I've been thinking, maybe WHO needs a better producer/lead writer than Moffat. Moffat seems to want to turn the show into the X-files with plots upon plots and all that. Sure, RTD also had memes (Bad Wolf, Torchwood, Saxon, Rose etc.) but they were more subtle and didn't confuse newcomers. It's like Bidmead/JNT, the science fiction aspects of the program are starting to be overdone and there's less of the Doctor fighting monsters and generally saving the day like most of the classic series and RTD.
Who Is Moffat Making The Series For?
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
- Status
I cannot see how Moffat is less of a writer/producer/etc if there is a little less of that aspect. Doctor Who has a tremendous potential for stories that I think is served and served well by some differing emphasis. Granted I didn't become a fan until this "nu generation", but I don't see these slightly different directions being at all detrimental.
RTD more subtle than Moffat? 
In terms of arc plots, most certainly.
I am really enjoying this more arced nature that Moffat is doing more than the RTD serialized nature.
It feels less like The Twilight Zone and more like Stargate now. IE an overall arc with little hints of it in each episode, but still having the Planet of the Week sort of thing.
It feels less like The Twilight Zone and more like Stargate now. IE an overall arc with little hints of it in each episode, but still having the Planet of the Week sort of thing.
It's a family show, not a children's show. If it is a children's show, then why does it have episodes where the elderly consume children (Amy's Choice), where children are abducted off the streets (Fear Her) or where oral sex entendres are discussed betwixt man and pavement stone (Love & Monsters)?
This argument is so tired. It also sounds a lot like "Just following orders."
Moffat is not a good a Producer as RTD. The numbers show it as does the drop in quality and awards. You're not actually making a counter argument . . .
. . . you're saying argument isn't allowed. Well it is. Too bad for you.
Um, no, he's saying that your argument is silly and that the topic itself is not worth arguing over. He's expressing an opinion, too, not issuing an order.
Edited to add:
This, on the other hand, is issuing an order. Just FYI.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I did not call anyone arguing against Steven Moffat's decisions hysterical. I said "it" -- "it" referring to part in the prior sentence wherein I'd said that "*everything's* wrong with him now" -- was hysterical. In other words, I was characterizing the situation as being amusing. I was not accusing any person of being hysterical or irrational.
Again with the issuing of orders. Weird from someone who just accused someone else of stifling his speech. But whatever.
Listen, I don't agree with every decision Moffat has made. In fact, while I enjoyed "The Impossible Astronaut"/"Day of the Moon," frankly, I thought that both episodes were structured a bit too maturely, a bit too much like how a grown-up show is structured. Doctor Who, after all, in Moffat's own words, is and ought to be a children's show, and it felt a little too grown-up for my tastes.
By the same token, I'm also willing to wait and see how Moffat's creative experimentation works out. Doctor Who would get awfully stale if it followed the same RTD-designed formula for every season, after all.
Meanwhile, I also think that people are reacting disproportionately to the ratings drop. Sorry, but Doctor Who has been on the air for six years now and just lost a hugely popular lead actor -- you can't reasonably expect it to sustain the same ratings it had at the height of Tennant's tenure. The relevant issue is not, "Is it as popular as it was three years ago?" The relevant question is, "Does it still draw a very large portion of the viewing audience?" Which it does. And since the BBC isn't a for-profit network, it's not like they're just gonna ax any show that has a slight ratings drop. So I'm not too worried about the fact that the ratings aren't as high as they once were.
No one shut down any debate.
Stop. Then think for a second if the arguments being made are valid. Don't just shrug them off. Or make meaningless posts about how these people are "hysterical".
Either provide counterarguments as to why you disagree or don't comment. It's disrespectful to the views of others to just shut down the debate.
It's pretty much an order since he's attacking the rationale of people holding opinions.
The expression of his opinion is that our opinion is invalid.
This is an attempt to shutdown the debate instead of provide a counterargument on merits.
And you're serving as his enabler. Why not just provide a counterargument? You can do that you know.
I've said it once before in this thread and I'll say it again, there is a little bit of everything for everyone. Meaning you can sit with your family and watch it. Young kids watch it as well and if they want to ask their parents about the sex jokes and the parents feel comfortable explaining them then that's what happens. It's not a big deal.
It does feel an awful lot like that when you undermine people saying they're not happy with the new season with stuff like "Go watch something else."
How does that address the flaws in the narrative?
I personally think Moffat's been writing the show wrong since The Beast Below.
He's been more concerned with plot twists and temporal mechanics than characters.
And the way RTD wrote it was to emphasize the characters. I don't consider sucking the ability to empathize with the characters as "refreshing".
Those plot twists though are part of the story he wants to tell. I see no problem with that. I understand fans not liking it...but how is it wrong?
Too bad if it feels like it, 'cos it's not. It's expressing an opinion, too -- the opinion that there is a such thing as taking something a bit too earnestly and letting that get in the way of the fun of the story.
Now, I actually don't agree with the idea that addressing the narrative's structure earnestly is inherently treating it too earnestly. I think, for instance, that Steve Mollman's critique of "The Impossible Astronaut" that it didn't have a good sense of rising action and therefore felt like an eventless episode is quite valid. But I also think that someone else can derive enjoyment from something I think is flawed.
It doesn't. It does, however, undermine your premise that the narrative has flaws. And that's a perfectly valid critique of one's sequence of logic.
Amusingly enough, I've felt that Moffat's stronger focus on plot than characterization and theme has kept his episodes from being as good as they could possibly be ever since I saw "Blink" in 2007.
But I also think that his characterization is stronger than what you're giving him credit for. I just can't bring myself to claim that the man who managed to make such a moving episode about losing a loved one in "Forest of the Dead" is bad at characterization.
ETA:
Isn't that the definition of fandom -- they want it to be new and exciting and refreshing and exactly like what they remember?
You guys sound a bit Thought Police with your mocking people who don't like what you like.
As Ian Chesterton said: "A dislike for the unlike."
^ Hey I'm trying to address your problem but you've ignored me. I'm asking you how is Moffat's intended story wrong? As you say. It might be that you don't like it, but how it is wrong?
I think the OT poster, as I, feel that there is NO fun in these stories. I see potential and I see any tension or drama just dissipate as a series of incoherent logical flaws take me out of the story and thwart any emotional connection I might have to the scene or the characters.
And what you and others like you are actually engaging in is, in my belief, something sinister. It is coercive groupthink. The marginalizing of people with criticism by saying that they are either wont to criticize, emotionally unbalanced or otherwise taking things too seriously. That is a subversive line of thinking that permeates this thread, this board and all critical conversations on fandom itself. While I agree that there can be criticisms that are irrational -- such as criticism of Matt Smith before he debuted -- the show has been under Moffat's management for 18 months now, ratings have dropped by a third and some of us are trying to find consensus as to why this is so. Why is our favorite show so disappointing now?
Your answer is that it isn't the show. I'm taking your answer to say that it's us.
^ Wow you're just attacking...okay never mind.
I'm not attacking. But now you're SAYING I'm attacking so no one will listen to the point I'm trying to make. That you guys just slander anyone who disagrees or tries to criticize as a fanboy.
Seriously -- how dare you?
- Status
Similar threads
