All New Who

it all seems like RTD Lite to me. I prefer the real thing. its perfectly entertaining but what I saw was forgetable.

True, but that is still far better than the Moffat Mega Madness we've endured so far!!!

agreed, it certainly was a big improvement. I did enjoy the episodes I saw and Bill is refreshing, but it just seems nice rather than wow.

True again. But I can live with nice for a while. Good for the blood pressure (and the other Shirelingss too I guess.) Gives us time to re-dig our trenches and stock our supplies and get ready for Chibnail. I suspect the MasterMissy thing is meant to rock the boat. I've been sick for over a week now, so I/we have some catching up to do.

{{ Personally I'd much prefer some 'Moffat mega madness.' This series is a bit of a disappointment for me so far- nothing wrong with it- been good solid episodes every one of them- but by the book- they are Who formula episodes.
And that means this is the first series of Moffat era Who where I have only watched 1 episode more than once- the first of the monk trilogy and the last episode Moffat wrote- all the rest, as in RTD era seem very surface, watch them once and you've seen all they have to offer. There is nothing more to them of substance.
Love or loath Moffat that certainly has not been true of his previous series of Who- you have to pay attention or miss crucial details and information. Stories were layered, with a surface narrative, several rug pull and misdirections under the hood, and themes underpinning all that run through the whole and often arent clear until you ave a fuller picture of episodes and so meaning.
So far series 10 is very much like any old RTD series- and for me that's been disappointing- Id rather Moffat had just gone fuck it and went for pure Moffattiness for his final series- hoping we will get that for the last 3 episodes of 12's run as Moffat is penning all of those. }}}}

See? We're all not loving it, perfect starting ground for something new. We'll either be super thrilled or just shrug and leave.

I wouldn't mind Moffat moffating something up, but pure Moffatiness is a very dangerous thing.

Though I do have to say that it is odd to see Moffat's last series being - so far - so... not Moffat. I don't trust anything until it's completely over.

Certainly very interested to watch Chibnall's version.

I hope you feel better soon Amarie.

{{ If I were to take a guess based on whats been said so far about Chibnall Who then here's what I expect so far- no more individually written stories by writers- instead the entire series will be plotted out from the very start and all of it will be written in the writers room. In short I expect it to become more like a 'normal' tv drama.
Whilst I can see the advantages to having a writers room and to having everything heavily plotted out from the start it does have downsides.
In this weeks episode review for example the Radio Times, in passing, commented on the fact that you could tell this was written by Munro, as her authoritative voice is clear in it as it was in her last bit of Who for classic, Survival. It is clearly a Munro penned episode.
This tends to be true of RTD and Moffat era- you can tell who wrote what episodes once you get to know the writer as you can still hear their voice the strongest, not the editors.
A writers room removes that and everything has the same voice- this gives greater coherency and structure to a series but it lacks diversity and tone shifts.
So I am very much in two minds about the idea.
Given they are writing this way I am not sure either if the idea of 'standalone' and 'multi-parters' will also disappear. As if you are plotting the entire story-line for a series ahead of time then there may not be a need for such a structure, as stuff you put in ep 1 you already ow gets its follow up/pay off in subsequent episodes and where. It would make it more of a continuing drama- doing away with RTD and Moffat era story arcs which are just small moments, or even a single phrase, dropped into stand- alone episodes book-ended by usually a beginning, middle end structure focused on the series narrative. The Chibnall way would seem to be the opposite of that- with the narrative embedded in the overall episodes week to week.
Its also worrying to me that presumably the idea of writers pitching the story concept could go too if Chibnall is creating a total series narrative then wirters would no longer be bringing him full narrative ideas- just the writers room people working together. In which case we would not have had Flatline or The Doctors Wife for example- pitched to Moffat as concepts by Maitheson and Gaiman respectively.
I am hoping we dont get Broadchurch in the TARDIS, but I worry we might. }}}

I don't like the choppy nature of how its done at the moment, the styles veer wildly from episode to episode, sometimes one great episode is followed by a Gatiss nonsense episode and it makes me lose interest if the quality is patchy. I  didn't notice this as much with RTD but Moffats run is glaringly patchy.

I don't like the choppy nature of how its done at the moment- Figg

{{{There is nothing 'at the moment' about it. Who has always changed tone and style widely between episodes. Since the very beginning. The story Edge of Madness, a weird psychological thriller of sorts, is followed by a straight faced historical centered around Marco Polo. Comedy episodes go next to historical episodes. Scary episodes go next to psychedelic weird ones. Heavy, brooding Dalek stories include lighthearted xmas episodes! Its has arguably been a strength of the show that if you didn't much enjoy this weeks its still worth watching next weeks because it will be completely different.
The risk with a writers room is that if you dont like the style and tone of an episode then chances are you arent going to like the next episode either because it will have the same tone and style even if the setting changes.

I get why- its part of the times.
Originally a tv series, most tv series consisted of stand alone episodes where it was never absolutely necessary to have watched anything when you first start- original Star Trek is a good example- you can literally watch any episode or watch them all in any order and there are about 3 occasions where it will be relevant- rest of the time you would never know what order they were meant to be in. Every episode is narratively complete in itself.
This is true for most early tv series. Continuing drama was the sole realm of soap opera.

But with the advent of tv on demand and binge watching entire series however the stand alone style of tv series is becoming rarer and rarer- in its place is what the modern tv series has basically become- an 11-14 hour film split into 50 minute sections. The modern tv series therefore tends to have the narrative style and character development of a very long film. Not a traditional tv show.

Who up till now as clung onto the older model- most episodes are still standalone or short two- three part self contained stories. Concessions to series arcs have come in the form of generally light intrusions into the stand alone structure- Bad Wolf, Cracks in Time, The Hybrid ect

What we might be getting with Chibnal is a shift into the more modern style of a series as a very long film split into 12 50 minute episodes.
The only comparison in previous Who to that is the 2nd Doctor final series which consists of one long story- the War Games- but that was never intended as such and came about much more out of desperation and necessity as it did any deliberate planning.
So if Chibnal does make Who more like other modern dramas he might bring it more in line with modern audience sensibilities. But I fear it will lose something of itself in the transition.
It would in my opinion be the single biggest change to the Who format in over 50 years. Far bigger than say making the Doctor a woman would be.}}}

Watched Empress of Mars. I quite liked it.

Spoiler:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I don't like the choppy nature of how its done at the moment- Figg

{{{There is nothing 'at the moment' about it. Who has always changed tone and style widely between episodes. Since the very beginning. The story Edge of Madness, a weird psychological thriller of sorts, is followed by a straight faced historical centered around Marco Polo. Comedy episodes go next to historical episodes. Scary episodes go next to psychedelic weird ones. Heavy, brooding Dalek stories include lighthearted xmas episodes! Its has arguably been a strength of the show that if you didn't much enjoy this weeks its still worth watching next weeks because it will be completely different.
The risk with a writers room is that if you dont like the style and tone of an episode then chances are you arent going to like the next episode either because it will have the same tone and style even if the setting changes.

I get why- its part of the times.
Originally a tv series, most tv series consisted of stand alone episodes where it was never absolutely necessary to have watched anything when you first start- original Star Trek is a good example- you can literally watch any episode or watch them all in any order and there are about 3 occasions where it will be relevant- rest of the time you would never know what order they were meant to be in. Every episode is narratively complete in itself.
This is true for most early tv series. Continuing drama was the sole realm of soap opera.

But with the advent of tv on demand and binge watching entire series however the stand alone style of tv series is becoming rarer and rarer- in its place is what the modern tv series has basically become- an 11-14 hour film split into 50 minute sections. The modern tv series therefore tends to have the narrative style and character development of a very long film. Not a traditional tv show.

Who up till now as clung onto the older model- most episodes are still standalone or short two- three part self contained stories. Concessions to series arcs have come in the form of generally light intrusions into the stand alone structure- Bad Wolf, Cracks in Time, The Hybrid ect

What we might be getting with Chibnal is a shift into the more modern style of a series as a very long film split into 12 50 minute episodes.
The only comparison in previous Who to that is the 2nd Doctor final series which consists of one long story- the War Games- but that was never intended as such and came about much more out of desperation and necessity as it did any deliberate planning.
So if Chibnal does make Who more like other modern dramas he might bring it more in line with modern audience sensibilities. But I fear it will lose something of itself in the transition.
It would in my opinion be the single biggest change to the Who format in over 50 years. Far bigger than say making the Doctor a woman would be.}}}

you seem to have misunderstood. I was talking about choppy quality. In one series you could get either Flatline or Kill the Moon. or something ridiculous by Gatiss.

{{You also said - 'the styles veer wildly from episode to episode'.
But Who quality also veers about and always has- you cant tell me RTD era was consistent it clearly isn't. We have something dark and well written and featuring the Doctor spitting furiously at a Dalek "Why dont you just die!" and ordering it to exterminate itself next to a story about farting aliens taking over No10 which is neither well written or anything like a similar style. Or you have Daleks in Manhatten sitting alongside Human Nature. You cant tell me there is not a gulf in quality there.

That quality pitfall is a risk that comes with the format of Who- you give every writer a lot of leeway to come up with the story they want to tell- that means you get wildly varying styles and the ability of the BBC budget to match is a big factor in the end result. You could argue for example that Daleks in Manhatten is far more ambitious than Human Nature- but its a lot easier to recreate early 1990's England with the BBC props and forma shooting location in Wales than it is to realize 1930's New York and the newly built Empire State Building in a studio in Cardiff.
Its not just writing that feeds into quality shifts in Who. There are many factors, from quality of supporting cast, to how its directed.

And Who has been like this from the start- the 1st Doctor story Planet of the Giants is a typical run of the mill 60's 'Land of the giants' type story where the main cast are all tiny in a land of giant people. Its followed by the very gritty and dark Dalek Invasion of Earth which is a massive step up in quality in production, direction and writing.
Its the Who way- the show cant have bounds on its tales- and that means taking risks, letting writers go out on a limb sometimes, and pushing the boundaries of what you can get away with on a BBC budget over the course of a series.
I'm not sure I want to see all that go for the sake of a safer, more secure and broad appeal but ultimately less interesting Who take its place. I worry a writers room and smoothing out all the perceived wrinkles in Who will just make something bland and run of the mill- Who by committee. Hope I'm wrong. But Ive always loved the show including its flaws because its flaws are what lets it take risks and when it takes risks, yes you get your In the Forest of the Night, and Fear Her, Love and Monsters but you sometimes get a Blink, or a Heaven Sent, or a Turn Left or a Midnight. Its a trade off I have always found worth it.

For along time a section of the UK Who audience has feared the 'Americanization' of Who. But a writers room is that. Its adopting the US model of series writing. Traditionally the UK has favoured the individual playwright over a group. When you think of the top UK dramas you tend to associate a single writer to them, not many. And that's particualry true of Who- doesn't matter if its a Letts, Nation, Adams, RTD or Moffat episode their voice is heard through it, you know its one of theirs, it has their stamp all over it. Who has always been written that way. Individual writers can get their voice heard by telling their Who story. That's why for me such a change would be the most significant change in how Who is produced since its inception.
It might work brilliantly, we shall see. But its a big change however you cut it. }}}}

don't agree about the farting aliens, it was quite deep when you get past that aspect.

{{There are plenty other examples I could use Figg- you cant tell me there isn't a big difference in quality between the Lazarus Experiment and Human Nature for example. Or Gridlock and Blink.

The overall point is that Who has these ups and downs in quality across a series because for as long as its existed writers have had the freedom to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Sometimes that doesn't work, but when it does it produces something utterly unique (bit like Monty Python that way oddly enough- go back watch Flying Circus- when its brilliant its unparalleled- but a lot of it is just experimental and doesn't work). But you need that stuff to get the really good stuff out of it- because if you don't take the risks in the first place you will never get those outlier uniquely brilliant episodes }}}.

{{In case anyone was wondering or just wants to know more about the big eyed lass at the end of Empress of Mars- here's all the info you need }}




{{what I love most is that the original actress was able to do the voice again, even though she is now in her 90's- sounds exactly the same too! }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{There are plenty other examples I could use Figg- you cant tell me there isn't a big difference in quality between the Lazarus Experiment and Human Nature for example. Or Gridlock and Blink.

The overall point is that Who has these ups and downs in quality across a series because for as long as its existed writers have had the freedom to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Sometimes that doesn't work, but when it does it produces something utterly unique (bit like Monty Python that way oddly enough- go back watch Flying Circus- when its brilliant its unparalleled- but a lot of it is just experimental and doesn't work). But you need that stuff to get the really good stuff out of it- because if you don't take the risks in the first place you will never get those outlier uniquely brilliant episodes }}}.

that's no excuse for Gatiss.

{{Thing with Gatiss is not that he is bad but that he is so widely inconsistent.
His first Who- the Dickens one is perfectly entertaining. I also have a soft spot for the Crimson Horror as it has such great visual ideas in it and two excellent guest star performances- again is a solid tale, not spectacular but at least inventive and original. Cold War is another perfectly competent Gatiss episode as too is Empress of Mars.
I would say he has never written an out and out wow episode- one destined for the classic episode files of future years. But more often than not he does deliver a solid Who story. }}}

exactly its the kind of patchy that's irritating.

{{ But on the other-hand if you dont have writers like Gatiss pitching their ideas in to the production team rather than the production team dictating narrative then you lose your Jamie Maitheson's Flatline, or Gaimans Doctors Wife, or Curtis' Vincent and the Doctor.
And that's my worry with a writers room- that yes you get more consistency over a series but will you still get these outstanding contributions pitched by writers outside the production team and the writers room? }}}

{{{ Who news round up-

Spoiler:

}}}

{{{ Holy crap!!! That was fucking brilliant! The Cybermen are back- not knock off NUWho stopmpy stompy ones but scare the living shit out of you OS Cyberman.

Spoiler:

}}}

Aarrrgh, I haven't even seen last year's Christmas special yet. Apparently the Netflix copy of it I ordered got lost in the mail.

Glad you haven't jumped on the streaming bandwagon, Forest. I was afraid I was about the only one left.

halfwise wrote:Glad you haven't jumped on the streaming bandwagon, Forest.  I was afraid I was about the only one left.

........ehem......