This is a bit excruciating. I'm not saying that the RTD era was infallible - it certainly wasn't - but you (FlyingMinifigure) seem incredibly eager to ignore the glaringly obvious problems that the current period of Doctor Who exhibits.

Yes RTD Doctor Who was a times silly - even severely lacking and downright stupid (the 3rd Season final, Love & Monstrosities Monsters come to mind) - but that element of silliness was often compensated by the gravitas of the acting and the quality of the plot lines. Majority of the time, whilst there may have been some stupid things present, generally the overall storyline itself was not silly in nature or built upon trivial ideas.

Contrast that with the current period of Doctor Who. Often in Moffat Who, the underlying basis for an episode, or even a season, is based upon a really trivial idea. Built upon these oft petty foundations is usually a structure that lacks gravity and lasting substance.

You need to try and limit your approach of deflecting and avoiding any Moffat era criticisms by comparing them with the RTD period, and actually just properly address them. Much in same manner that I might need to try and limit the amount I negatively compare the Moffat era to that of the RTD. Comparison is of course inevitable, but you should focus on actually responding to the criticisms instead of constantly deflecting them.

If we take that above paragraph into mind, is it not reasonably easy to discern that there are some evident issues with the current era of Doctor Who. I listed some of them that I have picked up on previously (plus some new ones and edits):

- Overly complex and convoluted plot lines.
- Overuse of such narrative conventions as timey-wimey, Deus Ex Machina and the totes underused reversed timeline.
- The sonic screwdriver has really become a magical wand capable of almost anything imaginable.
- Underdeveloped yet supposedly pivotal/universe-changing characters (sadly Clara is a prime example, as much as I adore her).
- Large amounts of silliness and stupidity that are not compensated by acting/gravitas due to several prime characters exhibiting limited skills/ranges in those two fields.
- Scripts and writing that are frequently of poor or underwhelming quality.
- Doctor Who has almost always, throughout its 50 year existence, been a show that has appealed to a wide range of age demographics. Now, despite its deceiving overcomplexity, it appears to be quite kid orientated.

If you can take those criticisms onboard, even respond to them if you see fit, without just dodging them whilst making direct comparisons to the RTD era, I will be very happy indeed.

And to finish off, I'd be delighted, and it'd make the most sense, if Tom Baker were to be in a little cameo (as Squid suggested). You two both had some good points on that subject.

Hi, its me again. Sorry - I forgot my phone.

The reason why I get so infuriated with Moffat is because I know he's a really good writer. I've seen his work for the RTD-era and I've seen his other shows - and they are actually good. OK, Silence In The Library had warning signs (a confusing plot, a contrived 'press-the-universe-reset-button' ending, and River Song) but it had legitimate suspense, and if nothing else it was scary.

I feel that RTD only partially 'got' Doctor Who. He knew that the show needed to have a strong element of mystery (we are dealing with worlds and concepts that the audience has never seen before), he knew that we needed an everyman companion who throughout the show changes and goes on a character journey/arc (although, he only did that with Rose and Donna), and he knew we needed a comforting yet still vulerable hero to guide the whole thing along. What he didn't know was that this is the show infamous for making little children hide behind the sofa. 'Doctor Who' is family-freindly Sci-Fi Drama. Its the English 'Star Trek' - English in how the budget is about a tenth of what Stat Trek had.

Moffat actually got the last part when he was writing for RTD. Aside from the Daleks and Cybermen, the moments that scared all the children watching (and thus will make them always remember those episodes) were the Weeping Angels and the Gas Mask Child. Both of these new creations are terrifying - and whenever I go to a war museum there is always one person in the vicinity who says "Are you my Mummy?" when they see a gas mask. I'm serious. It is that memorable.

Of course, when Moffat began writing entire story arcs - it became apparent that he could not create a sense of mystery, an everyman companion (now both Amy and Clara need to be some anomaly that the entire universe is revolving around), and the Doctor merged from 'the guy who goes around the universe solving things' to 'JESUS OUR ALMIGHTLY LORD AND SAVIOUR'. True, Moffat-era is less silly - but silly is not the same thing as stupid, and there is plenty of stupid in Moffat-era. I think Carousel's list sums it all up nicely.

Most depressingly, the part that Moffat was really good at - the scary stuff - has vanished. Whilst he hasn't produced any farting aliens; Headless Monks, Alien-Cowboys, The League of Extraordinary Aliens, Power Ranger Daleks, a supernova that be defeated through the power of song, a wall-riding motorbike, robots disguised as humans with little men piloting them inside, and those Slenderman-things are creatures and plot-elements that wouldn't look at all out of place in an RTD episode.

I think the most incompetent Moffat has gotten so far is suddenly introducing a character who's supposed to have been Amy's lifelong freind - then literally a few minuites later killing her off to reveal she's been River Song the whole time. An obvious example that Moffat is making stuff up as he goes along, if that wasn't obvious from all the Deus Ex Machina the show has endured thus far - and Deus Ex Machina was old even when the Anicent Greeks were using it!

Ah, found my phone. I'll be off again....don't mind me....

Last edited by Max Butcher (September 29, 2013 (03:32am))

Yeah, my critical view of the Moffat-era was altered when I rewatched the RTD-era and realised that quite a few of my complaints go right back to Rose, and that this show has never exactly been I, Claudius. There are quite a few awful RTD episodes, and some of the RTD episodes are in many ways worse than the awful Moffat episodes (I feel terrible that one of the episodes I hate the most was written by Neil Gaiman). That being said, RTD never ruined the Stone Angels. At least Love and Monsters wasn't really in continuity with the rest of the series, so its easy to just pretend that the Doctor woke up exclaiming "What a horrible dream!" Moffat has done many things that cannot be ignored - including ruining the Daleks.

OK, RTD overused the Daleks like popstars overuse autotune...and cocaine. But at least he knew that if you use the Daleks, stuff will automatically become serious. If Doctor Who was a chess game, the Daleks would be the Queen. Its annoying, but effective. Meanwhile, Moffat clearly hates Daleks and wants to avoid using them as much as possible - and when he's forced by the producers to use them, he takes a nice steamy crap over them as if to say "WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET YOU TO STOP MAKING ME WRITE DALEKS!! I've already turned them into Power Rangers, made them cry "Mercy!" and now I've erased their entire backstory so the Time War never really happened and all that rivalry that make the Daleks so intimidating in the first place is now gone! I have transformed them into giant pepperpots who yell catchphrases! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM MEEEEE!!!!"

I still feel justified in criticising Moffat's use of Deus Ex Machina, because he obviously hasn't learned from RTD's flaws. Its wrong to say "RTD never did it!" but its right to say "RTD did it, and Moffat hasn't done anything to stop it."

Oh crap....um.....sorry, I needed to use the toilet. Say, does anyone have a number for a Taxi?

Don't forget Rose being able to hold that pipe for so long when Daleks in EGYPT weren't strong enough to not get sucked in.

YouTube | Twitter | Letterboxd

I'm back.

As it's obviously a fruitless attempt to try and pursue this argument/discussion without usage of the good old comparison, I give up in that respect. To get started:

It's nice to know that you compute that the Moffat era has flaws (I never doubted you couldn't), it's just you never really seemed to voice your opinion on that subject until now.You seem to breeze over the fact that I myself have clearly acknowledged that there were, of course, many flaws also with the RTD era (see my first post at the top of page 47). You paint me as a one-sided über-hater of all things Moffat from 2010 onwards. To clarify, it's not correct - I do hold the opinion that there have been some thoroughly enjoyable episodes and characters during the Moffat tenure. It's just I feel these occasional 'good' ones and vast swathe of potential have been overshadowed by a great number of stupidities, ill-made decisions and unsatisfactory writing.

As Max has said very well, I'm most disappointed with Moffat and the decisions/routes he's made. Steven Moffat created many of the golden episodes and some of the most scary and memorable characters from RTD era. But for some reason, Moffat's huge talent, reputation and capacity for brilliant writing hasn't particularly eventuated or come through when he became show runner. I've formed a two moderate/possible conclusions on why this may have happened.

1. I believe it's plausible that, in Doctor Who, Steven Moffat required a bit of reining in or to be at least under someone's wing, and during 2005-09, arguably his writing heyday, it would be logical to believe that his writing was kept in line to some extent by the then show runner, Russell T Davies.

2. Very likely: 2005-09 Moffat did not have to be in charge of everything Doctor Who related, let alone juggle writing another major series and the same time. As stated above, he could focus more on writing really good individual episodes.

In the latter point, I talked about Steven and his balancing act between Sherlock and DW. I think it a majorly dumb decision on the BBC's part to allow him to have these two shows going at once. He writes really great, down-to-earth stories for his acclaimed Sherlock, and so it appears he attempts to write on the other spectrum for his Doctor Who (which is the wrong approach entirely). Stories for DW these days are so wildly whimsical and extraordinary, so ridiculous, that they take it over the edge. A show with such potential for marvellous aliens, planets, adventure and extravagant plots like Doctor Who also has a need to be down-to-earth or grounded at some points in order to not overload + convey some actual substance and reality that can otherwise no be present. RTD, to a greater extent, understood that need; he was able to straight up and effectively introduce mostly convincing and entertaining characters and their lives, and was able to not only create the hype, glee and silliness of travelling space and time, but the inevitable and actual, emotional situations when the good times run out (such as Donna's end, the climatic closure of the first season) which really added gravitas to the show.

Whereas with Moffat, he at least understands the first half of that paradigm - albeit excessively - the whimsicality and glee of Doctor Who. His Doctor Who is an almost constant and somewhat overbearing mixture of dashing and dabbling about the universe, engaging in oft silly adventures with an increasingly immortal, omniscient & omnipotent saviour alien whose mood is as sporadic as of a child. Along with him are his universe-pivotal and equally mysterious yet subsequently severely underdeveloped companions. That in itself, aside from the Doctor + companions, wouldn't be that terrible at all if there was the factor of down-to-earth reality in the show. Sadly, it's to the minimal. There are sad times in Moffat era DW, it's undeniable, but they are often not nearly enough and they lack lasting impact (Amy and Rory is the only one that is to the contrary that I can think of currently). Episodes where the potential for a substantial, not necessarily 'good-guys win' ending to happen occur quite often, but are basically never utilised.

RTD era had many of the hotly debated Deus Ex Machina endings, but they weren't always completely rectifying for all characters. Max pointed this out also. In Series 4, yes, the the Earth was saved in a silly fashion, but look at Donna, her character effectively died in one of the most emotional segments of New Who. Compare that to the Pandorica, the crack throughout the season was very promising, but in the end, after all the buildup of potential, the Universe just reset and and everything was perfectly fine and happy again. RTD wasn't always immune to this either, the case where he got the balance out of place is obviously the frightfully bad 3rd Season Final, yet, amongst the trash, there were still negative consequences for Martha and her tormented family. Such hardly ever happens in Moffat Who, which thus leads onto my next, and basically final point.

The ineffectively executed giddiness, glee and silliness without compensating dramatic reality; a childlike and reactionary Doctor; child-sensibility monsters and the wide availability of happy endings leads to the conclusion that Doctor Who has slipped from a whole family experience to that of a more child orientated one. If you, FlyingMinifig, do some research into Doctor Who's extensive history, you'll find that it has basically always been a show with elements for the whole family. Anyhow, Steven Moffat attempts to compensate the clear slant towards children by wrapping the underlying, simplistic storyline foundations with layers of convoluted and overly complex details and twists. I find it to just be obvious, underwhelming and not particularly beneficial. I don't think it works, at least for me.

There is an obvious absence of stories that are rich in scariness, reality and questioning, such as that of the Waters of Mars (written by RTD) or the earlier Moffat works. There are not psychological, claustrophobic and freaky episodes like Midnight (also written by RTD, kind of dispels the supposed fact that he can't do scary). In summary, I find the quality of writing to be poor.

I could continue and spiel on about how Moffat convolutes his monsters + plots and continually recycles ideas, how I find Matt Smith to be a wooden, limited-ranged Doctor, on and on and on. But I'm not, because I've roughly said what I've needed to say. So,

Good day & have fun reading.

Last edited by Carousel (October 4, 2013 (02:31pm))

At first I was pissed about Rose returning (AGAIN) because she's by far the most horrible companion of New Who and she's been brought back so much already because series 1-4 was almost all about her even when she wasn't around (Series 3 was all about the Doctor pining for Rose when it comes to his character). But now, it looks like there's a REASON for her to be brought back, it doesn't seem like it's how the Series 4 finale turned out (just bringing everyone back for the sake of bringing everyone back).

YouTube | Twitter | Letterboxd

Highly subjective. I personally find Amy - a bland, attitude-spouting girl who pouts her way across the universe - to be the most dislikable companion of New Who. Back on track, as you said, it's nice to see that there is some more steadfast reasoning for her return. I liked the 'Bad Wolf' arc, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Oh, also, the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, that is) have been replaying all of the 2005 - present Doctor Who episodes. They're currently in the latter part of the Matt Smith era right now, and I've been watching when bearable. The latest episode was the Rings of Akhaten, and deary me, after seeing it a second time, I've fully realised how fricking !@#$ it is. Had to watch some Breaking Bad afterwards to compensate for its insipidness.

But after scraping through series 7 again, I've found that I do like Clara quite a bit, despite her scrambled, undeveloped backstory and plots. I truly look forward to the combination of her and Capaldi; I think we'll be seeing something much more darker and serious than the convoluted childish slop currently airing. Bring on Peter Capaldi!

Clara so far doesn't have a character. Rose... does have a character, and it's a character I hate with a passion.
She is just a horrible person in nearly every episode she is in and this has been talked about many times before. The way she treated Mickey was just mean, there is absolutely no reason why we should like this character except for the fact that RTD loved her so much that he needed to remind the audience that they should love Rose and be on her side all the time. Oh and the line in The Stolen Earth "'nor me, and I was here first" made me hate her even more.

YouTube | Twitter | Letterboxd

I agree with you 100%... well maybe, I do agree that Rose should not be the companion they bring back (even though there seem to be a point to it). I don't think I'd wanna see them try to work their way around Donna not burning up when she sees or hears anything about the doctor (even though that clearly didn't happen in The End of Time even though stuff was shown in her frickin' head).

YouTube | Twitter | Letterboxd