|
Post by mrperson on Dec 21, 2016 16:04:00 GMT
thedoctorwhocompanion.com/2016/12/21/steven-mofffat-doctor-who-shouldnt-be-about-huge-story-arcs/Now, I know that lots of folk here love Moffat, and many more respect him-I myself am in the latter camp. But of all the show runners in Doctor Who (extended universe excerpted for now), surely he's the only one that can't say that Story Arcs don't matter? The article makes some good points, but it misses the fact that, well, he's being either a hypocrite or a bit of a blockhead really? And this illustrates one of my main beefs with the Moff-what he says offscreen and what it translates to in the show are often very, very different things. No doubt he's a smart man, but he says some odd things-and this takes the cake. Thoughts? He must have banged his head that morning... There never was much in the way of arcs in Who until he came along. Moffat was all about big arcs that start out interestingly and then splutter out in some form of nonsense. ("We'll fly the cube into the explosion, which will reset the universe, and then if you remember my name, I'll magically reappear." "The Silence are aliens. No, they're also a group of random people mad at the Doctor for using words instead of guns. No, they actually don't want him to say his name in the future because that means Gallifrey can return and the Time War restarts (I guess the Silence foresaw Day of the Doctor or something). Also, River broke time by somehow not-shooting him when she previously shot him, and then can fix time by kissing the Doctor, going back to the lake, and once more shooting him, now that she knows he's actually hiding in a machine. Or something." "Clara's the impossible girl? Isn't that interesting. Impossible girl. Impossible girl. Impossible girl. IMPOSSIBLE!" "Nevermind, she jumped into a rotting TARDIS console and stuff happened. Forget about that. This season will be about boyfriend trouble and whether our main character is good or bad." "Hybrid! He said hybrid again. Davros said hybrid! Hybrid hybrid hybrid. Actually, forget all that. Gallifrey is back. What's that? It cannot come back because the Time War will restart, hence the entire point of the "the Silence", smeared across multiple season? Eh, Forget it. It's back. Accept it. Focus on Clara again.") Yeah, ok Moffat, you don't think it's about arcs....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 18:21:03 GMT
Interestingly thats because he wanted to end the show with Season 5 (he had an ending planned) and was then going to continue it as a movie franchise, but the Studios wanted more, so he gave it them, meaning he had to make the Arc plot up as he went along To tie that back into Moffat, it's at the end of S6 that you start to see cracks showing. Something must've happened behind the scenes, and perhaps reactions to S6 caused something of a crises for Moffat: either the complexity that had served him so well for so long finally tripped up with 'Wedding', or he had told his one big story, so what to do? Simplify the arcs through 7-9, to where it's even more tame than under Russell, and crank up the fan service to win back older fans who hadn't liked the previous direction, or wanted it to be more like Classic Who (how many of us remember post after post of older fans celebrating Capaldi because 'out with fangirls'). He kinda did something that Nick has been criticized for before with stuff like Krelos/Telos or the lesser Dalek stories: when the ambition doesn't hit the mark, go into fanboy mode as a kind of smokescreen. I thought it was never the same after Piers Wenger left.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 21, 2016 19:02:43 GMT
To tie that back into Moffat, it's at the end of S6 that you start to see cracks showing. Something must've happened behind the scenes, and perhaps reactions to S6 caused something of a crises for Moffat: either the complexity that had served him so well for so long finally tripped up with 'Wedding', or he had told his one big story, so what to do? Simplify the arcs through 7-9, to where it's even more tame than under Russell, and crank up the fan service to win back older fans who hadn't liked the previous direction, or wanted it to be more like Classic Who (how many of us remember post after post of older fans celebrating Capaldi because 'out with fangirls'). He kinda did something that Nick has been criticized for before with stuff like Krelos/Telos or the lesser Dalek stories: when the ambition doesn't hit the mark, go into fanboy mode as a kind of smokescreen. I thought it was never the same after Piers Wenger left. I'd level it more around the time it really exploded in America.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Dec 21, 2016 19:12:25 GMT
Press Gang was a sitcom??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 3:52:43 GMT
Interestingly thats because he wanted to end the show with Season 5 (he had an ending planned) and was then going to continue it as a movie franchise, but the Studios wanted more, so he gave it them, meaning he had to make the Arc plot up as he went along As much as I like some of the lighter episodes that popped up in those later LA-based episodes, I can't help but feel that might've been a better direction for the show. The ending to Season 5 was pretty definitive and that (first planned) film did a really good job at making the transition across from television. When even having Douglas Adams as a script editor can't resolve that divide of 'Should Who be funny', that really tells you something about the wild variety of interpretations of the show and what it should be. Some want the big arcs and mystery, others the exploration and adventure, and some big abstract wackiness. Mmm, sometimes the show can provide for all, sometimes it can provide for none and sometimes it tries for something completely unforeseen (e.g. The Pirates which is a hilarious musical framed by a touching and deeply personal moment of humanity from the Doctor and Evelyn). It's probably why Doctor Who has lasted for so long, there's no real right or wrong answer. Season 22 is just as valid to like as Series 2. Lovers of Shada can also adore Original Sin. The show doesn't cater to me at the moment (and that's fine, it doesn't always have to), but I will definitely say credit to the production office for trying to experiment with the formula during Capaldi's first season and for being brave enough to try and bring back classic Who in a pseudo- Battlestar Galactica style in his second. It didn't always work, but there was always something in those years which could pique your interest. Even if it was just one episode (*cough* Flatline). I think the one thing that we get on people's cases about -- irrespective of whether it's the marvellous Big Finish audios, controversial Virgin ranges or surprising DWM comics -- is when they don't try to be different. Humdrum monotony is the great killer. I thought it was never the same after Piers Wenger left. I'd level it more around the time it really exploded in America. That definitely rings true for me. There was a sudden shift in what people expected from the show. To use a really weird analogy, it's the difference between Diamonds are Forever (which was an attempt to "Americanise" Bond and make it appeal in the States) and On Her Majesty's Secret Service (which falls in line with a much more British style of storytelling, down to an ending worthy of The Third Man). The emphasis became a lot more about spectacle, you can see how the production suddenly becomes a bit more bombastic. Lots of sound and fury, the stories become a lot more proving something than just telling a good tale. Press Gang was a sitcom?? I know, I was surprised too. The comedy definitely veered over into the black sometimes.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Dec 22, 2016 5:06:01 GMT
thedoctorwhocompanion.com/2016/12/21/steven-mofffat-doctor-who-shouldnt-be-about-huge-story-arcs/Now, I know that lots of folk here love Moffat, and many more respect him-I myself am in the latter camp. But of all the show runners in Doctor Who (extended universe excerpted for now), surely he's the only one that can't say that Story Arcs don't matter? The article makes some good points, but it misses the fact that, well, he's being either a hypocrite or a bit of a blockhead really? And this illustrates one of my main beefs with the Moff-what he says offscreen and what it translates to in the show are often very, very different things. No doubt he's a smart man, but he says some odd things-and this takes the cake. Thoughts? When we finally saw the first revived series here in Australia, I had been following reviews of it on the net and was intrigued by the whole "Bad Wolf" arc that was said to be running through the entire season. What I saw when it was broadcast was a collection of references that could have been excised from the show and not made much difference. It connected some references and stories and that was about it. The same could be said for "Torchwood" in the second series. I think RTD had a better handle on it for the "Mr Saxon" storyline: it felt natural and unforced and didn't manifest itself where it wasn't wanted - the scene in "42" where Martha is on the phone to her mum with Saxon's minions in the background felt genuinely spooky, for instance. The following series storyline of "DoctorDonna" was a return to the laboured points that didn't really add to the collective season except to build some vague sense of menace. The problem, as I think I see it, is that between 1989 and 2005, television storytelling and viewing habits had changed to the point where people were expecting something less episodic and more ongoing. But the attraction of Doctor Who - apart from "it can tell every story there ever was every week (except the ones I HATE which should DIEDIEDIE!!!)" - is that it is about a guy in a box traveling across the entire history of the universe. The Moff has tried to strengthen the "arc factor" in his seasons but it's still possible to view them and ignore the overriding theme except in the opening and closing episodes of each series. I think 5 and 6 had the strongest, most effective arcs while the others were a throwback to the less-obtrusive RTD-style and were better for it, except when it came to the actual payoff - I don't believe we needed a "Missy" cameo in the stories that were set AFTER her plot had been foiled and the Hybrid storyline was a bit naff despite being attached to my favourite series of the revived show.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Dec 22, 2016 8:50:07 GMT
I meant I was surprised at you calling it a sitcom. I don't think you'll find many places listing it like that.
Kids' drama. Comedy-drama. But not 'sitcom'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 10:19:02 GMT
Interestingly thats because he wanted to end the show with Season 5 (he had an ending planned) and was then going to continue it as a movie franchise, but the Studios wanted more, so he gave it them, meaning he had to make the Arc plot up as he went along To tie that back into Moffat, it's at the end of S6 that you start to see cracks showing. Something must've happened behind the scenes, and perhaps reactions to S6 caused something of a crises for Moffat: either the complexity that had served him so well for so long finally tripped up with 'Wedding', or he had told his one big story, so what to do? Simplify the arcs through 7-9, to where it's even more tame than under Russell, and crank up the fan service to win back older fans who hadn't liked the previous direction, or wanted it to be more like Classic Who (how many of us remember post after post of older fans celebrating Capaldi because 'out with fangirls'). He kinda did something that Nick has been criticized for before with stuff like Krelos/Telos or the lesser Dalek stories: when the ambition doesn't hit the mark, go into fanboy mode as a kind of smokescreen. I think the problem, to a certain extent, is the fans. I think some fans over egg how much they rate Doctors because they're "hot". Others'll get angry because Docotr Who isn't like Classic Who. Some fans will accept anything as "great". Others'll be completely underwhelmed. I can't really say I've been a good fan, but the problem with Moffat is that he is trying to hard to pander to everyone, I'd say, so his era becomes kind of convoluted. And this started right from when he came on board. I'm really not a fan of the Eleventh Hour, to be honest. I don't hate it, just don't enjoy it. I find that it offers a Doctor which sort of panders to a child audience and a companion who panders to people who want the companion to be "sassy". I also think there's too much pressure put on Moffat and I don't think he made the show all throughout his tenure, which he wanted too. Perhaps due to Sherlock, perhaps the fans, perhaps the BBC. But whatever he's done... I don't think, by the year of 2016, that many people are happy with the show. And, if I'm honest, I think it's cos the fans don't give certain things a chance. That includes me. I mean, the return of Nardole is something we're all moaning about, but the more I think about the more I warm to it. I don't think it helps that the BBC don't know what the show should be. I don't think it helps that life-long fans winge that we don't get an older Doctor or a Doctor similar to previous incarnations. Capaldi has been and these fans love him, but I don't think he really appeals to general audiences. I personally feel that the show should just try its own thing and, if it does to anyone, pander to the public.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Dec 22, 2016 11:23:23 GMT
To tie that back into Moffat, it's at the end of S6 that you start to see cracks showing. Something must've happened behind the scenes, and perhaps reactions to S6 caused something of a crises for Moffat: either the complexity that had served him so well for so long finally tripped up with 'Wedding', or he had told his one big story, so what to do? Simplify the arcs through 7-9, to where it's even more tame than under Russell, and crank up the fan service to win back older fans who hadn't liked the previous direction, or wanted it to be more like Classic Who (how many of us remember post after post of older fans celebrating Capaldi because 'out with fangirls'). He kinda did something that Nick has been criticized for before with stuff like Krelos/Telos or the lesser Dalek stories: when the ambition doesn't hit the mark, go into fanboy mode as a kind of smokescreen. I think the problem, to a certain extent, is the fans. I think some fans over egg how much they rate Doctors because they're "hot". Others'll get angry because Docotr Who isn't like Classic Who. Some fans will accept anything as "great". Others'll be completely underwhelmed. I can't really say I've been a good fan, but the problem with Moffat is that he is trying to hard to pander to everyone, I'd say, so his era becomes kind of convoluted. And this started right from when he came on board. I'm really not a fan of the Eleventh Hour, to be honest. I don't hate it, just don't enjoy it. I find that it offers a Doctor which sort of panders to a child audience and a companion who panders to people who want the companion to be "sassy". I also think there's too much pressure put on Moffat and I don't think he made the show all throughout his tenure, which he wanted too. Perhaps due to Sherlock, perhaps the fans, perhaps the BBC. But whatever he's done... I don't think, by the year of 2016, that many people are happy with the show. And, if I'm honest, I think it's cos the fans don't give certain things a chance. That includes me. I mean, the return of Nardole is something we're all moaning about, but the more I think about the more I warm to it. I don't think it helps that the BBC don't know what the show should be. I don't think it helps that life-long fans winge that we don't get an older Doctor or a Doctor similar to previous incarnations. Capaldi has been and these fans love him, but I don't think he really appeals to general audiences. I personally feel that the show should just try its own thing and, if it does to anyone, pander to the public. Where's your evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Dec 22, 2016 12:02:57 GMT
I think the problem, to a certain extent, is the fans. I think some fans over egg how much they rate Doctors because they're "hot". Others'll get angry because Docotr Who isn't like Classic Who. Some fans will accept anything as "great". Others'll be completely underwhelmed. I can't really say I've been a good fan, but the problem with Moffat is that he is trying to hard to pander to everyone, I'd say, so his era becomes kind of convoluted. And this started right from when he came on board. I'm really not a fan of the Eleventh Hour, to be honest. I don't hate it, just don't enjoy it. I find that it offers a Doctor which sort of panders to a child audience and a companion who panders to people who want the companion to be "sassy". I also think there's too much pressure put on Moffat and I don't think he made the show all throughout his tenure, which he wanted too. Perhaps due to Sherlock, perhaps the fans, perhaps the BBC. But whatever he's done... I don't think, by the year of 2016, that many people are happy with the show. And, if I'm honest, I think it's cos the fans don't give certain things a chance. That includes me. I mean, the return of Nardole is something we're all moaning about, but the more I think about the more I warm to it. I don't think it helps that the BBC don't know what the show should be. I don't think it helps that life-long fans winge that we don't get an older Doctor or a Doctor similar to previous incarnations. Capaldi has been and these fans love him, but I don't think he really appeals to general audiences. I personally feel that the show should just try its own thing and, if it does to anyone, pander to the public. Where's your evidence? Unless you actually have something that categorically says they aren't involved, where's yours?
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Dec 22, 2016 12:45:06 GMT
Unless you actually have something that categorically says they aren't involved, where's yours? Hey, you made a statement, I assume, based on fact. All I want to know is where you got this fact from? Unless, its more fake news and blame spreading!
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Dec 22, 2016 12:51:01 GMT
Unless you actually have something that categorically says they aren't involved, where's yours? Hey, you made a statement, I assume, based on fact. All I want to know is where you got this fact from? Unless, its more fake news and blame spreading! I, myself, haven't said anything. Please look back at who posted what I'm just curious as to whether you had any evidence against what @budnp2013 was saying? If you don't, then his opinion/idea of what might/might not be going on behind the scenes is no more credible than yours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 13:50:19 GMT
I think the problem, to a certain extent, is the fans. I think some fans over egg how much they rate Doctors because they're "hot". Others'll get angry because Docotr Who isn't like Classic Who. Some fans will accept anything as "great". Others'll be completely underwhelmed. I can't really say I've been a good fan, but the problem with Moffat is that he is trying to hard to pander to everyone, I'd say, so his era becomes kind of convoluted. And this started right from when he came on board. I'm really not a fan of the Eleventh Hour, to be honest. I don't hate it, just don't enjoy it. I find that it offers a Doctor which sort of panders to a child audience and a companion who panders to people who want the companion to be "sassy". I also think there's too much pressure put on Moffat and I don't think he made the show all throughout his tenure, which he wanted too. Perhaps due to Sherlock, perhaps the fans, perhaps the BBC. But whatever he's done... I don't think, by the year of 2016, that many people are happy with the show. And, if I'm honest, I think it's cos the fans don't give certain things a chance. That includes me. I mean, the return of Nardole is something we're all moaning about, but the more I think about the more I warm to it. I don't think it helps that the BBC don't know what the show should be. I don't think it helps that life-long fans winge that we don't get an older Doctor or a Doctor similar to previous incarnations. Capaldi has been and these fans love him, but I don't think he really appeals to general audiences. I personally feel that the show should just try its own thing and, if it does to anyone, pander to the public. Where's your evidence? Well, they are Moffat's bosses, so it's fairly reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 22, 2016 17:20:29 GMT
Unless you actually have something that categorically says they aren't involved, where's yours? Hey, you made a statement, I assume, based on fact. All I want to know is where you got this fact from? Unless, its more fake news and blame spreading! I'm not going to say anything other than leave this here: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 17:56:57 GMT
I think the problem, to a certain extent, is the fans. I think some fans over egg how much they rate Doctors because they're "hot". Others'll get angry because Docotr Who isn't like Classic Who. Some fans will accept anything as "great". Others'll be completely underwhelmed. I can't really say I've been a good fan, but the problem with Moffat is that he is trying to hard to pander to everyone, I'd say, so his era becomes kind of convoluted. And this started right from when he came on board. I'm really not a fan of the Eleventh Hour, to be honest. I don't hate it, just don't enjoy it. I find that it offers a Doctor which sort of panders to a child audience and a companion who panders to people who want the companion to be "sassy". I also think there's too much pressure put on Moffat and I don't think he made the show all throughout his tenure, which he wanted too. Perhaps due to Sherlock, perhaps the fans, perhaps the BBC. But whatever he's done... I don't think, by the year of 2016, that many people are happy with the show. And, if I'm honest, I think it's cos the fans don't give certain things a chance. That includes me. I mean, the return of Nardole is something we're all moaning about, but the more I think about the more I warm to it. I don't think it helps that the BBC don't know what the show should be. I don't think it helps that life-long fans winge that we don't get an older Doctor or a Doctor similar to previous incarnations. Capaldi has been and these fans love him, but I don't think he really appeals to general audiences. I personally feel that the show should just try its own thing and, if it does to anyone, pander to the public. Where's your evidence? Surely the words "I think" at the beginning mean this is opinion and no evidence is required.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Dec 22, 2016 21:36:43 GMT
Surely the words "I think" at the beginning mean this is opinion and no evidence is required. And, yet thats not what was written! Or was highlighted!
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Dec 22, 2016 22:42:09 GMT
Surely the words "I think" at the beginning mean this is opinion and no evidence is required. And, yet thats not what was written! Or was highlighted! The first two words in the post are "I think", and it isn't highlighted because you didn't highlight it in your quoting of said post (most of us don't highlight in our posts as it is)... You can't just ignore something important in one persons' 'argument' (which this isn't - if it were even so much as a debate, there'd be a counter-argument...) if it doesn't support your own. Additionally, one of the lines you highlighted explicitly says: There's a distinct "think" in that sentence, which implies a personal point of view, or opinion.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Dec 22, 2016 23:02:45 GMT
I find that it offers a Doctor which sort of panders to a child audience and a companion who panders to people who want the companion to be "sassy". I also think there's too much pressure put on Moffat and I don't think he made the show all throughout his tenure, which he wanted too... I don't think it helps that the BBC don't know what the show should be. I haven't any evidence personally but it's extremely difficult for me to watch New Who without getting the distinction impression that the BBC wants the show to be All Things to Everyone, almost as if they're still not really sure what made the show successful in the first place, or why it was originally cancelled, so throw in the kitchen sink and a yearly Christmas special just to be safe. I also keep getting the distinction impression that when they're targeting children, they're not really sure how that should go either, as if they think kids require a bunch of silly/cutesy stuff to keep them from being scarred for life by the scary monsters, and the science stuff often is written as if the kids will be too ignorant in the ways of science to even notice. It may well be the sensibilities of my inner 12-year-old that's most often offended by the NS rather than my adult sensibilities. I could certainly see having to explain why the science is BS if I had a 12-year-old watching the show, except I expect they'd be the first to notice. This does make me want to be careful about picking on Moffat for any particular idea when I'm not all that sure whose idea it really was. (I'm also consistently getting the feeling that maybe Moffat might be one of those people who might not be that great at articulating himself when the spotlight is on him? I think I've still yet to take in an interview him where there isn't some eyebrow raiser that tries to make the situation sound far more catastrophic than it really is. I really do think he sincerely is a Doctor Who fan, he has done a great deal that I think merits respect, and in the end he's consistently made a show I can still watch and enjoy regardless of my discomfort level, which puts it head and shoulders above just about anything).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 23:38:10 GMT
I meant I was surprised at you calling it a sitcom. I don't think you'll find many places listing it like that. Kids' drama. Comedy-drama. But not 'sitcom'. That's how it was introduced to me. Not by a friend, but there was an endorsement on the shelf that read "Great sitcom!" When I asked about the show and no one corrected me on it, I just took it as writ. "Surprise" doesn't even cover it, but I've never been able to shake calling it a sitcom. It's a weird little habit. I think the problem, to a certain extent, is the fans. I think some fans over egg how much they rate Doctors because they're "hot". Others'll get angry because Docotr Who isn't like Classic Who. Some fans will accept anything as "great". Others'll be completely underwhelmed. I can't really say I've been a good fan, but the problem with Moffat is that he is trying to hard to pander to everyone, I'd say, so his era becomes kind of convoluted. And this started right from when he came on board. I'm really not a fan of the Eleventh Hour, to be honest. I don't hate it, just don't enjoy it. I find that it offers a Doctor which sort of panders to a child audience and a companion who panders to people who want the companion to be "sassy". I also think there's too much pressure put on Moffat and I don't think he made the show all throughout his tenure, which he wanted too. Perhaps due to Sherlock, perhaps the fans, perhaps the BBC. But whatever he's done... I don't think, by the year of 2016, that many people are happy with the show. And, if I'm honest, I think it's cos the fans don't give certain things a chance. That includes me. I mean, the return of Nardole is something we're all moaning about, but the more I think about the more I warm to it. I don't think it helps that the BBC don't know what the show should be. I don't think it helps that life-long fans winge that we don't get an older Doctor or a Doctor similar to previous incarnations. Capaldi has been and these fans love him, but I don't think he really appeals to general audiences. I personally feel that the show should just try its own thing and, if it does to anyone, pander to the public. That was the weirdest thing, I'd more or less accepted the Eleventh Doctor come Time of the Angels and I'm not even a fan of that particular adversary. Despite a bumpy road and some disappointing Silurians (who were more like Luxxons to me), I was really warming to the change by The Big Bang and well and truly in the bag by A Christmas Carol. Then something happened. Not sure what, but Let's Kill Hitler was the point where I just dropped off and started missing episodes. It might've been River Song, to be honest. Those of us watching at home had called the twist of A Good Man Goes to War long before it actually occurred, so we were already ahead of the curve there. Matt Smith lost his appeal, the Ponds overstayed their welcome and the arc restarted from the beginning with the new mysterious girl being Clara. For narrative purposes, she was Amy Version 2 basically. I personally treat the New Series as I do any revival or reboot. From Thunderbirds Are Go to The New Avengers. No, it's not the old show, but it doesn't have to be either. As long as the show manages to be inventive and clever, I don't really mind whatever shape it takes. Heaven Sent was a pleasant surprise and completely unexpected, Hell Bent was not and fell into all the familiar traps. It's weird that for a period that so prizes innovation there are still the underlying problems beneath, an ineffectual Doctor and an unlikable companion. When I was watching The Zygon Invasion/Inversion, my first thought wasn't how it should have been more daring like classic Who (that came later), but rather that it should've been like Peter Harness's other work on The New Captain Scarlet! How's that for an expectation? Talking of Luxxons, Time Heist fell through for me not just because it was the tacked-on ending to Hide again, but because it was an inferior remake of Liars, Guns and Money from Farscape. Oh. Maybe that's where the error is being made? We've fallen into the Star Trek trap of "Can Doctor Who best itself?" rather than "Can Doctor Who best contemporary science fiction?"
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Dec 23, 2016 9:21:36 GMT
I find that it offers a Doctor which sort of panders to a child audience and a companion who panders to people who want the companion to be "sassy". I also think there's too much pressure put on Moffat and I don't think he made the show all throughout his tenure, which he wanted too... I don't think it helps that the BBC don't know what the show should be. I haven't any evidence personally but it's extremely difficult for me to watch New Who without getting the distinction impression that the BBC wants the show to be All Things to Everyone, almost as if they're still not really sure what made the show successful in the first place, or why it was originally cancelled, so throw in the kitchen sink and a yearly Christmas special just to be safe. I also keep getting the distinction impression that when they're targeting children, they're not really sure how that should go either, as if they think kids require a bunch of silly/cutesy stuff to keep them from being scarred for life by the scary monsters, and the science stuff often is written as if the kids will be too ignorant in the ways of science to even notice. It may well be the sensibilities of my inner 12-year-old that's most often offended by the NS rather than my adult sensibilities. I could certainly see having to explain why the science is BS if I had a 12-year-old watching the show, except I expect they'd be the first to notice. This does make me want to be careful about picking on Moffat for any particular idea when I'm not all that sure whose idea it really was. (I'm also consistently getting the feeling that maybe Moffat might be one of those people who might not be that great at articulating himself when the spotlight is on him? I think I've still yet to take in an interview him where there isn't some eyebrow raiser that tries to make the situation sound far more catastrophic than it really is. I really do think he sincerely is a Doctor Who fan, he has done a great deal that I think merits respect, and in the end he's consistently made a show I can still watch and enjoy regardless of my discomfort level, which puts it head and shoulders above just about anything). Whats makes you thinks its the BBC rather than Moffat?
|
|