Support NeoGAF

[Quick]

The Big Bang is a two parter beginning with The Pandorica Opens, the other two were one "hour" single part stories, and always felt rushed in terms of pacing.

I just think we'll get better finales if they were split into two episodes instead of just one.

I thought you were commenting on one-hour finales being too long, or something like that.

I do like two-part finales for the most part. I'd like to see Moffat try a 3-part finale, like RTD did with series 3, but with a better conclusion. I liked both Utopia and The Sound of Drums, but Last of the Time Lords was disappointing.

 

[Box of Bunnies]

the rose tinted glasses for rtd and his era is so fucking annoying

I've seen more of the exact opposite if anything. Suddenly the first five years of the revival are abject rubbish and we're lucky it lasted long enough to bless us with Steven Moffat's tenure.

 

[Spaghetti]

Last of the Time Lords was disappointing.

and how

i know the set up for the finale wasn't an asspull because it was loosely kinda established, but it was so stupidly executed and so ridiculously cheap looking and by far one of the most embarrassing moments of doctor who since the revival

speaking of cheap, i think we can all agree that the rtd era was an absolute nightmare of art design and lighting, even expensive episodes looked rubbish

 

[ghstwrld]

I'm so lost; the silence undermined and controlled humans on earth for thousands of years because...what?

 

[Mariolee]

I'm so lost; the silence undermined and controlled humans on earth for thousands of years because...what?

I...actually don't know. Yeah what the hell? If the Silents aren't some sort of specific race but are merely genetically engineered priests, then why did they control humans for thousands of years and try to get to the moon and expand their empire...when they're just priests working for the papal mainframe? Shouldn't they be busier trying to kill the Doctor?

Maybe they're a splinter group that went too far back in time and forgot the whole reason they came back in time in the first place and thus just decided to rule the human race or something?

 

[Quick]

and how

i know the set up for the finale wasn't an asspull because it was loosely kinda established, but it was so stupidly executed and so ridiculously cheap looking and by far one of the most embarrassing moments of doctor who since the revival

speaking of cheap, i think we can all agree that the rtd era was an absolute nightmare of art design and lighting, even expensive episodes looked rubbish

One of many things I love about the Moffat era is extra attention to cinematography, making the show look more cinematic and less soap opera-like.

 

[dubq]

the rose tinted glasses for rtd and his era is so fucking annoying, it was unbearable for a lot of the same reasons people don't like moffat

Really? Does it ruin the show for you that people enjoy eras that you don't?

 

[phisheep]

I...actually don't know. Yeah what the hell? If the Silents aren't some sort of specific race but are merely genetically engineered priests, then why did they control humans for thousands of years and try to get to the moon and expand their empire...when they're just priests working for the papal mainframe? Shouldn't they be busier trying to kill the Doctor?

Maybe they're a splinter group that went too far back in time and forgot the whole reason they came back in time in the first place and thus just decided to rule the human race or something?

Because religion maybe? Perhaps some sort of thing like the Jesuits in South America? Whatever it is, there should be some sort of story behind it that was just waved away.

 

[Jest Chillin]

I've seen more of the exact opposite if anything. Suddenly the first five years of the revival are abject rubbish and we're lucky it lasted long enough to bless us with Steven Moffat's tenure.

Surely you mean some other place than Gaf because from what I've seen...

I'm so lost; the silence undermined and controlled humans on earth for thousands of years because...what?

I...actually don't know. Yeah what the hell? If the Silents aren't some sort of specific race but are merely genetically engineered priests, then why did they control humans for thousands of years and try to get to the moon and expand their empire...when they're just priests working for the papal mainframe? Shouldn't they be busier trying to kill the Doctor?

Maybe they're a splinter group that went too far back in time and forgot the whole reason they came back in time in the first place and thus just decided to rule the human race or something?

This was explained in Time of The Doctor. Madame Kovarian led a splinter group of The Silence (Religious Group) who went back in time in an attempt to assassinate The Doctor. The Silents (Priests) who were with Madame Kovarian were the ones who had been on Earth for.. well.. ever.

It's farily easy to infer from the above that they directed things on Earth in such a way as to try to place The Doctor into a specific set of circumstances as to eliminate him. Which, by the way, worked. They just didn't count on Amy's influence on Mel that made River spare him.


Edit: Though I should say that any who want to disagree with such inference are free to do so given that it's not expressly said. Though I would posit that anything expressly said is a knock against Moffat... so...

Really? Does it ruin the show for you that people enjoy eras that you don't?

That's not actually what he said at all. May want to read that over again. He specifically pointed out that people are knocking Moffat for the same things that RTD did, but aren't attributing those things to RTD. That's the crux of his annoyance.

 

[Mariolee]

This was explained in Time of The Doctor. Madame Kovarian led a splinter group of The Silence (Religious Group) who went back in time in an attempt to assassinate The Doctor. The Silents (Priests) who were with Madame Kovarian were the ones who had been on Earth for.. well.. ever.

It's farily easy to infer from the above that they directed things on Earth in such a way as to try to place The Doctor into a specific set of circumstances as to eliminate him. Which, by the way, worked. They just didn't count on Amy's influence on Mel that made River spare him.

So, the whole dominating to get to the moon plan was just made up to get the Doctor distracted so they could kidnap Amy during their running around from the Silents to engineer River to kill the Doctor?

That's a lot of inferring from a few short sentences from Time of the Doctor. I don't know why Moffat felt he needed to wait until the last episode to put all these answers in instead of spreading the answers throughout Series 7 and doing away with the Impossible Girl stuff, or at least keeping it to a minimum.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

The RTD era was just as "bad" as Moffat's (though neither of them are bad without quotation marks, overall), in different ways. Both writers have a crippling reluctance, for example, to kill off characters permanently, though I expect that's sanctions from the BBC more than anything. Moffatt might not tie up plots in a satisfying way, RTD ties them up in a ridiculously contrived way, when they never needed tying up in the first place. I mean this is a man who created a clone of The Doctor just to give a certain character a happy resolution, completely and utterly ruining the impact of the series finale two years prior.

On The Silence; they're definitely the result of Moffatt sitting on the toilet and thinking "Hm, wouldn't it be cool to have a weird monster based on the grey alien from Roswell?", and you're a fool if you think otherwise. I think in general if you believe Moffatt has some sort of master plan that's where you'll end up the most disappointed. Take the regeneration limit for example, he clearly plucked that out of his arse after coming up with Hurt and threw it into Matt's last episode. It would be fine if The Doctor had indicated or acted in any way at all that this regeneration was his last, but he didn't. And don't say "The Doctor lies", Moffatt just doesn't plan ahead. The Tardis blowing up? The Silence did it. Which you might have inferred from the Series 5 finale, even if you didn't know what the Silence were.

 

[Jest Chillin]

So, the whole dominating to get to the moon plan was just made up to get the Doctor distracted so they could kidnap Amy during their running around from the Silents to engineer River to kill the Doctor?

That's a lot of inferring from a few short sentences from Time of the Doctor. I don't know why Moffat felt he needed to wait until the last episode to put all these answers in instead of spreading the answers throughout Series 7 and doing away with the Impossible Girl stuff, or at least keeping it to a minimum.

I'm not the only one to have this kind of theory.

The Silents travelled very far back in time—thousands of years into the Earth's past— (TV: Day of the Moon) since at least the time the wheel and fire were developed. Their power allowed them to go unnoticed by the human race.(TV: Day of the Moon) The Doctor called them parasites; the Silents living on Earth were unable to develop any science or technology on their own. Instead they relied on other species. (TV: Day of the Moon) Their manipulation of humankind may all have been related to their end goal of preventing the Doctor reaching Trenzalore. For example, they used post-hypnotic suggestion to make humans do their bidding in such things as going to the Moon, seemingly to spark the development of an astronaut suit, (TV: Day of the Moon) which would be the template for suit they would in a later plan to kill the Doctor. (TV: Closing Time, The Wedding of River Song)

Source: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Silent

Far from concrete but it doesn't seem to be that crazy an inference.

On The Silence; they're definitely the result of Moffatt sitting on the toilet and thinking "Hm, wouldn't it be cool to have a weird monster based on the grey alien from Roswell?", and you're a fool if you think otherwise. I think in general if you believe Moffatt has some sort of master plan that's where you'll end up the most disappointed. Take the regeneration limit for example, he clearly plucked that out of his arse after coming up with Hurt and threw it into Matt's last episode. It would be fine if The Doctor had indicated or acted in any way at all that this regeneration was his last, but he didn't. And don't say "The Doctor lies", Moffatt just doesn't plan ahead. The Tardis blowing up? The Silence did it. Which you might have inferred from the Series 5 finale, even if you didn't know what the Silence were.

The War Doctor was clearly a tactic for Moffat to be the one to handle the Regen Limit himself more than anything else. I don't think anyone has suggested anything differently. Hell even Silents vs Silence is a band-aid at best.

 

[Jest Chillin]

Double. :/ Sorry.

 

[Htown]

That's not actually what he said at all. May want to read that over again. He specifically pointed out that people are knocking Moffat for the same things that RTD did, but aren't attributing those things to RTD. That's the crux of his annoyance.

Exactly.

 

[maharg]

I think Moffat has a Master Plan most of the time, it's just very very short on details. He knows where he wants to start and where he wants to end but he gets tripped up on the middle. Fine for a 1 or 2 part story, or something episodic in general like Coupling, but on a longer arc the cracks (heh) really start to show.

 

[Mariolee]

Nah Jest Chillin, I'm not disagreeing with your theory, I was just restating it for clarification and to point out how weird the plot got by Time of the Doctor. Like, when I think pay off to a long on going mystery, I think, "OH MY GOODNESS, IT WAS SO OBVIOUS. Everything links together! The clues were right there!" Basically, how I feel usually at the end of a Sherlock episode.

But here, I'm disappointed because this shit makes sense, but it doesn't feel like a pay off because there was next to no way we could've figured a lot of the specifics out, with the papal mainframe and the fact Time Lords could even break through the time cracks or whatever, and due to the fact that most of the reveals went passed unceremoniously. Like, a quick sentemce or two and boom, THERE'S YOUR THREE YEARS OF PAY OFF. I still liked the episode for all of the great character moments between Smith, Coleman, etc, but as a "pay off" episode, it was more than a bit lackluster.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

I think Moffat has a Master Plan most of the time, it's just very very short on details. He knows where he wants to start and where he wants to end but he gets tripped up on the middle. Fine for a 1 or 2 part story, or something episodic in general like Coupling, but on a longer arc the cracks (heh) really start to show.

I'm really not so sure. Series 5 has a pretty straightforward arc (even with timey wimey stuff) if you ignore the Tardis blowing up. Series 6 and beyond is where it goes a bit fuck-up. It could be of course that he has a master plan, just that the master plan is very bad.

But for stuff like the regeneration limit, he was genuinely making it up as he went along. And that's fine, but it means Matt has only been "the last Doctor" for the past few months. It's also bizarre the cracks were left behind as "scar tissue" when it's made very clear the cracks are incredibly harmful and detrimental.

 

[The Adder]

nor would he just casually order a genocide of The Silence with no apparent attempts at negotiation or some other kind of trick like the two-parter of S6.

He didn't. They ordered it on themselves. That Silence could have said anything, literally anything, and it chose to say that we should kill them on sight.

 

[Mariolee]

I'm really not so sure. Series 5 has a pretty straightforward arc (even with timey wimey stuff) if you ignore the Tardis blowing up. Series 6 and beyond is where it goes a bit fuck-up. It could be of course that he has a master plan, just that the master plan is very bad.

But for stuff like the regeneration limit, he was genuinely making it up as he went along. And that's fine, but it means Matt has only been "the last Doctor" for the past few months. It's also bizarre the cracks were left behind as "scar tissue" when it's made very clear the cracks are incredibly harmful and detrimental.

Yeah, dude just needs to plan ahead a bit more and not feel the need to cramp as many plot points as possible into one episode. Pacing is key.

 

[M.Bluth]

But here, I'm disappointed because this shit makes sense, but it doesn't feel like a pay off because there was next to no way we could've figured a lot of the specifics out, with the papal mainframe and the fact Time Lords could even break through the time cracks or whatever, and due to the fact that most of the reveals went passed unceremoniously. Like, a quick sentemce or two and boom, THERE'S YOUR THREE YEARS OF PAY OFF. I still liked the episode for all of the great character moments between Smith, Coleman, etc, but as a "pay off" episode, it was more than a bit lackluster.

This is why I'm hoping for the return to two-part finales. Think of how The Wedding of River Song went, a lot of it was The Doctor explaining what happened before time stopped to Churchill.
The same happened with Name and Time of the Doctor, lots of exposition, or rather an information dump, most likely because of how little time the episodes ran.

It certainly didn't help that run time has shrunk from almost 55 with Big Bang to only 45 minutes with The Wedding of River Song and the Name of the Doctor

 

[ScreenSplitter]

This is why I'm hoping for the return to two-part finales. Think of how The Wedding of River Song went, a lot of it was The Doctor explaining what happened before time stopped to Churchill.
The same happened with Name and Time of the Doctor, lots of exposition, or rather an information dump, most likely because of how little time the episodes ran.

It certainly didn't help that run time has shrunk from almost 55 with Big Bang to only 45 minutes with The Wedding of River Song and the Name of the Doctor

A lot of Moffatt finales are an awful lot of faffing. British word to describe a British show. We have as you say the long-winded explanation to Churchill, when maybe it would have been better just tacking on The Doctor's non-death onto the end of Closing Time, and in Name of the Doctor and Time of the Doctor you have bizarre segues with the irritating Paternoster crew and Clara's uninteresting family we've never met in our lives.

 

[maharg]

I'm really not so sure. Series 5 has a pretty straightforward arc (even with timey wimey stuff) if you ignore the Tardis blowing up. Series 6 and beyond is where it goes a bit fuck-up. It could be of course that he has a master plan, just that the master plan is very bad.

But for stuff like the regeneration limit, he was genuinely making it up as he went along. And that's fine, but it means Matt has only been "the last Doctor" for the past few months. It's also bizarre the cracks were left behind as "scar tissue" when it's made very clear the cracks are incredibly harmful and detrimental.

I still maintain that he actively pushed up the regen limit himself. He didn't have to handle it here, no one really cared that Handy was technically a regeneration to the point that he basically had to beat us all over the head with the fact that it was.

Moffat had an idea for this and he WANTED to do it. That seems so very clear to me.

A lot of Moffatt finales are an awful lot of faffing. British word to describe a British show. We have as you say the long-winded explanation to Churchill, when maybe it would have been better just tacking on The Doctor's non-death onto the end of Closing Time, and in Name of the Doctor and Time of the Doctor you have bizarre segues with the irritating Paternoster crew and Clara's uninteresting family we've never met in our lives.

None of these, the ones in the latest included, are as 'faffing' as the time when the Doctor chased the Master around a junkyard for 15 minutes with a 5 minute tea break with Wilf plopped right in the middle.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

I still maintain that he actively pushed up the regen limit himself. He didn't have to handle it here, no one really cared that Handy was technically a regeneration to the point that he basically had to beat us all over the head with the fact that it was.

Moffat had an idea for this and he WANTED to do it. That seems so very clear to me.



None of these, the ones in the latest included, are as 'faffing' as the time when the Doctor chased the Master around a junkyard for 15 minutes with a 5 minute tea break with Wilf plopped right in the middle.

Woah, I never said RTD was any better. And we know for one that The War Doctor likely wouldn't have existed had Eccleston opted to return.

 

[maharg]

Woah, I never said RTD was any better. And we know for one that The War Doctor likely wouldn't have existed had Eccleston opted to return.

Didn't say you did. I just wanted to throw that out there. I find it hilarious.

And he'd have found another way. He's been messing with regeneration energy a lot, especially when River's involved. There's no way he didn't want this story.The Hurt Doctor just gave him a better angle.

 

[M.Bluth]

A lot of Moffatt finales are an awful lot of faffing. British word to describe a British show. We have as you say the long-winded explanation to Churchill, when maybe it would have been better just tacking on The Doctor's non-death onto the end of Closing Time, and in Name of the Doctor and Time of the Doctor you have bizarre segues with the irritating Paternoster crew and Clara's uninteresting family we've never met in our lives.

That wasn't the case with Pandorica and Big Bang. The other ones just needed better pacing spread on two episodes. Would they end up amazing? Not necessarily, but they would certainly have worked better with what Moffat actually had in mind.

Hopefully whoever's replacing Marcus Wilson will push Moffat to fix that sort of stuff?
Who are the new producers, anyway?

 

[Jest Chillin]

Nah Jest Chillin, I'm not disagreeing with your theory, I was just restating it for clarification and to point out how weird the plot got by Time of the Doctor. Like, when I think pay off to a long on going mystery, I think, "OH MY GOODNESS, IT WAS SO OBVIOUS. Everything links together! The clues were right there!" Basically, how I feel usually at the end of a Sherlock episode.

But here, I'm disappointed because this shit makes sense, but it doesn't feel like a pay off because there was next to no way we could've figured a lot of the specifics out, with the papal mainframe and the fact Time Lords could even break through the time cracks or whatever, and due to the fact that most of the reveals went passed unceremoniously. Like, a quick sentemce or two and boom, THERE'S YOUR THREE YEARS OF PAY OFF. I still liked the episode for all of the great character moments between Smith, Coleman, etc, but as a "pay off" episode, it was more than a bit lackluster.

I feel like some of that came from what he assumed would be inferred and some of that came from a necessary explanation for kids. Keep in mind that his Sherlock stuff is typically much more convoluted and a lot is explained through close up shots/alternate angle shots.

Aside: Believe me, I've gone through the Sherlock stuff and not nearly as much is able to be noticed even the second and third time through because the camera shots aren't where they need to be. It makes sense though in the era of DVR's and Gifs.

I'm really not so sure. Series 5 has a pretty straightforward arc (even with timey wimey stuff) if you ignore the Tardis blowing up. Series 6 and beyond is where it goes a bit fuck-up. It could be of course that he has a master plan, just that the master plan is very bad.

But for stuff like the regeneration limit, he was genuinely making it up as he went along. And that's fine, but it means Matt has only been "the last Doctor" for the past few months. It's also bizarre the cracks were left behind as "scar tissue" when it's made very clear the cracks are incredibly harmful and detrimental.

The only thing I can really say is that the cracks were not left behind. They were closed. What The Doctor was saying was that due to the nature of healed over cracks, they were weaker than other areas. So when the Time Lords were searching.. think of it as banging on doors randomly.. and one door that seemed closed open just a bit because the door jam was weaker than most.

This is why I'm hoping for the return to two-part finales. Think of how The Wedding of River Song went, a lot of it was The Doctor explaining what happened before time stopped to Churchill.
The same happened with Name and Time of the Doctor, lots of exposition, or rather an information dump, most likely because of how little time the episodes ran.

It certainly didn't help that run time has shrunk from almost 55 with Big Bang to only 45 minutes with The Wedding of River Song and the Name of the Doctor

My question is.. in a show about intrigue/mystery (even a little bit) how do you explain that stuff without a character explaining it? And this applies to all shows. If the villain doesn't explain the plan or a hero doesn't guess the plan.. how does the plan get revealed to the viewer?

 

[M.Bluth]

^There are many plot devices that can be used.
However, that doesn't mean you can't have a character explain something. It's just that if you have someone just spends, I don't know, 10 minutes straight explaining everything, a lot of viewers lose their interest and their attention.
And the entire emotional side of the story, what this information or mystery means to characters, loses its power because of how quick things move

 

[Jest Chillin]

^There are many plot devices that can be used.
However, that doesn't mean you can't have a character explain something. It's just that if you have someone just spends, I don't know, 10 minutes straight explaining everything, a lot of viewers lose their interest and their attention.
And the entire emotional side of the story, what this information or mystery means to characters, loses its power because of how quick things move

Ah ok. I can understand where you're coming from on that. I didn't personally feel that way as I responded to Moffat's other devices in imparting feeling in terms of the gratitude from the village, the loss of Handy, calling the young man by the wrong name... Personally I didn't need to get character development from them to understand an empathize.. but I can see how others could want that.

The dialogue explanation of previous arcs specifics didn't bother me because it wasn't a major concern for me beforehand. It was just extra information at that point.

 

[shanshan310]

I agree. From what I've seen though most of the people down on Moffat are Brits and they have a specific history with the show.

I'm American and I watched nothing but New Who.. fell for the show with RTD and still loved it with Moffat. Thankfully I had watched through S6 outside of any threads because I might have otherwise been influenced by posts... but by now.. I just know that I enjoy what I enjoy and others.. well they have specific ideas about what the show should be. And that's that.

I don't know about that. I started watching Doctor Who with the reboot back in 2005 and myself and friends started noticing a decline in quality of the stories... or at least our interest in 2010ish. Didn't even realise RTD had left and Moffat had taken over until a couple of months ago. Haven't seen any old who and I'm not British either.

 

[Jest Chillin]

I don't know about that. I started watching Doctor Who with the reboot back in 2005 and myself and friends started noticing a decline in quality of the stories... or at least our interest in 2010ish. Didn't even realise RTD had left and Moffat had taken over until a couple of months ago. Haven't seen any old who and I'm not British either.

There's always going to be exceptions. But my comments are just my observations.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

To be fair to both, Doctor Who is historically a show that has played with overall quality like a skipping rope.

 

[paradox121]

To be fair to both, Doctor Who is historically a show that has played with overall quality like a skipping rope.

I dunno. I've always thought this is a bit of a misleading argument. If we're talking historically, the quality of classic Doctor Who wildly fluctuated more series to series or even era to era. Now I know, as apparent from all the posts above, people have different views on the Moffat and RTD eras, but it's not like either has been objectionably shite from start to end. For me, there have maybe been...three or four episodes out of this entire 9 year run that are just downright bad episodes of television. Otherwise it's just a less-good Doctor Who episode. And the beauty of Doctor Who is if you get a bad episode one week it'll probably be an alright one the following week.

I know people like to exaggerate to make a point, but for both showrunners to maintain a show that is still an overwhelming success and, not a week ago, produce an episode that was the second most watched program of the day, and the most watched BBC America show ever is fantastic. And let's not forget RTD made episodes that are some of the most watched in the show's entire history. Both these guys clearly know what they're doing. They may produce sub-standard characters or have the odd misstep in plot but the notion that the show is all over the place in quality is a bit much.

(This rant isn't really directed at your ScreenSplitter, just airing it out there!)

 

[SpacePirate Ridley]

I'm going to be that guy and just say I see nothing wrong - save for a couple episodes here and there - with either Moffat or RTD'e runs on the show. It's been the most consistently entertaining show running and I can rewatch episodes endlessly. I didn't like the Master or the candy colored Daleks, I didn't like pavement blowjobs or the Statue of Liberty angel. Both show runners had ups and downs, but the show is fantastic. And I don't know anything about Moffat's personal life, but he doesn't write female characters as if he hates women, so I'm not buying the lame-duck misogyny complaint.

Same here, the two of them have their weaknessess and their amazing parts, but I love both of them, even if they are different. Thats something I love from the show, it always feels a little different.

The only bad (as in hate) Doctor Who is the boring Doctor Who, and those are 1 during the RTD era (Fear Her) and one during the Moffat era (The Doctor, the widow and the shit).

 

[ScreenSplitter]

I dunno. I've always thought this is a bit of a misleading argument. If we're talking historically, the quality of classic Doctor Who wildly fluctuated more series to series or even era to era. Now I know, as apparent from all the posts above, people have different views on the Moffat and RTD eras, but it's not like either has been objectionably shite from start to end. For me, there have maybe been...three or four episodes out of this entire 9 year run that are just downright bad episodes of television. Otherwise it's just a less-good Doctor Who episode. And the beauty of Doctor Who is if you get a bad episode one week it'll probably be an alright one the following week.

I know people like to exaggerate to make a point, but for both showrunners to maintain a show that is still an overwhelming success and, not a week ago, produce an episode that was the second most watched program of the day, and the most watched BBC America show ever is fantastic. And let's not forget RTD made episodes that are some of the most watched in the show's entire history. Both these guys clearly know what they're doing. They may produce sub-standard characters or have the odd misstep in plot but the notion that the show is all over the place in quality is a bit much.

(This rant isn't really directed at your ScreenSplitter, just airing it out there!)

That's kinda what I meant man, I was referring to the series as a whole, and how it's never been consistently "Wow".

 

[twobear]

I don't really buy that RTD writes better women than Moffat. People complain about Clara or even Amy for a second having a thing for the Doctor, but RTD is the one who created the Doctor/companion romance for the reboot. He turned Rose completely lovesick for the Doctor, and then after a year of that, spent an entire new year on Martha being completely lovesick for him. More than that, Martha's departure from the show was predicated entirely on her unrequited love -- "Why can't you look at me like that?" and so on.

And even beyond the companions, I don't find very many of RTD's creations to be all that compelling. Jackie? She may be more of a real person and help fills out Rose's background, but is anyone clamoring for Jackie to return or even remember her that well? Mickey? The engineering crew in The Impossible Planet? The cat people in Gridlock? That shit kid in the Sontaran two-parter? David Morissey or Christine Ryan or Kylie Minogue?

I don't know, it's just my opinion and all that, but I think Moffat's characters are more interesting and compelling right off the bat than a good 90% of RTD's. I'll give him Wilf though, who is a big reason why I think The End of Time's four knocks scene is the show's very best.

Conversely though he also gave us Donna.

 

[Spaghetti]

Really? Does it ruin the show for you that people enjoy eras that you don't?

i never said i don't enjoy rtd era episodes (utopia was, excuse the pun, masterful, dalek is the defining proof of concept that dw can exist in the modern era, moffat did about 70% of his best writing under rtd, and the series 1 and 2 finales are in my top three favourite finales)

but goddamn, it got so fucking rough at times and it seems like the further away we get from rtd's tenure as showrunner the more people tend to forget how he had exactly the same problems as moffat does but rapidly diminishing quality and a decidedly cheap looking show to go along with them

 

[Quick]

The cheapest I've seen the Moffat era get is Rings of Akhaten.

The CG and costumes were fine, but any physical sets (aside from the marketplace) looked really cheap, especially the crowd at the ceremony.

 

[APZonerunner]

Moffat has vastly more money, which obviously helps. I think for me personally if I compare say David and Matt, I'd say Matt's era is the one with absolutely fantastic cinematic production value and all that sort of stuff - and Matt himself is astonishingly good - but David's era I look back on in hindsight and think that even though sometimes they never had enough money to quite get it 100% right (An episode like The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit on the current budget would be insane, for instance) I'll always remember his era as the one which had the better individual stories at a script level. Mostly, anyway. There are exceptions. But Moffat definitely knows how to spend the money better, and has more of it thanks to the actions of the previous set of people - Moffat said if it'd been his choice he'd never have signed off on the Who Experience initially, for instance, as he would've thought it a distraction, but the old team doing that is actually one of the things that helped secure them a larger budget down the line.

People don't realize, I think, how crazy Series One of Who was, really. Like -- they had less money than things like Spooks (MI5, non-UK folk), and when the BBC allocated them the money for Doctor Who, RTD and Gardner were expected to return 6 45-minute episodes for the money they were given. Gardner did some sort of mathematical sorcery and they ended up returning over double that. It's incredible impressive. Or to put it another way, you could make three or four episodes of Doctor Who in 2005 or 2006 for every episode of Star Trek Enterprise, which is simply mental. That's the one reason I'll always give them more credit than the current era, really - they did that. They didn't just beat those impossible odds, they massacred them. Moffat's struggled to bang out two series in three years, which is disappointing.

 

[Axiom]

Moffat has been writing woman I adore since Press Gang, but I'd say that in each of their eras they've only produced one stand out female companion each - Donna and Amy.
As said, the RTD and Moffat eras have very different feels, but RTD has bigger highs and bigger lows. Fear Her and Love & Monsters are in the same season as Girl in the Fireplace and Doomsday after all.

I think a lot of what was so good about the 50th was that it felt like the perfect blend of RTD's "fuck yeah" moments and character beats with Moffat's clever dialogue and great ideas.

As for the regenerations, I'd have preferred a season long arc where "This is my last one" isn't thrown in at the end, but the Doctor dealing with his mortality was already an arc for Smith before.
I'm not sure why "Without Time Lords to enforce the rules, the regeneration limit isn't a factor" wasn't the go to thing here, but he decided to address it directly and the anniversary year is a good excuse for continuity porn.

 

[Goldrush]

Personally, I'm glad the show don't insist on two-parters. The more the Doctor is moving, the better. Even if the story is great, I don't really want to see the same sets and characters for two episodes straight. I guess I wouldn't really mind something like Series 5 two-parters or the YANA trilogy where each episode is completely different, though.

 

[Kilrogg]

Here's the briefest way I could sum up the differences between RTD-Who and Moffat-Who:

RTD:
- Very corny and kitsch, doesn't take itself seriously overall
- ... But has genuine emotional moments and characters the audience cares about, leading to
- A better sense of looming threats and satisfying resolutions

Moffat:
- Technically top notch, Interesting concepts and villains, but...
- Everything is rushed, from plot points to characters, leading to...
- The sense that the viewer is supposed to be a genius, when really nothing about the show is - or should be - that intelligent and demanding of the audience

To me it feels as if RTD-era Who has a heart, complete with all the cheese and irregular quality, whereas Moffat-era Who has a pacemaker. It's got all the makings of something great, it's fairly constant in its quality, and it tries hard to beat like a normal heart, but in the end it's just a cold piece equipment. Needless to say I like RTD Who better, despite its many flaws.

 

[Team Filler]

I was really disappointed with Time of the Doctor. Yeah, "christmas special" and all that, but I think it's really shitty that Matt wasn't given enough running time and a solid enough script for his exit.

I find myself agreeing, frighteningly enough, with the Kuwabara assessment: this was Moffat's worst tendencies over his tenure all packed together into one episode. It's not that there weren't good scenes, but that there wasn't anything between them to really carry the story and moments, not enough to make me believe. Even the regeneration's more poignant moments were marred by the fuck-akward way they included the Amy-hallucination, understandable though it may be.

I'm excited for the future with Capaldi, but extremely bitter with how Moffat bungled Matt's send-off, and am ready for him to give the reins to another. Maybe somebody who isn't so fucking concerned about making every character so eyewink-knowingly clever, and is willing to write stories that aren't always about the universe being in peril.

Ugh.

 

[The Adder]

Anyone else see 10 as 6 done well?

Tennant has all C. Baker's worst qualities made bearable to the point of being endearing. He's arrogant and vain, a bit pompous, a bit of a braggart. And you can't tell me that if he had some way to do it, 6 wouldn't have pulled that partial regeneration stunt.

 

[WanderingWind]

Aww man. Just watched the final episode. I was indifferent until Amelia showed up and I started tearing up like a little girl.

Jesus.

 

[Exterminieren]

I love the RTD era to pieces, but I would never, ever consider it to have better episode resolutions than Moffat's take. The endings were RTD's biggest flaw.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

Even the regeneration's more poignant moments were marred by the fuck-akward way they included the Amy-hallucination, understandable though it may be.

Yeah, him fantasizing about Amy with Clara standing there freaking out is just odd. Even on a rewatch. I guess "the first face this face saw" is important, as Clara will be that to Capaldi, but damn if it isn't awkward.

And as if he didn't explain who the fuck Amy was to Clara. Fuck you, Doctor.

 

[CorvoSol]

Aww man. Just watched the final episode. I was indifferent until Amelia showed up and I started tearing up like a little girl.

Jesus.

I cried, man. I cried.

 

[Mariolee]

Here's the briefest way I could sum up the differences between RTD-Who and Moffat-Who:

RTD:
- Very corny and kitsch, doesn't take itself seriously overall
- ... But has genuine emotional moments and characters the audience cares about, leading to
- A better sense of looming threats and satisfying resolutions

Moffat:
- Technically top notch, Interesting concepts and villains, but...
- Everything is rushed, from plot points to characters, leading to...
- The sense that the viewer is supposed to be a genius, when really nothing about the show is - or should be - that intelligent and demanding of the audience

To me it feels as if RTD-era Who has a heart, complete with all the cheese and irregular quality, whereas Moffat-era Who has a pacemaker. It's got all the makings of something great, it's fairly constant in its quality, and it tries hard to beat like a normal heart, but in the end it's just a cold piece equipment. Needless to say I like RTD Who better, despite its many flaws.

I wouldn't say either the Moffat Era or the RTD Era had more heart than the other. RTD sure had his moments, but gatdam there were a lot of tears and heart during the Moffat Era as well. You could see the three of them: Rory, Amy, and the Doctor grow to become a really tight family throughout series 5 and 6, and along the way they faced a Dreamlord, an alternate reality where they had to kill off a future Amy from ever existing, had to face their fears in The God Complex, have the Doctor invited for dinner during Christmas, have the Doctor spot them in the mall in one of the best use of them ever, and all of that made their departure in Angels in Manhattan that much more sad.

I loved the Ponds dang it. That's why I'm so disappointed I don't love Clara just as much. She feels more like a plot device than a character, though this episode significantly less so as she really displayed her acting chops.

 

[WanderingWind]

Yeah, him fantasizing about Amy with Clara standing there freaking out is just odd. Even on a rewatch. I guess "the first face this face saw" is important, as Clara will be that to Capaldi, but damn if it isn't awkward.

And as if he didn't explain who the fuck Amy was to Clara. Fuck you, Doctor.

I loved that bit. It's the starkest reminder that the Doctor is eternal and while he's likely the most important person in the life of his companion, they may not necessarily be the most important to him. Clara was really an on and off again companion anyway. Picked up on Wednesdays, and all. With Amelia, he was with her as child, through her growing up, her marriage and was there at their 'death.' Hell, even him attaching 'Impossible Girl' to Clara was a weak attempt at recapturing the magic of The Girl Who Waited. He was heartbroken when they left him. With Clara, he dumped her off. Twice. Shit, he was sadder about the bow-tie.

I cried, man. I cried.

 

[Jest Chillin]

To be fair, The Doctor never did get to give Amy a proper goodbye, while she was able to give him one through her writing.