it was a wasted hour. I don't feel like the story has started yet. And that makes me think about the classic piece of editorial advice -- if your story starts on page ten, you throw out pages one through nine. They may be cool scenes, they may have fantastic character moments, you may have had a blast writing them, but if they're not in service to your plot, they're unwanted, unnecessary, and useless. And at the end of "The Impossible Astronaut," I'm not sure what the hell the plot is. Who are the antagonists? What do they want? What are our protagonists doing to thwart them? You can't answer any of those three questions at the end of "The Impossible Astronaut" based solely on what we see in the episode. You can't even prove that the Silents are the antagonists. Even Brannon Braga, at his absolute worst, didn't write a script as formless as this.
You don't think the scenes were important to the episode? They established the initial plot, the character's motivation, the bad guys and their powers. It's not possible to tell for certain if it's important to the plot, but it seems like it's setting things up to me that will be explained in the second half.
ETA: How can someone take a show that used to end serials with seemingly dramatic cliffhangers that were always explained within four seconds of the next episode and complain that they were setting up dramatic moments for commercial cliffhangers. That's just called television.
ETA: How can someone take a show that used to end serials with seemingly dramatic cliffhangers that were always explained within four seconds of the next episode and complain that they were setting up dramatic moments for commercial cliffhangers. That's just called television.
My favourite shows are Babylon 5/BSG etc and I really dug the direction RTD took DW, even if some of it went a bit too much like Buffy at times, the show really felt settled on what it was in Series 3/4. I'm just not feeling Moffat as a showrunner, I found most episodes boring and the reset button in Big Bang a bit confusing as well as cheap.
- Status
Similar threads
