Doctor Who

[sweetdaddyg]

Or a female doctor ............

Ugh...

[Delargey]

Richard Ayoade would be great.

[Delargey]

I'm IN!

[Sarlaccfood]

I think the self contained eps have been a failed experiment.

It's good to have one or two as an entry point for new viewers or to have some fun with the setting. But people are used to US shows with long story arcs now, they shouldn't be afraid to get their teeth into some characters and some develoment. I'm not saying they should do long, convulted, multi-season storylines, but there's gotta be a happy medium non?

[Davros sock drawer]

Completely disagree. I much prefer standalone episodes, or two parters. I think the attempts at an arc have mostly been a whole heap of bullshit. Dr Who isn't (or rather shouldn't be) that sort of show, IMO. It should be Doctor turns up, has an adventure, leaves.

[Flub]

SFX have done a short review of the new Alaistar Reynolds third Doctor novel

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/05/08/doctor-who-harvest-of-time-by-alastair-reynolds-review/?utm_source=feedly

[Harsin]

But as with his excellent Century Rain

Uh oh.

[Flub]

Uh oh.

I liked that one.

[sweetdaddyg]

I agree with Davros. Doctor who should be self contained stories. Sure they can run a bit of a thread through them, but they have gone too far the other way now.

[kensei]

Viewing figures haven't declined, not by anything significant. They've just time shifted onto iplayer. Plus the show has never been bigger in the US

[sweetdaddyg]

it never really needed the us though...Its a fundamentally british show to my mind. It's nice the americans finally seem to be getting it, but I don't think that should be the primary focus, which seems to be a point on which my mind and Mr Moffat's minds do not converge

[scottcr]

Completely disagree. I much prefer standalone episodes, or two parters. I think the attempts at an arc have mostly been a whole heap of bullshit. Dr Who isn't (or rather shouldn't be) that sort of show, IMO. It should be Doctor turns up, has an adventure, leaves.

Trying to cram too much into 45 minutes... I'd rather have mini-series', where a story plays out over 4-5 episodes. Each Dr Who being a mini-series. Obviously with connections over time with common enemies, threats etc.

[sweetdaddyg]

I dont see what was wrong with the old format

[NEG]

Or Bob the Builder!

[HarMGM]

How about having this controversial idea for a format:

13 episodes, most of them stand-alones but with maybe two/three two-parters through the season, with all of the episodes slowly building to a finale?

You know, the format that BASICALLY GAVE THE SHOW NEW LIFE UNDER RTD?!!!

I just want a regular schedule is all. 13 episodes of Who plus a nice Christmas special to top it off(even if the specials are mostly shit). None of this arc driven nonsense that will never be anything more than a sad rip-off from American cable television. Those yanks have decided long enough how to do a show!

A bit like Colin Baker you mean.

Actually it's interesting to note the similarities between Colin Baker's era and the show as it currently stands. Declining viewing figures...

I'm afraid you're already making a wrong assumption right there. Despite overnight viewing figures declining the final figures are still stable with the show under Tennant. Pretty much shown in this nice graph:

Of course, there is a decline from Series 4, but that season owned much of its viewing figures to The Stolen Earth/Journey's End. Everything else is pretty much on par with earlier series. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see Series 7 come in with the lowest average thus far in terms of final figures. Anyway, the point is that the audience is still there for Who. It's just that viewing habits seem to be changing or, rather, have already changed.

it never really needed the us though...Its a fundamentally british show to my mind. It's nice the americans finally seem to be getting it, but I don't think that should be the primary focus, which seems to be a point on which my mind and Mr Moffat's minds do not converge

I don't think it's just Moffat. With Who becoming popular in the U.S. it's now one of the BBC's biggest exports right next to Top Gear. Besides, it's not just the U.S. that's catching up. Here in the Netherlands I've heard a lot more people talking about it than, say, during Tennant's run. The Dutch Public Broadcasting did try with series 1 & 2, but the ratings where pretty woefull from I've understood.

Also, keep in mind that Who is now pretty much without any decent competition on television in the US. Star Trek has moved on to the big screen and every other Sci-Fi series has pretty much been cancelled or has imploded because of creator hubris (hello Ron Moore and his Angel ending in Battle Star Galactica).

[kensei]

BSG declining had nothing to do with the ending. It's big wrong turn was the Cylon Pico Ep, which was great in itself but changed the direction for the worse. Those first three and a half seasons, though.

I think it is ok for Moffat to try different formats; it'd risk getting a bit sterile otherwise. If it doesn't work out, that's the chance you take. Try something else.

[cassidy]

Who under Moffat appears to be more,popular in the USA than it is over here. I think since ep3 onwards this series has done nothing but improve. Is Cornell one of those writers Moffatt has fallen out with then as since writing no who since series 3, his comic stardom has done nothing but grow. Yet not a sniff of a new Who episode out of him. And seeing as he wrote one of my fave new adventures Love and War this is not a good thing.

[Made of Ghosts]

I would be ok with no arc to be honest. Just one and two parters. I kind of liked how Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways (despite the foreshadowing) were pretty much "just another story", just with higher stakes than usual.

[c-cat114]

I think one parters are one of the things that grate most about the Moffat run for me. They're all so samey - rehash/remixes of prior episodes with a monster of the week thrown in. Classic Who always seemed to be about anticipation for me as a kid, tune in next week to be given another cliffhanger and still no closure was a delicious feeling.

Looking at the camera and saying 'but what is the crack in the wall', 'but I still don't know who Clara is', 'where's the baby?' doesn't count as an arc.

[Flub]

And seeing as he wrote one of my fave new adventures Love and War this is not a good thing.

The Big Finish version of that is pretty good

[El Pibe]

I can't remember the last time I watched Who as it went out or anything else other than footy. iPlayer has changed the way we watch TV and that's why it's silly that TV critics etc still use overnights to bash a show they don't like.

[R0b]

Iwan Rheon seems to be doing his very own Dr Who audition tape in Game Of Thrones at the minute.

[Jug McKenzie]

.

[AceAceBaby]

A middle-aged/elderly doctor can't run around to give the show a visual sense of urgency that it otherwise lacks completely.

[Davros sock drawer]

Tom Baker was 40 when he got the part, and 47 when he finished. He did lots of running about and fight scenes. The actor doesn't have to be old old, just old enough to give the role a bit of gravitas.

[Gorf King]

Yeah ok, I'll do it.

[Jug McKenzie]

On 09/05/2013 at 14:46, AceAceBaby said:

 

[Harsin]

I liked that when Clara opened a door in the Tardis and a fireball came billowing out, she stopped to make make a sassy quip to the camera before turning and jogging away.

URGENCY!

[Cthulhu Steev]

NO RUNNING NO PUSHING NO HEAVY PETTING

NO BOMBING

[AceAceBaby]

Urgency, tension, energy, vitality and so on can all be generated on-screen without having to turn a thousand-year-old lead character into a hyperactive teenager. Take the Doctor's greatest enemies, for example (the Daleks and Davros); not much running involved there, but no end of excitement and menace when the stories are written and handled carefully and sensitively. All this running about that has become a staple of the show is silly, exhausting and - ironically - dull.

That's essentially the point I was making.