Theories even more insane than what's actually happening
Theories even more insane than what's actually happening
DISCLAIMER: The Doctor Who Forum is a Doctor Who fan site and is not, in any way, connected with or affiliated to the BBC.
Doctor Who is copyright © the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). No copyright infringement is intended.
@JanetteB
That’s sounds pretty spot on to me, although I think that suggesting RTD’s “imagination failed” when he moved into more fantastical territory is a bit unfair, not so much imagination fail as logic circuits fused! But I know what you mean. Basically the team had to find an alternative way to develop the show which avoided the trap of ever more dramatic and “bigger” finales.
Much like you I wasn’t excited at all about Dr Who coming back in 2005, didn’t even watch it till series 2 (mainly due to conflicting schedules on Saturdays). Catching up was fun though. I couldn’t believe how they’d transformed my favourite show when I thought it was long gone for good.
@shazzbot (and ??)
RTD or SM – who’s responsible for River and the Angels?
Well they came in during RTD’s watch so he has to get some credit. Both are very typical SM creations, but we don’t know what discussions they had in order to develop the characters.
(And believe it or not the Angels have only featured in 4 episodes in total)
The same with different gender regenerations, it could be from Gaiman (but Moffat would have approved it) or it could have been a line Moffatt asked him to put in.
@Shazzbot, Do we attribute what is said/done in a Moffat penned episode under RTD to the former or the later? This is where things get “wibbly wobbley, timey wimey.” (sorry but I find that line as difficult to resist quoting as Princess Bride.) For instance in response to @HTPBDET‘s remark I would attribute both River Song and Captain Jack to Moffat rather than RTD though they came into being under his tenure, just so I can use them to support my assertion that Moffat’s characters are “fairy tale” and RTD’s “kitchen sink.” I think we can safely assume that Jack was the result of the creative collaboration between the two writers but I suspect that River Song is almost purely Moffat’s creation.
Likewise I would guess that much of Doctor’s Wife was Gaiman’s creation with only a miminum of editing from Moffat. I also suspect that Moffat doesn’t let continuity get in the way of telling a good story. My feeling with the Doctor’s Wife was that it was green lit because it was entertaining and novel without regard for the repercussions on the overall canon/lore but then, as I said elsewhere, I wasn’t overly fond of that episode.
(apologies for the typos in my previous post. I really must put more effort into proof reading.)
@Shazzbot, don’t ever consider moving to South Australia. Last Jan’ it got to about 45c here. We do have good air con though, just appalling heating in winter.
Cheers
Janette
@Shazzbot
See, its not only @JimTheFish who can make people bite… 🙂
But, to be serious, River and the Weeping Angels must be attributed to RTD, just as the Daleks must be attributed to Verity Lambert, the Cybermen, the Ice Warriors and the Great Intelligence to Innes Lloyd and the Nestenes and Sontarans to Barry Letts.
I absolutely give SM the definitive line on gender regeneration and on the TARDIS being an essentially female spirit.
The Producer in the old days, the Showrunner now, gets the credit – and the flak – for what happens on their watch.
In my humble view.
@HTPBDET. I’m not thinking of it in terms either of credit or flak. 🙂 I think that Captain Jack and River Song as characters owe more to the creative imagination of Moffat than of RTD. Both have the fairy tale elements that characterise the Moffat era. I would hope that the individual script writer does bring something unique to the script he or she writes. The changing styles and fresh view points that different script writers bring to the series is one of the strenghts of Dr Who which is interesting because in other series, (ie B.5), the scripts not written by the show runner were invariably awful, (with the notable exception of “Day of the dead, the only decent episode in season 5 which was scripted by Neil Gaimon. )
The onus for quality does ultimately rest with the showrunner but the nature of the writing should reflect the skills and imagination of the respective writer. I guess this though depends upon many factors. In the past most scripts handed up by jobbing writers were extensively re written by the script editor, mostly for financial reasons because the script would be too expensive to produce. We can only speculate at just how much RTD and S.M. over-write the scripts of other writers. (my suspicion is that the later has more creative control than the former who seemed rather more relaxed, another, speculative distinction between the two showrunners)
Cheers
Janette
@JanetteB
I guess my comments were directed to the point made above that Moffat was a greater contributor to Doctor Who canon than RTD.
I agree, absolutely, that credit for the way the episodes are written is largely down to the writer, but, equally, the Producer/Showrunner must take credit too because unless they agree, the writer does not get the gig.
Gaiman, for instance, has talked about the extensive re-writes his scripts have gone under and RTD has made it very clear he re-wrote a lot (but not Moffat’s scripts so he says).
I just don’t think it is fair to talk in terms of SM being better at contributing to canon and discount the fact that the reason he got to write at all for the programme was RTD and that RTD presided over his early, and arguably, best triumphs.
@ScaryB @janetteB @HTPBDET
Scary – “which avoided the trap of ever more dramatic and “bigger” finales” – I think I’m misunderstanding what you said, so please bop me on the head if I have! I think RTD’s era can be summed up in one sense by his ‘ever more dramatic and “bigger” finales’. That tediously long-drawn-out multi-special leaving do for Tennant is sort of my case in point.
Janette – [not your fault, but my j key sticks; soon I’ll have to call you simply ‘anette’ 🙂 ] I agree that River Song was surely SM’s sole creation, which RTD let in under his reign simply because he knew that SM was going to run with her (see what I did there?!) once SM became showrunner.
H – and pertinent to that last point, here’s where we will have to happily disagree about who gets ‘the credit’ for new concepts and characters introduced under their reign as showrunner. I utterly take your points about my silly post earlier about who contributed ‘more’ to ‘canon’ and we can happily debate this as long as you like. Yes, “RTD gave us the Time War, the rationale for the Master’s villainy, tied up the story of the Doctor and Sarah-Jane Smith, established the TARDIS as a source of unimaginable power and introduced … the Ood” but SM introduced the Weeping Angels, Time Agents [eg. Cap’n Jack], the Doctor’s actual wife, and the possibility of alternate-gender regenerations. Which one changed canon more? Or, is it a tie? 😀
@Shazzbot
I just meant what others have also been saying.By the end of RTD’s tenure he’d got into the “How are we going to top last year’s finale?- I know lets make it BIGGER (on the outside, inside, everywhere!)” Either he or the next whorunner (as it turned out) had to rethink where the show was going to go next. Same with the PTS Dr, it worked for the first few series then it needs a change. (the key to the show’s success)
TBH I forgive RTD the specials – anything that kept Tennant as the Dr for a it longer was fine by me 🙂 And I reckon Waters of Mars justified all of them (ie I’m happy to sit through 3 OK-ish ones – and there were lots of things to like in all of them – to get 1 belter (sounds a good ratio to me)
Re showrunners – they take ultimate responsibility for what ends up on screen. They select the scriptwriters and create the conditions where they can be inspired and thrive (or not). They choose the direction the show goes in -the vision if you like, rewrite as they see fit (including specific lines or scenes relating other episodes) and what bits to stress.
In BG,, as @HTPBDET says, Verity Lambert gets ultimate credit for the Daleks, although I’m sure writer Terry Nation would have a lot to say about that! But if VL had decided it didn’t fit with her vision of the show they wouldn’t have been in. Same with RTD and River, Jack and the Angels. Identifiably Moffaty things though they are, if RTD hadn’t thought they were a good idea, they wouldn’t have been there. How different things might have been if RTD hadn’t read Blink.
Some thoughts on this of a necessarily scattergun nature, no doubt…
First of all, using the term ‘showrunner’ is slightly misleading, I think. It’s obviously imported from the US and popularised by the stellar success of people like Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams, Aaron Sorkin, Vince Gilligan and the like. And I think that it was largely RTD who quite fancied comparisons to the likes of Whedon being bandied about.
But the US showrunner was only the head of a wider US system that includes a core of staff writers, as well as things like a writing room which, as far as I’m aware, have not been imported to the UK. Who has always been run by a triumvirate of exec producers and we’ve only ever really been exposed to the public-facing ‘creative’ fanboy one. We’ve no real way of knowing just how much the likes of Phil Collinson and Julie Gardner had an influence over the RTD era, for instance. So I’m not sure the term stands up for much more than ‘the public creative face of the production team’.
I know, I know, nitpicking git that I am.
I think one of the interesting things about the Moffatt era is just how close it has followed the RTD template rather than deviated from it. (Which leads me to believe that both RTD and Moffatt are probably more akin to old school script editors rather than producers or US-style showrunners).
I think when Moffatt was announced as taking over, the general assumption from fans seemed to be ‘yaas. Thirteen Blinks a year.’ And that is clearly pretty far from what we got. There is a sheen of tricksiness, wrapped in a fairytale vibe, but the Moffatt Who still resembled RTD Who in far more ways than it differs from it. (I also wonder if this is also why Moffatt seems to get a much harder time from the fans than RTD did. The Arses out there, by their own twisted logic, now feeling ‘betrayed’ that Moffatt hasn’t behaved in the way that they expected him to.)
I suspect that the old school producer/script editor team actually had more latitude to make sweeping changes to the programme than the current incumbents do, largely because of the large amount of interest from both Worldwide and the media in general. Part of the evidence of that is in fact in how big a deal canon now is. Until The Name of the Doctor, I’d argue that anything either RTD or SM didn’t amount to much more than ‘tweaks’. This is possibly part of the reason why Moffatt conjured up the NotD Clara arc — to free himself of this particular straitjacket, or at least loosen the straps slightly so he can scratch his nose easier.
Compare this with the old series where canon was changed often quite dramatically but in an almost cavalier way (and possibly the better for it). For example, Robert Holmes just tosses the 12-regeneration rule into the pot as a throwaway line in The Deadly Assassin (see @Nick? It’s not just Moffatt who was up to that kind of thing.) Holmes is something of a repeat offender here as he was at it again with the Valeyard years later, once again causing consternation among die-hard fans and creating the fuel for endless online debates now (oh, if only he knew. If he did I suspect he would have done even more of it).
And then there’s other things — the primary one, I suppose, being regeneration itself. But we’ve also got telepathic circuits, the sentience of the TARDIS and its ability to be controlled. And can you imagine the uproar if Moffatt had introduced the possibility that there were pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor as (possibly) seen in the Brain of Morbius?
@Shazzbot
The thing is I think it is, and please do not take offence at this, silly to talk about who contributes more or less to canon.
Often, the importance of something in the overall scheme of things will not be clear for some time.
For instance, if we never ever see a gender shifting Time Lord, then Doctor’s Wife will not make a dent on canon in that respect.
Titles of stories do not, in my humble view, contribute to canon. They often have false or deceptive meanings. Last of the Time Lords, Name of the Doctor, The Doctor’s Daughter, The Doctor’s Wife – the titles don’t add anything to canon, but the action, the narrative, the developments, the characters in the stories – they could.
On the other hand, if you were looking for the top three moments of greatest importance to the ongoing narrative of Doctor Who which occur after Unearthly Child, I would say Regeneration, the introduction of the Time Lords and the introduction of the Time War.
And one of those was introduced by RTD.
@JimTheFish – thanks so much for joining us here! You see, no-one has (yet) argued that ‘Steven Moffat stole his/her childhood’. 🙂
You’re absolutely right to discern the differences between US-stylee ‘showrunners’ and what both RTD and SM became in relation to DW. Isn’t it sad, how often in our culture that we look across the pond for descriptors … and then don’t quite fill those same boots? Not sad in that the lack of Yank boot-filling was ‘deficient’; just, that we have our own damn culture and we don’t need to slavishly follow Whedon, Abrams, Sorkin, et al to produce darned fine telly.
You’re exactly right to bring in Phil Collinson and Julie Gardner – because, unless there is a lurker amongst our midst ( ??? ) we have no way of knowing how much those producers contributed to the programme.
There were always nuclear mushroom-sized holes in my blog thesis, even after I pared it back to a simple RTD vs SM template. Because, as you say, the ‘showrunner’ may be a figurehead – and not quite like was experienced prior in Buffy and West Wing – but that figurehead did not have sole control of the development of the Doctor’s story in any like way to the American version of ‘showrunner’.
@JimTheFish
I totally agree that the title here and the title there mean two different things, but both RTD and SM identify themselves as the showrunner of their eras of Doctor Who.
I think, of course, their teams have much to do with their success – but the buck must, and does, stop somewhere.
And, I don’t think anything would or did actually happen on screen without either RTD or SM signing it off.
So, I think the use of the title is okay in all the circumstances – but totally agree that when you talk of the RTD era you are not just talking about him.
@Shazzbot – have you read A Writer’s Tale? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doctor-Who-Writers-Final-Chapter/dp/184607861X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374243366&sr=8-1&keywords=a+
@HTPBDET, On the other hand, if you were looking for the top three moments of greatest importance to the ongoing narrative of Doctor Who which occur after Unearthly Child, I would say Regeneration, the introduction of the Time Lords and the introduction of the Time War.
I would add to that, “and the destruction of the Time Lords.” Which leaves Moffat the task of reviving them.
I don’t really think contribution to canon is the measure of a good show runner however.
Unfortunately now I suspect the show runner, much though he (or at some stage she) might flatter themselves that they are running the show, is answerable to the “suits”, those who decide what will or won’t get funding, much like the rest of us. (I don’t have to answer to suits but I don’t have funding either) In the past what was finally produced was very much determined by costs. There are books about which describe the behind the scenes machinations. Some scripts were altered at the last minute because of funding costs or actors pulling out. While AG Who is more planned and has the benefit of CGI making all sorts of things possible which weren’t achieble before, some of the basis pressures remain. Both RTD and S.M are still accountable to the “men in suits” at the end of the day. And they now have the “in the face” fans now to answer to as well. Another interesting comparison is how the two “showrunners” have interacted with fans. I have the impression that S.M is far more sensative to fan-hate than RTD was and thus reacts more. It must be very difficult to maintain the integrity of one’s personal vision for the story when constantly under attack on the interwebs.
Another difference between the terms of the two show runners is that they were dealing with different actors. The difference between series one and two, AG, is not nearly as marked as that of Tennant’s and Smith’s yet Ecclestone is by far the more different in approach to the character and acting style. It will be interesting to see just what Moffat does with the next regeneration.
I seem to have rambled on rather. I blame the late hour, many glasses of Barossa Shiraz and too much coffee,,
Cheers
Janette
@JimTheFish
To be fair, the twelve-regeneration limit was central to the Master’s motivation in Deadly Assassin – it was more than a throw-away line. And the concept came up again and again afterwards in BG.
And, as I have said elsewhere here, I don’t think it really contradicts Troughton’s “live forever, barring accidents” line.
Brain of Morbius does not, as you rightly indicate, establish that there were pre-Hartnell incarnations; it just raises the possibility. Three Doctors and Five Doctors make it pretty clear that the incarnations we have seen are the only ones there are.
It was Planet of the Spiders and its Cho-Je/K’anpo Rimpoche projection business that paved the way for the Watcher and the Valeyard. Don’t think Robert Holmes can be entirely blamed for the Valeyard. 🙂
I think the question is – if pre-Hartnell Doctors are introduced, what is the reason for it and the explanation for their absence to date? That would be the only test. Moffat can do it if he has a clever enough way to do it. Surely?
I don’t know what you mean about “telepathic circuits, the sentience of the TARDIS and its ability to be controlled” – these issues about the TARDIS have been in focus almost from the beginning. I don’t think Moffat has done anything radical in relation to any of that – or have I missed something?
@JanetteB
I sought to include the detainment of the Time Lords (they are not destroyed, just contained) to be wrapped up in the concept of the Time War.
Totally agree. An excellent point.
The differences between the 10th and 11th Doctor are not as great as the differences between the nature of the stories, the relationship between the companions and the Doctor, the way of telling stories and the use of “timey-wimey” solutions to solve crises.
I don’t think that Tennant and Smith are alike as actors, but there is more similarity between their Doctors than there is similarity between the way everything else in RTD played out and how everything else plays out under Moffat.
@HTPBDET —
Absolutely. But by the same token I’m sure there were things that both RTD and SM wanted which couldn’t happen without being signed off by Collinson, Gardner etc. Similarly, I think there’s certainly a strong suspicion that there are things which Moffatt didn’t want in the show that he had no say over — iDalek redesign being the one that immediately springs to mind.
No, I was just positing that plot points that have long-running consequences — like regeneration limits, dark incarnations and even smaller things like telepathic circuits and the like — were done without much more alacrity and less timidity in BG Who. New bits were added on to the mythos, old bits were torn off without really anyone caring too much about it. I’m sure I’ve heard Uncle Terrance say as much. But from JNT onwards this reverence to the canon became much more pronounced. Every little change, every reappearance of an old foe, every slightest mention of the past, had to fit in with this previously ad hoc creation. That, I think, was what Moffatt was/is trying to undo with the The Name of the Doctor/The Impossible Girl arc.
And more power to him, I say. Who, of all programmes, should have the freedom to go anywhere, do anything. I think if the laments of BG over AG have any substance to them, it’s in the sense of slightly reckless freedom in terms of narrative that the show had up until the 80s. I do suspect Moffatt is striving to get to a place where he can once again say ‘Time Lords only have 12 regenerations. Actually, that’s only if they’re a Saggittarius and only if they’re born on a Thursday’ or something like that. (My personal theory in light of discussions here and on the companions thread is that after their 13th incarnation, Time Lords become the soul/personality of TARDISes.)
@JimTheFish
Yes, BBC Worldwide insisted on the remake of the Daleks for Victory – and I think that was such a disaster they have largely kept out of it since…
But from JNT onwards this reverence to the canon became much more pronounced. Every little change, every reappearance of an old foe, every slightest mention of the past, had to fit in with this previously ad hoc creation.
But that might be what JNT claimed but his era is more riddled with “continuity errors” or as I prefer to think of them, “ideas which need explanation” than really any other era in the history of the programme.
Doctor Who does have the freedom to go anywhere – SM does not need to “do” something to achieve that.
I think the thing which counts against your theory about the 12 regeneration rule is The Doctor’s Wife. All the sisters that Idris laments. She does not lament the passing of brothers.
However, as I may have said elsewhere here, I long ago reconciled the rule with “barring accidents” by taking the view that the Matrix upload upon death allowed Time Lords to live forever. So, the body, can only last 12 regenerations before it breaks down – in much the same way that Idris’ body breaks down after housing the TARDIS “soul”.
This explains why the Master needed to steal a body and why the Time Lords can grant a new cycle of regenerations.
I also like to think that if a Time Lord is male when they die, they have to spend some time in the Matrix before they achieve enlightenment and can convert into a female form so that they can power SIDRATS/TARDIS vehicles. If the Time Lord is female when she dies, then she can convert immediately to the higher state of being.
@ScaryB @Shazzbot @Bluesqueakpip – hoping you approve? 🙂
This, helpfully, helps deal with Romana’s frivolous use of regenerations in Destiny too. Also, you can take the view that the “tribal” Gallifreyans seen in Invasion of Time are kept around by the Time Lords to be used as new bodies if the need arises…
@HTPBDET
Love it! 😀
Not so sure about tribal Gallifreyans being used for spare parts though!
Re your earlier post about the 3 moments/things that that have changed the course of the show – that’s a great observation. And despite having given it some deep thought – as I got sidetracked into RTD’s book… and ordered the new extended edition (that’s your fault for posting the link!) – can’t come up with a 4th, or another candidate for top 3. Well not yet anyway! The Time War was a great conceit – provided motivation and backstory for 9, an explanation for the gap and removed any need whatsoever to adhere to supposed continuity if they chose not to. Interesting that the other 2 were during Troughton’s run.
Re Showrunner title – it was a good choice to claim the title I think, as it immediately located the reboot in the territory of much respected, groundbreaking, modern shows like Buffy, and away from the less pleasant memories of the 80s. Doesn’t matter that they chose to define the actual role in a different way. (And yes of course there was a team, but the point still stands that the showrunner is the one whose name is most visibly stamped on it). Finding a sympathetic but effective (ie one who can say no sometimes but help to achieve the best ideas) producer is also helpful. Moffat seems to have gone through a few without finding his Julie Gardner equivalent.
@ScaryB
Well, the Time Lords are not a kindly race – so the idea that lower beings were used a receptacles for new bodies, when required, while ghastly, seemed like a possibility for a race that would sit back and do nothing when evil needs to be fought! 🙂 (Also, vaguely, it provides a solid reason for the Doctor to want to run away from them in the first place!)
And, if you take that view, then you don’t need an explanation for why the Master can steal the bodies of others…its just something Time Lords can do. Like regenerating. But they don’t have to do it.
As tempting as it is, I think the regeneration concept belongs to Hartnell as it happened in Tenth Planet. Troughton gets the Time Lords and Ecclestone the Time War.
Fourth, I give to Hartnell for Dalek Invasion of Earth – the idea of recurring alien enemies of the Doctor.
Fifth on my list would be UNIT – which, happily, is another point for Troughton! (Invasion)
And Sixth, the return of the Doctor’s knowledge of time travel in Three Doctors – because from then on, and really for the first time, the Doctor is able to pilot the TARDIS to where he wants to go – well, more often than ever before anyway! So, Pertwee.
Seventh is also Pertwee: the introduction of the Master. (Terror of the Autons)
Eighth, I think, is the notion of “timey-wimey” and all that comes with it: so Tennant.
Ninth, I think, is River: so that is also Tennant, because she appears first on his watch.
Tenth belongs to Tom Baker: the twelve-regeneration rule. (Controversial!) Deadly Assassin.
Unearthly Child set up so much: the Doctor as alien exile; the notion of companions; the TARDIS; travel in time and space; juxtaposing different sorts of adventures – all of those things are still key to this day.
Really – such an extraordinary debut episode.
(On some days, depending on my mood, I count the Daleks as important – not because of the Daleks themselves, but because of the concept of the Doctor fighting alien foes. But then I wake up and decide that is silly – because a 60’s Sci-Fi series was always going to have “bug-eyed monsters” and given that the Doctor and Susan were established as aliens in Unearthly Child, the prospect of other aliens being encountered by the human heroes was contemplated there.)
@Shazzbot
Sorry if this is off topic – please do not beat me!
Happy if you want to transfer this elsewhere. Because I am very interested in what other people think are the top ten core concepts in Doctor Who which were not introduced in Unearthly Child. But that’s just me…
🙂
@HTPBDET – I only beat people when fees, costumes, and ‘safe words’ have been pre-negotiated. 😀
Sorry, I’m reading from the bottom up (‘ooh! err! Miss!’) so I’ll address the other issues raised in a separate comment.
@Shazzbot
I am so bored, I have created a blog post if you decide that is the way to go.
I await your commands!
And please delete this post either way.
🙂
@HTPBDET – ‘Delete this post’ ? Not on your life! My blog’s success depends on every comment it can garner.
I look forward to reading, and commenting on, your own new blog post … Shazz.
@HTPBDET — Love your Matrix idea. And also the idea of the Shobogans being kept around for spare bodies — although perhaps they were not considered to have made the grade for Time Lord society because of imperfections — either genetic or psychological. I certainly wouldn’t put a bit of social engineering and eugenics past them.
I did posit an idea in the early days of this site for a story concerning regeneration, where the Doctor encounters a previous ‘Doctor’, say Troughton or Davison, any of them really. But they are just mortal and normal and have no idea about the Doctor or Time Lords or anything. The dark secret at the heart of Time Lord society would be that regeneration works by ‘abducting’ individuals at a certain point in their timeline and plugging their lifeforce in some way. Then when the regeneration is invoked, the lifeforce is transferred and the ‘donor’ dies. Each time a Time Lord regenerates another living being is giving up their life unknowingly.
I realise that that raises some really quite uncomfortable moral issues and makes each regeneration almost like a ‘manslaughter’ (never mind Romana’s shenanigans in Destiny) but that’s what I kind of like about it. It kills the whole idea of regeneration stone dead though or makes it considerably less jolly and cool and perhaps plunges the Doctor a bit further into guilt and self-loathing with each incarnation.
@JimTheFish. I like that idea. It is indeed dark and hence I don’t think it would ever go beyond the pages of fan fic, but I like it a lot.
@HTPBDET I also like your suggestion re the body parts. I think the non titled elements of Gallifreyan society have been woefully neglected since The Invasion of Time. Presumably they also perished in the time war which seems hardly fair as they doubtless were not involved in any way.
I have always thought the destruction of Gallifrey was a narrative loss as there was such rich potential. Dr Who has never developed a fully convicing alien world, with the notable exception of Skaro. It would be nice to have more than one recurring alien world and culture. Most of the other recurring aliens are rather one note. If the Anniversary special does deal with the Time war than I’m hoping for a revival of the Time Lords.
(I think I am guilty of straying off topic rather. apologies.)
Cheers
Janette
@JimTheFish
I’m not so sure that I am against changing past continuity at all and I think that AG Who has been far too conservative by bringing back and reusing BG Who foes (too often and far worse far given them too much screen time). For me, AG show runners weren’t at the outset beholden to BG Who although RTD/SM have chosen to be. To an extent if SM needs to rewrite continuity at all it is his own fault not BG Who.
As I posted somewhere else on here why did AG Who have to bring back the Cybermen as basically the same creatures as BG Who (and like with Mark Gatiss’s recent Ice Warriors redux) even remake essential elements of their first ever episode in pretty much the same way ? Take the Cybermen for example, could RTD and hi writers not have used their imagination and remade them in a completely fresh way ? They’re not the Daleks (real Icons as Victory of the Daleks shows) and even if the hard core fans disliked the new version, the AG audience wouldn’t care at all so long as they did what they said on the can. The fact that in the first 8 years we have one AG monster/foe appear more than once is a statistic I find shocking even if others don’t. It betrays something about RTD/SM’s attitude and I don’t think its lack of creativity.
No my problems with SM to the extent I have them are:
Until SM retires as ShowRunner we can’t reach any final assessment as his bigger story (if and when we see it completely finished) as it might tie up a lot of the loose ends that appear to be present at the moment. I am reserving my opinion until then, but for me some things don’t feel great right now.
I agree with your comment on Show Runner being less in Who than it perhaps is in some US shows. However, I have one slight observation in BG Who the script editor penned fewer episodes (but perhaps was more involved in rewrites and edits (than either RTD or SM is today where there is I think more time for rewrites). One possible problem with AG Who is that who script edits RTD and SM written episodes ? I think RTD in particular could have used a good editor for some of his stories in hindsight.
Your point about ARSEs and RTD are correct in my view but I think that reflects its 2013 and not 2007. We may and should cover RTD in this blog thread. If we were back in 2007, I would certainly be moaning about some of the Christmas specials and Story Arcs. In fact I already have pointed out one particular thing which bothers me in the Differences blog thread.
Nick
@Nick — totally agree that both RTD and SM could have been more daring in their reimagining of say the Cybermen (although I actually really liked what they did with the Ice Warriors). However, let’s not forget that both men are major fans of the show and I think they have enough wish to pay respect to the show’s heritage and history as any fan.
Plus I think they are slightly wary of the more, er, passionate aspects of fandom and recognise a need to keep them on-side as much as possible.
I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that I don’t really share your doubts about SM. For me the Amy/Rory arc was a real highpoint of the show and was the period of Nu-Who that has really worked for me the most. I’m less convinced so far by the Impossible Girl arc. (Although that trailer breakdown has made me squee quite a bit so am willing to be proved wrong.)
I’m sure I’ve seen an interview with SM where he said that both he and RTD still receive copious notes on their scripts, so I don’t think that get away with whatever they like. You might be right though that perhaps they don’t face the same rigours as a writer under the old script editor system might have. There’s no real way of knowing, unless either SM or RTD care to post online one of their working scripts with notes attached but I somehow can’t see that happening (fascinating though it would be).
You’re right though that we won’t be able to assess SM’ full run and impact until he’s handed the baton on to someone else. Although these days I’m finding that there’s less and less RTD-era stuff that I return to. For me, a lot of his stories aren’t ageing very well and relied a bit too much on spectacle over story for their appeal. (But there’s still some belters in there though. And he knew how to pick writers, that’s for sure.)
I honestly don’t get the issue with the monsters that seems to trouble you. Victory of the Daleks aside, I think SM has been quite clever in his use of the Daleks compared to the excess of RTD and there are signs that the Cybermen are improving after Neil Gaiman’s reset of them. They’re still not brilliant though. Like I said elsewhere, I think the show’s attitude to the monsters has changed greatly. They are mostly metaphors for psychological or psychosocial fears now. That means that once they’ve been dealt with in one story, it’s harder to justify bringing them back for another. The Weeping Angels worked in this regard because their menace kept being taken to a higher (lower?) level.
@JimTheFish
I understand where RTD and SM are coming from as former fans. They have a difficult call to make as show runners. Whilst there is undoubtedly far too many BG ARSEs out there, I think on balance they needed to be a bit braver. I thought in series 1, there was sufficient differences to BG Who. It certainly took me a while to get used to different feel, although I’m afraid to say RTD’s story arcs and mega climaxes never worked for me. Looking back I now remember more of the subtle performances – like the Master’s wife – than the major elements. There were certainly some good and very good stories in RTD’s era and you have to admit he created the audience that made the show a hit. I suspect the ultimate verdict will be that that the sum was greater than most of the individual parts.
For me, SM has definitely been better by creating better story arcs and by being less OTT on the whole. As you say, the Amy/Rory relationship (at least as described by you and others) is a master piece. What I find unfortunate is that so much of it seems to have been left out of the show or expressed by very short lines of narrative. SM’s initial reputation as a writer is based around his ability to write complex relationships (and allow for different points of views within the relationship). I can see why he was drawn to creating something like the Amy/Rory/Doctor relationship. Whether Who is the right place to do something like that or not is a relevant question, but it seems to me that if you are going to do it, you had better well do it well and show it on the screen. For all I know all of the teenage audience may well have got this, but most of the complexity certainly passed me and I rather suspect a sizeable % of the audience. Whilst I fully appreciate that its a good thing to leave something extra for the hard core fans and those particularly interested to discover, for me SM got the balance wrong. Too much was off screen meaning the element on screen got confusing and unbelievable at times. For me therefore I know see this was a failure at the point of delivery.
What surprises me most of all, is that I seem to be alone in finding the low % of AG created monsters and foes being reused worrying. Don’t get me wrong as someone brought up on BG foes of course I want to see them come back, but I’d really like to see this set of creative writers come up with some new ideas as well.
The ultimate problem with quite a few of the BG foes (the Daleks, Cybermen certainly, Ice Warriors as written most of the time) is that their motivation is really quite simple it becomes difficult to use them in a new way. Stories and story concepts begin to seem quite similar. That’s why there are so few standout Dalek and Cybermen stories from BG Who and also I think why both concepts were rested several times and/or used judiciously by BG Who from the 1970s onwards.
Taking the Cybermen as an example. It seems to me that a the BG elements which seem to work best relate to the body horror (conversion process, the part converted, remote control of people) and the way that they were shown working in shadows using manufactured infections to stealthily infiltrate the target work best. AG Who usage seems to have played down these themes on the whole – The whirling buzz saw blades and laser conversion unit of season 2 excepted. I think if you want to play on these themes, you would end up designing new Cybermen more along the lines of the Tenth Planet than those we got. I enjoyed Nightmare in Silver, but like you I didn’t think it solved the Cybermen problem. In some extents it made it worse. The idea that for example a Cyberman can be electrocuted in the moat then upgrade its self to become electrocution proof in real time (just how can they do it ?) just means as Neil Gairman showed us you end up with a virtually indestructible foe meaning that the only real solution you have available is to implode the planet. Not ideal is it ? I can’t help thinking Kit Pedler’s original idea was better than either BG or AG Who has managed to show us. I might even argue that the Borg do a better job delivering a similar concept on screen.
Naturally I agree with most of your analysis, but let me try and turn one of your arguments on its head. You write
I think the show’s attitude to the monsters has changed greatly. They are mostly metaphors for psychological or psychosocial fears now. That means that once they’ve been dealt with in one story, it’s harder to justify bringing them back for another
This is correct of course. But how do you stack that statement up against this analysis:
Season 1 Daleks 15 % screen time
Season 2 Daleks and Cybermen 46 %
Season 3 Daleks and Master 38 %
Season 4 Daleks and Sontarans 31 %
Specials Master and Timelords 25 %
Season 5 Silurians 15 % screen time
Season 6 none (did I get that right ?)
Season 7 Daleks, Cybermen and Ice Warriors 23 % [ignoring the split here]
To me it seems that it isn’t quite as straight forward as you imply ? I think there is plenty of screen time for AG Who to create and use something of its own that isn’t based on psychological or psychosocial fears. As the Weeping Angel show more traditional story lines can work just as well.
Nick
@Nick
You know my thoughts on the above, so don’t worry, am not going to repeat myself (much)!
I don’t really understand what your % are showing – that there are fewer appearances of daleks and cybermen post RTD? That the majority of episodes feature new foes?
Re your comment –
Weepoing Angels are more psychological than most!
But as I and others have said – the only justification for bringing back old foes (either BG or AG) is: “Is it a good story?”
Now please don’t get huffy about there being Daleks in the 50th! If you can’t use them then, when can you? 🙂
@ScaryB
I hadn’t thought about it until today when I saw the news, but it just had to be didn’t it ?
The pictures look good. This and the length suggests we have every chance of seeing something special
Cheers
Nick
@ScaryB
I never know quite how much I should write. My point with the %’s is that RTD/SM have managed to find quite a lot of screen time to use BG foes. You can’t therefore argue that there isn’t screen time to create and reuse a new AG foe. I also think it negates @JimTheFish‘s argument that AG Who has concentrated on more psychological fears (it certainly has) if 25 % or so of the screen time is spent focusing on BG villains who weren’t fundamentally designed to highlight psychological fears. I won’t go on about the Angels again 🙂 (believe me I can even though I think they are a fantastic concept).
One other thing, If you looked at the last 8 years of BG Who before the Gap, The % of screen time for the Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans etc is lower than in AG Who (even though JNT must have been under pressure to stop the ratings slip by bringing back old successful foes).
By the way, I’d argue that Dalek is the best single Dalek story since the 1960’s and certainly is the best AG use of the Daleks so far. Is it any surprise that this is the least traditional Dalek story ever made ?
Cheers
Nick
@Nick — Like @ScaryB, I don’t really get the percentages argument. I’m afraid I certainly don’t feel ‘negated’ by it. 😉
But you’ll certainly get no argument from me that a greater return to the creeping horror of Tenth Planet/Moonbase stylee Cybermen would be better. Although I’d argue that we should never see the conversion process at all. It’s much more horrific if it’s left to the imagination.
I’d personally rate Asylum over Dalek these days but they’re both great stories. And you’re right they’re strength is that neither are traditional Old Who tales.
But I’d argue that it’s because Nu Who goes for monsters that are largely psychological in nature, are in fact metaphors for our own fears and therefore don’t have much of a ‘replay’ potential after they’ve been ‘defeated’ once, that the show makes greater use of established monster faces from the past. They’re there as ‘relief’ almost. Familiar and less threatening than the new creatures.
I do take your basic point though that the show hasn’t really created anything genuinely memorable yet. However, I do think we’re comparing apples and oranges here. The show is so different these days. Memorable monsters were created also by virtue of the serial format. There might have been ‘fewer’ Dalek/Cybermen/Ice Warrior stories but when they were on they were being seen week after week within that story. That kind of reinforcement helps build their familiarity.
Similarly, within the 45-minute format, after set-up and build-up the monsters only really get decent screentime for the last 15-20 minutes of the episode. There might be more stories with the ‘big’ monsters in them but they are probably on screen for much less time than in Old Who.
Of course, the primary reason that old monsters come back is that the fans like it and the programme makers get a real kick out of redesigning/reimagining them. Plus they’re much more of a marketing certainty. Much safer to get those masks and figurines out there than in the case of a more unknown commodity monster who may or may not be taken to by the public.
@JimTheFish
As ever, there’s little in your post and analysis I would actually disagree with. Your explanation that the Older foes form a welcome break between the more psychologically scary AG elements certainly has a ring of truth for me. That they have no replay potential as you put it, I think warrants more of a case by case discussion (here isn’t the right place for that I think). I think there may be more agreement there then you think. Some could be used again in my opinion and I rather suspect that we would reach a consensus view on which quite quickly. The merchandising point if a very valid one as is reusing old known foes for risk reasons (just look at Hollywood superhero films and series like Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars etc etc).
That I think there this is something bothersome happening, when you and most others aren’t concerned is not something I’m going to loose and sleep over. That’s fine, whilst I won’t convince you and others it is something to be concerned about in the longer term, neither will you and others wont change my mind that it is something to be bothered about. As ever Time will tell on that one.
Its not about creativity either though like Hollywood these days, Who is perhaps more risk adverse than I had previously thought. The risk adverse approach was there from the outset looking back and the Dalek redesign certainly wont have encouraged much risk taking.
I too thought Mark Gatiss et al had done a good job with the Ice Warriors relaunch. Its make perfect biological sense that a low gravity species would be tall and lightly built and need heavy armour from a military perspective. I hope we will seen them again soon, but in a more complex story where there Martian martial code of honour makes them act like baddies from the audiences perspective, but when they are actually on the good guys side.
Cheers
Nick
@Shazzbot
I have been meaning to say for a while that I don’t think I have “nailed” anything – and that there are probably much better ways of people expressing their own views. Which I hope they do.
I am interested in what must be the very many ways different people here view the distinction and I am certain that not everyone will think my view is correct. After all, its just one person’s opinion, based entirely on a subjective reaction to the different eras. 🙂
I have really enjoyed reading through the debate here all over again – so many interesting views. So much food for thought.
Cheers!
Hi @HTPBDET – I fear my original comment was a joke that a few people didn’t get. It would be a very odd blogger indeed who advocated closing down discussion on one’s own blog! It simply amused me to award you ‘The Internet’. And @Nick will know that my follow-on comment was a bit passive-aggressive in that he’d not contributed much to that point, on a blog topic which he’d first requested; so, I was furrowing him into a specific point that he might want to address. Luckily, Nick had much to say further on so all is good.
I think the Twelfth Doctor could easily have a Rani story called The Shazzbot Furrowing…
🙂