I love [RTD's] grasp on character development and the way he doesn't shy away from doing risky stuff on his shows.
I don't think it can get riskier than taking the Doctor dark side, if only for a few minutes. Plus, giving companions families, exploring the consequences of actions, writing characters with real flaws...
I am also in awe of his ability to run as tight a ship as he did with Doctor Who.
RTD did that and ran 2 other full-length shows at the same time. Moffat ran Doctor Who and ran 3 episodes of Sherlock. Take that, Moffat. *g*
He's failing to set a consistent tone, to narrow his narration down to the essential, important key events and plots, which made this season feel like a vague mist of unspecified thoughts and ideas.
I see this most with the characters. It was hilarious when fans complained about uneven characterization in RTD's era, because the episodes least in line with established characterization... were always written by Moffat. The writers this season, with possibly the exception of Gatiss, seemed to lean more toward RTD's characterization style. Whithouse, Chibnall and Roberts wrote in the RTD era of course, and Nye and Curtis are very character-oriented writers anyway. Maybe Moffat should have polished their scripts to bring them into line with his style of characterization; at least it would've been consistent.
Watch me stick my foot in my mouth now. Wrt characters, Moffat took 2 huge risks with Amy and River. He wrote Amy as an incomplete person and is presenting River's story out-of-order. IMHO both are actually bold character choices. OTOH they needed to be written very carefully, in a show-not-tell manner. I don't think he succeeded, at least for me. "The Beast Below" set the pace with tell-not-show, so it sunk any faith I might have had in Amy's characterization. Yet Moffat did so well with Amelia.
Do you notice how only Moffat gets to write River? I think River is the character Moffat really wants to write about, not Amy. She's a better character, I think, though not because she's written better. Out-of-order really means show-not-tell, Moffat, did you get the memo? Luckily Alex Kingston is a strong actor so she can layer the performance. I wonder how other writers would handle her character.
RTD wrote "Death of the Doctor" for The Sarah-Jane Adventures, which I watched a few days ago. I felt more of a connection with RTD's Eleven in 2 (25 minute) eps than I had with Moffat's Eleven in 8 (45 minute) episodes. Mainly, there was the sense of character continuity that had been missing for most of S5. Moffat's Ten always felt out-of-step with the RTD era, yet RTD's Eleven felt right in line with Moffat's era.
Re plot, Moffat's trying a multi-season arc, so some ideas have to remain unexplored in the short term. That said, you're right, I think he's juggling too many balls. Sometimes I wonder if he purposely uses all the shiny, clever concepts as a distraction, to call attention away from the plot holes.
no subject
I don't think it can get riskier than taking the Doctor dark side, if only for a few minutes. Plus, giving companions families, exploring the consequences of actions, writing characters with real flaws...
I am also in awe of his ability to run as tight a ship as he did with Doctor Who.
RTD did that and ran 2 other full-length shows at the same time. Moffat ran Doctor Who and ran 3 episodes of Sherlock. Take that, Moffat. *g*
He's failing to set a consistent tone, to narrow his narration down to the essential, important key events and plots, which made this season feel like a vague mist of unspecified thoughts and ideas.
I see this most with the characters. It was hilarious when fans complained about uneven characterization in RTD's era, because the episodes least in line with established characterization... were always written by Moffat. The writers this season, with possibly the exception of Gatiss, seemed to lean more toward RTD's characterization style. Whithouse, Chibnall and Roberts wrote in the RTD era of course, and Nye and Curtis are very character-oriented writers anyway. Maybe Moffat should have polished their scripts to bring them into line with his style of characterization; at least it would've been consistent.
Watch me stick my foot in my mouth now. Wrt characters, Moffat took 2 huge risks with Amy and River. He wrote Amy as an incomplete person and is presenting River's story out-of-order. IMHO both are actually bold character choices. OTOH they needed to be written very carefully, in a show-not-tell manner. I don't think he succeeded, at least for me. "The Beast Below" set the pace with tell-not-show, so it sunk any faith I might have had in Amy's characterization. Yet Moffat did so well with Amelia.
Do you notice how only Moffat gets to write River? I think River is the character Moffat really wants to write about, not Amy. She's a better character, I think, though not because she's written better. Out-of-order really means show-not-tell, Moffat, did you get the memo? Luckily Alex Kingston is a strong actor so she can layer the performance. I wonder how other writers would handle her character.
RTD wrote "Death of the Doctor" for The Sarah-Jane Adventures, which I watched a few days ago. I felt more of a connection with RTD's Eleven in 2 (25 minute) eps than I had with Moffat's Eleven in 8 (45 minute) episodes. Mainly, there was the sense of character continuity that had been missing for most of S5. Moffat's Ten always felt out-of-step with the RTD era, yet RTD's Eleven felt right in line with Moffat's era.
Re plot, Moffat's trying a multi-season arc, so some ideas have to remain unexplored in the short term. That said, you're right, I think he's juggling too many balls. Sometimes I wonder if he purposely uses all the shiny, clever concepts as a distraction, to call attention away from the plot holes.
And Julie Gardner is definitely an unsung hero.