Advice For Stephen Moffat On Doctor Who...

[Patrick Degan]

So, you're taking the helm of a programme with a proud legacy, which had a great revival but which has varied in quality since then and just wrapped its fourth series with one of the most ridiculously overblown, unbelievably embarassing finales you could imagine. But, it did at least have one little redeeming moment at the end: the Doctor on his own, with no cliffhanger leading right into the Christmas special. No hanging story or character threads. The Master is gone, the Daleks and Davros are gone. Here's a chance to make a clean break of it, so here's what you do:

Forget series 3 and 4. Pretend they never happened.

No need to reset anything, no need to mention them at all or reference anything from those two series or pick up again on previous companions. Just pretend that everything past "The Runaway Bride" simply never happened and just proceed from there with wholly new stories, monsters and villains, and a new companion.

Sure, it means some good stories from that period get forgotten about as well, but that's an acceptable price for flushing away the sludge of the LOTTL trilogy and this most fanwank two-parter.

Take my word for it, Mr. Moffat, it really would be for the best.

[General Zod]

How about instead of pretending 3 and 4 never happened, he just pretends any story Davies did in those seasons never happened?

[Patrick Degan]

Nah. Clean break is the best approach in this case.

[General Zod]

Nah. Clean break is the best approach in this case.

Well, I like my method better. It's more of a "fuck you" to Davies.

[Stormbringer]

Nah. Clean break is the best approach in this case.

Well, I like my method better. It's more of a "fuck you" to Davies.

Which is why it's idiotic. Substituting spite for sensible writing is hardly a good start to a new batch of the series. Is it really that vital satiate a bunch of upset fanboys? There's no need to repudiate a bunch of that stuff explicitly, just leave it where it is. It's far more reasonable and a much better foundation since it doesn't involve chucking the gems out with the shit.

That said, there a lot of people that likes some of what you guys dislike, so the chances of it being entirely ignored are slim to nil anyway. And I'd say that's just as well in some cases.

[Stark]

What a pile of weasel words. 'Some people', 'just as well in some cases', lol. Patrick's whole point is that S3 and 4 have included some truly terrible shit, and the cleanest way to deal with it is just to never refer to it again. That's pretty much how the old show worked for twenty years; if there was a bad serial, who really cares, because once it's over it'll probably never referred to again, and if it is it'll just be a vague 'this one time with robots' reference. I'm not as convinced that the crap was all RTD's fault as some, nor am I convinced that Moffat is likely to 'turn the show around', but ignoring rubbish = good.

[Stormbringer]

What a pile of weasel words. 'Some people', 'just as well in some cases', lol. Patrick's whole point is that S3 and 4 have included some truly terrible shit, and the cleanest way to deal with it is just to never refer to it again. That's pretty much how the old show worked for twenty years; if there was a bad serial, who really cares, because once it's over it'll probably never referred to again, and if it is it'll just be a vague 'this one time with robots' reference. I'm not as convinced that the crap was all RTD's fault as some, nor am I convinced that Moffat is likely to 'turn the show around', but ignoring rubbish = good.

And I think they should take that tact and probably will. But I think it's going to be much more selective that Deegan's "clean broom" suggestion. I doubt you or Deegan are likely to see your wishes come true in regards to blanking out large chunks of the continuity. Some of the episodes internet fandom has reviled, like Last of the Time Lords, have gone over fairly well and I don't see them getting blotted out.

[Patrick Degan]

Nah. Clean break is the best approach in this case.

Well, I like my method better. It's more of a "fuck you" to Davies.

Which is why it's idiotic. Substituting spite for sensible writing is hardly a good start to a new batch of the series. Is it really that vital satiate a bunch of upset fanboys? There's no need to repudiate a bunch of that stuff explicitly, just leave it where it is. It's far more reasonable and a much better foundation since it doesn't involve chucking the gems out with the shit.

That said, there a lot of people that likes some of what you guys dislike, so the chances of it being entirely ignored are slim to nil anyway. And I'd say that's just as well in some cases.

There is ample precedent for the approach I suggest. Phillip Hinchcliffe dropped UNIT entirely after his first full year and Graham Williams never referred to the organisation at all for his entire term as producer. The awful Dalek serials of the middle Hartnell period were quietly forgotten, as were their excesses, and the Daleks eventually reinvented to incorporate the Davros backstory. The Time Lords were completely recast into a different mould from the Olympian figures of the Pertwee era. And nobody even thinks of referring to the half-human nonsense of the Doctor from the U.S. Telemovie With The Pertwee Logo. Doctor Who has a long tradition of constantly reinventing itself and amputating bits which no longer suit it after a time. This is not a "decanonisation" (and Paul Cornell would tell you that notion, along with the notion of "canon" itself for DW is bollocks), simply a decision to just not refer ever again to a particular period of the programme's run or use any of its material for subsequent series, without need to make it "official policy" or release any sort of "official" statement on the matter.

[Stark]

Oh sorry, I forgot this was personal. Boo hoo. Regardless of what is going to happen, Deagan's suggestion stands. The approach to 'forced continuity' has been a failure since S2 (shoe-horning in 'theme phrases' etc, crossovers etc) and it'd be good to see it gone. Indeed, leaving more obvious gaps between episodes woudl help out with the silly novels anyway.

[Stormbringer]

There is ample precedent for the approach I suggest.

I was referring to Zod's talk about a deliberate "fuck you" to Davies. I think his idea of deliberately editing things to satiate the fanboys that have become agitated at him is counter-productive. I didn't think any one could miss why I think pandering to vengeful nerds is a non-starter as far as ideas.

I'm all for the idea of quietly forgetting about much of Season 3 and 4. Frankly, so many of them are utterly forgettable already. Personally, I'd love to see shit like the Daleks in NYC story gone. It seems like Moffat already knows enough to be able to tell the good bits from the bad.

I disagree with you that both seasons need to be axed entirely. The Family of Blood story was good and while I know you didn't like it, I found the season finale amusing (though admittedly more for John Simm chewing scenery than strength of plot). I really wouldn't want to see either of Moffat's stories from the past two season gone either. And I tend to think there are salvageable bits even from the dreck of this season (Doctor's clone "daughter" being a decent example).

[Patrick Degan]

There is ample precedent for the approach I suggest.

I was referring to Zod's talk about a deliberate "fuck you" to Davies. I think his idea of deliberately editing things to satiate the fanboys that have become agitated at him is counter-productive. I didn't think any one could miss why I think pandering to vengeful nerds is a non-starter as far as ideas.

Well, that is silly and overwrought.

I'm all for the idea of quietly forgetting about much of Season 3 and 4. Frankly, so many of them are utterly forgettable already. Personally, I'd love to see shit like the Daleks in NYC story gone. It seems like Moffat already knows enough to be able to tell the good bits from the bad.

I disagree with you that both seasons need to be axed entirely. The Family of Blood story was good and while I know you didn't like it, I found the season finale amusing (though admittedly more for John Simm chewing scenery than strength of plot). I really wouldn't want to see either of Moffat's stories from the past two season gone either. And I tend to think there are salvageable bits even from the dreck of this season (Doctor's clone "daughter" being a decent example).

Not "axed" per-se. Just quietly forgotten and not used for any future writing development is all. Sort of like the crazy uncle you keep in the attic room.

[Drooling Iguana]

My advice to Moffat: Give the Doctor an actual personality that consists of more than the current writer's idea of the ultimate dashing hero. The Ninth Doctor was cool because he had a consistent set of personality traits that were sometimes an asset but also tended to get him into trouble. Ten, on the other hand, just walks around, is right about everything (even if he's saying something that directly contradicts something he was right about in the previous episode) and has everyone want to have sex with him.

Tenant is a great actor and his Doctor can be an interesting character given the right script, but he needs more than three or four good scripts per year in between the endless cascade of Mary Sue-ness.

[Patrick Degan]

My advice to Moffat: Give the Doctor an actual personality that consists of more than the current writer's idea of the ultimate dashing hero. The Ninth Doctor was cool because he had a consistent set of personality traits that were sometimes an asset but also tended to get him into trouble. Ten, on the other hand, just walks around, is right about everything (even if he's saying something that directly contradicts something he was right about in the previous episode) and has everyone want to have sex with him.

Tenant is a great actor and his Doctor can be an interesting character given the right script, but he needs more than three or four good scripts per year in between the endless cascade of Mary Sue-ness.

Some of that, I think, comes down to the personalities of the two actors. The impression I get of Chris Eccleston is that he's a very strong individual and gets definite ideas of how he's going to play a part. That sort of actor is more likely to see something in a script which rankles his character-sense and will outright say "that's bullshit, I'm not doing it". As the Doctor, Eccleston owned the stage about as completely as Tom Baker did during his term. He simply overwhelmed everyone else in the cast. His sheer physical presence certainly contributed to that.

David Tennant is more chamelion-like as an actor, but I think he may also be just a bit too much of a fanboy at times. He grew up a Peter Davison fan and revels in it, and it seems he's been a bit more plastic and pliable in the hands of the various writers and RTD because of it, which is why his Doctor's personality has careened so wildly from script to script. In every other role he's ever played that wouldn't be a big problem but with Doctor Who it seems it feeds his worst habits in the part at times, so when you get a crap episode it's going to result in a crap characterisation which contradicts what we saw of him in an earlier brilliant episode. And he's not an overwhelming presence so he can be eclipsed by the others in the cast.

Tennant and the writers need to lock onto a particular aspect of the Doctor and run with it. When Sylvester McCoy fully adopted the dark manipulator aspect of the Doctor, he really stood out in the part. You kept wondering what the sly little bastard was going to do next and how high the bodies would pile up in his wake.

"I'm so old. I remember when I used to have so much mercy in me" is a great angle to follow for his Doctor, which was what we saw when he meted out his justice to the Family.

Imagine if, instead of all that emo bullshit we get at the end of "Last Of The Time Lords", we would instead have witnessed a scene in which the Doctor takes the Master aboard the TARDIS to "keep" him, only it involved the Doctor turning his archenemy into a living statue which would forever occupy a place in his ship's attic along with the other really nasty things he keeps there, safely locked away from the rest of the universe? The forgiveness of the Oncoming Storm. He leaves Jack and Martha behind on Earth because this would be something they'd never understand, being too "innocent" to accept it. It would have been justice but also would have played upon a very creepy aspect to a Doctor who could dole out punishments such as what the Family received at his hand.

No second chances.

Something like that plays against the type of person Tennant seems to be in real life and that's what Moffat and his writing team should run with.

[Stark]

Eccleston's acting style is such that he apparently worked under a great deal of personal stress in the role - he's apparently a very serious actor. Tennant is a good actor - and much of the weaker portrayal I feel is down to writing - but there's no strong focus for the character as there was in the self-contained season one.

As Deagan says, they established Tennant's character with very strong traits - even traits that were a direct development from Eccleston - and then largely abandoned them. But hey, they ruined Jack's character too.

[Revy]

Interesting coincidence - I was sent this, it's a Dr Who blog by Lawrence Miles, and the latest entry details a list of 25 ways to make Dr Who more interesting. I think they're pretty good points.

I did think Eccleston did a fantastic job, shame he regenerated after only one season, but from what I've seen of S2 so far Tennants doing a good job. I'm just annoyed at him for not standing up to RTD when he saw the script for Journeys End and saying 'No way am I doing this, it's utter nonsense!'. But if Tennant is a fan of Davis then I guess that'd be why he went with it.

[Big Orange]

Sorry Patrick Degan, Season Three and Four did happen, I don't think Moffat will throw away the baby with the bath water when there were still some very good episodes in those two seasons (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).

I would wish Steven Moffat would massively tone down the season finals on his watch and redistribute the 'epic' throughout the rest of the season, so you can have a big and slightly messy climax just over halfway through a given season, with the next four to six smaller scale episodes tying up the loose ends (but having defining character moments and plot resolutions that are not bogged down in swarms of CGI Daleks and big 'splosions). Really just change the formula that has been getting stale since last year.

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", the Krillitnes, Chula, Slitheen, Sycorax and Sontarans can be greatly fleshed out as well, 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).

But we're not Steven Moffat so I'll take things as they come. "Journey's End" was meant to clean the slate anyway and drew in the crowds.

[Rye]

I imagine Moffat won't just "forget it all" or anything like that. I don't think he'd allow himself to do that as a professional writer. Chances are, he'll just accept that it's all there as background information and revisit it if he thinks of somewhere cool to take it (or mention in passing conversation on Earth or whatever). Beyond that it's kind of useless to second guess him.

[Big Orange]

In "Time Crash", didn't Moffat already put in a direct reference to LINDA from "Love & Monsters", the quintessential 'bad' Russell T. Davies episode?

[NecronLord]

Interesting coincidence - I was sent this, it's a Dr Who blog by Lawrence Miles, and the latest entry details a list of 25 ways to make Dr Who more interesting. I think they're pretty good points.

Some of them, perhaps. But having actually read some of his work, I really, really, can't stand that he has the nerve to call anyone but himself "a lowest common denominator hack" - he should aspire to that. At least hacks can be entertaining. As opposed to 'having constipation is more entertaining than reading his work' which is true of Lawrence Miles. He is, in my opinion, the world's least talented living writer.

Telling is:

Wouldn't it be nice if the TARDIS went somewhere completely new every week / two weeks, not just visiting historical set-pieces and colony planets, but messed-up interdimensional spaces as well?

No. It wouldn't. None of his goddamn intolerable voodoo cult in its empire created by a calendar renormalisation, in the canon, thank you very much.

And then we have...

I should obviously be hired as a writer. You know it makes sense. Especially in the light of Russell's This Morning interview - broadcast on ITV, a sure sign that commercial television knows it's not worth putting up a fight - in which he revealed that it takes him a month to write a script. A month? It took me four days to write "The Book of the World", and it was oodles better

Unless his writing has improved drastically since his time in BBC books, you can bet a RTD script is far more than ten times as good. Again, I actually threw a Lawrence Miles book down in disgust, because being constipated was more amusing than reading his drivel.

[NecronLord]

(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."

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.

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.

You could just as easily do something with, say the Quarks, which, with CGI, might be rather effective (think... Evil R2-D2... I know I would have been amused by that concept as a kid).

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.

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.

[Rye]

I should obviously be hired as a writer. You know it makes sense. Especially in the light of Russell's This Morning interview - broadcast on ITV, a sure sign that commercial television knows it's not worth putting up a fight - in which he revealed that it takes him a month to write a script. A month? It took me four days to write "The Book of the World", and it was oodles better

Vomitisation, as Rimmer might say, what a load of rubbish. Not only will almost any good 30 mins+ script usually take more than four days to write the opening 15 minutes to a first draft standard, and it will have days and days in the rewrites for the following drafts. I hate people like this.

[NecronLord]

The sad thing is, this guy is a professional writer.

Guess what, Lawrence: You know how little time you put into your worK... it shows!

[Straha]

The sad thing is, this guy is a professional writer.

Guess what, Lawrence: You know how little time you put into your worK... it shows!

A friend of mine recently told me that Lawrence Miles' Who books were great and has suggested that I read Alien Bodies...


Should I be afraid?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Oh man, Lawrence Miles.

He's that Faction Paradox guy, right?

Everything I've read about, and what Stark has said, tells me that Lawrence Miles needs to stay very far away from Doctor Who.

[NecronLord]

The sad thing is, this guy is a professional writer.

Guess what, Lawrence: You know how little time you put into your worK... it shows!

A friend of mine recently told me that Lawrence Miles' Who books were great and has suggested that I read Alien Bodies...


Should I be afraid?

I've a confession to make. I gave a false review of Alien Bodies lately. I thought it was a different book (The Bodysnatchers) from similarly early in the EDA run. As it isn't, I can only point you at the reviews...