It's not just me, then...

[caz963]

I read something today which reminded me of a comment I'd made concerning the current series of DW.



It was in a comment I wrote to a post by chloris67 about The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People

DW was, in its first incarnation, a weekly "serial"; half an hour each week ending with a cliffhanger of some sort, but there are problems with trying to do something similar in the current format. The biggest of these is, IMO, sustaining the story throughout thirteen forty-five minute episodes where the brains behind it doesn't write every episode. I wrote a post about S5 wherein I posited that the way the main "cracks in the universe" arc stories were presented to us just didn't work - I mean, it was obvious that the ones [stories] in between were fillers; and the same thing is happening this series. Granted TDW was fabulous and I wouldn't have missed it for the world, but otherwise, we all know we're treading water until the next Moffat episode which will advance the series arc.

Today, I was reading the reviews of 6x05, 6x06 and 6x07 in the current issue of DWM, and I was interested to see that the reviewer (Graham Kibble-White) had reached a similar conclusion. At the end of his review of AGMGTW, he says:

I think I stumbled upon the curse of Doctor Who. This year, the show just hasn't quite felt like Doctor Who when it's been scripted by someone other than Steven [Moffat]... The series has a new voice now which is brilliant, but idiosyncratic.

Personally, I'm not sure DW has felt like DW when when SM has been writing it, but that's a different argument altogether.

But it's definitely one of the reasons why I think that S6 isn't really hanging together as a whole - so far. Steven Moffat IS a fabulous writer and he has a very individual voice - but perhaps that's not such a good thing when you can't write every episode of your show and when you want or need to write the "important" episodes yourself. And I'm not criticising him for that, because I can understand why it's the case; he knows what he wants to do and how he wants to do it and I'm sure, were I in his shoes, I'd do the same.

And I'm in no way saying that RTD doesn't have a very individual voice, because he does; it's just that the way he structured each series - around a THEME rather than an overarching PLOT - seemed to work better in the current format. I'm also not arguing here that those themes were always particularly well seeded, but they were there, principally in the background, which meant that it was easier for other writers to 'fit in'. All the stories felt like standalones which (sometimes) included references to the overall theme, whereas now Moffat's episodes are all linked together and the others stand outside that 'inner circle' and can never really belong.

Comments

[kilodalton]

I completely agree with you, especially with your observations about Davies' theme-arcs vs. Moffat's plot-arcs, and how the former feels more cohesive when the show is scripted by multiple authors.

I think I stumbled upon the curse of Doctor Who. This year, the show just hasn't quite felt like Doctor Who when it's been scripted by someone other than Steven [Moffat]... The series has a new voice now which is brilliant, but idiosyncratic.

Yeah. Not zactly my opinion, either =/

[caz963.livejournal.com]

Like topaz_eyes says below, it'll be interesting to see how the 'writer's room' process which has been in place for the new series of TW has worked out in terms of cohesiveness.

[crossoverman.livejournal.com]

I think both RTD and Moffat would benefit greatly from the US model - which is a writers room where they can pitch/write individual stories but have the over-arching plot/theme weaved into them.

I mean, I had a problem in the Davies' era of seeing the catch phrase every week (Bad Wolf, Torchwood, Mister Saxon, Rose) and knowing there would be no pay-off to that until the very last episode of the season. But, I guess, it was less distracting. (Well, actually Rose was distracting because RTD was playing with fire by bringing her back!)

So I was thrilled that under Moffat, in Series 5, that his Angel two-parter actually progressed the series' arc AND the Silurian two-parter did as well (at least with what happened to Rory). I don't think Moffat has quite got the balance right this year, but that's impeded by this mid-series break which is totally unwarranted.

I enjoyed the Rebel Flesh/Almost people and that did feed into the themes of doubling this year; in fact, if there was any doubt he wasn't playing with doubling as a theme, this two-parter actually confirmed it.

And we did have Madame Kovarian appearing each week, which worked for me as well as the crack last year and Bad Wolf did in series one.

So, actually, I see your point but I don't know if I can agree with you. Especially since the doubling theme works its way into The Doctor's Wife as well (two TARDISes - well, lots of TARDISes and two incarnations of the Doctor's TARDIS), which leaves Curse of the Black Spot as the only real outlier. And the less said about that one, the better.

I actually think the mid-series break is hampering our ability to critique this series, since as it stands, it looks Moffat heavy, even though it really isn't.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

I admit that I didn't really notice the catch-phrase every week in the RTD era. Perhaps I'm just dumb! Obviously, when I rewatch I see them, but then I know what I'm looking for so I suppose it's unavoidable. So I'd agree that it was less distracting (apart from Rose, who I could really have done without seeing again!)

There are themes running through S5 and 6, it's true, but I think they're obscured somewhat by the complexity of the plots, which are more obvious. And it's not that I think the series is "Moffat-heavy" - in fact, I think what I'm saying is that in an ideal world, if he wants to structure DW this way, he needs to write more! It's also not a point about the quality of the other episodes - Gaiman's was brilliant and Matthew Graham's had problems, but weren't bad per se; it's that they're so obviously filling in time until we get the next Moffat contribution and don't really advance the plot or answer any of the questions he keeps throwing out.

[crossoverman.livejournal.com]

I just can't agree that they are "filler". I mean, in series five, was "Vincent and the Doctor" filler? Was "Amy's Choice" or "The Lodger"?

I will agree that maybe Moffat's series don't feel as cohesive as RTD's because Moffat writes stories so different to his writers - whereas RTD and the writers under him were on the same page, mostly. Except, of course, for Moffat who wrote stand-out episodes that felt almost out of place in the RTD era.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

I wasn't using the term "filler" in a derogatory sense - if it looked that way, I apologise. What I meant was the ones that come in between the Moffat episodes; i.e, that are "filling in" the gaps between the episodes he writes which are the ones in which we hope we might get some answers!

As chloris67 says, the fact that the plot arcs are so prominent in Moffat's Who makes us all impatient to get to the next one, which can, I suppose, lead to the feeling that what comes in between isn't as good. I don't think that - Vincent was my favourite episode of S5 - but it can certainly seem like it when you've been left hanging after having bitten your nails up to the elbows!

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

I think both RTD and Moffat would benefit greatly from the US model - which is a writers room where they can pitch/write individual stories but have the over-arching plot/theme weaved into them.

It'll be interesting to compare and contrast the writing in Torchwood: Miracle Day with RTD's and Moffat's Who, because it incorporated the US-style writers room.

[felis-nocturna.livejournal.com]

Yep, this. I just watched the DE/JE interview again (the transcript you linked to some time ago), and they are talking about just that and the idea that it must be rather difficult to write a season arc with different writers in the UK system.

[crossoverman.livejournal.com]

I wonder how Children of Earth worked, since that must have had some kind of writers meeting at some point - since it was clearly telling just one story. Whereas Doctor Who won't ever be telling just one story, but I do agree that Moffat probably needs to get better at integrating the other episodes. I still don't think the other writers are providing "filler", though.

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

CoE had only 3 writers: RTD wrote Days 1 and 5 and co-wrote Day 3 with James Moran, while John Fay wrote Days 2 and 4. It's probably much easier to meet with and coordinate 2 other writers than 6 or 7. *g*

I don't think the other writers are providing filler either. "Victory of the Daleks" provided key plot points for Rory, so I expect "Curse of the Black Spot" will be key to the S6 finale. But for me, the voices are too disparate in the Moffat era. The main plot arc elements are not organic in the non-Moffat episodes, either. I mentioned "Cold Blood" and "The Doctor's Wife" in my reply to Caz below as examples. And Matthew Graham spent nearly 2 episodes insisting that the Flesh were indistinguishable from humans, only for that message to be destroyed in the last few minutes of "The Almost People." It's that discontinuity which makes the non-Moffat episodes feel like filler, even though they're not.

[crossoverman.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the message of Flesh/Almost was a bit confused, but I think the point was that Flesh!Amy wasn't the same as the Gangers who gained sentience. But there's a bit of cognitive dissonance in that moment that a re-write could have overcome.

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

Yep. I liked the premise of Flesh!Amy. But I thought it needed to be foreshadowed better for it to work.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

But there's a bit of cognitive dissonance in that moment that a re-write could have overcome.

Absolutely. I caught the rather unclear/hurried explanation that ganger!Amy was different, but judging from the howls of protest after the episode aired, a lot of people didn't. And my kids didn't either, so the sight of the Doctor "killing" Amy made them quite upset and uncomfortable. And as you say, a minor re-write could have made the whole thing a lot clearer.

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

I'm in no way saying that RTD doesn't have a very individual voice, because he does; it's just that the way he structured each series - around a THEME rather than an overarching PLOT - seemed to work better in the current format. I'm also not arguing here that those themes were always particularly well seeded, but they were there, principally in the background, which meant that it was easier for other writers to 'fit in'.

RTD also "polished" most episodes which he didn't write, which meant he could make arc references organic. IMHO that gave his era a more consistent voice than what I've seen in Moffat's era. I think S5 and S6 could have benefitted from Moffat polishing the episodes he didn't write. Then the non-Moffat episodes might not have felt like fillers so much.

One problem I have with S5 and S6 is that the plot arc elements IMHO haven't felt organic in the non-Moffat episodes. The cracks in S5 felt like an afterthought in the non-Moffat episodes; I actually felt whiplash at the end of the Silurian 2-parter because I didn't feel Rory's death grew from the plot. It was like watching 2 different shows there. And while TDW was wonderful, the bit about "The only water in the forest is the River" felt tacked on. It's like "oh, forgot to name-check the plot, gotta include a reference!"

I really think the best theme-plot integration to date was in S3. Saxon wasn't just name-checked; it was a key sub-plot in both "The Lazarus Experiment" and "42". (Both were non-RTD episodes, too.) crossoverman is right, we need to wait for S6 to finish before we can critique properly, but S6 so far is behaving as S5 did, so I don't foretell there's going to be much change.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

the plot arc elements IMHO haven't felt organic in the non-Moffat episodes

My feelings exactly. As you say, that line in TDW was so obviously tacked on that I remember it being quite jarring when I watched the episode for the first time.

How the hell Rusty managed to run three shows AND do all those rewrites without going insane continues to amaze me.

S6 so far is behaving as S5 did, so I don't foretell there's going to be much change.

*nods*

[papilio-luna.livejournal.com]

I think a big difference (though I'm basing this on what I've heard about the way SM operates as a head writer, not actual citable fact) is that RTD heavily rewrote most of the episodes written by other writers and apparently SM doesn't. He sends them back to the writer with notes, but he does not actually do the rewrites himself.

There were a few writers that RTD was under contract to not rewrite, and SM was one of them and I think that's part of why his episodes in the RTD era, as much as I do actually like them (a lot more than I like what he's been doing since he's been in charge), they always felt kind of off, OOC, or too interested in side-lining the established characters/themes for the new ones that he was introducing. While rewatching GITF a couple weeks ago, the people I was watching with and I realised that you could actually replace Ten, Rose and Mickey with Eleven, Amy and Rory and the story wouldn't have to be changed much at all and in fact might even work better since clearly Moffat has his various hobby-horses and seeing them shoe-horned into the RTD era (which had its own, different, hobby-horses) was always a bit jarring. Now that he's free to ride his hobby-horses full-time, having the new characters be a part of that doesn't seem so weird.

Anyway, all that's to say that yeah, I agree. I don't actually like much what SM has been up to, so I tend to like other people's episodes a bit more than his, but the end result is the same, in that it's not hanging together as a cohesive whole as well as it could be.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right in what you say about SM's episodes for RTD. I confess, I actually prefer his version of Rose in GitF, but at the same time, I recognise that she's pretty OOC. Donna got sidelined in favour of River and Martha, for the few minutes she's on screen in Blink was rather nondescript.

Like I said in my original comment, DW has always been a serial but at least, IIRC, the serials were written by the same writer(s) who were able to let things unfold at their own pace. The one-story-per-week format is different and isn't going to lend itself as easily to that sort of story-telling.

[sensiblecat.livejournal.com]

I think writer and show-runner are two fundmentally incompatible roles. It isn't only the volume of work, it's the fact that writers tend to want to impose a vision but everyone on the production side has to be flexible and figure out a way to keep the show on the road and protect the brand, given the resources available at any given time.

I get the feeling that SM is not a people person, that the qualities required to team build and motivate staff do not come naturally to him. The rumours of trouble behind the scenes have the ring of truth. One of the many things i learned from "Writers Tale" was that RTD was eternally grateful to the quiet but vital work of Julie G and Phil C - he trusted them completely and they knew how to nurse him through his many crises and take the day-to-day stuff off his shoulders so he could write.

It seems to me that regardless of his claims that DW is the job he always wanted, SM actually works much better on Sherlock. I'm speculating here but I wonder if that is because Mark Gatiss is one of the few people he has a level of trust in similar to RTD's in JG and PC?

[caz963.livejournal.com]

I've nothing to say really, other than that I agree with all of this. I confess I've not really heard the rumours of dissent in the ranks, although I remember there were rumblings when Piers Wenger announced his departure which didn't happen when Phil went to Corrie. I imagine the fact that RTD had worked with JG before must've helped, but the fact that they're still very much a working team out in LA shows that trust, I think. I can imagine Rusty could be a complete and utter creative diva at times and it seems to me that Julie has the knack of calming him down, but also of telling it like it is when necessary.

[chloris67.livejournal.com]

This is a good point! A more involved arc that is right up in front (as opposed to ticking away in the background) can make one impatient to get to the next arc episode. The Pirate episode especially felt shoved into the season and just didn't fit. The Gaiman episode was brilliant enough that you didn't mind that there was no arc (and had a good explanation for them going off on adventures) but this season is All About The Mystery and that's obviously what viewers are going to be focused on.

Also, as was mentioned above, RTD rewrote practically everything in his years. (probably why he was so exhausted at the end) He says he didn't rewrite a few other writers other than Moffat but I don't believe it. ALL the non-Moffat episodes in the RTD years had a cohesion about them where they all felt like the same series and were on the same page. Moffat is more hands off with his writers and it shows.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

I wonder why Moffat is hands-off; he definitely strikes me as the type who would want something done his way - and why shouldn't he? He's running the show. Perhaps it's lack of time, perhaps he feels that there's little point in buying a dog and barking himself (so to speak!) I don't know.

this season is All About The Mystery and that's obviously what viewers are going to be focused on.

And S5 was the same, even though it didn't feel quite as convoluted and intricate as S6.