wait, who?
Mar. 30th, 2013 08:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kindkitWhat my reaction to a new Doctor Who episode used to be: "OMG I can't wait I can't wait okay finally it's time yay," and then, depending on the episode, delight or fury.
What my reaction is these days: "Oh, is Doctor Who on again? I guess I should watch it," and then, generally, a big meh afterwards.
It's funny. As much as Russell T. Davies' showrunning decisions sometimes enraged me, I never felt as indifferent as I do now. And as much as I generally adored Moffat's one-off episodes during the Davies era, I don't think he's doing a great job with the show as a whole. Although I really like Matt Smith's performances as the Doctor, and I think I will like Clara (despite wishing Amy and Rory were still around), the show itself is boring me. I'm tired of it being all about earth (next week's episode at least seems to be set somewhere else, thank god), and I'm tired of feel-good inspirational morals tacked onto the stories, and I'm actually getting a bit tired of Moffat's plot-twisting wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff. I want the show to be more adventure-y and yet simultaneously less frenetic; I want characterization and relationships of a depth that Moffat and his colleagues' writing doesn't explore (the actors try, but they can only compensate for so much); I want more real creativity in the plots and less tedious allegory about the internet or whatever. I want the show to be genuinely morally serious and dark if it's claiming to be, and more fun if it's trying to be fun.
While I'm wishing, I'd like companions other than conventionally attractive women in their late teens or early twenties from contemporary Britain. I'd like two or three companions in the TARDIS again, to mix up the boring and I think increasingly heteronormative dynamic of the Doctor and a single female companion. I'd like less heterosexuality, or more non-heterosexual characters and dynamics, or both.
I'd like better writing. Surely there are writers out there somewhere of the caliber of a Malcolm Hulke, Robert Holmes, or Terry Nation? (All of whom had their missteps on Who and elsewhere *sideyes The Talons of Weng Chiang*, but all of whom produced a lot of interesting worlds, real-feeling conflicts, and vivid characters. I know that TV has changed and the leisurely, detailed episodes of the 1960s and 1970s aren't possible now, alas, but surely there are writers who can do more than trot out twenty clichés in 45 minutes and call it a story? Or are there? I honestly don't know; nothing on contemporary British television seems as good to me as the best episodes of classic Who or Blake's 7 or Callan or Colditz, but maybe I've just missed the best things.)
All of this makes me imagine the approaching 50th anniversary special, which is bound to incorporate a lot of elements of classic Who and engage, one way or another, with the relationship between new and classic Who, with a good deal of trepidation. I actually would feel better if Russell T. Davies were writing it.
What my reaction is these days: "Oh, is Doctor Who on again? I guess I should watch it," and then, generally, a big meh afterwards.
It's funny. As much as Russell T. Davies' showrunning decisions sometimes enraged me, I never felt as indifferent as I do now. And as much as I generally adored Moffat's one-off episodes during the Davies era, I don't think he's doing a great job with the show as a whole. Although I really like Matt Smith's performances as the Doctor, and I think I will like Clara (despite wishing Amy and Rory were still around), the show itself is boring me. I'm tired of it being all about earth (next week's episode at least seems to be set somewhere else, thank god), and I'm tired of feel-good inspirational morals tacked onto the stories, and I'm actually getting a bit tired of Moffat's plot-twisting wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff. I want the show to be more adventure-y and yet simultaneously less frenetic; I want characterization and relationships of a depth that Moffat and his colleagues' writing doesn't explore (the actors try, but they can only compensate for so much); I want more real creativity in the plots and less tedious allegory about the internet or whatever. I want the show to be genuinely morally serious and dark if it's claiming to be, and more fun if it's trying to be fun.
While I'm wishing, I'd like companions other than conventionally attractive women in their late teens or early twenties from contemporary Britain. I'd like two or three companions in the TARDIS again, to mix up the boring and I think increasingly heteronormative dynamic of the Doctor and a single female companion. I'd like less heterosexuality, or more non-heterosexual characters and dynamics, or both.
I'd like better writing. Surely there are writers out there somewhere of the caliber of a Malcolm Hulke, Robert Holmes, or Terry Nation? (All of whom had their missteps on Who and elsewhere *sideyes The Talons of Weng Chiang*, but all of whom produced a lot of interesting worlds, real-feeling conflicts, and vivid characters. I know that TV has changed and the leisurely, detailed episodes of the 1960s and 1970s aren't possible now, alas, but surely there are writers who can do more than trot out twenty clichés in 45 minutes and call it a story? Or are there? I honestly don't know; nothing on contemporary British television seems as good to me as the best episodes of classic Who or Blake's 7 or Callan or Colditz, but maybe I've just missed the best things.)
All of this makes me imagine the approaching 50th anniversary special, which is bound to incorporate a lot of elements of classic Who and engage, one way or another, with the relationship between new and classic Who, with a good deal of trepidation. I actually would feel better if Russell T. Davies were writing it.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-31 01:23 pm (UTC)Co-signed. A little bit of Moffat was fine. Good, even (though Paul Cornells' episodes are my absolute favorite ever, I'll concede that in the RDJ era, the Moffat episodes were among the best.) But the entire season resting on Moffat's tricksy plots isn't working. I wish it worked. I'd still love to see resolution to a whole lot of loose ends he's left lying about everywhere, but I'm starting to suspect we'll never get it.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-31 03:27 pm (UTC)I wonder if that wasn't something to do with the dynamic of Moffat and RTD working together? They each have strengths as storytellers, and they each having serious weaknesses; my favorite new Who episodes, "The Empty Child" and "The Doctor Dances" feel like the best of both their strengths.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-31 09:28 pm (UTC)It does seem to me that RDJ was better at the deep, mythic arc of a season, and Moffat's better at clever plotlines. The combination of both in the RDJ era was magical, and the absence of the depth in the Moffat era is starting to be really obvious to me...so, in a sense, it might be what you describe. The combination of the two made great Who.