Cook'd and Bomb'd

Forums => Picture Box => Topic started by: daf on May 03, 2021, 09:09:11 AM

Title: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on May 03, 2021, 09:09:11 AM
As suggested, here's a thread for chat about old episodes from the re-booted series.

2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat years.

(https://i.imgur.com/QAAiMKX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Z7uQF1u.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WrTDbEa.jpg)

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on May 03, 2021, 09:25:13 AM
Quote
Where do I put my thoughts on rewatching old new Who from the start?

I've just spotted Perry Benson in the Eleventh Hour. That's made my Sunday.

Easter weekend put Rose on and just worked through an episode or two at a time when I've had the chance. Just got to Eleventh Hour.

Enjoying so far. Very few truly duff episodes - the worst seem to be the finales as RTD reaches for a big red button of some form - and even something a bit filler like, oh, 42 has enough to keep you occupied.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 03, 2021, 09:33:12 AM
Best era the show ever had, and, while it's easy to crap on Chibnall's output, I don't know how many writers there are out there who could have created anything living up to either Rusty or Moffat's spells in charge.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: M-CORP on May 03, 2021, 11:20:09 AM
I was watching Series 6 recently for its 10th anniversary. The episode I enjoyed the most was The Curse Of The Black Spot. Probably a case of right place, right time or low expectations or something... but I was pleasantly surprised by how good it is, given it seems to have a bad reputation. Not perfect - three pirates get killed in the first 10 minutes and I don't know any of their names - but it has some lovely moments of pathos without feeling forced. Had a similar reaction to episodes of series 10 that I'd dismissed or found unmemorable, only to find they weren't too bad after series 11 dropped.

Basically what I'm trying to say is while not every episode stuck the landing, every episode is packed with invention and good stuff. The Capaldi era was a prime example of not knowing what you have until it's gone - I was bored of Moffat by 2017, but now I want him back...

Series 1 was the strongest series, with 3, 4, 5 and 10 close behind.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Deanjam on May 03, 2021, 01:04:25 PM
I can only rate the first 8 seasons properly as I gave up watching regularly halfway through season 9 and haven't gone back. But in order of enjoying them at the time [with favourite episodes in brackets]:

Series 5 [Eleventh Hour, Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone, Amy's Choice, Vincent and the Doctor, Pandorica Opens/Big Bang]
Series 6 [A Christmas Carol, Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon, Doctor's Wife, Rebel Flesh/Almost People, The Girl Who Waited]
Series 1 [Dalek, Father's Day, Empty Child/Doctor Dances]
Series 3 [Human Nature/Family of Blood, Blink, Utopia]
Series 7 [Asylum of the Daleks, The Snowmen, Hide, The Crimson Horror]
Series 4 [Unicorn and the Wasp, Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead, Turn Left]
Series 2 [The Girl in the Fireplace, Impossible Planet/Satan Pit]
Series 8 [Listen, Mummy on the Orient Express]
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 02:35:46 PM
A lot of this I haven't rewatched for years, but here's an impulsive tiering:

top tier:  3, 5, 10, 50th anniversary
second tier:  1, 4, 6
third tier:  8, 9
fourth tier:  7, 2009 specials
fifth tier:  2



I could probably break each series down more thoroughly from best to worst, but that would involve rewatching everything.  So that's it for now.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on May 03, 2021, 02:43:08 PM
There's still a couple of episodes I haven't got round to from the RTD years * - mainly the 2009 Tennant Specials, as BBC3 skipped those when they re-showed them a few years later (I missed the original BBC1 broadcasts due to flouncing out early doors, thinking it was all a bit CBBC : with all the fart jokes etc.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
* (Just checked - 'Midnight', 'Planet of the Dead' & 'Waters of Mars' )
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Norton Canes on May 03, 2021, 03:07:23 PM
Make some time to watch 'Midnight' as soon as you can!

Season three definitely the highlight for me - after a couple of stuttering seasons it absolutely hit its stride and served up a string of classic stories. In fact, great though it was to have Eccleston's Doctor and Shearman's 'Dalek', season three would have been the ideal way to kick off the relaunch. With the exception of 'Midnight' season four was Tate-d into oblivion so it was a relief when Moffat's first season brought the standard back up. Most of the seasons after that were so inconsistent it's difficult to rank them. The double-episode format of most of the season none stories was a misfire and it was nice of course to have a better TARDIS crew in place for season ten. 


[edit: 'season none'? that sounds like such a Moffat meta-idea]
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on May 03, 2021, 03:16:20 PM
[edit: 'season none'? that sounds like such a Moffat meta-idea]

He he! They should release McGann's box set as 'season none' - poor sod!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 03:41:48 PM
The Christmas Specials rank separately from the series.  Bearing in mind I haven’t seen some of these more than once, so am basing this purely on how I remember feeling about them at the time:

- A Christmas Carol (2010)
- The Snowmen (2012)
- The Husbands of River Song (2015)
- The Runaway Bride (2006)
- The Christmas Invasion (2005)
- Last Christmas (2014)
- The Next Doctor (2008)
- The Time of the Doctor (2013)
- Twice Upon a Time (2017)
- The Return of Doctor Mysterio (2016)
- The End of Time (2009)
- The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe (2011)
- Voyage of the Damned (2007)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on May 03, 2021, 04:06:58 PM
That Charles Dickens one (The Unquiet Dead) seems to have been written as an Eccleston Christmas special - I wonder if they'd have held it back if he stayed a bit longer.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 03, 2021, 04:13:52 PM
He he! They should release McGann's box set as 'season none' - poor sod!

Lead with A Fix With Sontarans and call it Season Nonce.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 04:16:43 PM
That Charles Dickens one (The Unquiet Dead) seems to have been written as an Eccleston Christmas special - I wonder if they'd have held it back if he stayed a bit longer.

Unlikely, as Gatiss wrote that and nobody but the showrunner has written any of the Christmas episodes.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mothman on May 03, 2021, 04:45:31 PM
Well to be fair the idea of a Christmas special or the rules of same (“Never tell me the rules!”) hadn’t really been established yet…
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 03, 2021, 04:48:10 PM
Controversial opinion alert, but I find most of the RTD era really embarrassingly bad. Like, I would turn it off if I thought someone might catch me watching it. I get why that version of the show needed to exist to make the show a hit, but my God I hate it. Fart jokes, Captain Jack, Big Brother, the whole soap opera aspect of the companion’s families, The Doctor bullying his companion’s boyfriend and then falling in love with his companion, his ludicrous response to Rose leaving, Rose coming back undercutting that even further, the ugly TARDIS interior and everyone being inexplicably jostled around every time they travelled, the TARDIS towing the Earth across the universe, Tennant’s never-ending leaving scene and him generally being a brat about regenerating, the fucking Peter Kay episode, The Doctor carrying the Olympic torch, RTD’s inability to write truly gripping finales so him just throwing the kitchen sink at it and then having to one-up himself every year... it all just feels like it was written by an over-excited 14 year old.

There are bits of series 3 I like, and probably most of series 4, but other than Moffat’s stories, I find the first two series ugly, crude and patronisingly broad. The later series of The Sarah Jane Adventures felt more adult than the first two series of Who.

I think series 5 and 6 did a lot to repair it, an emphasis on atmospheric stories and production, much more mystery and subtlety in the stories, a TARDIS team without any angst, a move away from the London-centric stories, universe-threatening finales that could be told with merely the main characters and some weird time phenomena... series 7 felt like a conscious attempt to be more like the RTD era and, if he’d know Smith was leaving, I think Moffat would have done it differently. Capaldi’s first two series were a mess, just unnecessarily convoluted and boring at times, with Clara not helping, but with a lot of really good ideas in there. I absolutely love series 10, which is up there with 5 and 6 for me, and it’s really sad we didn’t get chance to have more 12 and Bill.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 05:24:37 PM
Well to be fair the idea of a Christmas special or the rules of same (“Never tell me the rules!”) hadn’t really been established yet…

When they were writing series 1, I don't think there was any real certainty that there would be a Christmas special or later series.  They were very much living in the moment.  Maybe if they'd known in advance that they would be getting a Christmas special they wouldn't have set The Unquiet Dead at Christmas, dunno.

In any case, with the question of whether it could have been held back as a Eccleston Christmas special - it could also have been held back for a Tennant Christmas special I guess?  There's nothing about it that particularly says 'uniquely ninth Doctor'.  So I don't know whether Eccleston staying on would have been as much a guiding factor as knowing in advance they'd be getting the Christmas slot.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on May 03, 2021, 05:27:24 PM
...

The Clam Paradigm

Even the best episodes of Doctor Who seem embarrassingly bad when heavily scrutinised. ;)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/d1/fc/37d1fc4fdf85f1fa3163edc70012e054.png)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 05:28:14 PM
Controversial opinion alert, but I find most of the RTD era really embarrassingly bad. Like, I would turn it off if I thought someone might catch me watching it. I get why that version of the show needed to exist to make the show a hit, but my God I hate it. Fart jokes, Captain Jack, Big Brother, the whole soap opera aspect of the companion’s families, The Doctor bullying his companion’s boyfriend and then falling in love with his companion, his ludicrous response to Rose leaving, Rose coming back undercutting that even further, the ugly TARDIS interior and everyone being inexplicably jostled around every time they travelled, the TARDIS towing the Earth across the universe, Tennant’s never-ending leaving scene and him generally being a brat about regenerating, the fucking Peter Kay episode, The Doctor carrying the Olympic torch, RTD’s inability to write truly gripping finales so him just throwing the kitchen sink at it and then having to one-up himself every year... it all just feels like it was written by an over-excited 14 year old.

There are bits of series 3 I like, and probably most of series 4, but other than Moffat’s stories, I find the first two series ugly, crude and patronisingly broad. The later series of The Sarah Jane Adventures felt more adult than the first two series of Who.

I think series 5 and 6 did a lot to repair it, an emphasis on atmospheric stories and production, much more mystery and subtlety in the stories, a TARDIS team without any angst, a move away from the London-centric stories, universe-threatening finales that could be told with merely the main characters and some weird time phenomena... series 7 felt like a conscious attempt to be more like the RTD era and, if he’d know Smith was leaving, I think Moffat would have done it differently. Capaldi’s first two series were a mess, just unnecessarily convoluted and boring at times, with Clara not helping, but with a lot of really good ideas in there. I absolutely love series 10, which is up there with 5 and 6 for me, and it’s really sad we didn’t get chance to have more 12 and Bill.

Yes, I agree with all of this.

At the time I found RTD's Who painful, and once Moffat was announced as the new showrunner I was just biding my time until he arrived.  As Tennant regenerated I was thinking "yesssss!! fuck off fuck off fuck offf!!" until his self-pitying tearful face was finally replaced with Matt Smith.


However, Chibnall has worked wonders to make me look back on RTD's era with fondness.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 05:29:11 PM
The Clam Paradigm

Even the best episodes of Doctor Who seem embarrassingly bad when heavily scrutinised. ;)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/d1/fc/37d1fc4fdf85f1fa3163edc70012e054.png)

There is a deep-rooted difference between poorly executed moments and a fundamentally uncomfortable show.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 03, 2021, 05:57:30 PM
RTD’s era is definitely bolder and more fun than Chibnall’s in one eye and out of the other forgettableness, but I think I’d probably take the latest two series over the first because they don’t make me uncomfortable, and they’re quite nice to look at, unlike the horrible, horrible design of those early ones.

Really, though, I’d love to have another Moffat-style run. There’s something really wonderful about his best stuff, a really thick atmosphere that reminds me of the some of the best bits of the classic era, especially the move away from London.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 03, 2021, 05:58:45 PM
The combined RTD-Moffat era has its wobbles[1] - even Twin Peaks has wobbles - but these are generally outshone by one-off gems and stretches of brilliance. The conclusion of Series 5/beginning of Series 6 is its strident peak (honourable mentions to Series 3, the fiftieth, and Series 10).

Tom Baker said that the Doctor is not really an acting role, as the character doesn’t change - but that’s not true of this era. Each Doctor has undergone development, most notably toward moments like ‘coward, any day’, the Time Lord Victorious, and the War Doctor’s redemption. And let’s pay attention to the inspired casting throughout - Eccleston, Tennant, Smith, Hurt, Capaldi, Jacobi, Simm, Gomez. Bang on every time. Great efforts in the monsters department, too. Weeping Angels, the Silence, the Ood - it can't be easy to scatter memorable new creatures into a 50-year pantheon.

From 2005, RTD carefully layered new and returning elements with great elegance (the introduction of the fob watch and the Master’s return is a neat micro-capitulation of this writing ability). The biggest new element, of course, is the Time War. Some people hate what Moffat revealed/added in 'The Day of the Doctor', but I can only agree with his reasoning - the Doctor would find another way. It generated a bold and positive anniversary special, and also sensibly relieved the Doctor of his irredeemable genocide-guilt (whilst preserving the past thanks to the War Doctor’s forgetting).

When Moffat takes over in 2010, he quickly loses control of whatever the hell the Daleks are up to, but his continuation of the Master’s story is exceptional. Drawing on elements of character and relationship set out way back in Series 3 by RTD, Capaldi’s finale beautifully resolves the Master’s story. Some fairly reckon that 'Twice Upon a Time' is unnecessary, but I think it’s a lovely conclusion. All arcs resolved, we can dispense with villains and evil in the era’s final hour. The Doctor is simply given time to look his own life in the eye before departing with a renewed, forward-looking optimism. Thematic bows have all been neatly tied, and Capaldi's departure could’ve capped the entire show.

Unfortunately...
 1. many of the worst identified by purlieu
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on May 03, 2021, 06:03:27 PM
Yes, I agree with all of this.

At the time I found RTD's Who painful, and once Moffat was announced as the new showrunner I was just biding my time until he arrived.  As Tennant regenerated I was thinking "yesssss!! fuck off fuck off fuck offf!!" until his self-pitying tearful face was finally replaced with Matt Smith.


However, Chibnall has worked wonders to make me look back on RTD's era with fondness.

Must say I'm surprised you think that - I mean I know the RTD era had its ups and downs but it was massively fun to watch on the whole.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 06:04:05 PM
Quote
way back in Series 3 by RTD

young
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 06:17:53 PM
Must say I'm surprised you think that - I mean I know the RTD era had its ups and downs but it was massively fun to watch on the whole.

When it first returned in 2005, I found it too bombastic on every level.  From the theme tune onwards it was communicating an emphasis on clattering action.  I didn’t like the soap opera character elements, the manic pace I felt everything had (my barometer of perfect pacing was Pertwee’s era, the occasional repeats of which I had devoured in the early 90s), and the way I felt every story was resolved very suddenly and magically in the last four minutes after a build-up of unreasonably high stakes.  There were exceptions to the norm, and Moffat’s two-parter from series 1 stood out in its elegance.

As it turned out, these elements would only worsen over RTD’s time as he gained in confidence, but I preferred the tenth Doctor’s connection with Martha and Donna to his awful love story with Rose.  I hated all that.  I prefer the Doctor to be asexual, not pan-sexual.  That continues to be my preference.  He or she should be wise, infinitely old compared to his human companions and romance shouldn’t enter into it. 

Of all the RTD years, I find I have returned to series 1 the most.  There’s something beautiful about the way it’s trying to learn what kind of show it is, and it knows that so much potential future success will rest on its shoulders.  It’s weird listening to the DVD commentaries of series 1 because, if I recall correctly, they were recorded before they knew the show would be successful.


All this said, it has been a long time since I’ve watched any of RTD’s run.  Someone posted a clip recently from what was - at the time - a fairly substandard episode (the Daleks two-parter from series 3 I think) and in terms of pacing, humour, direction, everything, it shone an immense light on the abject deadness of Chibnall’s version of the show.  It positively fizzed with creativity and energy, and you could just tell that everyone involved in making the show loved it.  That’s the thing - despite everything that I disliked at the time, it seemed to be a labour of love.  This came across in all the side projects as well - all the interviews and behind the scenes stuff.  Whereas for Chibnall and his team it instead all comes across as more like a chore.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on May 03, 2021, 06:30:38 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
* (Just checked - 'Midnight', 'Planet of the Dead' & 'Waters of Mars' )

"Midnight" and "Waters of Mars" are excellent, amongst the finest episodes he ever did.

"Planet of the Double-Decker Bus" is awful.  Only "Voyage of the Damned" is worse, as I recall.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 06:37:10 PM
"Midnight" and "Waters of Mars" are excellent, amongst the finest episodes he ever did.

"Planet of the Double-Decker Bus" is awful.  Only "Voyage of the Damned" is worse, as I recall.

Sounds about right to me.  That double-decker bus episode was bafflingly poor at a time when we assumed that fewer episodes would mean unrivalled quality because RTD would be spread less thinly.  In terms of the pivotal image of the episode, I wonder whether it would have been stronger if the bus hadn't been ruined - in real life - by its transportation process to its desert location.  Or whether it would have made no difference.

I wonder this because a routemaster standing in a desert might have been a much stronger image if it had looked new and gleaming red.  Everything else in this episode seems to have been written around the idea of this location (cor, not a quarry in England!) and the incongruity of this bus standing in it.  And it could have at least looked brilliantly bizarre and alien if it had worked out as conceived, rather than accommodating the fucked exterior.


Not sure whether it would have meaningfully saved the episode, though.  Just made for a more arresting image.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on May 03, 2021, 07:44:10 PM
There is a deep-rooted difference between poorly executed moments and a fundamentally uncomfortable show.

I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong for liking or disliking any particular era, it's just all much of a muchness to me. The flatulence jokes and "here come the drums" were obviously shit for cunts but the creepy sex gags and rapid-fire innuendo-filled quips that defined the tone of Moffat's era made me personally feel as much, if not more, discomfort from the new series.

As an adult I've always had to look beyond something to unironically enjoy Doctor Who. Sometimes it's a giant clam, sometimes it's so-called "soap opera characters" and sometimes it's lines like this:

Quote from: Doctor Who
A mystery wrapped in an enigma squeezed into a skirt that’s just a little bit too tight.

The reason I don't like any of the Chibnall episodes I've seen is that they're so insubstantial if I "looked beyond" them I'd be staring at the back of the living room wall.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: M-CORP on May 03, 2021, 07:54:51 PM
you could just tell that everyone involved in making the show loved it.  That’s the thing - despite everything that I disliked at the time, it seemed to be a labour of love.  This came across in all the side projects as well - all the interviews and behind the scenes stuff.  Whereas for Chibnall and his team it instead all comes across as more like a chore.

Couldn't agree more, Replies From View. The RTD series was very much built on enthusiasm and fond childhood memories of classic Who - most people working on it watched the show in the 70s and 80s. That doesn't exist now, perhaps because most people working on it now were born during the Wilderness Years. Or perhaps because it's just been on air for so long people take it for granted. But either way, it's like I was saying to someone the other day, nowadays people don't seem to know what to do with it.

But these things come around... those who grew up with the Davies and Moffat eras - for they have left their mark - are growing up and starting to enter the media. That might be a cause for hope. Maybe.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: lipsink on May 03, 2021, 09:35:24 PM
I have such warm memories of Series 1 because it was so thrilling that they'd managed to pull it off and it not be awful. Also seeing kids walking about doing Dalek impressions in thhe street. I know Eccleston gets stick for the "whacky" bits of acting but I honestly think he was utterly fantastic in the role. I'm not sure the show would've been such a success without him. Piper is incredible too and the chemistry between her and Eccles is something else. I still love Series 1.

Series 5 felt like the beginning of an exciting new era (it's still the best series) that unfortunately seemed to unravel and run out of steam soon after. Pulled it back with Series 10 and Bill though. Capaldi's Doc and Bill I would've loved to have seen 2 more series of (with Nardole).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 03, 2021, 10:02:16 PM
My first disappointment with the trajectory of the Moffat era was the Series 6 finale. I wondered if we might get an ethically tangled conclusion, with a Ganger Doctor[1] being the one to die on the beach. This would come packed with all the questions of identity that Moffat would play with down the line - what (and who) does it mean to be the Doctor? It would also mean that a Doctor really was killed on the beach, as excitingly teased. If Moffat was feeling ballsy, he could even have left it ambiguous as to which Doctor was sacrificed - our original or the Ganger. We'd need never know. He'd tap Amy on the nose and say it doesn't matter (à la Osgood and her duplicate).

Unfortunately the resolution employed the far less interesting of the two doppelganger devices in the series.

This lacklustre reveal was compounded by the appalling Wardrobe Christmas special. Add to these disappointing episodes the sense of fragmentation, with a split series and a long gap between 6 and 7, and my interest wavered.

I'd gone off the show a bit during Series 4, as well, but that's mainly because I was suddenly busy having friends and hanging out and enjoying sunny evenings. A temporary diversion.
 1. and if you recall, the Flesh people were rendered biologically 'real' by the environment of the TARDIS, so it would have been a true version of the Doctor.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: lipsink on May 03, 2021, 10:22:14 PM
I'm not sure that ever occurred to me. But a Ganger Doctor would've been a far better conclusion with it being ambiguous who had really survived.

Edit: Ooh, hello. New Page. That's weird.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 10:35:07 PM
Not sure about that.  I don't know whether any duplicate Doctor would have felt satisfactory - it was an inevitable cop out either way - but I'd probably feel quite queasy at the idea of the Doctor from now on being a slimy clone from the Flesh episode.  I don't know if I can go with the idea that the duplicate Doctor would be a real Time Lord with the ability to regenerate and so on.


It's hard enough to think of all the billions of Peter Capaldi Doctors killed in Heaven Sent.  The idea of 'original' blurred quite heavily there.  But a Flesh version for the series 6 finale and thereafter?  It's a whole other level.  For me.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on May 03, 2021, 10:38:41 PM
Moffatt's run has two big flaws, one that only get worse with time and one that perhaps he couldn't help.

First, he (correctly?) works on the premise that the questions will always be more interesting than the answers. So already in Season 5 we've got Silence Will Fall, the Pandorica, the crack (and what's behind it). The Silence/Silents stuff is solved, as it were, in a single conversation in the Time of the Doctor. I still don't really understand how the TARDIS got blown up. And by the time you got to those final Smith episode, there was a weight of 'stuff what needs to be resolved'. This basically suffocated Name of the Doctor. And by Series 9, with the Hybrid shoe-horned in, there's no longer any expectation that the arc will be resolved in any meaningful manner.

Second, and I think others may have better insight on this, Moffatt's hand was forced with cast changes and departures. The end of Day of the Doctor absolutely does not feel like a penultimate Matt Smith story. There's a season missing that leads to Trenzalore. Later on, Last Christmas would have worked exceptionally well with the Clara grew old ending. IIRC, there's three points where Clara could have left before she did (and she didn't anyway, thereby throwing Hell Bent away).

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 11:08:23 PM
Edit: Ooh, hello. New Page. That's weird.

I must say I think the "new teeth" line is one of the best pieces of script in New Who - borderline genius.  It's the first time we've seen the Doctor regenerate whilst standing up, he's been conscious the entire time rather than falling asleep and waking up as a new person, and naturally the first thing he's experiencing on a sensory level is his new tongue inside a new mouth.  And yeah, it would be weird.  It's so obvious yet perfectly insane at the same time.  It captures the purest brilliance of the show at its core.


Moffat clearly attempted to repeat this magic in the first sequences of both Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi, but they never felt so organic and simple - they were longer and felt more contrived, even though they weren't bad in themselves. 

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 03, 2021, 11:09:16 PM
My takeaway from the RTD and Moffat eras isn't so much the individual series varied in quality (although they obviously did), but that the episodes within each series were far more inconsistent than any other show I can think of. One third of each series was usually fairly awful, One third was always fairly mediocre, and the last third was usually so good you stayed with it for another year. The worst series had fewer high, and the best had fewer lows, but it was always a show where sitting down to watch a new episode felt a bit like playing Russian roulette.     
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 03, 2021, 11:14:37 PM
it was always a show where sitting down to watch a new episode felt a bit like playing Russian roulette.   

I think I told this forum about the time I was so buoyed after watching 'Girl in the Fireplace' that I simply had to invite one of my friends to watch Doctor Who with me; I was no longer going to be ashamed about unconditionally sticking with Doctor Who.  It had worked out what kind of show it was, and it had now hit its stride.

So my friend came over and together we watched 'Fear Her'.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: lipsink on May 03, 2021, 11:16:36 PM
I must say I think the "new teeth" line is one of the best pieces of script in New Who - borderline genius.  It's the first time we've seen the Doctor regenerate whilst standing up, he's been conscious the entire time rather than falling asleep and waking up as a new person, and naturally the first thing he's experiencing on a sensory level is his new tongue inside a new mouth.  And yeah, it would be weird.  It's so obvious yet perfectly insane at the same time.  It captures the purest brilliance of the show at its core.


Moffat clearly attempted to repeat this magic in the first sequences of both Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi, but they never felt so organic and simple - they were longer and felt more contrived, even though they weren't bad in themselves.

Absolutely agree. Although I'd say Moffat did better 'Doctor about to regenerate dialogue'. Eccleston saying "You were absolutely fantastic" is good but Smith's monologue before he regenerates always gets a lump in my throat. That could be due to Smith's performance though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 03, 2021, 11:18:55 PM
I truly loved the show, and for many years considered it my favourite TV program. I just loved it because of those three to five episodes each year, rather than because I thought the overall show was good. But I really, really loved those three to five episodes.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 03, 2021, 11:21:00 PM
Absolutely agree. Although I'd say Moffat did better 'Doctor about to regenerate dialogue'. Eccleston saying "You were absolutely fantastic" is good but Smith's monologue before he regenerates always gets a lump in my throat. That could be due to Smith's performance though.

Smith's regeneration is the best in the show's history. It's just the perfect balance of actor and character saying goodbye.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on May 03, 2021, 11:47:56 PM
Smith's monologue before he regenerates always gets a lump in my throat. That could be due to Smith's performance though.

He's superb. Just that bit where he takes the bowtie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtN3Qb3yvvM&t=2m40s) off and lets it fall to the floor - worth a thousand words.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 03, 2021, 11:59:46 PM
Second, and I think others may have better insight on this, Moffatt's hand was forced with cast changes and departures. The end of Day of the Doctor absolutely does not feel like a penultimate Matt Smith story. There's a season missing that leads to Trenzalore.
Indeed, I think Matt leaving after three series was an even bigger loss than Capaldi and Bill only getting one series together. The hunt for Gallifrey should have been the series 8 arc, with a finale where The Doctor concludes he'll never find it, only then to be given the extra set of regenerations in Time of the Doctor. It would have felt earned then. It felt like that whole story starting with The Eleventh Hour was set up to bring the return of the Time Lords, but Moffat was juggling too many plates and not counting on Matt leaving so soon. Then he did more plate juggling by running Who and Sherlock at the same time, which undoubtedly fed into the unfocused feel of Capaldi's first couple of series.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 04, 2021, 12:19:50 AM
I truly loved the show, and for many years considered it my favourite TV program. I just loved it because of three to five episodes each year, rather than because I thought the overall show was good. But I really, really loved those three to five episodes.

That is probably the best way to think of it. They managed some really great episodes even if they needed an extra seven or eight a year to find those handful of good ones.

Looking back at each series, it is interesting to list the episodes that I think I would have any interest in revisiting without just watching during some big rewatch in a decade or two:
Series 1 - 4/13 (Dalek, The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances, Father's Day)
Series 2 - 3/14 (The Christmas Invasion, School Reunion, The Girl in the Fireplace)
Series 3 - 7/14 (The Runaway Bride, Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks, Human Nature/Family of Blood, Blink, Utopia)
Series 4 - 12/14 (Partners in Crime, Fires of Pompeii, Planet of the Ood, The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky, The Doctor's Daughter, Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead, Midnight, Turn Left/The Stolen Earth/Journeys End)
2009 Specials - 0/5
Series 5 - 11/13 (Chibnall is a waste of fucking space)
Series 6 - 1/14 (A Christmas Carol)

I realise that Daleks in Manhattan was very badly received but I have this memory of it being very kitsch and tonally very different to all around it which made it standout. It was fun in a way that other Dalek stories of the time weren't. Silly fun like the patchy type of Dalek story you'd get in the Pertwee era.

I'm probably being very kind to four or five Series 4 episodes there. Partners in Crime and the final two episodes in particular. Likewise probably being very unfair to The Next Doctor and The Waters of Mars. The Next Doctor has an wonderful A-plot with the fake Doctor but is completely undermined with the dreadful B-plot with the Cybermen and the atrocious ending. The Waters of Mars was okay IIRC but it does set up my least favourite Doctor Who story ever so fuck it.

Series 6 was the last full series I watched. The thing is it is a much better series than Series 1 and 2. It is probably on par with Series 3 in terms of quality. The problem I had with Series 6 is it all just felt so meh after the heady heights of Series 5. Nothing aside from the Christmas Special really stood out for me. I know people really dig The Doctor's Wife but that one never chimed with me.

I stopped watching after Asylum of the Daleks. It was all just too meh to bother with at that point. I realised I got more from rewatching old episodes than from watching new episodes so why keep on bothering. I did watch the 50th Anniversary episodes which I enjoyed but then disliked the Capaldi episodes I caught (despite thinking he was wonderful casting). I do plan on watching Series 7-10 at some point but I'm going to wait until they are far more divorced from "now" so they can be viewed in much the same way as I viewed Classic Who. I want to experience Series 7-10 as old archive TV rather than something with perhaps higher expectations. I think I might enjoy it more with that attitude.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 04, 2021, 12:50:47 AM
Returning to the 'embarrassed by bits of it' theme, my list was just the first examples of the overall tone of the show that came to mind. Ultimately, the two Rose series at least were basically a TV show that I didn't like, and certainly wouldn't even have watched if they weren't part of a long running show that I'm generally a fan of. I can see past the odd moment I dislike, but the whole thing just felt so naff start-to-finish that I constantly cringe when I do watch it. The odd episode aside.

In terms of episodes that I really like:
Series 1 (2/13): The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances
Series 2 (1/14): The Girl in the Fireplace
Series 3 (4/14): Human Nature / The Family of Blood, Blink, Utopia
Series 4 (7/14): Partners in Crime, Planet of the Ood, The Doctor's Daughter, Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead, Midnight, Turn Left
Specials (0/5)
Series 5 (10/13): The Eleventh Hour, The Time of the Angels / Flesh and Stone, Amy's Choice, The Hungry Earth / Cold Blood, Vincent and the Doctor, The Lodger, The Pandorica Opens / The Big Bang
Series 6 (10/14): A Christmas Carol, The Impossible Astronaut / Day of the Moon, The Doctor's Wife, A Good Man Goes to War, Let's Kill Hitler, The Girl Who Waited, The God Complex, Closing Time, The Wedding of River Song
Series 7 (8/16): The Power of Three, The Angels Take Manhattan, Hide, The Crimson Horror, Nightmare in Silver, The Name of the Doctor, The Day of the Doctor, The Time of the Doctor
Series 8 (3/12): Listen, The Caretaker, Mummy on the Orient Express
Series 9 (4/14): The Magician's Apprentice / The Witch's Familiar, Heaven Sent, The Husbands of River Song
Series 10 (8/14): The Pilot, Knock Knock, Oxygen, Extremis, The Pyramid at the End of the World, World Enough and Time, The Doctor Falls, Twice Upon a Time
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: lipsink on May 04, 2021, 06:43:46 AM
I remember I tried to sit down and rewatch Series 9 and just could not be bothered. I think Heaven Sent is the only episode from that series I can sit through again. Having loads of 2 partners was just such a misfire. Plus Capaldi's doctor was all over the fucking shop. Moffat clearly needed a break.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 04, 2021, 07:30:56 AM
A series of two-parters was definitely a response to two series of single-parters, like they were suddenly trying to catch up.  No idea what was going on behind the scenes there.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on May 04, 2021, 08:02:39 AM
When they were writing series 1, I don't think there was any real certainty that there would be a Christmas special or later series.  They were very much living in the moment.  Maybe if they'd known in advance that they would be getting a Christmas special they wouldn't have set The Unquiet Dead at Christmas, dunno.

Definitely the case. They were given the Christmas special and the second series AND the second Christmas special and third series as the recommissioning after completing the Eccleston year.

Quote from: RTD
For us, it was the BBC who asked for it. We brought back Doctor Who in 2005. I was so unaware of the possibility of a Christmas episode (https://ew.com/tv/inside-the-making-first-doctor-who-holiday-special/) that I did a Christmas episode in our first series, where the Doctor meets Charles Dickens, and it's Christmas Day, and it's snowing, and there are ghosts. So that's actually secretly the first Christmas special, it just didn't go out at Christmas.

Must say I'm surprised you think that - I mean I know the RTD era had its ups and downs but it was massively fun to watch on the whole.

I felt very similar to Replies overall. RTD's "bugger the plot making sense, enjoy the foolishness!" attitude, ludicrous finales, Tennant's two-note performance and the extremely variable quality of non-Davies episodes really burnt me out by the end of the run (I was thoroughly healed ten minutes into The Eleventh Hour). That said, he definitely brought the series back in a way which cemented its status, I'm always eager for his non-Who new series, and two of his Who scripts are masterpieces.

bafflingly poor at a time when we assumed that fewer episodes would mean unrivalled quality because RTD would be spread less thinly

RTD's name only went on Bus Planet and Waters Of Mars as writer because it was easier to sell a one-off "season" of just four episodes overseas if they all came from the showrunner. (IIRC Roberts, who was commissioned for it based on one of his 1993-ish Who novels, lightly disowns it too - but just because of standard part-of-the-job rewriting, no actual beef about his vision being trammelled by interference.)


Second, and I think others may have better insight on this, Moffatt's hand was forced with cast changes and departures. The end of Day of the Doctor absolutely does not feel like a penultimate Matt Smith story. There's a season missing that leads to Trenzalore.

This is almost exactly right. Smith didn't sign on for Day Of The Doctor until a few weeks before the shoot: at one point, without Smith, Tennant or Eccleston signed on, Moffat had to do a draft with just Clara and Billie in it. When he did sign just for two specials, Moffat had to crunch the entire arc of Series 8 into a 80-minute Christmas special, which then got edited down to an hour timeslot.

Quote from: A Hat Like That
Later on, Last Christmas would have worked exceptionally well with the Clara grew old ending. IIRC, there's three points where Clara could have left before she did (and she didn't anyway, thereby throwing Hell Bent away).

Yeah, the first Coleman-decides-not-to-leave is fine because Last Christmas works SO much better as a departure, but then her sticking around again detracts somewhat from both Last and Hell Bent. But loads of Moffat's Who is him deciding he fucked a theme and trying it again from a different angle the next year - it helps to think of it as time eddies.

(If she had left in Last Christmas, we might have gotten some dud Clara-alike companion in S9 anyway, not anything like the fantastic PCap/Bill/Nardole team. Nardole wasn't even thought of being added to S10 until halfway through the year's shoot, incidentally.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on May 04, 2021, 10:34:44 AM
This is almost exactly right. Smith didn't sign on for Day Of The Doctor until a few weeks before the shoot: at one point, without Smith, Tennant or Eccleston signed on, Moffat had to do a draft with just Clara and Billie in it. When he did sign just for two specials, Moffat had to crunch the entire arc of Series 8 into a 80-minute Christmas special, which then got edited down to an hour timeslot.

It's amazing watching those last two specials again just how little actually happens in them, yet they still feel so big and epic. Day is mostly three blokes bickering in the Crystal Maze, Time is mostly Smith talking to a Cyberman prop head. You can tell that Moffat had no budget, but he's pulled out all the stops to hide it.

Contrast that to Chibnall's run where there's so much going on, but it all feels so insignificant and pointless. Cyberman heads all flying about shooting everyone should be infinitely more exciting than a man using an almost dead, static one as a companion to stave off madness, but it just isn't.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on May 04, 2021, 12:29:32 PM
My opinions are close enough to Replies' and to purlieu's to make it pointless to repeat them but anyway

I definitely feel more warmly towards the RTD era now that it's neither current Who or recent past Who. I found it hard to be disappointed with the Moffat years just because he fixed almost all of the stuff I hated about RTD and kept what I loved, even though he brought his own problems. And now it's recent past Who I can't help but compare the Moffat years to what we've got now, which is always going to make it look like The Wire. It will be interesting to get a more objective view one day.

I spent most of the RTD years desperate to see more references to the original run, and every tiny little nod that said 'yep it's the same story' gave me such a buzz. There was no way to keep that going forever of course but it was nice while it lasted. Now if something is resurrected for Chibnall's Who I just think, 'great, another thing he's going to bollocks up'. Maybe one day I won't mind it so much. It'll be like the late 80s. Yeah it was shit but it came back.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on May 04, 2021, 12:46:16 PM
One thing that I don’t agree with is criticism of the burping bins and farting aliens and all that. I mean he was trying to attract a new generation of kids, and he did it brilliantly. I think some fans genuinely forget it’s supposed to be for children.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 04, 2021, 12:57:01 PM
One thing that I don’t agree with is criticism of the burping bins and farting aliens and all that. I mean he was trying to attract a new generation of kids, and he did it brilliantly. I think some fans genuinely forget it’s supposed to be for children.

Which begs the question:  can a child truly love anything that doesn’t fart?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: lipsink on May 04, 2021, 01:32:45 PM
You can tell that Moffat had no budget, but he's pulled out all the stops to hide it.

Yeah, I loved that about Moffat's era. His first finale was basically just the Doctor and his companions running around an empty museum with one Dalek. I think they probably did maybe one too many episodes with just the Doctor, Amy, Rory and River Song though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on May 04, 2021, 01:45:09 PM
I think some fans genuinely forget it’s supposed to be for children.

And that's exactly the revelation I had half way through the first series when I was tryng to pinpoint what was bugging me - "Ohhh . . I get it - it's made for kids now!". So I left it and got on with other stuff, till Matt Smith turned up, and I gave it another go (later catching up with the RTD bits I'd missed on BBC3 repeats).

The original series was made for a family audience rather than just children - with Douglas Adams often quoted quip that the secret to Doctor Who was by "making it simple enough for the adults to understand but complicated enough to hold the children's attention".

I think Robert Holmes (or Terrance Dicks?) used to have a "bright 13 year-old" in mind as their audience.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 04, 2021, 03:29:22 PM
I don't think the "for kids" thing works that well, as, since the '70s at least, it's been clearly aimed at a family audience, a show that should appeal to adults as much as kids. It had a primetime Saturday evening slot, while The Sarah Jane Adventures was the CBBC show. I also think it's kind of patronising: do kids need farting aliens and burping bins? The original run never had them. Children don't need toilet humour to make the show work on their level.

I dunno, maybe they do. For me, though, things like that just added to the overall feeling of that version of the show being very much not for me.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 04, 2021, 03:32:42 PM
Kids love Jar Jar. Jar Jar was a farting alien. It all makes sense.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on May 04, 2021, 03:42:18 PM
It never felt like a kids' show under RTD the way it does now under Chinballs. It was never wall-to-wall farting aliens - I think they got the balance pretty much right -well they must have done, it wouldn't have been such a success otherwise. Nowadays I really do feel uncomfortable watching it - it feels like CBeebies, and mediocre CBeebies at that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 04, 2021, 04:52:24 PM
It's definitely a family show. The drama in Capaldi's finale two-parter, and the ideas in episodes like The Impossible Planet and Heaven Sent, are richer and more compelling than many adult TV dramas. A surprising number of characters commit suicide, either in the course of the action or to save the day. You wouldn't catch the central conceit of Extremis on CBBC. An adult viewer is certainly liable to get more out of Doctor Who than from Torchwood, which is a kid's show that kids aren't allowed to watch.[1]

Very rarely, the show veers to the furthest edge of family entertainment - the terror and implications of 'don't cremate me' would provide a nightmarish reveal in a depressing existential horror film. Probably the single darkest moment in the era we're discussing. Bill's cyber-conversion is close.
 1. except, needless to add, the brilliant Children of Earth.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Endicott on May 04, 2021, 05:35:39 PM
Well put. The farting aliens are only in 3 episodes in the Ecclestone series. The rest of it varies in quality but most of them have more in them than CBBC, and some of them hit some pretty high and serious notes.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on May 04, 2021, 06:39:06 PM
The remaining farting alien doesn't ... err ... fart in Boom Town iirc. The childish stuff in Season 1 is done by all done by about halfway through which makes me think it was something they realised worked out of the system.

(I actually rate Boom Town. Its a good little episode while tying a number of things going on in Season 1 together)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on May 04, 2021, 06:46:13 PM
Quote
(If she had left in Last Christmas, we might have gotten some dud Clara-alike companion in S9 anyway, not anything like the fantastic PCap/Bill/Nardole team. Nardole wasn't even thought of being added to S10 until halfway through the year's shoot, incidentally.)

Shona was initially written as a possible companion

(and I liked this scene a lot so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmYr3CCfvpo)

The Wendy-esque gone too long way of writing out a companion would have been excellent as well.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 04, 2021, 07:14:54 PM
The remaining farting alien doesn't ... err ... fart in Boom Town iirc. The childish stuff in Season 1 is done by all done by about halfway through which makes me think it was something they realised worked out of the system.

Or they wanted to give children a false sense of security with all the silliness before bringing in the proper scaries.  Fair enough.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 04, 2021, 07:16:17 PM

(I actually rate Boom Town. Its a good little episode while tying a number of things going on in Season 1 together)

I was borderline with whether to put it in my list of episodes I would be arsed revisiting. I remember it being a nice little episode but it is linked to the not so good two parter that preceded it that I am put off. I remember Eccleston being particularly good that week.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Zetetic on May 04, 2021, 08:28:53 PM
First, he (correctly?) works on the premise that the questions will always be more interesting than the answers.
I think the issue that I have with Moffat's tenure after a while is that the resolutions, more and more, seem to have almost no emotional implications. My memory is of increasingly struggling to find something to wonder "what would that feel like to go through?" about.

I'm trying to work out why any of the revelations about The Silence, for example, matter to anyone.

Or anything in The Time of the Doctor, now I think about it? It's most significant emotional implication is that the show isn't going to end that week, I guess.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 04, 2021, 09:00:32 PM
I think the issue that I have with Moffat's tenure after a while is that the resolutions, more and more, seem to have almost no emotional implications. My memory is of increasingly struggling to find something to wonder "what would that feel like to go through?" about

The worst demonstration of that is Amy and Rory finding that the baby they had is actually River, and then that being basically ignored by the end of the episode. Not saying that the show had to turn into "Amy and Rory are sad now", but it needed a bit more attention.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on May 07, 2021, 12:03:56 PM
For anyone who's missed it, the Noel Clarke thread now has this:

Crew from Doctor Who have now come forward:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/07/noel-clarke-accused-of-sexual-harassment-on-doctor-who-set

Clarke and Barrowman both fingered, but not in the way they'd like.

Includes specific accusations from junior members of the crew, with comment from RTD, Julie Gardner, Barrowman, and increasingly-grimly-hilarious shit from Clarke's lawyers.

I'll be writing about it over there, rather than here, but just wanted to give a heads-up for those who don't visit General Bullshit.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Lungpuddle on May 07, 2021, 12:25:29 PM
The worst demonstration of that is Amy and Rory finding that the baby they had is actually River, and then that being basically ignored by the end of the episode. Not saying that the show had to turn into "Amy and Rory are sad now", but it needed a bit more attention.

To be fair to Mr Moffat, he did improve vastly in this area in series 9 (albeit with Capaldi and Coleman instead) and no one seemed to like it other than me. There's also his solo episode of Sherlock 4 (the one with Toby Jones), which was "Sherlock and John are sad and angry and apart" and it's the first thing that comes to mind if I consciously try to think of any time when his stuff has disappointed me. Apart from the Wedding of River Song, although I can enjoy that one much more now it's not the latest episode.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: frajer on May 07, 2021, 12:44:16 PM
The worst demonstration of that is Amy and Rory finding that the baby they had is actually River, and then that being basically ignored by the end of the episode. Not saying that the show had to turn into "Amy and Rory are sad now", but it needed a bit more attention.

Completely agree, I hated that whole development. Still feel that it was far too big and awful an incident for the show, which painted them into a corner in terms of the emotional arc. Naturally you couldn't show the Ponds going insane with grief, but the only other option is to have them come across as unrelatably aloof about the whole thing. Amy and Rory's actual baby being stolen from them is just so bleak and I don't think "don't worry, she grows up fine(ish) and is River" is the cure-all the show seems to think it is.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Deanjam on May 07, 2021, 01:21:45 PM
For anyone who's missed it, the Noel Clarke thread now has this:

Includes specific accusations from junior members of the crew, with comment from RTD, Julie Gardner, Barrowman, and increasingly-grimly-hilarious shit from Clarke's lawyers.

I'll be writing about it over there, rather than here, but just wanted to give a heads-up for those who don't visit General Bullshit.

Thanks. Didn't know there was a thread on this.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 07, 2021, 01:36:36 PM
Completely agree, I hated that whole development. Still feel that it was far too big and awful an incident for the show, which painted them into a corner in terms of the emotional arc. Naturally you couldn't show the Ponds going insane with grief, but the only other option is to have them come across as unrelatably aloof about the whole thing. Amy and Rory's actual baby being stolen from them is just so bleak and I don't think "don't worry, she grows up fine(ish) and is River" is the cure-all the show seems to think it is.

I know that doing it off-screen isn’t always ideal, but in this instance one could argue that the mid-series gap works as an emotional cushion for the Ponds to come to terms with it all, and for the viewers to not require an emotional resolution because so much time has passed.  What we didn’t see on-screen was “never mind all this guff; let’s just get on with more adventures!” but people tend to see it that way because all these emotional arcs were not attended to in any episodes we saw.


My view is that something tricky like that is better left off-screen than done badly on-screen.  I know that this arguably lets Moffat off some hooks a little too easily, but think of the way it was handled by Moffat (the audience can imagine it, if they want, in the mid-series gap) and the way Chibnall would have done it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 07, 2021, 01:52:52 PM
RTD, meanwhile, would have gone for 20 minutes of crying and bombastic sad music.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 07, 2021, 02:11:58 PM
For anyone who's missed it, the Noel Clarke thread now has this:

Includes specific accusations from junior members of the crew, with comment from RTD, Julie Gardner, Barrowman, and increasingly-grimly-hilarious shit from Clarke's lawyers.

I'll be writing about it over there, rather than here, but just wanted to give a heads-up for those who don't visit General Bullshit.

Quote
On one occasion, Jenna said that she witnessed Barrowman “slapping” his penis on the windscreen of one of the driver’s cars, “thinking it was really funny”.

To be fair, if he was standing at for example the driver’s door and was recognisably slapping his penis on the actual windscreen from there, rather on the metal frame around it, it must be a fair size.  If I was attempting the same feat the story would be “Replies From View was standing at the driver’s door of David Tennant’s car, and he was squishing his genital bundle, comprising an indecipherable mass of cock, balls and pubic hair, in the gap between the wing mirror and the windscreen frame.”


And if they said that I’d be able to tell the jury it was just a tennis ball or something.  So last laugh and all that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: frajer on May 07, 2021, 02:20:08 PM
I know that doing it off-screen isn’t always ideal, but in this instance one could argue that the mid-series gap works as an emotional cushion for the Ponds to come to terms with it all, and for the viewers to not require an emotional resolution because so much time has passed.  What we didn’t see on-screen was “never mind all this guff; let’s just get on with more adventures!” but people tend to see it that way because all these emotional arcs were not attended to in any episodes we saw.


My view is that something tricky like that is better left off-screen than done badly on-screen.  I know that this arguably lets Moffat off some hooks a little too easily, but think of the way it was handled by Moffat (the audience can imagine it, if they want, in the mid-series gap) and the way Chibnall would have done it.

I'd completely forgotten about that mid-series break! Funny how much brouhaha it caused at the time, given the current release rate.

A good point and I think you're right, the hiatus must have been factored in on a storytelling level. But it does still feel a massive emotional development that is glossed over a bit too neatly for me. Series 6 is a busy old series with the pregnancy/River/Silence/Doctor's death stuff going on and the breathless pace is a double-edged sword perhaps.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on May 09, 2021, 12:52:28 PM
Chibnall is still writing for a family audience, like Dicks and RTD and Moffat, it's just that the family is one exceptionally dull boy and a patient but disinterested grandmother.

Shona was initially written as a possible companion

Was she though, in Pixley-confirmed certitude, or is it just that we all adored her so much that we wished she'd be sticking around?


Or anything in The Time of the Doctor, now I think about it? It's most significant emotional implication is that the show isn't going to end that week, I guess.

Because the UNIVERSE isn't going to end! Too often, Moffat had the universe threatened in a way that made it no threat whatsoever (The Lodger blows this incredibly, muffing the otherwise close and personal tone - the top-floor aliens could threaten that one row of houses, rather than the universe, to better effect), but he finally scaled back this time. The episode is about The Doctor reducing his scope of care from ALL OF TIME AND SPACE to one tiny town on one tiny planet -- and in the process becoming a sun god, whose own death and rebirth in an explosion of light allows existence to carry on for this entire, little world. It's magnificent.

Admittedly, it might have come across better if seeded, built up, and then told without "naked dinner party jokes" in the same episode. But given how often Moffat ditched his long-term plans for a new idea bcz he was bored of thinking about the old one too long, it might have played worse.

Completely agree, I hated that whole development. Still feel that it was far too big and awful an incident for the show, which painted them into a corner in terms of the emotional arc. Naturally you couldn't show the Ponds going insane with grief, but the only other option is to have them come across as unrelatably aloof about the whole thing. Amy and Rory's actual baby being stolen from them is just so bleak and I don't think "don't worry, she grows up fine(ish) and is River" is the cure-all the show seems to think it is.

Case in point: that season mixed up the order of its episodes, so the one where Amy & Rory search through a haunted house for a missing child never mentions that their own child had been stolen, nor is there any thematic resonance, because that episode was filmed to go in the first half-season, before they even knew she was pregnant.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 09, 2021, 01:38:49 PM
I also recall that at the end of that episode, the Doctor puts his arms round Amy and Rory and says 'it's good to be back together,' and half-ominously adds, 'in the flesh'. Obviously intended to forecast the reveal that Amy is a Flesh Ganger, though the change in running order meant this had already been dealt with.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Zetetic on May 09, 2021, 01:52:28 PM
to one tiny town on one tiny planet
There is no reason to give a shit about "Christmas" and "Trenzalore". And what's the threat? That they all die? Sad if we imagine anyone notices, I suppose.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 09, 2021, 02:04:37 PM
There is no reason to give a shit about "Christmas" and "Trenzalore". And what's the threat? That they all die? Sad if we imagine anyone notices, I suppose.

Boris Johnson REACTS to Doctor Who
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Zetetic on May 09, 2021, 02:13:38 PM
If you wept with joy at the end of The Time of the Doctor, it's because you're party to the gross abstract sentimentality of dictators disconnected from the experiences of actual humans.

Not my words, but Moffat describing who he writes for, in my imagination.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 09, 2021, 07:25:14 PM
If you wept with joy at the end of The Time of the Doctor, it's because you're party to the gross abstract sentimentality of dictators disconnected from the experiences of actual humans.

Not my words, but Moffat describing who he writes for, in my imagination.

Sounds like something the Wachowskis would write for the Matrix sequels.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jack Shaftoe on May 09, 2021, 08:25:45 PM
I remember so clearly being excited for the new Doctor Who under RTD, talking my flatmate into watching with me (she was happy to watch Buffy and the like but had never been into Who). Started watching it, there was a strained silence for about twenty minutes while Ecclestone gurned under terrible lighting, then I apologised to her, turned it off and said something along the lines of 'ah well, at least they had a go', just assuming it was going to quietly die off again just as soon as it had started.

Very glad to be proved wrong, and I got more into it when I gave it another go when it was repeated (or on DVD maybe?), but man was I out of kilter with the general reception. Or was I INDEPENDENT-MINDED AND STRONG? You decide.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on May 10, 2021, 02:22:59 PM
haven't watched who for years because i felt i outgrew it, capaldi being a bit of a disappointing dad rocker type, but started to watch series 10 and i'm really enjoying it???

bill, nardole, and the doctor together work SO WELL together. capaldi's character's much more realised. it feels so much more natural now with clara gone i'm having a blast four episodes in
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 10, 2021, 03:53:15 PM
haven't watched who for years because i felt i outgrew it, capaldi being a bit of a disappointing dad rocker type, but started to watch series 10 and i'm really enjoying it???

bill, nardole, and the doctor together work SO WELL together. capaldi's character's much more realised. it feels so much more natural now with clara gone i'm having a blast four episodes in

Absolutely.  It’s such a shame we only got one series with that combination of characters.  It’s the only time Capaldi’s Doctor ever seemed to click, and then it was over.  Smith and Capaldi both needed four series each, for different reasons.

Moffat again showing how to have “gangs” of characters, too.  You don’t need three full-time companions.  Have one full-time companion, then one that tags along a little less frequently, then one who joins in at an even greater distance.


Rose, Mickey and Captain Jack
Amy, Rory and River Song
Clara and the Paternoster Gang (significantly less flexible as they come as a bundle of three)
Bill, Nardole and Missy
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jack Shaftoe on May 10, 2021, 04:07:13 PM
Apparently (according to a friend on the set), Capaldi found it very difficult to work with Lucas, not on a personal level as such, but because he kept improvving/changing his lines, which threw Capaldi off his rhythm.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on May 10, 2021, 04:20:59 PM
Echoes of Pertwee and Troughton in The Three Doctors there :

Quote
Pertwee now has to contend with the scene stealing antics of Troughton and the effortless command of Hartnell! It is hilarious when you learn about the behind the scenes clash of personalities, especially the idea of Troughton improvising his script as he goes along and throwing Pertwee off his game who has learnt his to the letter!
https://docohobigfinish.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-three-doctors-written-by-bob-baker.html
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jack Shaftoe on May 10, 2021, 04:40:32 PM
Ahhhh, clearly it's just part of a long Who tradition...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 10, 2021, 05:31:39 PM
Apparently (according to a friend on the set), Capaldi found it very difficult to work with Lucas, not on a personal level as such, but because he kept improvving/changing his lines, which threw Capaldi off his rhythm.

That seems really odd, considering Capaldi became famous for a show that was incredibly reliant on improvising/changing everyone's lines.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jack Shaftoe on May 10, 2021, 05:49:36 PM
The Thick Of It? Mayyyyyybe, but in my experience, most actors massively exaggerate the amount of improvisation they do. Or maybe that was one kind of setup and he'd gone into Who working a different way, dunno.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 10, 2021, 06:26:40 PM
Echoes of Pertwee and Troughton in The Three Doctors there :
https://docohobigfinish.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-three-doctors-written-by-bob-baker.html

The “effortless command” of a pre-recorded video tape of Hartnell reading his lines.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 10, 2021, 06:28:05 PM
Apparently (according to a friend on the set), Capaldi found it very difficult to work with Lucas, not on a personal level as such, but because he kept improvving/changing his lines, which threw Capaldi off his rhythm.

Well it worked.  Sometimes an actor boggling for a moment and trying to recalibrate so the scene can move forward is exactly what is needed.  See also Matt Smith trying to keep up with Tom Baker in Day of the Doctor.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 10, 2021, 07:11:28 PM
haven't watched who for years because i felt i outgrew it, capaldi being a bit of a disappointing dad rocker type, but started to watch series 10 and i'm really enjoying it???

bill, nardole, and the doctor together work SO WELL together. capaldi's character's much more realised. it feels so much more natural now with clara gone i'm having a blast four episodes in
It's pretty much a different show, isn't it? There's just a wonderful sparkling energy to it that was absent throughout most of the 12 / Clara run, it's fun without resorting to RTD style vapidness, there's also a slight move away from the London-centric stuff into more atmospheric stories as well. If only we'd had more.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 10, 2021, 07:20:59 PM
It would have been a borderline perfect series if it hadn't had the horrible fake regeneration in the middle.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Lungpuddle on May 10, 2021, 07:26:56 PM
It would have been a borderline perfect series if it hadn't had the horrible fake regeneration in the middle.

I liked Extremis, the Pyramid one was okay, but yeah the Lie of the Land is terrible and does everything wrong. That fake regeneration was the worst part, along with the bit where there's what I assume to be ADR with the Doctor saying "oh yes, I was accidentally saving the world!" It's such a condescending moment, made all the worse by how great the rest of series 10 is (I was disappointed by the Ice Warriors one too, but not to this extent).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Gurke and Hare on May 10, 2021, 07:51:09 PM
The Bill and Nardole series was great, especially after the previous series which was so dull Chris Bidmead could have written it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 10, 2021, 08:30:40 PM
I liked Extremis, the Pyramid one was okay, but yeah the Lie of the Land is terrible and does everything wrong. That fake regeneration was the worst part, along with the bit where there's what I assume to be ADR with the Doctor saying "oh yes, I was accidentally saving the world!" It's such a condescending moment, made all the worse by how great the rest of series 10 is (I was disappointed by the Ice Warriors one too, but not to this extent).

The fake regeneration scene was so horribly misconceived.  The Doctor tricks Bill into shooting him (why?), and he pretends to regenerate for a joke.  What unpleasant manipulation from the Doctor, rendering himself a cunt as he makes Bill feel wretched for no reason at all.  What was the point?  I don't even think anyone in the room, including Bill, knew about regeneration at that point so who was it aimed at apart from the viewer of the trailer for series 10?

So immensely nasty.  And such a shame because the arc of that story was otherwise great, with the Doctor blinded and vulnerable for a few episodes.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: M-CORP on May 11, 2021, 11:19:23 AM
Agree. And it's a shame because otherwise the Monk trilogy is actually pretty good, I think Pyramid At The End Of The World has an excellent cliffhanger and leads very nicely into Lie Of The Land, which is going well until Bill shoots the Doctor. It's a nice idea having the Doctor change sides, but they can't follow through on it, because the Doctor would have to abruptly change back at some point. So they just throw it out, and at the end solve everything with memories of dead mums.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on May 11, 2021, 11:47:36 AM
That whole arc seems to have been written on the fly: Mathieson had the Doctor's sight being fixed, and Moffat added the blindness twist which leads into the next three eps; Moffat added his name to the Pyramid script m/l because so much had gone awry along the way that he didn't want Harness to take the blame for it; then Whithouse breaks his ten-year run of "quite good fun episode" / "pretty shit episode" with that absolute disaster. Although I can't remember anything about it bar the fake regeneration tbf, maybe it got better after the titles.

(Or maybe there was some actual plot and dialogue in the Pyramid ep that led up to the regen, but got lost in rewrites and editing.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 11, 2021, 01:12:39 PM
There’s unfortunately a bit of a flaw in the show itself by this point, because we’ve seen endless iterations of injuries and other obstacles being overcome with the sonic screwdriver, regeneration energy or the TARDIS, so even though something like the Doctor becoming blind feels shocking, you kind of hold back as a viewer thinking there’s an annoyingly easy fix around the corner.

So for example despite the dramatic impact of Clara flinging TARDIS keys into a volcano, I never fully detached from the awareness that the Doctor can easily open the doors by clicking his fingers anyway.  And we’ve seen the Doctor fixing River’s broken wrist by spurting out a bit of regeneration juice, so I kind of held back from ever feeling the Doctor’s blindness meant anything; something like a reveal that he was faking to gain an advantage over that week’s villain seemed inevitable.

A simple line of dialogue saying that his stupid regeneration light show prevented him from healing himself would have helped matters in this instance (and actually justified that fucking scene).  But it wouldn’t have fixed the larger problem that there are now too many easy-fix options in Doctor Who that make the stakes too low in the long term.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 11, 2021, 03:01:03 PM
That whole arc seems to have been written on the fly: Mathieson had the Doctor's sight being fixed, and Moffat added the blindness twist which leads into the next three eps; Moffat added his name to the Pyramid script m/l because so much had gone awry along the way that he didn't want Harness to take the blame for it; then Whithouse breaks his ten-year run of "quite good fun episode" / "pretty shit episode" with that absolute disaster. Although I can't remember anything about it bar the fake regeneration tbf, maybe it got better after the titles.

(Or maybe there was some actual plot and dialogue in the Pyramid ep that led up to the regen, but got lost in rewrites and editing.)

Do you have a link to Moffat or one of the other writers discussing this arc? It does feel like a game of exquisite corpse, which is fun with a bit of paper and a pen on a Sunday afternoon, but ill-advised on a multimillion-pound TV blockbuster.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 11, 2021, 08:09:09 PM
Moffat's mother died while he was writing Extremis, I seem to remember reading he was working from a hospital room for much of that time.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 11, 2021, 08:23:15 PM
Moffat's mother died while he was writing Extremis, I seem to remember reading he was working from a hospital room for much of that time.

Wow, didn't know that.

Quote
What was your biggest nightmare? You can’t say The Day of the Doctor.
But it was. The level of expectation. The email I was getting in my inbox. People were savagely cross that we didn’t have William Hartnell in it and I’m saying, “He’s just not responding to my phone calls…” Um, what other nightmares were there? Around the middle of the last series when my mum was dying and then died – that was awful. I was writing [episode six] Extremis and still had the two-part finale and this Christmas special to go. And I was thinking that the only thing that’s keeping me going at all is that I can see the finish line. I’m just crawling towards that.

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-steven-moffat-interview-matt-smith/
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 13, 2021, 04:19:25 PM
(If she had left in Last Christmas, we might have gotten some dud Clara-alike companion in S9 anyway, not anything like the fantastic PCap/Bill/Nardole team. Nardole wasn't even thought of being added to S10 until halfway through the year's shoot, incidentally.)

In case anyone had ever wondered, apparently Shona from Last Christmas was being set up as the series 9 companion until Coleman decided to stay.


I wish I could find the source for this.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 13, 2021, 07:44:02 PM
In case anyone had ever wondered, apparently Shona from Last Christmas was being set up as the series 9 companion until Coleman decided to stay.


I wish I could find the source for this.

Here? https://youtu.be/styqnGNTffM?t=670
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 14, 2021, 07:17:48 AM
Here? https://youtu.be/styqnGNTffM?t=670

Yes, thanks.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Natnar on May 14, 2021, 08:09:16 AM
RTD, meanwhile, would have gone for 20 minutes of crying and bombastic sad music.

I think i'd rather that than Moffat's "Oh well, your baby has been kidnapped, never mind let's crack on and have a jaunty adventure".
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 14, 2021, 05:12:53 PM
I think i'd rather that than Moffat's "Oh well, your baby has been kidnapped, never mind let's crack on and have a jaunty adventure".

Except Moffat didn't do that, as I already pointed out.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Lungpuddle on May 14, 2021, 05:16:25 PM
I think i'd rather that than Moffat's "Oh well, your baby has been kidnapped, never mind let's crack on and have a jaunty adventure".

Possibly confusing that with the end of Day of the Moon. The arc-heavy nature of series 6 makes that easy. There's a line at the end of the second episode where the Doctor does pretty much say, "we could investigate this mystery, but let's just have some adventures." But in a different episode.

What Replies said, too.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Zetetic on May 14, 2021, 05:24:37 PM
Except Moffat didn't do that, as I already pointed out.
To be clear, is your argument "there was a bit of a gap where someone could have been reacting to events, so you can't say that they weren't"?

That comes across as more sarky than I meant it to, but there you are.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Deanjam on May 14, 2021, 06:22:00 PM
Big Finish have pulled the Torchwood story Absent Friends from release, presumably because of Barrowman.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1W2vWJXIAQcXhs?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 14, 2021, 07:14:19 PM
To be clear, is your argument "there was a bit of a gap where someone could have been reacting to events, so you can't say that they weren't"?

That comes across as more sarky than I meant it to, but there you are.

Well I’ve already been quite clear.  Not sure it needs summarising into something quite so stupid:

I know that doing it off-screen isn’t always ideal, but in this instance one could argue that the mid-series gap works as an emotional cushion for the Ponds to come to terms with it all, and for the viewers to not require an emotional resolution because so much time has passed.  What we didn’t see on-screen was “never mind all this guff; let’s just get on with more adventures!” but people tend to see it that way because all these emotional arcs were not attended to in any episodes we saw.


My view is that something tricky like that is better left off-screen than done badly on-screen.  I know that this arguably lets Moffat off some hooks a little too easily, but think of the way it was handled by Moffat (the audience can imagine it, if they want, in the mid-series gap) and the way Chibnall would have done it.


Isn’t that fair enough?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 14, 2021, 08:04:14 PM
Nah, because the real issue is in the lack of reaction after the Mels revelation, which came after the gap. The episode ends with Amy offhandedly saying "Do you think we'll see [River] again?" like she's referring to a quirky one-off guest star and not the daughter she'd carried in captivity for nine months then had snatched from her twice.

It's shit, it spoils an otherwise fantastic season, and Moffat totally dropped the ball.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 14, 2021, 09:51:26 PM
I haven’t seen it since 2011, so I may or may not agree in retrospect if I were to rewatch it.


At the time, as a Moffat apologist (which I still am when the current comparison is Chibnall), I didn’t think it was brushed off, just that the trauma wasn’t shown.  If you can accept that trauma is usually dealt with in private you may end up enjoying series 6 more; I don’t know.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 15, 2021, 12:25:22 AM
It’s not handled brilliantly - there’s basically not a trace of “we lost our baby, then it turned out she was our childhood best friend, then she tried to kill us, then ended up marrying The Doctor and we only really saw her for a few months of her life” in the Ponds’ behaviour, largely because Moffat doesn’t know how to write that. He can do beautiful intimate moments, but bigger emotions and he just falls apart.
I still think it’s a billion times better than the angst of RTD’s “oh no my companion is still alive but I can’t see her so I’ll cry on screen for the first time in 29 years of my character because this is far sadder than any of the other times I’ve never seen companions again and look the scene will go on for ages with an obnoxious Murray Gold score because Russell thinks common people are too stupid to get emotions unless they’re hammered home excessively” patronising bullshit.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 15, 2021, 02:14:23 AM
I haven’t seen it since 2011, so I may or may not agree in retrospect if I were to rewatch it.


At the time, as a Moffat apologist (which I still am when the current comparison is Chibnall), I didn’t think it was brushed off, just that the trauma wasn’t shown.  If you can accept that trauma is usually dealt with in private you may end up enjoying series 6 more; I don’t know.

I agree, more or less. I think they do address it. It's just that Amy is meant to be someone who supresses her vulnerability, so when she first meets the Doctor after the gap, she's demanding to know where her baby is, and then in the final episode we see her literally torture - and for all we know kill - the eyepatch woman for stealing her time with River. The fact they knew Mels all their life is also meant to (retroactively) diffuse some of the raw emotion once they find out.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 15, 2021, 06:10:55 AM
I haven%u2019t seen it since 2011, so I may or may not agree in retrospect if I were to rewatch it.


At the time, as a Moffat apologist (which I still am when the current comparison is Chibnall), I didn%u2019t think it was brushed off, just that the trauma wasn%u2019t shown.  If you can accept that trauma is usually dealt with in private you may end up enjoying series 6 more; I don%u2019t know.

Except it's a TV show and there is no meaningful privacy for the characters. And it's a massive moment coming off the back of a very emotionally intense cliffhanger, so leaving it to the viewer to assume Amy went and had a bit of a cry off-camera at some point just isn't good enough.

Moffat fucked it. Still a good season though. And he's still be best writer the series has ever had.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 15, 2021, 07:14:39 AM
Let’s Kill Hitler is a bad episode.  Moffat knew that the mystery value of River Song was in her foretelling of the great times the Doctor would have with her, so why he chose to render her first moments as the Alex Kingston incarnation as this kind of childish “cor I fancy him” runaround I’ll never know.  You’ve got this promise of great depth to their connection that never really comes to fruition until The Husbands of River Song, which is far too late in her own timeline to warrant her earnestness or aloofness in series 4, 5 and the first half of series 6.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 15, 2021, 07:39:02 AM
Yeah, River is awful in series 6. Her actions in the finale, where she's willing to let billions die until he agrees to marry her, feel totally misjudged. It also doesn't make any sense why the Doctor continues that relationship once they get "married", other than because he's heard they do. There's no chemistry or deeper connection between them, and imo, that's far more serious than the baby stuff we've been discussing, since it's at the heart of the entire character.

You’ve got this promise of great depth to their connection that never really comes to fruition until The Husbands of River Song, which is far too late in her own timeline to warrant her earnestness or aloofness in series 4, 5 and the first half of series 6.
   

I'd argue that you do start to see them have a more intimate bond over the course of her last few appearances, but it's still far too late. They needed to form that connection in series 6, so that, even if their marriage did end up being a means to an end, you still believed there was something deeper there. I never get any sense of that whatsoever: he's suspicious, then horny, then... respectful enough to stay with her?   
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 15, 2021, 07:43:56 AM
I suppose that was kind of the point; that it was a one sided thing, with River being far more obsessed with him, than he was of her. But I just don't think it works, even on that level. They just don't seem to have any connection, other than wanting to fuck each other. They needed something more, sooner.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 15, 2021, 08:32:54 AM
I suppose that was kind of the point; that it was a one sided thing, with River being far more obsessed with him, than he was of her. But I just don't think it works, even on that level. They just don't seem to have any connection, other than wanting to fuck each other. They needed something more, sooner.

I suppose the obvious solution would have been to show many moments in the earlier stages of River's own timeline where she'd develop an attraction for the Doctor for who he is, but weirdly all we get is her learning about the Doctor from the Ponds, then she fancies him when she meets him, then she is told that he is amazing so she uses up regeneration energy saving him.

An argument would probably be that we have seen companions being mesmerised by the Doctor's brilliance loads of times, and Moffat presumably wanted to use shorthand for River considering everything else he wanted to pack into series 5 and 6, and just to not be too repetitive - it just means that the methods by which the Doctor normally develops a bond with his companions never happened for him with River.  All the stuff she foretold and drove him mad with curiosity seemed to not really happen.  And I can't mesh together all her flirting/'you'll see!' stuff with the revelation that she's Amy and Rory's daughter, either.  That's what was presented as the ultimate reveal for her character but I can't believe that's what she's holding back in the series 5 angels two-parter.


I wonder if the Ponds' grief and this missing Doctor-River content should have been handled at once in a single or double episode in series 6.  The Ponds at home grieving while the Doctor and River galavant on their own journeys without them.  A weird juxtaposition and, yeah, maybe the wrong thing to do after a mid-series break.  I can completely understand why a few mini-episodes were made around this time, but they weren't enough.  Does Big Finish do anything worthwhile with River?  Maybe her deeper connection with the Doctor makes more sense when those are taken into account, but I'm confused about her meeting pre-Tennant incarnations considering what she says in series 4.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on May 15, 2021, 10:48:21 AM
Do you have a link to Moffat or one of the other writers discussing this arc? It does feel like a game of exquisite corpse, which is fun with a bit of paper and a pen on a Sunday afternoon, but ill-advised on a multimillion-pound TV blockbuster.

I've just pieced little bits together from tweets and interviews by Mathieson and Harness, but I bet there's a full-on Pixley DWM special with lavishly-researched details about the various script drafts.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 15, 2021, 11:30:58 AM
I do think there’s an element of exquisite corpse (actually any long-form improvisational process) to Moffat’s era, and to RTD’s too to a lesser extent.  Whenever something mysterious-sounding (like “the Medusa Cascade”) was thrown in, none of the writers had a plan for it.  They were seeding terms for themselves to follow up in later series, and knew they would have the creative ability to expand on them with details when the time came.


This obviously applies to everything about River Song, and the silence/silents that were seeded in series 5 and built upon in series 6.  I think it’s perfectly acceptable to do this for future series when you are only planning the precise details for the current series.  Do the current series in detail, and drop a few random seeds for the next series without necessarily knowing where you want to take them.  Follow them up when you get there.  It’s a standard creative process.

The deeper issue comes when it’s transparently occurring within a single series.  For example:  I don’t believe that Moffat knew what the hybrid was when he was writing the first episodes of series 9.  This would be fine if he was using the writing process of later episodes to help himself know where he was going, then returning to rewrite the earlier episodes so it all tied up from start to finish.  The problem is that no such script revision was taking place - the first episodes of the series were being filmed before the finale was written, and therefore, I suggest, before Moffat knew where he was actually going.  So you get this kind of sprawling, maybe this, maybe that, sprinkling throughout the series without anything really stepping in to define the hybrid earlier than the finale, and then the finale just kind of goes “never mind; it never mattered anyway”.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Zetetic on May 15, 2021, 12:20:41 PM
I suppose the difference for me (and I'll try not to pretend that it's more than that for once) is that it far more often felt to me that RTD would try to sell whatever resolution he'd plucked out of the air as mattering to the characters (even if this frequently meant an emotionally overwrought conclusion) while Moffat would try to sell it as a clever and somehow intellectually satisfying (certainly to some people, it seems) tidying away of the plot and jargon[1] that had gone before.
 1. And I like the introduction of to-be-made-sense-of jargon, in itself.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 15, 2021, 12:29:27 PM
I think they both managed to pull it off and fuck it up. I like the way series 4 subtly seeded the finale in numerous ways, and, much as I hate Journey's End, I can admit he tied all those elements together really well. Similarly, series 5 was very satisfying, especially in that it didn't tie everything up, thus making the show feel slightly less constrained by the 'season long arc concluding with a Big Bad' formula. On the opposite end, randomly throwing in the phrases Bad Wolf and Hybrid, only for them to have very little actual meaning at the end is just really tedious.

I'd argue that Chibnall actually structured his Timeless Child arc really well, it's just a shame that's it's such an offensively shit idea.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 15, 2021, 04:12:59 PM
I do think there’s an element of exquisite corpse (actually any long-form improvisational process) to Moffat’s era, and to RTD’s too to a lesser extent.  Whenever something mysterious-sounding (like “the Medusa Cascade”) was thrown in, none of the writers had a plan for it.  They were seeding terms for themselves to follow up in later series, and knew they would have the creative ability to expand on them with details when the time came.


This obviously applies to everything about River Song, and the silence/silents that were seeded in series 5 and built upon in series 6.  I think it’s perfectly acceptable to do this for future series when you are only planning the precise details for the current series.  Do the current series in detail, and drop a few random seeds for the next series without necessarily knowing where you want to take them.  Follow them up when you get there.  It’s a standard creative process.

The deeper issue comes when it’s transparently occurring within a single series.  For example:  I don’t believe that Moffat knew what the hybrid was when he was writing the first episodes of series 9.  This would be fine if he was using the writing process of later episodes to help himself know where he was going, then returning to rewrite the earlier episodes so it all tied up from start to finish.  The problem is that no such script revision was taking place - the first episodes of the series were being filmed before the finale was written, and therefore, I suggest, before Moffat knew where he was actually going.  So you get this kind of sprawling, maybe this, maybe that, sprinkling throughout the series without anything really stepping in to define the hybrid earlier than the finale, and then the finale just kind of goes “never mind; it never mattered anyway”.

Last time I watched it I remember thinking that the finale is pretty clear about what the hybrid is (the combination of the Doctor smashing his way through the millennia to try and rescue Clara), it's just that it never pauses to say "viewer at home? this is what the hybrid is" so people don't feel sure about it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 15, 2021, 06:29:53 PM
It bundles through a load of possible interpretations, I thought, without comfortably settling on any of them.  It was only after watching an interview with Moffat where he said the hybrid was the Doctor + Clara, and still I felt that made no sense.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 15, 2021, 06:56:06 PM
I think (and I would have to rewatch) it sets up a few options for what the Hybrid could be, and discards them all except for the idea that it's The Doctor and Clara. (A bit like a "That's Not My Hybrid" children's book, if you like.) And I think they do match the prophecy pretty exactly don't they? Destroying a billion hearts to heal itself, or however it goes?

(I should probably rewatch though.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 15, 2021, 07:02:42 PM
Am I uniquely stupid for not understanding how two separate people are a hybrid?



I understood all the other concepts - the friend inside the enemy / the enemy inside the friend, the Zygon-Human indeterminacy, the Time Lord Daleks and whatever else was suggested.  The Doctor being half-human was irritatingly brought up as well but I understood it at least.  But Clara and the Doctor?  Why are they a hybrid?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 15, 2021, 07:04:43 PM
It's a metaphor, probably.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 15, 2021, 07:05:58 PM
I wouldn't even have a problem with the Doctor-Donna being set up as a hybrid, as they were fused at some point.


But the Doctor and Clara are separate at all levels of their being.  What would the metaphor be, if it's a metaphor?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Zetetic on May 15, 2021, 07:08:51 PM
And if the hybrid is - somehow - the Doctor and Clara… how does either of them feel about this fact? Does it matter to either of them? Why?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 15, 2021, 07:10:26 PM
I think (and I would have to rewatch) it sets up a few options for what the Hybrid could be, and discards them all except for the idea that it's The Doctor and Clara. (A bit like a "That's Not My Hybrid" children's book, if you like.) And I think they do match the prophecy pretty exactly don't they? Destroying a billion hearts to heal itself, or however it goes?

(I should probably rewatch though.)

To be fair, I should probably rewatch it too before criticising it further.


My overriding sense was that it came too soon after the Day of the Doctor to resonate properly.  The prophecy could just as easily have been foretelling the Time War, right?  I mean if you had that prophecy bubbling away in the past of Gallifrey, and the Time War happened, would you still be holding out for the prophecy to come true?  Or would you assume that was probably it.



Cheers Chibnall for erasing Gallifrey again, by the way.  I mean if you want to remember for a moment that all these flaws of Moffat were relatively insignificant....
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 15, 2021, 07:11:39 PM
Just that it's only the two of them in combination. The Doctor on his own won't fulfil the Hybrid prophecy, neither will Clara on her own. Yeah it's a bit of a stretch but I don't think that's too unusual in a storyline where an ancient prophecy comes true in an unforeseen way.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 15, 2021, 07:13:42 PM
Just that it's only the two of them in combination. The Doctor on his own won't fulfil the Hybrid prophecy, neither will Clara on her own. Yeah it's a bit of a stretch but I don't think that's too unusual in a storyline where an ancient prophecy comes true in an unforeseen way.

I wouldn't have been looking out for the hybrid after the Time War, personally.  "Oh it must have meant that."  "Yeah, must have done."  "After all it had Daleks plus every incarnation of the Doctor."  "Stands to reason."


Duality would have been a more appropriate label for the idea (and all its variants in series 9).  I wish it hadn't been called a hybrid.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on May 15, 2021, 07:59:34 PM
The main problem for me with both RTD and Moffat (apart from the former's tiresome dei ex machina season endings) is the whole thing with ooh, mysterious, ooh, cool, things that they never really explain. Bad Wolf, the Hybrid, the Nightmare Child, the Medusa Cascade...and don't tell me 'oh, but they do say what the Nightmare Child was (for example)' - do we ever see it? Find out why it was given such a pretentious name? Why, exactly, was 'Bad Wolf' such a compelling phrase for Rose and/or the TARDIS to seed through all Time and Space?

They almost always (bar Torchwood and Saxon) gave the impression of writing cool-sounding cheques that the author couldn't dramatically cash.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 15, 2021, 08:16:19 PM
I don't know whether I ever needed to see the Nightmare Child though.  That kind of thing is origin story stuff, and best left as mysterious-sounding but vague as possible.


Both RTD and Moffat stayed on the right side of alluding to 'origin story' events.  What they did was world-building in that regard.  Putting in mundane details and ruining all mystery is what the Matrix names the Chibnall Hubris.



As for series arcs, yes they were mostly clunky.  RTD's main issue was his need to keep upping the universe-destruction stakes until after 4 series there was nowhere left to go.  I've already talked about the hybrid in posts further up this page, but Bad Wolf could have been any set of words - it was completely arbitrary.  The cracks of series 5 were good, I have a soft spot for series 6 despite its flaws, series 7 didn't know what 50th anniversary story it was seeding yet, series 8 didn't quite nail exactly why Missy needed Clara to hang around, but by the time of series 10 I think Moffat had got the balance right again.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 15, 2021, 09:11:00 PM
The main problem for me with both RTD and Moffat (apart from the former's tiresome dei ex machina season endings) is the whole thing with ooh, mysterious, ooh, cool, things that they never really explain. Bad Wolf, the Hybrid, the Nightmare Child, the Medusa Cascade...and don't tell me 'oh, but they do say what the Nightmare Child was (for example)' - do we ever see it? Find out why it was given such a pretentious name? Why, exactly, was 'Bad Wolf' such a compelling phrase for Rose and/or the TARDIS to seed through all Time and Space?

They almost always (bar Torchwood and Saxon) gave the impression of writing cool-sounding cheques that the author couldn't dramatically cash.

I actually really like RTD's approach to describing the Time War, which is just to drop in these evocative phrases without any attempt at explanation. Tennant saying "I was there at the fall of Arcadia" is so much more interesting than the attempt to show that in a minisode.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: H-O-W-L on May 15, 2021, 09:43:30 PM
"The Could've-Been King and his Army of Meanwhiles and Never-Weres" is also way more evocative as a name than any explanation could've ever been. An almost fairy-tale, Arthurian or Mad Max style crazy title that could never be lived up to by any descriptive or displayed explanation. IIRC the comics and books have elaborated on what it was (some time bollocks) but just the title alone is evocative and frightening IMO.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on May 15, 2021, 10:07:09 PM
Conversely, I don't. (Yeah, shock, opinions differ...) It sounds like someone trying too hard to be Neil Gaiman. More to the point, it's not anything that Daleks or Time Lords would call anything. They're both far too pragmatic.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on May 15, 2021, 10:15:28 PM
I actually really like RTD's approach to describing the Time War, which is just to drop in these evocative phrases without any attempt at explanation.

Agreed.  In my head I always imagined "The Nightmare Child" as a huge evil version of the Starchild at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

As some of you may recall, I was incredibly disappointed and rather annoyed that it turned out to be just an extra-cross Dalek.


(Yeah, shock, opinions differ...)

Which is fine. :-)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 15, 2021, 10:15:52 PM
Although I actually inherently dislike the idea of the Time War, if only because it made The Doctor the Last of the Time Lords rather than just a guy bumbling around the universe, righting wrongs he comes across, I agree that it's generally portrayed very well. Night and Day of the Doctor managed to show just enough of it all without spoiling it. No idea what I'm going to come to when I reach the Big Finish Time War range.

The Could've Been King stuff sends it slightly further into fantasy territory than I like my Who, but "I was there at the fall of Arcadia" is a great example of an evocative phrase that doesn't need building on.

Bad Wolf can fuck off, though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 15, 2021, 11:11:42 PM
"I was there at Buttocks Ridge" is more pragmatic.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 15, 2021, 11:39:02 PM
Conversely, I don't. (Yeah, shock, opinions differ...) It sounds like someone trying too hard to be Neil Gaiman. More to the point, it's not anything that Daleks or Time Lords would call anything. They're both far too pragmatic.

Well, this was when the Time War was implied to be some mad, reality-twisting multidimensional fuckfest full of erased timelines and warped realities, rather than a bunch of Daleks shooting at a planet and somehow blowing each other up instead. I like it, and all the evocative weirdness that was tossed out there and should never have been turned into a comic or minisode or whatever.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 15, 2021, 11:46:36 PM
"I was there at Buttocks Ridge" is more pragmatic.

Barrowman is back on set?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: H-O-W-L on May 16, 2021, 02:50:07 AM
Conversely, I don't. (Yeah, shock, opinions differ...) It sounds like someone trying too hard to be Neil Gaiman. More to the point, it's not anything that Daleks or Time Lords would call anything. They're both far too pragmatic.

This was way back when the Daleks and Time Lords were merely the center of the Time War rather than the entirety of it, and it encompassed untold millions of species and thousands of planets, bear in mind. Shit like the Gelfth and all that. So big and vast that you had the odd Dalek getting shat out of space and plummetting into the year 2009, that sort of thing.

Day of the Doctor reducing the Time War to just, as Mister Six put it, a bunch of daleks shooting a planet was total shite. Sort of like how the Clone Wars was a far-off terrible thing that we didn't see, a Big Deal of things that was intentionally left vague to create dramatic aftershocks. Then it turned out to be a bunch of old men in rooms talking about boring tax shit along with electronic old men talking about a techno union like some early 1990s indie DnB label.

I really like the Could've-Been-King because it sounds so fantasy-like. It makes you think "how fucked up were some cultures by the Time War that they started spouting protoArthurian shit like that?", makes me think that whole planets were regressed into stone-age-dom by time-guns and dalekanian snozzbanglers and stuff.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 16, 2021, 08:47:30 AM
I always thought Day of the Doctor was only part of the Time War, rather than its entirety.  It doesn’t directly contradict anything you may have imagined was going on.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 16, 2021, 10:32:25 AM
I kind of took it as the Time Lords and Daleks were the only ones left by that point.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 16, 2021, 01:36:44 PM
Does Day of the Doctor fit in with The End of Time stuff?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 16, 2021, 03:15:34 PM
Does Day of the Doctor fit in with The End of Time stuff?

There's a single line in Day - 'to Hell with the High Council, their plans have failed' - which acknowledges The End of Time events as having recently taken place.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Talulah, really! on May 16, 2021, 03:44:48 PM
Frankly Doctor Who would be a lot better if the whole Gallifrey/Time Lords thing had been kept off screen, I've always found every appearance of them post Genesis of the Daleks to be atrocious wank.

Doctor Who should aspire to The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes rather than a venture of trying to be Game of Thrones in my opinion.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 16, 2021, 03:48:49 PM
I kind of took it as the Time Lords and Daleks were the only ones left by that point.

Yeah, I was being a bit reductive and daft. By the time of that episode the Time War has been going on long enough for the Eighth Doctor to avoid the whole thing while it ravaged civilisations and led to the Time Lords being feared across the universe (cf. Night of The Doctor), then for The War Doctor to get pulled into all kinds of gruelling Time War adventures (long enough for him to go from young John Hurt to old John Hurt). By the time of Day of The Doctor it's a last stand situation.

I think Moffat did as good as anyone could have possibly done in depicting the Time War on a BBC budget (and the episode itself is a classic) but The Day of The Doctor does seem to have left many under the belief that the Time War was just the Daleks and Time Lords firing pew-pew lasers at each other, rather than the much weirder, reality-warping event RTD (sensibly) only hinted at.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 16, 2021, 03:57:36 PM
Frankly Doctor Who would be a lot better if the whole Gallifrey/Time Lords thing had been kept off screen, I've always found every appearance of them post Genesis of the Daleks to be atrocious wank.

On occasion, though, it can enhance one's appreciation of the show to reflect on the fact that the Doctor came from a race of atrocious wankers.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 16, 2021, 04:19:28 PM
Both RTD and Moffat appreciated that the Time Lords were boring, but made sure Gallifrey stayed locked away even when it still existed.  Whether through one of those cracks in time or the confessional dial, it was made pretty clear that the Time Lords were not easy to reach, just available if any story needed to make use of them.

Chibnall was very stupid to not just leave the idea of Gallifrey alone for a while.  The Time Lords were not being oppressive, the Doctor was free to get on with stuff, but now everything is tied back to Gallifrey and whether the Time Lords can return and other yawn-festery.  "NOW THE TIME LORDS ARE GONE, HA."  No, you've brought them back from the possibility of just being ignored, you dunce.



Sorry to clutter this particular thread with waves of suddenly remembering how crap Chibnall is, but he is such a palimpsest of shit that he smothers everything in his past and future.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 16, 2021, 04:25:45 PM
Again, I would have been happier without the Time War, and just having the Time Lords as a bunch of stuffy old people we rarely see because The Doctor doesn't want to have anything to do with them. The Last of the Time Lords stuff immediately makes The Doctor a significant, tragic hero of a character, rather than an anti-authoritarian traveller who fixes problems as he stumbles across them. I know the former fits a 21st century TV landscape better than the latter, but it's never sat right with me.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 16, 2021, 04:37:44 PM
Again, I would have been happier without the Time War, and just having the Time Lords as a bunch of stuffy old people we rarely see because The Doctor doesn't want to have anything to do with them. The Last of the Time Lords stuff immediately makes The Doctor a significant, tragic hero of a character, rather than an anti-authoritarian traveller who fixes problems as he stumbles across them. I know the former fits a 21st century TV landscape better than the latter, but it's never sat right with me.

I think the Time War served a particular narrative function in 2005 and gave the Doctor a dark and mysterious history that probably meant more viewers stayed with the show than if he'd been fresh from the events of Survival or the TV Movie.  Plus it reinvented the Doctor's people with a terrifying mythology that took away their farty, boring natures in the imagination.  In turn, Moffat was right to identify that the Time War had done its job by 2013, the Doctor was no longer defined by the same angst (and nor should he have been) and to draw a line under it all in the 50th anniversary.

What RTD and Moffat should have reined in though were the excesses of the Doctor's universe-sweeping reputation.  It was often thrilling in the classic era whenever anyone recognised the Doctor before he'd introduced himself.  It signified great foreboding for someone to turn to him and say "Doctor" or "Time Lord".  You couldn't get that after about 2006 because the Doctor was constantly a celebrity wherever he went, and the show has never recovered from it.

That, and the increasingly over-powered gadgets like the sonic screwdriver / sunglasses or gimmicks like being able to open the TARDIS doors with a click of the fingers, that took away too many barriers and lowered the stakes too far.  I remember there was a story in RTD's time where the Doctor teleported the TARDIS to himself so he wouldn't have to seek it out.  Ok, so you didn't want to tell that story of searching for the TARDIS for a whole episode, but don't introduce that problem in the first place then.  All it does is give the Doctor yet another thing you expect him/her to pull out to save the day.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 16, 2021, 04:44:34 PM
Absolutely. It was reined in a bit in series 5, but then the whole bit at Stonehenge in The Pandorica Opens was peak Legend Doctor. You've got to keep the thing low stakes to make the high stakes bits stand out. The "Time Lord" line in The Curse of Fenric is chilling, because at that point you really don't expect it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 16, 2021, 08:36:08 PM
I thought Moffat was on our wavelength with this when the end of series 6 promised the Doctor laying low, keeping his head down and then series 7 saw him starting to erase himself from various databases.  Taken as dead and then his record scrubbed out; great, I thought.  Then his name wasn't to be spoken, so again it seemed Moffat was entrenching this idea he had to stay invisible.  It was the perfect opportunity to reset the Time Lord Victorious, Celebrity Doctor baggage, but it inexplicably lasted for all of five minutes.

I suppose any future showrunner could just ignore it all, and pretend that nobody has ever heard of the Doctor, but it wouldn't really make any sense without retreading something like the series 6-7 conceit and following through with it properly.  Or the series 5 cracks in time.  But that repetition would be annoying in itself.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 16, 2021, 08:43:02 PM
Chibnall was very stupid

Trimmed your post down.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 16, 2021, 08:44:00 PM
I think it's fine for these kind of things to go in waves, you can have a spell where the Doctor is just someone who wanders around and deals with whatever situation they find themselves in, and then you can have a period where the Doctor is an Important Figure in the Universe who Must Right All the Wrongs. It's a question of fashion and taste, and over 50+ years you're bound to get both approaches (and those in between). It's all to someone's taste[1].
 1. except for the Timeless Children stuff which everyone rightly hates
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on May 16, 2021, 08:44:49 PM
I’d make a bit of a running joke out of it, have the Doctor trying to throw her reputation about and people just being like fuck you on about never heard of you mate. She’d be annoyed but not enough to try to work out why she’s not famous any more
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 16, 2021, 09:23:28 PM
Trimmed your post down.

It doesn't need to be past tense if you're going to do that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 16, 2021, 09:24:28 PM
They could have a special parallel universe episode where Chibnall is able to write ok dialogue for all the characters in it and the story somehow isn't shite
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 16, 2021, 09:42:54 PM
It doesn't need to be past tense if you're going to do that.

I live in hope.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 17, 2021, 12:05:56 AM
I think it's fine for these kind of things to go in waves, you can have a spell where the Doctor is just someone who wanders around and deals with whatever situation they find themselves in, and then you can have a period where the Doctor is an Important Figure in the Universe who Must Right All the Wrongs. It's a question of fashion and taste, and over 50+ years you're bound to get both approaches (and those in between). It's all to someone's taste[1].
 1. except for the Timeless Children stuff which everyone rightly hates

Hmm, I'm not sure whether something like this has swung back and forth before.  In the classic era the Doctor wasn't known by everyone on earth, and feared by every alien species in the wider universe, and after taking it so far now it must be a very difficult thing to just decide isn't the case anymore or pretend hasn't ever been the case.

Even when the third Doctor was exiled on Earth for several years, he was known by UNIT but he was never treated with reverence or any full level of trust, and nobody else knew who he was - they just thought he was a nuisance or a crank coming to disrupt their corporate project or whatever.  By 2009 you've got Lee Evans being a shrieking fan of the Legendary Doctor, and by series 9 the Doctor is the President of Earth.  Can this stuff just be brushed off?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 17, 2021, 12:18:28 AM
Hmm, I'm not sure whether something like this has swung back and forth before.  In the classic era the Doctor wasn't known by everyone on earth, and feared by every alien species in the wider universe, and after taking it so far now it must be a very difficult thing to just decide isn't the case anymore or pretend hasn't ever been the case.

It's easy to do in stories not set on earth. If The Doctor lands on a planet/ship, the writer simply has to decide whether they have heard of The Doctor or not. It requires no in-universe fix whatsoever. Alien invasions on earth are much harder to explain away, but even the stuff with Unit is relatively easy to write out with a new leadership.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 17, 2021, 05:22:47 AM
Can this stuff just be brushed off?

Pretty much, yeah. It's Doctor Who.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Chiefgango on May 17, 2021, 06:57:41 AM
My sense is that the legendary doctor stuff was often a crutch Moffat used to paper over his weaknesses in writing. The eleventh doctor and the as angel two parter in series 5 use it fairly well, but the number of times “I am the Doctor” solves something is baffling when you think about it.

Off the top of my head:

Eleventh Hour — stops the atraxi coming back
Angels two parter — papers over the quite weak idea that a ship’s artificial gravity would be strong enough to pull every good character in from the outside, but not any of the angels (or surrounding terrain?)
Victory of the Daleks — weak excuse to have the daleks pretending to be servile robots. Definitely has the vibe of working backwards from a striking visual
The Pandorica Opens — I get that it’s a subversion, because all the galaxy’s nasties actually just want proof it is him before they lure him there, but that’s kind of the problem. The doctor is now so famous and scary that aliens we’ve seen fight one another rather than cooperate before can make devious plans together? Why? Can they all time travel now too? All of this is papered over by the the bombastic speech

Then series 6 is full of hand wavy conclusions disguised by I am the Doctor Speeches

Silence two parter — the resolution is kinda silly, but sold through swagger and riffing on the doctor’s reputation. Surely someone wasn’t watching the broadcast, and the silence could tell them to destroy it or play a new one? If it’s possible to use their powers over the tv, rather than in person, why don’t they take over the BBC and insert orders in episodes of antiques roadshow?
The doctor’s wife: if house was powerful enough to rip the tardis’s soul out of the box on the first place, why isn’t he powerful enough to stop it coming back?
A good man goes to war: the doctor dies in this episode. There is no way he walks into a room of people who want him dead making jokes without getting shot repeatedly
Let’s Kill Hitler: not only is he famous, but the person who kills him his famous. That saves the day. What
The wedding of river song — I think the consensus is this ending is shit. If you watch it back though, you tend to ignore that, because of the swagger and the “I am the doctor” speeches

Series 7 has less of this I think, but the Time of the Doctor is really silly. Those daleks would have killed him while he made that speech “you’re too scared of me because I am the doctor” is nonsense


Come to think of it “I am the Doctor” might be one of the most manipulative pieces of music used on tv. It can make any stupid idea sound profound and brilliant

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 17, 2021, 10:41:30 AM
Hmm, I'm not sure whether something like this has swung back and forth before.  In the classic era the Doctor wasn't known by everyone on earth, and feared by every alien species in the wider universe

True, but you get the seventh Doctor being all "it is my job to seek out and right wrongs", which is quite different to Hartnell stories for example.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 17, 2021, 05:26:37 PM
True, but you get the seventh Doctor being all "it is my job to seek out and right wrongs", which is quite different to Hartnell stories for example.

That’s the matter of any incarnation of the Doctor having their own take on who they are, and is what routinely changing your lead character allows.  But everyone in the universe knowing them and loving/fearing them isn’t part of what’s in the head of a single incarnation.  It’s an irrevocable change in the universe itself.

It’s a bit like the universe of Red Dwarf getting increasingly populated, until the point where the characters are meeting actual other humans some weeks and it being no big deal.  Yet Doug Naylor still writes the situation as an infinitely large, lonely and empty universe apart from this “last human” and his assortment of misfit companions.  But I think the journey is one-way; once you repopulate the universe you’ve lost its emptiness for good.

Same goes for the Doctor being a legend everywhere he or she goes.  The only thing a showrunner can really do is have something like the cracks in time resetting everything, but you can’t do that endlessly.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 17, 2021, 05:44:58 PM
You can just ignore it. Remember that the target audience is kids who either won't have seen episodes written 15+ years ago, or won't care. This is the series that sank Atlantis three times, after all. Just assume that time got rewritten somewhere, or this is a segment of time where The Doctor isn't that well known and roll with it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Norton Canes on May 17, 2021, 05:51:07 PM
Absolutely. Worst thing an incoming showrunner could do is waste time identifying and undoing the mistakes of their predecessor.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 17, 2021, 06:15:36 PM
I dunno, I thought Moffat’s one-shot removal of every RTD Dalek story was pretty great.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 17, 2021, 06:59:05 PM
Wasn't there something at one point about him erasing every mention of himself from every database in the universe, or something? I don't think it lasted long, though. Presumably they all restored from backups not long after.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 17, 2021, 07:07:01 PM
Wasn't there something at one point about him erasing every mention of himself from every database in the universe, or something? I don't think it lasted long, though. Presumably they all restored from backups not long after.

Yes.  That's what I was referring to when I wrote this:

I thought Moffat was on our wavelength with this when the end of series 6 promised the Doctor laying low, keeping his head down and then series 7 saw him starting to erase himself from various databases.  Taken as dead and then his record scrubbed out; great, I thought.  Then his name wasn't to be spoken, so again it seemed Moffat was entrenching this idea he had to stay invisible.  It was the perfect opportunity to reset the Time Lord Victorious, Celebrity Doctor baggage, but it inexplicably lasted for all of five minutes.

I suppose any future showrunner could just ignore it all, and pretend that nobody has ever heard of the Doctor, but it wouldn't really make any sense without retreading something like the series 6-7 conceit and following through with it properly.  Or the series 5 cracks in time.  But that repetition would be annoying in itself.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 17, 2021, 07:16:24 PM
Damn, caught out skim-reading the thread! Apologies to RFV for missing his post the first time round.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 17, 2021, 09:10:21 PM
I’m sure Jodie’s final episode will have Chibbers make her go back through time to erase her own Timeless Child past and in the process wipe out every previous incarnation of The Doctor, making her the first one ever or something.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 18, 2021, 12:11:01 AM
Still hoping Jo Martin is actually the 14th Doctor and this is Chibnall's idea of a clever twist.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on May 18, 2021, 04:58:51 AM
Yup, that's my hope too.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 18, 2021, 07:43:31 AM
Has she been good in things?  Apart from her Matrix Reloaded stand-and-blankly-deliver scenes from the last series I haven’t seen her in anything.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 18, 2021, 07:48:29 AM
My gut feeling is that Chibnall came up with Jo Martin’s Doctor to answer the criticism that the Doctor had always been a man up until Whittaker.  Even though it makes no sense for to have a police box and predate Hartnell, a woman past-Doctor gives a deeper precedent for changing gender now.  I still feel that’s more likely than her being the 14th Doctor.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Attila on May 18, 2021, 08:34:48 AM
Has she been good in things?  Apart from her Matrix Reloaded stand-and-blankly-deliver scenes from the last series I haven’t seen her in anything.

She's been on Holby City as the hospital CEO since 2019. She's been pretty good given the silly plotlines and general goofiness of Holby City in general.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 18, 2021, 12:29:25 PM
Only the best actors get to be CEOs of Holly City.  The rest can only be bog-standard nurses and things.


Serious question:  what’s her acting range like?  Is she engaging?  She came across as aloof and unmoving in her series 12 episodes, but that can’t be all of it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 18, 2021, 04:48:58 PM
I think the only other thing I've seen her in is Attack the Block and she's a bit of a blank in my memory, although it's a bit of a bland role, especially compared with the antics of the kids and Nick Frost.

A mate of mine liked her as a shut-in weirdo in the film Adult Life Skills, so much so that he was quite confident about her then-upcoming portrayal of The Doctor. Obviously he hadn't anticipated the power of Chibnall to fuck everything up.

Not seen it myself, but here's a post-Who trailer: https://youtu.be/Bk6OxjwL5Ho

And here's another one with even more irritating late-2000s inspirational indie acoustic guitar/choral music: https://youtu.be/RW0B0HvVW4Q
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 18, 2021, 07:00:07 PM
We're talking about Jo Martin right?  I've already seen what Jodie Whittaker could be like as the full-time Doctor.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 18, 2021, 08:18:38 PM
Oh sorry, right, yeah I'm not familiar with Martin's other work, but she played two different characters convincingly in one episode of Who and she had presence as The Doctor, so if she wants to take over for a few years and expunge the awful Timeless Child retcon then that's fine by me.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 18, 2021, 09:38:00 PM
Has she been good in things?  Apart from her Matrix Reloaded stand-and-blankly-deliver scenes from the last series I haven’t seen her in anything.

She was a better Doctor than Whittaker, which is all we can hope for if Chibnall gets to cast the next Doctor.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 19, 2021, 06:52:43 AM
Oh sorry, right, yeah I'm not familiar with Martin's other work, but she played two different characters convincingly in one episode of Who and she had presence as The Doctor, so if she wants to take over for a few years and expunge the awful Timeless Child retcon then that's fine by me.

Which two characters did she play before the Doctor?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Norton Canes on May 19, 2021, 10:47:36 AM
A mate of mine liked her as a shut-in weirdo in the film Adult Life Skills, so much so that he was quite confident about her then-upcoming portrayal of The Doctor

I watched Adult Life Skills in anticipation of her appearance in season 11 and was pretty impressed, thought she was a decent choice. In fact she was a better Doctor in it than she turned out to be in the actual programme.

Obviously he hadn't anticipated the power of Chibnall to fuck everything up

Me neither.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 19, 2021, 01:15:12 PM
Me neither.

I did try to warn everyone.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 19, 2021, 01:53:19 PM
I did try to warn everyone.

Heh, full credit, you really did.

I remember at the time most of us who had an opinion on the options argued that, on the basis of their previous episodes, Chibnall would at least have been a better showrunner than Gatiss - even if we recognised both would be pretty bad. You were the person most vociferously arguing against Chibnall.

I don't think anyone except you anticipated quite how abysmal Chibnall would end up being. I hope this brings you a sliver of comfort as the show burns.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 19, 2021, 02:18:01 PM
Last line of that reads massively passive aggressive. I didn't intend it that way, just as a joke.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 19, 2021, 02:43:45 PM
Which two characters did she play before the Doctor?

She played The Doctor and The Doctor's cover identity as a tour guide. They moved and talked like different people.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 19, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
I don't think anyone except you anticipated quite how abysmal Chibnall would end up being.

I hope I did, because I fucking hated Chibnall's Torchwood. I was trying to be positive and I was hopeful when The Woman Who Fell to Earth aired because it had only a couple of really obvious and shit errors/bad decisions, but prior to that I was very doubtful.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 19, 2021, 02:53:37 PM
A fair few people anticipated how bad Chibnall would be.

There is a reason I've not watched a second of his era.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 19, 2021, 04:21:43 PM
As someone who's more positive about his era than most people here, I still think there are few strong episodes, I do admire his attempt at going back to the '60s approach of trying to make it more educational, and it looks and sounds better than it ever has. But it's hard to deny that it's all in-one-eye-out-the-other blandness for the most part. Given that he's proven he can write good crime drama, and - for all its faults - come up with some memorably ludicrous stuff for Torchwood, it's odd that for his pet show he's basically reverted to his style for episodes like 42, just bland and nonsensical.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 19, 2021, 04:32:00 PM
it looks and sounds better than it ever has.

I know they're using fancy new cameras, but I disagree. The colour grading is washed out, and we're treated to a surplus of close-ups that give the feel of a cramped crime drama rather than a wide, expansive adventure series.

The CGI is (mostly) solid, but the visuals of Series 11 and 12 pale into teal-and-orange mundanity when you compare them to Series 5 and 6, with their bright, rich palettes.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 19, 2021, 05:09:55 PM
Absolutely agree with Thomas. Even later seasons looked great - look at how very in love the cinematographer was with Capaldi's face and eyes in seasons 8 and 9, for example. The anamorphic cameras looked good for all of three or four episodes and then they just kind of stopped doing anything interesting or cinematic with it.

And that orange-and-teal shit looks great when you're doing one of the infrequent Spain-shot desert episodes, but when you're shooting Welsh hills in Resolution, it makes everything look muddy and washed out.

I even prefer the Eccles season, which had that awful Vaseline-blurry low-def digital video look, but at least had fun with daft comic-book colours and bold shadows (that one series of Who probably got more use out of turquoise lighting gels than every other episode of everything else put together).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 19, 2021, 05:23:17 PM
Yeah, the show's ugly as fuck now. And as I said back when the New Year Special aired this year, it's not just the colour grading - the direction for the show is mostly awful as well. It's poorly paced, flatly shot, mostly in boring warehouses or against similarly drab backgrounds; there's no sense of atmosphere or place whatsoever. The cameras and colour grading give it a superficially "cinematic" look, but it's not matched by the talent behind camera.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 19, 2021, 06:00:32 PM
One thing that's quite interesting about Doctor Who is how each era has its own look, thanks to a number of factors that I'm not qualified to identify properly but still recognise - lighting, colours, camera quality, the general feeeel. 

I'm nostalgically quite fond of that slightly blurry look in Series 1 that Mister Six mentions - I'm sure RTD has discussed it in an interview somewhere. I think he compared it to Big Brother. On the other hand, I think a lot of the outdoor night-time lighting of the RTD era is pretty appalling. It's very obvious that there's a huge lighting rig just offscreen - there's no mistaking it for moonlight or anything natural. Usually made the Daleks look like cheap plastic, too. They were much better lighting night scenes and Daleks from 2010 onwards.

Heaven Sent deserves mention, with its Expressionist influence and deep lighting casting creepy, unintuitive shadows. As a standalone hour of telly it must be one of the most stunning original works the BBC has broadcast.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 19, 2021, 07:22:27 PM
Ah, well I like the way it looks now, so poo to you with nobs on.

In contrast, I think the Eccleston era is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen on TV.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 21, 2021, 08:17:11 PM
This is a good article.  You may have read it already.

https://them0vieblog.com/2020/03/06/the-unlikely-validation-of-steven-moffats-doctor-who-by-chris-chibnall/
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 22, 2021, 09:39:05 AM
Great piece of writing.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Natnar on May 22, 2021, 10:00:49 AM
This is a good article.  You may have read it already.

https://them0vieblog.com/2020/03/06/the-unlikely-validation-of-steven-moffats-doctor-who-by-chris-chibnall/

Very biased towards Moffat...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 22, 2021, 10:27:51 AM
Very biased towards Moffat...

To be fair, when comparing Moffat to Chibnall, it's very hard not to be.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mothman on May 22, 2021, 10:57:59 AM
Yes, it absolutely sticks in my craw how many of the books about WW2 seem to be biased towards Churchill over Hitler.[1]
 1. This is a flagrant and deliberate application of Goodwin’s Law which I couldn’t resist. OBVIOUSLY Chibnall isn’t Hitler. Mussolini, maybe.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Natnar on May 22, 2021, 11:22:01 AM
To be fair, when comparing Moffat to Chibnall, it's very hard not to be.

But it's like writing an article on how one pile of shit is better than another pile of shit just because it's smaller.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 22, 2021, 04:29:57 PM
Is it possible the 'bias' is actually just the writer's critical conclusion after weighing up the material in front of him? Give me Series 5-10 and Series 11-12 and ask me to talk about them, and I will end up sounding biased in favour of the former - but not out of any personal loyalty to Moffat.

It's an interesting article. I've posted it myself a few times. I don't think that Let's Kill Hitler or Hell Bent are particularly good episodes (indeed, at points they are actively bad), but the article's vision of what they represent (and what they reject, narratively) is thoughtful stuff.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 22, 2021, 04:47:14 PM
And the article does identify LKH as one of Moffat's worst scripts, but it still finds interesting things to say about it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 22, 2021, 06:33:08 PM
Also Moffat is a fucking great writer - objectively the most technically gifted nu-Who has ever had, at the very least - and while his run wasn't perfect, he played a blinder with the cards he was dealt.

EDIT: Besides which, the notion that an essay ought to be opinion-free, or that a preference for a writer (neutral terminology) is the same as a bias for a writer (negative terminology) is very silly.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 22, 2021, 08:08:43 PM
But it's like writing an article on how one pile of shit is better than another pile of shit just because it's smaller.

The article does not criticise the quantity of Chibnall episodes compared to the quantity of Moffat episodes.


When people pipe up to complain about negativity around Chibnall, I never ever hear what positivity I am supposed to glean from his work.  I’m just told that people are entitled to their opinion so some people prefer Chibnall.  But I know that already - it’s so insulting to think it’s necessary to say it.  But either someone wants to contribute positivity about Chibnall to a discussion or they don’t, and by and large it seems it’s beyond Chibnall apologists to do that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 22, 2021, 08:49:40 PM
He cast a female Doctor, made everything orange, made the Morbius Doctors canon and brought the penis man back. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on May 22, 2021, 11:46:37 PM
I do admire his attempt at going back to the '60s approach of trying to make it more educational,

citation needed

Quote
and it looks and sounds better than it ever has.

Yeah, this is bonkers. There's more consideration to framing, staging actors, and storytelling through camera movement in An Unearthly Child, and that was taped as-live in two and a half cupboards. To say nothing of the visual style in episodes by Haynes, Hurran, Wheatley, and (as noted) Talalay.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: sophie.pilbeam on May 23, 2021, 09:25:31 AM
citation needed

I'm not a fan of Chibnall at all, but to be absolutely fair, Rosa and Demons of the Punjab are explicitly trying to educate the audience about their respective historical settings. I appreciate this, if nothing else.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on May 23, 2021, 09:27:05 AM
citation needed
The historicals in 11 are clearly intended to tell kids about past injustices - Rosa and Punjab feel like they should have been pure historicals but Chibnall was too scared and told them to put aliens in to make it more modern Who-ish. I’m not saying it was especially successful, but I do think it was a good move on paper.

As for the directing, you might be right, I’m very much in the ‘casual viewer’ box when it comes to direction. I just mean the more cinematic style at the minute looks very good to me, and I enjoy that more than the general way the new series has looked in the past, especially the garishness of the RTD era.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 23, 2021, 09:49:38 AM
I don't think we have a single historical without aliens have we? I wish RTD had given that a go, it feels like everyone believes it can't work in Doctor Who any more.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on May 23, 2021, 12:46:25 PM
It's kind of depressing. The more cynical part of me wonders if it's purely because there'll be a new Character Options action figure to tie in with the episode, and little kids are more likely to pester Mum and Dad for a Spiky McBastard FangMonster than they are, say, Louis Pasteur.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 23, 2021, 12:54:53 PM
Just imagining a kid playing with a Rosa Parks figure and smashing an Ice Warrior into her "die die die"
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 23, 2021, 02:12:06 PM
Just imagining a kid playing with a Rosa Parks figure and smashing an Ice Warrior into her "die die die"

I was thinking of this years ago, before Mark Gatiss even brought the Ice Warriors back.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: sophie.pilbeam on May 23, 2021, 02:32:11 PM
I don't think we have a single historical without aliens have we? I wish RTD had given that a go, it feels like everyone believes it can't work in Doctor Who any more.

We haven't, but - and again, this isn't a defense of Chibnall's actual output, just an observation on the mechanics - the aliens in Rosa and Demons of the Punjab aren't the focus of the episode. The high concept SF aspect in both is that the TARDIS crew know how events "should" play out - Rosa gets the bus, Yas' grandmother gets married to the right person - and the episodes are about them grappling with that, with the aliens / future racist greasers as a catalyst to move that along. You could make them into "pure historicals" without much alteration. This approach is worlds apart (literally) from "Shakespeare meets alien witches" / "Dickens meets alien ghosts" / "The Daleks ended up in 30's Manhattan somehow", and closer to the 60's approach to historicals than we've had since the actual 60's ("I know how this event plays out so I'm going to try changing it" is also how The Aztecs works). Chibnall era's a mess, but in concept this approach to historicals is his best idea by a mile.

(I haven't seen the "Tesla meets giant scorpions" one yet, obviously)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 23, 2021, 03:00:35 PM
Whatever anybody wants to call RTD and Moffat's comparative approach to historical events and people - more flippant than Chibnall's maybe, or taking a more surface-level of engagement - it's actually because both writers knew that moral stories were best dealt with using allegories rather than sticking the TARDIS crew into real historical situations that can't be changed and letting them be passive observers of the world's unending injustices.

Chibnall's approach to history isn't brave or intelligent - it's idiotic.  You can say everything you want about the Nazis by using the Daleks or a newly invented alien species in their place.  The fourth Doctor's "do I have the right?" speech in Genesis of the Daleks didn't need a historical setting to make it chime with reality.  In fact I'd argue that detaching it from historical reality is precisely what allowed that story and message to be told.  This would woosh over Chibnall's head if you tried to explain it to him.

I observed shortly after Rosa aired that Chibnall was probably dunderheaded enough to do Auschwitz in series 12.  The Doctor standing around, holding her companions back from intervening, and 'sad-facedly' watching people being forced into gas chambers whilst remarking that substantially changing these events would have a disastrous knock-on effect for the future of the 20th century and thereafter.  So the TARDIS crew just kind of wincing as these horrific events play out, while Chibnall thinks he's being awfully clever for doing history in a non-flippant way, and educating kids about Auschwitz.  "No other writer has thought of doing this!!" he beams.

And what did we get in series 12?  Enough crudely misplaced Nazi content to indicate that Chibnall is probably as stupid as all that.



And you can do Back to the Future 2 stuff with any subject.  RTD did it with Father's Day, and Moffat routinely made time travel itself the focus of his stories.  Chibnall has brought nothing new to the table in that regard.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: sophie.pilbeam on May 23, 2021, 03:53:10 PM
But what makes those stories "educational", which is what sparked the whole discussion, is that they're specifically about historical events. They're not "saying things" in SF stories that happen to have historical settings. Rosa is about Rosa Parks. Demons of the Punjab is about the partition of India. The stories aren't trying to be allegories for those things, they're trying to explore them as actual historical people and events. The "Back to the Future" setup is part of that, because it makes history into something the protagonists need to learn about and engage in, rather than passively observing it unfold. Even if the end result is shit, I can appreciate it conceptually, and it's the only positive thing I took away from the last three years.

Spyfall is a great example of Chibnall doing it badly, because you just have the Doctor show up in World War 2, rattle off someone's biography, be blasé about Nazis, then leave. He doesn't have the subtlety or care to pull it off himself.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on May 23, 2021, 04:05:43 PM
Historicals only work if the writer uses them to tell us something meaningful about our lives in the contemporary world. It's hard to watch episodes like Rosa and Kerblam! because in favouring the intricacies within their own plots over thematic meaning they become socio-politically backward. Rosa obviously isn't a serious biopic, so if the writers aren't using this history (or science fiction) to "say things" than what on Earth is the point? If Doctor Who spends an episode focussed on the preservation of the status-quo I think something has gone fundamentally wrong during the writing process.

Maybe conservatism is simply one of the 13th Doctor's 'quirks'? ;)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 23, 2021, 04:46:06 PM
The historicals in 11 are clearly intended to tell kids about past injustices - Rosa and Punjab feel like they should have been pure historicals but Chibnall was too scared and told them to put aliens in to make it more modern Who-ish. I’m not saying it was especially successful, but I do think it was a good move on paper.

Punjab works because the historical event being described is so vast and nebulous that The Doctor couldn't reasonably sort it out in 50 minutes, and the focus is on ordinary (fictional) people rather than Big Important Names From History, so even if it's yet another episode where The Doctor has to just stand by and let something horrible happen, at least it doesn't feel exploitative of a specific person's story. The Rosa equivalent would be her gatecrashing a dinner party held by Mountbatten, calling him a cunt, but then letting him fuck up the partition anyway.

Historicals only work if the writer uses them to tell us something meaningful about our lives in the contemporary world. It's hard to watch episodes like Rosa and Kerblam! because in favouring the intricacies within their own plots over thematic meaning they become socio-politically backward.

Rosa had Yaz and Ryan talking about the racism they still encounter in the modern day, although it was buried in the middle of the "Ooh important Rosa Parks" stuff, when maybe it should have come at the end, to emphasise that the struggle against racism and white supremacy is ongoing, rather than that pish about the asteroid.

Kerblam isn't a historical, and is obviously an analogy for present-day events - even if I hate the conclusions it comes to. Did you mean Demons of the Punjab? If so, Punjab contextualised the partition by making it about the story of Yaz's grandmother, and raised (loosely) the complexities of being British-Indian or British-Pakistani today; that your existence is contingent not just on the atrocities committed by your country to your ancestors, but by your country to your own parents, grandparents or great-grandparents.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 23, 2021, 05:19:21 PM
But what makes those stories "educational", which is what sparked the whole discussion, is that they're specifically about historical events. They're not "saying things" in SF stories that happen to have historical settings. Rosa is about Rosa Parks. Demons of the Punjab is about the partition of India. The stories aren't trying to be allegories for those things, they're trying to explore them as actual historical people and events. The "Back to the Future" setup is part of that, because it makes history into something the protagonists need to learn about and engage in, rather than passively observing it unfold.

Yes, this is true. Analogies only work for things that are already floating around in the public consciousness, like Daleks doing pseudo-Nazi salutes in their earliest stories. You can't do Space Partition of India when kids don't know about Earth Partition of India. It's not taught in schools (or wasn't when I was a kid) and it's certainly not featured commonly in popular culture. How would you connect the dots?

The real problem is that despite the time travel device, our heroes do indeed end up "passively observing it unfold", because if they changed what happened, the show would diverge too markedly from reality. That's less problematic in Punjab because it's focused on fictional figures affected by massively complex geopolitical issues, but The Doctor routinely overthrows oppressive regimes, so having her collude in the oppression of real-life figures in Alabama seems gauche at best.

This stuff worked okay in the Hartnell years because The Doctor was a bit of a cowardly cunt back then, and basically just bounced through historical events. By this point, the character is a borderline godlike figure of justice - you can't put her into an oppressive situation unless she is absolutely going to overthrow (or at least attempt to overthrow) it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 23, 2021, 05:44:38 PM
Also it may be worth saying that the Back to the Future 2 conceit of Rosa was about as obvious as you can get within a time travel show, and I refuse to believe that it offers up anything as interesting or exciting - even on its basic storytelling level - as the Van Gogh episode, to pick a Moffat example.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 23, 2021, 06:08:20 PM
This stuff worked okay in the Hartnell years because The Doctor was a bit of a cowardly cunt back then, and basically just bounced through historical events. By this point, the character is a borderline godlike figure of justice - you can't put her into an oppressive situation unless she is absolutely going to overthrow (or at least attempt to overthrow) it.

This is a great point, by the way.  There’s also the fact that the show was quite firm during its earliest years that established historical events could not be changed, and would play out “exactly as written”.  It doesn’t faff about with the mechanics of why this should be the case, but it does show us Barbara attempting and failing to alter the past in The Aztecs, whereupon they are forgiven for not making “putting right what once went wrong” their mission statement thereafter.

By this point, for exactly the reason you have stated, Doctor Who would actually be wise to stay away from historicals from now on, unless it is focusing on examining the human condition through small moments in people’s lives (such as the Van Gogh episode), or only passively observing significant historical events when these are joyous (such as the WW1 football match in no-man’s land).


In all honesty, it’s just another reason that the Doctor should never have become a god or superhero in the first place.  When your central conceit is that your main character compulsively interferes in different cultures across time and space in order to promote certain moral values, you absolutely have to limit their abilities one way or another.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 23, 2021, 06:17:33 PM
Which the fixed points in time do just fine, so long as you don't then set the show in racist Alabama, implying that the oppression and suffering of black people is actually inevitable, unstoppable and mandated by the universe itself.

I mean, that's kind of implied about the Holocaust and every other real-life atrocity, but that why you don't set an episode within spitting distance of them (unless you're immediately going to write it off and do a romp, a la Let's Kill Hitler. And even then...).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 23, 2021, 06:30:54 PM
Which the fixed points in time do just fine, so long as you don't then set the show in racist Alabama, implying that the oppression and suffering of black people is actually inevitable, unstoppable and mandated by the universe itself.

I mean, that's kind of implied about the Holocaust and every other real-life atrocity, but that why you don't set an episode within spitting distance of them (unless you're immediately going to write it off and do a romp, a la Let's Kill Hitler. And even then...).

Exactly.  “Fixed points” is a handy way to limit the Doctor’s influence over time itself, and without being explicit manages to communicate perfectly why the Doctor isn’t being a cunt every week for not just visiting any historical genocide and saving everyone.  Fires of Pompeii was more explicit, but it didn’t over stress the point - it chose an event suitably removed from our own present and showed that sometimes the Doctor has no choice and has to leave history alone.  Done.

This is another reason the Back to the Future 2 conceit is less smart than it thinks, and damaging when not presented as a temporary break from an understood norm.  Having a Racist Time Meddler Fonz easily fucking up established historical events might seem exciting on the surface but it completely changes what the Doctor’s own agency should be at all times.  There’s no excuse now for the Doctor having whimsical adventures in time and space - you have millions of lives to constantly save since the Time Lords are no longer around to stop you, and “fixed events” no longer applies.


That article was spot on when it observed the incompatibility between historical events and the world of Doctor Who.  It’s not only a matter of the Doctor being unable to change established Earth history, which within the show itself is presented on the same platform as projections of the future and alien worlds - it’s one of fictional characters being unable to make changes to real life.  And for all its faults Let’s Kill Hitler does understand and perform this resulting fragmentation and disintegration.  It knows the kind of show it doesn’t want to be, and turns sick in proximity to it.


Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 23, 2021, 07:31:41 PM
Yes, this is true. Analogies only work for things that are already floating around in the public consciousness, like Daleks doing pseudo-Nazi salutes in their earliest stories. You can't do Space Partition of India when kids don't know about Earth Partition of India. It's not taught in schools (or wasn't when I was a kid) and it's certainly not featured commonly in popular culture. How would you connect the dots?

This is a fair point, but by allegories I didn't mean surface-layer visual similarities like a reference to Nazi salutes.  The fourth Doctor's "do I have the right?" speech may not have immediately communicated to children the moral dilemma of the question "would you kill a baby Hitler?" but it would have fed their imaginations and given them a bunk-up in understanding larger, real-world ideas and problems later in life.

You can imagine what Chibnall would have written with the episode title Let's Kill Hitler.  He would have told a horrible story (with essentially the premise of Genesis of the Daleks but literally involving Hitler and some Nazis) that wouldn't have inspired anyone's understanding of the larger (historical or present) world, and the Doctor would have come out of it being a coward, a cunt, or both.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 23, 2021, 08:43:52 PM
Thus breaking the Doctor's cardinal rule: Never cowardly, never a cunt.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 23, 2021, 08:55:39 PM
Thus breaking the Doctor's cardinal rule: Never cowardly, never a cunt.

The Malcolm Tucker version of the Doctor we all openly hoped for.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on May 23, 2021, 10:22:13 PM
As for the directing, you might be right, I’m very much in the ‘casual viewer’ box when it comes to direction. I just mean the more cinematic style at the minute looks very good to me, and I enjoy that more than the general way the new series has looked in the past, especially the garishness of the RTD era.

It definitely looks wider than ever before, I'll give you that. But there's nothing interesting done inside that letterbox, except colouring everything teal & orange on the computer.

I don't think we have a single historical without aliens have we? I wish RTD had given that a go, it feels like everyone believes it can't work in Doctor Who any more.

1982's Black Orchid is famously the last pure historical, 16 years after the previous. (It gets some mileage out of the audience expecting that it's going to be an alium locked in the attic, instead of an embarrassing special-needs son.)

Thin Ice, from the Bill + Capaldi season, doesn't technically have an alien in, just a giant weird fish that eats kids and shits fuel for the benefit of a rapacious industrialist lord. THE FISH... WAS CAPITALISM ALL ALONG! This is in the same vein as the not-alien Silurians representing Empire's treatment of indigenous people, so artfully and richly updated for the modern day* by El Chib.

* (eleven years ago)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on May 24, 2021, 02:02:18 AM
Actually went partially blind while writing my last post yesterday due to a retinal migraine. First one I've had in years. I haven't quite decided how to pin the blame on Chibnall yet but I'll think of something.

Kerblam isn't a historical

I think I was going to write something longer drawing comparisons between the recent thematically muddled (imo) pseudo-historical episodes to the muddled politics of Kerblam! but I gave up, wrote a few muddled non sequiturs and hit 'Post' instead. Head's fucked.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: BritishHobo on May 24, 2021, 08:51:38 AM
I've just watched Father's Day (still pootling about looking for Cardiff filming locations). It's really fucking good, isn't it? I know it's a Paul Cornell script, but I think it's a really good example of how well RTD did small-scale stuff about ordinary people. A whole episode in series 1 that's essentially just them sat in a gloomy church. Eccleston chatting to the soon-to-be-wed couple about how important they are. And then Pete's sacrifice, the slow, dawning realisation of it, and him taking stock of his life, and what it will be like for his daughter to grow up without him. RTD could be wackier and more bombastic than anybody else, but when he delivered the quiet moments, he really fucking delivered.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 24, 2021, 04:35:41 PM
Having a Racist Time Meddler Fonz easily fucking up established historical events might seem exciting on the surface but it completely changes what the Doctor’s own agency should be at all times.  There’s no excuse now for the Doctor having whimsical adventures in time and space - you have millions of lives to constantly save since the Time Lords are no longer around to stop you, and “fixed events” no longer applies.

That's a good point. If you bring in a time meddler then you establish that the fixed points rule doesn't apply for that story. In which case there's nothing holding The Doctor back from completely overthrowing the racist, fascist Alabama (or even US) government.

Except this is Chibnall, and keeping Rosa Parks' famous name and fancy asteroid is more important than ending human suffering. Even though I'm sure Parks would much rather have lived a happy, unoppressed life than become a household name.

This is a fair point, but by allegories I didn't mean surface-layer visual similarities like a reference to Nazi salutes.  The fourth Doctor's "do I have the right?" speech may not have immediately communicated to children the moral dilemma of the question "would you kill a baby Hitler?" but it would have fed their imaginations and given them a bunk-up in understanding larger, real-world ideas and problems later in life.

Yeah, and that's a great thing to have in Who too, but it's not a replacement for Demon or (for all its faults) Punjab, which were trying to educate kids about specific aspects of recent history - especially important in the case of Punjab, which covered something that gets very little coverage in modern mainstream media, but which has had knock-on effects up to this very day.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Norton Canes on May 24, 2021, 04:37:42 PM
Actually went partially blind while writing my last post yesterday due to a retinal migraine

Oh I get them. Ironically they look a lot like the title sequence starfield of season 22.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 24, 2021, 04:38:30 PM
Father's Day is definitely a highlight. The bit with young Mickey's gran or whoever being eaten offscreen while he's on the swing is a brilliant little moment, and a million times more interesting than anything in Chibnall's two seasons.

I think I was going to write something longer drawing comparisons between the recent thematically muddled (imo) pseudo-historical episodes to the muddled politics of Kerblam! but I gave up, wrote a few muddled non sequiturs and hit 'Post' instead. Head's fucked.

Ooyah hope you feel better soon.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 24, 2021, 05:41:11 PM
Midas today:

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Yx0tLIWSB2c/maxresdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on May 24, 2021, 09:05:05 PM
Ha, thanks :)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 24, 2021, 09:37:50 PM
He has the Midas touch as compensation for lacking sight.



These Chibnall concepts write themselves!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: the hum on May 24, 2021, 11:14:07 PM
Looking back, when RTD as show runner was announced I think my expectation was that New Who was going to be a bit like Dark Season along with a smattering of the atmosphere the New Adventures novels had provided. Guess I was destined for disappointment.

Or maybe it was just a case of wrong place, wrong time, wrong vibe for me. When it returned I was in my early twenties, so I was too old to watch it through childhood eyes - or rather I tried that but inevitably couldn't - but was still too young to just chill out and accept it/ignore it for what it was. Dalek was a spellbinding episode though, then and even now. The Tennant era largely enraged me, Smith really nailed it though and reawakened my interest for a time, but I drifted away from it rapidly after that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: samadriel on May 25, 2021, 05:13:22 PM
Looking back, when RTD as show runner was announced I think my expectation was that New Who was going to be a bit like Dark Season along with a smattering of the atmosphere the New Adventures novels had provided. Guess I was destined for disappointment.

I hated RTD's NA, so I was a bit worried when I heard he was showrunner; I didn't like his Who, but tonally it was quite different to that NA. When I imagined Noo Hoo, the image in my head was the sequence in the EDA "Interference" when the Doctor and Sam infiltrate a weapons fair -- probably too serious for the kids, but I had an idea that the show could be quite serious and deal with big themes and issues; that seemed to be the trajectory of Who between the cancellation and the end of the novels.. Didn't really happen, but Moffatt was still pretty good for awhile.

Edit; ironic that I should praise Moffatt after saying the show should've been more like a  Lawrence Miles book. He could've been a really positive force in the DW community if he hadn't gone out of his mind.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on May 25, 2021, 08:01:32 PM
I read pretty much all the EDAs at the time. It often struck me that Moffat did appear to borrow a number of Miles' ideas.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on May 25, 2021, 08:02:35 PM
As for the article discussed over the last page or so. My one major disagreement with it is simple - i don't think the last two series have even thought about that conundrum on any level.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on May 25, 2021, 08:10:26 PM
I've always been a bit fascinated by Lawrence Miles. Exceptionally talented fella, but kind of his own worst enemy I think.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: samadriel on May 25, 2021, 08:23:13 PM
I read pretty much all the EDAs at the time. It often struck me that Moffat did appear to borrow a number of Miles' ideas.
The whole thing with the Doctor's restingplace is very Alien Bodies, isn't it. Although I prefer Miles' take, just like I prefer Miles' take on the Time War to RTD's.  Give me Faction Paradox over the Daleks any day.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 25, 2021, 08:39:02 PM
I've just realised that as much time has passed between RTD's time and now as passed between the end of McCoy's run and the earliest DVD releases, with their candid retrospective documentaries and commentaries.

(eg the first DVD release of Remembrance of the Daleks was in 2001, and Ghost Light and Curse of Fenric were both in 2004... there are probably better examples than that, too.  I haven't looked extensively.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on May 25, 2021, 09:40:16 PM
The whole thing with the Doctor's restingplace is very Alien Bodies, isn't it. Although I prefer Miles' take, just like I prefer Miles' take on the Time War to RTD's.  Give me Faction Paradox over the Daleks any day.

Yes, and, on a smaller scale, the whole entire scene in a Matt Smith episode where someone dives out of a building into a waiting TARDIS.

Some concepts from Interference were used, although not the big ending twisty thing.

The perfect companion, which RTD swerved in the end, also comes from Miles.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: canted_angle_again on May 25, 2021, 10:16:09 PM
I've just realised that as much time has passed between RTD's time and now as passed between the end of McCoy's run and the earliest DVD releases, with their candid retrospective documentaries and commentaries.

(eg the first DVD release of Remembrance of the Daleks was in 2001, and Ghost Light and Curse of Fenric were both in 2004... there are probably better examples than that, too.  I haven't looked extensively.)

You've done no research ;)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: canted_angle_again on May 25, 2021, 10:41:00 PM
I can't find the Chibnall post, so I thought I'd post this here.

It pretty much says much of what we have said (aside from the creators FUCKING JEANS).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8_A7n83Rh0&t=11300s
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 25, 2021, 11:00:43 PM
While we're talking New Adventures, are there any digital copies of The Also People (aka Doctor Who Meets The Culture) by Ben Aaronovitch? I want to read it but I don't want to fork out hundreds of pounds for the privilege.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: the hum on May 25, 2021, 11:01:32 PM
Yes, and, on a smaller scale, the whole entire scene in a Matt Smith episode where someone dives out of a building into a waiting TARDIS.

Some concepts from Interference were used, although not the big ending twisty thing.

The perfect companion, which RTD swerved in the end, also comes from Miles.

I might be misremembering, but didn't Miles also throw a wobbly about Moffat allegedly lifting ideas from him for Silence in the Library?

Another guy from back then that I'd hoped would've been involved was Marc Platt, as a bridge from the old to the new, and who'd kept himself relevant with some great NA contributions.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 25, 2021, 11:05:21 PM
You've done no research ;)

Well those three release years are correct.  I have the DVD Compendium book which has everything listed but I'm not in the mood to go through it all, since probably nobody cares anyway!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: the hum on May 25, 2021, 11:50:39 PM
I hated RTD's NA, so I was a bit worried when I heard he was showrunner; I didn't like his Who, but tonally it was quite different to that NA. When I imagined Noo Hoo, the image in my head was the sequence in the EDA "Interference" when the Doctor and Sam infiltrate a weapons fair -- probably too serious for the kids, but I had an idea that the show could be quite serious and deal with big themes and issues; that seemed to be the trajectory of Who between the cancellation and the end of the novels.. Didn't really happen, but Moffatt was still pretty good for awhile.

Other thing about the NAs/EDAs is that they may well have been tempered tonally by being written in an era of things like the X-Files, with a tendency towards genuine peril, but peril that the public at large were unaware of, and would never be aware of. It's not like highly visible threats never occurred in old who (hence McCoy's "Your species has the most amazing capacity for self-deception" lecture to Ace), but RTD veered heavily towards gratuity in any threat towards Earth; cut to news bulletin, bad shit happening over every global landmark etc, thus diluting the (often highly contrived) high stakes. You can't have Independence Day happening all the flaming time.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on May 26, 2021, 06:04:13 AM
I can't find the Chibnall post, so I thought I'd post this here.

It's here (https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,78429.0.html), currently 8th thread down on page 2.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on May 26, 2021, 07:17:54 AM
While we're talking New Adventures, are there any digital copies of The Also People (aka Doctor Who Meets The Culture) by Ben Aaronovitch? I want to read it but I don't want to fork out hundreds of pounds for the privilege.

I had all of them - NAs, MAs, PDAs, EDAs - on an old tablet, but it may take me some time to dig out and sort.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 26, 2021, 07:45:37 AM
I watched Waters of Mars last night, first time in years. Holy shit, that episode must be scary for kids. Multiple jump scares, a real sense of dread, and a monster that looks nightmarish. I know the last ten minutes aren't that good, but I honestly think the main episode might be as unsuitable for children as Doctor Who ever got. And it ends with a suicide!   
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: samadriel on May 26, 2021, 08:14:33 AM
While we're talking New Adventures, are there any digital copies of The Also People (aka Doctor Who Meets The Culture) by Ben Aaronovitch? I want to read it but I don't want to fork out hundreds of pounds for the privilege.

https://archive.org/details/Doctor_Who_-_New_Adventures_044_-_The_Also_People how's that?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 26, 2021, 08:58:52 AM
While we're talking New Adventures, are there any digital copies of The Also People (aka Doctor Who Meets The Culture) by Ben Aaronovitch? I want to read it but I don't want to fork out hundreds of pounds for the privilege.

You might want to search for b-ok.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 26, 2021, 09:03:05 AM
https://archive.org/details/Doctor_Who_-_New_Adventures_044_-_The_Also_People how's that?

Followed a link from there, and this cover is a bit of a shocker:

(https://ia802507.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/12/items/Doctor_Who_-_In-Vision_075_-_Planet_of_Fire.PDF/Doctor%20Who%20-%20In-Vision%20075%20-%20Planet%20of%20Fire_jp2.zip&file=Doctor%20Who%20-%20In-Vision%20075%20-%20Planet%20of%20Fire_jp2/Doctor%20Who%20-%20In-Vision%20075%20-%20Planet%20of%20Fire_0000.jp2&id=Doctor_Who_-_In-Vision_075_-_Planet_of_Fire.PDF&scale=8&rotate=0)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on May 26, 2021, 09:15:10 AM
"You've got her breasts spot on, but you might need to go back and have another go at her face."

"She had a face?"
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Alternative Carpark on May 26, 2021, 09:18:24 AM
Frankly, most of Lawrence Miles' sideas weren't particularly original even at the time either and were just variants of concepts that had already been done before elsewhere. 'The Doctor's final resting place'? That idea's also used as a concept in Revelation of the Daleks. The TARDIS on the side of a building to fall into? There's a story in a 1970s Doctor Who annual where Sarah and Harry walk the plank on a pirate ship in space and fall, only for the Doctor to rescue them by having the TARDIS hover beneath. A Time War? Already done in the early 1980s DWM comic strips, with the Time Lords and the Order of the Black Sun.

My point being partly that it's a bit of a red herring to talk about Moffat ripping them off, when Miles doesn't have exclusive ownership of them as ideas in the first place, and couldn't claim to be the first person to have thought of any of those concepts, in the broadest sense.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: samadriel on May 26, 2021, 02:31:31 PM
Miles didn't actually write about the Doctor's final resting place, he wrote about the Doctor's corpse bring auctioned and fought over. As for who first wrote about someone jumping into the TARDIS from above, who gives a shit? And I don't know any Who story that ends with quite the mindfuck that Interference does.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 26, 2021, 03:23:27 PM
https://archive.org/details/Doctor_Who_-_New_Adventures_044_-_The_Also_People how's that?

You might want to search for b-ok.

One of these suggestions did it for me, but I'll leave some mystery by not saying which one. Thanks, both!

I had all of them - NAs, MAs, PDAs, EDAs - on an old tablet, but it may take me some time to dig out and sort.

Already taken care of, but thanks for the offer!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: 13 schoolyards on May 26, 2021, 04:53:48 PM
Somebody once said that Miles' big problem was that he was a Grant Morrison-level genius storyteller, only where Morrison's big creative obsession was the idea of superheroes (which as a concept leaves you relatively free to write a range of stories for a range of publishers), Miles' creative obsession was the idea of Doctor Who, which really tied him down specifically to one character.

Then when that character went back to television and was run by people not really interested in giving him work - and especially not giving him work where he could do the kind of things he was doing with the novels - that was him well and truly fucked. Which I still think was Who's loss.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on May 26, 2021, 05:14:25 PM
Just had a look if he did anything for Big Finish -

Only one result (from 2008) : Bernice Summerfield: The Adolescence of Time (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/bernice-summerfield-the-adolescence-of-time-85)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 26, 2021, 07:04:09 PM
Somebody once said that Miles' big problem was that he was a Grant Morrison-level genius storyteller, only where Morrison's big creative obsession was the idea of superheroes (which as a concept leaves you relatively free to write a range of stories for a range of publishers), Miles' creative obsession was the idea of Doctor Who, which really tied him down specifically to one character.

Then when that character went back to television and was run by people not really interested in giving him work - and especially not giving him work where he could do the kind of things he was doing with the novels - that was him well and truly fucked. Which I still think was Who's loss.

Even in the novels, I think that Miles' approach could only really have worked if he'd been in charge of the range (and I don't think there's much sign that there's much sign of Miles being a team sort of a guy). Dropping in huge epic universe-changing novels which try and change the shape of what Doctor Who is doesn't really work if the surrounding books just go back to the status quo.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on May 26, 2021, 07:21:54 PM
Somebody once said that Miles' big problem was that he was a Grant Morrison-level genius storyteller, only where Morrison's big creative obsession was the idea of superheroes (which as a concept leaves you relatively free to write a range of stories for a range of publishers), Miles' creative obsession was the idea of Doctor Who, which really tied him down specifically to one character.

Yeah, somebody with that level of talent should be building his own world, not writing fan fiction about Doctor Who. Which as a Doctor Who fan is quite a self-hating thing to say, but it is also true.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on May 26, 2021, 07:27:36 PM
Even in the novels, I think that Miles' approach could only really have worked if he'd been in charge of the range (and I don't think there's much sign that there's much sign of Miles being a team sort of a guy). Dropping in huge epic universe-changing novels which try and change the shape of what Doctor Who is doesn't really work if the surrounding books just go back to the status quo.

or "what on earth will be between the covers this time". Double headers of War of the Daleks and Alien Bodies. Scarlett Empress and the Janus Conjunction and then Beltempest on the other side.

Still never quite forgiven The Space Age tho'
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on May 26, 2021, 07:32:16 PM
which, in turn, makes the series' own reliance on arcs of one form or another actually bewildering.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 26, 2021, 08:36:59 PM
What's the story with Miles being kept out of TV Doctor Who, then?  Was he deemed too difficult to work with by both RTD and Moffat?


From what I've gleaned from your above posts, he comes across a bit like Ian Levine - quite insistent on things going his own way and not very able to compromise without having a bit of a meltdown.  Possibly on the autistic spectrum, which for Doctor Who fans probably describes most of us, but frustration with social difficulty maybe also generating a self-defeating depression?

Maybe I'm projecting, but if I've got the wrong neck of the woods I'd love to know why he was kept out of TV Doctor Who.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 26, 2021, 09:01:59 PM
TV Doctor Who has generally only taken work from people with TV experience. (There might be an exception here and there, but I think it's generally true.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on May 26, 2021, 09:09:42 PM
Aye, he wasn't considered because he hadn't any experience writing for television. I stumbled across one of his blog posts by chance a long time ago and was taken aback by how uncomfortably resentful he seemed.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 26, 2021, 09:14:08 PM
So he had a sense of entitlement that he should write for TV Doctor Who without first trying to get experience writing for television elsewhere?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: crankshaft on May 26, 2021, 09:15:35 PM
Just had a look if he did anything for Big Finish -

Only one result (from 2008) : Bernice Summerfield: The Adolescence of Time (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/bernice-summerfield-the-adolescence-of-time-85)

I have a feeling he might have written a couple of short stories for the Short Trips books for BF. There was no way that Gary Russell was ever going to employ him on anything he was in charge of, though - he got Bernice after Simon Guerrier took over. "The Adolescence Of Time" is excellent, by the way.

EDIT: new new page
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 26, 2021, 10:16:11 PM
Possibly on the autistic spectrum, which for Doctor Who fans probably describes most of us, but frustration with social difficulty maybe also generating a self-defeating depression?

Definitely on the spectrum - he's diagnosed with atypical autism and has posted about it on Twitter.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on May 26, 2021, 10:24:43 PM
Yeah, back when I was reading his blogs around the start of New Who he mentioned it then.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 26, 2021, 10:34:36 PM
Mostly he seems to be tweeting about The Muppet Show at the moment.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 27, 2021, 12:42:43 PM
I have a feeling he might have written a couple of short stories for the Short Trips books for BF. There was no way that Gary Russell was ever going to employ him on anything he was in charge of, though - he got Bernice after Simon Guerrier took over. "The Adolescence Of Time" is excellent, by the way.

EDIT: new new page

So it’s not only a matter of a lack of TV experience, then.  People don’t want him working for/with them.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on May 27, 2021, 02:39:14 PM
I suspect that's at the heart of it. He's objectively (I reckon) a better, less self-indulgent writer than a Cornell or a Gatiss, but he's also undeniably something of an awkward, cantankerous bugger. That said, I did meet him once at a Bristol comic convention (IIRC, he was helping publicise the Faction Paradox comic book), and he joined myself and about a dozen others for a Chinese meal afterwards. He seemed almost the classic definition of the autistic 'friendly-but-reserved' type, not really saying much at all but just seeming to enjoy the company. I guess that we just caught him on a comparatively good day. Certainly he does have a reputation of having a temper/personality that's his own worst enemy, and I think that there is some truth in that. Which is a real shame. I'd love to see him writing for the show proper, even now.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: 13 schoolyards on May 27, 2021, 03:38:29 PM
I very dimly recall he had fairly strong opinions about at least some of the other Who writers he was working around / alongside, and that he wasn't too worried about putting those opinions down in interviews. Which probably didn't help him much when at least some of those writers moved up in the world
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on May 27, 2021, 03:43:01 PM
Wasn't he the guy who was obsessively blogging about Steven Moffat?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: crankshaft on May 27, 2021, 03:53:43 PM
Wasn't he the guy who was obsessively blogging about Steven Moffat?

I very dimly recall he had fairly strong opinions about at least some of the other Who writers he was working around / alongside, and that he wasn't too worried about putting those opinions down in interviews. Which probably didn't help him much when at least some of those writers moved up in the world

All of this is correct. He was extremely vocal in public about his dislike (well, outright hatred, really) for Gary Russell's writing and was similarly robust in interviews with his criticisms of Kate Orman and Paul Cornell (the former for her writing, the latter for his personality). To the point that there's one paragraph in his Benny book Dead Romance that takes Orman's previous book in the series (Walking To Babylon) to task.

His blog about the new series was equally unsparing - at one point he accused Mark Gatiss of racism because of "The Unquiet Dead" (for reasons I can't recall) and was vicious in his sustained criticisms of Moffat.

He's obviously a gifted man who ended up working in an increasingly shrinking fictional space, and pissed everyone off so much that no-one wanted anything to do with him.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Norton Canes on May 27, 2021, 04:01:43 PM
he accused Mark Gatiss of racism because of "The Unquiet Dead" (for reasons I can't recall)

Because in his eyes Gatiss had scripted the Gelth as evil asylum seekers.

It's a long time since I last visited Miles' blog. There's still a lot of it; but even Wayback can't unearth the really juicy stuff.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on May 27, 2021, 04:03:06 PM
Quote
I'm sorry. There's no other way of saying it. This is offensive, poisonous, xenophobic ****. I know many of you will be saying "a-hah, but there have always been alien invasion stories in Doctor Who, what's the difference?", so I'll tell you the difference. There was never a time in the history of original Doctor Who, not even in the days when polite middle-England was terrified by the thought of being overrun by funny-coloured people, when the programme pandered to that kind of vermin-thinking by claiming that all foreigners were invaders (see, especially, "The Ambassadors of Death"… Enoch Powell isn't welcome in the Doctor's universe). "The Dalek Invasion of Earth" came from the war-time generation's fear of Nazism, not from a terror of immigration. "Spearhead from Space", like much of '70s Doctor Who, shows the invader to be a ruthless, self-involved force modelled on the inhuman instincts of our own culture rather than on swarthy-looking foreign types. "The Unquiet Dead" is different. "The Unquiet Dead" is a story, made at a point in time when the big electoral issue is whether the British should put up with foreigners at all or treat them like scrounging gypsies, about a bunch of REFUGEES - about a bunch of ASYLUM-SEEKERS - who ask the Doctor for his help and then turn out to be EVIL ALIENS WHO JUST WANT TO SWARM YOUR COUNTRY NYHAH HAH HAAAAAH WE WILL RAPE YOUR WOMEN AND DEFILE YOUR CORPSES.

( . . . )

I don't seriously believe that Mark Gatiss will read this. But on the off-chance that he might stumble into this while ego-surfing, I'm going to say it. Mark: you're a [note that I've edited the end of this sentence slightly since I first wrote it, now I've had time to calm down, so I'll settle for] thoughtless halfwit . Did you really think it was all right to write a script for this programme, a programme which is supposedly watched by the New Generation and deliberately calculated to mean something, which sends out a vile, appalling, dangerous message like this? Did you think it didn't matter? Did you think it would never have an impact? At best, this is Doctor Who: The Michael Howerd Years, a new version of the programme for the kind of NF-loving scum who take the "shoot all the ****ers" view of anyone who wants to come anywhere near the great and pearly-white shores of Britain. This is a programme that teaches children never to trust people who look a bit weird, especially not if they're asking for sanctuary from a war that nearly wiped them out, because they're obviously criminals playing on our bleeding-heart compassion and will always stab us in the back. This, circa 2005, can only be read as a party political broadcast for the British National Party.
http://lawrencemiles.blogspot.com/2005/04/unquiet-dead.html
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 27, 2021, 04:36:57 PM
He wrote a Doctor Who script himself at one point, and shared it online for about a week before taking it down. I could probably dig out the PDF, if anyone's interested.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 27, 2021, 04:53:15 PM
I am!

And I think that critique of The Unquiet Dead is perfectly legitimate, even if Gatiss didn't intend it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on May 27, 2021, 06:59:19 PM
I am too!

Quote
This is a programme that teaches children never to trust people who look a bit weird, especially not if they're asking for sanctuary from a war that nearly wiped them out, because they're obviously criminals playing on our bleeding-heart compassion and will always stab us in the back.

Yup.  He has a point, despite the fact that it's one of my favourite stories.


I'd love to know what he thought of Kerblam!, mind.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 27, 2021, 07:06:17 PM
I am as well!

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on May 27, 2021, 10:13:27 PM
Here's the Lawrence Miles script: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8qhwg1s9hwn8rer/TheBookOfTheWorld.pdf?dl=0

And this is the blog post that accompanied it, for context:

Quote
For One Week Only

Where the testes meet the guillotine.

I wrote that article three days ago, but since then, the game has changed somewhat. On the day of Steven Moffat's ascension to godhood, my pretend-agent sent me the news in an e-mail headed "Bet You Wish You Hadn't Made That Comment About Blink Now", to which my response was: 'What comment about "Blink"?' Remember, I never go anywhere near the newsgroups, not even in a "lurking" capacity. So when it turns out that an off-the-cuff comment I made three months ago has not only become notorious, but has actually provoked a response from the New God-King himself, I have to feel a certain level of… actually, I'm not sure what. Puzzlement, mainly. What, you've never heard of exaggerating for comic effect…? More importantly, though, it puts this week's Secret Plan in a rather different light.

Now, at the end of last year, I wrote a full-length Doctor Who script. I did this purely to see whether I could write a workable TV story under laboratory conditions, and I never even bothered showing it to anyone: my logic was that if ever I needed Doctor Who material for any reason (say, if BBC Books ever deigned to employ me again, or if Big Finish ever wanted something that didn't involve Silurians at the Earth's core), then I could easily cannibalise it. But this plan has now been completely scotched, since the script in question was - is - set in a great big cosmic library. Which means that it's going to be wholly redundant in seven days' time. So, given that there isn't a proper Doctor Who on telly this week, I decided to post it on-line as a sort of replacement bus service… or at least, a highly elaborate piece of fan-fic.

However, I now know that people remember me saying something along the lines of 'I could piss a better script than "Blink" in my sleep'. This changes the tone of the whole affair: it's not so much a question of putting my money where my mouth is as putting my generative organs on the chopping-block. Everything I've ever said is going to stand or fall on this, isn't it…? The fact that Moffat (of all people) was the one who forced the crisis, by writing a real TV story about a great big cosmic library, is an added irony. If "irony" is really the term I'm looking for, rather than "cruel yet inevitable twist of fate".

So, if you want to read the script, then it's at the following address. For one week only. (And thanks to Dave Howe for the web-space.)

http://davidjhowe.cogia.net/TheBookOfTheWorld.pdf
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/edEPcf

Bear in mind that I wrote this as a personal challenge, which means that I made various rules for myself before I started. Specifically:

- It had to re-boot Doctor Who from scratch, sending the programme in a direction that was as far-removed from the Russell T. Davies version as possible, but that was still palpably the same series. It's basically the first episode of a wholly theoretical season, which introduces a new line-up of regulars, and which may or may not feature David Tennant as the Doctor.

- It had to do everything I keep going on about in my "Doctor Who Should Do This" blogs, while avoiding everything I keep going on about in my "Doctor Who Shouldn't Do That" blogs. But just as importantly, it had to be exactly the kind of thing you'd expect me to write, without actually re-using any of my back-catalogue.

- I had to write it in three days. This was partly because I didn't think I could justify spending more than three days on something that was (supposedly) never going to see the light of day, but mostly because it was Christmas week, and I wanted to finish it before "Voyage of the Damned". (In the end, it took four days. Like "Voyage of the Damned", it also features a precarious-catwalk-over-an-abyss sequence, but there the resemblance ends.)

- I had to do it properly.

Enjoy the castration.

I don't know what the article is that he refers to at the start, and I can't find the "piss a better script in my sleep" comment on his blog (I presume he took it down).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 28, 2021, 04:13:51 AM
Coo, cheers. Not doing himself any favours by not formatting the script properly, but I'm interested to read it all the same, probably at the weekend.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: samadriel on May 28, 2021, 05:20:45 AM
I remember being quite bored by his script, but I never liked the Moffatt story he was trying to one-up either; the shitness of that story is what made me give up on Noo Hoo completely, thinking that if Moffatt had lost it, there was no point dragging myself through RTD's crap any longer just to see if Moffatt's Who woild be legit. After Journey's End, I didn't touch Who again until I gave the 50th anniversary show a go and was pleasantly surprised. I liked the Doc11 finale too, but the show got a bit crap again after that.

Edit: if the above seems to contradict an earlier post of mine praising Moffatt, I did like a good few of the 11th Doctor stories when I belatedly got around to them. I don't really remember them much though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on May 28, 2021, 05:39:14 AM
The last Capaldi season (the one with Bill and Nardole) is WELL worth watching.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: samadriel on May 28, 2021, 07:11:53 AM
Thanks, I'll check that out.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 28, 2021, 03:36:41 PM
Skip The Lie of the Land, though. And The Pyramid at the End of the World too, TBH. They're the third and second of a three-parter, but whatever you make up in your head will be better than what's on screen.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on May 28, 2021, 05:03:30 PM
Yeah... true... it sags in the middle a bit.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 28, 2021, 05:24:14 PM
Series 5 is a very solid run of episodes too, but you can skip the Chibnall two-parter (and Victory of the Daleks since it didn’t lead to anything apart from a sidelined Dalek redesign).


Very surprised that the library two-parter is what made you abandon Doctor Who, as there have always been much worse stories than Moffat offered, even at his worst.  This is why I am hesitant to recommend series 5 and even series 10 to you, but never mind
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Endicott on May 28, 2021, 06:00:57 PM
Very surprised that the library two-parter is what made you abandon Doctor Who, as there have always been much worse stories than Moffat offered, even at his worst.  This is why I am hesitant to recommend series 5 and even series 10 to you, but never mind

I thought samadriel was referring to 'Blink' (as its the one quoted above that Miles made his comment about) but maybe I've not been paying attention ('Blink' is a personal fav btw).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on May 28, 2021, 06:14:20 PM
Miles on Moffat: http://beasthouse-lm2.blogspot.com/2008/05/week-eight-my-life-with-new-god-king.html
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 28, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
Series 5 is a very solid run of episodes too, but you can skip the Chibnall two-parter (and Victory of the Daleks since it didn’t lead to anything apart from a sidelined Dalek redesign).

Yes, except do watch the last five minutes of the second Silurians episode, as it's essential to the arc plot.

Fucking Chibnall. Imagine if someone competent did those two episodes, and Victory (which is just a bit naff rather than actively shit) was the worst episode of the season. Magic.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 28, 2021, 10:23:09 PM
Yeah, Series 5 is just wonderful with that big stinking pile of Chibnall in the middle. Fucking dunderhead of a shit writer. Not only is it a rubbish script but it does fuck all new and ruins the Silurian design.

Victory of the Daleks, as with Vampires of Venice, is basically fine. Nothing special but an enjoyable 45 minutes. The rest of the series is top-notch.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: M-CORP on May 28, 2021, 10:31:27 PM
Can I just say I love how this thread has inevitably become just long passages of actual chatter about RTD and Moffat, interspersed with subliminal  interruptions of 'CHIBNALL IS SHIT'
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 28, 2021, 10:44:36 PM
Can I just say I love how this thread has inevitably become just long passages of actual chatter about RTD and Moffat, interspersed with subliminal  interruptions of 'CHIBNALL IS SHIT'

The RTD and Moffat eras can be summed up as long passages of RTD and Moffat with the occasional interruption of shit Chibnall.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: canted_angle_again on May 28, 2021, 11:31:02 PM
Can I just say I love how this thread has inevitably become just long passages of actual chatter about RTD and Moffat, interspersed with subliminal  interruptions of 'CHIBNALL IS SHIT'

I think that's because Moffat respected RTD's legacy 9aside from what went into the cracks). And largely they both understood what was great about the show and the elements that were great because they are still a mystery and always SHOULD be. Chibnall comes in like a kid on crack, on a merry-go-round  with no idea of how to tell a compelling story and is like 'wooo-nobody has done this before!!! Thems be stoopid, me do this and be smart because thems not thought of it before wee-oooh-ee!' - they had thought of it Chris, they just knew that some things are best left alone.

I mean it could be argued that Moffat went a bit too far with 'Listen' but that was handled with nuance and respect for the mystery so it worked and worked well. 'Nuance' is just some French sounding word that pretentious art students use to sound clever and not invite him to lunch in Chris's world.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 29, 2021, 12:33:33 AM
Plus, there's more emotional weight, thematic depth, creative energy and gut-busting humour in the worst RTD or Moffat script than in Chibnall's best. He just utterly lacks the ability to write, to understand a story or it's characters, in a way that I find utterly confounding in a man who has made that his career for decades.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: BritishHobo on May 29, 2021, 01:14:40 AM
Two quotes that leapt out at me from that Lawrence Miles blog:

Quote
It'd be unfair and inaccurate to say that he desperately wants to be liked at any cost, but it is reasonable to say that unlike Russell T. Davies, he's not naturally inclined to write anything which might risk alienating a large chunk of the audience.

Quote
Indeed, since C*th*r*n* T*t* has set a precedent for one-shot supporting characters making a long-term comeback, it might as well be Sally Sparrow. It's not as if Carey Mulligan's got anything better to do.

That said, it's easy to sneer, but I did always find Miles' blog fascinating to read at the time, and I always felt bad for him struggling so publicly online. Looking back at the blogs, I find it really really fascinating thinking about this community of New Adventures novel writers, committing themselves to the franchise in its wilderness years, and the way that some of them became driving forces for the show in its revival form, while people like Miles, for whatever reason, were left out in the cold. It's a fascinating insight into the ups-and-downs of dedicating yourself to something that's out-of-fashion, and how things change when it becomes culturally relevant again.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: BritishHobo on May 29, 2021, 01:20:08 AM
On Moffat, I was thinking today about series 8. I consider rewatching it sometimes as I've read posts on here about how it's an interesting experiment in a co-dependent/destructive relationship between the Doctor and companion. However my abiding memory of it is that it's a really horrible, unpleasant, angry series, with Clara repeatedly slapping the Doctor and telling him to shut up, which I think is a fairly repulsive dynamic to present in a family show. I remember it being a far cry from the sheer joy of Eleven and Amy, or Twelve and Bill/Nardole. I'd be interested to hear what other people think of that series in retrospect.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 29, 2021, 01:22:42 AM
it's a really horrible, unpleasant, angry series, with Clara repeatedly slapping the Doctor and telling him to shut up

I'd be interested to hear what other people think of that series in retrospect.

Moffat fancied Clara and was trying to tell himself off.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: samadriel on May 29, 2021, 07:44:09 AM
Very surprised that the library two-parter is what made you abandon Doctor Who, as there have always been much worse stories than Moffat offered, even at his worst.  This is why I am hesitant to recommend series 5 and even series 10 to you, but never mind

The library story didn't turn me off because it was the very worst of New Who or anything, I just really didn't like it and it made me lose my sense of "I hate RTD but Moffatt's going to come in soon and herald a golden age!" Once I actually watched some of Moffatt's era, I thought it was middling, but it did have some respectable bright points. The Clara era put me off again, but I'll certainly check out the Bill & Nardole season on your recommendation.

Speaking of the novelists, I was always surprised Lance Parkin wasn't given a punt on New Who, 'cos he became a pretty huge name in the world of Who novels -- I can't imagine most of the other novelists bring given a chance to write something as different as The Infinity Doctors. Maybe Parkin was never interested in writing for TV, I do recall his novels bring pretty chunky.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 29, 2021, 08:30:12 AM
Yeah, Series 5 is just wonderful with that big stinking pile of Chibnall in the middle. Fucking dunderhead of a shit writer. Not only is it a rubbish script but it does fuck all new and ruins the Silurian design.

Such a beautiful Silurian redesign was developed during the production phase that it’s heartbreaking it was abandoned.  I’m assuming you’ve all seen the photos of it that appeared in DWM years ago.

Just as Moffat stood out during RTD’s time, Chibnall stood out in his own way in series 5.  He was the writer who seemed like he was struggling to make his storyline connect and unfold organically, and make his characters sound like real people.  That script felt like a paint-by-numbers “what does a story need to do” and he hasn’t improved since, but I could really tell during series 7 (where I learned that he had originally been lined up to offer two more episodes for the second half, and he created the Pond Life shorts) and his Broadchurch success, that the next showrunner would most likely be him.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on May 29, 2021, 08:34:55 AM
For balance, I always thought the Silurian one was alright. For Chibnall.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: lipsink on May 29, 2021, 10:04:00 AM
I genuinely enjoyed Dinosaurs On A Spaceship and Power Of Three. I'm still convinced Chibnall had help on those.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Lungpuddle on May 29, 2021, 01:29:05 PM
On Moffat, I was thinking today about series 8. I consider rewatching it sometimes as I've read posts on here about how it's an interesting experiment in a co-dependent/destructive relationship between the Doctor and companion. However my abiding memory of it is that it's a really horrible, unpleasant, angry series, with Clara repeatedly slapping the Doctor and telling him to shut up, which I think is a fairly repulsive dynamic to present in a family show. I remember it being a far cry from the sheer joy of Eleven and Amy, or Twelve and Bill/Nardole. I'd be interested to hear what other people think of that series in retrospect.

I really like series 8 (although I love most of 9, so I understand I'm in a minority). I can only remember her slapping him once, in the one where they are shrunk and walking around inside a Dalek. That volcano bit in the two-part finale, I thought the Doctor's reaction to Clara betraying him was kind of lovely, but I'm also in a minority on here in that I don't hate Clara. So yeah, I really like series 8 a lot of the time, and probably moreso in retrospect because I do think the Bill/Nardole year was more of a joyful time for the show (not in reality, obviously). 8 is spiky, and there are moments that are unpleasant, and yet still has really bland episodes like Robots of Sherwood or Time Heist. I still can't remember any Claraslaps apart from Into the Dalek.

I also enjoyed Dinosaurs on a Spaceship at the time for the most part, although its tone is completely unbalanced. Power of Three I vaguely enjoyed but haven't gone back to watch it since it aired, and of the Silurian two-parter I thought the first part was really good but the second was an unpleasant slap in the face.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 29, 2021, 03:04:05 PM
You can see Chibnall's weird inability to understand humans or actual moral values in those Moffat episodes, which makes his ascension to show runner all the more baffling.

In particular, you've got The Doctor becoming best mates with Lizard Josef Mengele, who was vivisecting kidnapped humans without anaesthetic (humans including the wee lad's ostensibly sympathetic dad!); The Doctor killing the Mitchell and Webb robots (which are clearly sentient) then executing their boss while Rory and Amy look on; and not bothering to save all the kidnapped hospital patients at the end of Power of Three (although I'll be fair and say that might be down to Berkoff being an arsehole and rendering a lot of the finale unusable).

Moffat must have been aware of this stuff, so I don't know why he allowed it - or why Chibnall was given the "no rewrites" clause in his contract that Moffat had.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 29, 2021, 03:29:58 PM
I didn't mind Time Heist - on the filler chart it scores 'good' - but it was a waste of Keeley Hawes. After watching (and loving) Ashes to Ashes, I decided she'd be a great Doctor. Ideally she'd play it a bit less posh, but she was great as a character striding into alien situations and taking control, doubts and uncertainties concealed from the other characters. You can imagine her spitting technobabble with conviction and charisma.

Mister Six outlines above how Chibnall manages to damage the integrity of the show even when turning in filler ('bad'), never mind helming the whole franchise thing. I am intrigued by Berkoff berking up the end of Power of Three, though.

Series 8 has a few stellar moments. I rate the controversial Listen very highly, and Mummy on the Orient Express is a NuWho classic (there we get flashes of the Series 10 characterisation that would eventually perfect Capaldi's Doctor). As to Series 9, heavy with two parters, I've never been back to rewatch Under the Lake/Before the Flood, but I must, as I vageuly recall being really impressed.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 29, 2021, 11:06:49 PM
I genuinely enjoyed Dinosaurs On A Spaceship and Power Of Three. I'm still convinced Chibnall had help on those.

Have you seen them since?  “Everyone dies of heart attacks and the Doctor brings everyone back to life by waving his sonic screwdriver” has to be one of the laziest and stupidest story endings ever.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on May 29, 2021, 11:10:42 PM
That botched ending is supposedly due to the Berkoff frustration scenario mentioned upthread -

https://whatculture.com/tv/doctor-who-10-behind-the-scenes-bust-ups-bbc-doesnt-want-you-to-know?page=7

Sourcing that has led me to a Reddit thread with a little bit of tantalising behind-the-scenes gossip (precious few sources, but that's why it's tantalising) -

https://www.reddit.com/r/gallifrey/comments/dcp833/what_are_the_juiciest_bits_of_who_behind_the/

I'd read many more Writers' Tales. I find it a particular shame that Eccleston and RTD fell out irreparably, especially as they'd worked together so well before and likely would have again. I wonder if he'll work with Steven Moffat again at some point.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: guppypie on May 30, 2021, 01:02:47 AM
Moffat must have been aware of this stuff, so I don't know why he allowed it - or why Chibnall was given the "no rewrites" clause in his contract that Moffat had.

Chibnall had that clause under RTD too- basically if you had experience as a showrunner, as Chibnall, Stephen Greenhorn and Matthew Graham did, you weren't subjected to the same number of rewrites. All I can think is either that was kept up in Moffat's tenure, or he just had a completely different approach.
Chibnall, unlike Moffat or RTD, hasn't yet hired anyone to write for the show who has any experienced of showrunning. Make of that what you will
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on May 30, 2021, 12:12:44 PM
I genuinely enjoyed Dinosaurs On A Spaceship and Power Of Three. I'm still convinced Chibnall had help on those.

Dinosaurs came from a Moffat pitch, which often* meant that a freelancer was paid to do a first draft while Moffat was busy writing five other scripts and doing everything else involved with running the show, but apparently in this case was mainly Moff giving him the title and letting him run (with a story involving the Doctor committing on-screen murder, and this being a good thing). The fact that Brian recurs in Chibnall scripts is another hint that he was as responsible as he's credited. But "a silly adventure with space dinosaurs and comic relief robots (and accidentally endorsing murder against racist Jewish caricatures)" is pretty much the top of Chibnall's level! He only falls down when called on to do a story about anything, or that says something about its characters, or indeed provides empathetic characterisation to anyone other than a fifty-something English dad that he has created and added to the show.

Power Of Three is absolute steaming dogshit from stem to stern though. Yp his credit, Chibnall apparently did the revisions to salvage Berkoff's damage as well as the original rubbish, though.
 
 
* Crimson Horror is one where Moffat intended to write it himself but ran out of time, so gave it to pastiche-o-matic Gatiss to crack out on autopilot, with entirely acceptable results.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 30, 2021, 03:50:19 PM
That botched ending is supposedly due to the Berkoff frustration scenario mentioned upthread -

https://whatculture.com/tv/doctor-who-10-behind-the-scenes-bust-ups-bbc-doesnt-want-you-to-know?page=7


This makes sense.  However it's completely unreasonable to say that Power of Three only falls flat in its final stretch.


The Power of Three simply answers the lifelong query of what Partners in Crime would be like if the story had been about black cubes, with no allegorical connection to anything else, had no ambition to explore human nature or corporate irresponsibility and had all the joy thoroughly kicked out of it.  Remember when you were calling out for that episode and then it finally happened except the ending was a bit of a shame?  Yeah.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on May 30, 2021, 10:58:49 PM
Power Of Three works a lot better for me than Partners In Crime, for all of its flaws. The latter suffers from far too much wacky humour - including the death of a semi-sympathetic villain: the saccharine Adipose; and Catherine bloody Tate and David bloody Tennant gurning at each other like prats. I know a lot of people like it, but everything about it rubbed me the wrong way. Power is no classic, but its overall mediocrity has a certain confidence and it's not a try-hard piece of zany crap.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on May 30, 2021, 11:01:34 PM
The only reason you might see confidence in a Chibnall episode is the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 30, 2021, 11:03:19 PM
Power Of Three works a lot better for me than Partners In Crime, for all of its flaws. The latter suffers from far too much wacky humour - including the death of a semi-sympathetic villain: the saccharine Adipose; and Catherine bloody Tate and David bloody Tennant gurning at each other like prats. I know a lot of people like it, but everything about it rubbed me the wrong way. Power is no classic, but its overall mediocrity has a certain confidence and it's not a try-hard piece of zany crap.

In other words if you take a try-hard piece of zany crap, and then sap it of everything, you get Power of Three.


You're right that Chibnall's very best efforts amount to undeservingly confident mediocrity.  The man should be fucking ashamed of himself and his episodes should crawl onto the screen with cowering humility.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on May 31, 2021, 12:19:31 AM
I've said it before, but 42 was the first-ever New Who I gave up on halfway through, and that was long before I knew of his reputation. Still never bothered to watch the rest of it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on May 31, 2021, 07:33:23 PM
And that's probably his best Who episode.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 31, 2021, 08:17:35 PM
Yeah there was a sense of jeopardy for those few seconds the Doctor’s eyes were on fire.  Singularly that moment elevated it above what was to come.  But the rest of it is exactly what we’re used to - awful plot-by-numbers effort that feels like it came from a student who didn’t learn very much on his television writing course.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: M-CORP on May 31, 2021, 10:18:12 PM
The most exciting bit is where they dump the fuel at the end solving everything. Could have been naff, and I suppose in many ways it was. But that bit of reverb they put on Martha's voice when she says, 'Do it. NOW!'.... well, I don't know about you, but that completely made the episode for me.






No, actually, I prefer Chibnall's series 7 episodes.
42 does feature some decent scenes of potential with Martha in the escape pod, but generally speaking not even Graeme Harper, one of the show's best directors, really had much to add to it all. With other episodes he's directed you can talk about additions he made - whip-pans, handheld before it was fashionable, profile shots of the Doctor and Rose on the beach, etc.

42? Errr... the countdown clock motif? (Actually, I've just remembered the silent bit where the pod detaches, so maybe ignore me)


Also... the ending.
'Well done, very hot'
Yeah, because of course you snog someone having fallen in love in just 42 minutes. And THEN you say that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on May 31, 2021, 11:10:54 PM
No, actually, I prefer Chibnall's series 7 episodes.

What is your favourite flesh-eating disease?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: kidsick5000 on June 06, 2021, 06:00:54 AM
I love that RTD captured how to make families watch the show again.
The monsters could March down your street. Knock at your door.
The rawness of that first season where things aren’t quite canon - big demons that eat time paradoxes etc - but really grabbed the appeal of the magic box.
Even with the demons, the “oh shit” moment of the Tardis turning into just an empty box is brilliant.
Likewise the idea in Bad Wolf that any disused booth you see in your area could be a Tardis sent to wait out its days.
Small gestures like that fuel imagination.
And while this thread shouldn’t be “past good, current shit”, I don’t think the current show runner gets what is special about the Tardis, which is why it doesn’t have a bloody light switch.
It’s not just a mode of travel, it’s the safe space. It’s the lounge. Get to the Tardis, everything is okay. Which is why it adds to the pressure when it gets stolen/blocked/etc
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on June 06, 2021, 09:07:57 AM
The amount of detail that has gone into the design of the previous three TARDIS consoles, compared to the apparent sparseness of the current one, is quite telling. The quirkiness of the previous ones came through in myriad details of the overall design; Chibnall thinks it's enough just to have a little spinning TARDIS model and a mentioned-once-then-forgotten-about Custard Cream dispenser. I don't believe the TARDIS we know from the RTD and Moffat eras would ever have redesigned itself to look like this.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 06, 2021, 09:26:38 AM
There’s also something quite perverse about a show on a tight budget destroying the already-standing Capaldi set and building the inferior Whittaker set in its place.

“New showrunner and Doctor automatically equals new TARDIS console.”  No, it doesn’t need to.  That’s what happened between RTD and Moffat but you don’t need to turn it into a template by mindlessly repeating it.  Redress the Capaldi TARDIS and use it for a few more years.  As an apparent fan of the classic era and the 80s run Chibnall should be aware that a new incarnation of the Doctor doesn’t always necessitate an entirely new set.  It’s as if the man has no imagination or something.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on June 06, 2021, 11:23:27 AM
I'm quite happy for him to decide to have a new TARDIS set, it's just a shame it went so wrong.
You hardly get a sense of what it looks like during Jodie's first season - I assume they built it then found they could hardly get the cameras in.

Second season you see a bit more of it, still a bit underwhelming though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 06, 2021, 11:39:51 AM
The overriding sense when you look at the Whittaker set is that they have no money and are having to use careful lighting / shadows to hide the fact that beyond a short focal length there’s just a few black drapes there in the background.

The perverse aspect is that they paid money to demolish the Capaldi set for it.  If you can’t afford a new set straightaway then change it a bit further down the line.  Keep the Capaldi set for a couple of years and then revamp.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ron Maels Moustache on June 06, 2021, 12:06:43 PM
I love that RTD captured how to make families watch the show again.
The monsters could March down your street. Knock at your door.
The rawness of that first season where things aren’t quite canon - big demons that eat time paradoxes etc - but really grabbed the appeal of the magic box.
Even with the demons, the “oh shit” moment of the Tardis turning into just an empty box is brilliant.
Likewise the idea in Bad Wolf that any disused booth you see in your area could be a Tardis sent to wait out its days.
Small gestures like that fuel imagination.
And while this thread shouldn’t be “past good, current shit”, I don’t think the current show runner gets what is special about the Tardis, which is why it doesn’t have a bloody light switch.
It’s not just a mode of travel, it’s the safe space. It’s the lounge. Get to the Tardis, everything is okay. Which is why it adds to the pressure when it gets stolen/blocked/etc

Apart from his awful writing and total lack of vision for the series, I think Chibnall's biggest failing is completely losing the young audience. I mean arguably that started under Moffat who was clearly less interested in making the show appeal to children than RTD, but despite having a clear remit to completely reinvent the show and make it something kids would enjoy again, Chibnall has utterly failed to do this.

There's absolutely nothing for kids in the series now, nothing they'll be talking about in the playground on Monday morning, no memorable monsters or scary bits to linger in the imagination. It's just another dreary Sunday Night BBC1 show that has no interest to a child. And without that young audience growing up watching the show, maybe dreaming of writing for it themselves one day, it will just whither and die in the public imagination.

And since Chibnall has essentially alienated the entirety of the rest of the show's fanbase, who is it for now? What is the audience for this era of the show?

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 06, 2021, 02:11:50 PM
In that regard, the observed parallels between this era and Davison’s tenure are quite astute too.  In an active effort to move the show away from the kid’s show JNT felt it had become, Tom Baker’s final year was all about removing the comedic underpinnings, curbing Tom’s enthusiasm and binning K-9.  And then for Davison’s era it was very much targeted at the teenage demographic.

Chibnall has obviously taken a leaf out of that book, but fails to appreciate that JNT’s efforts were a response to what had come before.  Casting such a young actor and changing the tone of the show provided contrast with Tom’s final years as the Doctor.  Whereas Moffat’s run was already becoming quite caught up in the mechanisms of the show’s long term and short term history.  I’d say from series 6 onwards it was quite inward-looking, even though it remembered to include lots of accessible stories all the time.

Chibnall’s version of the show needed to be a refresh.  It needed to pull away from continuity, and it needed to aim at new viewers and young viewers in order to counteract the difficulties that any show immediately faces when it has “series 11” stuck on it.  Doctor Who will die if it can’t always feel like a new show.  An eight year old needs to be able to watch an episode of series 13 without feeling that they have nearly 20 years of NuWho history to catch up on first (or the entire history of Classic Who too, considering all the Morbius faces that viewers now find they need to swot up on).  If Doctor Who first of all alienates new viewers then nobody is going to bother with it.  It will only shed its existing viewers.

It seemed like series 11 vaguely understood this situation but was too shit to pull it off, but with series 12’s Timeless Child nonsense it was obvious the “refresh” stance of series 11 had actually been circumstantial rather than deliberate.  Chibnall has created a show that is far, far further up its own arse than Moffat dared to go.  It’s like the snake eating itself, except it’s burrowing its face into its own rectum so the head isn’t visible anymore - it’s just a loop of lizard flesh with no obvious rhyme or reason, beginning or end.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on June 06, 2021, 09:48:14 PM
arguably that started under Moffat who was clearly less interested in making the show appeal to children than RTD

Nah, Moffat's run was very deeply concerned with appealing to kids. The first 20 minutes of his run are all about establishing the premise directly to a young kid in terms they can understand. Smith's doctor continues to be played as a fairytale character through that season (and frequently beyond - In The Forest Of The Night is top-to-tail fairytale). Right up to the Bill season he's thinking of new ordinary things for kids to terrify themselves by seeing the next day. RTD's plots run on emotional logic rather than making sense, but just because Moffat's are complicated puzzles that mostly do connect, doesn't mean kids can't follow the emotional logic that's also motivating the characters. And plenty of them will enjoy following the puzzles too!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: 13 schoolyards on June 07, 2021, 03:30:33 AM
Chibnall's run has felt to me like he's trying to appeal to kids, but in the way that's currently fashionable - by coming up with something that parents will think their children will enjoy, rather than something that works for kids on their own level. You see it a lot with movies and kids books - because the parents are the ones with the money, the goal is to create things "for kids" that the parents will be okay with spending money on. Which is fine (perhaps) for those things, but television is basically free and kids will choose their own things to watch there.

I mean, whatever the virtues of the actual episode, an episode of Doctor Who about Rosa Parks sounds a lot like the kind of thing parents will think their kids need to watch and almost nothing like something kids would want to watch.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 07, 2021, 07:54:42 AM
It’s not on regularly enough to appeal to children, anyway.

Series 12 was over a year ago.  Series 11 was eighteen months before that.  Think of those passages of time from the point of view of your childhood self.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on June 07, 2021, 08:21:39 AM
I mean, whatever the virtues of the actual episode, an episode of Doctor Who about Rosa Parks sounds a lot like the kind of thing parents will think their kids need to watch and almost nothing like something kids would want to watch.
Yes exactly! Doctor Who can be many things but it should not be the equivalent of a children's picture book about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Leej88 on June 07, 2021, 08:51:04 AM
I hate the way series 1 and 2 were shot with a filter or glow and series 6 is a bad series all started with The Big Bang.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: frajer on June 07, 2021, 09:00:16 AM
Yes exactly! Doctor Who can be many things but it should not be the equivalent of a children's picture book about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

How else are children supposed to be taught to sit back and watch racism happen?

I am of course being glib and reductive. But also sitting back and watching racism is exactly what happens in the episode, which is why Doctor Who shouldn’t have touched this story with a barge pole. The Doctor is a positive agent of change in a messed up universe and i don’t think kids should see her sitting in silent anguish as hate crimes occur.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on June 07, 2021, 11:21:12 AM
I know it goes back to Hartnell but personally I'd like to see an end to fretting about changing Earth's history. It's okay to change its future and to change the past on other planets, but Earth for some reason is covered with these 'fixed points'. The whole appeal of the Doctor (for me) is that she drops into stories that are already unfolding and changes the outcome. I'd rather not see any historicals at all if the writers can't think of a way to have her actually do stuff in them.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 07, 2021, 11:30:46 AM
Yes exactly! Doctor Who can be many things but it should not be the equivalent of a children's picture book about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

I honestly think I could get behind any version of Doctor Who that had passion behind it.  I never loved the soap opera elements of RTD’s Who, and I detest the insistence that the Doctor would have romantic urges of any kind rather than be aloof from them, but the fact remains that hardly anyone was half-arsing it at any point.  It comes through in the episodes themselves, and the behind-the-scenes stuff as well.


What characterises Chibnall’s Who for me is a comprehensive absence of love or care.  The leading actress doesn’t seem to know anything about the role she is playing, which seems to stem from the production team telling Whittaker not to get bogged down in the history of the show - and that’s fine - but it’s ultimately equal to an actor not bothering to research any of the themes and motivations within a play they’ve been cast in.

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ron Maels Moustache on June 07, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Chibnall's run has felt to me like he's trying to appeal to kids, but in the way that's currently fashionable - by coming up with something that parents will think their children will enjoy, rather than something that works for kids on their own level. You see it a lot with movies and kids books - because the parents are the ones with the money, the goal is to create things "for kids" that the parents will be okay with spending money on. Which is fine (perhaps) for those things, but television is basically free and kids will choose their own things to watch there.

I mean, whatever the virtues of the actual episode, an episode of Doctor Who about Rosa Parks sounds a lot like the kind of thing parents will think their kids need to watch and almost nothing like something kids would want to watch.

I'm guessing the fact that both RTD and Moffat (to a much lesser extent) have a background in kids TV is a factor in this as well - Chibnall as far as I'm aware has none, which becomes evident in his inability to produce content a younger audience would relate to.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 07, 2021, 01:21:09 PM
came here to say i just finished season 10 and jesus fuck the first part of that cyberman story shit me up

PAIN
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 07, 2021, 01:27:37 PM
I'm guessing the fact that both RTD and Moffat (to a much lesser extent) have a background in kids TV is a factor in this as well - Chibnall as far as I'm aware has none, which becomes evident in his inability to produce content a younger audience would relate to.

He doesn’t produce content that people of any age can relate to.


His overriding issue is one of being terminally shit on every known and unknown level.  If he could fix that one thing he’d be a master.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 07, 2021, 03:20:58 PM
The one constant defence I see of Chibnall is that he is making it more appealing to kids and that it is a kids show and not for you so eat your gruel you cunt.

Obviously I'm not stupid enough to actually watch something written by Chibnall so I don't know if that is true but from the comments above it seems not. Why do people think the Chibbers era is more kid friendly?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 07, 2021, 04:07:37 PM
The one constant defence I see of Chibnall is that he is making it more appealing to kids and that it is a kids show and not for you so eat your gruel you cunt.

Obviously I'm not stupid enough to actually watch something written by Chibnall so I don't know if that is true but from the comments above it seems not. Why do people think the Chibbers era is more kid friendly?

Because it is astronomically more vacuous and some idiots think that’s what “kid friendly” means.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 07, 2021, 04:28:37 PM
Why do people think the Chibbers era is more kid friendly?

Because it's overtly educational and less complex in its storytelling, and people forget what children actually look for and enjoy in entertainment.

Mrs Six and I have been watching some genuinely brilliant actual kids' shows recently - Adventure Time, Apple & Onion and Gumball - and all three are savvy, irreverent (A&O starts off a bit "lesson of the week" but as of series two is becoming just extremely daft) and incredibly fast-paced.

Adventure Time in particular has a surprisingly deep and complex backstory, with tons of worldbuilding, surprising pathos, and some really odd ideas in there. A single 11-minute episode of Adventure Time can be funnier, more imaginative and more affecting than several 50-minute episodes of Chibnall's Doctor Who.

The idea that kids would prefer bland sermonising from a fretful Whittaker to the frenetic, we-don't-give-a-shit energy (which is closest to RTD's era - he really did know what he was doing) of these cartoons is bizarre.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on June 07, 2021, 04:32:32 PM
Kids love mischief. Where's the mischief? There's none. No mischief at all
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 07, 2021, 05:46:21 PM
Also, let us not overlook the fact that Chibnall is just shit.


Even if there was mischief going on, it would be shit.


We could forensically diagnose all the stuff missing from Chibnall's Who, put it all back in, and it would still somehow end up shit.



Why?  Because Chibnall is just irredeemably, ball-achingly shit.  He is a shit showrunner, a shit writer, and a shit man.  Even that boy who was in A Fix With Sontarans wasn't as shit as Chibnall.  I'm not even joking.  I hope one day he opens his eyes, sees how shit he truly is and it makes him feel really, really bad.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on June 07, 2021, 06:32:21 PM
CHIBNALL POSITIVITY POST

I really like the opening credits and the arrangement of the theme, so he's made some good choices there, even if it's only just hiring talented people.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: M-CORP on June 07, 2021, 06:44:28 PM
Kids love mischief. Where's the mischief? There's none. No mischief at all

This reminds me of when RTD used farts and burps on numerous occasions in the first series and everyone got really annoyed about it. Remember him saying ten years on how it was a deliberate attempt to appeal to kids, and how overjoyed he was that he had enraged people so much over a burping bin.

But it works because he never used it as a means to an end; he never put it in as a substitute for story and character.

I've always thought that people are too hard on the Slitheen (Aliens Of London/World War Three). I would concede that the farting gags were overdone by the time we get to part 2, but during the buildup, when it's not clear that we're dealing with aliens disguised as politicians, the use of toilet humour works as a way of amusing kids, but is even more effective as a nudge that things aren't right (it's like Verfremdungseffekt). There's something quite sinister about it. AND it allows the show to portray the inner workings of the British political system with the respect and deference it deserves.

Even if you think the fart gags are unnecessary and irritating, you can look beyond that because there's more to the Slitheen and their characterisation, touching upon various themes, mainly corporate greed, corruption and family ties (they can sense when a relative has been killed).

Compare and contrast with the Pting (The Tsuranga Conundrum - and yes, I know how impressed you are that I can spell it, even though it had little relevance in the story). Just a mere Pokemon ripoff - Chibnall stated it was kept deliberately cute to bring kids back after they'd all been scared by the preceding week's spiders. Apart from the fact it eats anything non-organic - and what could that represent - there's no character or theme whatsoever. It doesn't even really fit with what other garbled nonsense occurs.

Anyway, I like World War Three, it's the first Eccleston story I saw when I became a fan in the Tennant years, and I think it needs more attention than it gets. It's just a really good balance of domestic character work, humour and dark subject matter, with real-life political events being used for allegory to great effect - compelling, and not preachy or 'educational'. Unlike a Chibnall story.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 07, 2021, 07:26:35 PM
I know it goes back to Hartnell but personally I'd like to see an end to fretting about changing Earth's history. It's okay to change its future and to change the past on other planets, but Earth for some reason is covered with these 'fixed points'. The whole appeal of the Doctor (for me) is that she drops into stories that are already unfolding and changes the outcome. I'd rather not see any historicals at all if the writers can't think of a way to have her actually do stuff in them.

Earth is covered with 'fixed points' because as a fictional character the Doctor cannot alter our history.  Unless you say that there is a significant divergence between the 'reality' of Doctor Who and our reality - insofar as within the show's reality the Doctor and the TARDIS are real - you're describing an immensely distasteful show in which the Doctor either chooses to rescue victims of historical genocides from their fate, or just doesn't for amoral reasons.

You could present that divergence - say that the reality of Doctor Who is an alternate reality to ours (and therefore it's ok to change that version of Earth's history) - but that would strip out a huge amount of the fun, I think.  Doctor Who is supposed to be set within our reality, otherwise there would be no resonance between the mundane and the alien.


The solution of not having any historicals (or at least not ones that push the Doctor and companions into being silently complicit in the face of terrible historical events) is probably the best one.  Maybe that's what better showrunners realised a long time ago.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 07, 2021, 08:35:28 PM
I think the whole idea of fixed points in history is rather silly.

Surely the whole point of not meddling in time was about not changing events in the history of the companions so that they erase the future they come from. This is why it is okay to be a hero and meddle all you like in random planet of the week or the earth of the future. I feel like if The Doctor and Susan were on their own then they could do what they fucking like in The Aztecs but because Ian and Barbara are with them, they cannot alter their own past timelines. The Time Meddler backs this up further by showing that a Time Lord can alter major earth events if they like.

What I had heard of the Rosa Parks episode sounds ghastly. But it does make me think of a Doctor Who audio which did tackled racist segregation in the past along with alien invasions in an excellent way. The audio story An Ordinary Life is set during the 50s and ends with the Doctor managing to work out who the aliens are by seeing that they aren't racially segregating in a pub unlike humans of the time.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 07, 2021, 09:10:27 PM
Nah, because it makes The Doctor a cunt for not sorting out Hitler the moment it was just him and Romana. Plus, it'd still fuck up Ian and Barbara's timeline even if they weren't with him.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 07, 2021, 09:20:03 PM
Nah, because it makes The Doctor a cunt for not sorting out Hitler the moment it was just him and Romana. Plus, it'd still fuck up Ian and Barbara's timeline even if they weren't with him.

But Romana and The Doctor never had a situation on screen in which they could have stopped the Nazis. If you actively avoid putting the Doctor in situations like that, then it helps.

Declaring some things a "fixed point in time" just makes things a mess. If you relay it from the perspective of altering personal timelines then it makes much more sense. Basically extrapolate Father's Day but increase it by generations.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 07, 2021, 09:32:14 PM
I think the whole idea of fixed points in history is rather silly.

Surely the whole point of not meddling in time was about not changing events in the history of the companions so that they erase the future they come from. This is why it is okay to be a hero and meddle all you like in random planet of the week or the earth of the future. I feel like if The Doctor and Susan were on their own then they could do what they fucking like in The Aztecs but because Ian and Barbara are with them, they cannot alter their own past timelines. The Time Meddler backs this up further by showing that a Time Lord can alter major earth events if they like.

What I had heard of the Rosa Parks episode sounds ghastly. But it does make me think of a Doctor Who audio which did tackled racist segregation in the past along with alien invasions in an excellent way. The audio story An Ordinary Life is set during the 50s and ends with the Doctor managing to work out who the aliens are by seeing that they aren't racially segregating in a pub unlike humans of the time.

Those are all separate issues dealt with in sometimes overlapping ways.

True - you can't have a show where anyone can keep using time travel to have multiple goes after getting things wrong, or there would be no stakes.  Thus 'fixed points' mean you get one attempt and that's it.

Separately, it's wise to have a show where the time-travelling protagonists aren't being cunts for leaving Jews to be gassed in Auschwitz, hence the existence of an episode set in Pompeii highlighting that certain terrible historical events have to remain fixed otherwise the known universe would become too radically altered and paradoxes would occur.  It's a smart way of not having to deal with some potentially shitty stuff, and why not tie it into 'fixed points'?  They describe the same basic premise. 


Back in the Classic era you could put it all down to the Time Lords blocking a certain amount of meddling, or somehow holding any number of paradoxes in check.  Also, the Doctor could rarely control his TARDIS properly, so it wasn't his fault he wasn't landing his ship on a sixpence and rescuing victims from genocides.  But in the revived 2005 version of the show, in which we were told the Time Lords no longer existed, the Doctor's potential as a free-agent needed to rub against some kind of boundaries, otherwise these issues would become the proverbial elephant in the room, compromising the characters, the drama and the morals of the show.


As for the difference between The Aztecs and The Time Meddler, it's just because different people were writing those stories and there were no agreed overarching time travel rules that writers had to follow.  For The Aztecs, the historical education remit of the show involved plonking the characters into a setting that they could only observe.  Barbara's actions wisely demonstrate that no companions should blindly accept a passive position, but she finds it is hopeless.  I'm sure nobody behind the scenes had any concept of only doing single-state timelines or anything like this - they just wanted a template to show historical events for educational purposes, and "you can't change history, not one line" worked perfectly for that period.

The Time Meddler is an entirely different story, showing history being altered because the focus of Doctor Who had changed, and that's what those writers wanted to explore.  It's fun in itself but it would be daft to embrace it as a model for current episodes without repercussions for the characters.  In addition to everything I've outlined above, at some point you'd end up with the show's 'present day Earth' being so far removed from our own present day that it'd completely lose any connection.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 07, 2021, 09:37:55 PM
But Romana and The Doctor never had a situation on screen in which they could have stopped the Nazis. If you actively avoid putting the Doctor in situations like that, then it helps.

You have to completely remove the Doctor's ability to control the TARDIS in that case.  Stick a randomiser on it or whatever you like, but giving the Doctor sufficient control yet not sort out Nazi Germany makes him or her into a cunt.


Declaring some things a "fixed point in time" just makes things a mess. If you relay it from the perspective of altering personal timelines then it makes much more sense. Basically extrapolate Father's Day but increase it by generations.

I don't understand why it makes more sense to narrow it to a time traveller's own personal timeline.  If anything that's even harder to wrap your head around, as it bestows some kind of magical difference upon someone purely because they have travelled in time for a certain duration.

Saving a bunch of people from a genocide would radically alter the populated universe after many many generations, so it mustn't be done, hence those events are deemed 'fixed'.  Why is that more messy?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on June 07, 2021, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Stick a randomiser on it or whatever you like, but giving the Doctor sufficient control yet not sort out Nazi Germany makes him or her into a cunt.

Side note, but in the Virgin New Adventure Timewyrm: Exodus the Doc and Ace encounter Hitler in an early stage of his rise to power, when his little beer-hall putsches are still being broken up and mocked. Ace tries to blow him up ("Goodbye, Adolf!"), but the Doc stops her.

His rationale? "Hitler ultimately lost because he was an incompetent madman. Kill him now, and maybe he gets replaced by a competent madman. Someone who really could make the Reich last a thousand years."

It's maybe not the deepest argument, but it does have a certain logic, and fits in with the idea of 'you don't mess with History or you risk making things a lot worse'. Which I kind of like. Messing with History should have serious implications, and often unpleasant consequences. Rather like the Pirates' Code in the Disney films, the implication is that the whole thing of fixed points and non-Time-meddling is more of a guideline than a rule, something which any Time Lord knows that they could ignore, if not outright defy, but disciplines themselves not to.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Natnar on June 07, 2021, 10:38:57 PM
It’s not on regularly enough to appeal to children, anyway.

Series 12 was over a year ago.  Series 11 was eighteen months before that.  Think of those passages of time from the point of view of your childhood self.

Moffat wasn't exactly quick in crapping out his series either..
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on June 07, 2021, 10:39:27 PM
The Doctor has saved loads of people from genocide and rewritten the histories of hundreds of planets. The real reason Doctor Who can stop Bug Planet 3000 Holocaust but not Planet Earth 1943 Holocaust, as Replies said, is that it would create a radically different present day Earth. But personally I’d be perfectly happy if Doctor Who never even goes to the present day. That’s my dream version of the show, where historicals are totally disrespectful and the TARDIS never touches down in the 21st century. Sounds more fun than what we’ve got now anyway
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 07, 2021, 10:55:55 PM
Separately, it's wise to have a show where the time-travelling protagonists aren't being cunts for leaving Jews to be gassed in Auschwitz, hence the existence of an episode set in Pompeii highlighting that certain terrible historical events have to remain fixed otherwise the known universe would become too radically altered and paradoxes would occur.  It's a smart way of not having to deal with some potentially shitty stuff, and why not tie it into 'fixed points'?  They describe the same basic premise. 

An episode which actually breaks the whole idea of fixed points in time. So are fixed points in time real mechanisms of the universe or are they just wise rules for a time traveller to follow? I guess whichever way you think of it, it breaks one story or another. This leads to...


As for the difference between The Aztecs and The Time Meddler, it's just because different people were writing those stories and there were no agreed overarching time travel rules that writers had to follow.  For The Aztecs, the historical education remit of the show involved plonking the characters into a setting that they could only observe.  Barbara's actions wisely demonstrate that no companions should blindly accept a passive position, but she finds it is hopeless.  I'm sure nobody behind the scenes had any concept of only doing single-state timelines or anything like this - they just wanted a template to show historical events for educational purposes, and "you can't change history, not one line" worked perfectly for that period.

The Time Meddler is an entirely different story, showing history being altered because the focus of Doctor Who had changed, and that's what those writers wanted to explore.  It's fun in itself but it would be daft to embrace it as a model for current episodes without repercussions for the characters.  In addition to everything I've outlined above, at some point you'd end up with the show's 'present day Earth' being so far removed from our own present day that it'd completely lose any connection.

...whichever interpretation fits the particular story.

And this is where Chibnall goes wrong (well one of the places, I expect). He imagines some magical "fixed point in time" law has been created (largely in the post-2005 show but occasionally hinted at before) and he must follow it hard and fast to the point that it breaks the show in ways that had never really happened before.

In many ways you could think of Capaldi's character in Pompeii and Rosa Parks in Chibnall as being quite similar. Both are events that are fixed in time which The Doctor should not alter for fear of breaking time and causing serious problems (whatever they may be). Except in the end The Doctor fixes one and doesn't with the other. Why? Because Doctor Who doesn't put The Doctor in situations like that before Chibnall unless there is a way around it.

Really what I dislike about the idea of fixed points in time is that if it is nebulous to the story then you have bad writers who can come along and misuse it. A concept which gives Chibnall the tools to fundamentally fuck up the core of the show. Smarter writers from before have just avoided it before or done something interesting with it (such as Pompeii).

My comparison between The Aztecs and The Time Meddler was simply explaining that one person trying to change the past was intrinsically linked with it (Barbara) and the other was not (The Meddling Monk). Not that it matters whether they do contradict each other or not. They are two of the three best Hartnell stories so who gives a toss. Feel like shit, just want The Doctor to make some cocoa and get engaged.

You have to completely remove the Doctor's ability to control the TARDIS in that case.  Stick a randomiser on it or whatever you like, but giving the Doctor sufficient control yet not sort out Nazi Germany makes him or her into a cunt.

I don't understand why it makes more sense to narrow it to a time traveller's own personal timeline.  If anything that's even harder to wrap your head around, as it bestows some kind of magical difference upon someone purely because they have travelled in time for a certain duration.

Saving a bunch of people from a genocide would radically alter the populated universe after many many generations, so it mustn't be done, hence those events are deemed 'fixed'.  Why is that more messy?

I guess his granddaughter living in a future that was moulded by the past would mean that the Nazis are now technically part of his own personal timeline as is everything from before the Dalek invasion of earth.

What is the difference between victims of the Nazis and victims of the Kandyman in Doctor Who time travel terms? What makes Hitler a fixed point in time that is unchangeable but makes The Collector somebody who's evil regime can be toppled? In the end it comes down to the fact that one is a historical point in the view of the audience and the other is not, doesn't it?

All that being said, was this ever an issue for the first five decades of the show? Genesis of the Daleks is the closest the show had ever come to giving The Doctor this sort of moral quandary and it thankfully was an analogy. The show just avoided putting The Doctor in the position to have to make these decisions in a historical sense. But Doctor Who never had a writer with the subtlety and expertise as Chris Chibnall.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on June 07, 2021, 11:14:17 PM
CHIBNALL POSITIVITY POST

I really like the opening credits and the arrangement of the theme, so he's made some good choices there, even if it's only just hiring talented people.

Whenever this subject comes up, I always stop to think of anything positive I can say about Chibnall's tenure. But no, that's it. I like the globular opening credits and theme tune arrangement.

Casting Bradley Walsh was a good move, I suppose, insomuch as he's a decent actor who tried to inject some emotional heft into an underwritten character. I appreciate that "professional actor trying to make the best of shit material" isn't exactly a ringing endorsment.

As for Whittaker, she has never at any point been given something substantial to work with. At least Graham had a dead wife who he could feel sad about sometimes. Whittaker plays the Doctor exactly as the part is written - a bland character with no agency or depth. What is she supposed to do with that?

I suppose you could argue that, like every other actor who has played the Doctor, she could bring some of her own quirks to the role, but it's worth bearing in mind that even Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy were afforded the luxury of playing Doctors with distinctive character traits. The thirteenth Doctor has none. Whittaker sometimes wrinkles her nose, that's about it.

I've seen Whittaker in other things, she's a good actor, but in Doctor Who she's been lumbered with a poorly written, inconsistent character that allows her no room for manoeuvre. A thankless task.

tl;dr: Chibnall is shit.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 07, 2021, 11:47:55 PM
i have just started the whittaker series

guys please tell me she doesn't stay this bland aghhhhhh

vibed SO hard with the last capaldi season
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on June 08, 2021, 12:29:40 AM
i have just started the whittaker series

guys please tell me she doesn't stay this bland aghhhhhh

vibed SO hard with the last capaldi season

Bear in mind that you're now watching a programme written by an utterly incompetent person. Replies and others have outlined why this is the case.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 08, 2021, 12:38:28 AM
Bear in mind that you're now watching a programme written by an utterly incompetent person. Replies and others have outlined why this is the case.

mmm i find this concerning. the writing is already off but i'm mostly concerned with the direction of the doctor who seems to blur into the background of the other more interesting companions. she's disappointingly aimless and outright unlikeable so far

my only positives really are that i have a bit of a crush on yaz and also graham
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 08, 2021, 12:47:37 AM
Just give up now, honestly.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on June 08, 2021, 01:12:17 AM
Just give up now, honestly.

Yes. It's just awful, futile television.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on June 08, 2021, 02:42:47 AM
Genuinely consider giving up before you reach the end of Whittaker's second series. The reveal at the end seriously risks ruining the character, so if you can avoid having to see / hear about it, you'll be much better off as a fan.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 08, 2021, 03:07:44 AM
Genuinely consider giving up before you reach the end of Whittaker's second series. The reveal at the end seriously risks ruining the character, so if you can avoid having to see / hear about it, you'll be much better off as a fan.

fucking hell. whatever that is, is it really that bad??
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 08, 2021, 05:40:33 AM
Yes.

EDIT: The problem is that all this makes the stories sound interesting when actually they're the worst combination of unimaginative fanfic wank and smooth-brained, soporific storytelling.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 08, 2021, 05:53:50 AM
Actually, in case you're in danger of watching it, I'll save you the hassle: Turns out The Doctor was found as an infant underneath a portal from an unknown place and adopted by a Gallifreyan scientist, who extracted the ability to regenerate from her, then gave it to other Gallifreyans, creating the Time Lords as we know them. The Doctor - pre-Hartnell (we see at least 3 pre-Hartnell regenerations, all girls/women) - was used as a time agent by the Time Lords (she had her own TARDIS, which looked like a blue police box for reasons unknown) but went rogue and his on Earth for a bit, where she met the 13th Doctor and did nothing much of note.

At some point the memories of these pre-Hartnell lives were wiped from The Doctor's memory, so Hartnell thought he was the original. Then, in season 12, The Master finds out and is so furious about having "a piece of [The Doctor] inside me" that he destroys Gallifrey again, offscreen. Then he paralyses The Doctor and explains how she is secretly the centre of all Time Lord existence. She escapes, decides that it doesn't really matter that she didn't remember all that stuff, and carries on as normal.

Oh, and to save the poet Shelley's life, The Doctor had almost all human life across the universe - trillions of people - killed by Cybermen. And then didn't really seem that bothered about it.


So there you go - we now have The Doctor turned from a rogue Time Lord who just didn't fit into Gallifreyan society into the very foundation of Gallifreyan society. The Doctor is now canonically the most important person in the show's universe. Also, there's now a potentially infinite number of pre-Hartnell incarnations, so nothing special or exciting when The Doctor bumps into themselves or anything like that. There could be millions of the fuckers out there!

Also all of humanity is nearly completely wiped out at some point in the future because The Doctor didn't want to get a suicidal poet killed.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 08, 2021, 05:55:11 AM
Chris Chibnall is so fucking shit. I hope he feels wracked with regret at his career every day, and then just fucking quits writing altogether.

(And then, because I'm not a monster, finds himself very happily employed in a job better fitting his abilities, like a draught excluder or something.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 07:46:21 AM
Also worth remembering that none of the above had any dramatic properties whatsoever.  It was all a completely unexciting infodump, so reading about it from Wikipedia is exactly the same experience, with the benefit of being quicker.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: MoreauVasz on June 08, 2021, 08:14:26 AM
Did the fandom not have a massive meltdown about all of that?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 09:10:38 AM
Did the fandom not have a massive meltdown about all of that?

I think everyone did much the same thing, namely give up on the show so we wouldn’t need to give a shit.  Show-breaking expositional garbage within Chibnall’s Who doesn’t leave you feeling ambivalent - his tenure has only negative qualities, and is therefore pimpsy to abandon.

I have all the Classic era DVDs and onwards through the 2005 revival including series 11, which I only bought as a completist.  Series 12 has ejected me from this show.  It has cured me of my addiction!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 08, 2021, 09:38:07 AM
Even if somebody enjoyed those developments on some basic world-building level, it's impossible to argue that Chibnall is good at characterisation of the Doctor or eking out the details. Look at the episode immediately after - we get exactly the same arc (the Doctor moping, then deciding it doesn't matter), and then she kills a TARDIS without reluctance, regret, or reflection - only a breathless explanation of what she's doing, for the audience.

Unless all these little out-of-character moments are dredged back up and confronted later,[1] these oversights can't be explained in-universe; it's clearly a failure of Chibnall's to grasp anything about the character.
 1. I can't see Series 13 exploring her decision to starve rather than shoot those giant spiders, or shilling for Kerblam, or exposing the Master to the Nazis. After all, the Eleventh Doctor suffered a similar slip when he gushed over the vivisectionist Silurian and went mad at that frightened human mother. Those ethical crossed wires were never acknowledged or addressed - only generated by poor writing.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Natnar on June 08, 2021, 10:38:01 AM
I'm curious, would people have rather Who had ended with the last Moffat episode with no new episodes made since?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 08, 2021, 10:51:26 AM


fuck meeeeee that's heinous

in fairness, that sounds almost like the logical nadir of a particular tone i remember feeling around the tennant era, where the doctor was more often space christ, no?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 08, 2021, 10:54:54 AM
I'm curious, would people have rather Who had ended with the last Moffat episode with no new episodes made since?

I was pleased when Jodie Whittaker was announced, but the characterisation and stories of the last two series have been so awry that, for the sake of the show, I'd rather have had a hiatus. (In the same way, I'm glad Doctor Who was off the air in the 90s, meaning we swerved a Fox-produced series of the Doctor searching for his dad or whatever the plan was).

Also, Series 10 concluded in such a way that it would have nicely wrapped up (at least a broadcast era of) the show.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Leej88 on June 08, 2021, 11:07:43 AM
When they introduced the black woman doctor I thought christ the show really is sinking isn't it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 08, 2021, 11:17:06 AM
When they introduced the black woman doctor I thought christ the show really is sinking isn't it.

I'd recommend clarifying a bit.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 11:21:35 AM
I'm curious, would people have rather Who had ended with the last Moffat episode with no new episodes made since?

Yes because the show would have come back later with a new relaunch.  There’s no point plonking out a half-arsed series every 18 months or 2 years because there’s no momentum anyway.  It actually does feel as if the show is on constant hiatus but we are also having shit Doctor Who - it’s the worst of both worlds.


End with Capaldi’s regeneration scene, but not show the face of his successor so leave it as a cliffhanger, even retain the ambiguity to the end about whether he would choose to regenerate or not.

Then one day, maybe a decade from now, someone with passion would want to bring the show back.


Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 08, 2021, 11:21:55 AM
When they introduced the black woman doctor I thought christ the show really is sinking isn't it.

It is shitty takes like this that give Chibnall supporters all the defence they need.

 "All the detractors are racist and sexist!"

 No, a small minority of cunts are. The rest of us dislike bad writing. Fuck off with that shit.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 08, 2021, 11:23:06 AM
When they introduced the black woman doctor I thought christ the show really is sinking isn't it.

???????
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 11:27:36 AM
It is shitty takes like this that give Chibnall supporters all the defence they need.

 "All the detractors are racist and sexist!"

 No, a small minority of cunts are. The rest of us dislike bad writing. Fuck off with that shit.

Yeah, they facilitate those strawman arguments that just get in the way of what people are really complaining about regarding Chibnall’s take on the show.

Watch these things in order:

- Derek Jacobi’s character realises he is the Master

- The Next Doctor misdirection

- John Hurt unveiled as repressed incarnation of the Doctor, bridging McGann and Eccleston at last

- Ruth Doctor revelation



Just watch those on the level of basic television storytelling.  Anyone who claims the complaint is one of gender and race is being a dick, and quite probably on purpose.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 08, 2021, 11:27:43 AM
It is shitty takes like this that give Chibnall supporters all the defence they need.

"All the detractors are racist and sexist!"

 No, a small minority of cunts are. The rest of us dislike bad writing. Fuck off with that shit.

Based on some of his other posts dotted around the site, I was giving Lee the benefit of the doubt that he was only clumsily identifying Jo Martin, rather than being racist/sexist. Dunno if he'll reply, though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Gurke and Hare on June 08, 2021, 11:36:21 AM
Based on some of his other posts dotted around the site, I was giving Lee the benefit of the doubt that he was only clumsily identifying Jo Martin, rather than being racist/sexist. Dunno if he'll reply, though.

Yeah, how many times has he done this "make some PC-gone-mad type comment and then not expand on it when invited to" thing now?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 08, 2021, 11:40:09 AM
I only meant that his posts seem very short and scattered - I hadn't actually seen the PC gone mad vibe.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Leej88 on June 08, 2021, 11:43:05 AM
Fugitive Doctor I did not know her name in the show.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on June 08, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
Dr Ruth was probably the best thing about the last series, and hope she turns out to be the next Dr Who.

(Shouldn't all this be in the Chibnall thread?)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Leej88 on June 08, 2021, 12:24:15 PM
Show has gone woke is pathetic.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 08, 2021, 12:38:32 PM
I think Lee might be trolling.

Jonky moments aside, Doctor Who has been the wokest show on TV for years. In 2005 they introduced the enthusiastically pansexual Captain Jack, and had him kiss the Doctor and flirt with numerous men, women, and aliens.[1] Moffat introduced the idea of genderfluid Time Lords. Bill was a lesbian with onscreen relationships/dates. The Twelfth Doctor was openly Marxist in Oxygen (the show has actually since de-wokened on this point).

A black person playing a role in TV show does not = 'gone woke', since black people do exist.
 1. Barrowman notwithstanding, I'm really pleased they did this. I was a child when Doctor Who came back, and I've no doubt the show's various LGBT characters and references helped to inform my attitude. As did Hayley from Corrie - RTD knew the power of popular TV.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 12:58:01 PM
Not much of a platform for asexual people though



Biggest gripe I had with Moffat was his (stated in interviews) belief that it would just be a “sad” situation if the Doctor wasn’t experiencing a romantic lifestyle.  It’s very much a projection of his own sexual anxieties, which however you look at it actively shame an asexual position.  One of the things I appreciated about Doctor Who when I was a child was the asexual role model it offered - whether that was a conscious decision on their part or just a consequence of the television regulations of the time was never a concern.  It all just fitted with the other identifiable aspects of the Doctor being a bit of an outsider.

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Leej88 on June 08, 2021, 12:59:06 PM
Chibnall did to piss off the fans like Moffatt used to do you want the Master well she is a woman now you love River Song here is Mels is so bloody annoying.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 01:04:25 PM
Chibnall did to piss off the fans like Moffatt used to do you want the Master well she is a woman now you love River Song here is Mels is so bloody annoying.

This is all getting a bit one-note...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: frajer on June 08, 2021, 01:53:44 PM
“Doctor Who and the Slip of the Mask” a thrilling adventure featuring The Fugitive Doctor versus renegade Time Lord ‘The Troll’
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 02:10:14 PM
Doctor Who and the Cybermen of the Daleks of the Time Lords

Doctor Who and the Rotoscoping of Already Well-Worn Tropes

Doctor Who and the Exposition of the Tin-Eared Dialogue

Doctor Who and the Drab Colour Palette

Doctor Who and the Absurdly Widescreen Framing

Doctor Who and the Curse of the Irritant

Doctor Who and the Companions of the Bland

Doctor Who and the Enthusiasm About Nothing

Doctor Who and the Self-Absorption of the Protagonist
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on June 08, 2021, 05:30:39 PM
The set-up to Ruth is full of potential. The lighthouse with the Break Glass alarm, the buried TARDIS. All great imagery.

Anyway, that's about it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: The Roofdog on June 08, 2021, 05:43:02 PM
CHIBNALL POSITIVITY POST

I really like the opening credits and the arrangement of the theme, so he's made some good choices there, even if it's only just hiring talented people.

Even then, The Woman Who Fell To Earth doesn't have any opening credits. The almost single redeeming feature of his era, Segun Akinola knocking it out of the park, and Chibnall chooses to introduce them under the closing credits, he still fucking fucks it up.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on June 08, 2021, 05:46:54 PM
I like the bits of Rosa where it’s sort of like Quantum Leap. A bit.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 08, 2021, 06:01:28 PM
Do they put anything right that once went wrong?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 06:06:29 PM
The set-up to Ruth is full of potential. The lighthouse with the Break Glass alarm, the buried TARDIS. All great imagery.

Anyway, that's about it.

I think it was Thomas who produced a great post about how much the set-up to the Ruth Doctor failed.  Maybe he can dig it up for us.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 06:08:31 PM
Even then, The Woman Who Fell To Earth doesn't have any opening credits. The almost single redeeming feature of his era, Segun Akinola knocking it out of the park, and Chibnall chooses to introduce them under the closing credits, he still fucking fucks it up.

Oh and that brief surge of it when we first saw the 13th Doctor in that episode.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 08, 2021, 06:44:50 PM
I think it was Thomas who produced a great post about how much the set-up to the Ruth Doctor failed.  Maybe he can dig it up for us.

Perhaps it was this (or this longer post (https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,78429.msg4116933.html#msg4116933))? Not sure -

The simple 'Bad Wolf' mechanism received more seeding than the Timeless Child. Look at how the Master's return in series 3 was gradually layered together - an entire two-parter dedicated to the function of the fobwatch, the Face of Boe and his eventual final message, the Doctor slowly opening up to Martha about his home. The initial secret of Missy's identity was stretched out for more stories than this. The RTD-Moffat arc of Gallifrey's loss, restoration, and return was long-running, from series 1 to series 9 - and even that felt rushed in the end.

I love a lighthouse in anything, and the exhumation of the TARDIS is a nice image - but that's all they are. Superficially nice images, wasted, with no attachment to character beyond a few facial expressions courtesy of the actors. The potential wealth of characterisation Fugitive thinly seeds barely lingers to the end of the episode, and thereafter vanishes without an emotional trace.

To bring this thread back to topic, Chibnall was obviously borrowing story beats and devices from Series 3, and so comparisons are naturally invited - but the fob watch arc and the Master's return were so fleshed out and characterful that Series 12 ends up feeling even worse. 
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on June 08, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
The set-up to Ruth is full of potential. The lighthouse with the Break Glass alarm, the buried TARDIS. All great imagery.

Anyway, that's about it.

With her TARDIS being police-box-shaped, and assuming no more War-Doctor-like "hidden Doctors," there are only two possibilities for the Ruth Doctor: she's either a future Doctor (who for some reason doesn't remember being Jodie Whittaker), or an alternate universe Doctor. One of those two things must turn out to be true, and the whole thing about the Doctor being the Timeless Child must turn out to be a lie.

Oh, or there's a third possibility: that Chibnall is an absolutely monumental fuckwit who either didn't give a moment's thought to the ramifications of giving her a police-box-shaped TARDIS, or just didn't give a shit and thought nobody else would either.

Difficult to say which possibility is most likely...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 08, 2021, 08:05:06 PM
Whilst hypothetical Chibfans might say 'ahh, wait and see', we only have to look back at the multi-Doctor meeting in Fugitive for evidence that Chibnall struggles even with the basics.

Would've been nice, for example, if he'd come up with a compelling reason for the Doctor failing to ask RuthDoc about her place in the timeline. Would've taken five seconds for Jodie to say 'have you been a bloke with a long scarf yet?'.

Instead, they both just say 'I don't remember being you?!?' and go on their way, artificially preserving the mystery. Back in The Day of the Doctor, TennantDoc almost immediately asks -

Quote
Okay, you used to be me, you've done all this before. What happens next?

- which leads into a funny exchange that also usefully explains why the mystery is being preserved. In Fugitive, we get -

Quote
DOCTOR: No, this doesn't make any sense. Either I should know you or you should know me.
RUTH: Agreed.
DOCTOR: So why don't we?
RUTH: I dunno.

[...]

DOCTOR: You can't be me. I know what I've done, I know my own life.
RUTH: One of us has to be wrong.

just ask some questions! it's the Doctor's main thing!

Bit of technobabble would cover it, or even - imagine it - some characterisation. Perhaps RuthDoc steadfastly refuses to answer.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on June 08, 2021, 08:28:58 PM
With her TARDIS being police-box-shaped, and assuming no more War-Doctor-like "hidden Doctors," there are only two possibilities for the Ruth Doctor: she's either a future Doctor (who for some reason doesn't remember being Jodie Whittaker), or an alternate universe Doctor. One of those two things must turn out to be true, and the whole thing about the Doctor being the Timeless Child must turn out to be a lie.

Oh, or there's a third possibility: that Chibnall is an absolutely monumental fuckwit who either didn't give a moment's thought to the ramifications of giving her a police-box-shaped TARDIS, or just didn't give a shit and thought nobody else would either.

I think I might be OK with supporting the police box TARDIS just on the basis of the strength of the imagery. And anyone who does care about it can come up with a theory to go with it.

(Let's say the Fugitive Doctor's TARDIS ends up in 1960s London and gets stuck in the shape of a police box - let's say that's the first time the chameleon circuit gets stuck. Eventually that TARDIS ends up back on Gallifrey and it's the same one Hartnell steals, telepathically reaching out to him Clara. Then when it lands in An Unearthly Child, it deliberately changes shape in an attempt to remind The Doctor of his past. Yeah alright so that isn't very good, so probably best they left it out.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 08, 2021, 08:52:10 PM
I'm curious, would people have rather Who had ended with the last Moffat episode with no new episodes made since?

Yes. If season 12 had been like season 11 - just more tepid, watery shite - then I'd be reluctant, as there's always the hope that a new writer (ideally Grant Morrison) will come along and ignore the shite, as has always happened in Who. But this Timeless Child guff is so wide-ranging in its assault on the character and show that I worry it'll be hard to just handwave it away or ignore it.

So yeah, Capaldi, Nardole and Bill dematerialising off to New adventures and the whole thing being put on ice until some hotshot with warm memories of the show revives it 15 or so years down the line is preferable to it just imploding under the weight of Chibnall's awful retcons as it haemorrhages both viewers and goodwill.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: kidsick5000 on June 08, 2021, 08:52:51 PM
I think what Doctor Who - and many other shows -  no longer has is the luxury of is “wait and see”.
Don’t worry, it will all come good next season.
I still believe that the fading around with Capaldi’s Doctor’s persona for two seasons was damaging - and I say that as a fan of the drifting apart and breakup storyline of season 8 (wonderfully subtle, and something never explored before)

Ok, back to the wait-and-see.
There needs to be more immediacy. We’ve just seen a huge Netflix show - Jupiter’s Legacy - get cancelled after one season. Basically because they held back. Storywise, they got to about 20% in.it’s a stark lesson.

I don’t think Doctor Who can afford to play the long game any more. It has to play to the slot it is given and not pretend it’s 2009 anymore.
The gaps between seasons are too long. If the titanic smashes through the Tardis wall today, you’re going to get an announcer saying “and find out what happens when Doctor Who returns in Christma-no? New Year’s Day? Easter.  202- oh, 2023…  followed by a new series in 2024”


Sorry. Maybe we should try to get back to the subject at the top
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 09:44:10 PM
Quote
DOCTOR: No, this doesn't make any sense. Either I should know you or you should know me.
RUTH: Agreed.
DOCTOR: So why don't we?
RUTH: I dunno.

[...]

DOCTOR: You can't be me. I know what I've done, I know my own life.
RUTH: One of us has to be wrong.

Christ alive, most people are writing better dialogue than that when they are ten.


It's established anyway that the Doctor doesn't remember events that involved multiple incarnations.  The Second, Third and Fifth Doctors don't already know the outcome of The Five Doctors, and the Tenth and Eleventh Doctors don't already know how Day of the Doctor will end.  The stories wouldn't work if they did.

It's therefore perfectly expected for both Ruth Doc and the Thirteenth Doctor to not know who the other is.  There is no mystery about this, so it feels very hollow when Chibnall tries to force one in.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 09:49:34 PM
I think I might be OK with supporting the police box TARDIS just on the basis of the strength of the imagery. And anyone who does care about it can come up with a theory to go with it.

Except when you watch it you just sigh and think "great, now Chibnall is half-arsing a forgotten incarnation of the Doctor into the show, before the dust has settled on the whole John Hurt revelation".  You see the TARDIS imagery and it only makes you groan that Chibnall has none of his own ideas and repeats stuff absurdly prematurely.


(Let's say the Fugitive Doctor's TARDIS ends up in 1960s London and gets stuck in the shape of a police box - let's say that's the first time the chameleon circuit gets stuck. Eventually that TARDIS ends up back on Gallifrey and it's the same one Hartnell steals, telepathically reaching out to him Clara. Then when it lands in An Unearthly Child, it deliberately changes shape in an attempt to remind The Doctor of his past. Yeah alright so that isn't very good, so probably best they left it out.)

It's just typical of Chibnall's era that people need to strain their entire arses off to eke out anything of worth from the show.

There was nothing wrong with Hartnell's TARDIS landing on Earth in 1963 and the chameleon circuit breaking.  It's perfect.  It doesn't make it better to think of a kind of human centipede TARDIS that fucking goes back in time and starts huffing on its own farts.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on June 08, 2021, 09:52:51 PM
Christ alive, most people are writing better dialogue than that when they are ten.


It's established anyway that the Doctor doesn't remember events that involved multiple incarnations.  The Second, Third and Fifth Doctors don't already know the outcome of The Five Doctors, and the Tenth and Eleventh Doctors don't already know how Day of the Doctor will end.  The stories wouldn't work if they did.

It's therefore perfectly expected for both Ruth Doc and the Thirteenth Doctor to not know who the other is.  There is no mystery about this, so it feels very hollow when Chibnall tries to force one in.

They remember being their previous incarnations, though - just not the bits where they met. To have forgotten an entire incarnation would require another explanation, unless the Doctor spent that entire incarnation just meeting other versions of themself.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 08, 2021, 10:02:10 PM
They remember being their previous incarnations, though - just not the bits where they met. To have forgotten an entire incarnation would require another explanation, unless the Doctor spent that entire incarnation just meeting other versions of themself.

Alright, fair enough.  Although that just makes it smack of the repressed John Hurt Doctor even more.



"I've had an idea!  How about bringing the Master back only eleven episodes after the Simm / Gomez story?  I've had an idea!  How about suddenly wiping out Gallifrey a mere three series after an eight year story arc was beautifully resolved with the same theme?  I've had an idea!  How about having a forgotten incarnation of the Doctor again, utilising a weakened rehash of series 3 tropes?"


Fucking shite mate.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 08, 2021, 10:57:13 PM
Imagine how interesting it would have been if Jo Martin's Doctor had seemed like a villainous impostor out to kill Whittaker's Doc, but was only acting like that because she thought Whittaker was the impostor doing the same.

Imagine the fun Moffat or Davies would have had with that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: kidsick5000 on June 08, 2021, 11:53:16 PM
Alright, fair enough.  Although that just makes it smack of the repressed John Hurt Doctor even more.



"I've had an idea!  How about bringing the Master back only eleven episodes after the Simm / Gomez story?  I've had an idea!  How about suddenly wiping out Gallifrey a mere three series after an eight year story arc was beautifully resolved with the same theme?  I've had an idea!  How about having a forgotten incarnation of the Doctor again, utilising a weakened rehash of series 3 tropes?"


Fucking shite mate.

It’ll be fascinating to see what is done with it. But considering the Ruth Doctor wasn’t mentioned again  until Timeless Children, who’d be surprised if it’s ever brought up again.

While I find it admirable that they’ve been supportive of Chibnall, I’d love to know what RTD and Moffat think of the situation and how they’d get around it.
Then again, given Moffat’s dodge on Sherlock’s fall, maybe he’d brush it under the rug too.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 09, 2021, 12:02:06 AM
It’ll be fascinating to see what is done with it.

Really?  I'm not fascinated enough to bother watching whatever happens next.  You may as well just skim the wikipedia entry once it's done.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 09, 2021, 12:10:39 AM
This evening I have mostly been reading the talk page for the TARDIS Wiki page for Penis.

https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Penis
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: kidsick5000 on June 09, 2021, 12:19:14 AM
Really?  I'm not fascinated enough to bother watching whatever happens next.  You may as well just skim the wikipedia entry once it's done.

I’ll stick with fascinating. Do note I didn’t say enjoyable.
My interaction with the show has dropped. Due to location. I bought the big episodes through iTunes, but not the seasons.
There are exceptions - I do rewatch the Ruth episode -but generally it’s a really hard watch now.
Like there’s a barrier blocking the connection. Or in Who terms, a perception filter.
The India one was an interesting piece of TV, but I don’t recall what the Doctor did in it.
That could be the issue, the current show has sidelined its main character.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 09, 2021, 01:26:37 AM
This evening I have mostly been reading the talk page for the TARDIS Wiki page for Penis.

https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Penis

This bit is more entertaining than all of Chibnall's Who combined:

Quote
So, SOTO recently made an edit, where they mentioned that the balls and the penis are a different organ. Now, yes, that's true in the real world, but is there any DWU source that states this? Because a page for balls will have to be created if there is and at least one sentence will need to be moved.

Actually, it just occurred to me that "Doctor Who Wikipedia maintainer" is about Chibnall's correct position in the Who ecosystem - blandly and unimaginatively cataloguing facts, following prescribed rules so he can't fuck up, not having to express any kind of human connection or nuance. Just nice, uncomplicated facts. Have pubes been confirmed to exist in the DWU? Haven't gone through all of the Sarah Jane Adventures episodes, so best reserve judgement on that one.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on June 09, 2021, 09:56:54 AM
Quote
Now, yes, that's true in the real world, but is there any DWU source that states this?

Just that.

Frame it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on June 09, 2021, 10:55:28 AM
A competent writer could easily justify the Ruth TARDIS being a police box due to it accessing the matrix and knowing that for the vast majority of time it's spent and will ever spend on Earth, a TARDIS piloted by the Doctor has usually been a police box so it naturally defaults to that. Then when they go off planet and have the face off with sexy Time Agency lady and the Judoon, it can change into something else. Could have some fun dialogue about that. "That's a shame, I got used to it being a blue box. Wish it would stay like that." *Jodie makes a face*

Chibnall misses all these obvious little things that would add more depth and texture to the characters, the episodes and the lore. It's all just seriousness and moping and symbols and info dumps to keep pushing forward because TV shows have to stop at the end of their runtime. None of it means anything, none of it is fun. It's TV for TV's sake.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: BritishHobo on June 09, 2021, 01:11:01 PM
This evening I have mostly been reading the talk page for the TARDIS Wiki page for Penis.

https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Penis

Christ, reading that page gives me pangs of horrible recognition of my younger self first discovering internet forums, stubbornly arguing things on a point of principle even though I didn't really care. Yer fella arguing that actually it's entirely appropriate to use a picture of a penis reminds me of that. Scrabbling for arguments to back up a viewpoint you've already decided you need to hold. Love this shit.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 09, 2021, 01:12:45 PM
A competent writer could easily justify the Ruth TARDIS being a police box due to it accessing the matrix and knowing that for the vast majority of time it's spent and will ever spend on Earth, a TARDIS piloted by the Doctor has usually been a police box so it naturally defaults to that. Then when they go off planet and have the face off with sexy Time Agency lady and the Judoon, it can change into something else. Could have some fun dialogue about that. "That's a shame, I got used to it being a blue box. Wish it would stay like that." *Jodie makes a face*

Chibnall misses all these obvious little things that would add more depth and texture to the characters, the episodes and the lore. It's all just seriousness and moping and symbols and info dumps to keep pushing forward because TV shows have to stop at the end of their runtime. None of it means anything, none of it is fun. It's TV for TV's sake.

If anything needs justifying then there’s something fundamentally wrong with it.  It should be able to stand on its own feet, not require all these bits of old broom handle to hold it upright.

There’s a vast difference between building on enigmatic storytelling and creating something so obtuse and meaningless that you need to keep coming back to clarify yourself.


Chibnall - you’re shit mate.  Be less shit or exit the cockpit.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 09, 2021, 01:19:03 PM
Christ, reading that page gives me pangs of horrible recognition of my younger self first discovering internet forums, stubbornly arguing things on a point of principle even though I didn't really care. Yer fella arguing that actually it's entirely appropriate to use a picture of a penis reminds me of that. Scrabbling for arguments to back up a viewpoint you've already decided you need to hold. Love this shit.

It’s the word “magically” that got me:

Quote
Yes, I agree. But I don't think this magically means that we should allow an image to be uploaded of Daniel Harcourt's penis. OS25 (Talk) 19:36, May 8, 2017 (UTC)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on June 09, 2021, 04:38:38 PM
Alright, fair enough.  Although that just makes it smack of the repressed John Hurt Doctor even more.



"I've had an idea!  How about bringing the Master back only eleven episodes after the Simm / Gomez story?  I've had an idea!  How about suddenly wiping out Gallifrey a mere three series after an eight year story arc was beautifully resolved with the same theme?  I've had an idea!  How about having a forgotten incarnation of the Doctor again, utilising a weakened rehash of series 3 tropes?"


Fucking shite mate.

That was something I took from that really long video, the amount of rehashing of ideas from the RTD and Moffat eras that Chibnall has done. It reminds me of something I do, when I've watched or read something with an idea that really grabbed me, sometimes I idly think about what I might have written if I'd had that idea. What I don't then do is actually write it and submit it as a sequel to the thing that I originally saw the idea in. That'd be stupid.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 09, 2021, 06:06:00 PM
It’s Chibnall’s lack of improvisational ability that confounds me.


Moffat:  Ah it’s so lovely to be eating breakfast with you today.
Chibnall:  ACTUALLY WE ARE EATING CURRIES AT 10PM.
Moffat:  Haha, true - well it is breakfast for me, I’ve only just woken up!!  Pass me one of those popadoms would you?
Chibnall:  WHY ARE YOU POINTING AT MY NAPKIN
Moffat:  Oh, sorry; I am still bleary eyed.  There - those popadoms.
Chibnall:  THERE ARE NO POPADOMS ON THE TABLE AND WE DON’T KNOW EACH OTHER



That’s the equivalent of what he has done with the potential of Doctor Who.  Moffat left the Master/Missy in a wonderful place and Chibnall has just gone “anyway; now this” and without any regard for where the chess pieces were, has run with an idea he seems to have had when he was 15 years old.

Moffat didn’t bring back the Master at all during Matt Smith’s time, because he could tell he needed some time to recede into the background.  Series 6 certainly belched on about the real actual death of the Doctor too soon after Tennant’s Doctor was bleating about dying, and the prophecy of the hybrid surely wouldn’t have been lingering after the Time War was over, but that’s as bad as Moffat got in this regard.  He generally left things long enough to make their return feel meaningful and at times poetic.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: The Roofdog on June 09, 2021, 07:11:54 PM
I couldn't come up with good ideas for Doctor Who either but if I was accidentally given the showrunner job like that cab driver who mistakenly got interviewed on BBC News I'd at least have the nous to nick ideas from different shows and do them badly.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on June 09, 2021, 07:26:37 PM
I'd be on the blower to the top Big Finish writers * - big round table to hash out the direction for the next three series. Couple of ideas from each one. Bish-bosh, job done!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* John Dorney, Jonathan Morris, Jacqueline Rayner, Nev Fountain, Paul Magrs
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 09, 2021, 08:14:32 PM
I would have an entire series dedicated to confirming that the balls are a separate organ to the penis in the Doctor Who universe.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: crankshaft on June 09, 2021, 11:14:40 PM
I'd be on the blower to the top Big Finish writers * - big round table to hash out the direction for the next three series. Couple of ideas from each one. Bish-bosh, job done!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* John Dorney, Jonathan Morris, Jacqueline Rayner, Nev Fountain, Paul Magrs

I think that's the last thing the show needs. I like a lot of their work, but the show needs new blood. Surely there's a pool of talent that's young writers who loved the revival as kids?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 10, 2021, 07:19:12 AM
Then we’re going to start feeling really fuckin old


Kids of the Tennant era showrunning Doctor Who.  How long before this can feasibly happen?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Talulah, really! on June 10, 2021, 07:32:37 AM
Fingers crossed, couple of years.

(https://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/film/2019040171533/everything-you-need-to-know-about-amelia-gething/0-349-34/amelia-gething-z.jpg)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 10, 2021, 09:13:32 AM
Ok and will they always look 5?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 10, 2021, 09:27:08 AM
But she's younger than me. I can imagine someone younger than Replies From View running the show, fine, but not me.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 10, 2021, 10:54:39 AM
It’s unfathomable that there might ever be a person born who is younger than Thomas.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 10, 2021, 01:42:34 PM
one final query re: whittaker series

one of the best things about the rtd/moffat erra is that it was often very very gay

is it still gay
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 10, 2021, 02:23:22 PM
Some fans wishfully discern a same-sex romantic attraction between the Doctor and her companion, Yaz, but I don't think the characters have actually interacted enough to depict even a basic friendship.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 10, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
If Season 4-6 was now then people would be stanning The Doctor/Jamie.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on June 10, 2021, 02:31:18 PM
Captain Jack forced a snog on Graham - that probably won't be happening again!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 10, 2021, 02:44:52 PM
one final query re: whittaker series

one of the best things about the rtd/moffat erra is that it was often very very gay

is it still gay

It's not very gay (a Captain Jack appearance and Alan Cumming as a massively camp King James who wants to shag Ryan aside) but it's also not very anything else, either, lacking as it does any recognisable sense of human emotion or characterisation, beyond Graham intermittently pining for his dead missus (and that's mostly just down to Bradley Walsh being excellent).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on June 10, 2021, 02:52:34 PM
and Alan Cumming

I still can't believe they showed that - filth!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 10, 2021, 03:28:24 PM
Captain Jack forced a snog on Graham - that probably won't be happening again!

And Barrowman made it go on for ages apparently. And the whole crew found it hilarious.

Hopefully to increase the hilarity he then got his cock out (if he was on the TARDIS then this may have included his bollocks too because we are not sure if they are a separate organ).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 10, 2021, 04:37:42 PM
You know what they say about Barrowman’s cock and balls?  “I hope they are bigger on the inside.”
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 10, 2021, 05:14:43 PM
Some fans wishfully discern a same-sex romantic attraction between the Doctor and her companion, Yaz, but I don't think the characters have actually interacted enough to depict even a basic friendship.

that would be mint
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 11, 2021, 05:29:02 AM
Some fans wishfully discern a same-sex romantic attraction between the Doctor and her companion, Yaz, but I don't think the characters have actually interacted enough to depict even a basic friendship.

A Doctor Who Facebook thing, possibly THE Doctor Who Facebook thing, posted a fan cartoon with Yaz saying "I won't let you do anything stupid - WITHOUT ME!" and the replies were full of people saying, "Wow, they really captured their relationship!" and I was left wondering what other people think they're watching when they watch Chibnall's Who.

Are they filling in the absent details with their own imaginations, then thinking that's how it was all along? How can you think Yaz making a declarative statement is proper characterisation?

Anyway, I went looking for the comic and found this, and now you all have to see it.

(https://img3.pillowfort.social/posts/91926e5537fd_13th_doctor_by_twitchystitch_ddt3n3b.png)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on June 11, 2021, 07:22:16 AM
People are shipping Yaz and the Doctor because of this exchange:

Yasmin discovers Claire trying to pick a door lock with a letter opener.)
CLAIRE: It is impolite not to announce oneself, Miss Khan.
YASMIN: Breaking and entering's worse.
CLAIRE: I'm not at fault if Lord Byron selfishly keeps it locked.
YASMIN: What are you after?
CLAIRE: Letters. If he's written about me, I can ascertain his true sentiments.
(They sit on the floor next to the fallen painting.)
YASMIN: Or... you could try asking him.
CLAIRE: I have. His answers only increase the enigma.
YASMIN: I know someone like that.
CLAIRE: Mary reproaches me. Insists I should find a more reliable prospect. Not that she can talk.
YASMIN: Perhaps she's right. His eye does seem to wander.
CLAIRE: This enigmatic person of yours, would you trade them for reliable and dull?
YASMIN: My person's a bit different.

This was the first time Yaz ever mentioned having a crush on the Doctor and she’s never mentioned or acted on it since. It’s such a Chibnall thing to do; Claire has an unrequited crush on Byron, so he jumps on his crude RTD era search engine to see what a companion might do in such a situation, happens upon Martha’s conversation with Chantho and thinks “that’ll do”. He ignores that Martha fancying the Doctor was the driving force behind their relationship, why her family were targeted by the Master and the reason for her ultimately leaving the TARDIS. It just helps him get from one scene to the next. Yaz loves the Doctor because it’s convenient for that one scene. Maybe she’ll love her again later. Or maybe not. It doesn’t really matter either way to Chibbers. For the viewer, it’s quite an important development, to him it’s just a means to get from one scene to the next.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 11, 2021, 12:21:39 PM
never thought i'd see doctor who bimbofication
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 11, 2021, 12:27:30 PM
I remember people detecting an attraction between Yaz and the Doctor before that, though, during or immediately after series 11 they were going on about it.  Something about various ways that Yaz was apparently looking at the Doctor, I think.

It’s just the filling in of empty gaps with their own need for sexualisation and romance, and they aren’t entirely to blame.  We’re all desperate for Chibnall to come up with actual characterisation for a show he has spent his entire life yearning to showrun, and while I’m not filling in these voids myself I can certainly appreciate the impulse to do so.

Why does Chibnall’s work for Doctor Who all come across like he didn’t know he’d be asked to do it until five minutes before the deadline?  He’s completely ignoring how Moffat left the chessboard so he can’t claim he’s spending time bridging towards the show he wants to make.  And from the events of series 12 it’s clear that he doesn’t even think set-up for important revelations is important - he can just revel in standalone masterpieces.  So there’s no excuse - this is a man who has supposedly been brimming with ideas and thoughts about Doctor Who since he was a child, yet he still can’t give the impression that he gives enough of a shit to do his homework.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Norton Canes on June 11, 2021, 12:36:24 PM
This was the first time Yaz ever mentioned having a crush on the Doctor and she’s never mentioned or acted on it since. It’s such a Chibnall thing to do; Claire has an unrequited crush on Byron, so he jumps on his crude RTD era search engine to see what a companion might do in such a situation, happens upon Martha’s conversation with Chantho and thinks “that’ll do”. He ignores that Martha fancying the Doctor was the driving force behind their relationship, why her family were targeted by the Master and the reason for her ultimately leaving the TARDIS. It just helps him get from one scene to the next. Yaz loves the Doctor because it’s convenient for that one scene. Maybe she’ll love her again later. Or maybe not. It doesn’t really matter either way to Chibbers. For the viewer, it’s quite an important development, to him it’s just a means to get from one scene to the next

Or it could have something to do with Maxine Alderton, the story's author
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 11, 2021, 12:52:38 PM
Or it could have something to do with Maxine Alderton, the story's author

Chibnall is the showrunner.  “Yaz has fancied the Doctor for ages” isn’t something I would expect any writer to devise without the showrunner’s instruction.


Anyway from that interaction Yaz isn’t remarking that she fancies the Doctor - she’s saying the Doctor is too enigmatic to connect with.  The main problem being that we have never seen the 13th Doctor being even remotely enigmatic (“I am socially awkward,” being Chibnall’s attempt to engineer this quality to the best of his ability), so of course it doesn’t ring true and people are left thinking oh maybe she means something else.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 11, 2021, 01:36:59 PM
The reason the Thirteenth Doctor might seem enigmatic to her companions is that they didn't bother asking her any questions for the entirety of Series 11. Did they even ask what planet she was from, or what species she was, or where she got the TARDIS?

Rose, Donna, Bill - these companions all asked novel questions and made observations, in a memorable way that introduced us to their personalities. Rory, meanwhile, defiantly refused to marvel at the TARDIS being bigger on the inside, establishing the sense of an uncertain friendship between himself and the Doctor. Ryan... was there.
 
Yaz, to her credit, did ask quite a few questions. Namely, 'what's the next plot point, Doctor?' and 'who the fuck is that? has he been here the whole time? [pointing at Graham]'.[1]
 1. we must credit Alberon for faithfully cataloguing the handful of Yaz-Graham interactions over the last couple of series.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 11, 2021, 03:01:23 PM
I remember people detecting an attraction between Yaz and the Doctor before that, though, during or immediately after series 11 they were going on about it.  Something about various ways that Yaz was apparently looking at the Doctor, I think.

Weirdly, I remember Yaz's mum asking if The Doctor is Yaz's girlfriend in Arachnids in the UK and The Doctor "hilariously" saying something like, "Ooh, I dunno, am I?", but I just looked at a transcript and that doesn't seem to be in there, so perhaps I'm as bad as all these shippers. Or there's some Mandela Effect shit going on.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on June 11, 2021, 05:18:47 PM
Chibnall is the showrunner.  “Yaz has fancied the Doctor for ages” isn’t something I would expect any writer to devise without the showrunner’s instruction.

Anyway from that interaction Yaz isn’t remarking that she fancies the Doctor - she’s saying the Doctor is too enigmatic to connect with.  The main problem being that we have never seen the 13th Doctor being even remotely enigmatic (“I am socially awkward,” being Chibnall’s attempt to engineer this quality to the best of his ability), so of course it doesn’t ring true and people are left thinking oh maybe she means something else.

It's not in the text, but it's definitely in Mandeep Gill's performance. Whether she's been directed to do that or Chibnall's looked over the rushes and not realised that the scene isn't being performed correctly or that he simply doesn't give a shit either way, I don't know. Probably the latter as I don't think Chibnall sees anything in a TV show besides "content to fill designated running time to an allocated budget".
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on June 11, 2021, 07:14:06 PM
Weirdly, I remember Yaz's mum asking if The Doctor is Yaz's girlfriend in Arachnids in the UK and The Doctor "hilariously" saying something like, "Ooh, I dunno, am I?", but I just looked at a transcript and that doesn't seem to be in there, so perhaps I'm as bad as all these shippers. Or there's some Mandela Effect shit going on.

Don't worry, someone has done the work.

https://shipping.fandom.com/wiki/Thasmin
Quote
    Najia – “Are you two seeing each other?”
    Doctor – “I don't think so... Are we?”
    Yaz – “We're friends!”
    —Arachnids in the UK

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on June 11, 2021, 07:23:24 PM
Had a more relaxed afternoon and had just received Doorway to Hell, the collected 12th Doctor comic from the missing year (2016), so devoured it in one go up on the square near my house.

He gets stranded in early 1970s and lives with a family in Brixton for a few years. It's really rather good. The 'shock' bad guy is spoiled by the cover, but ... yeah ... 1973, stranded on Earth ...

Its the two one-shot comics I liked most. Really neat self-contained and enjoyable.

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ron Maels Moustache on June 11, 2021, 11:09:44 PM
It makes me sad that DWM have dropped the comic for financial reasons, and there's as yet no sign of when it may come back, if at all.

Given that they kept it going all through the wilderness years I had it in my mind that the strip would stay in place till the day the magazine itself got cancelled. Hard to imagine at one time it was afforded such prestige that they nearly had the canon regeneration from McGann to Eccleston take place there.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on June 11, 2021, 11:40:13 PM
Oh.

I didn't know that.

McGann's Doctor was the comics Doctor for me - every month, I bought the magazine and devoured the Doctor and Izzy (and Fey Truscott-Slade for a bit). The books did their things, but the Threshold could only work visually.

My Mum then got a RTD-era subscription,  so every Christmas I'd spend a good solid day catching up. The 50th anniversary special was a highlight.

I've recently gone back, to McCoy's comics - Ground Zero is a bruiser.

The comic kept things alive.

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ron Maels Moustache on June 12, 2021, 12:14:16 AM

McGann's Doctor was the comics Doctor for me - every month, I bought the magazine and devoured the Doctor and Izzy (and Fey Truscott-Slade for a bit). The books did their things, but the Threshold could only work visually.


And hugely influential on the rebooted show, let's not forget. RTD was a huge fan to the extent of lifting large parts of The Glorious Dead for The Sound Of Drums/Last Of The Timelords.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on June 12, 2021, 12:15:40 AM
And The Flood for Army Of Ghosts/Doomsday. Only The Flood was better.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on June 12, 2021, 03:41:35 PM
Well, its got Maureen Lipman in, so obviously.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on June 12, 2021, 04:22:05 PM
Well, its got Maureen Lipman in, so obviously.

Are you mixing up Maureen Lipman with Tracy-Ann Oberman, or Army of Ghosts with The Idiot's Lantern?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 12, 2021, 06:24:03 PM
Q) who is a lip man
A) maureen lip man
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on June 12, 2021, 07:10:45 PM
Are you mixing up Maureen Lipman with Tracy-Ann Oberman, or Army of Ghosts with The Idiot's Lantern?

No.

One of the characters in The Flood (... Only The Flood was better. ... ) is clearly based on Maureen Lipman.

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Small Man Big Horse on June 13, 2021, 02:09:47 PM
The first two issues of Jody Hauser's Missy comic is out now, I'm normally a big fan of Hauser's Who work (and her Faith comic is a huge favourite of mine) but this is fairly patchy. There's brief appearances from the third Doctor (where I can only presume the artist has never seen Jon Pertwee) and the twelfth, but the main thrust of the story is Missy pretending to be the Doctor and getting Roger Delgado's Master to help her with some mad scheme. Missy's impersonation of the Doctor is supposed to be funny but the jokes she make are repetitive and quickly start to bore, Delgado's Master is okay but over the course of two issues doesn't get much to do other than half hearted attempts at betraying Missy, while a brief cameo from River is bland. Hopefully it'll up it's game soon, but this right now is the worst thing Hauser has done that I've read by far.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on June 13, 2021, 03:40:39 PM
Blimey, sounds like a Big Finish plotline.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on June 13, 2021, 05:00:17 PM
I used to buy DWM religiously for years and never read the comics. I've read a few of the Whittaker/Temnant Ines and they were ok. Last one I think I read was the 4 Doctors one written by Paul Cornell and tweeted about how bad the artwor was and he went off one. Arsehole.

Think the 13/10 ones are still going but not read them.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ron Maels Moustache on June 13, 2021, 06:49:51 PM
I used to buy DWM religiously for years and never read the comics. I've read a few of the Whittaker/Temnant Ines and they were ok. Last one I think I read was the 4 Doctors one written by Paul Cornell and tweeted about how bad the artwor was and he went off one. Arsehole.

Think the 13/10 ones are still going but not read them.

Those are all Titan comics though, nowt to do with DWM.

With you on the Four Doctors though, it was total gash.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Small Man Big Horse on June 14, 2021, 12:29:08 PM
I used to buy DWM religiously for years and never read the comics. I've read a few of the Whittaker/Temnant Ines and they were ok. Last one I think I read was the 4 Doctors one written by Paul Cornell and tweeted about how bad the artwor was and he went off one. Arsehole.

Think the 13/10 ones are still going but not read them.

It seems Titan are only publishing one Who comic at a time at the moment so the 13/10 ones are on a break until after Missy finishes, but should return at some point.

I like Cornell (and met him at a comics con once where he was very friendly) but he does seem to be extremely sensitive to online criticism, you're not the only person I know who has a story along those lines sadly.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 21, 2021, 07:33:16 PM
In idle Whovian moments, I sometimes try to imagine: if I could go back to 2005 and give a fan a hint of what's to come, by showing them a single screenshot, what would most stun them? I think this is a contender:

(https://i2.wp.com/blogtorwho.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/14584370-high-.jpg)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 21, 2021, 07:55:22 PM
In idle Whovian moments, I sometimes try to imagine: if I could go back to 2005 and give a fan a hint of what's to come, by showing them a single screenshot, what would most stun them?

maybe this for unexpected mondas fuckers plus oooh different designs oohh

(https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/tardis/images/c/c1/The_Cybermen_attack_the_Doctor_%28The_Doctor_Falls%29.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/800?cb=20170701231155)

does my nut in how shit the nu who cybermen generally look check out that constipated bastard on the right
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on June 21, 2021, 08:00:23 PM
(https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/3/2017/09/Day-of-the-Doctor-2013.jpg)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 21, 2021, 08:44:17 PM
(https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/3/2017/09/Day-of-the-Doctor-2013.jpg)

I've only just realised they used the Madame Tussauds version of Tom Baker's face.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 21, 2021, 10:18:58 PM
does my nut in how shit the nu who cybermen generally look check out that constipated bastard on the right

The only post-2005[1] Cybermen I've actively liked are the Mondas throwbacks. The RTD Cybermen made a certain sort of sense at the time, an army of walking Motorola flip-phones, but I don't like seeing them (save for the rusty, broken appearance in The Big Bang, which is a great use of the robotic design).

The Nightmare in Silver lads supposedly represented a departure, but they just look far more plastic, with an overdose of chest panelling and motorbike helmet heads.

Chibnall's Cybermen combine the steel of the 2006 boyos with the chunk of the '80s. Not into them, either.

Cybermen ought to be lithe and creepy, not stampy! Imagine one of the RTD Cybermen trying to slink out of a manhole. It'd get wedged. The motorbike-heads didn't look right in their Invasion homage, marching outside St. Paul's - and their Iron Man stylings were inappropriate for the theorically haunting image of Cybermen emerging from graves.
 1. well, post-1968, really. Never got on with the increasingly chunky and foily aesthetic of the '70s and '80s Cybermen.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 21, 2021, 10:32:21 PM
Christ, I had to think long and hard before I could remember which Chibnall story had Cybermen in. It was the last one I watched, and the climax to last season!

The show is so fucking shit now, my god.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 21, 2021, 10:35:27 PM
I didn't include the CyberMasters on my list because they are too poor an idea to comprehend.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: BritishHobo on June 22, 2021, 12:18:04 AM
I still think it's amazing that Moffat so nailed the Cybermen at the end of series 10, in my opinion the first time they were genuinely scary in all of New Who, even though he had intended to leave after series 9. The fact that he'd thoroughly explored all he wanted to with the show, and felt it right to step away, yet he was still able to deliver such an original and terrifying take on such an overused villain. Bonus brilliance for doing exactly the same with the Master, in the very same episode. To me, neither of those villains have ever had a better showing in New Who, never been more scary, or more believable, or more haunting and tragic, after years of being quite broadly evil just because; and it's a real talent that he was able to pull that out of the bag even after five series and 8 specials.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 22, 2021, 12:53:17 AM
maybe this for unexpected mondas fuckers plus oooh different designs oohh

does my nut in how shit the nu who cybermen generally look check out that constipated bastard on the right

Ambient Sheep notified me that my picture wasn't showing up. it was meant to be this:

(https://i.imgur.com/r2yzAM0.png)

big agreement on how well they were used in the season 10 finale i LOVED those episodes to bits
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on June 22, 2021, 06:45:18 AM
well, post-1968, really. Never got on with the increasingly chunky and foily aesthetic of the '70s and '80s Cybermen.

Agreed with all, Dark Water[1] and World Enough/Doctor Falls are the only good colour Cybermen stories.
 1. and not Death In Heaven
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on June 22, 2021, 12:38:53 PM
Earthshock's still great fun, even if its fundamental shallowness does become apparent on repeat viewings.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 22, 2021, 12:40:33 PM
big agreement on how well they were used in the season 10 finale i LOVED those episodes to bits

I know it couldn't be helped, because of leaks and dickheads and the needs of publicity, but imagine if that two-parter had been able to withhold its spoilers. The silhouette of the classic Cybermen gradually and unbelievably taking shape over the course of the episode, the shock reveal of Simm's Master at the end.

World Enough and Time is brilliant anyway - as BritishHobo observes, it's amazing Moffat came up with it during extra time - but it would have felt hugely eventful if we didn't already know those elements were coming.

Earthshock's still great fun, even if its fundamental shallowness does become apparent on repeat viewings.

Problem with Earthshock is that Adric's alive for most of it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 22, 2021, 12:53:32 PM
One of the clever things behind the scenes of Earthshock was having Adric appear in the first episode of the following serial, so that anyone buying the Radio Times for the next week wouldn’t be alerted by his absence in the listings.


As for the series 10 finale, I somehow managed to miss the spoilers and didn’t even know John Simm would be back until the reveal within the episode itself.  Very chuffed about that, I am.  It was indeed exciting and it made up for knowing in advance that Arnie was a good guy in T2.



The thing that always annoyed me about series 10 promotional stuff was around the fake regeneration mid-series.  I couldn’t get my head around why it was in the episode beyond wanting to create some regeneration footage for trailers, but we always knew Capaldi would be regenerating at the end of the series, so there would be footage from that and nothing about him having glowing hands would be a shock.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 22, 2021, 01:02:15 PM
Earthshock's still great fun, even if its fundamental shallowness does become apparent on repeat viewings.

Best bit is Matthew Waterhouse flinching in anticipation of the fizzing and sparking that would soon be coming from the console he’s typing into.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on June 22, 2021, 01:15:05 PM
If you watch eps from the RTD era, you can see the cast flinching in a similar way whenever John Barrowman is around.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on June 23, 2021, 06:28:26 PM
I still think it's amazing that Moffat so nailed the Cybermen at the end of series 10, in my opinion the first time they were genuinely scary in all of New Who, even though he had intended to leave after series 9. The fact that he'd thoroughly explored all he wanted to with the show, and felt it right to step away, yet he was still able to deliver such an original and terrifying take on such an overused villain. Bonus brilliance for doing exactly the same with the Master, in the very same episode. To me, neither of those villains have ever had a better showing in New Who, never been more scary, or more believable, or more haunting and tragic, after years of being quite broadly evil just because; and it's a real talent that he was able to pull that out of the bag even after five series and 8 specials.

That moment with the volume control...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on June 24, 2021, 06:56:53 PM
I don't like Bill's eventual fate - but that last two parter is brilliant in how it steps everything up, like a ratchet.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 25, 2021, 07:51:56 AM
Imagine if you had only ever seen series 9 and 10 of Doctor Who.  You would assume it was a show about the different ways of pairing up lesbians and making them immortal.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on June 25, 2021, 07:07:23 PM
I don't like Bill's eventual fate - but that last two parter is brilliant in how it steps everything up, like a ratchet.

What don't you like about it?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on June 25, 2021, 07:43:47 PM
Imagine if you had only ever seen series 9 and 10 of Doctor Who.  You would assume it was a show about the different ways of pairing up lesbians and making them immortal.

solid premise for a show
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on June 26, 2021, 11:59:02 AM
solid premise for a show

Well exactly - it would be yet another reason to be disappointed by series 11.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 04, 2021, 10:41:24 PM
Continuing on from here (https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,80638.msg4672927.html#msg4672927). I guess I just forgotten this thread was also for discussing Doctor Who and not just for talking about sex pests.

Rewatching the Moffat era through the episodes I've seen (Series 5/6 and some of 7/8) and into the episodes I never bothered with.

The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone came with a big hype if I remember correctly, though I never bought into it. I like the Weeping Angels even if they are a little one note, but I didn't think Blink was as good as people say. I think it never matched the hype probably because it changed what the Weeping Angels line of attack was? I seem to remember the snapping necks being controversial.

As a villain, I guess they just can't work every time sending people into the past. If anything I thought the slower starving angels were far more frightening than the normal angels. It is the old fast zombies v slow zombies debate.

I had never noticed before, but actually this isn't too dissimilar to The Tomb of the Cybermen. It isn't as good as that (no other Dr Who story is) but it is an interesting way of bringing back a powerful enemy and making them work effectively. Put the enemy in a more desperate and weak position but then ramp up the tension as they slowly return to life.

The cliffhanger is one of the weakest the show has ever seen. The Doctor fires a gun at the ceiling... and that is it? Definitely feels bodged late on to cover some sort of re-edit or deleted scene.

The story is better than I remember it. The first episode is really effective, in typical Moffat scary episode fashion. The second part can't live up to it and gets a little bogged down by the overall series arc but enjoyable all the same.

There is one small element I don't like of Moffat's writing in general. The occasional sex jokes. They vary from being immature to just lazy filler gag. I'm as far from being prudish as one can be, but it just feels like we are veering too much into Torchwood territory with that sort of humour.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 05, 2021, 12:13:34 AM
The cliffhanger is one of the weakest the show has ever seen. The Doctor fires a gun at the ceiling... and that is it? Definitely feels bodged late on to cover some sort of re-edit or deleted scene

Yeah, I was baffled by that at the time. Definitely a big gap between what's on the page and what ended up on the screen. I'm assuming the glowing orb exploding was envisioned as some kind of giant bloom of light, so it looks like The Doctor might have blown them all up or something, instead of a balloon full or water exploding or what we ended up with.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 05, 2021, 12:45:59 AM
They used it in a trailer immediately after the Tenth Doctor had made a big thing of never using guns.  I always assumed it was devised entirely to wrong-foot audiences in that way, and was reverse-engineered, somewhat rubbishly, into a cliffhanger.


Still though, I would argue the only bad things of series 5 are the Dalek redesign and Chris “make Rory stand around in a grave until the story is ready to have him back in” Chibnall.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on September 05, 2021, 01:28:12 AM
Yup, I was also nonplussed by that cliffhanger - the cartoon Graham Norton that ran across the screen in the middle of the scene didn't do it any favours either... :)

I remember being a bit bewildered by the cliffhanger at the end of the first episode of the Chibnall two-parter in the latter half of the series, where the unconvincing shot of (what I now understand to be) the Silurian city was so oddly-rendered and brief I couldn't really decipher what I was supposed to be looking at.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 05, 2021, 07:22:30 PM
Vampires of Venice isn't a well-loved story, is it? Not hated as I remember, but certainly not remembered in any fashion.

I don't like the more adult elements of Moffat humour and it does definitely become a sticking point in later episodes as it verges on uncomfortable. That being said, I couldn't help but like The Doctor popping out of the cake and asking them to get a jumper for the bikini clad woman outside. It shouldn't work but Matt Smith makes sure it does despite being at odds for the type of programme it is.

Looking back at Matt Smith the foreknowledge that Moffat would (smartly) retcon him as the "last" incarnation before being granted more by the Time Lords makes his personality rather effective. A Doctor in the last throws of life trying so exuberantly to recapture his youth with his last chance. A nice contrast with what The Master became in his "last" incarnation.

Initially I was thinking that Amy is adapting to proceedings far too well. She is acting like a second series companion whilst only a few episodes into her first series. Then I remembered that she spent her whole childhood dreaming about travelling in time and space with the Doctor and even had a couple of years to ruminate on her first adventure with him in The Eleventh Hour.

I am pondering how much of the non-Moffat episodes have been re-written by him. I did hear that Chibnall had a thing in his contract which meant he didn't get re-written which makes complete sense as his episodes are still complete shit. It feels harsh on Toby Whithouse to insinuate but this does feel very heavily influenced by Moffat, although this may just be that his only other episode that comes to mind is School Reunion which would have been re-written by RTD. On the subject of Toby Whithouse, I wonder if he is a frontrunner for the job of showrunner.

In another era this episode might have been poor, but this series has a way of pulling up the lesser episodes. Almost certainly the worst of the 11 episodes this series but still an enjoyable entry. The ending is a bit naff with the Doctor climbing the CSO tower.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on September 05, 2021, 08:10:36 PM
On the subject of Toby Whithouse, I wonder if he is a frontrunner for the job of showrunner.

Allegedly he was the first pick to replace Moffat, but he didn't want the job.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 05, 2021, 08:21:10 PM
I go into Amy's Choice with a little hesitancy. I remember loving it at the time and I am worried about it not living up to my memory of it.

It doesn't quite live up to my memory but it is still the best episode this series up to now. It suffers a little from the Star Trek TNG Season 1 thing of the audience knowing the solution from the beginning and just waiting for how the characters resolve it. Still it subverts it in the end by revealing it was two dreams instead of one.

On the subject of TNG, The Dream Lord is reminiscent of Q. Shame there isn't really any scope for him to come back since he just a manifestation from The Doctor's mind.

I'm watching on BBC iPlayer as they retain the Next Time trailers. Oddly they are presenting a trailer for an unmade episode at the end of this, I think. Did something happen like Shada and they had to abandon a story? Anyway, onto the next Series 5 episode that actually exists, Vincent and the Doctor.

(https://i.imgur.com/7pzeASX.jpg)

Allegedly he was the first pick to replace Moffat, but he didn't want the job.

The horrors we could have been rescued from if he'd took the job. If he turned it down then, he certainly wouldn't take it up now.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 05, 2021, 09:01:38 PM
Although it has its weaknesses, I'm fond of the Silurian two-parter. Part of that was just seeing the TARDIS land in some remote part of the British landscape where some scientific thing is going on, which felt so at odds with RTD's London-centric stuff.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 05, 2021, 09:05:00 PM
On the subject of Toby Whithouse, I wonder if he is a frontrunner for the job of showrunner.

Ambient Sheep has already said Whithouse wasn't interested, but in general it feels to me like picking someone who was involved with the show pre-Chibnall, but completely uninvolved during Chibnall's tenure, would make a bit of a statement re:Chibnall. So from that point of view, I'm all for it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 05, 2021, 10:03:49 PM
Although it has its weaknesses, I'm fond of the Silurian two-parter. Part of that was just seeing the TARDIS land in some remote part of the British landscape where some scientific thing is going on, which felt so at odds with RTD's London-centric stuff.

It feels like Moffat said "I'm after a mash-up of Doctor Who and the Silurians and Inferno," and Chibnall did paint-by-numbers for all the details.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 05, 2021, 10:08:21 PM
According to Wikipedia, Rory was swallowed up by a crack and has been erased from history off-screen.

Vincent and the Doctor is of course a very special episode. I still wonder whether it is right to do an episode on mental health whilst throwing in an invisible monster rampaging around killing people but somehow they manage to do it as compassionately as they can.

It is perhaps that it is taboo to deal with a subject such as this. Should it be Doctor Who that breaks this taboo? I'm glad such a skilled team of people were there to be sensitive enough to break it here. Doctor Who is now pigeonholed as "a kids show" in a defence of the mediocrity the show is reduced to now.  Vincent and the Doctor changes the face of television in a small but significant way whilst Doctor Who now is vociferously defended with the excuse that it is a CBBC show with a big budget.

The episode is so affecting that it makes me think of the people who didn't know yet just how much they would be appreciated. A few years ago I read the book about Robert Holmes and it is so sad to think that when he died the show was approaching the peak of its criticism and he was just still plying away as a jobbing writer and still failing to get his own ideas for shows off the ground. In 2009 one of his stories was voted the greatest ever and they are still watched by new audiences today. There are more people than ever discovering his work and appreciating it. He'll never get the acclaim he deserves, but it is so sad to think he passed on before he could see the era we are in now for Classic Who. I'm glad Barry Letts and Terrance Dicks lived to see the love.

Doctor Who can be more than just a sci-fi show about time travel and aliens. And I guess this episode proves that sometimes it should be more.

It is a shame that Richard Curtis would follow up his first foray into sci-fi with two complete garbage heaps with About Time and Yesterday. Maybe it is the Moffat influence but he clearly isn't terrible at sci-fi even if that was secondary to the main theme of the episode.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 05, 2021, 10:52:16 PM
The Lodger is a weird story in that it doesn't actually have a writer.

I remembered this as being my favourite of the series. And it lives up to that too. Up to now the Moffat era seems to excel when it tells smaller scale stories. I think after the shit show that the previous era left in, a smaller scale run was right up my alley. 

It isn't as much of a comedy as I remember. The comedy elements run through the entire series so this isn't out of place as the novelty entry in the way something like Love and Monsters was.

Obviously when James Corden is himself he is incredibly obnoxious, but in this I think he is perfectly fine. Daisy Haggard is great in everything I've seen her in too.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 06, 2021, 10:21:34 AM
Vincent and the Doctor is of course a very special episode. I still wonder whether it is right to do an episode on mental health whilst throwing in an invisible monster rampaging around killing people

The invisible monster is a metaphor for mental illness - something that cannot be seen by outsiders, yet is very real and very dangerous to the sufferer.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 06, 2021, 11:39:09 AM
The invisible monster is a metaphor for mental illness - something that cannot be seen by outsiders, yet is very real and very dangerous to the sufferer.

I did get the metaphor but I just wasn't sure if it sat right to mix mental illness with sci-fi in this way. Though I have only just realised that Vincent killing the monster violently is analogous to his suicide.

Funny thing just happened. I got a refund on the Twice Upon a Time 4K as it was OOS and that was the whole reason I started this run through of the Moffat era. I'll see if I can get it cheap elsewhere or just watch it on iPlayer.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 06, 2021, 12:20:40 PM
It’s called Twice Upon A Time because of how many attempts you need to buy it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 06, 2021, 12:53:49 PM
I shan't try to buy 100,000 BC then!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 06, 2021, 07:37:09 PM
The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang is kind of the opposite of the Angels two parter. A huge opener followed by a lower key finale.

Usually the big bombastic finales leave me cold. I detested Doomsday, Last of the Time Lords and The End of Time. I actually didn't mind Journey's End for its many many faults, fucking idiot that I am.

While the first part leaves me somewhat cold the second part makes up for it. Not enough of a fun around as I would have liked.

All in all though it is somewhat disappointing comparing to my memory of it. Likewise the entire series as a whole. Don't get me wrong, Series 5 is a good run of 11 episodes but I can't help but feel the issues that turned me off the later series are creeping in a little here in hindsight. Hopefully I have the opposite opinion of Series 6 when I rewatch it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 06, 2021, 08:17:01 PM
As ever, I will always love Moffat for managing to do a RTD-scale threat - the end of the universe - with the Doctor, his companions and a rusty Dalek. It’s the polar opposite of Journey’s End and it works so well as a result because it doesn’t involve a load of returning companions, a million Daleks, two Doctors, characters brought over from spin-off shows and the TARDIS towing the Earth across the universe.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 06, 2021, 09:07:13 PM
RTD had trapped himself in a corner by having to increase the scale of the threat with every series finale, to the point where the magnitude was already so huge that the next one couldn't meaningfully overshadow it.  If I'm not mistaken the stakes of series 1 were everyone on earth being wiped out - that's already a massive enough threat.  You can scale it up to the solar system, the entire universe and then all of reality all you want - after a while you mentally block out that scale of threat and the difference is hyperbolic.

It's why the perspective of a new showrunner is so important, just to shake things up.  RTD couldn't keep getting bigger and bigger, and Moffat was able to offer a new slant on series finales so there was no need to.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 06, 2021, 09:39:00 PM
Yeah, let's think... 5 does the whole universe under threat, but focuses on the characters and their relationships. 6 does the same thing again, basically. 7 nominally has the universe under threat, but the real drama comes from The Doctor facing death. 8 is more of an RTD "Earth under threat" deal, with the character stuff secondary to the high-stakes drama. 9 focuses almost exclusively on The Doctor's relationship with the companion (the prophecy being basically backgrounded throughout the season) and 10 focuses on The Doctor fighting a losing battle with effectively a single planet at stake, and how that reflects on his companions and The Master.

Thinking about it, mortality is the big theme throughout Capaldi's three seasons, isn't it? The false afterlife in 8, the death and resurrection of Clara (and the prophecy gubbins of standing over the ruins of Gallifrey) in 9, and the doomed tone in the final Cyberman two-parter.

And, because he's a sap, he can't resist coming up with immortal get-outs over and over,[1] because fuck it, this is fundamentally a warm-spirited fantasy, not a Ken Loach film.
 1. With the artificial-afterlife-but-this-time-it's-nice of Twice Upon a Time.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 06, 2021, 09:50:26 PM
and the doomed tone in the final Cyberman two-parter.

And, because he's a sap, he can't resist coming up with immortal get-outs over and over,

this reminded me that my own silly headcanon revolves around this being the actual death of the doctor and bill and whatever's happened since is some sort of jacob's ladder-esque fuckery

(https://i.imgur.com/H1C4MOR.gif)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 06, 2021, 11:53:59 PM
And, because he's a sap, he can't resist coming up with immortal get-outs over and over, because fuck it, this is fundamentally a warm-spirited fantasy, not a Ken Loach film.
The "oh she can have near immortality" epilogue to Clara's death actually really bugged me. Possibly the biggest cop-out in the history of the show, you have the first proper companion death for decades and then go "yeah but she can fly around in a diner for a billion years before she eventually decides she has to die". It basically removes any tension from rewatches. Give me Adric any day.
Mind you, I find the two Twelve and Clara series unpleasantly dull for the most part anyway. Episode after episode of grey walls and a smug, shallow companion and a Doctor who's still deciding what his character is.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 07, 2021, 09:05:57 AM
Yeah, let's think... 5 does the whole universe under threat, but focuses on the characters and their relationships. 6 does the same thing again, basically. 7 nominally has the universe under threat, but the real drama comes from The Doctor facing death. 8 is more of an RTD "Earth under threat" deal, with the character stuff secondary to the high-stakes drama. 9 focuses almost exclusively on The Doctor's relationship with the companion (the prophecy being basically backgrounded throughout the season) and 10 focuses on The Doctor fighting a losing battle with effectively a single planet at stake, and how that reflects on his companions and The Master.

11, I don't know, they saved some planets I think, but everyone on them was already dead so it doesn't really matter? Really hazy about exactly what was at stake in Rango vs Colas, or whatever it was called. 12, the Doctor not only fails to save the Earth but arguably facilitates its destruction because she likes a bit of poetry, also fails to save Gallifrey or the Time Lords, and then the Master tells her something supposedly important but functionally meaningless.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 07, 2021, 12:19:27 PM
She also causes the deaths of every human being in the universe except for the seven or so she bumps into in that episode. Maybe just every human on that side or the universe, or something, I'm a bit confused about the details.

Mind you, I find the two Twelve and Clara series unpleasantly dull for the most part anyway. Episode after episode of grey walls and a smug, shallow companion and a Doctor who's still deciding what his character is.

On reflection, I think Clara's a really interesting companion as written in seasons 8 and 9[1] - someone who is flawed and self-absorbed and too proud, and doesn't mesh perfectly with The Doctor. It's just Coleman's uncharismatic and mediocre performance letting things down.
 1. In 7 she's a total void.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 07, 2021, 02:37:46 PM
decided to rewatch from season 8 till 10

so like, i don't remember deep breath having some genuinely wonderul art house moments. you can really feel ben wheatley's direction shining through in at least a few particular key scenes like where clara is doing her eponymous deep breath. fabulous, intense string synths like i've never heard in who. intense close-ups; colour and sound and reality distorting. could have been a different show
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on September 07, 2021, 03:29:50 PM
Given that a solid arc in Seasons 8 & 9 was Clara becoming more and more Dr-like, and that her 'death' was her trying to be the Doctor and failing, a consistent end would have been her choosing not to be rescued in Hell Bent.

That in turn sets up Season 10 with the Dr being a bit more hermitic at the start and him not necessarily wanting to take Bill on adventures.

Also, leave Bill as the Cyberman with a soul.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 07, 2021, 04:53:18 PM
A Christmas Carol is probably one of only two really good Christmas episodes alongside The Christmas Invasion...

(https://www.eruditorumpress.com/media/uploads/4th_wall_hartnell.jpg)

...three really good Christmas episodes. It isn't that I dislike the concept of the Christmas episode, in fact I think the idea of having a more accessible hour long adventure every Christmas to pull viewers in is a great idea and losing it has damaged the show's visibility in a pretty significant way. But of the Christmas episodes there are the awful (Voyage of the Damned, The End of Time), the meh (Runaway Bride and The Next Doctor) and the just about okay (The Time of the Doctor). I think they just have a bad run rather than anything wrong with the concept itself.

The Christmas Invasion was a triumph in reintroducing a new Doctor but also being accessible to a huge new audience. A Christmas Carol doesn't have as difficult a job as that other than to introduce the Doctor to an audience who might not have seen the previous series. In terms of a Moffat story it is all pretty straightforward and at times rather twee (in a good way, mostly).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 07, 2021, 04:58:49 PM
Moffat's writing is poetic at times.  The 'ghost of Christmas future' "I am showing you your future" twist was sublime.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 07, 2021, 06:23:44 PM
The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon is a good story bogged down by the series arc. If it could be free of the whole dead Doctor stuff as well as the melodrama then I would think much higher of this.

I did like it a little more than the first time I watched it. The resolution is a good one. But the arc is really going to drag this series down, I'm thinking.

The Doctor's aversion to Nixon is pretty laughable, considering he is all pally with Churchill. Maybe we are in more enlightened times in which we can acknowledge the flaws in the heroes of history now (and call them racist tossers).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 07, 2021, 07:02:05 PM
A Christmas Carol is a stunning episode, the best Christmas episode by far, although I do like Time of the Doctor, The Husbands of River Song and Twice Upon a Time are all good too.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on September 07, 2021, 08:59:21 PM
decided to rewatch from season 8 till 10

so like, i don't remember deep breath having some genuinely wonderul art house moments. you can really feel ben wheatley's direction shining through in at least a few particular key scenes like where clara is doing her eponymous deep breath

titular
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 07, 2021, 09:13:38 PM
titular

Thanks.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 07, 2021, 11:25:35 PM
titular

oo-er
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 09, 2021, 08:31:46 PM
I remember The Curse of the Black Spot being a forgettable if passable entry and it seemingly doesn't have a good reputation. To my pleasant surprise, I bloody loved it this time around.

All very straightforward, well done pirate action until the resolution, which would frankly have been enough for me. The twist into the spaceship initially felt like it would ruin it but the twist that it is a medical ship with a malfunctioning programme makes it work. It is a bit similar to The Empty Child and also has shades of The Stones of Blood with the abrupt setting change.

It also helps that it is not held back by any series arc other than one quick moment. I've been thinking about what it is I dislike about the series arc and I think it is that in a show about time travel it makes the universe feel so small when all the big series arc events happen in a short space of time. When another show does a series arc, it is generally a show existing in linear time where the threat can build up whereas Doctor Who goes back and forth through time which means everything relevant to that particular arc happening in one go feels so much smaller than the grandiose premise of the show.

Now onto an episode that I seem to remember being universally praised but I absolutely hated...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 09, 2021, 09:14:15 PM
Curse suffered from following on from such a thrilling, bombastic opening two-parter. After Day of the Moon or whatever the second episode was called, my colleague and I roped in an on-the-fence pal, thinking that this incredible new season would win him over, only to be presented with a pretty cheap-looking, mediocre story with a hokey "oooh, he's dead - no he coughed up the water!" scene at the climax. Maybe shorn of the weight of expectation it's quite good. I'll do my own rewatch at some point...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 13, 2021, 07:43:26 PM
So I originally really disliked The Doctor's Wife when it aired. I can say that my opinion has improved a little, but I still find myself left cold by the whole concept of the episode and I am put off by some specific elements. The characterisation of the TARDIS is annoying as much as anything. I also feel fundamentally that making the TARDIS a sentient being reduces The Doctor's relationship to it somewhat. Maybe it is just me being obtuse that I feel the TARDIS should be a being that simply acts on instinct instead.

Amy and Rory's side of the episode worked well. The old TARDIS set appearing was nice albeit not too exciting considering it had only been gone for 15 or 16 episodes.

I wonder if the set that the TARDIS arrives in is the same as the junk set from the SJA story Death of the Doctor. Seems like a darkly lit version of that though lit much darker for Who.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 13, 2021, 08:28:30 PM
So I originally really disliked The Doctor's Wife when it aired. I can say that my opinion has improved a little, but I still find myself left cold by the whole concept of the episode and I am put off by some specific elements. The characterisation of the TARDIS is annoying as much as anything. I also feel fundamentally that making the TARDIS a sentient being reduces The Doctor's relationship to it somewhat. Maybe it is just me being obtuse that I feel the TARDIS should be a being that simply acts on instinct instead.

I agree with this.  I always took issue with the central concept that this TARDIS would charge around being horny for the Doctor if ever it got a physical body.  And I couldn't tolerate the feeling that the Doctor's love for the TARDIS was being conflated with the fact that here was an attractive, eccentric woman throwing herself at him, being bossy, manic, a bit needy and everything else Moffat's era seems to fetishise in women.

A more interesting story could have been explored if the TARDIS had been embodied by a different type of person or alien.  How about a completely non-sexual and stronger older woman?  Or a man?  Having a Helena Bonham Carter clone only ensured that the story would explore the most stereotypical romance imaginable.  And I know the episode title was a just massive trolling effort but it can still fuck off.  By no measure can the TARDIS be considered the Doctor's "wife" rather than trusty steed or deep platonic friend/companion.

The fact that it took off as the most popular story for ages pissed me off as well.  Lowest common denominator telly, I guess.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 13, 2021, 08:46:08 PM
Only just occurred to me that the TARDIS is played by Suranne Jones, since I'd never heard of her the first time I saw it.

I think it's a great little episode, and that hankering after a weirder, more alien depiction of the TARDIS means basically forgetting that this is supposed to be mainstream entertainment, not a New Adventures middlebrow sci-fi fest, and a male/female pairing and romantic subtext is an easy and efficient way to get viewers to connect to the central relationship quickly when there's so much other stuff going on.

The only thing I don't like is The Doctor and chums not giving a toss about the poor girl whose body got hijacked. Especially Rory, whose primary character trait is being the empathetic one.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 13, 2021, 08:51:32 PM
hankering after a weirder, more alien depiction of the TARDIS means basically forgetting that this is supposed to be mainstream entertainment, not a New Adventures middlebrow sci-fi fest, and a male/female pairing and romantic subtext is an easy and efficient way to get viewers to connect to the central relationship quickly when there's so much other stuff going on.

It doesn't forget anything - you shouldn't need to retread dreary tropes to be mainstream.  Most people would find that suggestion quite insulting, I suspect.


Also I didn't state that it needed to be a New Adventures middlebrow sci-fi fest at all.  All I mean is that the relationship between the Doctor and TARDIS is open to so many possibilities and that episode closed them all down.  What else was the episode focusing on that the relationship needed to be rushed through with something barebones and simplistic?  I recall it being the entire point of the story.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on September 13, 2021, 08:57:48 PM
Love that "Did you wish really hard" line from Amy - probably my favourite moment in all of the Modern series!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 13, 2021, 08:59:21 PM
Love that "Did you wish really hard" line from Amy - probably my favourite moment in all of the Modern series!

I'll agree with that.  I bet it's a Moffat line though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on September 13, 2021, 09:23:42 PM
Never got the fuss with The Doctor's Wife. I can remember early filming reports putting Suranne Jones as a Timelord in what would be Night Terrors at the time.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 13, 2021, 09:45:41 PM
What else was the episode focusing on that the relationship needed to be rushed through with something barebones and simplistic? 

The usual stuff - establishing locations, antagonist, supporting cast, giving Amy and Rory something to do, raising the stakes, providing a resolution and coda.

Still don't really understand the displeasure. What are some alternatives that you would like to have seen? What aspect of their relationship would you prefer to have been expressed? It's not even really a romantic relationship, so much as it is using the surface of a romantic relationship as a way in to understand the deeper connection between the Doctor and the TARDIS. The core of The Doctor's excitement is being able to finally communicate directly with a creature with whom he has bonded in an odd way but always been held at a remove, not him wanting to stick his time-cock up her vortex.

Their relationship is basically contained in, and expressed through, words, not actions. The emotional climax of the story is her saying what she's always wanted to say - "Hello" - not a big kiss.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on September 13, 2021, 09:52:11 PM
A more interesting story could have been explored if the TARDIS had been embodied by a different type of person or alien. 

Noel Edmonds.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 13, 2021, 10:04:51 PM
I'll agree with that.  I bet it's a Moffat line though.

A lot of them were, in the end, from what I've heard.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 13, 2021, 10:10:01 PM
The usual stuff - establishing locations, antagonist, supporting cast, giving Any and Rory something to do, raising the stakes, providing a resolution and coda.

Oh, well that's the basics.  This story was entirely about the relationship of the Doctor and the TARDIS, and certainly there would have been scope to not take short cuts, in that case.


Still don't really understand the displeasure. What are some alternatives that you would like to have seen? What aspect of their relationship would you prefer to have been expressed? It's not even really a romantic relationship, so much as it is using the surface of a romantic relationship as a way in to understand the deeper connection between the Doctor and the TARDIS. The core of The Doctor's excitement is being able to finally communicate directly with a creature with whom he has bonded in an odd way but always been held at a remove, not him wanting to stick his time-cock up her vortex.

Their relationship is basically contained in, and expressed through, words, not actions. The emotional climax of the story is her saying what she's always wanted to say - Hello - not a big kiss.

How about the TARDIS transferring into an elderly man instead, for example.  Imagine for yourself how the story would have needed to play out to show the depths of their relationship, so it wouldn't have relied on a surface romantic frisson energy.  Would the same gist have been communicated?  If not, why not?  Could the TARDIS not have randomly possessed anybody, after all?  Why was a Helena Bonham Carter needed to communicate this particular story?  And why were the short cuts of following that cliche beneficial?

Thing is I don't have a list of things I wanted to see done instead.  Being surprised by the brilliance of a writer not playing to lowest common denominator concepts would have been my preference.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 13, 2021, 10:15:57 PM
I don't really see what advantages the TARDIS being an old man has, though. It's like you've decided that the TARDIS being a woman is absolutely the worst possible option available, but haven't actually considered how the various alternatives would be better other than them being "surprising", which seems like a pretty important part of shoring up your thesis.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 13, 2021, 10:20:35 PM
I don't really see what advantages the TARDIS being an old man has, though. It's like you've decided that the TARDIS being a woman is absolutely the worst possible option available, but haven't actually considered how the various alternatives would be better other than them being "surprising", which seems like a pretty important part of shoring up your thesis.

Oh, come on. 
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 13, 2021, 10:25:48 PM
What? Turning the TARDIS into an HBC creates an easy "in" for their relationship for the audience, while still allowing them to explore the confounding and confusing nature of their relationship up to that point. Also allows for a zippy, fun tone and lots of hijinks. Turning the TARDIS into an old man does none of that, and while there might well be a good story in it, I can't imagine what it might be, and it seems odd to raise that as a preferable alternative if you can't either.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 14, 2021, 06:09:28 PM
The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People has a bad rep, doesn't it? I think my opinion is pretty much the same as when it originally aired which is that it starts a bit boring but the second episode really ramps things up and whilst it has a silly ending with the monster, it is still pretty good.

One element I really liked it how they subverted the typical evil Doctor trope. It would be so easy to make the duplicate Doctor turn on them but they made the innate good nature of The Doctor override any emotion of the flesh.

I earlier stated how I liked the lack of arc references in Curse of the Black Spot and this continued largely in The Doctor's Wife. Despite this linking in heavily, I actually liked how this story tied in. It wasn't steeped in arc references, it just had a few dotted around followed by a lovely double twist at the end (The Doctor specifically took them to the flesh and that Amy was made of flesh).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 14, 2021, 06:28:32 PM
I earlier stated how I liked the lack of arc references in Curse of the Black Spot and this continued largely in The Doctor's Wife. Despite this linking in heavily, I actually liked how this story tied in. It wasn't steeped in arc references, it just had a few dotted around followed by a lovely double twist at the end (The Doctor specifically took them to the flesh and that Amy was made of flesh).

I largely agree that the shift away from the arc for Curse of the Black Spot was needed, so the series didn’t get too bogged down in itself, but the mechanism was wrong.  “All these things are really troubling us right at the moment; shall we deal with them now or go on a random fun adventure first?”

Essentially the show has time travel as an means to not allow anything to become urgent, so has to work hard to not let pressing issues become endlessly deferrable.  If the Black Spot episode had begun instead with the Doctor trying to move on with the series arc but failing to be in the right place at the right time, ending up on that pirate adventure due to error, I would have been a lot happier with it. 
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 14, 2021, 06:30:09 PM
What? Turning the TARDIS into an HBC creates an easy "in" for their relationship for the audience, while still allowing them to explore the confounding and confusing nature of their relationship up to that point. Also allows for a zippy, fun tone and lots of hijinks. Turning the TARDIS into an old man does none of that, and while there might well be a good story in it, I can't imagine what it might be, and it seems odd to raise that as a preferable alternative if you can't either.

The problem as I see it is that the Doctor was knee deep in female companions who had at least a frisson of attraction with him. Making the Tardis a jealous other one cheapens their complex and spiritually deep relationship to a very basic one.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 14, 2021, 06:55:41 PM
A Good Man Goes to War was the first episode I really started to question this series. I may not have liked The Doctor's Wife when it originally aired but this was the first time I was losing hope that the series would recover to reach anywhere near the heights of Series 5.

This time around it is... absolutely nothing. It oddly feels like the second half of a two-parter stretched out to the entire length of an episode without a first part to contextualise it. All just a load of action with little story to go along with it other than revealing that the baby is River. All feels very clumsy and rushed.

I guess it lives and dies by the second part of the two parter so we'll see what I think of that. But I'm not hopeful after this first part.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 14, 2021, 09:13:09 PM
Steven Moffat: Note to self, write a scene with Karen Gillan in a school girl outfit.

Let's Kill Hitler was an underwhelming opening to the second half of the series when it originally aired. It rather cemented my view that Series 5 was a flash in the pan and that this wasn't the great Doctor Who revival I had hoped. Yeah, it isn't any better than I remember. All just feels like exposition hidden with silliness.

Moffat does have a way of making stuff I think is shit work. The Doctor has gotten married twice in the new run and both times it initially sounds awful and both times Moffat has pulled the rug out to reveal they both only happened because of silly scenarios (Queen Elizabeth I/Zygon and River).

I liked Rory putting Hitler in the cupboard.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 14, 2021, 09:50:36 PM
Biggest fuck up with Let's Kill Hitler for me was the needlessly rushed origin for River Song.  Should have left it open-ended, never shown the Alex Kingston version being smitten with the Doctor, because it completely undermined all the mystery set up about who she was and what the Doctor was destined to experience with her as she got younger. 

Should have kept it fully open-ended.  Multiple incarnations of a younger River Song all working through their role as the Doctor's assassin.  The Doctor could have kept on meeting versions of her in future stories, mysterious strangers who appear friendly before debilitating him so he is limited in his ability to respond to the needs of a situation and other characters.  An open-ended gift for future decades of showrunners and Big Finish to have someone like that who wasn't the Master or Rani.  This is what I was hoping Moffat was up to, and then Let's Kill Hitler bummed in and crushed it all.  Such a waste, really.


On the positive side, ignoring the River Song stuff, the episode shows what to do with a title that threatens Chibnall levels of error.  And yeah, Rory putting Hitler in a cupboard.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 15, 2021, 05:33:06 PM
Night Terrors is pretty standard Doctor Who fair. Like a good version of Fear Her. Not really excelling in any way, but doesn't do anything particularly wrong. Feels like late season filler so feels oddly placed in the series as a whole.

Amy getting turned into a doll is a really wonderful, understated creepy moment.

One thing I've noticed which has probably been creeping in for a while. There is an unnatural sheen to the look of the show now. It seemed more prevalent with some shots this episode more than any other, but it just makes the whole thing feel cheaper. I remember thinking last series how much the natural look made the show feel so rich (Eleventh Hour and Vampires in particular). It is only a minor observation and not a stick to beat the show with as it is only subtle, I just think they really nailed the look in Series 5 so the slight adjustments here disappoint. It isn't like they are turning into a James Cameron remaster or a Chibnall teal and orange blur, certainly.

Biggest fuck up with Let's Kill Hitler for me was the needlessly rushed origin for River Song.  Should have left it open-ended, never shown the Alex Kingston version being smitten with the Doctor, because it completely undermined all the mystery set up about who she was and what the Doctor was destined to experience with her as she got younger. 

The whole thing does feel rushed, doesn't it? Not just this episode but the whole of Series 6. It feels like two series of arcs squeezed into a five or six episodes (with the rest of the series mostly free from arc references).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 15, 2021, 06:29:10 PM
The internet seems so hopped up on the moral dilemma of Voyager's Tuvix these days, just imagine what will happen when they discover The Girl Who Waited. Does The Doctor and Rory have the right to erase the bitter future Amy in her late 50s in order to rescue an Amy in her 20s? I mean, yes they do but my opinion of Tuvix is much the same.

I'd completely forgotten the resolution, and it is honestly just as strong as Tuvix. The Doctor and Rory make the right choice but the way it is played out is dramatically a master-stroke.

Makes me wonder how Tuvix would have been seen if Janeway lied to Tuvix and made him think that there was a way to keep him alive whilst restoring Tuvok and Neelix. Would Janeway be looked on more favourable. I certainly don't think any less of The Doctor for his actions here.

Overall, it is a relatively simple but incredibly effective story. Makes me wonder why Tom MacRea hasn't written more. His Cyberman story wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either, and this episode is wonderful.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Chairman Yang on September 15, 2021, 07:22:18 PM
After a long dip in this series I remember watching this and hoping/thinking things might have started to pick back up. Especially nice to see the Doctor being stupid, cowardly and mean for a change, rounds him out a bit in the face of all the Hero Crap that Moffat likes to write.

"You're turning me into you"
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 15, 2021, 07:34:15 PM
Was The Doctor cowardly? I felt his actions were brave and compassionate in as much as they could be in the circumstances. He lied to get the young Any back and left the old Any with only a few seconds to contemplate her impending non existence.

I guess pushing the decision into Rory was a cowardly move in a way. But The Doctor knew which choice he would make. It kind of harkens back to McCoy manipulating events to work in his favour.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 15, 2021, 08:26:14 PM
A bit shit to make Rory live with that guilt, though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Chairman Yang on September 15, 2021, 08:44:29 PM
Was The Doctor cowardly? I felt his actions were brave and compassionate in as much as they could be in the circumstances. He lied to get the young Any back and left the old Any with only a few seconds to contemplate her impending non existence.

I guess pushing the decision into Rory was a cowardly move in a way. But The Doctor knew which choice he would make. It kind of harkens back to McCoy manipulating events to work in his favour.

Oh aye, I do agree with you, I was mostly talking about things from Rory's perspective. I always felt that Matt Smith had a good line in deviousness that the didn't do enough with.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 15, 2021, 08:52:32 PM
A bit shit to make Rory live with that guilt, though.

I thought that. But also The Doctor wants to give his companions an autonomy. He just chose a poss poor moment to do it. It does give an interested added dimension to the 11th Doctor though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: BritishHobo on September 15, 2021, 09:44:26 PM
I think it does work well at making the Doctor look a prick, swanning into these situations with an arrogant obliviousness, and the companions having to pick up the pieces.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 15, 2021, 11:34:04 PM
The God Complex has an interesting idea behind it but it isn't the best execution and is incredibly poorly positioned in the series right after the superior The Girl Who Waited. The resolution was incredibly obvious when you've seen The Curse of Fenric but I guess it works as a callback in a way. More could have been done with destroying the character's faith to save them. In the end, the execution was quite poor and not dramatically very satisfying.

The editing on the scared reactions is fucking horrendous. Like the sort of thing you'd get in a drugs sequence in an E4 teen drama. Cheap and tacky.

Why did the simulation look like an old hotel? Did they just watch the TNG episode The Royale and think "that'll do"?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 16, 2021, 12:22:44 AM
After enjoying The Lodger so much, I was utterly disappointed by Closing Time back when it aired. Then again, disappointment is a byword for Cybermen in modern Doctor Who. My favourite villain are reduced to loud lumbering nothings in new Who. Their original appearance was passable and The Next Doctor wasn't too bad but that was only because of the elements of the story that didn't involve the Cybermen.

I just want a single really good new series Cybermen story. I saw part of a Capaldi Cyberman story which I disliked so I imagine it is a long time until I get one. They've even ruined many Big Finish Cyberman stories by making Nick Briggs think he can play all Cybermen.

The comedy worked well enough, I guess. If you are going to do a Cyberman story with the Cybusmen then not doing it seriously is probably the best way but any dramatic tension evaporates when surrounded by comedy set pieces.

The Cybermen wanted James Cordon to be the new Cyber Controller. So they wanted The Fat Controller? Missing that joke is the worst thing you have ever done, Gareth. I mean aside from all the transphobia.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 16, 2021, 04:36:03 PM
The Wedding of River Song has such a striking opening. Moffat so full of ideas and throws them all into a single episode. Could have done so much more with the converging of time but it was effective here so it is no criticism of Moffat.

It is one of those typical big red button episodes of TV yet despite knowing everything will be reset, they still end up incredibly effective. Star Trek has mastered the art of the big red button story (Yesterday's Enterprise, The Visitor, Year of Hell, Timeless, Twilight).

I wasn't enamoured at all by the overall arc but they nailed the landing. Either this or The Girl Who Waited are the strongest of the series.

Overall, Series 6 is a little stronger than I remember. The Moffat episodes are surprisingly lower in quality aside from the finale but some good individual stories make it a good enough series. Production wise the show feels cheaper than Series 5. I feel like the more natural look of Series 5 helped it to not only differentiate itself from the Tennant era but it also made it feel a much richer show to watch.

I can do without all the "Doctor Who?" crap. I don't give a toss about who he is and I hope that it is never answered. Any backstory at this point makes him less interesting. That is what makes The War Doctor so good though. It wasn't backstory, it was midstory. so it doesn't recontextualize the character as a whole but just the previous few series. Meanwhile you've got a moron writing the show now who blunders in and adds huge fucking backstory to the very beginning and fundamentally changes the character forever.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 16, 2021, 05:34:09 PM
Moffat tries to emulate the style and success of A Christmas Carol with The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe but, at least in my view, fails miserably.

The first half of the episode can pretty much be summed up by "The Doctor is mad, isn't he?" which I can do without at this point. All just felt a plot drawn out to fit 60 minutes with the forest elements not really fleshed out.

An attempt at something sentimental but it felt so saccharin. Meanwhile the previous episode hit the exact right emotional beats. Ending with Any and Rory was good.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 16, 2021, 06:42:56 PM
For me the worst problems with "the Doctor's mad innee" moments during this phase is the overuse of the music telling us.  Once you recognise any music cue it becomes immensely distracting, and by this point the wonderful piece first heard when Amelia was making the Doctor breakfast has sadly had its day.

Even if it's not distracting, the familiarity deadens the scene, even if it's subconscious.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 16, 2021, 07:08:22 PM
By far the worst episode of the whole Moffat era, that. Absolutely horrible.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: lipsink on September 16, 2021, 07:09:05 PM
Definitely agree. It was also quite exciting when The 11th Doctor's main theme kicks in the first few times but they started overusing it any time the Doctor takes control of a situation.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 16, 2021, 07:14:41 PM
I always felt the music repetition was one of the giveaways that the budget was being slashed in ways that we couldn't always "see"
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on September 16, 2021, 08:29:33 PM
The God Complex has an interesting idea behind it but it isn't the best execution and is incredibly poorly positioned in the series right after the superior The Girl Who Waited. The resolution was incredibly obvious when you've seen The Curse of Fenric but I guess it works as a callback in a way. More could have been done with destroying the character's faith to save them. In the end, the execution was quite poor and not dramatically very satisfying.

Oh I love The God Complex (although I can't really remember the ending so maybe that's a sign that that isn't one of its strongest points). Just wish that this had been the Ponds' last episode (apart from coming back in Wedding of River Song) - just commit to them leaving before the Doctor gets them killed, I think that would have been really strong.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 16, 2021, 09:17:51 PM
Asylum of the Daleks wasn't an episode I disliked when it aired. I nothinged it. I nothinged it so hard that I decided to stop watching for a while. I never planned to stop watching for as long as I did but it was probably for the best. Aside from Matt's last three episodes and a few stray Capaldi episodes, I've seen nothing after this.

The problem I had at the time was that I didn't feel like I was watching out of pure enjoyment anymore but I was returning to a feeling of watching out of obligation. Series 5 reinvigorated my love for the show so Series 6 being a downer and then the poor Christmas Special followed by this just left me with the view that it would be best to leave the show to air for a while and I could go back at some point in the future to watch it all in a row with a bit of distance to it. Lesser serials of the Classic Series feel improved by being watched in quick succession, even when not surrounded by strong serials.

The fairytale relationship of Amy and Rory splitting with animosity is rather off-putting. Got a little uncomfortable with the reveal too. Though I guess it is only the hindsight of all the Avengers stuff with Joss Whedon that makes me think Amy feeling their relationship couldn't continue due to her not being able to bear children was a little misjudged. Not their fault and there was certainly no ill intent from Moffat so it is nothing I will dwell on.

From a fanwank perspective it is nice to see the Special Weapons Dalek again but there is little else to this really. It feels all just about setting up the Clara story. Some inventive new elements to the Daleks. The dead people with Dalek parts added was pure Moffat creepiness and it is a shame they couldn't form a larger part of the story. As with The Wedding of River Song, it feels like Moffat using up lots of great ideas but at least it always has the possibility of being in a future Dalek story. Likewise, I think more could have been done with Clara being a Dalek despite it making a strong reveal to close the episode.

The changes to the opening titles and fonts are awful.

Now onto the next episode. Really weird that they only aired three episodes in this 2012 run and they aired with a two-week gap in between each other.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 16, 2021, 09:32:17 PM
the view that it would be best to leave the show to air for a while and I could go back at some point in the future to watch it all in a row with a bit of distance to it.

fingers crossed you will do this one day
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 16, 2021, 10:04:07 PM
A Town Called Mercy is pretty standard fare. A garish orange hue mixed with the on-screen graphics of The Gunslinger gives the episode a suitably Sarah Jane Adventures feel. The practicalities of recording in Winter in the UK mean it is probably difficult to make it look like the wild west without a harsh colour grade so I guess we can let them off here.

They make Jex go all Nazi (that's what his speech to The Doctor seemed to be thrusting to) and make there no realistic choice other than to give him up to The Gunslinger. Having the Doctor then protect him feels wrong, to me. It goes against my left-wing pro-rehabilitation side but I just don't feel sympathetic to the Nazi. Am I wrong in seeing Jex as analogous to a Nazi? I just can't look past it once I saw it. The Gunslinger is always portrayed as somebody who does not wish to harm anybody innocent, despite being a soldier built for war. The Gunslinger is an innocent victim of Jex. Jex is a warmonger with the weight of guilt who wanted to escape the wrath of his victim.

It wasn't a bad episode, but I just struggled once I saw Jex the way I did. I feel it pushed Doctor Who too close to an area I don't want. Definitely think it must be my interpretation of the moral core that is the problem rather than the episode itself. Would be interested to hear how others interpreted it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 16, 2021, 10:25:11 PM
Dammit, I can't remember enough about that episode to come down on either side, but I remember thinking that turning kids and other townspeople into targets to protect Jex seemed a bit off. Only needs the gunslinger to squeeze off one sharp shot and whoops! Dead child.

Inspired by your posts to do my own revisitation of nu-Who, at least to the end of the Capaldi era. No need to inflict the Chibnall dirge on myself again, certainly not so soon.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 16, 2021, 10:31:40 PM
I don't think I've seen series 7 more than once.  The episodes of series 5 I watched multiple times the weeks they were coming out.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 16, 2021, 10:32:59 PM
Inspired by your posts to do my own revisitation of nu-Who, at least to the end of the Capaldi era. No need to inflict the Chibnall dirge on myself again, certainly not so soon.

Yeah, I will be stopping at Twice Upon a Time. As if I would inflict Chibnall on myself. Just hearing about The Timeless Child is bad enough!

Just a good thing that Chibnall never written any episodes during the Moffat era.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 16, 2021, 10:35:29 PM
Weird the way a redesigned Silurian suddenly appears without explanation halfway through series 6.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 16, 2021, 11:11:52 PM
Such a short run ends with The Angels Take Manhatten. I feel like they blew their load with the Statue of Liberty being revealed right at the start as it would have been a neat ending reveal. Whilst I did like the earlier Matt Smith Angels story, this felt much more in keeping with Blink. Exploiting the horror of people losing their lives so their time stream can be used to feed the Angels.

I actually have to admire that Moffat has waited until now to use the Angels to their full potential. I'm surprised looking at Wikipedia that this is the last proper Weeping Angels story too.  Only a matter of time before some hack ruins them though. Bet Chibnall already has that script called Wink ready with all the characters winking to save the day.

I really liked the simplicity of this episode. All very low-key after the opening. It feels like a mix of Blink and The Big Bang. A great way to say goodbye in a bittersweet way to Rory and Amy. Probably my favourite Weeping Angels story too. The subversion of having a smiling Angel at one point is about as creepy as they've ever been.

I wish I'd saw this one at the time. It may have kept me watching each week at least up until the end of the Smith era.

Weird the way a redesigned Silurian suddenly appears without explanation halfway through series 6.

Probably just a rejected design they decided to use to save money. It makes sense they would have rejected it, since it is rubbish.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Endicott on September 16, 2021, 11:56:24 PM
The internet seems so hopped up on the moral dilemma of Voyager's Tuvix these days, just imagine what will happen when they discover The Girl Who Waited. Does The Doctor and Rory have the right to erase the bitter future Amy in her late 50s in order to rescue an Amy in her 20s? I mean, yes they do but my opinion of Tuvix is much the same.

I'd completely forgotten the resolution, and it is honestly just as strong as Tuvix. The Doctor and Rory make the right choice but the way it is played out is dramatically a master-stroke.

Hmmm. The Tuvix debacle is why I stopped watching Voyager. You can say what you like about it but that ending is not consistent with Star Trek's previous ideals. I'm not quite so wedded to New Who but older Amy's death is clearly morally wrong. The Doctor of my youth (Pertwee/Baker) would have found a way for both to survive. That this didn't happen is something of a disappointment. I get no joy from rewatching this episode,  even though in many ways it is better written and constructed than a lot of New Who. They just fucked up the ending.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 17, 2021, 12:04:46 AM
Hmmm. The Tuvix debacle is why I stopped watching Voyager. You can say what you like about it but that ending is not consistent with Star Trek's previous ideals. I'm not quite so wedded to New Who but older Amy's death is clearly morally wrong. The Doctor of my youth (Pertwee/Baker) would have found a way for both to survive. That this didn't happen is something of a disappointment. I get no joy from rewatching this episode,  even though in many ways it is better written and constructed than a lot of New Who. They just fucked up the ending.

I think an ending in an earlier era might have seen older Amy left to survive in her own time bubble with robot Rory. Definitely feels like an Eccelstone/Tennant type ending.

It is essentially down to the writer whether it is possible for both young and old Amy can both survive, and the writer this time decided to make it not possible and threw the difficult choice to The Doctor and Rory. I don't think it diminishes The Doctor morally to set some temporal rules which even he cannot disobey.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Endicott on September 17, 2021, 12:09:43 AM
Well, I do. The Doctor is all about breaking temporal rules.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 17, 2021, 12:11:32 AM
Fair enough. It is a trope of the Matt Smith era that he breaks temporal rules.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Lungpuddle on September 17, 2021, 12:14:19 AM
By far the worst episode of the whole Moffat era, that. Absolutely horrible.

Nah, there's at least one Capaldi episode that is worse.

I don't have anything to add, but I'm really enjoying reading through this thread, even when you like episodes I hate or think episodes that have saved my life are shit (for clarity: no episode of Doctor Who has ever saved my life).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Endicott on September 17, 2021, 12:26:57 AM
You're doing a nice set of reviews. When I sober up a bit I might try and redeem the Ben Browder gunfighter one as I quite liked it. Though possibly coz of my Farscape love. Anyway what with the nazi angle gonna leave it for now!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Endicott on September 17, 2021, 12:57:44 AM
I think an ending in an earlier era might have seen older Amy left to survive in her own time bubble with robot Rory. Definitely feels like an Eccelstone/Tennant type ending.

Just going to add something here coz can't stop myself. I think trying to fit an answer into previous continuity is too constricting. They should have made something up to allow it. Something new. It deserved something new. It's that big a deal, that it deserved something new. I felt, and obviously this is just me, that killing off older Amy showed a paucity of imagination. Rereading that back I ought to edit out some repetition...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on September 17, 2021, 01:55:44 AM
I vaguely recall it being a recurring thing in Series 6 that the numerous doubles/duplicates/doppelgängers usually seemed to end up dying/turning to goo/getting written out of existence. Admittedly I haven't watched any of these episodes since broadcast but I never really "got" why every other episode seemed to hinge on an overt depiction of duality or what the writers were actually trying to express with it tbh. The only thing I can think of is that it was all part of some ridiculous anguished metacommentary about the series being split in two... or Moffat having to work on two programmes at the same time...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 17, 2021, 02:06:53 AM
General thematic cohesion, and also giving you lots of options for how The Doctor is going to get out of dying at Lake Silencio. If it were just the Tesselecta story, the solution would be obvious.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on September 17, 2021, 03:35:16 AM
I just don't quite see what Moffat was trying to articulate in his Lake Silencio storyline that justified the entire series revolving around it tbh. It seems like conjuring up a series full of red herrings resulted in a number of episodes with extremely abstract moral dilemmas that ended up saying very little about the real world in service of an arc that itself was saying very little about the real world.

I was trying to think why this storyline about circumnavigating death with a heavy emphasis on duality and duplicity would have been specifically relevant in 2011. Perhaps it's serving as an obfuscated criticism of the coalition government or summat. I dunno.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 17, 2021, 07:32:10 AM
He saved that until 2015
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 17, 2021, 09:11:55 AM
I just don't quite see what Moffat was trying to articulate in his Lake Silencio storyline that justified the entire series revolving around it tbh. It seems like conjuring up a series full of red herrings resulted in a number of episodes with extremely abstract moral dilemmas that ended up saying very little about the real world in service of an arc that itself was saying very little about the real world.

Think he was probably just writing/showrunning a fun family show.

(Although even then, there's clearly an ethical dilemma in what to do with Old Amy if you want to save Young Amy, and questions about the nature of identity - "there's no difference between 'our' Doctor and the clone Doctor" - in the Ganger story. Which may not have much bearing on "the real world", but who gives a shit? Star Trek, the stories of Philip K Dick and plenty of other fine sci-fi works have made hay out of this kind of thing for decades. Demanding a one-to-one real life metaphor from your fiction seems like a limitation that will get in the way of letting you enjoy things while providing no benefits whatsoever.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 17, 2021, 10:23:44 AM
Yeah, although there's scope for satire in Doctor Who, and it's an established element of the show, it doesn't mean every storyline has to be like that. The Doctor's death was a way to set up a fascinating impossible mystery to grab people at the start of the series and keep them guessing until the end.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 17, 2021, 12:11:46 PM
The series 6 arc uses elements of what series 5 would have been if Tennant had chosen to stay on for one more series.  I think you can tell.

As it stands, series 6 comes far too soon after Tennant’s drawn-out, woe-is-me, this-counts-as-death, old-man-Wilf-you-wouldn’t-understand finale to really strike a chord.  Furthermore it lacked a detail that Moffat only concocted later, but would have given so much potency if planned in advance:  the Eleventh Doctor was actually the final incarnation of this regeneration cycle, so his death could have truly been projected as his last, with the granting of a new regeneration cycle saving him.


It’s bonkers really that Moffat didn’t at least hold off the series 6 arc until Smith’s last year.  It would have come fortuitously together and been such a great send-off.  It just meant that come Smith’s final story, all the hands had already been played so “this is my final body” would sit as a mere shrug within an overly packed episode.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 17, 2021, 12:23:00 PM
Series 6 is fascinating in the way it shows how the Doctor should always experience time; it’s just weird that it happens only for that series and without much explanation.  I suppose it can be said that it’s something to do with his temporal connection with River expanding out to other events, but really it just serves to highlight the slight madness that he experiences literally everything else sequentially.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on September 17, 2021, 12:37:05 PM
He saved that until 2015

Clara = Clegg???
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 17, 2021, 12:59:11 PM
It’s bonkers really that Moffat didn’t at least hold off the series 6 arc until Smith’s last year.  It would have come fortuitously together and been such a great send-off.  It just meant that come Smith’s final story, all the hands had already been played so “this is my final body” would sit as a mere shrug within an overly packed episode.

Both RTD and Moffat have mentioned how Who just chews through ideas, and given the relentless pace and amount of work to be done, I can't blame him for just going with the strongest idea he had at the time. And it is a corking opener to the season. The revelation of who (pun intended) got the final invitation letter is brilliant, as is the contrast in "facing my death" Doctor and "ooh, fizzy straw" Doctor.

I strongly suspect Moffat had grand plans for series 7 that were shat upon by Gillan leaving the show (not that I blame her, with Hollywood knocking), and had to rush the final body thing because Smith had decided to jump ship pretty shortly afterwards, so it probably wouldn't have been for the best if he had held onto it anyway - wouldn't have been able to use it at all, unless you want to add a Tesselecta-type paradox to the already stuffed Time of the Doctor.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 17, 2021, 01:08:20 PM
Yeah, although there's scope for satire in Doctor Who, and it's an established element of the show, it doesn't mean every storyline has to be like that. The Doctor's death was a way to set up a fascinating impossible mystery to grab people at the start of the series and keep them guessing until the end.

And just to add to this, I don't think "relating to the real world" is automatically a good thing for Who. Rosa related to the real world, but not only lacked spark and verve, it also forced The Doctor and pals to become complicit in racial oppression. The Doctor taught us about brave Noor Inayat Khan, a real world hero, then sent her off to be beaten and executed in Dachau, removing her memory despite her protestations.[1]

Obviously you can do it well, but I don't think it should ever be considered the default method of storytelling, or be regarded as something that is de facto a good and desirable element.
 1. In a scene that's making my blood boil just to remember it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 17, 2021, 02:58:47 PM
As Christmas specials go, The Snowmen is basically fine. Though it does spend much of its run time establishing the series arc which I feel is out of place for a Christmas Special. On the plus side it is a far stronger Christmas episode than the previous one.

I don't like the whole mopey The Doctor not wanting to be The Doctor anymore. I find any sort of storyline which has The Doctor not wanting to be The Doctor (aside from The War Doctor) is tedious. It all seems to be the same kind of idea in recent superhero stuff where you have superheroes who save everybody from supervillains and for some moronic reason question whether they are good people.

I know Clara gets a bad rep but from the episodes I've seen with her, I think she is fine. And I don't just think that because I fancy Jenna Coleman.

Is The Snowmen a prequel or a sequel to The Web of Fear? It hints that this is before the attack in the underground, so does The Great Intelligence go from here to the events of The Abominable Snowmen? If this is a genesis story for The Great Intelligence then it seems a bit lacklustre for a villain with the build-up in The Web of Fear.

Strax is always good for a laugh. Makes me want to revisit the Jago and Litefoot and Strax story from a few years ago.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 17, 2021, 04:05:06 PM
What if Wi-Fi downloaded us, huh? It is the most obvious Doctor Who idea ever. It feels like a parody. What if Netflix streamed demons? What if biscuits could dunk us? What if pants wore humans? What if pillows tried to take over the planet while we sleep?

The Bells of Saint John continues in the parody by gifting us with a hacking scene complete with typing randomly onto a keyboard which clearly works to hack all of the most secure networks ever created.

All in all it is just a bit lacklustre of an opener. I didn't particularly dislike it but it just all feels so wasteful. I initially wasn't liking the ending until it was revealed it was a robot who went up the Shard and The Doctor was safely back at the cafe which was a lovely twist. The Great Intelligence pops up again, I believe to set them up for the finale, but they aren't utilised at all here in any meaningful way.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 17, 2021, 04:59:57 PM
The Bells of Saint John really feels like a RTD-era episode. It was the moment I realised the Moffat magic had really slipped a bit.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 17, 2021, 05:05:27 PM
Definitely. Felt like a phoned in version of Smith and Jones or Partners in Crime.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 17, 2021, 06:19:33 PM
It’s obvious that Moffat was deliberately going for RTD vibes with that one - it’s no error.  He wanted accessibility, silliness, some spookiness with the hollowed out spoon head thing and the woman at the end who was inside still just a girl.  It was part of Moffat’s skill that he could pull out the RTD adrenaline rush episode when necessary, in a way that Chibnall obviously can’t.

It’s far from perfect but I think it suffers for being promoted as a series opener rather than just the second half of an existing series. 


By this point in the ongoing saga, the showrunner clearly faces a difficulty when it comes to the “companion encounters the inside of the TARDIS” scenario.  It really shouldn’t be half-arsed; it has to be incredible for them, and the Doctor needs to relish the companion’s reaction every time.  But this need obviously conflicts with what the audience will be needing as part of the ongoing trajectory of the show.  See how the Doctor brushes off the initial reactions of Martha and Donna to the inside of the TARDIS.  “Oh really; I hadn’t noticed.”  The Doctor’s relishing fades as the audience gets familiar with it.  The fact is, in The Snowmen we’d already had Clara’s reaction to the inside of the TARDIS, and it was magical.  Then she died and we got a kind of half-arsed rushed version in this, the modern day Clara’s actual introduction episode.  In my view this kind of cements this version of Clara from day one.  She is a detached, somewhat under-baked repetition, even when she is doing everything for the first time, she comes across as endlessly underwhelmed.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 17, 2021, 06:26:51 PM
Chibnall of course compressing his companions’ first experience of the inside of the TARDIS with the Doctor’s own first experience of that console room.  Indication from the outset that he would be endlessly backgrounding his companions - never mind any notion that the companions’ wonder can bring magic back to the Doctor’s tired, seen-everything-a-million-times eyes.

He needn’t follow that template of course, but if you’re planning to remove one of the main reasons for the Doctor to value companions, you could at least have something in mind to replace it.  (Oh yeah he did:  co-dependency.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 17, 2021, 07:02:12 PM
One thing that annoyed me about The Bells of St John was the fact they left the TARDIS doors open when it was parked on the South Bank.  It happened a few times in series 7 if I recall correctly, and I remember thinking at the time that it must have been leading somewhere - like they'd find some kind of threat had snuck in due to their negligence.  But it never happened so must have just been a production mistake.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on September 17, 2021, 07:38:47 PM
One thing that annoyed me about The Bells of St John was the fact they left the TARDIS doors open when it was parked on the South Bank.  It happened a few times in series 7 if I recall correctly, and I remember thinking at the time that it must have been leading somewhere - like they'd find some kind of threat had snuck in due to their negligence.  But it never happened so must have just been a production mistake.

If anyone found their way in then they might have met up with that Cyberman that wandered off in the 80's. Sitcom waiting to happen.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 17, 2021, 07:43:14 PM
Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS deleted scene
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on September 17, 2021, 07:47:48 PM
Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS deleted scene
Clara's in the library and finds that Time War book and says "That's who you are". Cut to Dave Cyberman and random walk-in reading a travel guide on Metebelis 3 and going "Shhhhhhh"!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 17, 2021, 08:00:36 PM
WHEN DID YOU LAST HAVE THE PLEASURE OF READING A WELL-PREPARED BOOK
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on September 17, 2021, 09:11:14 PM
WHEN DID YOU LAST HAVE THE PLEASURE OF READING A WELL-PREPARED BOOK
Brilliant, we need a Showrunner gig on A Doctor Who version Of Star Trek's Lower Decks.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on September 18, 2021, 12:37:50 PM
What if Wi-Fi downloaded us, huh? It is the most obvious Doctor Who idea ever. It feels like a parody. What if Netflix streamed demons? What if biscuits could dunk us? What if pants wore humans? What if pillows tried to take over the planet while we sleep?

The Bells of Saint John continues in the parody by gifting us with a hacking scene complete with typing randomly onto a keyboard which clearly works to hack all of the most secure networks ever created.

All in all it is just a bit lacklustre of an opener. I didn't particularly dislike it but it just all feels so wasteful. I initially wasn't liking the ending until it was revealed it was a robot who went up the Shard and The Doctor was safely back at the cafe which was a lovely twist. The Great Intelligence pops up again, I believe to set them up for the finale, but they aren't utilised at all here in any meaningful way.

what if emojis but ... more ...

look forward to it
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on September 18, 2021, 06:57:09 PM
Is The Snowmen a prequel or a sequel to The Web of Fear? It hints that this is before the attack in the underground, so does The Great Intelligence go from here to the events of The Abominable Snowmen? If this is a genesis story for The Great Intelligence then it seems a bit lacklustre for a villain with the build-up in The Web of Fear.

D'you know, I honestly hadn't considered that until you mentioned it there? Of course, The Snowmen with its Victorian, horse-drawn carriage setting comes first: The Abominable Snowmen takes place during the mid-1930s (generally placed as 1935 for convenience's sake), and The Web Of Fear is set some 40 years later (left carefully vague so that 'some 40 years later' can span from the late 1960s to the mid 1970s according to preference).

And, of course, Downtime takes place after all three of them.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: M-CORP on September 18, 2021, 07:10:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GdAmDayfVM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GdAmDayfVM)

Series Two poorly animated. Not as good as the series one pastiche IMHO due to its length and greater reliance on sex jokes, but still bloody funny and deranged. Worth it just to see an Ood speaking with the voice of Frankie Boyle. And Neil from Art Attack in Fear Her. Yes.

Also, the similes: 'Why you as transparent as Blair's real intentions for helping Bush invade Iraq?'
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 18, 2021, 07:15:29 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GdAmDayfVM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GdAmDayfVM)

Series Two poorly animated. Not as good as the series one pastiche IMHO due to its length and greater reliance on sex jokes, but still bloody funny and deranged. Worth it just to see an Ood speaking with the voice of Frankie Boyle. And Neil from Art Attack in Fear Her. Yes.

Also, the similes: 'Why you as transparent as Blair's real intentions for helping Bush invade Iraq?'

15 seconds in and I couldn't take any more of it. Half an hour more and my brain would have turned to mush.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 18, 2021, 09:10:34 PM
The Rings of Akhaten looks okay for the most part. They seemingly spent most of their money on having a ludicrous amount of alien costumes albeit with a few reuses such as the Hath (I can't believe I didn't need to look that name up). The CGI was lacking as a result. The main problem is that it was all a bit boring. The middle was like watching an episode of Songs of Praise. And a second episode in a row in which The Doctor and Clara are looking super cool riding a bike.

There were some good concepts there. Currency based on sentimentality is stretching it a bit, but at least it was interesting. It all just felt lost in a pretty vacuous story. What is this episode about? A sentient planet steals a girl to eat her memories and then they sing a song.

Oh look, a costume that would later be used in Red Dwarf (XI: Can of Worms). I also wondered if the set may have been partly reused from Red Dwarf X as it looked a fair bit like the India set, but Doctor Who hasn't recorded in Shepperton Studios in a long time so that is unlikely. All studio market sets look the same, I guess.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: The Giggling Bean on September 18, 2021, 09:17:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GdAmDayfVM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GdAmDayfVM)

Series Two poorly animated. Not as good as the series one pastiche IMHO due to its length and greater reliance on sex jokes, but still bloody funny and deranged.

The first one had me howling. I rewatched it multiple times and still cracked up but this one, well I chuckled a couple of times, just dragged on and didn't tickle me in the same way...except for how they dealt with Mickey.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 18, 2021, 09:52:04 PM
"oh fuck off" - Not a good sign when I exclaim that while watching Doctor Who.

The sad thing is, it was all going so well until the Ice Warrior arrived... and he stomped. Fuck off with stomping. It is shit when the Cybusmen do it and it is shit now the Ice Warriors do it. Hey, why not give them a shit catchphrase too. What about "Ice to meet you"?

Cold War is actually a nice little simple story. The design of the submarine and Ice Warrior are all really good. A way to bring back a big villain in a low-key way which is actually a little reminiscent of Dalek. The twist of the Ice Warrior abandoning the armour was a nice new twist which didn't override any earlier Ice Warrior story. David Warner is always welcome in Doctor Who.

I rather liked the resolution, too. May be a little deus ex machina, but it subverted what originally seemed to be the overdone thing of nicely asking the villain not to kill everybody.


On an unrelated matter, it is easy to get lost on the TARDIS Wiki (https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Penis_gourd).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 18, 2021, 09:56:43 PM
D'you know, I honestly hadn't considered that until you mentioned it there?
It's hinted at with the Underground map lunchbox (I think?) that the Doctor gives the Intelligence the idea for The Web of Fear. What always bugged me is that he seems to only have the vaguest memory of what the Intelligence is, which always felt really... weird.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 19, 2021, 01:31:48 AM
I dunno, from the Doctor's POV, he encountered The Great Intelligence about a thousand years ago. What's weirder for me is trying to build it up as a big bad for the season, but basically relegating it to a supporting role in two of its three episodes.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 19, 2021, 01:44:44 AM
I dunno, from the Doctor's POV, he encountered The Great Intelligence about a thousand years ago.
I get that, but it's the only time he ever behaves like that. He recognises the Macra immediately, for example.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: samadriel on September 19, 2021, 02:28:34 AM
What if Wi-Fi downloaded us, huh? It is the most obvious Doctor Who idea ever. It feels like a parody. What if Netflix streamed demons? What if biscuits could dunk us? What if pants wore humans? What if pillows tried to take over the planet while we sleep?

What if carbon neutral = Sontarans?!?!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 19, 2021, 04:14:58 AM
I get that, but it's the only time he ever behaves like that. He recognises the Macra immediately, for example.

Different Doctor, different memories knocking around. There's s line somewhere from, I think either Smith or Capaldi, about how memories can get jumbled up from incarnation to incarnation.

Also, a big fuck-off crab is instantly memorable, whereas in The Snowmen he's dealing with a creature that is presenting itself in a different form to the one he was familiar with before.

(Also, god I'm an idiot - I only just made the snowmen/abominable snowman/yeti connection.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on September 19, 2021, 05:09:42 AM
I hate The Snowmen. It's Clara, and by extension Moffat, at their most smarmy and obnoxious. Probably the only Moffat episode I really dislike. 
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 19, 2021, 06:15:34 AM
Different Doctor, different memories knocking around. There's s line somewhere from, I think either Smith or Capaldi, about how memories can get jumbled up from incarnation to incarnation.

Also, a big fuck-off crab is instantly memorable, whereas in The Snowmen he's dealing with a creature that is presenting itself in a different form to the one he was familiar with before.

(Also, god I'm an idiot - I only just made the snowmen/abominable snowman/yeti connection.)

Also whenever the second Doctor talked about that story some time later, he referred to “the Yeti”.  Not the Great Intelligence.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 19, 2021, 10:11:57 AM
I hate The Snowmen. It's Clara, and by extension Moffat, at their most smarmy and obnoxious. Probably the only Moffat episode I really dislike.

I think it's the best appearance of Clara - a fantastic introduction for a version of the character we should have kept, revealing positive qualities before we knew how Jenna Coleman's acting limitations would stink the show up.

Lots of positives:  the Doctor is in post-Ponds grump mode, not entirely wanting to have companions again, so showing a less needy side than we sometimes get.  His TARDIS is parked in a cloud which is some fantastic children's storybook stuff.  We get the introduction of the new console room plus the first of many experiments in the camera travelling from outside to inside the TARDIS in one apparent shot, which here works pretty well.  Clara's Victorian counterpart is so much more interesting than her modern day version.  Her aloofness, her somewhat repressed responses, all can be hand-waved as deliberately stemming from her Victorian background rather than Coleman's limited acting.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Lungpuddle on September 19, 2021, 03:46:08 PM
I like the Snowmen. I have a theory that the Doctor is sulking not because Amy and Rory died but because Amy chose Rory over him, so while it was perfectly possible to return and save them he chose not to. I'm hoping now I've typed it out I can forget it, because it's a shit theory. I found The Snowmen fun at the time and still do, and I don't hate Clara (bit baffled at the idea that Jenna Coleman did a bad job too, to be honest). The line "I said I would feed you, I didn't say to who" or whatever it was made me chuckle, maybe because you can see it coming. When I first saw this one I was a bit excited about the mystery of why Clara had popped up before, which obviously hasn't held up, but it was a fun way to get the Doctor having adventures again without his attitude basically being "Oh, the Ponds/Williams are dead, I better get someone else."
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 20, 2021, 12:18:39 PM
Is anyone else distracted beyond all reason in The Bells of St John by how the edit doesn’t quite work when the Doctor passes his coat in front of the camera?


I’m talking about where they conceal the join between the TARDIS being on the street and the TARDIS suddenly being on a plane.



Which is, by the way, a fantastic aspect of the series 7-10 TARDIS set.  They built it in a manner that allowed them to erect sets immediately in contact with the TARDIS doors, working to transition from both the inside and outside.  So in this episode the TARDIS doors could open to the inside of an aeroplane, but you also get simple things like the TARDIS being parked inside a school stationery cupboard, and being able to follow from one to the other in an unbroken shot.  This is all another reason why Whittaker’s TARDIS was such a retrograde step.


But yeah, the join when the Doctor floats his coat past the camera:  eesh.  I can’t let it go.  Brilliant idea but it needed more care with the camera placement.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 20, 2021, 02:52:09 PM
Yes, it's immensely annoying, especially because I really enjoy that episode as a bravura romp, and it comes during a really thrilling escalation of drama.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 20, 2021, 07:58:27 PM
Ghost Light An Adventure in Space and Time Twin Peaks The Return Quatermass and the Ghost That Simpsons Halloween Episode in the 3D Universe Hide is a an episode that certainly has ideas in there. I'm not sure what else it has.

First off, the whole thing of Clara getting all emotional and saying they are all ghosts is silly melodramatic nonsense that doesn't particularly serve a purpose to the rest of the episode.

Then The Doctor watches an old episode of Futurama which parodies Star Trek and realises explaining things with balloons is the best way to explain a problem to the audience.

At it's core it is a pretty good idea. A time traveller from the future lost in the a pocket universe tied to the past. I just don't feel like it is executed anywhere near as well as it could have been. It initially seems to want to be a ghost story, but that aesthetic and approach is completely dropped early on. I feel like the Clara storyline being forced on the episode was to its detriment. I'm not a fan of the TARDIS being sentient, so it is just as off-putting here as it was in The Doctor's Wife. Maybe I would have liked this more if I didn't know the resolution to Clara's storyline already.

The ending was nice and sweet but was too abrupt. I wanted a nice shot of the two monsters reunited with some lovely sunset behind them.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 20, 2021, 08:47:04 PM
Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS is primarily a corridor. The weird thing is that the first episode of Castrovalva was also primarily a corridor yet it felt much more expansive. I'm not sure what it was that made this feel so small despite having the odd "big" room in the TARDIS. They had the Eye of Harmony and it still didn't feel expansive to me. The location work near the end was good to make it seem bigger.

The episode improves when The Doctor and Clara reunite but then we reach the whole "it was just a prank bro" reveal. It feels like a missed opportunity as a big red button reset episode. I don't mind a big exciting episode which needs to be reset as it would otherwise change too much. This all just seemed rather tame yet still had a big reset at the end.

The reveal that the monster was a dead Clara was good. This isn't the first time Doctor Who has done time zombies. A three parter was originally planned for Season 27 before it was cancelled which was later adapted into the great Big Finish audio Night Thoughts.

Is it too much of a nitpick to say The Doctor felt off when he pretended he had activated a self-destruct on the TARDIS?

Clara running away from an explosion:
(https://i.imgur.com/KEMXSxv.gif)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 20, 2021, 09:05:56 PM
My biggest problem with Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS is that nothing could ever live up to that name.

The descriptions of the TARDIS interior in the various BBC and Virgin books are incredible (there's one where the TARDIS is collapsing and Tegan can actually see the entire interior from above, which is a really memorable moment) and... well, the episode isn't.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 20, 2021, 09:32:05 PM
Ahh Strax is great. Bin the rest of the characters and just have him going around misunderstanding stuff. My suggestions to fix Doctor Who. One, Strax needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine. Two, whenever Strax is not on screen, all the other characters should be asking "Where's Strax"?

The man dun fainted.

The Crimson Horror is basically fine. It does the job. I admire the fact that they tried to structure things in a different way by telling the story through the Paternoster gang's perspective until they recover The Doctor although I can't help but feel the sheer length of the flashback to how The Doctor got there takes away from the structure somewhat. The little red alien was sufficiently shit looking to somehow actually be great.

The man dun fainted again.

The episode was trundling along pretty well until the TomTom joke. That is the worst fucking thing I have ever seen. I've just watched the Budd Dwyer video, watched Vic Morrow get crushed by a helicopter and listened to Christine Chubbuck's suicide but that joke was more horrendous. Why couldn't Strax simply shoot the child?

The main dun fainted again... again!

The Doctor gurning and going "ouch" when the weird old lady with the parasite fell to her death was strange. You can't even blame it on post-regenerative weirdness, like The 6th Doctor with the acid bath.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 20, 2021, 09:39:20 PM
The only Gatiss episode I properly like, an unusually structured story with a decent mystery in it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on September 20, 2021, 10:17:14 PM
It's a pretty good episode. As long as you ignore the embarrassing sonic/stiffy joke.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 20, 2021, 10:32:17 PM
The Cybermen are my favourite Doctor Who villain. I can't help buy feel a sense of dread every time they appear in the new series. How much more can they ruin them? How about merge the Cybusmen with the Mondasian ones so they are now all the same. Oh no. Even worse they just took a load of ideas from Star Trek and used them for the Cybermen. Oh and they gave them super speed. What the fuck?

This is just awful. Sorry Nightmare in Silver but it is just my favourite monster being ruined before my eyes. How many times can I say "oh for fuck sake" in an episode? When the Doctor was converted into a Cyberman and started acting wacky? When the Cyberman dropped his hand and it started walking like Kryten's did? Mr Clever the Cyber-leader Doctor? A new shit catchphrase? Of just fuck off.

A Cyberman playing chess? Doctor Who did it (https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Silver_Turk_(audio_story))!

Can't help but feel it would have been lovely if they added some sort of gap or glitch in between McGann and Eccleston in the run through between regenerations, considering what is revealed in the following episode. Not enough to give it away a week before but enough for people to look back on and realise it was an easter egg.

One and only bit I liked was the Doctor stopping the takeover using a golden ticket. I guess the resolution was inventive in tying up Cyberman resources on the chess problem.

So the last "new" Matt Smith episode I see is also my least favourite. Such a shame. At least I know the next three are a big improvement.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 20, 2021, 11:19:22 PM
Ahh Strax is great.

I only saw The Name of the Doctor for the first time a few months ago when the steelbook of the specials came out. Feels a little more satisfying now with the build-up as well as the background on The Great Intelligence. That being said, I liked it when I first saw it too.

Clara's whole story is a good one. I can see why people dislike Clara for littering herself through The Doctor's timeline, but the way I see it is that she isn't the genesis of The Doctor or anything like that, she is just a person who chased the bad guy through his timeline.

It really is an absolutely masterful reveal. The "name" that is teased in The Name of the Doctor is... The Doctor. A secret incarnation that no longer uses his name. Perhaps a little too explicit in the explanation but that is an extremely minor nitpick in an otherwise fine setup for the 50th.

I think this is a great example of how utterly shit Chibnall is. Not that it needs a comparison to Moffat in order to reveal this. Here we see Moffat build up the mystery and excitement of one of the biggest unknowns in the show's history, what is The Doctor's name? And then he doesn't reveal it which in many ways only builds on the mystery without treading on the past whilst also emphasising how important his identity as "The Doctor" is. Meanwhile, Chibnall completely obliterates everything in order to add an infinite number of Doctors and turn the Doctor into a completely different alien to his race because he had a fanfiction when he was a child about a continuity blip in a random 70s episode. MORON.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 21, 2021, 12:03:46 AM
looking forward to some season 8 opinions. i've surprised myself by how much joy i've had thus far. time heist was a liiiil bit of a slog but i'm genuinely having an absolute ball
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 21, 2021, 12:07:02 AM
I don't hate Nightmare in Silver as much as some people do, but I agree that the wackiness is over the top. I quite like Mr. Clever as a name.

The Name of the Doctor is a wonderful episode, although I do dislike the Clara thing. I think mostly for suggesting which TARDIS to use. She just becomes too important. Which wouldn't bother me quite so much if she was actually a good companion.

Time for the biggy now eh? Day of the Doctor is actually one of the few times I've yelled at the TV screen in joy. A wonderful episode.
I don't envy the season 8 & 9 trawl though, when I rewatched them last I found them an absolute slog.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 21, 2021, 12:09:53 AM
I don't envy the season 8 & 9 trawl though, when I rewatched them last I found them an absolute slog.

have never understood the vitriol for the capaldi seasons. people seem to hate practically everything about them from the music to the acting, editing blah blah. i'm not laying this at your feet but i never vibed with a lot of the hate. just seemed like contrived nerdom
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 21, 2021, 12:13:15 AM
The Name of the Doctor is a wonderful episode, although I do dislike the Clara thing. I think mostly for suggesting which TARDIS to use. She just becomes too important.

The feeling I got was that events had been manipulated by The Great Intelligence and that was one of them she needed to correct.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 21, 2021, 12:19:25 AM
I liked a lot of 8 when it was first on, possibly because there were some clever plots, but once I knew what was coming the surprise had gone and instead I could only focus on the incredibly grey, uninteresting look of the thing, Clara being awful, nobody quite knowing how to write Capaldi's Doctor, the moon being an egg, CyberBrig, Danny Pink being Are Brave Boy with an impossible great-great-great grandson, Maisie Williams and Rebecca Front being unusually wooden, a bunch of two-parters that felt as long as a 1960s six-parter and fucking Sleep No More.
There's still plenty to like in there, but also a lot that I find tedious. Series 10 I absolutely love, though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: samadriel on September 21, 2021, 04:24:14 AM
My biggest problem with Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS is that nothing could ever live up to that name.
I think The Invasion of Time set a pretty low bar for the depths of the TARDIS (although I loved it as a kid simply because it was the depths of the TARDIS. "Yesss, utility closets and hospital corridors forever!").

The EDAs had the Butterfly Room, a meadow inside the TARDIS where the Doctor's living butterfly collection lived. They also had a Volkswagen Beetle parked in the console room, which is cool.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 21, 2021, 07:35:17 AM
I’ve generally loved being shown parts of the TARDIS beyond the console room, especially during the Davison years, but there is a risk that the more that’s shown, the more the inside of the TARDIS starts feeling like an entire world or universe of its own.  And I’m not entirely sure that helps the exploration outwards.


Also, I think the TARDIS should feel comforting and safe.  Making it feel too unknown and vast can work against that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 21, 2021, 11:04:37 AM
Yeah, the butterfly room in the EDAs is absolutely wonderful, just a really great visual idea that's also pretty simple. Same as the library in the NAs, where you always manage to find what you're looking for (even if you don't know you're looking for it) straight away. Both add a sense of wonder and mystery without, as Replies says, ruining the welcoming atmosphere of the TARDIS.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 21, 2021, 03:19:44 PM
I don’t know whether it’s my neurodiversity, but I feel really stressed whenever something threatening can casually break into the console room.  Like Chibnall was doing in series 12.  Monsters popping up left right and centre and saying “you’re under arrest”.  I always feel it should be a haven, a space completely free of outside pressures.  Nothing can “get” you but the Doctor’s own ethics keeps him or her engaging with the outside world and taking responsibility when at fault.


I know there are exceptions, like now and then things go wrong and the TARDIS becomes menacing or possessed, but by and large it should be a space that brings calm and safety.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 21, 2021, 03:30:12 PM
I don’t know whether it’s my neurodiversity, but I feel really stressed whenever something threatening can casually break into the console room.

i remember a particular feeling of horror from season 3 finale when john simm pinches the tardis. something about the phrase "he's cannibalised the tardis". nasty
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: lipsink on September 21, 2021, 05:09:47 PM
Series 8 I enjoyed a lot more on rewatch. It feels quite fresh and it's such a surprise that it's largely the same production team as the Smith era. Sure, it has all the problems mentioned above but it's quite fun. Series 9 is an absolute dog's dinner and when I sat down to rewatch it recently I could only be bothered watching 'Heaven Sent'. The rest is a mess and just sooo dull too with all the needless 2 parters. Series 10 is great though (they finally got Capaldi's Doctor right, gave him 2 great companions and it contains the best NuWho Cyberman story). Definitely Moffat's best since Series 5.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 21, 2021, 05:22:19 PM
i remember a particular feeling of horror from season 3 finale when john simm pinches the tardis. something about the phrase "he's cannibalised the tardis". nasty

There is scope for some horror by enemies invading and exploiting the TARDIS like this, but it entirely works because it is otherwise a safe space.  If it feels like rented accommodation that any fucker can step into and say “out” then it’s going to lose that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 21, 2021, 05:27:46 PM
Do you reckon Chibnall is someone you’d find to be wrong about everything if you ended up chatting with him in a pub?


Brexit?  “Yeah mostly good for the UK I’d say.”

Loud screeching noises during the night?  “Wonderful things.”

Say something that rhymes with “onion”.  “Chief Wiggum.”

What colour is this apple?  “Meringue”
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Endicott on September 21, 2021, 05:57:31 PM
Does he have some Jidoon teleport right into the Tardis or something? (I haven't watched it.) I mean, that breaks everything said about the Tardis in 50 years of Who. Is Chibbo so shit that I can comfortably think of anything he's done as not canon? (The answer is yes)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: frajer on September 21, 2021, 06:08:12 PM
Do you reckon Chibnall is someone you’d find to be wrong about everything if you ended up chatting with him in a pub?


Brexit?  “Yeah mostly good for the UK I’d say.”

Loud screeching noises during the night?  “Wonderful things.”

Say something that rhymes with “onion”.  “Chief Wiggum.”

What colour is this apple?  “Meringue”

I reckon he’d probably lack any opinion on most things. His writing certainly does scream mutter of a man utterly uninterested in how and why human beings interact with each other and the world. #BennehRIP
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on September 21, 2021, 06:18:36 PM
I don’t know whether it’s my neurodiversity, but I feel really stressed whenever something threatening can casually break into the console room.  Like Chibnall was doing in series 12.  Monsters popping up left right and centre and saying “you’re under arrest”.  I always feel it should be a haven, a space completely free of outside pressures.  Nothing can “get” you but the Doctor’s own ethics keeps him or her engaging with the outside world and taking responsibility when at fault.

Yeah, we've discussed this before.  It's really really horrible.  As a little kid I always had the feeling that as long as you could get back to the TARDIS, you'd be safe.  Obviously there would be plot-driven reasons this wasn't usually possible, but IF you could do it, you'd be SAFE.

Not any more... the monsters can come and get you ANYWHERE.  As I said at the time(s) (edited):

By the way, I'm getting increasingly disturbed by how goddam porous Jodie's TARDIS is.  First Kerblam!, then the whatever-it-was's in Skyfall that I've forgotten about already, and now some alien teleport advertising cards (sudden thought: a little lift from HHGTTG's "body debit cards" there).

At this rate the massed hordes of Genghis Khan would be through the doors with barely a nod of his pointy-horned furry hat.

One more thing I forgot to mention: the Judoon bit at the end REALLY pissed me off.  Yet again a super-porous TARDIS... this really really upsets me... the TARDIS should pretty much always be a safe haven for the terrified kid hiding behind the sofa: once you and The Doctor are back inside the blue box, you should always feel safe.  I can honestly say of all the things Chibnall has done to the show, this upsets me the most.  Which is psychologically interesting, I guess.

If you click through to the first one, there's a fair bit of discussion on it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on September 21, 2021, 06:20:16 PM
Does he have some Jidoon teleport right into the Tardis or something? (I haven't watched it.) I mean, that breaks everything said about the Tardis in 50 years of Who.

Yup, as you can see above.  Easily the worst of the break-ins.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on September 21, 2021, 08:48:48 PM
I mean, that breaks everything said about the Tardis in 50 years of Who.

When a bloody junk mail satellite can breach the Tardis defences (Greatest Show In The Galaxy), then bets on that are off.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on September 21, 2021, 09:08:35 PM
Yeah, that was mentioned back in January last year (https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,73692.msg4066770.html#msg4066770).

Not great, and certainly no reason to carry on with it, especially after Eccleston declared very early on in the new series: "Trust me, the massed hordes of Genghis Khan couldn't get through those doors, and believe me they've tried."  (Quote approx.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 21, 2021, 09:17:36 PM
Also, in Spyfall:

Quote
YASMIN: I didn't know things could get into the Tardis like that.
DOCTOR: Neither did I.

Not even consistent within Chibnall's tenure.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 22, 2021, 05:47:26 PM
Inspired by JamesTC's posts, I've decided to go back and rewatch Who from 2005 onwards - most of which I haven't seen since transmission - although I won't be able to keep up the same pace that he's managing.

Anyway, Rose!

When it aired, I think I was mostly quite hopeful about the series, but with the gnawing concern that the burping bin was shit, the focus on inner city London life was a myopic given all of time and space etc, and that it was a tad frenetic. In retrospect, my concerns were stupid. Well, except for the bin - that is a bit naff.

First off, I love the frantic pacing in this. Maybe it's just that Chibnall's series - for all his occasional attempts at humour and despite the best efforts of Sacha Dhawan - mostly has the defeated, listless air of a drizzly Monday morning, but I was absolutely delighted by that opening montage, not least for how well it tells the viewer pretty much everything they need to know about Rose, her world and the thrust of the show in just two and a half minutes. Look (gonna put this in a quote box for easy skipping)...

Quote
First shot: Ooh, it's the moon! This is is a show about space, I guess. Ah, and there's Earth. And - wheeee! - London. So this is a show about space and London.

Second shot: A digital clock? So this is a show about space and time and London, then?

Then: Rose gets out of bed. Her hair and her room are a mess, but brightly coloured - she's clearly young and busy. She rushes out of her bedroom, kisses Jackie on the cheek and rushes out to work. Jackie waits till she's gone and grabs her phone. Instantly, we understand the relationship here: Rose the put-upon provider, taking on responsibility beyond her years - and her mother, the overgrown child.

Then: Fast-motion footage of London (that time symbolism again!) as Rose goes to work (apparently not in any kind of uniform, but still), then gets lunch with
Mickey, who dances around like an overgrown child and puts food on Rose's nose twice (she laughs both times but I think we're supposed to recognise he's a bit of an annoying tit).

Then: As Rose tries to leave work with her female colleagues she its stopped by the security guard and told she has to take lottery money down to a bloke in the basement - a handy visual metaphor for Rose being buried by obligation and mundanity.

I even quite like Murray Gold's cacophonous clamouring of bassline, beats, brass, sci-fi noises and a bloody choir. Maybe they've altered the mix for the HBO version, because I can even hear the dialogue! Granted, it might grate after a bit. But there are some lovely moments of playfulness with the soundtrack, like Gold's score temporarily turning diegetic and being piped through the speakers in Henrik's department store for a single shot, and the sounds of the Kennedy assassination as Clive shows Rose the photos of the Doctor in Dallas. This is pretty basic stuff, I know, but it hints at a flamboyance and love of drama that's just lost in the series right now.

Poor Clive, by the way - a glimpse of the darker side of Davies's writing comes when he dies, and the direction emphasises that his wife and kid just watched him get shot in the fucking face.

Speaking of which, the direction isn't as bad as I was expecting, given Boak's rep, and while bits of it are very broadly acted (especially TV's Sex Pest Noel Clarke's capering around as Mickey) and the Doctor's climactic struggle against the Autons feels a bit stretched out, given what's in the script (and the lack of any recent precursors for tone), I can't blame him for going a bit "big". Remember that he shot this in the same block as the farting Slitheen...

Not that I want to do down RTD, mind you - while the push-button resolution (though less obnoxious here than in some other episodes) is a bit pat, his character work and dialogue is brilliant. Everyone, even Mickey, even Clive's baffled wife ("Someone saw your website... and it's a woman?"), is a plausible, rounded character as written, and even the long stretch of exposition - shot as one long take, as Rose and The Doctor leave the Powell Estate - about the Autons and The Doctor's identity is a joy to watch, as Rose gives as good as she gets, turning The Doctor's mocking criticisms back on him, refusing to be fobbed off or insulted. Christ, she gets more characterisation in that two-minute sequence than Yaz has had to date.

7/10 - would probably be 6/10 if the last Who I'd seen hadn't been The Timeless Children.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 22, 2021, 06:07:06 PM
I feel like certain excesses such as the poor mixes putting Murray Gold's music on top of everything didn't come in until a little later.

Eccleston strikes me as too cheery to have just come out of the Time War. I've not listened to the Big Finish audios with him but some form of post-War Doctor stories with Eccleston to bridge The Day of the Doctor and Rose would work well. This is bearing in mind that The War Doctor doesn't remember the altered resolution to the Time War and still believes he killed all Time Lords and Daleks.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 22, 2021, 06:12:33 PM
Eccleston strikes me as too cheery to have just come out of the Time War.

always saw it as a tears obscured by laughter type thing
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on September 22, 2021, 07:30:47 PM
Missed a trick killing off Mark Benton i reckon. He's such good value in everything he's in. Could have had him recurring as a Doctor expert for UNIT or something.

Fairly certain I watched Rose 10+ times before it aired. I sat up till 4am downloading the screener and watched it 3 times in that 24 hour period at least.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 22, 2021, 08:17:39 PM
It was lovely one day to wake up and suddenly there was another 10% or so of McGann on TV. The Night of the Doctor is more proof, if any were needed, of just how wonderful Paul McGann is. He lights up dialogue like no other. The TV Movie might not be popular yet it is still one of the most quoted Doctor Who story amongst fans. Feel really dumb that I never previously made the connection that "The Night of the Doctor" directly refers to him dropping the name The Doctor.

The Day of the Doctor had the task of pleasing so many different audiences in a seemingly impossible way, but it somehow pulls it off. Even a person like me who is more a fan of Classic Doctor Who has a level of appear here. It feels to me that the different audiences are represented by the three different Doctors. The War Doctor represents the fans of the Classic Series as he provides scathing put downs reminiscent of previous multi-Doctor stories. The Tenth Doctor is for fans of the New Series as they see their most memorable Doctor return. The Eleventh Doctor represents the current and general audience.

I'd never realised before that the reason The Moment pushes The Doctor to band together with the others in order to have the sonics work for the solution over 400 years because it is analogous to her pushing The Doctor to work for 400 years through the incarnations on another solution to save Gallifrey.

The Zygon element of the story feels rushed and maybe a waste of an iconic villain finally returning after their previous one and only Classic Series outing. Yet somehow it doesn't even matter. It is like The Five Doctors in that you are in for a nostalgic ride, so you overlook many of the flaws whilst watching and just enjoy.

All being said, I wouldn't compare it too favourably to The Five Doctors. The Day of the Doctor is breathless in order to get through the complex story whereas The Five Doctors is only hectic in the sense of throwing more old friends and enemies on screen but has an incredibly simple story which better necessitates all the old faces. The Five Doctors might not work as an exciting adventure for a general audience in the way The Day of the Doctor does but fuck the general audience.

Even so, it is to the stories great credit that it can stand alongside The Three Doctors and The Five Doctors as a classic and iconic anniversary story.

The Curator is mad. I initially thought it was logically silly but actually if you consider that only the latest incarnation remembers multi-Doctor encounters, which is basically stated at in the same scene when The War Doctor departs, it does work as a fun little vision of a distant Doctor that is never to be seen. Unless they use CGI at some distant point to "bring back" Tom Baker as The Doctor. Bound to happen now that I think about it.

Why is there a big tractor tyre in a random shack in a desert?

The bit with the rabbit was the best bit. I liked that rabbit. It was cute.

Steven Moffat knew they were called roundels. He referred to them as "the round things" but he knew. He knew.

It is so hilarious to think that Chibnall has murdered all of the Time Lords after this. Completely undermines the whole story and in particular the Tom Baker cameo which is all about Gallifrey being saved. He is so shit!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 22, 2021, 08:44:22 PM
The War Doctor represents the fans of the Classic Series as he provides scathing put downs reminiscent of previous multi-Doctor stories.
Not just that, he feels like a disgruntled classic-era fan in being utterly dismayed at the new series Doctors and their, shall we say, broader characteristics, and I love how Moffat's clearly written him so in a fond way. It really feels like he understands that mindset, even if he doesn't agree with it himself. My initial response to the existence of the War Doctor was that of dismay - not dissimilar to the general reaction to the Timeless Child thing - but him being written like that was great, and his character brought so much pathos to the story.

That said, part of me is still sad Moffat didn't give it to McGann. I get him not especially being the most suitable Doctor for the role, but fuck, imagine a full-length TV episode with him in. It'll never happen now. Unless Chibnall gives it a go, and then it'll be a missed opportunity.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on September 22, 2021, 08:55:07 PM
The Curator scene is one of my very favourite scenes in all of Doctor Who. Baker obviously spoiled the surprise, but it was still thrilling to hear his voice. He and Smith are both brilliant. If push comes to shove, these are my two favourite Doctors. Smith can barely contain his glee at standing in front of Tom fucking Baker while he improvises a load of mad rubbish (I think some of it is improvised), who also is obviously having a great time. Yeah it’s nonsense but it’s also absolute magic.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on September 22, 2021, 08:57:50 PM
All being said, I wouldn't compare it too favourably to The Five Doctors. The Day of the Doctor is breathless in order to get through the complex story whereas The Five Doctors is only hectic in the sense of throwing more old friends and enemies on screen but has an incredibly simple story which better necessitates all the old faces.

I don't know if I am failing to follow you here but are you saying that The Five Doctors is better than Day of the Doctor?

I mean fair play if that's how you feel, it's just that I didn't realise that there were people who thought that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 22, 2021, 09:01:39 PM
always saw it as a tears obscured by laughter type thing

Yes; it's the best way to excuse the fact that Eccleston was as clumsy with the comical stuff as McCoy was with anything approximating rage.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 22, 2021, 09:04:02 PM
I don't know if I am failing to follow you here but are you saying that The Five Doctors is better than Day of the Doctor?

I mean fair play if that's how you feel, it's just that I didn't realise that there were people who thought that.

Definitely! The Five Doctors is just a wonderfully simple story which enables the laundry list of characters that were needed to be included at short notice and pepper with some classic Terrance Dicks dialogue. It is the most quotable Doctor Who story ever made, one of the most iconic and one of the most important.

As I say, Day is up there. But for me it isn't quite as good as The Three Doctors or The Five Doctors.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on September 22, 2021, 09:06:18 PM
Fair enough! I regard Day as one of the great Doctor Who stories, and the only multi-Doctor story that actually bothers to have a decent story.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 22, 2021, 09:26:37 PM
I think Day of the Doctor is the best multi-Doctor story.  It just manages to tick every box in a way that The Five Doctors neither does nor had to do, and does more than anybody reasonable expected would be possible.

The Five Doctors is a fine pantomime romp, absolutely charming but there's no getting away from its failure to fit in all its assembled characters, the feebleness of some of the execution (oh!  Doctor I have tumbled down this molehill and must be rescued with a winch) and the disappointment that The Five Doctors really equals the functioning core of The Three Doctors plus Peter Davison and an imposter in a wig.  It's delightful, it's a nostalgic dive, I love watching it as part of an escalating celebration of the show (along with DVD extras like the Nationwide interviews and Blue Peter clips), and I do adore it.  But it's not better than Day of the Doctor.


If you haven't seen The Five Doctors with the David Tennant and co. commentary, seek it out.  It's a hidden extra on the DVD and is an absolute barrage of fondness and nostalgia.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 22, 2021, 09:38:38 PM
The Five Doctors is a lot of fun, but it got the issue of a lot of '80s Who in just feeling very slightly off in places.
The Day of the Doctor would probably be a candidate for my all-time top 10 Who stories, though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on September 22, 2021, 10:05:49 PM
I'd rate all other multi-doctor episodes above DOTD. A few great scenes and moments but nowhere near as good as the rest in my opinion.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 22, 2021, 10:15:27 PM
Just want to double check that you're aware you're rating The Two Doctors above Day of the Doctor there.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on September 22, 2021, 10:19:13 PM
Just want to double check that you're aware you're rating The Two Doctors above Day of the Doctor there.

Absolutely.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 22, 2021, 10:26:51 PM
Absolutely.

Second.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 22, 2021, 10:33:36 PM
I feel like certain excesses such as the poor mixes putting Murray Gold's music on top of everything didn't come in until a little later.

Eccleston strikes me as too cheery to have just come out of the Time War. I've not listened to the Big Finish audios with him but some form of post-War Doctor stories with Eccleston to bridge The Day of the Doctor and Rose would work well. This is bearing in mind that The War Doctor doesn't remember the altered resolution to the Time War and still believes he killed all Time Lords and Daleks.

At the time, I got the impression that The Doctor was trying - unconvincingly - to keep up a facade of silliness and flippancy, while actually hurting inside. I think that comes across in the long bit of banter he has with Rose, that ends with him warning her to go away and forget he ever existed. Granted, Eccles isn't very comfortable when asked to give something a light touch, but I think the scripts use that as a strength, not a weakness.

Might change my opinion on rewatching the rest of his episodes, though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 22, 2021, 10:34:53 PM
Missed a trick killing off Mark Benton i reckon. He's such good value in everything he's in. Could have had him recurring as a Doctor expert for UNIT or something.

Yeah, I'm guessing that was to wrongfoot the audience, since he's built up as an important character and obviously Benton has worked with RTD before. Blam! Anyone can die, bitches! Well, unless they're in the opening credits.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 22, 2021, 11:58:24 PM
I'd rate all other multi-doctor episodes above DOTD. A few great scenes and moments but nowhere near as good as the rest in my opinion.

You know that thing where people have staggeringly different opinions and it blows your mind a bit?


I suspect you don't because according to this we are complete opposites and we will never make sense to each other.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 23, 2021, 12:31:46 AM
Absolutely.
But The Two Doctors is urine.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ron Maels Moustache on September 23, 2021, 07:50:31 AM
Missed a trick killing off Mark Benton i reckon. He's such good value in everything he's in. Could have had him recurring as a Doctor expert for UNIT or something.

Fairly certain I watched Rose 10+ times before it aired. I sat up till 4am downloading the screener and watched it 3 times in that 24 hour period at least.

I remember burning it as a VCD (remember those?) so I could watch on my DVD player in glorious MPEG-1 quality. I also seem to recall everyone at the time assuming the opening title graphics weren't finalised in the leaked version as surely that wasn't what they were going with. Ha.

There was such a buzz around the show then, the anticipation of it coming back after so long was palpable. I really miss that feeling about Dr Who.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Deanjam on September 23, 2021, 08:51:31 AM
Yeah, I don't care for much of RTD's era, but I miss the excitement and enthusiasm around it. He was a great hype man for the show. I would watch shows like Blue Peter just because he was gonna be on it.

I stopped regular watching Who in series 8/9. It's interesting to hear such praise for series 10 as I only remember watching the first episode of that. So maybe I'll give it a go.

Overall I just want a show that produces fun TV. I don't need it to have hidden depths, or change the world. Just entertain me would be enough. The current version is just incredibly dull. Boring characters. Boring stories. Boring look. I'm boring myself just writing about it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Gurke and Hare on September 24, 2021, 03:18:16 PM
RTD back to succeed Chibnall!

https://www.doctorwho.tv/news/?article=russell-t-davies-to-return-as-doctor-who-showrunner
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Deanjam on September 24, 2021, 03:21:57 PM
That's very surprising. Glad to see someone back with enthusiasm and talent. Hopefully it won't be just an attempt to redo what he did before. Presumably he's grown and changed as a person and writer in the time since he left. Should be interesting.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Gurke and Hare on September 24, 2021, 03:22:44 PM
Also, hopefully people won't be allowed to wander around the set with their cock hanging out this time.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on September 24, 2021, 03:25:04 PM
Holy fuck! Brilliant. Tell me it’s not a joke!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 24, 2021, 03:26:40 PM
Holy fuck! Brilliant. Tell me it’s not a joke!

No, somebody really did wander round with their cock out on set.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Deanjam on September 24, 2021, 03:28:03 PM
Also, hopefully people won't be allowed to wander around the set with their cock hanging out this time.

Hopefully a better run production in regards to behaviour. Got to imagine it will be. Bizarre to think that there was no Twitter when the show came back.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 24, 2021, 03:28:08 PM
WHAT IS THIS A JOKE???

no fucking way. not sure how to feel about this actually

whaattttt

That's very surprising. Glad to see someone back with enthusiasm and talent. Hopefully it won't be just an attempt to redo what he did before.

big yes
fuck i hope not
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on September 24, 2021, 03:30:48 PM
It's legit!

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-russell-t-davies-showrunner-return-newsupdate/ (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-russell-t-davies-showrunner-return-newsupdate/)

What a lovely surprise. Amazing really.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on September 24, 2021, 03:30:57 PM
Good news overall, but good god, they must be desperate. Has he only come back because it was either this or the show going off air?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 24, 2021, 03:33:07 PM
i absolutely can't take another tennant. gimme an ecclescake please. i'd love an older lady actually. i said rebecca font before. please!

alice lowe! fuck that would be good
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on September 24, 2021, 03:33:39 PM
I genuinely never thought he would return but can honestly say that this news has made me the most excited for the show since, probably since he left really. I wonder if this narrows down candidates for the next Doctor in that he casts people he’s used before in a lot of his work.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ham Bap on September 24, 2021, 03:38:56 PM
Also, hopefully people won't be allowed to wander around the set with their cock hanging out this time.

No more Daleks?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 24, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
this is like doctor who's New Coke™
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on September 24, 2021, 03:42:12 PM
Fucking hell, never ever saw that coming. I'm not the biggest fan of his tenure but he makes Chibnall look like... well, like Chibnall
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on September 24, 2021, 03:45:02 PM
Good news overall, but good god, they must be desperate. Has he only come back because it was either this or the show going off air?

There might be something in that. Either way, the BBC must be absolutely delighted.

After five long years of Chinballs mediocrity, it'll be strange watching a version of Doctor Who overseen by someone who can actually write.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mothman on September 24, 2021, 03:45:24 PM
Also, hopefully people won't be allowed to wander around the set with their cock hanging out this time.

“Whah, suh! Ah ahm SHOWCKED and DEESMAYUD bah yoah vile calumnies! As thuh president of thuh Chicken Farmuhs Fedyrashun of Americuh, ah will be contacting muh congressman - a close personal friend - to insist yoah show will NOT be shown ovah heeyuh!”
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on September 24, 2021, 03:45:45 PM
this is like doctor who's New Coke™

A terrible mistake and a public relations disaster?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on September 24, 2021, 03:46:34 PM
Jesus fudgeknocking Christ - this is HUUUUUUGE!

This and the return of ABBA - what a wonderful time to be alive!

next doctor : Lydia West ?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: McDead on September 24, 2021, 03:46:50 PM
I'm surprised and delighted.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on September 24, 2021, 03:47:14 PM
Didn't expect this. Absolutely over the moon about it. Literally fucking buzzing.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 24, 2021, 03:47:59 PM
A terrible mistake and a public relations disaster?

rather

Quote
By 1985, Coca-Cola had been losing market share to diet soft drinks and non-cola beverages for several years. Blind taste tests indicated that consumers seemed to prefer the sweeter taste of rival Pepsi, and so the Coca-Cola recipe was reformulated. The American public reacted negatively, and New Coke was considered a major failure.

The company reintroduced the original Coke formula within three months, rebranded "Coca-Cola Classic", resulting in a significant sales boost; this led to speculation that the New Coke formula had been a marketing ploy to stimulate sales of the original Coca-Cola, which the company has denied. The story of New Coke remains influential as a cautionary tale against tampering with a well-established and successful brand.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on September 24, 2021, 03:53:47 PM
rather


Oh you meant Chinballs! Oh I get it now.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Leo2112 on September 24, 2021, 03:55:26 PM
A Russell tweet from one of the watchalongs last year:

https://twitter.com/russelldavies63/status/1251957695353061376

Quote
This isn’t quite so exciting now that we know 557 other Doctors could have turned up here #SubwaveNetwork

He'd probably be the best at tidying that nonsense up.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Norton Canes on September 24, 2021, 04:00:10 PM
Expect the next Doctor to be "a tall, bald black woman wielding a flaming sword" (as per RTD's Target adaptation of 'Rose')

Michaela Coel after all?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 24, 2021, 04:01:04 PM
next doctor : Lydia West ?

oooh

A Russell tweet from one of the watchalongs last year:

comment on that made me laff "And now there are cybermen and everything is horrible"
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on September 24, 2021, 04:01:12 PM
He'd probably be the best at tidying that nonsense up.

God yes, RTD will be perfect for dismissing that with a line or two. Man's ruthless when he wants to be.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on September 24, 2021, 04:03:24 PM
Or just never refer to it again, ala 8 being half-human.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on September 24, 2021, 04:04:21 PM
That's very surprising. Glad to see someone back with enthusiasm and talent. Hopefully it won't be just an attempt to redo what he did before. Presumably he's grown and changed as a person and writer in the time since he left. Should be interesting.

Well, quite. I have nothing against the man himself, but I really don't want to see the return of Doctor Sex and more deus ex machina than I can take.

It still feels like a dangerously regressive move to me. Ah well: Time will tell, it always does and all that shite.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on September 24, 2021, 04:04:36 PM
A Russell tweet from one of the watchalongs last year:

https://twitter.com/russelldavies63/status/1251957695353061376

He'd probably be the best at tidying that nonsense up.

I suspect he'll just hand-wave it away. Best thing for it really.

EDIT: What Kelvin said.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: C_Larence on September 24, 2021, 04:04:42 PM
Well now it has to be Olly Alexander right?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on September 24, 2021, 04:06:04 PM
Or just never refer to it again, ala 8 being half-human.

Nah, give a couple of lines putting it to the grave forever. They shouldn't spend any more on it than that. Cast Chibnall's legacy in the bin with a one liner. 
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Leo2112 on September 24, 2021, 04:06:34 PM
This means Moffatt is back as showrunner in 5 years, then Chibs gets another go.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on September 24, 2021, 04:07:21 PM
Nah, give a couple of lines putting it to the grave forever. They shouldn't spend any more on it than that. Cast Chibnall's legacy in the bin with a one liner.

That's what I meant, just a cursory nod before moving on and never speaking of it again.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: McDead on September 24, 2021, 04:08:06 PM
This means Moffatt is back as showrunner in 5 years, then Chibs gets another go.

Hopefully we'll be underwater by then
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 24, 2021, 04:14:44 PM
lolllllll what

Of all the possibilities, this isn't what I was expecting. Getting him back for the 60th is good - I wonder whether it was Chibnall or the BBC who decided that he wasn't going it - and it means we're getting one Jodie episode under a competent showrunner at least. I have mixed feelings about him taking on the show after that, although I'm erring on the positive side. I still only like about a third of his run, but on the whole I feel it improved as it went along, and Children of Earth and Years & Years have shown he can do much better sci-fi in the years (& years) that have followed, so as long as it doesn't tonally revert to a Jack the Lad Doctor who fancies his companions and stupidly over the top season finales. I wonder if we'll get any of the old writers back again along with him?

I wonder whether this was a case of the BBC going "oh shit this programme's dying, we need RTD back, offer him anything he wants!" or Russell going "right, someone's going to have to sort this mess out, Doctor Who's too important to be ruined by this pillock".
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: frajer on September 24, 2021, 04:16:02 PM
Fucking hell! Get in!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 24, 2021, 04:21:05 PM

I wonder whether this was a case of the BBC going "oh shit this programme's dying, we need RTD back, offer him anything he wants!" or Russell going "right, someone's going to have to sort this mess out, Doctor Who's too important to be ruined by this pillock".

The first one, I imagine. Maybe a bit like JNT when the BBC said either you do it or the show gets canned.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: El Unicornio, mang on September 24, 2021, 04:21:08 PM
That's very surprising. Glad to see someone back with enthusiasm and talent. Hopefully it won't be just an attempt to redo what he did before. Presumably he's grown and changed as a person and writer in the time since he left. Should be interesting.

I recall really disliking the last few RTD specials (and last series he did?) with the general consensus on here being same, and it being a massive relief when Moffat came aboard and changed things up. I'd personally prefer the latter but realise I'm in the minority. If it's as good as peak RTD I'll be happy though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mothman on September 24, 2021, 04:24:16 PM
Quote
I wonder whether this was a case of the BBC going "oh shit this programme's dying, we need RTD back, offer him anything he wants!" or Russell going "right, someone's going to have to sort this mess out, Doctor Who's too important to be ruined by this pillock".

Could easily be a bit of both.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on September 24, 2021, 04:27:47 PM
New 'RTD is back' thread > > > here (https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,89637.0.html)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on September 24, 2021, 05:09:22 PM
next doctor : Lydia West ?

Yeah this is what I was coming here to say

What a time to be alive
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on September 24, 2021, 05:21:49 PM
Wow. Didn't see that coming...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 24, 2021, 05:29:17 PM
The Night of the Doctor and The Day of the Doctor were not only specials in the 50th anniversary.

The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot might be a big joke yet it is one of the most satisfying anniversary specials made for anything. Basically just did The Five Doctors thing of finding a way to get everybody in whilst making a satisfying story. It is impressive how many people who agreed to be in this. Basically this is what Kevin Smith wanted to make with Jay and Silent Bob Reboot but couldn't manage.

John Barrowman's part really was hilarious. Turns out he is secretly a guy who doesn't get his cock out all the time!

RTD was brilliant with him desperate to come back. As if anybody would let that loser back on the show!


I only rewatched An Adventure in Space and Time recently, so I'm not going to rewatch it again, but it is a special piece of television. I feel like the BBC really didn't appreciate what they had by airing it on BBC Two. Casting was wonderful, although Reece Shearsmith looks nothing like Patrick Troughton. I'm not bothered about the minor historical inaccuracies or changes.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on September 24, 2021, 05:35:30 PM
Expect the next Doctor to be "a tall, bald black woman wielding a flaming sword" (as per RTD's Target adaptation of 'Rose')

T'Nia Miller?

(Probably unwise to read too much into that line but she seems plausible...)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 24, 2021, 05:39:28 PM
Reece Shearsmith as Troughton and then, if you seek out the photos that presumably were only done for fun and shouldn’t be considered “part of it” - Mark Gatiss as Pertwee.  He looks like an elderly aunt who has forgotten the location of the ASDA customer toilet so shat herself.

It’s especially weird now that Bradley’s version of the first Doctor is canon.  (“Not as handsome as Hartnell,” my mum said during the transformation scene in Twice Upon A Time.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on September 24, 2021, 05:47:42 PM
Hartnell turns up in a few 40's films on Talking Pictures TV as a young sprout (usually attempting to cut someone's nose off with a rusty penknife) - he's quite a dish! *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* (I like his Dave Bowie pointy teeth)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 24, 2021, 06:37:55 PM
Expect the next Doctor to be "a tall, bald black woman wielding a flaming sword" (as per RTD's Target adaptation of 'Rose')

Michaela Coel after all?

I don't dare hope...

and it means we're getting one Jodie episode under a competent showrunner at least.

It doesn't, does it? Chibnall and Jodie finish in 2022; RTD's first episode is the 60th Special in 2023. He'll probably oversee the next Doctor's first scene, at the end of Chibnall's final episode, but nothing with Jodie in. (Unless of course the 60th is a multi-Doctor episode, but even then I'd have thought it'll be a bit soon to bring back 13. And anyway I hope it isn't; not really fair on the incoming Doctor to have to share their first full episode like that.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 24, 2021, 06:58:10 PM
Not seen The Time of the Doctor since it aired. It is strange now with the build-up from Series 7 that it opens so casually and silly. I guess that Moffat had a difficult job in closing the story he'd hoped to build up longer whilst also making a satisfying episode for a general audience.

The Doctor as a lone protector of a small town living through numerous generations to protect from constant invasions is lovely. It all feels very Matt Smith as well as being an appealing idea for the general audience, so it ticks two boxes needed for Matt's last story which also airs at Christmas.

I like Handles. Bring Handles back. And give him a permanent Matt Smith wig. Amusingly, he is The Doctor's longest running companion, having been with him for 300 years.

It isn't a classic regeneration story (there aren't many), but given the previous one was so unrelentingly bad, it isn't something I'm particularly disappointed with either. Moffat maybe could have done himself a favour by not inserting so much new stuff whilst answering the storylines he'd already set up but I still think he provides a satisfying conclusion to his storylines.

I wonder if it would have been better if The Doctor regenerated the moment the clock strikes 12 rather than de-ageing The Doctor so he can regenerate in the TARDIS. It robs him of his sentimental goodbye, but lets him go out in a blaze of glory. I did love his final moments though, as it was the antithesis of the shite that was Tennant's finale. This was a regeneration scene that gave itself credit but also respected the next era to come. I liked the incredibly quick change too.


The End of Time >>>>>> Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways > Planet of the Spiders > Logopolis > The Brink of Death > The Time of the Doctor > The Tenth Planet > The Caves of Androzani > The War Games - In terms of full length regeneration episodes this is.

Looking at the list, it is quite disappointing really. Aside from the fact that McCoy and McGann never got full length final stories, we have a fair few that just hover around meh. It is only one actually awful story, but I think only Androzani and The War Games are exceptional pieces of Doctor Who.


So Series 7 was better than I expected overall. Whilst I didn't expect the nadir of Nightmare in Silver (though I've subsequently heard I'm not alone in hating it) it is overall a series with a reasonable number of good entries.

It would be unfair to refer to the Matt Smith era as diminishing returns as that is a little harsh, but it is a case that each series is progressively not as good as the previous one. From what I remember of the episodes I saw of Series 8, this downward trend is likely to continue, unfortunately. I do hope to get something out of Series 8 and 9 because I do really want to like Capaldi in the role. He was my most wanted choice because 12 was announced.

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 24, 2021, 07:15:03 PM
It doesn't, does it? Chibnall and Jodie finish in 2022; RTD's first episode is the 60th Special in 2023. He'll probably oversee the next Doctor's first scene, at the end of Chibnall's final episode, but nothing with Jodie in. (Unless of course the 60th is a multi-Doctor episode, but even then I'd have thought it'll be a bit soon to bring back 13. And anyway I hope it isn't; not really fair on the incoming Doctor to have to share their first full episode like that.)
Oh, for some reason I thought the 60th was Jodie's last. Booo.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 24, 2021, 07:18:49 PM
Expect the next Doctor to be "a tall, bald

CaB representation at last!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on September 24, 2021, 07:33:03 PM
It's legit!

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-russell-t-davies-showrunner-return-newsupdate/ (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-russell-t-davies-showrunner-return-newsupdate/)

What a lovely surprise. Amazing really.

quel dommage!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 24, 2021, 08:15:46 PM
CaB representation at last!

Show me where it says "tall" in the CaB Manual
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 24, 2021, 08:21:53 PM
I was hoping people would overlook that. But I suppose overlooking things when you're short is tricky.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 24, 2021, 08:42:54 PM
Ahh, Strax is great.

The last time I saw Deep Breath, it was in B&W with unfinished CG. Not really sure why I watched the leaked copy early. I guess I was just interested in seeing the new Doctor.

Dear god, what an awful new opening titles. They just keep making it worse.

Clara has met every incarnation of The Doctor. Why is she so seemingly ignorant of the whole process? I get that she was attracted to Matt Smith but it just doesn't explain her reaction to it. Seems a very silly storyline for Clara of all companions.

Capaldi is great at the wacky post-regenerative weirdness. A little too much of the wackiness may have stretched elsewhere in the story such as Clara getting clocked in the face by a newspaper with a comic sound effect. Strange that it is contrasted by a dinosaur burning alive, an organ napping ghoul and a hot air balloon made out of human skin. The clockwork man was a pretty creepy but well done effect.

All in all a pretty good start for the Capaldi era. The scene between Clara and The Doctor at the restaurant is the really promising scene. Jenna and Peter seem to have an instant chemistry and work well. I know Jenna isn't popular so it may be a minority view, but it gives me hope.

The phone call from Matt is a nice touch. I like the show going to extra lengths to ensure that the audience accept that the new Doctor is The Doctor.

When Strax puts down the "drink" for Clara it is gone from the very next shot. EPISODE RUINED.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 24, 2021, 11:01:09 PM
A little too much of the wackiness may have stretched elsewhere in the story such as Clara getting clocked in the face by a newspaper with a comic sound effect. Strange that it is contrasted by a dinosaur burning alive, an organ napping ghoul and a hot air balloon made out of human skin. The clockwork man was a pretty creepy but well done effect.

...

The phone call from Matt is a nice touch. I like the show going to extra lengths to ensure that the audience accept that the new Doctor is The Doctor.

Both the paper skit and the Matt call feel like a gnawing lack of confidence among the production team in the new, darker direction the series is taking. I like both individually, but it does feel like the show is undermining itself (and the phone call from Smith in particular feels like a mild insult to Capaldi).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 24, 2021, 11:18:54 PM
I didn't see it as a lack of confidence on the part of the production team.  It was simply a transition episode, with the Eleventh Doctor asking his young fans to give the Twelfth Doctor a shot and not abandon the show with his departure.

Moffat realised that with changes of companion, you could shake the show up and start again.  With a new companion comes a new perspective on the Doctor, a new way in and the opportunity to refresh.  The Eleventh Doctor's first TARDIS console room essentially became the Ponds' TARDIS console room, which he abandoned once they were gone.  The second half of series 7 was promoted as if it was a new series.  Later, with the introduction of Bill Potts, Moffat wrote 'The Pilot' which he said was consciously structured to act as a first episode for new viewers.


But with the change of Doctor, you run the risk of losing people.  When you change Doctor, the focus at first needs to be on showing people that the show hasn't changed that much, so that loyal fans of the previous incarnation continue watching.  This is especially true when you are stepping from child-friendly Smith to angry-eyebrows Capaldi.


More complex when an entire production team changes, and Doctors and companions all unseat at once, but there you are.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 24, 2021, 11:24:30 PM
I felt it more a reassuring reiteration of the basic idea that has kept the show alive for so long. Whereas the whole "I don't want to go" shite really pissed me off as it put the next guy on the back foot by having The Doctor himself not readily accept his next incarnation in the way I feel he should. Why should the audience accept the next guy if the previous Doctor didn't want to turn into him?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 24, 2021, 11:32:45 PM
Luckily the next guy turned out to be Matt Smith, the only actor to absolutely nail The Doctor in their first episode, but yeah if it had been anyone less perfect, it would have been a weight around their necks.

I didn't see it as a lack of confidence on the part of the production team.  It was simply a transition episode, with the Eleventh Doctor asking his young fans to give the Twelfth Doctor a shot and not abandon the show with his departure.

... which shows a lack of confidence in their approach. Tennant, Smith and Whittaker all got to just have adventures out of the gate without being overshadowed by their predecessor going "Please don't turn off the telly."

Granted, that wasn't an option with Eccles, but I'm sure Tennant and Capaldi would have done the same if asked.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 24, 2021, 11:44:28 PM
Dear god, what an awful new opening titles. They just keep making it worse.

NAH. they're honestly the best out of the entire new seasons for me. simple, energetic and sleek and silly imo. big fan
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 24, 2021, 11:49:54 PM
Is that the clock/spiral one? Yeah, that's great - I just think they cut the spiral too soon (just a second longer would get the full effect), and I hate the brown fart smoke that drifts over the start of each episode.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 24, 2021, 11:55:19 PM
no! it's not brown fart smoke no!! it's mysterriooous

someone did a super professional adaption of it which i like but adds a bit too much of smith era bombast for me. there's very little bullshit for capaldi's intro which suits his more barbed character

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fugvUt0Pgss

never much good at articulating things on a musical[1]/aesthetic level i guess but i have a huge inexplicable fondness for the capaldi intro (even tho they managed to fuck up synchronising sound/vision MULTIPLE times)
 1. despite having a fucking music degree aghhh
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 25, 2021, 01:07:03 AM
I think that video is the fan vid that Moffat admits to "borrowing" (with the fan's permission). Or maybe that was a different one - I remember descending into the spiral clock, but maybe I'm misremembering.

Brilliantly talented lot, who fans, aren't they?

I loved this (which might have inspired Chibnall's vortex): https://youtu.be/DNEjx6XUbfQ
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 25, 2021, 01:12:27 AM
I think that video is the fan vid that Moffat admits to "borrowing" (with the fan's permission). Or maybe that was a different one - I remember descending into the spiral clock, but maybe I'm misremembering.

Brilliantly talented lot, who fans, aren't they?

I loved this (which might have inspired Chibnall's vortex): https://youtu.be/DNEjx6XUbfQ

that's wonderful! and yeah the video i linked was made by another fan after the proper opening was released

the original fan one in question was this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXOBHnWiinY) i believe, by billy hanshaw, who eventually collaborated on the official intro!

(https://i.imgur.com/Q6HGgHW.gif)(https://i.imgur.com/5rJeU8q.gif)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 25, 2021, 01:16:13 AM
Yes, that's the one! I love the zoom into the clock-ribbon, and the Seal Of Rassilon under the logo. And the spooky font for the actors' names. Honestly, I wish they'd just used that with a fancier render-farm polish, but oh well!

(Don't understand why people don't seem to love that ribbon-zoom as much as I do, judging by the official version and the remake you posed above, but oh well!)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 25, 2021, 08:24:14 AM
... which shows a lack of confidence in their approach. Tennant, Smith and Whittaker all got to just have adventures out of the gate without being overshadowed by their predecessor going "Please don't turn off the telly."

It’s not a lack of confidence.  They were confidently about to embark on a year of Malcolm Tucker Doctor, and were easing the transition because the jump from Peter Davison to Colin Baker didn’t go very well.


Also, Moffat likes his time travel, and he enjoyed the idea of the previous incarnation reassuring the companion while the new Doctor looks on.  Working on Time of the Doctor and Deep Breath without a huge gap between meant he was able to plan some parts to feed into each other, like the telephone being found off the hook in Time of the Doctor.

Plus it was a nice echo of the Twelfth Doctor’s eyebrows appearing in Day of the Doctor.  Just a weaving of things together.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 25, 2021, 04:25:14 PM
It’s not a lack of confidence.  They were confidently about to embark on a year of Malcolm Tucker Doctor, and were easing the transition because the jump from Peter Davison to Colin Baker didn’t go very well.

If they felt the need to ease the transition, they weren't confident. Having Matt Smith pop up to reassure the audience surrogate that, yes, this old man really is The Doctor radiates fear that not having a friendly, handsome young chap with floppy hair will be a turn-off.

And Capaldi having to play basically two further, different Doctors in seasons 9 and 10 shows that they felt their experiment was a flop, and a shift to a more accessible Doctor (generic guitar-playing wacky Doc in 9, wise grandfather figure Doc in 10) was necessary.

I actually like the Capaldi series a lot more than many on here, but bringing in a previous Doc to plead the new Doc's case rather than just going "Time! Space! Woo!" is not an act of confidence.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 25, 2021, 05:08:05 PM
I agree that they changed his persona after series 8, but having Smith appear was unrelated to that.  And clearly Moffat wasn’t going to skip the opportunity to tickle his own time-travel funny bone.

Next Doctor appears in Day of the Doctor; previous Doctor appears in Deep Breath.  Of course he would.


Plus the plan was to soften the sixth Doctor over time as well, before Colin Baker was fired.  That doesn’t mean they lacked confidence, just that they never planned for him to always be a cunt.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on September 25, 2021, 05:11:54 PM
If they felt the need to ease the transition, they weren't confident. Having Matt Smith pop up to reassure the audience surrogate that, yes, this old man really is The Doctor radiates fear that not having a friendly, handsome young chap with floppy hair will be a turn-off.

It's a show for children*, and even the long-term viewers who'd been watching FROM THE START had grown up on ten years of only youngish Doctors. Considering the audience isn't cowering in fear.

Also it was very cool and timey-wimey, so there.

* and everyone.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 25, 2021, 06:05:18 PM
Yeah, I think there was definitely an element of reassurance with it - Capaldi's version in his first series was very deliberately written as a very different Doctor - but I think it was probably Moffat's idea. "How do I not scare everyone off the more casual viewers? I know!"
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: BritishHobo on September 25, 2021, 06:21:09 PM
I wonder if it hinges on your thoughts on the episode itself, as well. I didn't really enjoy Deep Breath at the time, didn't feel like Capaldi's Doctor clicked for me at all during it - so the Matt Smith phone call going 'it's okay!' felt desperate to me. But if I had loved the episode - if Capaldi clicked for me the way Smith did in The Eleventh Hour ("Can I have an apple?") or Tennant at Christmas ("No, hold on... sorry, that's The Lion King.") - then I might have had more affection for that ending as a fun little moment.

As it was, I think Capaldi clicked for me in Time Heist. I ought go give series 8 and 9 a rewatch, to see if Moffat's experiment with the characterisation of the Doctor and Clara works better for me now, give it more of a chance.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 25, 2021, 06:31:54 PM
So will this become the new thread now?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 25, 2021, 06:39:57 PM
Not unless we go back in time four years.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 25, 2021, 06:43:06 PM
Chibbers would have.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 25, 2021, 07:39:50 PM
Yeah, I think there was definitely an element of reassurance with it - Capaldi's version in his first series was very deliberately written as a very different Doctor - but I think it was probably Moffat's idea. "How do I not scare everyone off the more casual viewers? I know!"

Which

Is

A

Lack

Of

Confidence

In

What

They're

Doing.

I'm not saying they're cunts for doing it or anything (or that they were "cowering in fear", thanks for that, Poison In The Mind), but I think it's a bit unfair on Capaldi to have Smith overshadow his first adventure, in the same way it was a bit unfair on Freeman and Tate to have the spectre of Rose hanging over their runs.

And no, a quick shot of Capaldi's eyes in Day of the Doctor isn't the same at all.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 25, 2021, 07:42:26 PM
They were coming off the back of two popular younger Doctors and going to an older one. I think it is harsh to describe a reassuring scene to the audience as a lack of confidence. It is a push in the right direction to the audience to continue to accept the next Doctor readily as they always have.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: canted_angle_again on September 25, 2021, 08:16:27 PM
I loved Capaldi's doctor straight away but then again I knew I was because I love Peter. The one frustrating thing about his tenure is JLC over staying her welcome by a whole series and her wooden acting.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 25, 2021, 08:27:03 PM
Colman's not a fantastic actress, especially when up against the likes of Capaldi and Gomez, but in retrospect I think S8-9 Clara is, on the page, one of the most interesting companions by far.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 25, 2021, 08:52:21 PM
LEAVE JENNA ALONE. LEAVE HER ALONE.

I watched a few of Capaldi's first series but I can't remember which ones. If I'm honest, all aside from Deep Breath were not particularly memorable.

I do know that Into the Dalek was one I saw. Still not very good really. It just doesn't feel right for the first proper adventure for a new Doctor. A short story in an annual would work. A comic would be good. A TV story just feels like it is stretching. I don't think this was particularly interesting in any way that running around a Dalek ship would have been really.

I'm liking Capaldi's Doctor up to now. There is a social awkwardness that was there with Matt but it cuts in a different way. The Doctor telling Clara to keep her spirits up after he has told her she is getting older was amusing in a way it wouldn't have been under a previous Doctor. Almost as if he is masquerading as misunderstanding humans in order to hide the social awkwardness. Capaldi's Doctor just doesn't care what other people think in a way that can often cut to the point.

The scene where The Doctor tells a doomed guy to swallow a tracker so they can trace his ashes is probably one of those that are supposed to be key in differentiating him from previous Doctors. I suppose a previous Doctor may have made more of an effort to save the doomed man, but then they wouldn't have gained the advantage that this Doctor did.

It does feel like the call from the Eleventh Doctor resonates more now following the ending to this. Clara was asked to protect his new incarnation and she isn't just protecting him in an emotional sense but also in a moral sense too.

If I'm honest, I am utterly bored by the nonsense "am I a good man" shite. Hopefully it isn't a running theme.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on September 25, 2021, 09:03:50 PM
I don't like the Smith phone call because I think it's really fun when The Doctor doesn't really like their different incarnations. One of the good things about Colin Baker is the way he sits up and immediately shits all over Davison. Then in Timelash he sees a picture of Pertwee and he's like, oh yeah that fucking cunt. Is he rude about Troughton in Two Doctors as well? I can't remember. John Hurt getting pissy with Smith and Tennant is great too. Stuff like the phone call, and Tennant gushing over his father in law in Time Crash, is a bit too backslapping for my taste.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 25, 2021, 09:09:01 PM
Which

Is

A

Lack

Of

Confidence

In

What

They're

Doing.
I'd say it's a lack of confidence in the flexibility of your average viewer. I'm sure the production team were confident in the quality of the show they were making, but also aware that it was going to be more challenging.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: BritishHobo on September 25, 2021, 09:10:21 PM
The thing I explicitly remember hating about series 8, which I'm sure occurs in Into The Dalek, is Clara seems to slap the Doctor at least once an episode and loudly tell him to shut up about five times an episode. Doubtless I've exaggerated it in my head, but I'm convinced it recurs more as a phrase than 'Bad Wolf' does.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: canted_angle_again on September 25, 2021, 09:17:52 PM
Clara was just a walking shite house of made of cardboard in general, I do wonder what dirt she had on Moffat.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 25, 2021, 09:32:27 PM
Clara can have dirt on me any time she likes.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 25, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
I'd say it's a lack of confidence in the flexibility of your average viewer. I'm sure the production team were confident in the quality of the show they were making, but also aware that it was going to be more challenging.

Hm, well okay, that's fair.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 25, 2021, 10:08:44 PM
Clara was just a walking shite house of made of cardboard in general, I do wonder what dirt she had on Moffat.

She was a pretty face and that's all they wanted. The fact that she dead behind her robotic eyes mattered not a jot.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on September 25, 2021, 11:41:40 PM
So will this become the new thread now?

No!  The current new Doctor Who thread, for discussion of Chibnall's upcoming Series 13 shite, is here:

Doctor Who Series 13: Goodbye, Mr. Chibs (https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,88748.0.html), still well on the first page of Picture Box as I type.


THIS thread is only supposed to be about pre-Chibbers new Who, "Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years" as it says on the tin.  An "Old New Doctor Who" thread, as it were.


Of course, the new RTD back for Doctor Who (https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,89637.0.html) thing has really thrown a spanner in the works, but presumably it might die down after a while, unless further stuff about it starts getting leaked before S13 has finished shitting all over our screens.


Also,
Old Doctor Who - Part 4 (https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,80638.0.html)
and
 Doctor Who Audio Adventures (https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=68292.0)
are still carrying on in their own little ways. :-)


And after writing all that, I now realise that it was probably a joke regarding RTD coming back, with this being partly an RTD thread.

Still, with at least five currently-active Who threads on the go, a reminder can't hurt.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on September 26, 2021, 12:15:18 AM
Colman's not a fantastic actress, especially when up against the likes of Capaldi and Gomez, but in retrospect I think S8-9 Clara is, on the page, one of the most interesting companions by far.

I know i always say this, but i think it bears repeating: Coleman with the right material was a better actress than any companion leading up to that point. The scene where she threatens to throw the tardis key into a volcano is better than anything Piper, Tate, or Gillan could have managed, despite all three being better - or at least more consistently written - characters overall.

EDIT: But as you say, it wasn't until series 8 and 9 that they started giving her the right material.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 26, 2021, 12:19:28 AM
Which

Is

A

Lack

Of

Confidence

In

What

They're

Doing.

It’s not
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 26, 2021, 05:45:01 AM
'tis.

I know i always say this, but i think it bears repeating: Coleman with the right material was a better actress than any companion leading up to that point. The scene where she threatens to throw the tardis key into a volcano is better than anything Piper, Tate, or Gillan could have managed, despite all three being better - or at least more consistently written - characters overall.

Need to watch that episode again, but put me down for a hard disagree in general. She's serviceable, but has maybe three expressions (wry smile, confused look, crestfallen at Doctor not giving her a high five) and generally doesn't communicate much going on behind the character's eyes. Piper, Freeman, Gillan and (particularly) Tate all act rings around her on a regular basis.

Mackie's the best of all of nu-Who's female companions, obviously.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jack Shaftoe on September 26, 2021, 10:30:11 AM
I'd be very happy with Pearl Mackie as the new Doctor, thinking about it. She does have that slight oddness and good timing you need to play the Doctor. You could do a blatant 'Hmm, this form must have come from someone important in my past' thing. In fact, fuck it, tie it directly into Capaldi's era and have the Mackie Doctor have to work with the Mackie Companion for an episode.

EDIT: although obviously she's from the Moffat era, not RTD's, but still.

Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 26, 2021, 01:14:12 PM
Casting Pearl Mackie would create the impression within Doctor Who that there must surely only be about eight actors in the whole world.


She's great, and gives off enough "alien" vibes to have been a good Doctor, but all this means is there are plenty of actors in the world who could be cast, but we've yet to discover them.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: lipsink on September 26, 2021, 01:57:49 PM
I got the feeling from meeting Gatiss one time that he loved the character of Bill and thought it "madness" that Chibnall wasn't keeping her on. I bet RTD probably feels the same. Do you think if RTD had taken over instead of Chibnall we'd get another 2 series of Capaldi and Mackie? Oh, to dream....
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 26, 2021, 02:27:41 PM
I think that Capaldi may have moved on in any case, though it is hard to say.  Being Scottish himself, Moffat could write for the Twelfth Doctor very naturally; Moffat and Capaldi’s voice kind of became one within the character.  It’s easy to imagine that any other writer’s take (under a new showrunner) would always feel a bit off.


Mackie staying on would have been feasible, but it wouldn’t have been the same.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on September 26, 2021, 02:49:24 PM
Casting Pearl Mackie would create the impression within Doctor Who that there must surely only be about eight actors in the whole world.


She's great, and gives off enough "alien" vibes to have been a good Doctor, but all this means is there are plenty of actors in the world who could be cast, but we've yet to discover them.

By that logic we would be having a new showrunner.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 26, 2021, 03:16:07 PM
Just need to open the world up, not keep zooming in on the tiny families that we’ve moved on from.  Much as I sincerely wish we’d stuck with the series 10 character group for two series more.


Just like loads of people think Star Wars needs to stop being only about the Skywalker family.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 26, 2021, 06:39:04 PM
Yeah, 12 and Bill (+ Nardole) were my second favourite TARDIS family behind 11 and the Ponds, absolutely criminal we didn't get more of them.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 26, 2021, 07:47:20 PM
Well, more of them with Moffat at the helm. Can you imagine Chibnall trying to write Bill's dialogue? At least Lucas would still be able to ad-lib some quality stuff, mind.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: BritishHobo on September 26, 2021, 08:38:26 PM
I started my rewatch of series 8, and enjoyed Deep Breath a lot more than I thought. I think I had a lot of expectations for what a Doctor's first episode should be - zippy, quippy, fun, fast-paced - so I never really gave it a chance on its own terms. But I do like the angle Moffat took eith Capaldi. He's spiky, aggressive, uncertain, capable of doung quite manipulative things, but he still has that goodness at his core. His horror at seeing how scared and lonely the dinosaur is. He's just not really capable of expressing it.

Similarly I'm trying to be much less cynical, and go along with the show's characterisation of Clara. If they say her personality is someone who could flirt with a mountain range, so be it. And I found it's already working better for me. She's a flirt, she's also a dominant personality who's kind-of more interested in power dynamics and matching the Doctor than she is in 'doing the right thing'. I'm happy to go along with the ride for the next two series in terms of her character development.

I didn't even mind the Matt Smith phonecall this time around. It definitely comes across as a plea to the audience to be openminded about an older Doctor (which I didn't really catch at the time - I just took it as a general fear of people hating the new guy). It's kinda funny to hear Eleven fret about how he's going to look, and overall it does feel like a sincere, well-meaning message.

All that aside, it's a proper horny episode, isn't it? Loads and loads of chat about Clara flirting, and Matt Smith being her boyfriend, and always thinking about having sex with loads of fit blokes. Truly odd.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 26, 2021, 08:39:19 PM
Well, more of them with Moffat at the helm. Can you imagine Chibnall trying to write Bill's dialogue? At least Lucas would still be able to ad-lib some quality stuff, mind.

Exactly; what aggrieves me is that we plodded along for so long with Clara, so the Bill and Nardole team then felt truncated.  Nobody really thinks Moffat left too early, if we'd had a decent showrunner to succeed him - but it feels like the Twelfth Doctor's era was unreasonably botched for its first two years.


Regarding Lucas improvising, I suspect that was a factor of the production team at the time.  Chibnall's version of the show might not leave room for that.  If there's any joy going on behind the scenes and between the takes it certainly doesn't come across on screen.  There's something about all the dialogue that seems pedantically shit and inhuman, a little bit like Eric Saward's scripting.  If there was any improvisation allowed it would burst through very conspicuously.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: canted_angle_again on September 26, 2021, 10:37:24 PM
It may have been 'unreasonably botched' but it still gave us some of the best Who we are likely to ever get. Moffat was the Hinchcliffe of New Who.

I really hope he comes back to write an episode with Russell.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jack Shaftoe on September 27, 2021, 07:30:50 AM
If RTD is going to set up some spinoff series, I wonder if Moffat would be doing one? The immediate reaction is that it's some beneath him, but I don't think that's how he'd look at it, he's a working writer. I feel like he probably has the rights to the Paternoster characters, but who knows, he might want to start something completely new.

I am enjoying the insane levels of speculation we're going to have for a few months before it all comes crashing down again.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 27, 2021, 09:54:49 AM
Surely the BBC has the rights to the Paternoster characters?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jack Shaftoe on September 27, 2021, 10:09:32 AM
Possibly not exclusive rights? It can get quite fiddly, especially bearing in mind Moffat was the showrunner, so they might need his signoff to do anything else with the characters.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 27, 2021, 10:10:51 AM
If Big Finish can work out a way to do it, the BBC would have no issue if they really wanted to.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 27, 2021, 02:01:41 PM
Surely the BBC has the rights to the Paternoster characters?
Not necessarily - it's how all the fan video projects are made, Sontarans and such licensed from their creators without having to bother the BBC.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 27, 2021, 02:05:02 PM
Am I wrong in thinking RTD owns the rights to the Ood?  I have a feeling that they were reused outside of his tenure and he received an onscreen credit, unless I completely dreamt that.


What happens when Big Finish want to use River Song or the Weeping Angels?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 27, 2021, 02:15:37 PM
Not necessarily - it's how all the fan video projects are made, Sontarans and such licensed from their creators without having to bother the BBC.

I think the Beeb have wised up to that now, though. They don't want a Nation Estate farrago every time they want to use a character. There's a 0% chance that anything created for nu-Who isn't owned lock, stock and barrel by the BBC. At most, Davies might not want to bring back characters he feels are uniquely Moffat's out of some professional courtesy, but they will absolutely be available to him to use (actor availability pending).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 27, 2021, 02:28:11 PM
What happens when Big Finish want to use River Song or the Weeping Angels?
I believe they have the rights to all new series stuff other than anything surrounding the current Doctor.

God, that's a thought, maybe Jodie could end up doing a Colin and having a really good audio run that redeems her character.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on September 27, 2021, 03:16:33 PM
Am I wrong in thinking RTD owns the rights to the Ood?  I have a feeling that they were reused outside of his tenure and he received an onscreen credit, unless I completely dreamt that.

No, I remember that credit too, and remember being surprised by it.

Not sure what it says about who ultimately holds the rights though.  It might just have been for courtesy, or it might be more than that.

Doesn't David Whittaker still get a credit occasionally?  My brain is wanting to say for the Cybermen, but surely that would be Kit Pedler & Gerry Davis?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 27, 2021, 04:15:13 PM
not as if the paternoster plonkers had a single thing to do after deep breath, mind
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 27, 2021, 04:49:41 PM
Am I wrong in thinking RTD owns the rights to the Ood?  I have a feeling that they were reused outside of his tenure and he received an onscreen credit, unless I completely dreamt that.


What happens when Big Finish want to use River Song or the Weeping Angels?

They already have, multiple times, RS has her own series.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: daf on September 27, 2021, 05:25:02 PM
They've got tons of the buggers :

Rose Tyler (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/rose-tyler-the-dimension-cannon-the-endless-night-dwm563-promo-2482)
Captain Jack (https://www.bigfinish.com/ranges/v/the-lives-of-captain-jack)
Martha Jones (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/the-year-of-martha-jones-2227)
Donna Noble (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/donna-noble-kidnapped-2107)
New Earth  (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/tales-from-new-earth-1683)
Jenny (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/jenny-the-doctor-s-daughter-series-02-still-running-2436) (The Doctor's Daughter)
Lady Christina (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/lady-christina-series-02-2218) (!)
Rory (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/the-lone-centurion-volume-02-camelot-2306)
Churchill (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/the-churchill-years-volume-02-1473)
UNIT (https://www.bigfinish.com/ranges/v/unit---the-new-series)
War Doctor (https://www.bigfinish.com/ranges/v/doctor-who---the-war-doctor) (John Hurt)
War Master (https://www.bigfinish.com/ranges/v/the-war-master) (Derek Jacobi)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on September 27, 2021, 05:29:55 PM
Churchill (https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/the-churchill-years-volume-02-1473)

huh
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Midas on September 27, 2021, 05:50:42 PM
I remember a while ago Moffat accidentally leaked on instagram that the Weeping Angels are appearing in the upcoming series so I think the writers are consulted when their characters are used, though I'm not sure if they retain any power to veto appearances.

EDIT: It's a spoiler about the upcoming series, if you give a shit about that...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 27, 2021, 05:55:31 PM
I believe they have the rights to all new series stuff other than anything surrounding the current Doctor.

God, that's a thought, maybe Jodie could end up doing a Colin and having a really good audio run that redeems her character.

That would be nice, but I think that for me she's irreparably broken. You can write off Col's more excessive TV moments as post-regen trauma, and he was still fundamentally Doctory under the arsiness, but Jodie's Doc's wet liberal centrism, pro-capitalist/corporatist attitudes and absence of a moral core when faced with stuff like letting Koh Sharmus[1] blow himself up have tainted her for me. It's really sad. Or I'm really sad. But still.
 1. Or whatever his name was.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 27, 2021, 07:52:04 PM
She’s shite, get rid of her.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 27, 2021, 07:53:33 PM
She was good in the film where she lives in a shed.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 28, 2021, 10:19:47 AM
They already have, multiple times, RS has her own series.

I know, I mean “what happens” - ie what do they need to do, rights-wise.  Are the characters bundled automatically with Doctor Who, or do they need to license them somehow from Moffat.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 28, 2021, 10:23:43 AM
She was good in the film where she lives in a shed.

Maybe she could appear in a spin-off of the Dr Who Peter Cushing movies where the inside of the TARDIS was just a shed.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 28, 2021, 11:04:11 PM
I know, I mean “what happens” - ie what do they need to do, rights-wise.  Are the characters bundled automatically with Doctor Who, or do they need to license them somehow from Moffat.

I think they're bundled, never heard any different.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 29, 2021, 01:43:35 AM
Again, I don't believe for a second that the BBC is going to allow contracts that treat Doctor Who as anything other than work-for-hire. Why open yourself up to endless lawsuits and having to pay through the nose to use the Daleks the weeping angels or the Slitheen or whatever when you can make sure that everything produced for your show remains your property?

This kind of thing is pretty standard in most companies' contracts. Something produced for the firm becomes the property of the firm. Sometimes that's extended to anything produced on company time/property, and/or with company resources (eg. laptops). There's a subplot in Silicon Valley about this, and it certainly applies to my work contract.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on September 29, 2021, 10:49:21 AM
Sometimes that's extended to anything produced on company time/property, and/or with company resources (eg. laptops).

So my employer has a 70% stake in my CaB posts.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 29, 2021, 11:19:41 AM
Don't see what the bank that employs me wants with reviews of shit Simpsons episodes but if they can monetise them then more power to them.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 29, 2021, 01:40:44 PM
It's more like if you figure out a way to montise them, they'll come knocking.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Pinball on September 29, 2021, 01:47:36 PM
It's weird how they get rid of Jodie and her producer, but actually not until 2023. So, um, they haven't got rid of her yet. Another year of political correctness gone maaaad beckons. Maybe a nice fluffy non-political storyline might be possible, like Daleks trying to blow up the earth. Light stuff like that. (Yes I know, Daleks are Nazis so it is political, but you get my point).

And what about James Bond? I wonder how they'll fuck up the new one? Ruining classic shows is what it's all about. In a good cause, of course.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 29, 2021, 02:05:24 PM
Is that a joke?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on September 29, 2021, 02:40:39 PM
If there's one thing the Chibnall era will be remembered for, it's hard-hitting political commentary.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Pinball on September 29, 2021, 02:59:33 PM
Is that a joke?
On a comedy forum? Surely not.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 29, 2021, 03:14:23 PM
On a comedy forum? Surely not.

I've seen similar sentiment expressed by somebody seriously so I genuinely couldn't tell.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Zetetic on September 29, 2021, 03:30:40 PM
This kind of thing is pretty standard in most companies' contracts. Something produced for the firm becomes the property of the firm.
It's also the default assumption in the UK that if you produce something in the course of actual employment (and not just being contracted to produce a particular work), then the employer owns the copyright.

(Some places also try to write much broader terms into contracts, as Mister Six also notes, but I believe the enforceability of this in the UK is often pretty dubious - but you can also pre-assign copyrights for works that don't exist yet.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: mjwilson on September 29, 2021, 05:02:56 PM
There are some monsters (like the Ood i think) which always have a "created by" credit in the closing titles, I understood that that triggered a payment to the original writer.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 29, 2021, 05:38:04 PM
I'd be interested to know how that works. Were the Slitheen or any other Davies monsters in Moffat's run? In the Raven episode maybe? Billie Piper playing the Moment obviously doesn't count, and Moffat writing the first Captain Jack story might have messed around with that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 29, 2021, 06:06:10 PM
Chibnall used the Judoon from Moffat's run, and I gather the Weeping Angels are in the next series.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Zetetic on September 29, 2021, 07:34:50 PM
I get the vague impression that (UK?) script writers usually retain copyright on their scripts, which I hadn't realised and is interesting if true.

(WGGB guidance on 'created by' (https://writersguild.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/WGGB-Created-by-credit_FINAL.pdf), but it's about shows rather than elements - but you can sort of see the principle at work.)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on September 30, 2021, 03:24:10 AM
Chibnall used the Judoon from Moffat's run, and I gather the Weeping Angels are in the next series.

Ah, the Judoon were an RTD creation, so there we go. Did he get a credit in that? I'm not inflicting Chibnall on myself again, you can't make me.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 30, 2021, 09:15:18 AM
Ah, the Judoon were an RTD creation, so there we go. Did he get a credit in that? I'm not inflicting Chibnall on myself again, you can't make me.

Ah yes, of course they were, I don't know why I thought they were Moffat's. They did appear during Moffat's run as well, though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 30, 2021, 10:30:46 AM
Ah yes, of course they were, I don't know why I thought they were Moffat's. They did appear during Moffat's run as well, though.

Not sure if they did.  Fairly sure their return in Chibnall’s time was the only occasion, unless they were background artists in that Pandorica Opens all-the-Doctor’s-enemies scene (or a similar one in A Good Man Goes To War).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 30, 2021, 10:51:45 AM
Not sure if they did.  Fairly sure their return in Chibnall’s time was the only occasion, unless they were background artists in that Pandorica Opens all-the-Doctor’s-enemies scene (or a similar one in A Good Man Goes To War).

Yep, those two episodes and also (according to Wikipedia) in Face the Raven and at the Shadow Proclamation in The Magician's Apprentice.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 30, 2021, 11:36:24 AM
I love that about Doctor Who.  Since its very earliest days raiding the costume cupboard for monsters to include in the background, crowds or cutaways.



THEN THERE WERE THE YETI
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 30, 2021, 11:42:12 AM
I always think of that episode of Pebble Mill or whatever it was where they were had a bunch of costumes and props and one of them was a Sea Devil with its eyes smashed in to fuck.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on September 30, 2021, 11:49:31 AM
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x78lobs
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 30, 2021, 11:53:14 AM
Brilliant.  And now the Cyberman pushes a free-standing window over and stamps on the glass.


Of course it would.  Whoever came up with it must have imagined the Cyberman SMASHING THROUGH IT like Autons, but how would it have done?



It’s a routine watch for me whenever I feel like going through the anniversary specials.  It looks fucking freezing there, by the way.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on September 30, 2021, 11:57:07 AM
Thatcher of course completely decimated the free-standing window industry in this country
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on September 30, 2021, 12:04:24 PM
I always get pangs when I go past the bottom of Pebble Mill Road on the bus. There’s a dental hospital there now.

https://pinkforyouractualpterodactyl.com/2021/02/22/the-history-of-the-pebble-mill-foyer-and-everything-around-it/
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 30, 2021, 12:06:43 PM
I always get pangs when I go past the bottom of Pebble Mill Road on the bus. There’s a dental hospital there now.

https://pinkforyouractualpterodactyl.com/2021/02/22/the-history-of-the-pebble-mill-foyer-and-everything-around-it/

specifically that dental hospital gives you pangs, or any of them
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on September 30, 2021, 12:10:08 PM
You are a cunt and you have made me laugh.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 30, 2021, 05:49:13 PM
Oh dear...

Quote from: Patrick Troughton
My original idea was to black up...
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on September 30, 2021, 05:53:14 PM
Bill Hartnell would have loved that
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on September 30, 2021, 06:03:09 PM
Tell you what though, it would have made it a lot harder for the anti-wokers to make as much of a fuss as they undoubtedly will when eventually a black Doctor is cast.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 30, 2021, 06:11:04 PM
Oh dear...

And now hopefully one of my previous comments will make sense:

Why not just give it to Ian Botham in the style of a blacked-up Patrick Troughton.  Seems like the most natural route of least resistance.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 30, 2021, 08:40:43 PM
What a tedious episode Robot of Sherwood is. Aside from ISIS ruining the ending, the whole episode is built around some pulled out of nowhere rivalry between Robin Hood and The Doctor. I don't know if it is the characterisation of The Doctor in general or just in this episode that makes it off-putting.

The Doctor goes from wanting to punch a fake Robin Hood to sword fighting him with a spoon. They just don't set up the tone well from the outset.

The Wilhelm screen makes an appearance. I absolutely detest the Wilhelm screen.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on September 30, 2021, 08:56:00 PM
As far as silly Who goes, I don't dislike it that much, but it's still... well, Gatiss, isn't it?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on September 30, 2021, 09:05:41 PM
What a tedious episode Robot of Sherwood is.

Don’t agree. Not all of the jokes land, but it’s a fun bit of nonsense, and the slagging it got was massively over the top.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on September 30, 2021, 09:37:06 PM
Listen feels like the well of ideas is drying for Moffat. Not as eye rolling as killer Wi-Fi, mind. Just Moffat walking round his house and asking himself what he can make scary for kids. I look forward to killer alien school uniforms.

There are some good elements, but it all feels rather abrupt. The Doctor drags the story to the viewer/Clara rather than the story coming to the characters. The Doctor feels unusually unhinged all of a sudden. If there was something that motivated The Doctor to search for this mystery alien then I would understand, however as it stands we just suddenly see The Doctor obsessed with what is under the bed and putting himself and Clara in danger. I get that the ending is what prompted him in the first place but we don't really see what caused The Twelfth Doctor to all of a sudden want to investigate.

The twist that the crying child is The Doctor is great... except it feels too huge to just appear in this episode. That being said, anytime you have one of these moments that feel like they perhaps reveal a little bit too much of before An Unearthly Child you then remember that there are five bajillion incarnations of The Doctor because of some fuckwit and realise that Moffat was actually relatively restrained and careful with the backstory.

I think I am being harsh on Moffat really. It is typically well written for him, so it is a worthy entry even if it isn't reaching even his average level.

Don’t agree. Not all of the jokes land, but it’s a fun bit of nonsense, and the slagging it got was massively over the top.

I didn't know it was a hated episode. I think it lived and died by The Doctor v Robin Hood rivalry and that element just didn't work for me from the get go.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: BritishHobo on September 30, 2021, 09:54:19 PM
Listen definitely felt like a nadir to me of those episodes where it's just all premise and no substance to hang it on. As you say, it's forty minutes of stuff happening with no clear reason why, and then there's not really an ending. The Doctor goes "wonder if there really is anything under the bed when you're a kid" and Clara goes "yeah I was under yours once" and then they just move on with their lives.

I've been looking forward to reaching it on my rewatch, to give it another shot. Really worried I won't make it past Sherwood though as I HATED that at the time. Proper obnoxious CBBC shouting.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 30, 2021, 09:58:06 PM
Proper obnoxious CBBC shouting.

Perfect concise summary!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on September 30, 2021, 10:01:14 PM
The twist that the crying child is The Doctor is great... except it feels too huge to just appear in this episode. That being said, anytime you have one of these moments that feel like they perhaps reveal a little bit too much of before An Unearthly Child you then remember that there are five bajillion incarnations of The Doctor because of some fuckwit and realise that Moffat was actually relatively restrained and careful with the backstory.

I always felt this.  Moffat stayed on the right side of demystifying.  In Chibnall's version of this episode, you just know we would have seen the Doctor's face and we'd have casually observed a child version of the Doctor.  Moffat's script and the direction carefully ensures we only see some hair, and an ankle, and never anything like the child Master staring into the time vortex from RTD's time.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on September 30, 2021, 10:17:21 PM
Imagine if Chibnall had written Silver Nemesis

Lady Peinforte drones on about Gallifrey for a full twenty minutes until Anton Diffring loses it and punches her in the face
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on October 01, 2021, 12:12:56 AM
I like Listen, specifically because it took what was, by then, the Moffat cliche of a mundane thing made scary, and instead twisted it into more of a psychological study of the Doctor and his personality, rather than a literal monster that lives under beds. There's the usual Moffat garbage at the start of course - his light "banter" always makes my skin crawl - but once it gets going, I think it's one of the better studies of the character's motivations.

That scene with the bed covers is really tense, well written and acted, too.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 01, 2021, 12:38:08 AM
I really like the fact that there's an episode where the villain could literally be the Doctor's paranoia, but it's also left ambiguous.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on October 01, 2021, 12:53:08 AM
Yeah, what Kelvin and Purlieu said. The idea of The Doctor cracking up and seeing monsters where there might not be any is really interesting - and, after seven series (plus specials) of The Doctor knowing pretty much everything, and being on top of every situation regardless, it's actually kind of disturbing. I really wish they'd kept this characterisation, or at least segue it more naturally in season 9, rather than just sticking him on top of a tank with a guitar and going, "Hey, the wacky Doctor is back!"

Listen is definitely one of my fave Capaldi episodes, in fact one of my fave Moffat episodes - though maybe it'll change on a rewatch.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Bingo Fury on October 01, 2021, 12:53:26 AM
There's the usual Moffat garbage at the start of course - his light "banter" always makes my skin crawl -

Through watching numerous YouTube reactions to "Listen", I've been forced to accept that literally nobody else appreciates it, but for my money, "You said you had a date - I thought I'd better hide in the bedroom in case you brought him home" was one of the funniest lines the 12th Doctor ever had.

And "Listen" is a huge favourite of mine, the highlight of series 8. I remember a large number of Gallifrey Base posters at the time furiously denouncing it as a waste of time because there wasn't a "real" monster in it - but the ambiguity, the suggestion that maybe there was nothing there at all, made it stand out as something unique and actually quite special. I couldn't then, and can't now, get my head around the idea that a CGI goblin or a man in a rubber suit would somehow have made it better.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Kelvin on October 01, 2021, 01:26:31 AM
Through watching numerous YouTube reactions to "Listen", I've been forced to accept that literally nobody else appreciates it, but for my money, "You said you had a date - I thought I'd better hide in the bedroom in case you brought him home" was one of the funniest lines the 12th Doctor ever had.

To clarify, I obviously don't mind jokes or quips in the dialogue. What I hate is when the characters, especially Clara and River Song, have those sustained sections of rapid fire badinage with the Doctor, smugly trying to outwit one another. I can't stand it in the Marvel films, either, in fairness. I just don't like that type of contrived dialogue that feels like its coming from writers trying to impress, rather than organically stemming from the characters who don't talk like that the rest of the time.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on October 01, 2021, 10:03:42 AM
Through watching numerous YouTube reactions to "Listen", I've been forced to accept that literally nobody else appreciates it, but for my money, "You said you had a date - I thought I'd better hide in the bedroom in case you brought him home" was one of the funniest lines the 12th Doctor ever had.

And "Listen" is a huge favourite of mine, the highlight of series 8. I remember a large number of Gallifrey Base posters at the time furiously denouncing it as a waste of time because there wasn't a "real" monster in it - but the ambiguity, the suggestion that maybe there was nothing there at all, made it stand out as something unique and actually quite special. I couldn't then, and can't now, get my head around the idea that a CGI goblin or a man in a rubber suit would somehow have made it better.

It's a favourite of mine, too. I think it's hugely atmospheric, from the creepy foster home to the last planet, and I find some of those joke lines hilarious - particularly the one you highlight, about the bedroom, and the one about Clara needing three mirrors.

Of course, Moffat - like a clerk working from home during a pandemic - can't keep his horny wolf from the door, and includes a moment where Clara checks herself out, but other than that I love it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ron Maels Moustache on October 01, 2021, 10:29:52 AM
I remember Listen being a stand-out episode from that somewhat uneven period of the show, mainly because it embraced that Sapphire & Steel idea of the threat being something intangible and unknowable, which felt like a refreshing change of pace that point. I wish the Capaldi era had captured more of that vibe.

There are some odd moments, like the inclusion of Danny Pink's descendant which seemed like a plot thread intended to be returned to that got dropped somewhere along the way, dunno if it was just me that thought that? Weren't there some set photos with the character in it that suggested there was supposed to be more to do with him?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 01, 2021, 10:32:02 AM
Always stood out to me, as well.  When a handful of scripts and early-print episodes leaked from the start of series 9, Listen was my favourite of them.  I was really surprised when it received such negativity upon release.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on October 01, 2021, 10:44:55 AM
Through watching numerous YouTube reactions to "Listen", I've been forced to accept that literally nobody else appreciates it, but for my money, "You said you had a date - I thought I'd better hide in the bedroom in case you brought him home" was one of the funniest lines the 12th Doctor ever had.

I love the mirror joke but I was never sure about all that stuff. I suppose the idea is that the Doctor is basically sexless, so it’s fine, it’s cute, but it always seemed a bit dodgy to me. You can’t get past the basic creepiness oh him being older and her being younger, especially when Danny Pink is set up as some kind of love rival for Clara’s affections.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on October 01, 2021, 11:17:08 AM
I hated every instance of the 'browser history' gag, especially in the otherwise largely magical Twice Upon a Time. The novelisation implies that River Song - to the Doctor's embarrassment - has sent him some revealing pictures, but I don't like the suggestion that our ancient, increasingly sexless Time Lord has been jackin off in the TARDIS to Pornhub Premium.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 01, 2021, 11:30:10 AM
I didn't think the Clara checking out her arse was that egregious but it is a problem with Moffat. It mostly amounts to jokes not landing but there are one or two places where it is very off putting. An upcoming episode (second to last of Series 8) has a moment that I felt was pretty awful but I'll deal with it when I reach the episode.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 01, 2021, 11:35:58 AM
Always stood out to me, as well.  When a handful of scripts and early-print episodes leaked from the start of series 9, Listen was my favourite of them.  I was really surprised when it received such negativity upon release.

Series 8 I mean.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on October 01, 2021, 11:37:17 AM
The subtle and metaphorical approach to sexuality in The Doctor Dances is timelessly clever, but this Moffatian throughline sours by the time the we get the to Doctor slobbering over Clara's tight mystery wrapped in an enigma squeezed into a dress from PrettyLittleThing.

The Day of the Doctor contains the only acceptable screwdriver knob gag, thanks to the dialogue ('regeneration - it's a lottery').
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 01, 2021, 11:40:41 AM
I hated every instance of the 'browser history' gag, especially in the otherwise largely magical Twice Upon a Time. The novelisation implies that River Song - to the Doctor's embarrassment - has sent him some revealing pictures, but I don't like the suggestion that our ancient, increasingly sexless Time Lord has been jackin off in the TARDIS to Pornhub Premium.

That’s the other reason River Song shouldn’t have had an open-ended, potentially limitless time line truncated in Let’s Kill Hitler.  I have no problem with the Doctor having a deeper connection with ancient Time Lords than he can have with ordinary earthlings.  Shrinking River Song down to actually younger than Alex Kingston when you think about it was an infuriating move.

He wouldn’t jack off, anyway.  He’d look at the photo and go “ah right, fair enough then” like a blissfully oblivious Dougal.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 01, 2021, 11:47:15 AM
The subtle and metaphorical approach to sexuality in The Doctor Dances is timelessly clever, but this Moffatian throughline sours by the time the we get the to Doctor slobbering over Clara's tight mystery wrapped in an enigma squeezed into a dress from PrettyLittleThing.

The Day of the Doctor contains the only acceptable screwdriver knob gag, thanks to the dialogue ('regeneration - it's a lottery').

The Doctor whipped Clara’s bum with a tea towel in one episode didn’t he.  I hated that.  I think it must have been a Matt Smith improvisation and meant to indicate platonic fondness but fuck off.  The director needs to think a bit harder and ask for more retakes if that’s the only option in the can.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on October 01, 2021, 11:51:49 AM
That was when the Doctor was pretending to be her boyfriend, in a time-wasting segment of The Time of the Doctor. He also appears naked to her family at the time.

But is any of this as bad as the idea of a man called Elton carefully lowering an anthropomorphic paving slab onto his excited lap?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 01, 2021, 11:54:09 AM
But is any of this as bad as the idea of a man called Elton carefully lowering an anthropomorphic paving slab onto his excited lap?

You’d prefer her not to be anthropomorphic?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 01, 2021, 11:59:45 AM
Worst of the sonic screwdriver knob gags was the one in Crimson Horror.  Quite impossible to know what was scripted and what was an off the cuff directorial decision, but that was horrible.  It wouldn’t have been less subtle if Clara had suddenly turned to camera and said “he means his cock”.



Yeah we get that the sonic screwdriver keeps getting designed to look like a cock.  It’s not necessary, far less clever, to keep hanging massive lampshades on it - just design it to look less than a cock.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on October 01, 2021, 12:13:29 PM
The subtle and metaphorical approach to sexuality in The Doctor Dances is timelessly clever, but this Moffatian throughline sours by the time the we get the to Doctor slobbering over Clara's tight mystery wrapped in an enigma squeezed into a dress from PrettyLittleThing.

The Day of the Doctor contains the only acceptable screwdriver knob gag, thanks to the dialogue ('regeneration - it's a lottery').

Oh God that dress line is horrible. It’s like something from Coupling, which I never liked. It goes back a long way with him, this weird need to prove his alpha-maleness- there’s jokes about anal sex and nurses’ uniforms in Press Gang
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 01, 2021, 12:17:43 PM
Yeah, agreed.  It’s completely off-piste for the Doctor and I can’t quite believe Moffat left it in the final script.

It’s long been his projection that it would be “sad” if the Doctor was a sexless being, and I absolutely hate it.  Wrap your head around asexuality; it’s not hard.  Take the stigma out of it because the more you demonise it the more bitterness and ‘incel behaviour’ society is going to instil.



All branches of sexuality are welcome in RTD and Moffat’s version of the show, except asexuality, which they find creepy.  It has to be active sexuality to be okay.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on October 01, 2021, 12:34:17 PM
Imagine him trying all that with Jodie’s Doctor, what a car crash that would be
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on October 01, 2021, 12:48:00 PM
That's my gut feeling, too - but his writing of Missy was quite dignified, wasn't it? She (non-romantically) kisses the Doctor once, but she's ultimately played asexually and without suffering any laddish jokes. She simply got to be a great version of the Master.

You'd hope Moffat would have similarly pulled himself together for a female Doctor (I think he'd reigned in much of the Doctor's sexiness by Capaldi's time; even his moments with sort-of-wife River are more touching and gentle than crass and suggestive).
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 01, 2021, 02:11:37 PM
Isn't there a Children in Need story where it's suggested that the universe is basically nearly destroyed because Amy is wearing a short skirt? And she gets the blame for it. Again, it doesn't feel like anything other than a silly gag, but it definitely crosses the line into slightly unnecessary territory.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 01, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
The Doctor is meant to be over a thousand years old, so if it feels wrong with Capaldi (because he is an older man) then it should feel wrong for all the other incarnations as well.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on October 01, 2021, 02:37:46 PM
If the Doctor's gender can change than so should their sexuality, it makes sense for me that some incarnations seem to be asexual but others want to get pussy.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 01, 2021, 03:18:53 PM
If the Doctor's gender can change than so should their sexuality, it makes sense for me that some incarnations seem to be asexual but others want to get pussy.

And it should be fine with an only 1000 year age gap
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on October 01, 2021, 03:24:19 PM
Isn't there a Children in Need story where it's suggested that the universe is basically nearly destroyed because Amy is wearing a short skirt? And she gets the blame for it. Again, it doesn't feel like anything other than a silly gag, but it definitely crosses the line into slightly unnecessary territory.

Yeah. I love how much time travel playfulness is packed into that short, but I've never shown it to my partner on account of that element, which lets it down. Be like if Time Crash had both Five and Ten reminiscing about installing CCTV in Nyssa's bedroom.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on October 01, 2021, 03:48:02 PM
Was it Moffat who wrote the joke about the Master's wife being a beard?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ambient Sheep on October 01, 2021, 04:58:46 PM
Yes, in Time Crash:

Quote
DOCTOR 10: Right, Tardises are separating. Sorry, Doctor, time's up. Back to long ago. Where are you now? Nyssa and Tegan? Cybermen and Mara and Time Lords in funny hats and the Master? Oh, he just showed up again, same as ever.

DOCTOR 5: Oh no, really? Does he still have that rubbish beard?

DOCTOR 10: No, no beard this time. Well, a wife.

DOCTOR 5: Oh, I seem to be off. What can I say? Thank you, Doctor.

DOCTOR 10: Thank you.

DOCTOR 5: I'm very welcome.

(The Fifth Doctor vanishes.)

(With thanks to http://www.chakoteya.net/DoctorWho/CIN2007.htm)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on October 01, 2021, 05:19:14 PM
Yeah, agreed.  It’s completely off-piste for the Doctor and I can’t quite believe Moffat left it in the final script.

It’s long been his projection that it would be “sad” if the Doctor was a sexless being, and I absolutely hate it.  Wrap your head around asexuality; it’s not hard.  Take the stigma out of it because the more you demonise it the more bitterness and ‘incel behaviour’ society is going to instil.



All branches of sexuality are welcome in RTD and Moffat’s version of the show, except asexuality, which they find creepy.  It has to be active sexuality to be okay.

Absolutely. The Doctor is alien, there’s no need to feature his sexuality at all, we got by without it for decades. I feel it just cheapens the character and his relationships to his companions.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 01, 2021, 06:33:28 PM
Stanley opened up BBC iPlayer and selected Time Heist. Something was very clearly wrong. Shocked, frozen solid, Stanley found himself unable to move for the longest time.

Pretty good episode. New ideas for Doctor Who with some really great twists along the way. Nice use of the memory worms seen in Series 7 and then the guilt monster on top of that was neat. Nothing spectacular, but it is just a well layered story with two bug-eyed monsters walking into the sunset.

At times, Capaldi feels like he is being written still as Smith. The lines about Clara colouring in her face or wearing heals to reach a shelf are amusing but ill-fitting for Capaldi.

Capaldi's hand movements in the private archive when confronting Karabraxos started to make me think of Raymond Day.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 01, 2021, 07:20:11 PM
Something strange happened. I thought I was halfway through the series, but I seem to have skipped to the traditional comedy episode just before the finale.

I assume that The Caretaker is placed here in the series due to the necessity of progressing Clara and Danny's relationship. I mean that is all the episode is. It is like Moffat written a bare-bones breakdown of where the Clara/Danny relationship needed to go and he told Roberts to add the funnies. Despite not particularly caring about the Danny/Clara relationship, after all Clara should be saving herself for ME, the comedy carried the episode well enough.

Despite saying in the previous post that some of the humour is a bit too Smith, I still do really enjoy it. The throwaway line "I've got a brush" in particular really tickled me.

This is the last Gareth Roberts script before he went publicly bananas. It is a shame as The One Doctor is probably the best comedy Doctor Who story and The Lodger and The Caretaker are both great and Closing Time was okay. Planet of the Dead and Bang-Bang-a-Boom are shit though. Less than 12 hours from the time of writing, he has retweeted some transphobia about how Sarah Everand might not have been killed if trans didn't exist. Transphobic Tory Tosser.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 01, 2021, 08:28:09 PM
"It was cheap. It was pathetic. It was patronising."

Kill the Moon is hated isn't it? It is unspectacular but basically fine up until the reveal that the moon is an egg. Which is a pretty bad idea. I bet Chibnall was devastated he didn't think it up. No matter, he probably made Mars an even bigger egg or something even more shit in an episode I haven't seen.

What was the moral of the story supposed to be? Was the story all driven towards putting a wedge between The Doctor and Clara? Where did those "germs" come from?

"My granny used to put things on tumblr". Hardly remember what the fucker is now. Hardly think somebody in 2049 will remember that their gran used it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 01, 2021, 09:11:32 PM
Kill the Moon, yeah.  It’s weird though how you can overlook it and forget it happens.  The moon is and has been an egg.  You see that moon?  It’s an egg.  Mad, yet it doesn’t change anything really.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 01, 2021, 10:02:26 PM
My problem with Time Heist is how grey it all looks. It's a symptom of quite a bit of Capaldi's first two series, that visually they're quite underwhelming after Matt's run, which was much more atmospheric and textural.

The Caretaker is great, lots of fun. Series 10 Capaldi would have suited it better. The Matt Smith teacher was very funny.

Kill the Moon, yes, the moon is an egg is fucking stupid, like really, really fucking stupid, and the whole thing is also shrugged off in a similar manner to the forest episode which felt slightly lazy to me.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mr Trumpet on October 01, 2021, 11:01:36 PM
Kill the Moon was alright I thought. The Moon being an egg is bonkers but so what?

My partner watched this series of the show with me up until this point - one of very few concessions she's made to the genre. She liked Deep Breath a lot but was losing interest and she thought there was a dodgy abortion allegory in this episode which was enough to put her off watching any more.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 02, 2021, 12:23:27 AM
The Moon being an egg is bonkers but so what?
Ignoring past Who continuity kind of contradicting it, it's the fact that a creature hatched from inside the moon and immediately laid an egg the size of the moon. Within seconds of being born it laid something bigger than itself. It just feels like a really, really lazy reset button, the sort of thing that someone like Moffat should have looked at and said "wait a minute".
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on October 02, 2021, 04:34:51 AM
"It was cheap. It was pathetic. It was patronising."

Kill the Moon is hated isn't it? It is unspectacular but basically fine up until the reveal that the moon is an egg. Which is a pretty bad idea. I bet Chibnall was devastated he didn't think it up. No matter, he probably made Mars an even bigger egg or something even more shit in an episode I haven't seen.

What was the moral of the story supposed to be? Was the story all driven towards putting a wedge between The Doctor and Clara? Where did those "germs" come from?

"My granny used to put things on tumblr". Hardly remember what the fucker is now. Hardly think somebody in 2049 will remember that their gran used it.

Quite like "the moon is a big egg".

Less of a fan of "abortion is bad because the baby might turn out to be great".
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on October 02, 2021, 10:56:38 AM
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x78lobs

delight
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 04, 2021, 08:35:51 PM
I remember when Mummy on the Orient Express, I heard it wasn't very good. I don't know if this is still the perception now, but I really enjoyed this. It isn't particularly original but just a well paced good-looking and engaging story. Good ending albeit the salute was silly. Probably the best Capaldi episode up to now aside from Deep Breath.

The timer seemed a little tacky. I don't really think it adds anything for the audience to know that it is exactly 66 seconds. The dialogue conveys everything you need to know without it.

Aww, Frank Skinner in his little engineers outfit. I bet he is so thrilled to be in the show.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 04, 2021, 09:07:08 PM
Oh, I thought that was one of the best received episodes of the series?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 04, 2021, 09:27:56 PM
Initially Flatline felt a bit Fear Her but from the reveal that the mural was real people trapped in the walls, it picked up the threat. It isn't amazing or standout, but it is basically fine. Some good visuals with the transformations into 2D.

They manage limited Capaldi time well. Love and Monsters is so fucking shit that it taints all future Doctor-lite stories but actually the episodes I can think of off the top of my head (Blink, Turn Left, The Girl Who Waited, that episode of The Time Meddler when Hartnell was on holiday) are all rather good.

Clara runs around with a toy TARDIS for a bit. Silly but fun idea. Worthy of being done once and doesn't feel like a retread of Planet of Giants.

Oh, I thought that was one of the best received episodes of the series?

Must just be me misrembering.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on October 04, 2021, 09:34:13 PM
Planet of the Dead and Bang-Bang-a-Boom are shit though. Less than 12 hours from the time of writing, he has retweeted some transphobia about how Sarah Everand might not have been killed if trans didn't exist. Transphobic Tory Tosser.

In fairness, Planet Of The Dead was written with RTD and the blame for how shite it is can be laid at both their doors (and Tennant's, and whoever it was from EastEnders playing Lady Christina de Fonsonby-Ponsonby).

The Shakespeare Code, however, was all Roberts and a solid log of rancid turd all the way through. No wonder he thinks that JK Rowling's so wonderful.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mr Trumpet on October 04, 2021, 10:02:09 PM
Orient Express was great for the climax when the Doctor does the thing. Flatline is one that a lot of the fans (that i've seen) like because they get one of those big Doctor speeches about how he's hot shit and the aliens had better watch out, but I feel like we're well into diminishing returns with that schtick by this point.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 04, 2021, 10:32:35 PM
No wonder Class flopped.

In the Forest of the Night has a good core idea but is hamstrung by all the tedious kids being tedious kids. Such a shame as there is really something in a big city being suddenly overwhelmed by fauna as the setting for an episode.

Anything good just all seems wasted. All the stuff about this being the end of the world was just boring melodrama. The conceit of the life-force of the trees contacting this particular little girl and then protecting the world from a solar flare... well I didn't like it. Honestly all trees having magic energy inside them feels as bad as the moon is an egg.

Capaldi was great while lecturing everybody about how the trees are protecting them. TREES!

I do like the fact that they accidentally included an advert for Series 8 on the side of a bus:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0U5XfSCQAIQRYn.png)

The next episode is the last Doctor Who episode I saw before swerving "giving Capaldi a try". I absolutely hated it. Wonder if one particular element which really turned me against Moffat for a particular reason (after the odd moment here and there) is still the case.

In fairness, Planet Of The Dead was written with RTD and the blame for how shite it is can be laid at both their doors (and Tennant's, and whoever it was from EastEnders playing Lady Christina de Fonsonby-Ponsonby).

The Shakespeare Code, however, was all Roberts and a solid log of rancid turd all the way through. No wonder he thinks that JK Rowling's so wonderful.

I'd forgotten about his other two. I wasn't a fan of The Unicorn and the Wasp either.

The Shakespeare Code isn't even the best Doctor Who story about The Doctor meeting Shakespeare. And I'm in a minority of people who think The Kingmaker isn't all that great (it is fine).

Orient Express was great for the climax when the Doctor does the thing. Flatline is one that a lot of the fans (that i've seen) like because they get one of those big Doctor speeches about how he's hot shit and the aliens had better watch out, but I feel like we're well into diminishing returns with that schtick by this point.

Yeah, the self aggrandising of The Doctor got boring many many years ago. The three big Doctor speeches that aren't going to be topped (The Dalek Invasion of Earth, The Trial of a Time Lord, Survival) are all mostly not about The Doctor himself.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on October 04, 2021, 10:41:06 PM
I'm guessing there that the Dalek Invasion Of Earth speech is the 'One day, I will come back...' one, the Trial Of A Time Lord speech the 'Ten million years of absolute power, that's what it takes to be really corrupt!' one...but which one are you thinking of from Survival?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 04, 2021, 11:27:48 PM
Okay I'll get out the way the one element I detest here. This is going to be rambling and tedious. I've no issue with Time Lords changing gender. The first time we see a Time Lord change gender and it is The Master. That is interesting. And it is wonderful casting with Michelle Gomez (she was great on Green Wing). What is the first thing The Master now as a woman does when she meets The Doctor? Snog him. Yes, I know it isn't a romantic kiss but it just feels... creepy. I think of the times I have defended Moffat in the past for a bit of leering or a bit of an off colour joke. Hate to use the word here, but it is just bad optics as much as anything and in light of some of Moffat's troublesome moments, it doesn't paint a good picture. Sorry if I'm being melodramatic or oversensitive. Probably made worse that I have mulled over it since shortly after it aired when I first saw it. A mixture of sexism and hetero normalcy (or rather the idea that asexuality can't be a thing). I still think he is a wonderful writer, one of the best.

Dark Water is a Cybermen story in the new series so it starts at a disadvantage.

Clara went too far throwing out the TARDIS keys even if The Doctor was in control the whole time but even in his more abrasive Capaldi incarnation, it is nice to see him forgive her even if he doesn't like to say it straight. Not sure about The Doctor being so brazen about breaking the laws of time, particularly since there has already been a whole episode about rescuing somebody from a car crash and it fucks everything up.

So Danny murdered some child? That's not nice. This guy showing Clara and The Doctor the dark water is a pervert. That's not nice.

It is unfortunate that I really dislike this episode as there are some ideas in here that have great potential. The idea of people still being conscious after death and begging not to be cremated is creepy even if it was basically done with the rubbish fourth series of Torchwood (arguably done better). The Cybermen being hidden by the eponymous water is a wonderful new twist to hark back to the greatest Doctor Who story ever (The Tomb of the Cybermen). The cliffhanger should have been the reveal of the Cybermen. But then that would have meant them not being included in the Next Time trailer from the previous week.

I want to be positive but I just struggle. I know I should overlook the one minor moment, but I just feel a bit down on Moffat from it. Doesn't then help that Moffat pats himself on the back with the meta line about somebody coming up with the cyberspace idea before (I bet a book, comic or audio has done it before).

Right, try to cast the negativity out of my mind for the second part.

I'm guessing there that the Dalek Invasion Of Earth speech is the 'One day, I will come back...' one, the Trial Of A Time Lord speech the 'Ten million years of absolute power, that's what it takes to be really corrupt!' one...but which one are you thinking of from Survival?

Quote from: The Doctor
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Catalogue Trousers on October 04, 2021, 11:52:03 PM
Ah, of course! Thanks.

Quote
Doesn't then help that Moffat pats himself on the back with the meta line about somebody coming up with the cyberspace idea before (I bet a book, comic or audio has done it before).

Never mind The Simpsons (which is the plot of the episode), The Flood did it!

This DWM 8th Doctor comic strip features Cybermen who initially appear as 'ghosts' a la Army Of Ghosts/Doomsday, and their plot involves a very similar water/cyberspace-type dramatic device.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 05, 2021, 12:31:00 AM
Moffat knows how to win me back quickly when I'm trying to be positive. Have a silly jokey opening and change the opening titles to match it and then reference The Invasion.

Death in Heaven, despite being full of shit new series Cybermen stomping around, is an improvement. I might be clutching at straws, but I think there are just about enough to declare this as not terrible.

The Doctor accidentally becoming president is great. First Gallifrey and now Earth.

I can't help but feel I'd love this as an idea if it wasn't the Cybermen. Cyber-pollen just sounds so hacky, but the core idea of an enemy being able to resurrect the dead as their own could have worked really well with a new villain. I can't believe how graphic the Danny Cyberman is. Graphic in a good way, mind. Everything with him was the real strong point of the episode. Of course Chibnall can point out that he did this first! That is before somebody points out Attack of the Cybermen also did it first. And The Tomb of the Cybermen kind of did it too.

I don't like the Simm Master. Two of my least favourite Doctor Who stories involve him. Gomez is still being written like him so much as I like the actress, I find it hard to look past the characterisation. That being said, I loved how she brazenly murdered Osgood. And thank fuck she murdered Chris Addison.

Speaking of good speeches, I liked the "I'm not a good man, I'm an idiot" spiel. Hopefully we never get any of that self-reflection nonsense again which Doctor Who has been infested with for far too long. An unfortunate modern trend rather than anything Who specific.

Okay, I tried not to be negative and isn't terrible but it isn't good either, I'm afraid. I do hear how Missy is popular, so I'm keeping an open mind beyond this story.

Maybe it is that I only actually like one incarnation of The Master. I've been thinking about how in the Classic Series, The Master is broadly always to the same template except when near death and desperate for more life. My thinking is that Delgado is the final incarnation of The Master and then he reaches the end of his life with The Deadly Assassin/The Keeper of Traken and then takes over Tremas' body but still embodies the same incarnation and then the Gordon Tipple is meant to look like the classic Master. Essentially it means all the way through to Eric Roberts, it is still no explicit regeneration.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Endicott on October 05, 2021, 09:50:23 AM
These are great JamesTC, great fun to revisit episodes I've mostly only watched once. I've realised that when something dumb happens I mentally edit it out and forget it ever happened, for example, Gomez snogging Capaldi, which was as you say, awful. She's good though, I hope she wins you over.

I watched Claws of Axos last week for some Delgago fun, he really was the definitive one. I would have been Ok with Jacobi, I think, so the regen into Simm was a disappointment. I like Simm, but didn't like his master at all. His hyperactivity was just so wearing.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 05, 2021, 10:12:43 AM
Jacobi was good in his one scene as The Master. Imagine if RTD brought him back fully as The Master for the 60th.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 05, 2021, 10:18:58 AM
The only Gareth Roberts TV story I really like is The Lodger, which is great. Some of his books are fantastic, though. The Plotters and his Four/Romana/K9 trilogy (particularly The Well-Mannered War) are up there with the best Missing Adventures. Shame he turned out to be so fucking horrible.

The forest episode is absolutely one of those that has a great core idea but is executed in a really bad way. I recall really enjoying the series up to the moon one and the forest one, both of which really felt like good ideas but at least a couple of drafts away from completion. The Cybermen two-parter is ok, some great creepy imagery in the first part, but also thousands of Cybermen stomping all over the world in RTD-style for the second, and of course the fucking Cyber-Brigadier. Oh the whole, the second half of the series really felt like dregs after a pretty strong opening run. I recall it not really picking up again until Heaven Sent.

I’m not a huge fan of Simm’s Master, but I do appreciate that he was written as a counterpart to Tennant’s hyperactive Doctor, in the way that Delgado and Pertwee were similarly matched. I enjoy Gomez’s performance more as she goes on, but her and Dhawan are still largely written in the same crazy manner, and it’s a shame the character has become that, when they should be as varied as the different incarnations of the Doctor.
That said, I did like Simm’s Delgado impression in series 12.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on October 05, 2021, 12:26:53 PM
I really liked Dark Water. There's a lot going on but the way it builds on all the little bits in previous episodes, its full of hints and demi-reveals throughout. The twist can't be 'oh, it's the cybermen', it has to be 'this character we've seen bits of all season is actually the ... '. And the way she does murder Osgood (who was in her second? appearance) and Chris Addison's character is great.

Cyber-Brig is the biggest nope of the whole thing.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 05, 2021, 06:02:46 PM
Oh, I thought that was one of the best received episodes of the series?

Surely.  It stood out to me at the time, and I believe I was fairly vocal about it.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 05, 2021, 06:04:35 PM
Initially Flatline felt a bit Fear Her but from the reveal that the mural was real people trapped in the walls, it picked up the threat. It isn't amazing or standout, but it is basically fine. Some good visuals with the transformations into 2D.

They manage limited Capaldi time well. Love and Monsters is so fucking shit that it taints all future Doctor-lite stories but actually the episodes I can think of off the top of my head (Blink, Turn Left, The Girl Who Waited, that episode of The Time Meddler when Hartnell was on holiday) are all rather good.

Clara runs around with a toy TARDIS for a bit. Silly but fun idea. Worthy of being done once and doesn't feel like a retread of Planet of Giants.

Must just be me misrembering.

I remember loving Flatline up to a certain point, and I can't remember what the turnaround was.  Was it a deus ex machina ending?  Or was the whole premise with the TARDIS running low on oxygen as a safety mechanism just a bit silly?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 05, 2021, 06:24:58 PM
I do like the fact that they accidentally included an advert for Series 8 on the side of a bus:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0U5XfSCQAIQRYn.png)

I'm baffled by it.  How can you accidentally film a bus with a Doctor Who advert on it?  You either film a bus or you don't, and then you actively include it in your episode or you don't.

The producers of the episode would have known that fans would freeze-frame the footage to see what the advert was, because we have the same level of obsession as those first people to play that Red Dwarf episode backwards to find out what the speech was.  Producers of shows like Doctor Who expect this to happen and deliberately include Easter Eggs for those fans.

So it can't possibly have been a mistake.  They must have included it as an active creative decision.  And it's barmy and shit.


Rubbish episode as well, for reasons I can't even remember because I have only seen it once.  Wasn't the Missy comment at the end really confusing?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: lipsink on October 05, 2021, 06:39:36 PM
I remember the school girl waving her hands about at things that she could only see as she ran and thinking it was one of the worst things I'd ever seen. What a bad episode.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 05, 2021, 06:43:14 PM
I can't believe how graphic the Danny Cyberman is. Graphic in a good way, mind. Everything with him was the real strong point of the episode. Of course Chibnall can point out that he did this first!

What's the thing that Chibnall did first?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 05, 2021, 07:11:29 PM
What's the thing that Chibnall did first?

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mX3lrhqEblM/VSapzbghsnI/AAAAAAAAd0c/nP4AJ3Nu2Jk/s1600/picture-21.jpg)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 05, 2021, 07:27:13 PM
Oh, that's a different use of the term graphic.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 05, 2021, 07:33:16 PM
Oh, that's a different use of the term graphic.

Oh Cyberwomen wasn't graphic. Chibnall can just claim to have done the half Cybered person first. But of course Tomb and Attack both also did it too.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 05, 2021, 09:09:57 PM
It's an argument I've never heard before and it doesn't make any sense.


When Chibnall did Cyberwoman, he was missing the point of Cybermen which is that men, women and everyone get absorbed into becoming the same self-stripped thing.  What Moffat did with Danny was nothing along those lines, and if Chibnall's only understanding of the latter is 'NNNNGGG BUT I DID ARMOURLESS CYBERS FIRST" then he really does have a screw loose.  What an idiot.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 05, 2021, 09:44:55 PM
Silly admission regarding Cyber-brig. When it originally aired, I saw a comedy video on Twitter of somebody superimposing a moustache onto the Cyber-brig and I thought it was in the actual episode.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: H-O-W-L on October 05, 2021, 09:58:44 PM
I still think they need to stop ripping off the Borg for the Cybermen and start ripping off some more newer cyberpunk tropes. The theory of Cybermen being convergent evolution in WE&T and The Doctor Falls is fucking cool and makes a lot of sense, really -- humans adapting to their environment and all. It's wot HG Wells was banging on about when he basically fired the genre into overdrive with War of the Worlds. "Wot if phones, but too much?" but done actually seriously.

Also the new series making all Cybermen a hivemind is pants bollocks -- they were never that in the original series. They even had fucking names in the Tenth Planet and throughout the supplemental stuff!
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: H-O-W-L on October 05, 2021, 10:05:14 PM
I don't know what they've done with that new cyber bloke in the newest series -- It's just bollocks about him being half-converted but still having all his faceless chummy robotic cyber-mates to be stompy stompy WSH WSH BOM BOM BOM BAMBA BADAM threats that all get zapped isn't it? No exploration of the idea of cybermen or anything -- just metal zombies, as always.  Give us a Kroton style character in the show! (Not the shit crystal blokes)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 05, 2021, 11:38:16 PM
Earthshock and World Enough and Time/The Doctor Falls are the only good post-'60s TV Cybermen stories. They work best when there's a real horror in their portrayal, the horrible inhuman appearance of previously human creatures. Earthshock gets through because it's an incredibly well written action story, but it's the only worthwhile Cybermen story where they're just generic villains. Attack of the Cybermen has some redeeming features in the second part, but suffers from the continuity-overload that comes from the worst parts of the JNT era.

The big problem with the Cybus Cybermen is the way people were forced into it. Yes, there's the horror of the conversion, but once it's gone they're just drones. The idea of the originals, that they actually intentionally butchered their bodies in that way, that's far, far scarier. The Tomb of the Cybermen is effective entirely on the mouth slots sliding open and the digital sounding voice speaking. It's so utterly inimical to human expression that it's almost repulsive, and when tied to the fact that this race willingly did this to themselves, they become a far scarier prospect than the Daleks because they're incomprehensible.

Also the fact that all the new series ones are wearing The Wrong Trousers does them no favours at all. The '80s ones talking like Mr. Blobby similarly so.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Gurke and Hare on October 06, 2021, 11:30:57 AM
The Cybermen are, generally, not very good and the series could have done a lot better for a second string big bad.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 06, 2021, 12:16:20 PM
Was Martha the only black character in New Who and its spin-offs to not be converted into a Cyberman?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: H-O-W-L on October 06, 2021, 02:00:38 PM
Something I really disliked in WE&T was that the Cybermen were shown to be shambling zombiemen pre-conversion, whereas in Spare Parts you had the Cyber Police and people who had like, cybernetic add-ons that were not necessarily Cybermen, and could function in daily life, but were clearly losing their connection to humanity (not the same thing as "losing your humanity" like the newer Cybusmen have) and were coming to see other humans as inferior.

The thing is that the new Cybusmen are all just programming, you know? There's no actual conscious transition of "Fuck, I need to do this to survive, fuck." into "Yes, I am superior Man. I am evolutionary. I am the future." it's just YOU WILL BE UPGRADED because wot if yer ipod but in your head?

The idea of Cybermen being this sort of like, evolutionofascist group that not only thinks that it's doing the best thing possible by upgrading humans, but also seeing unaugmented humans as lesser beings that either need a leedle helpin' hand or a boot to the neck is way more chilling than zombie robots that convert you cos' it's all they know. The idea that they consciously look at you like we would a dog? That's fucking great. Scary as shit. It's why I love the Super Mutants in Fallout 1, but not in any other instalment -- they're not just horrid posthumans, they're thinking posthumans that want to make more humans like them, consciously.

I reread the Kroton stories from the DW comic (I can link in PMs if anyone wants) last night and they were truly effective because it was clear that even before he woke up from the Cyberman dream, Kroton was an individual, he just didn't give much of a shit about being one over furthering his cause.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on October 06, 2021, 02:14:39 PM
Was Martha the only black character in New Who and its spin-offs to not be converted into a Cyberman?

Mickey/Rickey
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: A Hat Like That on October 06, 2021, 02:19:23 PM
Rickey's Nan.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on October 06, 2021, 02:49:09 PM
It's why I love the Super Mutants in Fallout 1, but not in any other instalment -- they're not just horrid posthumans, they're thinking posthumans that want to make more humans like them, consciously.


Well, they're still doing that in Fallout 3, but Fallout 3 is shit.

Quote
I reread the Kroton stories from the DW comic (I can link in PMs if anyone wants)

Yes, please! Sending you a PM.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 07, 2021, 07:02:53 PM
A nice palate cleanser is Last Christmas. Manages to have fun Christmas ideas that will appeal to a general audience whilst having a traditional Doctor Who story. A mild criticism would be that it all went a big generic at the end but I felt that it was a rather inventive and new way of telling the within a dream story.

The line that really chimed with me was "it's a long story". The story understood dreams on a deep level in a way that shows up the shallow nature of other stories set in dreams from other shows/films. Dreams have a magical way of excusing logical fallacies. When people I've known have passed away, I always without fail have a dream that they are alive. I ask them how it is possible and the excuse is always a hilariously hand-waving "the doctors were wrong".

Didn't like the twist at the end with old Clara. Waste of time in light of the fact that The Doctor already knew that Clara lied to him about Danny. He didn't need that extra motivation to go back to visit her and invite her back onto the TARDIS.

Doctor Who referencing a film franchise which stars two previous incarnations in some of the films seems odd.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mr Trumpet on October 07, 2021, 08:19:35 PM
This seems to be where they'd planned to write Clara out, and it works well for me as an end to the character. But I guess Jenna Coleman changed her mind or something?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 07, 2021, 08:38:29 PM
Yes, I believe she was unsure herself so the episode was written to allow for both possibilities. Obviously we wouldn't have got Bill if Clara had left then, but at the same time, she really should have left.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on October 07, 2021, 10:07:05 PM
The woman who wakes up alone in her flat - forget her name - would have been the season nine companion.

As it turned out, I quite liked Clara's arc. But I'd much rather have (somehow) had two seasons of Bill instead.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mr Trumpet on October 08, 2021, 11:21:03 AM
Would have loved to have seen more of Faye Marsay in the show, she's fanciable AF
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on October 08, 2021, 11:43:34 AM
Great actor. Would make a good Doctor I think.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on October 08, 2021, 07:16:21 PM
As it turned out, I quite liked Clara's arc. But I'd much rather have (somehow) had two seasons of Bill instead.

yes this! i'm really vibing with clara on my rewatch to my great surprise. bill is best though
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on October 08, 2021, 07:23:04 PM
Would have loved to have seen more of Faye Marsay in the show, she's fanciable AF

Blimey, I’ve no memory of her at all, how odd
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 09, 2021, 12:01:14 AM
The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar features such incredibly exciting events. The return of Davros. The return of Skaro. The return of classic style Daleks. The return of The Master. The Doctor riding a tank with a guitar. I was so nonplussed and even a little bored. All this sort of wackiness and out there ideas now just seems like Moffat by the numbers.

Nice to see Skaro during the war albeit briefly and very little of it. I always had trouble visualising Skaro during the very good I, Davros audios. The Master and Clara going on an adventure to find out where they actually are was nice. I perked up with clips from better stories appeared. As was the return of the classic style Daleks. Much as the bronze Daleks are a lovely design, the classic coloured Daleks really show up many of the later variations. A cliffhanger teasing The Doctor killing baby Hitler seems a bit rum.

Part 2 doesn't start much better on the rum stakes. The Doctor steals a wheelchair off a man with no legs. Would you steal Hitler's wheelchair? It almost feels perverse learning how The Master escapes all the time. Clarek was silly but fun. I don't want to know why The Doctor left Gallifrey other than he was a bit bored and wanted adventure with his granddaughter. Davros and The Doctor having a jolly old laugh was not expected. It was so clear Davros had some ulterior motive. I was initially working on the idea that Davros needed to survive until sunrise for something to happen but I was close enough. The twist that The Doctor knew all along as well and was playing along was a surprise.

Overall it wasn't a particularly good start to the new series.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on October 09, 2021, 12:24:46 AM
The twist that The Doctor knew all along as well and was playing along was a surprise.

The only reason I thought this twist was a shame is that Capaldi is such a good actor; his conversation with Davros, taken as sincere, was wonderfully performed. Alas, the Doctor was only acting too.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Poison To The Mind on October 09, 2021, 05:30:04 AM
Would you steal Hitler's wheelchair?

(https://i.imgflip.com/5psq7t.jpg)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 09, 2021, 10:50:08 AM
The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar features such incredibly exciting events. The return of Davros. The return of Skaro. The return of classic style Daleks. The return of The Master. The Doctor riding a tank with a guitar. I was so nonplussed and even a little bored. All this sort of wackiness and out there ideas now just seems like Moffat by the numbers.
Yeah, my recollection was loads of moments that made me go 'wow' but I actually felt worn out by the time it ended. It runs close to New Adventures style fanwank, which is something series 9 suffers with a bit. Which is the one that has a fleeting glimpse of every Doctor in a flashback story about an indeterminate Doctor? And isn't there a framed photo of Susan in one episode or something?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Malcy on October 09, 2021, 11:14:59 AM
And isn't there a framed photo of Susan in one episode or something?

Not sure about S9 but he has a photo of her on his desk in his office in S10.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 09, 2021, 11:22:25 AM
Ah. Maybe there's a picture of the Hartnell Doctor somewhere then? There's also another UNIT dating gag in the Zygon episodes.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 09, 2021, 05:46:29 PM
Under the Lake/Before the Flood is an interesting take on the two parter structure. We are presented with essentially elements of a part two before we reach the first part with Before the Flood which then gives us the eventual resolution. Not quite up to the standard of Flip-Flop (https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Flip-Flop_(audio_story)) in terms of innovation, but still a nice change of pace.

The structure means that Under the Lake feels a bit lacking as it is all setting up some mysteries. The cliffhanger is great. Though I guessed straight away that The Doctor would intentionally allow himself to be ghostified in some way to resolve the problem. Okay, I was slightly wrong as it turned out to be a hologram but I was nearly right.

The Doctor breaking the fourth wall to talk to the audience about the bootstrap paradox was a bit too on the nose. If the plot can't stand on it's own that you feel it needs this sort of introduction, it is a fault of the scripting process. But even so, it doesn't feel necessary based on what happens. Is it just a lack of confidence in the audience? It is all explained at the end. They explain it twice, one at the beginning and once at the end.

I liked the contrast of the two different times and locations of the second part. The resolution was fine. It mostly all hanged together and was an improvement on the last two two-parters.

By the way, the sonic sunglasses are rubbish. And I don't like The Doctor playing the guitar. Like an old man's idea of what cool is.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 09, 2021, 06:12:05 PM
The Doctor breaking the fourth wall to talk to the audience about the bootstrap paradox was a bit too on the nose. If the plot can't stand on it's own that you feel it needs this sort of introduction, it is a fault of the scripting process.
Yeah, it's pretty shit. I suppose it's there for kids for whom the main plot might be slightly too complex. But I'm not a fan of it.
Quote
By the way, the sonic sunglasses are rubbish. And I don't like The Doctor playing the guitar. Like an old man's idea of what cool is.
I think that's kind of the point, but I also agree it's shit. Capaldi's three series each have a very different portrayal, and the "look I'm trying to be cool" version is by far the worst.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 12, 2021, 06:57:31 PM
The Girl Who Died is a story which seems tonally off. A wacky comedy just doesn't seem right for the story they are telling. Unfortunately they now seem to be pushing Capaldi as far away from the serious side as possible. Then you have the sudden serious turn which felt odd just seconds after Benny Hill was playing.

Why exactly couldn't The Doctor save the girl at first? There was no fixed point in time stopping him or any of that nonsense. He could have just saved her straight away without the big realisation about why he chose his face. In that sense, the big realisation felt hollow even when taking into account the immortal thing. It was alien technology from the time, so it still should have no influence on the timeline, as it was nothing that would have been introduced through time travel.

The Doctor and the gang fighting off the soldiers with the fake dragon was good. A nice way for The Doctor to win a battle largely through non-violence.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on October 12, 2021, 07:36:41 PM
And I don't like The Doctor playing the guitar. Like an old man's idea of what cool is.

Plus it was basically just an excuse for Capaldi to show us that he can play guitar. All rather embarrassing and self-indulgent really.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on October 12, 2021, 07:39:58 PM
Plus it was basically just an excuse for Capaldi to show us that he can play guitar. All rather embarrassing and self-indulgent really.

Rather Tony Blairesque
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: canted_angle_again on October 12, 2021, 07:57:06 PM
So much cynicism here!  Are we becoming too old and jaded for Doctor Who?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Blofelds Cat on October 12, 2021, 07:58:08 PM
Didnt bother me tbh...follows the tradition of Hartnell playing the lyre..Troughton recorder, Bakers picollo (the Pesatons) and McCoy spoon playing...wasnt there plans originally for Pertwee to play guitar and speak in parables?
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 12, 2021, 08:01:29 PM
Smith played the footballs
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on October 12, 2021, 08:04:36 PM
Rather Tony Blairesque

Oh God, I wish you hadn't said that, now I won't be able to unsee it
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: jamiefairlie on October 12, 2021, 08:06:05 PM
So much cynicism here!  Are we becoming too old and jaded for Doctor Who?

No but we are old enough to remember when it wasn’t complete and utter CBBC shite.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on October 12, 2021, 08:13:31 PM
Smith played the footballs

Albeit briefly in just one episode, they didn't try to make Smith's footballing prowess part of his Doctor's character.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on October 12, 2021, 08:15:28 PM
They should have done a scene where he’s floating in space with a silly helmet on and he has to kick a football so he can float back to safety
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: pigamus on October 12, 2021, 08:19:20 PM
Albeit briefly in just one episode, they didn't try to make Smith's footballing prowess part of his Doctor's character.

The Doctor playing football is the ultimate betrayal though
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on October 12, 2021, 08:22:40 PM
Didnt bother me tbh...follows the tradition of Hartnell playing the lyre..Troughton recorder, Bakers picollo (the Pesatons) and McCoy spoon playing...wasnt there plans originally for Pertwee to play guitar and speak in parables?
Also they managed to work in Pertwee’s love of cars, and Colin Baker’s penchant for shouting
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on October 12, 2021, 08:26:41 PM
and Colin Baker’s penchant for shouting

And his expanding girth. I wonder how he felt about that becoming part of his dynamic with Mel? "Haha! Look, kids, isn't this Doctor a big old fatty?!" Not very nice that.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on October 12, 2021, 08:33:25 PM
Didnt bother me tbh...follows the tradition of Hartnell playing the lyre..Troughton recorder, Bakers picollo (the Pesatons) and McCoy spoon playing...wasnt there plans originally for Pertwee to play guitar and speak in parables?

Hartnell couldn't really play the lyre, though. Same goes for Baker and the piccolo. Could Troughton actually play the recorder? He only ever seemed to toot a few notes on it. McCoy, granted, can play the spoons, hence why they threw that in.

Anyway, I don't have some fundamental problem with actors sometimes using their real life skills in the roles they play, that would be daft, it's just that, as mentioned previously, Capaldi wearing shades and playing electric guitar was a bit naff.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on October 12, 2021, 08:39:54 PM
I love the fourth-wall-breaking bit with the guitar and you can't stop me.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Blofelds Cat on October 12, 2021, 08:44:10 PM
If they really did want to maintain the Doctors eccentricity they should have had him play a Peruvian nose flute...or considering Moffat had raided every single plot point and line from his Comic Relief sketch and used them all in the actual programme he could have had Capaldi become a flatulist and met Le Petomane as that seasons historical figure...still would have been miles better than what Chibster has served up..
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: canted_angle_again on October 12, 2021, 08:48:56 PM
No but we are old enough to remember when it wasn’t complete and utter CBBC shite.

I really don't think ANY of the Capaldi era could be described as anything like CBBC, it's closer to the Hinchcliffe era than anything else.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on October 12, 2021, 09:06:58 PM
I really don't think ANY of the Capaldi era could be described as anything like CBBC, it's closer to the Hinchcliffe era than anything else.

I'm pretty sure Jamie was referring to the Chibnall era.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: canted_angle_again on October 12, 2021, 10:27:14 PM
I'm pretty sure Jamie was referring to the Chibnall era.

Ah my mistake, it's just that there was a bit of talk about Capaldi before that. Sorry.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on October 12, 2021, 10:27:47 PM
No need to apologise, I could be wrong! I often am.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on October 13, 2021, 02:43:11 PM
watched dark water last night

le missy sexually assaulting le doctor who good one moffeets xD xD xD
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on October 25, 2021, 12:33:51 AM
A mate of mine is a proper cinephile - you know, he favours films full of French people, with hardly any explosions and that. But he bloody loved The End of the World when he saw by chance a few years back. I was baffled, remembering it from transmission mostly by its glaring flaws: why were there big fans across the button that handily resolved the plot? Why were the fans only slowed, not stopped, by a big lever that had to be manually held down? Why did it only take one button to lower the Steward's sun shield, yet he couldn't raise it again with that same button (and why did he wait so long to try)?

But my mate, snob that he is, said he expected that kind of stupid contrivance in a sci-fi series, so none of it really registered. What he notices is the stuff you don't (in his opinion) tend to get in genre television - the depths of emotion, and the moments of quiet reflection, like The Doctor and Rose holding hands as they look at the ruins of the Earth.

On rewatching it the other day, without the gnawing, adolescent fear[1] that the obvious naffness of the "action" would make the show a laughing stock, I saw what he meant - this story pivots not around any of the satellite-under-seige nonsense, but around Rose, and her reactions to being in the distant future for the first time with someone she's only just met.

And I know it's not fair to anyone to keep comparing RTD to Chibnall, but blimey, compare Rose's reactions here - excitement about the experience, discomfort at the TARDIS's translation system messing with her head uninvited, the slow realisation that she doesn't know who The Doctor is or whether he's just going to leave her on the station, her curiosity and then disgust at Lady Cassandra's bigotry, her mourning for the Earth dying unwatched - to the absolute non-responses "the fam" give to a far more obviously scary trip to space in The Ghost Monument. It's night and day. Or shite and Davies. That doesn't really work, does it? Sod it, no time to edit.

So yeah, watching it in the knowledge that RTD writes character first and actual plot second, it's a fun little yarn, and does a great job of extending the mystery of The Doctor while reinforcing both his innate goodness (saving the station, not wanting to let Jade sacrifice herself) and his harder, scarier edge ("everything dies").

Oh, and for all the complaints about kitchen sink drama that floated around at the time, RTD is great at adding detail to his sci-fi worlds, from the small character moments like The Doctor breathing on Jabe (because of course you can give the gift of carbon dioxide to a plant!) to the evocative names of the guests (what is The City-State of Binding Light?) to classifying Britney Spears' Toxic as classical music (an old joke, probably, but of course it is when you're that far in the future).

7/10; what it gets right outweighs what it gets wrong, though maybe if I were in a less cheerful mood I'd rate it 6/10.
 1. I was twentysomething at the time, but the anxiety was pure "13-year-old on a first date" shit.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: olliebean on October 25, 2021, 08:33:26 AM
7/10; what it gets right outweighs what it gets wrong, though maybe if I were in a less cheerful mood I'd rate it 6/10.

Or 10/10 if we're putting it up against a Chibnall season and grading on the curve.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: H-O-W-L on October 25, 2021, 08:57:40 AM
The End of the World does something that all the sequential series have failed to do, except maybe Donna's: The scale of the future is fucking scary, and Rose basically spending most of the episode in a kind of sympathetic, emotive meltdown really sells the concept. RTD really excelled at this sort of shit; putting stuff in scope, and putting it down on the street. It's why his later seasons suffered IMO; he really had to up the game too much and got too immersed in the stink of Rose's plot.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 25, 2021, 12:26:04 PM
I wonder how much work RTD needs to do in order to have written more Doctor Who than Moffat.  Funny if he did only just enough to overtake him and then stopped.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Mister Six on October 25, 2021, 04:35:06 PM
The End of the World does something that all the sequential series have failed to do, except maybe Donna's: The scale of the future is fucking scary, and Rose basically spending most of the episode in a kind of sympathetic, emotive meltdown really sells the concept.

Very true, but I understand why he couldn't trot this kind of thing out every time. Jodie's second episode, being the closest thing the series has had to a fresh start since 2005, would have been a great time to revisit this kind of "Oh fuck, what have we gotten ourselves into?" vibe as a story opportunity, but... Chibnall.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on October 25, 2021, 04:47:24 PM
"What would happen if a dyspraxic lad picked up a gun for the first time, but in space?"
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 25, 2021, 09:20:46 PM
Yeah, my biggest issue with the Chibnall era is the emotional coldness. I don't really hate the recent stuff as most people here, when watching it I've generally been ok to go along with the ride, but there's just no feeling, not a sense of actually feeling like you're there in the TARDIS with fun people, going on adventures. There's some kind of invisible barrier between me and the action, the TARDIS doesn't feel like a welcoming, homely place, there's no sense of awe or excitement, it's just sort of... there, presented with a shrug. Whatever my issues with RTD's run - and there are many - this is absolutely not one of them.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: canted_angle_again on October 25, 2021, 09:30:28 PM
Yeah, my biggest issue with the Chibnall era is the emotional coldness. I don't really hate the recent stuff as most people here, when watching it I've generally been ok to go along with the ride, but there's just no feeling, not a sense of actually feeling like you're there in the TARDIS with fun people, going on adventures. There's some kind of invisible barrier between me and the action, the TARDIS doesn't feel like a welcoming, homely place, there's no sense of awe or excitement, it's just sort of... there, presented with a shrug. Whatever my issues with RTD's run - and there are many - this is absolutely not one of them.

I really get what you mean about the Tardis design, the glowing moving crystal things must be a nightmare to shoot around, or just an annoyance to remove to get a shot if they are indeed removable. The Tardis design is as ill thought out as the scripts and looks as naff as Tennant/ Ecclescakes. My favourite Tardis design of the era so far has to be Smiths disco pop design, it spelt spacious and mad and it's conversion to the grey mechanical thing was also a great way of portraying the doctors change of mindset. Ah - the days when the creator actually thought about things.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: purlieu on October 25, 2021, 09:35:54 PM
Yeah, the set is a big part of why I never feel like I'm actually in the TARDIS with the characters, it's cramped and ugly and just unwelcoming. At no point does it feel like I'm actually joining in on the adventure.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on October 26, 2021, 02:12:36 AM
do you know that it was ben wheatley's intervention on giving capaldi's tardis that golden glow? really loved it; just magical, whereas jodie's looks like one of elon musk's diamond mines or whatever the fuck

(https://i.imgur.com/fMqu0zi.png)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 26, 2021, 07:31:16 AM
So mad that a show with a stretched budget would choose to demolish that Capaldi TARDIS set and build the Whittaker one.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Thomas on October 26, 2021, 10:27:52 AM
As well as disliking the current console room cave, I wish in general that they'd settle on a design and let it sit for longer. Capaldi's would have been perfect, with its Wheatleyed lighting and furnishings, warm and mechanical, erudite and homely. A library and a spaceship. Just ten years of that room, letting it become a key feature of iconography. A throughline, a central den. Got three series out of it before blowing it up.

RTD's console room (which I recall fondly) had five years to bed in and become a familiar space, but even that's nothing compared to the long-lived console rooms of old.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Jerzy Bondov on October 26, 2021, 04:05:36 PM
Hello I'm coming out against the RTD console room, didn't like it at all, and you never got the impression there was anything beyond it, just like the Whittaker one. Smith I and the Capaldified Smith II are the only good ones from the new series. The Capaldi one is basically the only TARDIS in Who you'd actually want to live in.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: GoblinAhFuckScary on October 26, 2021, 04:26:12 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Rz0bRFB.png)
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: Replies From View on October 26, 2021, 04:30:27 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Rz0bRFB.png)

RTD has reached that level in the industry where he can shit anywhere now, and nobody raises an eyebrow.  Always in his pants, though.
Title: Re: Doctor Who 2005-2017 : The RTD & Moffat Years
Post by: JamesTC on October 27, 2021, 06:08:41 PM
In The Girl Who Died we had The Doctor make a big thing about saving somebody's life despite the fact that he did it using alien technology that wasn't out of time. It didn't really make sense, but this has now led to The Woman Who Lived in a pseudo two-parter.

All in all it felt a bit of a nothing episode. It wasn't bad or anything, but I just feel it was a stretched episode to justify covering 45 minutes. Everything felt sudden in the second half when the lion man is introduced and then the resolution is just as sudden. The opening half feels stretched by a conflict between Ashildr and The Doctor but I can't understand it. The justification for not letting her travel with him feels hallow yet it is the crux of the story.

I feel like this would have been better with episodes in between. The whole point is that The Doctor has left Ashildr alone but has watched from a distance and not went to visit her. Coming straight after The Girl Who Died, it feels like he has just jumped ahead in time straight away without any off-screen adventures.

Captain Jack reference. Apparently he is going to fuck Ashildr one day. A shame John Barrowman got his cock out all the time as I'm sure Big Finish would have done that. Foley artist working overtime.