Advice For Stephen Moffat On Doctor Who...

[Ryushikaze]

Y'know, one thing that Moffat could do for the next season is bring up, in a way that the Doctor cannot deny, is that he is completely unstable right now. He's been hiding it from himself by finding new companions and keeping himself distracted, and that he's desperately searching for something of his life from before the destruction of gallifrey, hence his horribly inconsistent treatment of people he has an 'attachment' to, and why he has also run away from a lot of other things. Tennant, and less obviously Eccleston, are engaged in mental escapism to try and avoid facing up to what he's done and the situation he's in.
This would go a little way to explain why he acted so irrationally towards Davros and the Master.

But yes. Deal with the Doctor's dubious mental state, and show him facing up to himself, and what he's been doing in the past few seasons.

[Revy]

Gosh, I guess I should have read some of Miles' work first, I didn't realise he was that bad (having never read a Who book in my life, seeing as I only just got into the series about a week or two ago). Nevertheless, he does make some valid points that I have heard Who fans make themselves, such as;

1. A companion who isn't from the early twenty-first century.

^Which I do want. I want to see what it's like for someone from our distant past, or future, to deal with travelling to different worlds and time periods. I'm sick of average joe (or jane, in this case) Londoners hopping around in the TARDIS. Give me a companion who has the pottential to be as interesting and varied as the Doctor, why not?

4. No more affairs for the Doctor.

Really, I don't want to watch a soap in space. One of the reasons I ended up hating Whedon show Buffy was because I got sick of all the love triangles, squares, twisty shapes and affairs, and all the emotional romantic angst crap. If I tune into a sci-fi show is it not unreasonable for it to focus on science fiction, as opposed to romance? I'd much rather see the effects of tampering with history or paradoxes or alien cultures than who currently has the hots for the Doctor.

6. No spurious super-powers.

Watching Girl in the Fireplace threw me with his mind-meld telepathy, but I think anyone would agree that it really got silly when you have the Doctor regenerating a severed hand into a human hybrid of himself, and Donna gaining supposedly the Doctors knowledge, yet using it to magically fix everything to an even greater Nth degree than we ever saw Who himself do. To be fair though, this isn't as bad as it could be, and the Doctor is an alien after all. I just hope they dont pull out any more super-powers to solve a problem rather than have him using his, as he often reminds us, smart brain.

7. The Doctor shouldn't know everything.
&
8. The Doctor shouldn't be perfect.

Ok, yes, he's been around the block and he has been there, done that, bought the T-shirt rack. But I still really enjoyed episodes when he didn't instantly know everything about the situation. Half watching Midnight, where he had to try and work out what was going on, is what got me hooked on the show. And I'm watching Impossible Planet and Satan's Pit, where he's just as stumped by the ancient writing and black-hole suspended planet as everyone else, and it's fantastic. He shouldn't be permenantly clueless, but he shouldn't be omniscient either.

10. No technobabble.

To be fair again, I only really had a problem with this on Journeys End, with Doctor/Donna spewing Trektastic ammounts of technobabble that completely saved the day. Who is pretty good about avoiding this problem and I'm hoping that last episode was just a one-off nightmare that wont become a bad habbit.

12. Please, in the name of God, less stories set on modern-day Earth.

Oh god, please. If the next season makes yet another episode set in modern day London or Cardiff, I'm going to scream and stop watching Who forever. For chrissakes, he has a machine that can go anywhere in the universe, anywhen. And he almost always winds up in London, quite often in modern times. That's not time travel or even space travel, that's the exact opposite. The whole point about having a time/space ship is that you can go away from modern day Earth, not keep coming back to it. And like the blog said, Torchwood and Sarah Jane are set on Earth, so let them handle the Earth crisis/invasion stories, and leave exploring the universe to the guy who actually has a TARDIS. Again, this is a sci-fi show. I hate London, and I can see all of modern day earth I want because I live on it! Show me the universe!


Anyway, there are some other good points. I think it's unfair to just pick out the stupid comments he posted and ignore the rest. Yes, he's a crap writer and a horrible affront to Dr Who, but even though I hate Berman & Braga for making Trek even worse than it already was, if they made a list of things wrong with the show and suggested some good ideas on how to fix them (unlikely though it may be) I'd still listen to the points that made sense and I agreed with. I've never heard of Lawrence Miles before, so I had no idea he was such a bad writer. But if anyone raises a good point, does it matter who it comes from? So long as you focus on the point raised and not the source. Regardless of who said them, I'd still like to see Moffat do something about the above^ issues, because I think it would improve Dr Who.

[Big Orange]

(the Master and his Toclafane can be brought back more easily than the creatively burnt out Daleks, without hinting too much at "Last of the Time Lords", for example).

To be honest, that's a cheque we've been written, either for a book or a show, at some point in the future anyway. "the end of the universe... and actually, we've been."

I hope so, also the Toclafane could be more willing to convert humanoids into Toclafane than non-religious Daleks without delusions of godhood to get around their paradox and with Time Lord technology behind them they are just as dangerous as the Daleks. Also being descendents of humans would be grounds for taunting ("Behold Doctor, behold the majesty of true human race!").

The Judoon can revisited many times, while the Shadow Proclamation are obviously in need of fleshing out after their so-so first showing in "The Stolen Earth",

There's indeed a fair amount of amusement potential to be had from on-off-allies-villains in the Rhino-Judge-Dredd outfits.

Yep, we can't pass up the idea of having them as temporarily firm allies for the Doctor in battle against a greater threat again.

the Krillitnes, Chula, Slitheen, Sycorax

Most of them, except perhaps the Chula (by dint of our knowing nothing about them) are quite forgettable. And for god's sake, say no to Slitheen. SJS does them well enough, and that's where they belong.

Just an idea to flesh out the wider Universe and give the initially stock alien villains some depth - the Sycorax could have long memories over having one of their city ships shot down for example, and also further explanation how seemingly middle of the road aliens like the Krillitines had access to an omniprogram that could rewrite the Universe, while also having knowledge of the Time Lords (they could have a bigger space empire and have changed a lot the next time we see them).

and Sontarans can be greatly fleshed out as well,

You could get quite some mileage out of Rutans, too. Not least because, as shapeshifters, you can get away with doing them on the cheap.

The Rutan-Sontaran War can be pushed to the forefront, with the Time War put back onto the backburner for a couple of years, since we have a big conflict that can be digested more easily by both the writers and audience (since the Time War is far too epic and convoluted to be done any justice if it was shown first hand).

and UNIT's silly Ostahagaan superweapon can be exploited by villains in Torchwood (while they also get a new ship that is more advanced than the Valiant).

The problem with that, is that secret space travel is done in Stargate, and is faintly absurd there. If they had UNIT doing it too, I'd be worried. Though there are stories in the mould of Ambassadors of Death that could be done.

Maybe the new UNIT ship could be space bound, but maybe we could have a small fleet of Valiant style carriers and a big UNIT space station of moon base?

But wiring up the Earth with nukes is bound to be open to the possibility of being used by hostile forces.

Captain Jack being 'ruined' is partially because he was not expected to live past the First Season, he was an unexpected success with the fans and then he was kept on in an initially mediocre spin-off series (he regained his S1 coolness in "Utopia" then lost it again by being chained up, but was given more to do in S4's grand final at the expense of Rose).

[Thanas]

Captain [...]was given more to do in S4's grand final at the expense of Rose.

I am interested in that bit, are there any sources for it or is that just your impression? Because it would make RTD an even worse writer than I previously thought.

[Big Orange]

Captain [...]was given more to do in S4's grand final at the expense of Rose.

I am interested in that bit, are there any sources for it or is that just your impression? Because it would make RTD an even worse writer than I previously thought.

Rose spent much of the episode inside a Dalek forcefield, while Jack was more pro-active in escaping Dalek custody and threatening to blow up their Crucible stronghold (while taking out the Dalek Supreme with his laser cannon that was made in "Bad Wolf").

I'd say RTD is not a uniformaly bad writer, he is creatively burning out and struggling to out do himself after two great season finals - I don't think "Partners in Crime" was inferior to "Rose" and was a bit better than "New Earth" ("Smith & Jones" was the best premier episode), while "Midnight" and "Turn Left" were very good as stand alone episodes (I didn't mind "Gridlock" either as a self-contained episode).

Russell T. Davies has always varied as a writer and he is begining to outlive his usefulness as head writer, so him stepping down and having Moffat take over is the best direction for the franchise anybody can realistically hope for.

But "Journey's End" still had high viewer ratings and a 91 audience appreciation index, so NuWho is not facing critical and commercial failure out in the real world, but the RTD formula does need to be overhauled before any genuine damage is inflicted.

[Thanas]

Captain [...]was given more to do in S4's grand final at the expense of Rose.

I am interested in that bit, are there any sources for it or is that just your impression? Because it would make RTD an even worse writer than I previously thought.

Rose spent much of the episode inside a Dalek forcefield, while Jack was more pro-active in escaping Dalek custody and threatening to blow up their Crucible stronghold (while taking out the Dalek Supreme with his laser cannon that was made in "Bad Wolf").

Ah, so it is your impression instead of a conscious decision by the writers to deliberatley downgrade her.

I don't think "Partners in Crime" was inferior to "Rose"

Words fail me. What is your reasoning for that?

[Stark]

Hey Orange, what's the word on how Jack still had that gun - the gun that was last seen flat and useless in year 200,100? Do the TW novels talk about him bringing it back and burying it or something until TW can build new power cells?

And please, stop repeating your ridiculous 'I don't think RTD is a uniformly bad writer' thing. We fucking know, and nobody is saying that he is.

[Flash]

I'd say RTD is not a uniformaly bad writer, he is creatively burning out and struggling to out do himself after two great season finals - I don't think "Partners in Crime" was inferior to "Rose" and was a bit better than "New Earth" ("Smith & Jones" was the best premier episode), while "Midnight" and "Turn Left" were very good as stand alone episodes (I didn't mind "Gridlock" either as a self-contained episode).

Holy shit, now I know you're taking the piss. Smith and Jones BEST premiere? Partners in Crime on the same level as Rose? The opener that set the tone (and indeed, major story arc) of the entire first season, versus the one that wasted almost it's entire run time on stupid comedy stolen from the 50's and fucking horrible CGI monsters? You're saying they're of the same overall quality? You can't be serious.

[Patrick Degan]

Sorry Patrick Degan, Season Three and Four did happen

Yes, we know. But hopefully that's a problem that can be worked around.

[Big Orange]

Words fail me. What is your reasoning for that?

"Rose" is certainly more important than given credit for and is a good episode, but it had silly cheesy moments associated with RTD like burping bins, easily resolved menaces, establishing the trend of 21st century London (Cardiff) being the most visited location and the casual killing off of minor likable characters (like the conspiracy theory dad). And Mickey was much more of a annoying prat way back in "Rose". But "The End of the World" was what really sealed the deal for me.

Holy shit, now I know you're taking the piss. Smith and Jones BEST premiere?

That's not taking the piss, the vast majority of fans do rank "Smith & Jones" above the other premiers, including Steven Moffat. "Partners in Crime" was not the best premier episode, but it was uninsultingly entertaining and introduced Bernard Cribbins' character.

Yes, we know. But hopefully that's a problem that can be worked around.

Season Three was pretty similar in quality to Season Two actually, but while episodes like "New Earth", "Fear Her", "The Unicorn and the Wasp" and "Evolution of the Daleks" will be forgotten about, you can't really disregard much better episodes like "Blink", "Turn Left", "Midnight", "Utopia", "Silence in the Library" and "Human Nature".

And "Journey's End" still tied up loose ends and cleaned the slate for Steven Moffat, however somewhat ineloquently (with UNIT decimated and Earth having full knowledge about being abducted by the Daleks). The so-called 'time lock' around the Time War being broken by Dalek Caan could be a big development, and while "Last of the Time Lords" ran out of steam I liked the idea of the Master being a politician and this could be utilized again in a better manner (like the Master rules over a future colony system or interstella megacorporation under another alias for example, while the Toclafane is an unhappy final fate for humanity).

I'd say Steven Moffat will excel at polishing off individual episodes better, while tightening up story arc resolutions and using the best elements of Russell T. Davies' popular yet patchy legacy.

[NecronLord]

"Rose" [...] establishing the trend of [...] casual killing off of minor likable characters

You've not seen much old Who, have you?

[Stark]

He's watched enough to make pompous statements of fact like 'season 3 was similar in quality to season 2 actually' (ps he means 'in my opinion') and 'I know how Steven Moffat will perform in the role because I'm a nerd psyhic'. Just like he knows everyone who got sick of RTD's writing was bandwagoning and how nobody hated Donna as a self-obsessed git without bandwagoning either. He's so accurate in his nerd-psychicness!

He even says 'Master story was bad so JUST RECYCLE IT'. Ugh. Remember, 'good' = 'what he likes' and 'bad' = 'what he doesn't like', like the death of Clive in Rose illustrating the tone of the new series actually being bad because he got wood for the guy. Most people can either accept their attitudes are subjective or discuss their objective foundations; Oragutan just goes from 'massively subjective statement of fact' to 'is correct' in one step.

Turns out fanboys will accept anything... except discussion.

[Flash]

"Rose" is certainly more important than given credit for and is a good episode, but it had silly cheesy moments associated with RTD like burping bins, easily resolved menaces, establishing the trend of 21st century London (Cardiff) being the most visited location and the casual killing off of minor likable characters (like the conspiracy theory dad). And Mickey was much more of a annoying prat way back in "Rose". But "The End of the World" was what really sealed the deal for me.

I thought Clive's death was wholly appropriate to the needs of the story. It kind of pushed home the point that he made earlier - you may have missed it, so pay attention - that wherever the Doctor goes, DEATH follows, is his constant companion, so on and so forth. I disagree that it was a 'casual' killing as you put it. That scene completely justified Clive's crackpot beliefs (and his beliefs WERE fundamentally correct, even if he got the details a bit wrong), and also reinforced that little theme that surfaces in the new series, that the Doctor is DANGEROUS, and when he's around PEOPLE FUCKING DIE.

[Thanas]

Words fail me. What is your reasoning for that?

"Rose" is certainly more important than given credit for and is a good episode, but it had silly cheesy moments associated with RTD like burping bins, easily resolved menaces,

"Smith and Jones" had Giant talking Rhinos. And the main villain drinking blood...with a straw pulled out of her handbag. So....you wanna try that cheesy argument again?

establishing the trend of 21st century London (Cardiff) being the most visited location

...and that is different from Season 3...how? At least "Rose" had different locations. Smith and Crime played in a hospital.

and the casual killing off of minor likable characters (like the conspiracy theory dad).

...which is standard for Who. Besides, it saved a purpose - if noone we knew died, why should the viewer care?

And Mickey was much more of a annoying prat way back in "Rose".

Hint: Maybe because that is the start of his character arc? If you failed to notice, that is what the doctor does - he influences people to be better. Like Mickey, who went from annoying prat to hero. Geez, I wonder whether him actually being a prat at the start had something to do with it?

That's not taking the piss, the vast majority of fans do rank "Smith & Jones" above the other premiers, including Steven Moffat.

And you know this....how?

"Partners in Crime" was not the best premier episode, but it was uninsultingly entertaining and introduced Bernard Cribbins' character.

Uninsultingly entertaining.....yeah right. More like: Hey, let's recycle old Laurel&Hardy sketches. Why bother with a story if we can get ten minutes out of silly slapstick. Need I bring up the copier scene?

As for character introductions, if that is supposed to be a criteria: "Rose" introduced all major characters of the first two seasons save one, including the companion who stayed with the doctor for the longest number of episodes in the whole history of the show.

Season Three was pretty similar in quality to Season Two actually,

In your dreams maybe.

but while episodes like "New Earth", "Fear Her", "The Unicorn and the Wasp" and "Evolution of the Daleks" will be forgotten about, you can't really disregard much better episodes like "Blink", "Turn Left", "Midnight", "Utopia", "Silence in the Library" and "Human Nature".

Why not?

And "Journey's End" still tied up loose ends

In the most horrible way possible while messing up previous established character traits of the doctor. Do I have to list all the things it did wrong again? There is not a single character who was treated fairly in the whole episode.

I'd say Steven Moffat will excel at polishing off individual episodes better, while tightening up story arc resolutions and using the best elements of Russell T. Davies' popular yet patchy legacy.

Do you really need to copy the speech schematics of critics?

[Big Orange]

"Smith and Jones" had Giant talking Rhinos. And the main villain drinking blood...with a straw pulled out of her handbag. So....you wanna try that cheesy argument again?

The Judoon were pretty cool actually and their costumes were more in keeping with the 1970s Sontarans. The straw was silly, but the main villain could also make a superweapon out of a CAT scan machine.

...and that is different from Season 3...how? At least "Rose" had different locations. Smith and Crime played in a hospital.

But a hospital transplanted onto the MOON. "Partners in Crime" was in a corporate tower block, not a hospital.

...which is standard for Who. Besides, it saved a purpose - if noone we knew died, why should the viewer care?

Everybody lived in "The Doctor Dances" and killed characters sort of lived within CAL in "Forest of the Dead".

Hint: Maybe because that is the start of his character arc? If you failed to notice, that is what the doctor does - he influences people to be better. Like Mickey, who went from annoying prat to hero. Geez, I wonder whether him actually being a prat at the start had something to do with it?

Yes I agree, but the actor who played him was not pleased in how he depicted Mikey in the earlier episodes. Some characters are improved, some of them are ruined, but that is kinda of random.

And you know this....how?

From this quote:

Anyone who's interested in writing should study that script - it's one of the most technically brilliant scripts you'll ever get your hands on. The construction of it is dazzling, and yet - and this is the REALLY dazzling part - it's designed to feel light and airy and simple. And for that dim-witted reason, people think it IS simple. It's not, it's incredible. Look, what's folded away in all that gorgeous froth. A new main character, whole and complete - an old friend within minutes. Her entire background and family, all there for us, perfectly clear. And while all thats going on, AT THE SAME TIME, a hospital gets stolen and taken to the (bloody) moon. All this in under ten minutes! And never mind all that, the entire format of the entire show is explained and sold to a brand new audience. Stunning. But - and this what makes your blood boil - because it's made to LOOK easy, idiots and critics think it IS easy. Try it! Go on, get yer pen, TRY it.

Thing is, I get a lot of praise for the complexity of Blink, and quite bloody right too. But because I know what I'm talking about, I can tell you as a matter of FACT, that Smith And Jones is WAY more complex. But because Blink wears its complexity on its sleeve, cos that was kind of the point, Smith And Jones conceals it, cos it's a means to an end.

Really and truly, Smith And Jones, go study. And if you don't think it's brilliant, shut up until you understand that it is.

That's the best source I can get that from. But I prefer "Smith & Jones" to "Rose" and so do many others.

Uninsultingly entertaining.....yeah right. More like: Hey, let's recycle old Laurel&Hardy sketches. Why bother with a story if we can get ten minutes out of silly slapstick. Need I bring up the copier scene?

I don't watch much Laurel & Hardy, but hey, Steven Moffat is a comedy writer.

In your dreams maybe.

"Doomsday" was certainly superior to "Last of the Time Lords", that turgid Dalek two pater in New York, and "Journey's End", but "Blink" was better than "Love & Monsters" and "The Girl in the Fireplace" - all the seasons have their classics and stinkers.

Also here is break down of episode viewing figures and Audience Appreciation:

Overnight Ratings:


Final Ratings:


A.I. Scores:

That was collated by somebody else from another forum (which I'm a member of).

[Ryushikaze]

I thought Clive's death was wholly appropriate to the needs of the story. It kind of pushed home the point that he made earlier - you may have missed it, so pay attention - that wherever the Doctor goes, DEATH follows, is his constant companion, so on and so forth. I disagree that it was a 'casual' killing as you put it. That scene completely justified Clive's crackpot beliefs (and his beliefs WERE fundamentally correct, even if he got the details a bit wrong), and also reinforced that little theme that surfaces in the new series, that the Doctor is DANGEROUS, and when he's around PEOPLE FUCKING DIE.

That sort of puts it the wrong way. The Doctor IS dangerous, yes, but it's not his presence that causes the doom. It's the doom that causes his presence. People die when he's around, yes, but in almost all situations, more people make it out alive (excepting himself and companion/s) than had he not been present. He's like a a rubber ball being pulled into a drain and stopping the drain before all the water flows out.

And B.O. did you just lump Girl in the Fireplace with Love and Monsters?

[Straha]

And B.O. did you just lump Girl in the Fireplace with Love and Monsters?

Yes he did. And not just that, his graphs indicate that Journey's End was the best Who episode of all time, except for (possibly) Rose.

[Thanas]

"Smith and Jones" had Giant talking Rhinos. And the main villain drinking blood...with a straw pulled out of her handbag. So....you wanna try that cheesy argument again?

The Judoon were pretty cool actually and their costumes were more in keeping with the 1970s Sontarans. The straw was silly, but the main villain could also make a superweapon out of a CAT scan machine.

Oh yes, that improves the episode considerably. Somehow, a superweapon built out of a CAT scan machine is supposed to be less cheesy than giant fucking rhinos? Do you even know how ridiculous a CAT scan capable of wiping out human life sounds? It is the pure definition of cheese.

But a hospital transplanted onto the MOON. "Partners in Crime" was in a corporate tower block, not a hospital.

The Moon did jack shit except for the "Oh, we're running out of oxygen" bit. Which was completely ridiculous for anyone who has ever been in a WWII german submarine.

And I like it how you blame "Rose" for starting the "let's keep to earth" part of the show, but have no problems with PiC playing in a corporate tower block. Fuck, at least "Rose" played outside a fair bit.

...which is standard for Who. Besides, it saved a purpose - if noone we knew died, why should the viewer care?

Everybody lived in "The Doctor Dances" and killed characters sort of lived within CAL in "Forest of the Dead".

Which defeats my point who? And the reasons people survived in the episodes you mentioned was because they did not need to die in order to make the threat credible. Unlike with shop dummies.

Hint: Maybe because that is the start of his character arc? If you failed to notice, that is what the doctor does - he influences people to be better. Like Mickey, who went from annoying prat to hero. Geez, I wonder whether him actually being a prat at the start had something to do with it?

Yes I agree, but the actor who played him was not pleased in how he depicted Mikey in the earlier episodes. Some characters are improved, some of them are ruined, but that is kinda of random.[/quote]

So if you actually agree, why do you even bother to argue against my point?

And you know this....how?

From this *snip link*That's the best source I can get that from. But I prefer "Smith & Jones" to "Rose" and so do many others.

Appeal to popularity. Why is it superior? That is the question I asked of you, and your argument essentially boils down to "I liked it better". So, once again, what parts of the plot/execution etc were superior to "Rose" in "Smith and Jones" and PiC?

Furthermore, note that Moffat, if that is indeed a quote from him (since you cannot find the original source), gave no other reason besides "we get to know a new main character within ten minutes". If that is supposed to be a criteria, Rose managed to do this within three minutes.

Uninsultingly entertaining.....yeah right. More like: Hey, let's recycle old Laurel&Hardy sketches. Why bother with a story if we can get ten minutes out of silly slapstick. Need I bring up the copier scene?

I don't watch much Laurel & Hardy, but hey, Steven Moffat is a comedy writer.

I see the point sailed right across your head. Moffat, for all his background, doesn't need to resort to such silly ideas. Indeed, his comedy bits in his episodes were all very, very far removed from the scenes in PiC. There is a difference - his bits have intelligence to them. PiC was merely "let's prance around the printer for a couple of minutes".

See, that's the thing. There's intelligent comedy and then there is PiC.

In your dreams maybe.

"Doomsday" was certainly superior to "Last of the Time Lords", that turgid Dalek two pater in New York, and "Journey's End", but "Blink" was better than "Love & Monsters" and "The Girl in the Fireplace" - all the seasons have their classics and stinkers.[/quote]

Dodging the point again. You claimed that S3 was the same in quality as S2. Now, back up your claim.

Also here is break down of episode viewing figures and Audience Appreciation:

Overnight Ratings:


Final Ratings:


A.I. Scores:

That was collated by somebody else from another forum (which I'm a member of).

All those graphs do jackshit if you want to argue quality. They merely reflect how some people liked the episodes. I could as easily point out that Catherine Tate has a huge fan following.

No, if you want to argue quality, you have to look at the episodes themselves. Voyager had similar/better ratings to DS9. Do you want to argue that Voyager was better/the same as DS9 based on that?

So once again, why, based on the episodes, were the S3/4 premieres better than S1, and how in hell do you arrive at the conclusion that S3 was of the same quality as S2?