aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849
|
Post by aztec on Feb 26, 2017 15:00:19 GMT
Several different but related topics I've been musing over recently, regarding the success and viewers of New Who...I'll start by saying I haven't watched any of the RTD episodes in years, so my thoughts could be driven by my own biases or the 'nostalgia goggles' I often think some viewers apply to the show today, but I thought I'd start a thread to see how other feel about these topics, and see if I can get my thoughts together more coherently...
A) Has New Who become in some ways a victim of its success creatively?
Classic Who though popular and great, isn't what I'd call a 'populist' show, despite the family orientated tone and formula and straight forward storylines it's often seemed to have something of a cult reputation, aimed more at sci fi fans than the average viewer. RTD made a very conscious effort to appeal to mass audiences with a more 'human' Doctor, love interests, modern day setting, lots of pop culture references and a focus on earth invasion storylines, and by and large it worked, pulling in good and solid viewing figures, critical acclaim and widespread appeal across demographics, to the point that even now nearly a decade later many viewers or critics refuse to move past the format and write off all the Moffat has done as a failed experiment.
B)Did the pattern of a more 'human' Doctor and romantic lead stray too far from the character as created in Classic Who?...Was it necessary character development or a rewrite?
C) Would it be fair to say the template RTD established too successful at rebooting the show for new audiences, limiting how far Moffat (or Chibnall) could stray from it to appeal to modern viewers?
As far as I can tell the RTD and Phillip Hincliffe eras of the show remain perhaps the most popular (and arguably populist) eras of the show so far, and I've seen more than a few people argue Chibnall should simply stick to something similar and just try and recapture the 'magic' as it was then, but for me personally the RTD era was a case of diminishing returns (I liked the actors and enjoyed many of the storylines but it always felt like I knew what to expect S1-4 felt very much like its own era of Who and never strode very far from the formula, it's an odd think to say a show was too accessible but the best Tennant episodes for me were Waters Of Mars, Silence In The Library/Forest of the Dead and Midnight which put the 10th Doctor in very different, awkward situations and moved away from the earth centric setting) and I'd be pretty dissapointed if the Chibnall era was simply a muted retread, the Moffat era was for better or worse drastically different and he took the show in very surprising directions it didn't always work and it alienated some viewers but it kept things fresh and moving in new directions. D) Should Who always push forward experimenting with new formats and tones, or do you prefer the comfort of knowing what kind of story to expect?
(My favourite periods of who-the 60's, the McGann BF's and EDA's and the Capaldi era tend to think outside the box and push the Doctor and companions in very different directions)
E) Is the RTD era put on a pedestal by some viewers? Would it be fair to say it had more populist appeal than the Moffat era?...which perhaps has influnced critical reception of the latter?
You only have to go on the official Doctor Who Facebook, twiter, reddit etc to see numerous examples on any given day of people moaning about how different the show is today ''cheesy plots, complicated arcs, don't like the Doctor, the companion is annoying, the sonic screwdriver in overused, too many daleks, Moffat has ruined the show'' etc but go back eight years and you'll see many (if not all) the complaints applied to RTD's episodes, I'm not saying one writer is better than the other and I'd agree with many of the criticisms of the Matt Smith years but I do think Moffat has caught rather more flack for some of his ideas than he deserved, it often seems like the more Who's audience grows the more split its fans opinions become...
F) In which ways does New Who differ from the Classic Series? And so you like or dislike the differences?
(I'm aware that will probably read as longwinded,confused and ranty which wasn't my intention, I was merely thinking about my own likes/dislikes R.E New Who (I made the mistake of checking out the Official Who page on Facebook...)and Moffat's era as showrunner and thought this might make an interesting discussion)
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Feb 26, 2017 15:20:27 GMT
B and C have lots in common.
RTDs more "human" and "sexy" Doctor was a complete turn off for me. Not only was he sexy, he fell in love with his companions (and vice versa) and with various individuals on his travels.
With the regeneration from Tennant to Smith coinciding with a new showrunner, Moffat could easily have made the Doctor asexual. He didn't. Chibnall has the ability to do this, and only time will tell.
Moffat could have toned down the innuendos and nudity (Time of the Doctor being some of the most cringe worthy in DW history), but again, didn't. Hopefully, Chibnall will.
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on Feb 26, 2017 16:55:07 GMT
The biggest problem for me with the RTD era is one that seeps far too much into modern storytelling as a whole: the need for romance where it doesn't belong. That led to a poorly written and frankly kind of disturbing romance that led to massive character derailment for both parties. Rose turned into a whiny, smug bitch and The Doctor turned into a whinging idiot who wouldn't shut up about his girlfriend. I'm not saying keep romance out of Who as a whole. Amy and Rory had a wonderful love story and I'd like to see another couple in the TARDIS at some point. But when the main point of conflict in the Tenth Doctor's era turned into 'zomg roes' it was actively painful and nearly unwatchable. Had we started with Martha and Nine, brought into two friends gallivanting about time and space with no whinging or whining about someone who really didn't deserve it, I'd probably absolutely love the RTD era.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 26, 2017 17:06:01 GMT
A. Probably. This goes for pretty much any show which has very good first seasons, anything it does later will inevitably be compared to it. I don't think there's anything wrong with a populist style personally.
B. Don't see the problem with this. The Doctor has never been overtly asexual, just seldom interested. In the very first season he gets engaged to Cameca for crying out loud! (And there is some feelings there, he just knows he really can't stay). Some incarnations are more interested than others, the ninth and twelfth Doctors haven't really been especially romantic. I don't see the appeal of the Doctor being entirely unromantic, he does have feelings. This doesn't mean he necessarily fully understands human feelings I should add. This was one of the populist changes and I think it's fine. That said the Doctor's pining for Rose in Series 3 really did go on too long and the Moffat innuendos were just cringe-worthy at times.
C. Perhaps, Series 5 was the closest series Moffat did to the RTD style and its generally regarded as his most successful, so maybe.
D. Of course it should experiment, but keep some of the familiar. The 2011 experiment of a heavy arc was ok, just feel apart when the arc wasn't paid off especially well (Wedding of River Song sorts out of the Doctor's death, but utterly neglects the Silence and then Time of the Doctor didn't pay them off especially well either). So a mixture of new and familiar
E. Yes absolutely it is. What's ironic is at the time online comments and forums etc were largely baying for RTD's blood most of the time (he gives some thoughts on that in The Writer's Tale). The RTD era was good, but it being good doesn't mean now is bad.
F. It is different, because this is a very different time to when the classic era was. TV styles have changed. Even within the classic era you can see this, the style of the 60s is very different to the 80s. I don't see this as a negative thing.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Feb 26, 2017 17:33:40 GMT
The biggest problem for me with the RTD era is one that seeps far too much into modern storytelling as a whole: the need for romance where it doesn't belong. That led to a poorly written and frankly kind of disturbing romance that led to massive character derailment for both parties. Rose turned into a whiny, smug bitch and The Doctor turned into a whinging idiot who wouldn't shut up about his girlfriend. I'm not saying keep romance out of Who as a whole. Amy and Rory had a wonderful love story and I'd like to see another couple in the TARDIS at some point. But when the main point of conflict in the Tenth Doctor's era turned into 'zomg roes' it was actively painful and nearly unwatchable. Had we started with Martha and Nine, brought into two friends gallivanting about time and space with no whinging or whining about someone who really didn't deserve it, I'd probably absolutely love the RTD era. Except there were three in that relationship. Amy loved the Doctor, and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Feb 26, 2017 17:36:21 GMT
B. Don't see the problem with this. The Doctor has never been overtly asexual, just seldom interested. In the very first season he gets engaged to Cameca for crying out loud! (And there is some feelings there, he just knows he really can't stay). Some incarnations are more interested than others, the ninth and twelfth Doctors haven't really been especially romantic. I don't see the appeal of the Doctor being entirely unromantic, he does have feelings. This doesn't mean he necessarily fully understands human feelings I should add. This was one of the populist changes and I think it's fine. That said the Doctor's pining for Rose in Series 3 really did go on too long and the Moffat innuendos were just cringe-worthy at times. And in that episode, the Doctor doesn't realise he has proposed. When he finds out, he's completely shocked and embarrassed. There are feelings, but they are no stronger than Ian to Barbara, or Barbara to Doctor.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 26, 2017 17:52:46 GMT
B. Don't see the problem with this. The Doctor has never been overtly asexual, just seldom interested. In the very first season he gets engaged to Cameca for crying out loud! (And there is some feelings there, he just knows he really can't stay). Some incarnations are more interested than others, the ninth and twelfth Doctors haven't really been especially romantic. I don't see the appeal of the Doctor being entirely unromantic, he does have feelings. This doesn't mean he necessarily fully understands human feelings I should add. This was one of the populist changes and I think it's fine. That said the Doctor's pining for Rose in Series 3 really did go on too long and the Moffat innuendos were just cringe-worthy at times. And in that episode, the Doctor doesn't realise he has proposed. When he finds out, he's completely shocked and embarrassed. There are feelings, but they are no stronger than Ian to Barbara, or Barbara to Doctor. I'd argue he is far more affectionate to her than he is to any of his companions bar Susan at that point. He doesn't mean to propose, but he's not appalled by it, just embarrassed. So it is him being romantic, just in a more gentle way befitting Hartnell's incarnation.
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Feb 26, 2017 17:58:25 GMT
Moffatt has destroyed the integrity of the show for me at least, there is no coming back from that.
rtd found doctor who's barely beating heart, and gave him life.
Moffatt has tried surcharge it and change everything, giving answers to the questions we don't really want answering, changed the doctors nature, explored the Tardis, brought the dead back to life and for me messed up everything in the name of change.
sure I can love it again, but it wont ever be the same.
Moffatt ushered in "new new who" I hope chibnall resist the temptation to reveal more secrets and tell us stories once again and leaves the relationships, soul searching & clever gimmicks alone
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on Feb 26, 2017 18:07:50 GMT
The biggest problem for me with the RTD era is one that seeps far too much into modern storytelling as a whole: the need for romance where it doesn't belong. That led to a poorly written and frankly kind of disturbing romance that led to massive character derailment for both parties. Rose turned into a whiny, smug bitch and The Doctor turned into a whinging idiot who wouldn't shut up about his girlfriend. I'm not saying keep romance out of Who as a whole. Amy and Rory had a wonderful love story and I'd like to see another couple in the TARDIS at some point. But when the main point of conflict in the Tenth Doctor's era turned into 'zomg roes' it was actively painful and nearly unwatchable. Had we started with Martha and Nine, brought into two friends gallivanting about time and space with no whinging or whining about someone who really didn't deserve it, I'd probably absolutely love the RTD era. Except there were three in that relationship. Amy loved the Doctor, and vice versa. Lust does not equal love.
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Feb 26, 2017 18:41:57 GMT
A.) In some ways, yeah, I think so, but I think it comes down to a particular group of outspoken fans rather than the actual people behind the show. RTD did a lot of things to bring in a new audience and while Moffat did attempt to retain a great deal of it, I think a great many fans are resistant to any change the show attempts to make to that formula RTD used, whether it's outrage that not every finale involves the Daleks or that none of RTD's characters show up anymore. So, the writers are now placed in the position of attempting to please fans who are resistant to any shake-up in the formula, while also appealing to fans who DO want something completely different. Look at how Moffat attempts to address these problems in his later seasons by going toward a more RTD style in some cases - and look at how no one was happy anyways, even when they WERE getting what they asked for.
B.) Eh. I'm fine with romanticism in the Doctor's character, but it's not really something I think works with humans unless it's a "Human Nature" situation where the Doctor himself believes he's human. I'd like to think that romance from the Doctor's perspective should come from an intellectual aspect rather than a physical aspect. The relationship between the Doctor and Rose bothers me, not just because I really don't like Rose's character nor the way that she just took over the show, but I didn't feel like it was the type of relationship the Doctor would be in. It probably would have been best if RTD left this mostly up to interpretation, much as I feel Moffat did with Clara.
C.) I think I said quite a bit of this above. Yeah, definitely. And I don't like it.
D.) Doctor Who has always been at its best when it experiments with new ideas and different ways to tell stories. Look at how popular stories like Live 34 or The Natural History of Fear are amongst us Big Finish fans, for instance.
E.) Yes, yes and yes. I greatly favor Moffat's time as showrunner, but I'm aware that the decisions he made as showrunner were often aimed more at fans of the show than a wider audience. I do think fans are quicker to outright condemn Moffat's mistakes because of his differences in show running, even if, when you think about it, his shortcomings have rarely been any worse than RTD's.
F.) New Who's shorter episodes move a lot faster and often we don't get to know as many side character as we might in Classic Who. Another difference I've noticed is that Classic Who stories often take place over a longer period of time than New Who stories. I generally prefer stories from Classic Who because that longer run time allows for more world building and more complex stories. New Who is often more prepared to explore the companions' home lives, which I don't think is necessarily a bad idea. It's kind of telling that Big Finish is praised for developing past companions as well as they do - Classic Who on television, especially in the 80s, didn't really spend a lot of time on what the companions' lives outside of the Doctor were like. And the energy and length of a New Who episode often makes it a lot easier to watch than, say, Genesis of the Daleks - it's probably easier for most of us to sit down and watch a 45 minute episode rather than 4 or 6 twenty-five minute episodes.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Feb 26, 2017 18:42:12 GMT
Except there were three in that relationship. Amy loved the Doctor, and vice versa. Lust does not equal love. At least you admit there was lust in the TARDIS, probably worse than love.
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on Feb 26, 2017 20:46:37 GMT
Lust does not equal love. At least you admit there was lust in the TARDIS, probably worse than love. And it got dropped after The Big Bang.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Feb 26, 2017 21:03:17 GMT
At least you admit there was lust in the TARDIS, probably worse than love. And it got dropped after The Big Bang. That's debatable, cause the Doctor still loves Amy in The Angels Take Manhattan. He doesn't care about Rory! And, the love cycle continues when Clara joins the TARDIS.
|
|
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 Feb 26, 2017 22:29:01 GMT
A) Has New Who become in some ways a victim of its success creatively? In some ways: courtesy of "Blink" we now have a heightened sense of what a time-travel story looks like, when what it was was an experimental story that was great because it was so unusual. Thanks to "Bad Wolf" the default companion story is now "the most important person in the universe." There's new ground being trod but then it becomes a beaten path. B)Did the pattern of a more 'human' Doctor and romantic lead stray too far from the character as created in Classic Who?...Was it necessary character development or a rewrite? It's probably the most contentious issue for Classic fans: it felt weird for me seeing it happen more than once in the new series when it was never a problem in the Classic series beyond the subtext (eg 4/ Romana 2). I internalise it as part of the stress the Doctor is undergoing at the loss of Gallifrey at the time, when I really know that it's how drama "works" these days. C) Would it be fair to say the template RTD established too successful at rebooting the show for new audiences, limiting how far Moffat (or Chibnall) could stray from it to appeal to modern viewers? I think that's a reasonable assertion: the original show rarely strayed too far from its original format (except for things like 3s exile, Key To Time, Trial) and they were all controversial in their days. D) Should Who always push forward experimenting with new formats and tones, or do you prefer the comfort of knowing what kind of story to expect? YES! Experimental stories are often popular and show a willingness to grow. My problem is, as stated above, that the experimental sometimes becomes the norm and wears out its welcome. E) Is the RTD era put on a pedestal by some viewers? Would it be fair to say it had more populist appeal than the Moffat era?...which perhaps has influnced critical reception of the latter? The previous producer's tenure is always put on a pedestal by some viewers. RTD was criticised because the show was "too gay," "too soapy," "too racist (apparently putting Martha's mum in a maids outfit harked back to uncomfortable imagery for one blogger I used to read - even when it was pointed out that the Master is Evil with a capital Bwahaha)," and many were looking forward for a saviour like Moffat to rescue them. I remember reading DWM in the 80s (I've said this before) and reading letters from people who felt that JNT should be replaced by (insert choice here) and hearing calls for the return of Hinchcliffe and Letts (Likewise Hinchcliffe was savaged by some fans for allowing The Deadly Assassin to occur and Letts for exiling the Doctor to Earth). F) In which ways does New Who differ from the Classic Series? And so you like or dislike the differences? Classic Who was about an alien travelling all time and space with some mates and having adventures. New Who is about an alien travelling all of time and space with some mates and having adventures. There are variations according to producer, script editor, time it was made, etc. I like some eras more than others, some doctors more than others, some stories more than others. I think my problems with the show at any time are more to do with my problems with TV drama of the time than anything else: the reliance on the sonic is a problem with the single episode format; the romance angle is because we expect "complex" relationships in drama, and so on. When I'm not sure I will often close my eyes during an episode and imagine another Doctor saying the lines to the villain of the piece or doing the actions that save the day. It quite often works.
|
|
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 Feb 27, 2017 10:57:23 GMT
A) Has New Who become in some ways a victim of its success creatively? In some ways: courtesy of "Blink" we now have a heightened sense of what a time-travel story looks like, when what it was was an experimental story that was great because it was so unusual. Thanks to "Bad Wolf" the default companion story is now "the most important person in the universe." There's new ground being trod but then it becomes a beaten path. B)Did the pattern of a more 'human' Doctor and romantic lead stray too far from the character as created in Classic Who?...Was it necessary character development or a rewrite? It's probably the most contentious issue for Classic fans: it felt weird for me seeing it happen more than once in the new series when it was never a problem in the Classic series beyond the subtext (eg 4/ Romana 2). I internalise it as part of the stress the Doctor is undergoing at the loss of Gallifrey at the time, when I really know that it's how drama "works" these days. C) Would it be fair to say the template RTD established too successful at rebooting the show for new audiences, limiting how far Moffat (or Chibnall) could stray from it to appeal to modern viewers? I think that's a reasonable assertion: the original show rarely strayed too far from its original format (except for things like 3s exile, Key To Time, Trial) and they were all controversial in their days. D) Should Who always push forward experimenting with new formats and tones, or do you prefer the comfort of knowing what kind of story to expect? YES! Experimental stories are often popular and show a willingness to grow. My problem is, as stated above, that the experimental sometimes becomes the norm and wears out its welcome. E) Is the RTD era put on a pedestal by some viewers? Would it be fair to say it had more populist appeal than the Moffat era?...which perhaps has influnced critical reception of the latter? The previous producer's tenure is always put on a pedestal by some viewers. RTD was criticised because the show was "too gay," "too soapy," "too racist (apparently putting Martha's mum in a maids outfit harked back to uncomfortable imagery for one blogger I used to read - even when it was pointed out that the Master is Evil with a capital Bwahaha)," and many were looking forward for a saviour like Moffat to rescue them. I remember reading DWM in the 80s (I've said this before) and reading letters from people who felt that JNT should be replaced by (insert choice here) and hearing calls for the return of Hinchcliffe and Letts (Likewise Hinchcliffe was savaged by some fans for allowing The Deadly Assassin to occur and Letts for exiling the Doctor to Earth). F) In which ways does New Who differ from the Classic Series? And so you like or dislike the differences? Classic Who was about an alien travelling all time and space with some mates and having adventures. New Who is about an alien travelling all of time and space with some mates and having adventures. There are variations according to producer, script editor, time it was made, etc. I like some eras more than others, some doctors more than others, some stories more than others. I think my problems with the show at any time are more to do with my problems with TV drama of the time than anything else: the reliance on the sonic is a problem with the single episode format; the romance angle is because we expect "complex" relationships in drama, and so on. When I'm not sure I will often close my eyes during an episode and imagine another Doctor saying the lines to the villain of the piece or doing the actions that save the day. It quite often works. Sorry: I answered in the quote box and didn't realise that it looked like I was just putting the original post in a box. These are my own answers to the questions in there. I'll stop posting with one eye on the clock before I go to work in future.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Feb 27, 2017 11:25:51 GMT
The previous producer's tenure is always put on a pedestal by some viewers. RTD was criticised because the show was "too gay," "too soapy," "too racist (apparently putting Martha's mum in a maids outfit harked back to uncomfortable imagery for one blogger I used to read - even when it was pointed out that the Master is Evil with a capital Bwahaha)," and many were looking forward for a saviour like Moffat to rescue them. I remember reading DWM in the 80s (I've said this before) and reading letters from people who felt that JNT should be replaced by (insert choice here) and hearing calls for the return of Hinchcliffe and Letts (Likewise Hinchcliffe was savaged by some fans for allowing The Deadly Assassin to occur and Letts for exiling the Doctor to Earth). Has DWM printed letters in the past criticising Moffat, and saying he should be replaced?
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 27, 2017 11:31:48 GMT
Still not sure I shouldn't shy away from essay questions about Doctor Who... I think I tend to get worked up, and probably haven't anything new to say... A) Has New Who become in some ways a victim of its success creatively? Probably so, and I think a lot of it might center around this business of trying to be all things to everyone instead of trying to take a good look at why the OS worked or not at any particularly point. You try to make six kinds of shows at once, you get good ratings, what was it you did right that you should do more and how will you know? Can you ask viewers, if six of them will just give you six different answers? Then if people get accustomed to the whiz-bang of six kinds of show at once, maybe you can try to patch your worst mistake and on a bad day even critics may feel like something's missing, even when it's obviously the thing they were begging the loudest to be rid of. One thing that might put me off most from the NS is that in the course of trying to be a zany kid's show and a companion-centered show and a mooshy grown-up show all in one (I think to me that's kind of like "gif" - it's an image format, a bathroom cleaner, and peanut butter all in one, yay) it may be creating an artificial division in demographics. As far as I'm concerned, I should probably be counted as a 12-year old in a grown-up's body rather than a grown-up because I still approach the show like I did when I was 12. Watching and speaking as a mental 12-year old, the NS often manages to make me feel talked down to whereas the OS never did that, even with something as probably infantile as The Land of Fiction. If the NS would treat me like a 12-year old who should be treated like an adult, as the OS did, I likely wouldn't have most of those bursts of discomfort while watching. 12-year-olds of all ages deserve a certain level respect for being mature enough to be at home watching an eclectic sci-fi show instead of running around breaking out windows and so forth, not being talked down to. I should not be able to hear any showmaker thinking "Aw these kids, they don't really care about facts or continuity, they just want farting and slimy aliens". Arton energy, who can argue with that? Completely ignoring gravity because it happens to be convenient to do so, that I can argue with. All day, probably. (Wait, I take it back - I think I felt talked down to with the Zarbi. Grasshoppers with pants? What kind of fool do you take me for? Good thing I didn't see that when I actually was 12. I definitely felt talked down to with Kandyman and Helen A. - sheer clownery. If I wanted to see a circus I'd ask to go to one. I wish that story had treated its important subject with more of the serious tone it deserved. I sort of knew right then and there that I was most likely watching the last OS Doctor). Also the pop culture references I could mainly live without. Pop culture might be one of the reasons for me to want off this planet. You have a TARDIS. Please stop with the ELO songs and just get me outta here for a whole hour. B)Did the pattern of a more 'human' Doctor and romantic lead stray too far from the character as created in Classic Who?... Probably yes here too, especially when the focus is on the companion and they're a now nearly obligatory youth less than 1/50 of The Doctor's age. I'd prefer he stick to love interests closer to 1/20 his age, like the occasional passing reference to some wild fling Ol' Sixie had with some famous historical figure that would probably be an awful thing to try to make a whole episode out of. I think the world of Rory and Mickey first and foremost for being people for companions to snog who are not The Doctor. Thank you, Wilfred Mott, for not being a teenage girl. You have no idea how wonderful that is. I should say that I think DW belongs on a sci-fi channel, and if I want to see snogging I'll switch it to the snogging channel - but if Ian and Barbara had spent most of an episode snogging to violins I'd have probably cheered. The Doctor nearly getting hitched to an Aztec woman over hot chocolate? My God, that's adorable. The Doctor snogging Barbara? I'd have probably changed the channel. (Not counting the Jack snog since it didn't become a habit or a soap opera). I admit to rather liking the song that Twelve wrote for Clara, but even then I think there's a very thin line between him indulging his affection for music and acting rather inappropriately like her lovestruck teenage boyfriend (it almost made me forget when he emphatically and sincerely said he wasn't Clara's boyfriend). There's hopefully a big difference between being an emotionally vulnerable space orphan and being inappropriate. C) Would it be fair to say the template RTD established too successful at rebooting the show for new audiences, limiting how far Moffat (or Chibnall) could stray from it to appeal to modern viewers? I probably got this one mostly out of my system back at A). It may be that too much rebooting too often leads people to expect it, and again, perhaps even if they may not be fond of the results. I may yet get bored without the trainwreck that Clara became. D) Should Who always push forward experimenting with new formats and tones, or do you prefer the comfort of knowing what kind of story to expect? I think I like best when it's near to what it seems to state on the label, basically a sci-fi/adventure/history with a healthy dash of this or that (wit or humor most notably). I think the Tenth Doctor era probably felt most comfortable that way, sometimes the Twelfth Doctor era in places? I guess I like the show to think outside the box without ending up in the next box over, to be surprised without being disappointed about what I was surprised with. (That means you, Missy. A bit like one of those snake-in-a-jar gags or an exploding cigar - I certainly never saw it coming but was it really worth $49.95? You might also have surprised me by refraining) :-) The show doesn't need to go over the top because where do you go from there? E) Is the RTD era put on a pedestal by some viewers? Would it be fair to say it had more populist appeal than the Moffat era?...which perhaps has influnced critical reception of the latter? I am grateful to RTD for getting it going and making it work. Agreed with you they can all seem more wondrous simply looking at them in hindsight. The further back you look, though, the more impressive I do actually find some of the writers and showmakers considering when those stories originally aired. Same with the show itself that it can start looking better in hindsight than it actually should until you stop and mentally recast the episode that's just upset you with a classic Doctor and see if you're still as upset, or take an honest accounting of the OS. There have been a few times now I've gotten carried away with bagging on RTD or SM and then realized the OS also did the very thing I was taking exception to. Oops... F) In which ways does New Who differ from the Classic Series? And so you like or dislike the differences? Differs in lots of ways I think, but I'll try to spare everyone a particularly prodigious example of my listmaking - It's the similarities I like mainly. The TARDIS is still the TARDIS and it's still blue and bigger on the inside, it's still a witty, clever and creative show, aliens still need to be taught some manners on a roughly weekly basis, and the show still occasionally acknowledges its own past which is usually very rewarding be it The Five Doctors or a NS K-9 cameo (Cyber-Brig emphatically excepted). The Doctor is still eccentric in a very endearing way. The casting is still as outstanding as ever. Many versions later, the theme music is still essentially the same familiar theme music. Still a very good show, and still very much worth watching. One similarity I dislike is that between early Third Doctor and the NS, the "we have a spaceship and we're not going anywhere in it". Granted the show has always been great at making the most of something (starting with making a spaceship/time machine out of a police box) and I wouldn't trade away the Bessy and Brigadier days now, but technically you spatter some white paint at a black canvas to make some stars and ta-da, we're in space. As long as the Zarbi don't show up and stick a pantleg through the fourth wall, I'll gladly accept that as space like I always have - so why are we earthbound for want of so little? (Hooray for SM and Big Finish for salvaging the disaster of getting rid of Gallifrey apparently just so I'd stop asking to go there). I could have liked more of the differences but I think some were extreme - one minute you're wondering what Turlough's parents might have been like and the next thing you know you're in a laundromat with Rose's mum washing her knickers or having Christmas dinner with a companion's family right after The Nude Doctor finds some clothes. I probably often wished for more glimpses into the personal and family lives of companions, but not a pendulum swing from too little to too much. To fair I guess I can be thankful for the number of companions or their family members that the NS didn't do in just because they could, and even the protracted and sometimes torturous "what preposterous thing can we do to Clara now?" business is probably better than just up and doing a Katarina or an Adric. Even Big Finish seem to have had trouble resisting that kind of temptation sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 27, 2017 16:27:00 GMT
Has DWM printed letters in the past criticising Moffat, and saying he should be replaced? DWM does publish letters criticising episodes, and some of its reviews can be scathing (It's review of Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS didn't hold back for instance). It doesn't generally publish letters directly attacking Moffat, which is probably partly to avoid personal attacks and partly to keep Moffat onboard (as Moffat does write a section for them).
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Feb 27, 2017 18:36:35 GMT
Has DWM printed letters in the past criticising Moffat, and saying he should be replaced? DWM does publish letters criticising episodes, and some of its reviews can be scathing (It's review of Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS didn't hold back for instance). It doesn't generally publish letters directly attacking Moffat, which is probably partly to avoid personal attacks and partly to keep Moffat onboard (as Moffat does write a section for them). I can understand keeping in favour with Moffat, but perhaps with him leaving the criticism will increase. I've felt that his contribution to the magazine is rather pointless!
|
|
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 Feb 27, 2017 22:11:07 GMT
DWM does publish letters criticising episodes, and some of its reviews can be scathing (It's review of Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS didn't hold back for instance). It doesn't generally publish letters directly attacking Moffat, which is probably partly to avoid personal attacks and partly to keep Moffat onboard (as Moffat does write a section for them). I can understand keeping in favour with Moffat, but perhaps with him leaving the criticism will increase. I've felt that his contribution to the magazine is rather pointless! Really? My surprise is almost measurable, lol.
|
|