Doctor Who has lost something very special.
- Thread starter TimeLord
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What I really don't like about the entire Moffatt run is just how much bullshit there is to set up incredibly simple plot points. Take last weeks episode for example, why did we have to see the snake guy go to a bunch of different planets looking for the doctor? Why did they have to set up the whole 'the planes have stopped!' thing just to show Missy? So much of the previous episode could be cut whilst still keeping the general story and making room for some actual character development. It just ends up feeling tiring after a while.
My main problem is the whole "you can't cross your own timeline" and fixed points stuff. If the Doctor kills Davros or allows him to die (I can see it happening), that rewrites a lot of the Doctor's life (crossing own timeline) and completely voids the whole Time War (apparent fixed point AND crosses his own timeline), since the Daleks were the main opponent of the Time Lords.
It seems like paradoxes and the rules of the universe are done on an episode by episode basis now. Despite that, I still enjoy it. Like my family, yeah they shit me, but I still like them.
It seems like paradoxes and the rules of the universe are done on an episode by episode basis now. Despite that, I still enjoy it. Like my family, yeah they shit me, but I still like them.
I didn't know this episode was available for free online from BBC America. Normally, I have to wait for the box set to sound off on this stuff.
Alternatively, people have theories that this is going to be explained either in this series or the next. People have gone so far to speculate this may deal with Omega or Rani. Omega's already been technically name checked in the Day of the Doctor. And Davros, we don't even really know he was dead. Really, it's best to assume people aren't dead in TV unless it's declared or the rules of the show or it's in some way declared (and even then, not really). I'm not sure how this is specific to Doctor Who or Moffat.
But since we're on the subject, I think no explanation is better than bad explanations. At least here, we can fill in the gaps.
More to the point, Clara and Missy come together because The Doctor believes he's going to die. There's a difference between this and the series six plot already. A pretty freaking large one.
I would argue his arcs aren't particularly worse than Davies, and that he seems to have a plan in mind. I can't imagine it being worse than Bad Wolf or Rose "dying" or The Doctor activating God Mode. Maybe it will be, though. I just don't think he's as bad at overarching plots as people say--especially fans of Davies' plots. This is still not to say it's going to be good, but then, what's good is going to vary from person to person.
But at the same time, maybe that's more the issue. Maybe you're just not as enamoured with a show that's been on the air for a decade as you were at the time it first aired. Maybe this has less to do with quality and more to do with nostalgia glasses. We're talking about a show that first aired 50 years ago, and people have constantly invented new ways for the show to have declined. The best days of the show are usually with your first Doctor, and people will complain about elements even if they existed in other periods (The Doctor never uses guns!).
Honestly, I enjoyed the first episode of series nine. But I think this bumps into one of Moffat's other writing problems: he can only write like 3 different (loosely) female characters. Missy, Tasha Lem, and River Song all have similar voices. If you like the OTT, almost cartoon psychotic, then this is awesome. Missy more or less makes the episode for me. I can get why people wouldn't like that, though.
But none of these writings problems have anything to do with losing anything from Doctor Who. Which is still a weird concept to me, when you consider how much it's changed in each iteration.
It just seems like that's the metric you're using, and it seems an unreasonable one.
And while we're at it, there's been nothing Moffat has yet come up with to match the awfulness of Love & Monsters.
This isn't to defend Moffat from all takers, but the animosity for things I think are likely out of his control always astound me. Or for things that are just a part of the show. Especially with a show that's all about the nostalgia goggles. I've spent years doing the exact same defense to people who hate "Nu Who" and seem to think the classic series was full of nothing but treasure, or just ignore anything wrong with it--even to the point where elements that originate in the classic series are used as weapons against the new series.
It's sort of puzzling and to me looks like the working backwards to justify a conclusion rather than following logic to a conclusion.
I mean, it's okaynot to like the stuff anymore. It's been on the air for a decade, and that's still almost a third of my life. More for a huge chunk of the site. But I'm not sure these issues are even new or different enough from RTD or Classic Who to raise an eyebrow, and so the repeated complaints straight-up baffle me.
This being a sticking point is one that baffles me from both old and new Who fans. unexplained returns seem like they would make an awesome drinking game. As such,TimeLord said:
This could actually be a rather fun nod to the overall continuity of the series.
Alternatively, people have theories that this is going to be explained either in this series or the next. People have gone so far to speculate this may deal with Omega or Rani. Omega's already been technically name checked in the Day of the Doctor. And Davros, we don't even really know he was dead. Really, it's best to assume people aren't dead in TV unless it's declared or the rules of the show or it's in some way declared (and even then, not really). I'm not sure how this is specific to Doctor Who or Moffat.
But since we're on the subject, I think no explanation is better than bad explanations. At least here, we can fill in the gaps.
And this alsol baffles me. Even if you're just a fan of New Who, Davies had like 500 returns of the very absolutely totally for realz this time last Daleks. He did the "you can never come back from this dimension" thing three or four times. He brought back the Time Lords (or at least some of them) repeatedly, and even created new ones just to have a mini-holocaust.
More to the point, Clara and Missy come together because The Doctor believes he's going to die. There's a difference between this and the series six plot already. A pretty freaking large one.
I disagree. I thought series 5 was the best over-arching plot in New Who (despite not loving the ending). I also think that he's capable of writing great episodes, but he's rather hit or miss. You mention Blink. I adore Blink. I haven't loved a single other use of the Angels in the show. Not a single one. A couple were okay, but still. Moffat displays just how hit or miss he is. This actually is a problem with him as head writer, because he has more power than he did before.
I would argue his arcs aren't particularly worse than Davies, and that he seems to have a plan in mind. I can't imagine it being worse than Bad Wolf or Rose "dying" or The Doctor activating God Mode. Maybe it will be, though. I just don't think he's as bad at overarching plots as people say--especially fans of Davies' plots. This is still not to say it's going to be good, but then, what's good is going to vary from person to person.
But at the same time, maybe that's more the issue. Maybe you're just not as enamoured with a show that's been on the air for a decade as you were at the time it first aired. Maybe this has less to do with quality and more to do with nostalgia glasses. We're talking about a show that first aired 50 years ago, and people have constantly invented new ways for the show to have declined. The best days of the show are usually with your first Doctor, and people will complain about elements even if they existed in other periods (The Doctor never uses guns!).
Honestly, I enjoyed the first episode of series nine. But I think this bumps into one of Moffat's other writing problems: he can only write like 3 different (loosely) female characters. Missy, Tasha Lem, and River Song all have similar voices. If you like the OTT, almost cartoon psychotic, then this is awesome. Missy more or less makes the episode for me. I can get why people wouldn't like that, though.
But none of these writings problems have anything to do with losing anything from Doctor Who. Which is still a weird concept to me, when you consider how much it's changed in each iteration.
I find it interesting that you can suspend disbelief here, but not in the realm of your prior complaints. It's like the part where Davros isn't going to die (the destination) isn't as cool as the journey, but then, that's always been the story with The Doctor's Death, as an example. Yeah, The Doctor isn't going to kill Davros, despite the teaser. He's also not going to die.
Alternatively, you've changed. And comparing one of the best episodes to any given episode will create problems any time you do it, not just with Dalek v Moffat. Hell, most of series 4 sucked compared to the already-mentioned Blink, but it didn't lose anything. I mean, Donna's one of my favourite companions, gets my favourite companion story arc (Amy and Rory could have taken that if they had ended in series 5 or if they had any direction after), and I think series 4 is the best plot arch of the RTD era. But if you compare Partners in Crime to Blink, omh my god the show has gone downhill and I just didn't have the passion to watch anymore.
It just seems like that's the metric you're using, and it seems an unreasonable one.
And while we're at it, there's been nothing Moffat has yet come up with to match the awfulness of Love & Monsters.
This isn't to defend Moffat from all takers, but the animosity for things I think are likely out of his control always astound me. Or for things that are just a part of the show. Especially with a show that's all about the nostalgia goggles. I've spent years doing the exact same defense to people who hate "Nu Who" and seem to think the classic series was full of nothing but treasure, or just ignore anything wrong with it--even to the point where elements that originate in the classic series are used as weapons against the new series.
It's sort of puzzling and to me looks like the working backwards to justify a conclusion rather than following logic to a conclusion.
I mean, it's okaynot to like the stuff anymore. It's been on the air for a decade, and that's still almost a third of my life. More for a huge chunk of the site. But I'm not sure these issues are even new or different enough from RTD or Classic Who to raise an eyebrow, and so the repeated complaints straight-up baffle me.
It's being dragged down by its own continuity though, since unlike earlier series from the returned era now EVERY episode needs to be a part of the series long over-arching plot (that tends to be weaker then a typical stand alone episode when it comes together at the end).gigastar said:
Shows been going downhill in regards to overall quality for years now, with last series being so bad I gave up on the show as a whole, and will remain so until Moffit leaves.
Personally, I'm not really an opponent of Moffat, as he's written some good stuff and seems to genuinely care for the storylines he crafts longterm (or at least is able to pick up dropped threads with remarkable skill).
One of my biggest problems with the start of this season is that the end of last season seemed to be a suggestion we were going back to a Doctor less consumed by guilt and angst, and maybe see one who travels for the love of traveling rather than to make right his great wrong. So, first episode, we establish that he feels responsible for the creation of the Daleks? You know, his greatest enemy, and the greatest threat the universe has ever faced?
Yes, it has some clever throwbacks to the Genesis of the Daleks, but my hope is that they resolve this guilt quickly in the second part.
The "credible threat" of the Daleks. Missy and Clara disappear in the exact same manner Missy did when she was shot by the Cyber-Brigadier. They aren't dead, and this will explain how Missy survived.
How Davros survived? Fuck, how does he ever? I think them explaining how he got out of the Time War was a courtesy by RTD; one that is not usually afforded. The idea of "Dead. Not dead. Deal with it." is kind of the norm for villains on Doctor Who. It's why I wish they'd stop trying to fake us out with it. I mean, if you want to nitpick that, how is Missy even here? Shouldn't the Master be trapped wherever Gallifrey is? Or in the time bubble or something, wherever Rassilon is?
Beyond that, my problems are small but nettling. I think the show focuses too much on Clara; almost to the point of her feeling like a more important character than the Doctor. It felt like her story as the "Impossible Girl" ended with the Name of the Doctor, though the story through season 8 refreshed her a bit. Her leaving felt natural, and earned, and left a companion to revisit for guest appearances later. Instead, we get a Christmas Special (which suggests at the end that either there's a real Santa or that everything from that point forward is a dream) that completely undoes her leaving, without really resolving her issues for leaving.
I wish they'd stop trying to top the "stakes" from season to season, so that now every season has to have the threat of the Doctor dying (for reals this time, honest) or all of the human race being completely wiped out. The power creep of the series is starting to hurt its ability to allow any danger to feel real.
They've lost my wife and at least two people in my game group, as they find Clara insufferable and grating and well passed the end of her story. For my wife's part, though, she does this every Regen (she started with Eccleston); she refuses to watch for about a season and then watches the stuff she missed to catch up. Right now, though, her question has been "is Clara still on", which has led to a blockade from watching together.
For me, I'm still watching, because I know that shows go through periods where writers have pet characters or the stories get confused. I grew up on 80s cartoons, comic books, and Robotech for christ's sake. If episode 2 shows that this season will be another season about "Clara and her guilty/angsty friend" though? Might be going back to the 4th and Sarah Jane Smith.
One of my biggest problems with the start of this season is that the end of last season seemed to be a suggestion we were going back to a Doctor less consumed by guilt and angst, and maybe see one who travels for the love of traveling rather than to make right his great wrong. So, first episode, we establish that he feels responsible for the creation of the Daleks? You know, his greatest enemy, and the greatest threat the universe has ever faced?
Yes, it has some clever throwbacks to the Genesis of the Daleks, but my hope is that they resolve this guilt quickly in the second part.
The "credible threat" of the Daleks. Missy and Clara disappear in the exact same manner Missy did when she was shot by the Cyber-Brigadier. They aren't dead, and this will explain how Missy survived.
How Davros survived? Fuck, how does he ever? I think them explaining how he got out of the Time War was a courtesy by RTD; one that is not usually afforded. The idea of "Dead. Not dead. Deal with it." is kind of the norm for villains on Doctor Who. It's why I wish they'd stop trying to fake us out with it. I mean, if you want to nitpick that, how is Missy even here? Shouldn't the Master be trapped wherever Gallifrey is? Or in the time bubble or something, wherever Rassilon is?
Beyond that, my problems are small but nettling. I think the show focuses too much on Clara; almost to the point of her feeling like a more important character than the Doctor. It felt like her story as the "Impossible Girl" ended with the Name of the Doctor, though the story through season 8 refreshed her a bit. Her leaving felt natural, and earned, and left a companion to revisit for guest appearances later. Instead, we get a Christmas Special (which suggests at the end that either there's a real Santa or that everything from that point forward is a dream) that completely undoes her leaving, without really resolving her issues for leaving.
I wish they'd stop trying to top the "stakes" from season to season, so that now every season has to have the threat of the Doctor dying (for reals this time, honest) or all of the human race being completely wiped out. The power creep of the series is starting to hurt its ability to allow any danger to feel real.
They've lost my wife and at least two people in my game group, as they find Clara insufferable and grating and well passed the end of her story. For my wife's part, though, she does this every Regen (she started with Eccleston); she refuses to watch for about a season and then watches the stuff she missed to catch up. Right now, though, her question has been "is Clara still on", which has led to a blockade from watching together.
For me, I'm still watching, because I know that shows go through periods where writers have pet characters or the stories get confused. I grew up on 80s cartoons, comic books, and Robotech for christ's sake. If episode 2 shows that this season will be another season about "Clara and her guilty/angsty friend" though? Might be going back to the 4th and Sarah Jane Smith.
I wanted to say thank you for saying this, by the way, as it's an important thing to remember about any series. For Doctor Who, though, it's absolutely vital. With the series changing entire casts more often than writing teams, not only is the tone and quality going to vary wildly, but different actors are better able to capture or express different emotional ranges.Something Amyss said:
I think Smith did the "troubled child" personality well, ranging from hurt to boisterous well. When playing to that, he could strum the heartstrings really well. In addition, he was able to give grand flourishing speeches with exceptional energy and verve. However..
Tennant had a better emotional range, and his sudden mood shifts felt remarkable believable. His speeches felt more like lessons than Smith's, and his Doctor seemed to ooze guilt and regret when he allowed himself to.
But if you favor Tennant's style? Then there's no way that Smith's best episode will stack up to the best of Tennant. It's the whole thing when people talk about "their Doctor". That's the Doctor who you judge everyone else by; usually your first, but always your favorite. The one who set the tone and theme, coupled with the acting and companions, that rang perfect for you.
For me, it's Tom Baker; his time with Sarah Jane Smith specifically. The stories swung between cosmic horror (Pyramids of Mars) and wanton strangeness (Pirate Planet). I don't think any era of Who has captured my attention, or been so much of a joy to watch, as this era; regardless of its production values. That said, I don't judge Tennant or Smith by Baker's example.
Why didn't the Doctor just drop off the kid on a different planet? If he'd done that we wouldn't have had to endure Emo Davros.
It was ok last night. Felt a bit slow at some points and I didn't believe Davros at all at any point. I rolled my eyes when he had his Darth Vader 'my own eyes' moment.
It was good but I doubt all the daleks with timelord energy in them are dead.
It was good but I doubt all the daleks with timelord energy in them are dead.
Well, got back from the episode tonight. IMO, one of the most solid episodes in a long time. The interactions, the themes, the characterization - not perfect, but still an episode I enjoyed. Actually hyped for the rest of the season now.
Agreed. Still have some niggling issues imo, but remind me not to judge a 2-parter without seeing it in full yet.Hawki said:
Why not? It's not like the can move away from the problem, or fly, or had many, many of them airborne when the emergency occurred.BenReillyUK said:
To be honest a lot of Who episodes over the last few series have felt more like dodgy fan fiction than anything else. I mean, Eccleston and Tennant's runs had plenty of slightly cringeworthy lines, silly plots and deus ex machinas, but newer series seem to be made of nothing but. Does anyone remember that episode where the bloke from gavin and stacey reverses the process of becoming a cyberman through the power of love? It was fucking shocking.
I feel like good writing requires a sense of when to be subtle, and Who just has none. I rarely feel connected to the characters, and I frequently can't suspend my disbelief at all.
I feel like good writing requires a sense of when to be subtle, and Who just has none. I rarely feel connected to the characters, and I frequently can't suspend my disbelief at all.
I'm going to say it, I adored tonight's episode. The stuff with the Doctor and Davros was excellent, particularly for the way they gambitted each other while expressing some quite startlingly tender moments with each other was great. And on the wings, you had Missy and Clara as this demented bastardisation of the traditional Doctor/companion dynamic. They even handled the improbable cliffhanger scene from the last episode in a pretty clever way.
The only thing that felt really tacked on was the reveal of how the TARDIS survived (yeah, spoiler alert, the TARDIS is fine; who knew?). Missy and Clara's survival gets a pass for how it took refuge in humour (vampire monkeys anyone?), but the remolecularisation of the TARDIS was clearly an afterthought. Another tool in the box to never be used again.
But you know what? Too many good ideas in this story for me to dislike it, most of which were well-executed. People bag on Moffat, and I agree, the last two Matt Smith season were mostly shithouse because of his writing, but the dude's an ideas man and props to him. Let's be honest, he's a fanboy; you put a fanboy in charge of the show, they're either going to dwell on the same old ideas, or they're going to muck around with it. It's easy to write that off as bad fan fiction, but it's still prefferable to the alternative.
The only thing that felt really tacked on was the reveal of how the TARDIS survived (yeah, spoiler alert, the TARDIS is fine; who knew?). Missy and Clara's survival gets a pass for how it took refuge in humour (vampire monkeys anyone?), but the remolecularisation of the TARDIS was clearly an afterthought. Another tool in the box to never be used again.
But you know what? Too many good ideas in this story for me to dislike it, most of which were well-executed. People bag on Moffat, and I agree, the last two Matt Smith season were mostly shithouse because of his writing, but the dude's an ideas man and props to him. Let's be honest, he's a fanboy; you put a fanboy in charge of the show, they're either going to dwell on the same old ideas, or they're going to muck around with it. It's easy to write that off as bad fan fiction, but it's still prefferable to the alternative.
Logic's never worried me too much, but I'm kinda bouncing off this season even harder than the last.
It feels like they're really trying too hard, going to fast. Everything is flashy, all moments are life and death, there's not really the kind of downtime to build the tense atmosphere I usually enjoy.
I wonder if it's fallen onto the old problem where they feel every event must be more 'extreme' than the last.
hopefully it slows down and smells the roses a bit once the intro's out of the way,
It feels like they're really trying too hard, going to fast. Everything is flashy, all moments are life and death, there's not really the kind of downtime to build the tense atmosphere I usually enjoy.
I wonder if it's fallen onto the old problem where they feel every event must be more 'extreme' than the last.
hopefully it slows down and smells the roses a bit once the intro's out of the way,
That last episode.... hurt me so much. Because it could have been so much better. I loved the Doctor/Davros bits, where they could just talk, consider their ethics and motivations. And that's what makes me so sad, because for me at least, the rest of it was trash. The stuff with Missy and Clara was unbearable. Clara seems to be a victim of the Nolan Ray more often than not, but at least Missy is funny. But their sections felt so unnecessary, like it was filler... I feel like these two initial episodes could have been just one, if they'd cut out all the dumb pointless stuff, like the planes stopping, doctor riding a tank playing guitar, hijacking a dalek, TARDIS is totally ded u guise, etc...
For me, this episode could have been one of the greatest, if they'd had the balls to go all the way through with it. Actually let Davros die. How powerful could it be to see both the Doctor and Davros consider who they are and how they came to this point by the actions of themselves and the other? That the Doctor could show Davros that perhaps compassion may be flawed, but it's not always a bad thing, as his compassion allows a dying man to see the sun rise on his homeworld one last time?
For me, this episode could have been one of the greatest, if they'd had the balls to go all the way through with it. Actually let Davros die. How powerful could it be to see both the Doctor and Davros consider who they are and how they came to this point by the actions of themselves and the other? That the Doctor could show Davros that perhaps compassion may be flawed, but it's not always a bad thing, as his compassion allows a dying man to see the sun rise on his homeworld one last time?
Steve Moffat's run has been irritating for me to watch. I couldn't take anymore of it after Angels in New York. Rory and Amy didn't deserve that kind of send off. The Doctor always comes off as a little too clever even when he's caught off guard under his writing. Moffat is never interested in continuity or actual science of how things work either in reality or by the show's preestablished logic. He treats everything like a fairy tail.