Moffat. Should he stay or go?

For discussion of the new series from 2005 to the present day hosted by Planet Mondas Forum.
Post Reply

should Moffat Stay or go?

Stay
15
22%
Go
52
78%
 
Total votes: 67
User avatar
Tobias Vaughan
 
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 9:26 am
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Contact:

as mooted elsewhere, should he stay or go? let battle commence...
I saw 'The Purge, Election Year' last night, I couldn't make out whether it was fiction or a party political broadcast on behalf of the Republican party...
Trau Morgus
 
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:21 pm
Contact:

Well this should be a reasonable discussion.
User avatar
Heccypoo
 
 
Posts: 4852
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:09 pm
Location: Tracy Island
Contact:

To freshen up the writing he should either move on, maybe to do more Sherlock, or at least get more fresh writing talent in and become a script editor, to make the show move on to newer ideas.
Now that we all know about the rude bits, aren't they rude? And as we get older, they get ruder and ruder. :oops:
User avatar
The Nimon
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 8236
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:24 am
Contact:

I'd say stay one more year or so. There is a point where i can guess that it's overstaying his welcome but i'm in the camp that really enjoyed last years stories and most of the stories that have been on screen since he took over. I'm interested to see this different version of the show that he said he's doing with Capaldi.
The Judge Judy of Planet Mondax
User avatar
OptikaNET
 
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:48 am
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Would this have been better as a poll?

Kind Regards
Dave
User avatar
Heccypoo
 
 
Posts: 4852
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:09 pm
Location: Tracy Island
Contact:

Mabbe he should go and do a series about Strax & Co....
Now that we all know about the rude bits, aren't they rude? And as we get older, they get ruder and ruder. :oops:
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

Stay. I'm still enjoying his stuff, and I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do with a new and very different Doctor.
User avatar
Kajaboy
 
 
Posts: 4823
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:11 am
Contact:

I have been enjoying more stories as time has gone on. Less of the timey wimey stuff and it could be great. Give him one more season and see how he goes. Had you asked me this at the end of series 5 or 6 I would have said go.
My next door neighbour mixed up her KY jelly with the superglue. I asked her how she managed that but her lips are sealed.
User avatar
Llamastrangler
 
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:29 am
Location: Nuneaton, Warwickshire
Contact:

One more year. He needs to leave while things are still good, and I thought Season 33 was a little weaker than the previous two, although admittedly that may just be a case of the weaker episodes being clustered together near the end. Four years plus the odd special seems about right, following RTD's precedent.
Have a look at my blog. It's sort of ok

http://llamastranglermarathon.blogspot.com/
User avatar
ianj
The Dominator
The Dominator
Posts: 3246
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:09 pm
Contact:

Purely my own view, go.I really don't like lesbian silurians and friendly sontarans, nor the americanisation of Who or the sci fantasy lean as opposed to sci fiction.
However, its a popular programme and there's a huge audience, like Tony above, who enjoy the new Who and look forward to it.
User avatar
Heccypoo
 
 
Posts: 4852
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:09 pm
Location: Tracy Island
Contact:

If Moff and his cronies can improve, in my opinion and in no way do I wish to offend anyone else who disagrees with said opinion, or say that by some way, :oops: am I stating that I am superior being for having a different opinion or cause anyone to have a hissy fit because I don't agree with someone else's opinion, Then he can stay as long as he likes.

I seriously doubt he will improve...

Just my opinion...

No offense to any sensitive souls who think I am wrong to have a negative opinion on Mr Moffat etc etc..... :oops:
Now that we all know about the rude bits, aren't they rude? And as we get older, they get ruder and ruder. :oops:
User avatar
OptikaNET
 
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:48 am
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Okay, while accepting your right to hold such an opinion, I would like you to clarify what you mean by "improve"?

Improve suggests to become "better"... but better at what? Better at writing popular science fiction drama? Better at drawing an audience? Better at generating high appreciation figures? Better at getting international recognition? Better at winning awards and critical recognition?

How do you want him to "improve"?

This is what I mean when I say people are getting "I don't like this." confused with "This is no good." I've been criticised for being condenscending in saying this, but this is a good case in point.

You don't mean "improve" at all, I suspect, you mean "change". You don't want him to be objectively better, because the objective evidence is that he's one of the most successful writers/producers in British TV right now. You want him to write different-stuff but in a way as successful as the stuff he's writing now.

In other words, you want him to change his output to something that better matches your personal taste. That's fine, but that's not "improving", that's just changing his style. Not the same thing at all.

Kind Regards
Dave
User avatar
Heccypoo
 
 
Posts: 4852
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:09 pm
Location: Tracy Island
Contact:

OptikaNET wrote:Okay, while accepting your right to hold such an opinion, I would like you to clarify what you mean by "improve"?

Improve suggests to become "better"... but better at what? Better at writing popular science fiction drama? Better at drawing an audience? Better at generating high appreciation figures? Better at getting international recognition? Better at winning awards and critical recognition?

How do you want him to "improve"?

This is what I mean when I say people are getting "I don't like this." confused with "This is no good." I've been criticised for being condenscending in saying this, but this is a good case in point.

You don't mean "improve" at all, I suspect, you mean "change". You don't want him to be objectively better, because the objective evidence is that he's one of the most successful writers/producers in British TV right now. You want him to write different-stuff but in a way as successful as the stuff he's writing now.

In other words, you want him to change his output to something that better matches your personal taste. That's fine, but that's not "improving", that's just changing his style. Not the same thing at all.

Kind Regards
Dave
Improve yes, better character development, stories that have proper logic, no easy way out reset buttons, no smug humour.

The story ideas are great, but he always takes an easy way out. Give us genuine jeopardy, stories that don't build up and then have a disappointing climax cause he has to cram it all in in the last 2 minutes.

Like Asylum of the Daleks. Oswin wiped their memory of the Doctor, at the end of that story they had no idea who he was. That was then chucked out because he had to have them at Trensalore White Christmas happy town.

Every one of his stories starts with 'a voice over 'There was a man' or 'There was a blah blah' or 'There was a planet'.

Might as well start the show with 'Doctor's Log Stardate wibbely wobbely'

Oops sorry Mr Moff, you didn't start The Day of the Doctor with a Voice over..

I think that was the only one that didn't last year...

It's just sloppy writing. There are great ideas in the show. Just give it a bit more polish, that's all it needs.

Lots of American TV shows have to fit into the 45 minute format. It's been the standard there for years.

Diagnosis Murder, a twee American detective show has better pacing than a MOff show...

An objective critic of a Doctor Who script would find loads of negative aspects in it.

I appreciate not every story can be excellent. And that there are behind the scenes issues that affect a show.

But in general its a by the numbers, tick the box writing, lazy. Saved only by a good cast.

Moffat had been really good at casting (like I said before). He's cast actors like Matt Smith and Benedict

Cumberbact could take a telephone directory and make that sound like high drama. :Tardis:
Now that we all know about the rude bits, aren't they rude? And as we get older, they get ruder and ruder. :oops:
User avatar
The Nimon
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 8236
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:24 am
Contact:

OptikaNET wrote:Would this have been better as a poll?

Kind Regards
Dave
Good suggestion. I've changed the thread to a poll thread
The Judge Judy of Planet Mondax
Trau Morgus
 
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:21 pm
Contact:

ianj wrote:the americanisation of Who
Oh, I can't wait to hear what the hell that's supposed to mean.

I voted stay. I do think I liked RTD's stuff a bit better, but overall I've enjoyed Moff's tenure rather a lot, and The Day of the Doctor was spectacular.
User avatar
Tobias Vaughan
 
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 9:26 am
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Contact:

OptikaNET wrote:Would this have been better as a poll?

Kind Regards
Dave
I considered that but thought I'd rather see peoples replies and reasoning for their opinion rather than the lazy yes/no vote with no substantiating evidence. Still thaknyou to whichever mod added the poll later, it gives whichever side of the argument has the highest votes a stick to beat the other with...
I saw 'The Purge, Election Year' last night, I couldn't make out whether it was fiction or a party political broadcast on behalf of the Republican party...
User avatar
Tobias Vaughan
 
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 9:26 am
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Contact:

Trau Morgus wrote:
ianj wrote:the americanisation of Who
Oh, I can't wait to hear what the hell that's supposed to mean.

I voted stay. I do think I liked RTD's stuff a bit better, but overall I've enjoyed Moff's tenure rather a lot, and The Day of the Doctor was spectacular.
In Ians defence, which being new [welcome BTW] you probably don't realise I don't do a lot of, I understand what he means
I saw 'The Purge, Election Year' last night, I couldn't make out whether it was fiction or a party political broadcast on behalf of the Republican party...
User avatar
Tobias Vaughan
 
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 9:26 am
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Contact:

Kajaboy wrote:I have been enjoying more stories as time has gone on. Less of the timey wimey stuff and it could be great. Give him one more season and see how he goes. Had you asked me this at the end of series 5 or 6 I would have said go.
that is interesting, ty.
I saw 'The Purge, Election Year' last night, I couldn't make out whether it was fiction or a party political broadcast on behalf of the Republican party...
Trau Morgus
 
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:21 pm
Contact:

Tobias Vaughan wrote:
Trau Morgus wrote:
ianj wrote:the americanisation of Who
Oh, I can't wait to hear what the hell that's supposed to mean.

I voted stay. I do think I liked RTD's stuff a bit better, but overall I've enjoyed Moff's tenure rather a lot, and The Day of the Doctor was spectacular.
In Ians defence, which being new [welcome BTW] you probably don't realise I don't do a lot of, I understand what he means
That's...um, nice, I guess...
User avatar
OptikaNET
 
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:48 am
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Right. First of all thank you for engaging in a conversation about this. Most people on here approach their criticisms of Moffat like a drive-by shooting. They are entitled not to like the stories if that is their opinion, but most seem more content to attack the man than the art, and with claims that seem objectively unsustainable.
Heccypoo wrote:Improve yes, better character development, stories that have proper logic, no easy way out reset buttons, no smug humour.
Personally, as I've said in other thread, I think the character development is stronger in DW than it ever has been before. It's present in the writing now, whereas historically it has usually (with a few exceptions such as in some of Robert Holmes's writing) been only present in the performance, and sometimes not even there. So again I don't know what you mean by "better" in this instance - what would you prefer to see?

RTD's stories seriously fell down on the logic front, Moffat's are better by far, although not without their faults. The thread on "Angels Take Manhatten" at the moment is talking about one of Moffat's major logic failings - the Statue of Liberty. What really confuses me about that, apart from the suggestion that nobody would notice a giant angel striding around New York (the City that Never Sleeps!), is that when we cut back to the original location of the statue, the body is still there!!! Only the head is missing! so it's far from clear what is actually walking around! That does seem to be a failure of logic. Or, alternatively, an explanation that has not been adequately conveyed to the audience (even if it was conveyed to the effects house who presumably would have painted out the entire statue if they were not told not to). So a definite fault.

Matt Smith's failure to answer the "oldest question" for 300+ years despite our previously being told that "nobody can fail to answer" would be another example.

Still, such logical problems are rife in a lot of other series as well, and are certainly present in original Doctor Who (are we really supposed to believe that it never occurred to Crawford to take his eyepatch off in "Android Invasion"?) as well. In part they arise from the need to wrap everything up in 45 minutes and are among the many reasons why I am and always have been an advocate of two-part stories as the norm. But all series suffer from this to some extent, including the American shows.
Heccypoo wrote:The story ideas are great, but he always takes an easy way out. Give us genuine jeopardy, stories that don't build up and then have a disappointing climax cause he has to cram it all in in the last 2 minutes.
This is a fault of the series for sure. However; "Doctor Who" has always been innovative and it is one of the things I like about it that it is far less predictable than the majority of shows. I watched ITV's reboot of "Birds of a Feather" last week and predicted most of the jokes before they happened. Most American shows are so formulaic that they get quite tiresome - and that includes shows I love such as Star Trek and its variants - because there is a format they have to adhere to dictated in part by the 45 minute, 3 act structure, and in part by the frequency of ad-breaks (meaning the story has to build to a small climax every seven to ten minutes or so...). It really annoys me after a while. Despite the lack of ad-breaks, shows like "Atlantis" follow the same conventions and therefore fail to come alive for me. Doctor Who evades this trap by playing around with the conventions. "Bells of St John" with its Sherlock-style non-diagetic visual components is a good example of this (not discussing "Bells" as a storyline here, but in terms of its visual impact and innovative narrative). There is a danger of style-over-substance developing in this approach and I guess for some people that line is broached (it is, unfortunately, a very subjectively drawn line). For me the show manages to stay on the right side of that line whilst steering a path through narrative innovation (a path that Sherlock steers even more creatively, not always successfully, but always for me a source of interest).

It remains a fact that conventional narratives are easier for audiences to follow, and unconventional narratives - therefore - may be artistically more demanding but may also be subjectively dissatisfying to audience members who cannot follow the innovation. However, it is to be remembered that the most cliched of visual images in TV and cinema today were innovative at some point in their history, and conversely many cliches that the more visually-sophisticated audience may be bored with now (eg dream sequences, unreliable-narrators etc) may have been disturbingly hard-to-follow when first used!

So it's a fine line to walk and many shows don't bother to walk it at all, which makes DW a risk-taker which is laudable in my opinion. It it sometimes fails in its aims then that's part of the process.

Does this sometimes mean that the ending is rushed? Yes it does. Is that ever a good thing? Well, no actually I don't think that it is, and the experience of the Christmas Specials, "Day of the Doctor" etc strongly suggests that DW - in its current form - works better as a 60 minute+ drama than it does as 45 minutes. This is further born out by the 90+ minute running time of "Sherlock" which uses some of the same tropes as I've been discussing.

So I'm agreeing with you that the rushed ending is a fault, but I disagree that a more conventional narrative structure would be preferable.
Heccypoo wrote:Like Asylum of the Daleks. Oswin wiped their memory of the Doctor, at the end of that story they had no idea who he was. That was then chucked out because he had to have them at Trensalore White Christmas happy town.
Actually, if you watch that again, you'll find there is a line where the Doctor expresses surprise that the Daleks know who he is, and they tell him they extracted it from the mind of Tasha Lam.
Heccypoo wrote:Every one of his stories starts with 'a voice over 'There was a man' or 'There was a blah blah' or 'There was a planet'.
"Blink" didn't, I don't think "Library of the Dead" did, "Girl in the Fireplace" didn't, "Empty Child" didn't, "The Eleventh Hour" didn't, "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" didn't, "A Christmas Carol" didn't, I don't think "The Snowmen" did. The dialogue at the start of "Bells of St John" was voiceover, but it was one on-screen character talking to another on-screen character, as the scene develops, so it wasn't non-diagetic.

What you mean is that "Asylum" did, "Angels" did (although that was diagetic in that it was read from River's book that was part of the story), "Name" did and "Time" did - they were among Moffat's most recent stories and it's clearly a style he's currently pursuing, but it's a style that has been present in fiction for pretty much as long as there has been fiction so I hardly see that as a fault, just as an artistic choice. Nobody complains that Charles Dickens did it!
Heccypoo wrote:Might as well start the show with 'Doctor's Log Stardate wibbely wobbely'

Oops sorry Mr Moff, you didn't start The Day of the Doctor with a Voice over..
Exposition is generally considered old-fashioned and bad style these days, it's true, but the fact that Star Trek has always begun this way shows that it has a long history (and was also sometimes used in Classic Who - such as "The Deadly Assassin"). It continues to often be used in contemporary film.
Heccypoo wrote:I think that was the only one that didn't last year...
"Cold War" didn't, "Hide" didn't, "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS" didn't so far as I recall, "Nightmare in Silver" didn't.

Actually wasn't the start of "Name of the Doctor" a voicover by the guy in the prison cell talking about the Doctor's secret? That was diagetic as well.
Heccypoo wrote:It's just sloppy writing. There are great ideas in the show. Just give it a bit more polish, that's all it needs.
You see, here's where you lose me. I see lots of polish. I see the occasional mistake - some as a result, I suspect, of tight editing to fit the 45 minute format, sometimes the removal of exposition which throws the baby out with the bathwater, and the occasional logical failure such as why the Doctor cannot visit the Ponds again, but I don't see lack of polish at all!
Heccypoo wrote:Lots of American TV shows have to fit into the 45 minute format. It's been the standard there for years.
And lots of American shows, even ones I quite enjoy, are so chained down by the format that they become deeply predictable and stale and rarely surprising.
Heccypoo wrote:Diagnosis Murder, a twee American detective show has better pacing than a MOff show...
I cannot comment on that case as I haven't watched it. Mostly I don't watch police procedurals. I make an exception for Sherlock Holmes, "Perception" (where the interest for me is the psychology and mental illness approach) and "Law and Order".
Heccypoo wrote:An objective critic of a Doctor Who script would find loads of negative aspects in it.
Easy to make as sweeping statement like that. Harder to substantiate. Harder still to point to a series that doesn't have the same flaw! I don't think I have ever seen any TV series ever that I couldn't rip to bits if I really wanted to. Mostly, of course, I simply don't want to, which is where "suspension of disbelief" comes in.
Heccypoo wrote:I appreciate not every story can be excellent. And that there are behind the scenes issues that affect a show.

But in general its a by the numbers, tick the box writing, lazy. Saved only by a good cast.
And as I've said before; high viewing figures, consistently excellent audience appreciation figures and critical awards are not the result of "tick the box writing". I only wish they were! They happen through hard work, diligence, and an understanding of what the general audience wants as well as a great deal of talent. In drama at least... I can't speak for reality TV, cookery shows and antiques programmes...
Heccypoo wrote:Moffat had been really good at casting (like I said before). He's cast actors like Matt Smith and Benedict Cumberbact could take a telephone directory and make that sound like high drama. :Tardis:
I do think you're overstating things just a tad. Both actors have been in plenty of things that failed to hit their mark.

Kind Regards
Dave
Post Reply

Return to “NEW SERIES DISCUSSION”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests