I completely agree with you, especially with your observations about Davies' theme-arcs vs. Moffat's plot-arcs, and how the former feels more cohesive when the show is scripted by multiple authors.
I think I stumbled upon the curse of Doctor Who. This year, the show just hasn't quite felt like Doctor Who when it's been scripted by someone other than Steven [Moffat]... The series has a new voice now which is brilliant, but idiosyncratic.
Like topaz-eyes says below, it'll be interesting to see how the 'writer's room' process which has been in place for the new series of TW has worked out in terms of cohesiveness.
I think both RTD and Moffat would benefit greatly from the US model - which is a writers room where they can pitch/write individual stories but have the over-arching plot/theme weaved into them
( ... )
I admit that I didn't really notice the catch-phrase every week in the RTD era. Perhaps I'm just dumb! Obviously, when I rewatch I see them, but then I know what I'm looking for so I suppose it's unavoidable. So I'd agree that it was less distracting (apart from Rose, who I could really have done without seeing again!)
There are themes running through S5 and 6, it's true, but I think they're obscured somewhat by the complexity of the plots, which are more obvious. And it's not that I think the series is "Moffat-heavy" - in fact, I think what I'm saying is that in an ideal world, if he wants to structure DW this way, he needs to write more! It's also not a point about the quality of the other episodes - Gaiman's was brilliant and Matthew Graham's had problems, but weren't bad per se; it's that they're so obviously filling in time until we get the next Moffat contribution and don't really advance the plot or answer any of the questions he keeps throwing out.
I just can't agree that they are "filler". I mean, in series five, was "Vincent and the Doctor" filler? Was "Amy's Choice" or "The Lodger"?
I will agree that maybe Moffat's series don't feel as cohesive as RTD's because Moffat writes stories so different to his writers - whereas RTD and the writers under him were on the same page, mostly. Except, of course, for Moffat who wrote stand-out episodes that felt almost out of place in the RTD era.
I wasn't using the term "filler" in a derogatory sense - if it looked that way, I apologise. What I meant was the ones that come in between the Moffat episodes; i.e, that are "filling in" the gaps between the episodes he writes which are the ones in which we hope we might get some answers!
As chloris67 says, the fact that the plot arcs are so prominent in Moffat's Who makes us all impatient to get to the next one, which can, I suppose, lead to the feeling that what comes in between isn't as good. I don't think that - Vincent was my favourite episode of S5 - but it can certainly seem like it when you've been left hanging after having bitten your nails up to the elbows!
I'm in no way saying that RTD doesn't have a very individual voice, because he does; it's just that the way he structured each series - around a THEME rather than an overarching PLOT - seemed to work better in the current format. I'm also not arguing here that those themes were always particularly well seeded, but they were there, principally in the background, which meant that it was easier for other writers to 'fit in'.RTD also "polished" most episodes which he didn't write, which meant he could make arc references organic. IMHO that gave his era a more consistent voice than what I've seen in Moffat's era. I think S5 and S6 could have benefitted from Moffat polishing the episodes he didn't write. Then the non-Moffat episodes might not have felt like fillers so much
( ... )
the plot arc elements IMHO haven't felt organic in the non-Moffat episodes
My feelings exactly. As you say, that line in TDW was so obviously tacked on that I remember it being quite jarring when I watched the episode for the first time.
How the hell Rusty managed to run three shows AND do all those rewrites without going insane continues to amaze me.
S6 so far is behaving as S5 did, so I don't foretell there's going to be much change.
I think a big difference (though I'm basing this on what I've heard about the way SM operates as a head writer, not actual citable fact) is that RTD heavily rewrote most of the episodes written by other writers and apparently SM doesn't. He sends them back to the writer with notes, but he does not actually do the rewrites himself.
There were a few writers that RTD was under contract to not rewrite, and SM was one of them and I think that's part of why his episodes in the RTD era, as much as I do actually like them (a lot more than I like what he's been doing since he's been in charge), they always felt kind of off, OOC, or too interested in side-lining the established characters/themes for the new ones that he was introducing. While rewatching GITF a couple weeks ago, the people I was watching with and I realised that you could actually replace Ten, Rose and Mickey with Eleven, Amy and Rory and the story wouldn't have to be changed much at all and in fact might even work better since clearly Moffat has his various hobby-horses and
( ... )
You're absolutely right in what you say about SM's episodes for RTD. I confess, I actually prefer his version of Rose in GitF, but at the same time, I recognise that she's pretty OOC. Donna got sidelined in favour of River and Martha, for the few minutes she's on screen in Blink was rather nondescript.
Like I said in my original comment, DW has always been a serial but at least, IIRC, the serials were written by the same writer(s) who were able to let things unfold at their own pace. The one-story-per-week format is different and isn't going to lend itself as easily to that sort of story-telling.
I think writer and show-runner are two fundmentally incompatible roles. It isn't only the volume of work, it's the fact that writers tend to want to impose a vision but everyone on the production side has to be flexible and figure out a way to keep the show on the road and protect the brand, given the resources available at any given time
( ... )
I've nothing to say really, other than that I agree with all of this. I confess I've not really heard the rumours of dissent in the ranks, although I remember there were rumblings when Piers Wenger announced his departure which didn't happen when Phil went to Corrie. I imagine the fact that RTD had worked with JG before must've helped, but the fact that they're still very much a working team out in LA shows that trust, I think. I can imagine Rusty could be a complete and utter creative diva at times and it seems to me that Julie has the knack of calming him down, but also of telling it like it is when necessary.
Comments 20
I think I stumbled upon the curse of Doctor Who. This year, the show just hasn't quite felt like Doctor Who when it's been scripted by someone other than Steven [Moffat]... The series has a new voice now which is brilliant, but idiosyncratic.
Yeah. Not zactly my opinion, either =/
Reply
Reply
Reply
There are themes running through S5 and 6, it's true, but I think they're obscured somewhat by the complexity of the plots, which are more obvious. And it's not that I think the series is "Moffat-heavy" - in fact, I think what I'm saying is that in an ideal world, if he wants to structure DW this way, he needs to write more! It's also not a point about the quality of the other episodes - Gaiman's was brilliant and Matthew Graham's had problems, but weren't bad per se; it's that they're so obviously filling in time until we get the next Moffat contribution and don't really advance the plot or answer any of the questions he keeps throwing out.
Reply
I will agree that maybe Moffat's series don't feel as cohesive as RTD's because Moffat writes stories so different to his writers - whereas RTD and the writers under him were on the same page, mostly. Except, of course, for Moffat who wrote stand-out episodes that felt almost out of place in the RTD era.
Reply
As chloris67 says, the fact that the plot arcs are so prominent in Moffat's Who makes us all impatient to get to the next one, which can, I suppose, lead to the feeling that what comes in between isn't as good. I don't think that - Vincent was my favourite episode of S5 - but it can certainly seem like it when you've been left hanging after having bitten your nails up to the elbows!
Reply
Reply
My feelings exactly. As you say, that line in TDW was so obviously tacked on that I remember it being quite jarring when I watched the episode for the first time.
How the hell Rusty managed to run three shows AND do all those rewrites without going insane continues to amaze me.
S6 so far is behaving as S5 did, so I don't foretell there's going to be much change.
*nods*
Reply
There were a few writers that RTD was under contract to not rewrite, and SM was one of them and I think that's part of why his episodes in the RTD era, as much as I do actually like them (a lot more than I like what he's been doing since he's been in charge), they always felt kind of off, OOC, or too interested in side-lining the established characters/themes for the new ones that he was introducing. While rewatching GITF a couple weeks ago, the people I was watching with and I realised that you could actually replace Ten, Rose and Mickey with Eleven, Amy and Rory and the story wouldn't have to be changed much at all and in fact might even work better since clearly Moffat has his various hobby-horses and ( ... )
Reply
Like I said in my original comment, DW has always been a serial but at least, IIRC, the serials were written by the same writer(s) who were able to let things unfold at their own pace. The one-story-per-week format is different and isn't going to lend itself as easily to that sort of story-telling.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment