|
Post by relativetime on Jan 22, 2021 15:10:56 GMT
Another one which goes a bit outside of, but started within, Who is 'Moffat was never a good writer', due to his mistakes as showrunner, and that everything was just hype. Throw in the 'Sherlock was always rubbish' under this too. While I certainly have voiced my annoyances with some of Moffat's choices during his time (Clara, Asylum, Hell Bent, two out of three of Capaldi's arcs), they don't cancel out or erase his good work. There was a reason why Moffat drew immediate support when he was announced to take over from RTD: because his episodes were the highlights of their respective seasons. In some ways, Moffat was not merely a successor, but an evolution of Robert Holmes: same love of pastiche and gothic, but rooted in fears that anybody watching could relate to, and with a quality of character that, at times, could surpass almighty Bob because he wasn't straitjacketed by the serial formula. Blink was probably the perfect distillation of all this: new and familiar, inventive yet everything you could want in a Who story. Even when he became showrunner, there was still a lot to like from a writing standpoint. Same with Sherlock: even with the annoying fanbase and S3 and 4 vanishing up its own jaxie, those first two series become iconic for a reason. Agreed! People who wax on about how much better he was writing for RTD often conveniently forget episodes like The Eleventh Hour or Heaven Sent (ESPECIALLY Heaven Sent). There are absolutely problems with Moffat as a showrunner and a writer, but he still made great and positive contributions during his time working on the show and it’s insulting to chalk it all up to “well RTD had a firm hand on him, so all the stuff that’s actually good is because of him.”
|
|
|
Post by Superium on Jan 22, 2021 15:14:30 GMT
The Capaldi Era was when the writing started getting bad. Honestly, of the two Moffat doctors, Capaldi had the stronger writing. At the time, I called Series 8 the first good series since RTD left, and 3 years later, Series 10 came out, which I'd call Moffat's best season. On reflection, the Smith era just doesn't quite do it for me. Series 6 and 7 dropped the ball and Series 5 is average, but looks good in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Jan 22, 2021 15:30:15 GMT
I’d like to take my own stab at the ol’ “bad writing!” critique because it’s one that utterly frustrates me to no end. What even IS “bad writing” according to most of these people?! It’s become such a lazy critique for some fans to explain why they don’t like something without having to put the effort in to actually figuring out why they felt that way.
Not all “bad writing” critiques are like this, obviously. Sometimes there genuinely are some issues that are demonstratively poor writing decisions. But sometimes the issues are so much more complex than “bad writing” and it muddies the conversation when we start conflating every problem with the writing when just as often (if not more so) it’s a problem with direction or performance or all of the above.
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Jan 22, 2021 15:36:47 GMT
The Capaldi Era was when the writing started getting bad. Honestly, of the two Moffat doctors, Capaldi had the stronger writing. At the time, I called Series 8 the first good series since RTD left, and 3 years later, Series 10 came out, which I'd call Moffat's best season. On reflection, the Smith era just doesn't quite do it for me. Series 6 and 7 dropped the ball and Series 5 is average, but looks good in comparison. I agree so much with this! I think 12 has the best arch of any Doctor! I think people just didn’t know what to make of his era because the tone was so different compared to what came before it, both new who and classic. It really took its time with character development for 12 and at times had an almost cerebral tone. The Capaldi era is so multilayered with subtext as well! Every time I rewatch episodes from his era I pick up on something new from the writing! I also would like to add that I think the earlier half of his era, series 8 and 9, are extremely underrated and in need of a lot more love. I know Clara is a bit of a marmite companion for Whovians, but I honestly believe that 12 and Clara have the best and most unique arch of any Doctor/companion duos and the best and most compelling Doctor/Companion romance ( they definitely do NOT have a father daughter relationship, people just project that onto them because of the age difference, but that is a much lengthier topic for another time). Anyways the Capaldi era’s writing is god tier!😊
|
|
|
Post by constonks on Jan 24, 2021 21:26:21 GMT
(...) it’s insulting to chalk it all up to “well RTD had a firm hand on him, so all the stuff that’s actually good is because of him.” And rather misinformed - Russell has said before that Steven's scripts were the ones he edited the least, barely even touching them in some cases. Anyway, to me, both have their strengths and failings to the point where it's hard to choose between them - and both of them seem like genuinely good guys who love the series and all it is, was and can be. (I still miss Moffat's snarky DWM column - they should publish a book of those, perhaps with new commentary from the man himself in the margins...)
|
|
|
Post by escalus5 on Jan 26, 2021 18:39:14 GMT
I've noticed that whenever anyone suggests a guest appearance/team-up involving a former Doctor on the new series, someone inevitably jumps in with "No, that can't happen because Doctor Who is all about CHANGE and MOVING FORWARD."
It's a program about time travel, nitwit.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jan 28, 2021 15:01:50 GMT
Going for another broader one, but a complaint that I'm sure a number have seen: 'Why does diversity matter in the writers or actors on Who? Best person for the job/I want meritocracy!' I've gone over why this one falls down several times, but if you need something more official on the unfortunate realities for certain groups in the industry, here's findings by the Creative Diversity Network, which echoes what the Writers Guild of Great Britain found in the past: deadline.com/2021/01/cdn-bame-representation-backwards-tv-1234682277/amp/?__twitter_impression=trueAnd from one of the UK's most prominent female screenwriters:
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Mar 31, 2021 21:35:39 GMT
Criticism: Heaven Sent/Hell Bent is about toxic masculinity.
No, it not! It’s about 12 wanting to save his soul mate from premature death. Yes, he did some very questionable things to do it and yes Clara had some reservations about being brought back; but what he did was entirely out of love and devotion to Clara’s happiness.
|
|
|
Post by theillusiveman on Apr 1, 2021 0:25:04 GMT
Criticism: Heaven Sent/Hell Bent is about toxic masculinity. In what way is the two parter have anything to do about toxic masculinity I rank hell bent to be the now second worst new who finale but I’m baffled that people think the story is about toxic masculinity
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Apr 1, 2021 1:13:21 GMT
Criticism: Heaven Sent/Hell Bent is about toxic masculinity. In what way is the two parter have anything to do about toxic masculinity I rank hell bent to be the now second worst new who finale but I’m baffled that people think the story is about toxic masculinity While I disagree with you about Hell Bent being bad ( it’s not perfect but there is a lot of good things in it), I definitely agree with you about that it’s genuinely bizarre someone would think that both Heaven Sent/ Hell Bent is about toxic masculinity. I have seen at least two big reviews say it’s about toxic masculinity. Just because 12 is a man doesn’t mean that the story of his grief and rescue of Clara, his soulmate, is about toxic masculinity. I mean yes there is the element of 12 going against Clara’s wishes to bring her back but that had nothing to do with gender/male bravado and everything to do with love/devotion and wanting her to have happiness even if they were forced to part ways. Not everything has to be about gender, people are people. Sidenote: I am very tired in general of people calling 12 and Clara toxic, but that’s that’s a much longer discussion.
|
|
|
Post by eric009 on Apr 1, 2021 22:37:21 GMT
bad writing is one of those things folks make a fuss about (i never do because if i was writing for dr who it's would be very very bad writing indeed )
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,666
|
Post by shutupbanks on Apr 2, 2021 0:04:35 GMT
bad writing is one of those things folks make a fuss about (i never do because if i was writing for dr who it's would be very very bad writing indeed ) This one always gets me because the current purveyors of this trope act as though the current writing is consistently terrible and that’s the reason they don’t like it at the moment (hint: the real reason is pretty damn good in the title role but has girl germs). I’ll admit that Chibnall doesn’t always tick my boxes writing wise but I think he understands what Who is about and doesn’t annoy me the way that RTD and The Moff (who is probably my all-time favourite writer for television) sometimes did with their choices. And, as I keep saying, we STILL haven’t had a Caves/ Twin moment in either of Jodie’s seasons.
|
|
|
Post by theillusiveman on Apr 2, 2021 0:30:45 GMT
bad writing is one of those things folks make a fuss about (i never do because if i was writing for dr who it's would be very very bad writing indeed ) Unfortunately the current era is littered with inconsistent and bad writing So the criticism is valid
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 2, 2021 8:34:08 GMT
bad writing is one of those things folks make a fuss about (i never do because if i was writing for dr who it's would be very very bad writing indeed ) Unfortunately the current era is littered with inconsistent and bad writing So the criticism is valid Originally I was going to respond to daver's comment on the Revolution thread about a similar subject, but I think the response is as apt here: okay, but what about the people here who don't agree with that criticism? What about those who see the Chibnall era as having good writing? Are you saying that they're all wrong, including people on here?
Or if, to take this a little deeper, you're implying there's 'an objective measure' for discussing good and bad writing: that's a rabbit hole because who is the actual arbiter or factual/empirical objective truth we go by? Speaking as someone who does this professionally and hangs around a lot in these circles, writers can't agree if 3 act structure, which you'd think would be about as cut-and-dry as it cuts, is real or not. There's an entire cottage industry of alternate models (22 steps, 8 sequences, 4 acts, 5 acts, seven phases) - who has the right/objectively correct one? Sorkin's expansive and verbose dialogue is regularly praised, yet by 'the rules', it completely violates visual storytelling norms. So again, who is right here? Taste is highly subjective and informs our belief to what is good or bad a lot more than some would give credit for or concede.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2021 9:44:08 GMT
Unfortunately the current era is littered with inconsistent and bad writing So the criticism is valid Originally I was going to respond to daver's comment on the Revolution thread about a similar subject, but I think the response is as apt here: okay, but what about the people here who don't agree with that criticism? What about those who see the Chibnall era as having good writing? Are you saying that they're all wrong, including people on here?
Or if, to take this a little deeper, you're implying there's 'an objective measure' for discussing good and bad writing: that's a rabbit hole because who is the actual arbiter or factual/empirical objective truth we go by? Speaking as someone who does this professionally and hangs around a lot in these circles, writers can't agree if 3 act structure, which you'd think would be about as cut-and-dry as it cuts, is real or not. There's an entire cottage industry of alternate models (22 steps, 8 sequences, 4 acts, 5 acts, seven phases) - who has the right/objectively correct one? Sorkin's expansive and verbose dialogue is regularly praised, yet by 'the rules', it completely violates visual storytelling norms. So again, who is right here? Taste is highly subjective and informs our belief to what is good or bad a lot more than some would give credit for or concede.
Oh, god, focussing just on that: I teach structure and I can say that the three-act model works as a good starting point when teaching the basics. Most people tend to know, or at least feel, the expectations of a traditional Hollywood film (exposition, crisis, conclusion). Classic television tended to be split into four/five acts. Beyond that, it's pretty much anyone's game. I've my preferences (natch), but it takes my breath away sometimes just how elastic a formula can be under the right circumstances. Like, for instance, The Tale of Genji has a chapter called "Vanished into the Clouds", which is empty because the main lead has just died. The book doesn't end, it continues with other characters, but one of the prevailing theories is that the narrator was so moved by the character's death that no words could convey it. It's a neat narrative trick and makes me think how it might be done in a visual medium. A lone episode where everyone's expression is mute or deafened?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2021 10:02:47 GMT
but what about the people here who don't agree with that criticism? What about those who see the Chibnall era as having good writing? Are you saying that they're all wrong, including people on here? there’s nothing in theIllusiveman’s post that claims Chibnall’s couple of seasons doesn’t have some good writing. And there’s nothing in theIllusiveman’s post that implies anyone who disagrees is wrong. People can have views contra to yours. They are just as valid as your views. They don’t need to be argued down at length when their views are expressed in short form and from the heart! 😀 There's also nothing that suggests it is only an opinion. theIllusiveman is clearly stating it as fact, nucleusofswarm is pointing out that it's not fact, it's opinion. I think this is the source of a lot of flame wars, people just need to remind to put something like "I personally feel" at the start of a post and we can all be friends and disagree politely
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 2, 2021 10:50:42 GMT
but what about the people here who don't agree with that criticism? What about those who see the Chibnall era as having good writing? Are you saying that they're all wrong, including people on here? there’s nothing in theIllusiveman’s post that claims Chibnall’s couple of seasons doesn’t have some good writing. And there’s nothing in theIllusiveman’s post that implies anyone who disagrees is wrong. People can have views contra to yours. They are just as valid as your views. They don’t need to be argued down at length when their views are expressed in short form and from the heart! 😀 I mean, his own comment was ''Unfortunately the current era is littered with inconsistent and bad writing. So the criticism is valid''. I think that speaks for itself. Not sure where I said it was invalid, just not exempted from criticism itself. This is a forum after all and it rather neatly allowed for a discussion into the elasticity of 'objective standards'.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 2, 2021 10:55:26 GMT
Originally I was going to respond to daver's comment on the Revolution thread about a similar subject, but I think the response is as apt here: okay, but what about the people here who don't agree with that criticism? What about those who see the Chibnall era as having good writing? Are you saying that they're all wrong, including people on here?
Or if, to take this a little deeper, you're implying there's 'an objective measure' for discussing good and bad writing: that's a rabbit hole because who is the actual arbiter or factual/empirical objective truth we go by? Speaking as someone who does this professionally and hangs around a lot in these circles, writers can't agree if 3 act structure, which you'd think would be about as cut-and-dry as it cuts, is real or not. There's an entire cottage industry of alternate models (22 steps, 8 sequences, 4 acts, 5 acts, seven phases) - who has the right/objectively correct one? Sorkin's expansive and verbose dialogue is regularly praised, yet by 'the rules', it completely violates visual storytelling norms. So again, who is right here? Taste is highly subjective and informs our belief to what is good or bad a lot more than some would give credit for or concede.
Oh, god, focussing just on that: I teach structure and I can say that the three-act model works as a good starting point when teaching the basics. Most people tend to know, or at least feel, the expectations of a traditional Hollywood film (exposition, crisis, conclusion). Classic television tended to be split into four/five acts. Beyond that, it's pretty much anyone's game. I've my preferences (natch), but it takes my breath away sometimes just how elastic a formula can be under the right circumstances. Like, for instance, The Tale of Genji has a chapter called "Vanished into the Clouds", which is empty because the main lead has just died. The book doesn't end, it continues with other characters, but one of the prevailing theories is that the narrator was so moved by the character's death that no words could convey it. It's a neat narrative trick and makes me think how it might be done in a visual medium. A lone episode where everyone's expression is mute or deafened? This builds very nicely on my original post. What I'd add also is that, even in Classic television, the structure can vary a lot, depending on genre, era and if it is or or commercial TV. Sometimes two acts, or three, or four (as was standard for a time) and now we have up to six 'acts' (though thanks to streaming, that now's an even looser definition).
I knew a writer who argued Life of Brian has 22 acts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2021 11:43:12 GMT
Oh, god, focussing just on that: I teach structure and I can say that the three-act model works as a good starting point when teaching the basics. Most people tend to know, or at least feel, the expectations of a traditional Hollywood film (exposition, crisis, conclusion). Classic television tended to be split into four/five acts. Beyond that, it's pretty much anyone's game. I've my preferences (natch), but it takes my breath away sometimes just how elastic a formula can be under the right circumstances. Like, for instance, The Tale of Genji has a chapter called "Vanished into the Clouds", which is empty because the main lead has just died. The book doesn't end, it continues with other characters, but one of the prevailing theories is that the narrator was so moved by the character's death that no words could convey it. It's a neat narrative trick and makes me think how it might be done in a visual medium. A lone episode where everyone's expression is mute or deafened? This builds very nicely on my original post. What I'd add also is that, even in Classic television, the structure can vary a lot, depending on genre, era and if it is or or commercial TV. Sometimes 3 acts, or three, or four (as was standard for a time) and now we have up to six 'acts' (though thanks to streaming, that now's an even looser definition).
I knew a writer who argued Life of Brian has 22 acts.
(Well, if anyone could get away with 22 acts in a script, it would be the Pythons. ) Oh, definitely. Back in the 60s, I believe The Saint typically had three and The Man from UNCLE had four. UNCLE was rather special in that it decided to do something rather clever with its presentation. It was probably one of the few (maybe the only) shows of its era to name each individual act of the script on-screen in the same episode. Like chapters in a book. A story like "The Dove Affair", for instance, running at a solid 50-minutes, was divided up further into "I: Incident In The Balkans", "II: The Running Men", "III: Togetherness" and "IV: End Of The Line". Commercial bumpers unique to the episode bringing us back from each break. That sounds like it could be intrusive, but it's done with such panache and style that it circles back around to something altogether rather charming.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 2, 2021 12:15:06 GMT
lol.in my personal opinion... I literally said that the views expressed were just as valid as yours. So: no you didn’t say theIllusiveman’s views were invalid, just as no-one claimed your views were invalid. 😀 Furthermore, sorry if I’ve posted anything that comes across as harsh or argumentative nucleusofswarm . It isn’t my intent. I do point out where I believe extrapolations are presented that just don’t appear in posts. I will try and curb myself. It's all cool.
|
|