|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Sept 22, 2017 23:51:16 GMT
I'm going to use some statistics to answer part of this question, courtesy of this page: graphtv.kevinformatics.com/tt0436992which takes its information from IMDB. Each episode of modern Who has been rated by over 1,000 people (more precisely: 1,310 (Eaters of Light) to 14,110 (Day Of The Doctor)) which statistically gives these ratings a reasonable amount of credibility as to the reception of the series as a whole (by comparison, the Classic series - graphed here: graphtv.kevinformatics.com/tt0056751 - has between 65 and 976 reviews per episode) compared to what we might individually think. Online stats I always take with plenty of salt, given how easy it is to mess with the data and how little it really tells us about the given subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 1:33:39 GMT
I'm going to use some statistics to answer part of this question, courtesy of this page: graphtv.kevinformatics.com/tt0436992which takes its information from IMDB. Each episode of modern Who has been rated by over 1,000 people (more precisely: 1,310 (Eaters of Light) to 14,110 (Day Of The Doctor)) which statistically gives these ratings a reasonable amount of credibility as to the reception of the series as a whole (by comparison, the Classic series - graphed here: graphtv.kevinformatics.com/tt0056751 - has between 65 and 976 reviews per episode) compared to what we might individually think. Online stats I always take with plenty of salt, given how easy it is to mess with the data and how little it really tells us about the given subject. It's always a good idea to see what exactly the demographic chosen and the methods used for the stats are. It's that little bit from Yes, Prime Minister about leading questions:
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Sept 23, 2017 11:13:04 GMT
Online stats I always take with plenty of salt, given how easy it is to mess with the data and how little it really tells us about the given subject. It's always a good idea to see what exactly the demographic chosen and the methods used for the stats are. It's that little bit from Yes, Prime Minister about leading questions: Oh, I love Yes, Minister/Prime Minister. I must go back and watch it again some time
|
|
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 Sept 23, 2017 13:11:17 GMT
I'm going to use some statistics to answer part of this question, courtesy of this page: graphtv.kevinformatics.com/tt0436992which takes its information from IMDB. Each episode of modern Who has been rated by over 1,000 people (more precisely: 1,310 (Eaters of Light) to 14,110 (Day Of The Doctor)) which statistically gives these ratings a reasonable amount of credibility as to the reception of the series as a whole (by comparison, the Classic series - graphed here: graphtv.kevinformatics.com/tt0056751 - has between 65 and 976 reviews per episode) compared to what we might individually think. Online stats I always take with plenty of salt, given how easy it is to mess with the data and how little it really tells us about the given subject. I get that: it would be interesting to know what the opinions of people who've watched every episode would be in order to maintain some consistency and to draw some sort of baseline but I'll settle for a heap of opinions averaged out over time: I also think that IMDb run a fairly wide set of members who vote on a lot of things and have a wide range of opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 13:21:50 GMT
My favourite era of New Who.
|
|
|
Post by MayoTango131 on Oct 17, 2017 18:00:40 GMT
Moffat reminds me of Tim Burton, his early works (Series 5-6-7A) are insanity personified without limits and that anything could happen, the good old times, unfortunately came the remakes without passion or imagination (series 8-9) with one to another success (Heaven Sent) and later a brief but triumphant return to their creative weirds roots (Series 10)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 18:08:08 GMT
Moffat reminds me of Tim Burton, his early works (Series 5-6-7A) are insanity personified without limits and that anything could happen, the good old times, unfortunately came the remakes without passion or imagination (series 8-9) later with one to another success and a brief but triumphant return to their creative weirds roots (Series 10) While these things are entirely subjective, I really can't agree even slightly that Series 8 and 9 had no passion or imagination. You may not like them as stories,or not like the direction but the likes of Heaven Sent or The Magician's Apprentice and many others over that period have plenty of imagination and passion neither of which I've ever questioned that Moffat has in spades. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the stories and the series, I don't think Moffat's effort and love for the show can be doubted. Doesn't mean they're good stories (though I think they are) but he's given everything to them.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 25, 2017 22:20:55 GMT
Sherlock reminded me to bump.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Dec 25, 2017 22:25:38 GMT
Knew there was a thread somewhere! Thanks nucleus
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 26, 2017 16:24:20 GMT
Hands up I can't write a positive retrospective on the Era apart from
Thank you for the time and effort to
Peter Capladi
Paul McGann
John Hurt
and
Pearl Mackie
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by Tim Bradley on Dec 27, 2017 18:13:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Dec 27, 2017 18:29:41 GMT
Too much silliness, too much flippancy, too many convoluted plot arcs with great set-ups and terrible crash-landings, character development all over the place, utterly unnecessary arcs ('am I a good man?'), constant deaths-that-aren't-deaths, a palpable disdain for things actually making some kind of internal sense and being consistent. There needed to be someone who could tell him "no", and someone else to make sure each episode actually made sense on its own terms as well as in context of what has come before.
Still, there were plenty of episodes I like quite a bit, and I'd say S5 was easily my favorite though S10 was pretty good.
I suppose it averages out to better than "meh", but there you go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 9:57:43 GMT
Looking back over his credit list between Who and Sherlock, I think his main weakness might have been that he overextended himself. The variance in quality doesn't come from a lack of skill (far from it), but maybe too many episodes with too few meat on the bones. I have consistently adored his work on Sherlock (particularly The Lying Detective), so maybe there's weight to that theory... For me personally, what tripped me up during this era was its insistence on painfully repetitious jokes, unfunctional hyperbolic trickery and happy endings forced to the point where story logic was knocked out and thrown in boot. What got me more than anything though was its worrying habit of rather nasty revisionist history with both the RTD era as a whole and the First Doctor (which both still feel, despite all probable truth, like deliberate character assassinations)... It has a lot of problems for me that I just can't overlook. It's been a very good lesson in how not to treat your predecessors and Twice Upon a Time, for all its charm, still managed to drop a cinderblock straight through that warm feeling built up by Series 10. It's not an era that storywise I'll look back on particularly fondly, I'm sad to say. However... It would be churlish of me to simply leave it at that. It has its good points as all eras do. It gave us Heaven Sent, Vincent and the Doctor, A Christmas Carol, Time of the Angels and The Snowmen. They struck classic storytelling with the beautifully executed Twelve/Bill/Nardole team who I cherish in the same way as other classic friendships through the series' history. They have one of the best dynamics in NuWho and I'll dearly miss them. As an era, it was also daring, trying to reinvent not the wheel, but the whole car, time and time again. Despite its faults and its missteps, its Doctors can hold their heads among their peers without having to beat them down with falsehoods (shout out to Johnny Morris and Scott Gray who wrote the definitive Eleventh Doctor for me in the comics). That's the main thing, I think. Though they could be misused, they are still just as excellent Doctors as those who had come before, from Bill Hartnell to David Tennant. Final verdict? With all the gaps in their lives, I look forward to seeing what turns up. Hopefully, there'll be a great deal more depth than tarbooshes and electric guitars. It'll be very interesting to see how perspectives on this period change over the years as the show rolls on. Time will tell, I suppose. A great thing to take away from it all is that the Sixth Doctor is not defined by his coat, nor the Third his sonic screwdriver, nor the Second by his stovepipe hat or the Fourth by his scarf and jelly babies. It's not about their clothes or the hardware. It's about a scientist, gentleman explorer and champion of moral justice. It's about the Doctor's character, not his presentation. I think they both still have some growing to do, but, oh, it's definitely a journey worth keeping an eye out on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 10:38:39 GMT
Like any other era in Doctor Who, I liked some of it and didn't like other moments so much. Toby Hadoke's podcast interview with Steven Moffat is very interesting - 'on paper', every story was going to be the best thing ever, and then because of one or two elements that inevitably happen with a production, sometimes the results were disappointing.
I loved the removal of the 'Doctor as a God' character with the arrival of Matt Smith. The Doctor's idea of 'stepping back into the shadows' was a very welcome one. To me, the Doctor truly is just a madman in a box. Moffat gave us three terrific Doctors, my favourite being Capaldi, who actually (unlike his predecessors, in my view) got better and better the more stories he did. The companions not so much - Amy I found impossible to relate to; her 'shut ups' and her 'stupid face' and other assorted 'endearing put downs' irritated me. As for seducing The Doctor on the eve of her wedding - even now, I can't reconcile that. Clara was a little better, but in a bid to get away from the 'companion stereotype', she would often come across as rather smug. If only Bill had come along earlier - a normal person, witty, funny, silly and brave. But why the insistence on having companions being disrespectful to the Doctor? A 'bloody arse?' Really? Nardole was a gem.
There were some story arcs that didn't ring true - the Doctor dying in series 6, the foreseen destruction of the TARDIS in series 5. But having said all that, there were some incredibly good stories, some of the best ever in my view. I would say Moffat is the best ever writer for Cybermen - under him, they are unstoppable and truly scary. The Daleks too, but to a lesser extent. And the character of Missy is excellent. I loved the underrated The Beast Below and cannot see the appeal of the seemingly adored Listen and Heaven Sent.
That's my viewpoint. Some say Steven Moffat stayed too long. I don't agree, because I think Capaldi's last two series were the best. Possibly Moffat became too preoccupied with nods to the past, especially towards the end. As a long term fan, I loved much of that, but I think the general audience might well have become a little bewildered by it all.
|
|