exit200 asked: I finally saw your comment on my rant against Moffatt. I'll be the first to admit I'm not always the most tuned-up sonic screwdriver in the box, so I'd like to hear an explanation as to what I missed in the Series 7 finale, why Moffatt isn't bad for Doctor Who, and especially how he writes with more complexity than RTD? I personally think the dumbing-down is happening in the writing and the over-all story arch the show is taking.
Hey thanks for getting back to me- I’m always happy to have a discussion with a fellow whovian.
First off, while I do feel that the season 7 finale was a bit rushed (much like season 7 on the whole) it was by no means the worst finale (and in reference to your original post I disagree that season 5 finale was a copout, I’d argue that it is among the best episodes of Doctor Who). A bit of a tangent but I must at least assert that “The Last of The Time Lords” had to be the worst finale of New Who, but alas I will save that for another day.
Back to the topic here is why I liked the season 7 finale.
- 1. It was a nice nod to the classic series; especially since we now know that the anniversary will not be classic who heavy, which I think is for the best because it will be more accessible to newer whovians.
- 2. While it did give some resolution to Clara, I strongly suspect that there is mystery to her yet, the way it was revealed gave us some resolve but also much to look forward to.
- 3. The continuity of Trenzalore from season 6.
- 4. Clara’s splintered existence- a bit like Hitchhiker’s Guide Lintilla and a pretty clever plot point.
- 5. The epic build up to the 50th and John Hurt! One of the many things I love about Moffat is his ability to build develop and set up stories and deliver!
This is much my same argument in terms of complexity I find that Moffat’s arcs are better developed. Moffat’s arcs aren’t as choppy as, for example, a “Vote Saxon” sign in the background a few times throughout the season and when you get to the finale it turns out to be the Master (very little coherent correlation)- same with “bad wolf” and Rose. With Moffat you get more hints throughout the season- you can speculate more and try to figure out the puzzle. With the cracks, River, and Clara we get hints enough to speculate about their significance but by no means are we spoon fed the answers. He also plays with timelines well, River for instance, which is something that RTD didn’t really utilize- a shame seeing as it is a show that has time travel as a major component.
I personally can’t think of an instance of RTD being particularly clever or even having a story arc remotely as strong as Moffat’s I’m curious as to your perspective- so please do share!
Another thing is that Moffat’s characters are far more palatable. Moffat writes strong, intelligent, and dynamic characters. They are certainly less infuriating than a majority RTD’s characters- not frustratingly dim and moody like Rose or needy like Martha (Donna is an excused because I love Catherine Tate haha). While I did like their characters at points they irritated me more time that I empathized with them. While both writers have characters that express a range of emotions Moffat’s characters are more logically emotional rather than the irrational emotionally driven choices often displayed by Davies characters.
That is a general basis of my perspective.
It is funny because your feelings towards Moffat’s direction of the show are my exact sentiments regarding the RTD era.
Essentially I think it comes down to a matter of taste, let me know more about how you see it