Doctor Who

[Ad Lib]

I admire your enthusiasm and after a long day at work my response is going to be disappointingly short by your standards and will allow you the moral victory this time

For me there is a difference between Story Arcs, Creating stories around them (i already said that Moffat was a much better story teller than RTD) etc than actual character development. I see the same Doctor who jumped onto our screens in his first episode, i see the same Amy (or perhaps even a slightly less exciting Amy) that first showed up in her house and i still see the Rory character as being the main reason in a storytelling way rather than a writing way for the lack of any progress or different sides to their personalities. He might very well be all the things you say he is, Amy might be all the things you say she is, Smith and Moffat may be all the things you say there are also but all you've done is explain what the story is and why they are there to suit the story, rather than the actual character development of any of the main characters.

Ah but you're missing the point. Character development isn't just a discrete, identifiable bolt-on to be appreciated in isolation. Character development IS the story. The details and the facts are just consequences of it. The concealment of raw emotion is more powerful than raw emotion itself, because it places it in context. You see that with all three protagonists.

You're just wrong to state that the Doctor who jumped onto our screens in the first episode is the same as the current one. Just wrong. His behaviour has become more inwardly erratic, more burdened and troubled by the TARDIS's scan of Amy. If you can't see the concern and fear that emanates from The Doctor in relation to Amy, then frankly you're not looking very closely at all. Then you've got Amy's inner-crisis, knowing of the Doctor's impending death, yet being unable even to confide in him. You've got the ever more acute and drawn-out sense of loss that Amy keeps experiencing every time Rory comes close to, sometimes reaching death. If that's not "character development" then without wishing to sound churlish, exactly what the fuck are you looking for? Serious question.

I don't really agree that using the words " subtle " and " just aren't getting it " are particularly a good thing when describing a prime time saturday night family tv show. For me Doctor Who should have it's audience feeling a whole range of emotions, whereas the only emotion i've felt is happy that the writing has been so good in terms of enjoyable storylines rather than any real feeling for what any of the characters are going through, which means when a storyline is awful like last week, for the first time it showed the weakness that Moffat has in his writing and once the mask has slipped for me, it's hard to get that feeling of awe and wonderment i had for his writing and Doctor Who in general.

Why not? The whole point of Doctor Who is people are supposed, initially, not to get it. That's the point. You're supposed to think. It's a puzzle. If you don't engage you won't get anything back out of it. It's not a family programme, despite attracting a family audience. It is sci-fi drama.

FWIW, I thought the pirates one was a bit shit. But every series has something which is a bit shit. I always thought the Slitheen were a bit shit. That Monster they picked from a Blue Peter show was a bit shit. Martha... well let's be honest she was a bit shit too. What I cannot comprehend is how you're seemingly allowing seasonal "shitbits" to completely ignore some of the best stuff Doctor Who has produced since it was brought back.

[xbl]

Why not? The whole point of Doctor Who is people are supposed, initially, not to get it. That's the point. You're supposed to think. It's a puzzle. If you don't engage you won't get anything back out of it. It's not a family programme, despite attracting a family audience. It is sci-fi drama.

To be honest, no, I'm not really getting most of that. I said a few posts ago, if you compare the Doctor's very first appearance to the one we have now, I'm not seeing much difference. Same for Amy, and for Rory. As I said, last week showed some real emotional depth to go with the science fiction stuff, and it was a real treat. Still, at least you give Tennant and RTD some credit, unlike certain other posters.

[port-ton]

Ah but you're missing the point. Character development isn't just a discrete, identifiable bolt-on to be appreciated in isolation. Character development IS the story. The details and the facts are just consequences of it. The concealment of raw emotion is more powerful than raw emotion itself, because it places it in context. You see that with all three protagonists.

You're just wrong to state that the Doctor who jumped onto our screens in the first episode is the same as the current one. Just wrong. His behaviour has become more inwardly erratic, more burdened and troubled by the TARDIS's scan of Amy. If you can't see the concern and fear that emanates from The Doctor in relation to Amy, then frankly you're not looking very closely at all. Then you've got Amy's inner-crisis, knowing of the Doctor's impending death, yet being unable even to confide in him. You've got the ever more acute and drawn-out sense of loss that Amy keeps experiencing every time Rory comes close to, sometimes reaching death. If that's not "character development" then without wishing to sound churlish, exactly what the fuck are you looking for? Serious question.

Why not? The whole point of Doctor Who is people are supposed, initially, not to get it. That's the point. You're supposed to think. It's a puzzle. If you don't engage you won't get anything back out of it. It's not a family programme, despite attracting a family audience. It is sci-fi drama.

FWIW, I thought the pirates one was a bit shit. But every series has something which is a bit shit. I always thought the Slitheen were a bit shit. That Monster they picked from a Blue Peter show was a bit shit. Martha... well let's be honest she was a bit shit too. What I cannot comprehend is how you're seemingly allowing seasonal "shitbits" to completely ignore some of the best stuff Doctor Who has produced since it was brought back.

Again you're saying parts of the storyline. Character development is only the story when a person's attitude or personality changes because of things that have happened to them in the story. I know that Amy has an inner crisis knowing about the Doctors impending death, i know that The Doctor is worried about Amy's pregnancy, but i only know this because it's been mentioned in the story, not because i feel the characters are actually feeling any of those emotions convincingly during episodes. I haven't watched any episodes this season and thought " wow, the Doctor really looks worried by Amy's pregnancy scan " other than a couple of worried looks to camera. I've never thought that the impending death of the doctor has really affected either Amy or Rory other than them occassionaly saying to each other " we saw him die " .

I have not ignored some of the best Doctor Who since it was brought back, if you look up until the pirate episode i said Smith was my favourite Doctor and in many ways he still is, I've also said that Moffat is a far better writer than RTD, but that doesn't mean that Moffat is perfect, and that there is nothing that RTD does better than him.

For me, the things you've described aren't even all that subtle, they've told the viewer how to feel, by mentioning that it's happening without actually having to put any work into actually making us feel that way about the characters, or how they are feeling themselves.

It seems to be a classic Doctor Who fan thing to look for things that aren't there and create something from nothing to make the storyline better for them, which isn't actually a bad thing.

Edited May 16, 2011 by port-ton

[theentomologist]

all the previous posts of negativity seem to have missed that Gaiman wrote this episode.

[Ad Lib]

Again you're saying parts of the storyline. Character development is only the story when a person's attitude or personality changes because of things that have happened to them in the story. I know that Amy has an inner crisis knowing about the Doctors impending death, i know that The Doctor is worried about Amy's pregnancy, but i only know this because it's been mentioned in the story, not because i feel the characters are actually feeling any of those emotions convincingly during episodes. I haven't watched any episodes this season and thought " wow, the Doctor really looks worried by Amy's pregnancy scan " other than a couple of worried looks to camera. I've never thought that the impending death of the doctor has really affected either Amy or Rory other than them occassionaly saying to each other " we saw him die " .

Then, with the greatest of respect, you're an emotional automaton. The whole fucking point is that they don't have to be crying loudly in the corner to display emotion or to convey attitudes and feelings. I think it comes across very strongly. Character development, if it is to actually BE character development, is inseparable from plot. If a character develops without a plot, they're not developing at all; they're just bipolar. The current cast convey emotion at extreme levels where warranted and subtly when not. It's the subtle moments (take for example when Amy asks Rory to hold her hand when the TARDIS is infiltrated in Saturday's episode) that make the less frequent gushings of emotion MORE convincing; not less.

For me, the things you've described aren't even all that subtle, they've told the viewer how to feel, by mentioning that it's happening without actually having to put any work into actually making us feel that way about the characters, or how they are feeling themselves.

Completely disagree. It's entirely the other way around. The plot and character are copilots. They only make sense when one puts the other and vice versa into context. They are the reference points. The plot is supposed to help direct you towards particular expressions of emotion and development... that's its job. But equally the emotionally superior and more intelligent approach to the characters as less shouty, whiny and gushing left-right and centre has made them both more believable and more credible plot devices themselves.

It seems to be a classic Doctor Who fan thing to look for things that aren't there and create something from nothing to make the storyline better for them, which isn't actually a bad thing.

That's not what's happening, though. You're just not seeing what actually is there. And more's the pity.

[xbl]

all the previous posts of negativity seem to have missed that Gaiman wrote this episode.

Eh? No they haven't. What does that have to do with anything?

[Pink Freud]

Eh? No they haven't. What does that have to do with anything?

The fact that you said that Moffat was a better writer than RTD whilst commenting on the best episode yet in this series (and in my opinion, the best one since the return of Eccleston never mind Tennant).

[Yoss]

The whole fucking point is that they don't have to be crying loudly in the corner to display emotion or to convey attitudes and feelings. I think it comes across very strongly. Character development, if it is to actually BE character development, is inseparable from plot. If a character develops without a plot, they're not developing at all; they're just bipolar. The current cast convey emotion at extreme levels where warranted and subtly when not. It's the subtle moments (take for example when Amy asks Rory to hold her hand when the TARDIS is infiltrated in Saturday's episode) that make the less frequent gushings of emotion MORE convincing; not less.

Yes yes.

The manner and display of emotional issues is culturally-defined and packaged - which is actually quite interesting because of course culture changes and it's already possible to see different coverage and different expectations of coverage over the course of the century or so that we've been making tv and films. But at the moment the manner of it is all very samey and the nature of the commercial competition is making it quite difficult for people to explore things in a different fashion.

Which is to say, I can only presume those who are calling for more "emotion" are looking for the sort of laid-on-with-a-fucking-spade schmaltiz of the RTD / Tennant era. If that's your bag then there are about fifteen gazillion other dramas and soaps that cater for you more than adequately, and Hollywood is churning out more shitty vomit-inducing films then you'll ever have time to watch. Arent' we even allowed one - just one - programme that explores some sometimes interesting ideas in a sometimes fun way without having to be packaged in all that shite?

(Edit: it runs in my head I may have made an almost identical plea on last year's thread. In which case, apologies for repeating myself, but the point stands, and I expect to have to make it again next year too)

Edited May 17, 2011 by Yoss

[xbl]

The fact that you said that Moffat was a better writer than RTD whilst commenting on the best episode yet in this series (and in my opinion, the best one since the return of Eccleston never mind Tennant).

Ah. Thats longstanding though, I've always said that Moffat is the better writer, he was responsible for some of the best episodes under RTD (the empty child, the library). I've never disputed that. However, with him in sole control, there does seem to be something missing. Neil Gaiman (who I'm a longstanding fan of) showed just what outstanding writing can be though. He had all the sci fi elements, he didn't need a big gay monster or a reset button (RTD's foibles), but he managed to get proper emotional impact and forge a connection with the characters. For all that Moffat is an great writer, this episode showed just what the last couple series of Dr. Who has been missing in my opinion.

Arent' we even allowed one - just one - programme that explores some sometimes interesting ideas in a sometimes fun way without having to be packaged in all that shite?

Is a bit of character development too much to ask? And what you are describing is a niche minority programme. If you want niche, expect massive budget cuts.

Edited May 17, 2011 by xbl

[Yoss]

I could handle budget cuts, I'm all for minimilist settings.

I wasn't talking about character development at all, as Ad Lib says there's no shortage of that.

[xbl]

I wasn't talking about character development at all, as Ad Lib says there's no shortage of that.

Right, so if you put the current Doctor, Amy and Rory next to those characters from the beginning of the last series, you'd see a significant difference? I don't think so.

[drs]

You obviously werent watching on Saturday then - what did Amy meme for the password? Tell me how that wasnt character development from last year? (see also Day of the Moon for more of the same)

[Yoss]

You don't think Amy and Rory have developed since we first saw them in The Eleventh Hour?

Blimey, I'm not quite sure what to say to that. I have to go to work now anyway.

[Gaz]

Was it Tennant's or Ecclestone's TARDIS console room that they went into? Can't be bothered checking

[xbl]

You obviously werent watching on Saturday then - what did Amy meme for the password? Tell me how that wasnt character development from last year? (see also Day of the Moon for more of the same)

And you obviously haven't been reading the last 2 days of posts on here, where we have been explaining that this episode showed us how much we were missing. Normal service resumes next week.

[theentomologist]

The fact that you said that Moffat was a better writer than RTD whilst commenting on the best episode yet in this series (and in my opinion, the best one since the return of Eccleston never mind Tennant).

quite.

[Ad Lib]

Right, so if you put the current Doctor, Amy and Rory next to those characters from the beginning of the last series, you'd see a significant difference? I don't think so.

Yes, a huge difference.

[theentomologist]

Was it Tennant's or Ecclestone's TARDIS console room that they went into? Can't be bothered checking

Ecclestone's since basically this and Tennants are virtually idential for the large part.

this was my only complaint actually.

why couldn't they use one of the baker ones? that would have been a much more entertaining psychic wink.

[xbl]

quite.

And this point has been answered. Now, where is that evidence you said you'd provide?

Yes, a huge difference.

We'll have to disagree there then, I don't see anything significant.

[Ad Lib]

We'll have to disagree there then, I don't see anything significant.

Join port-ton in the automaton queue, then. I'm sure the Nestene consciousness will be keen to have you on board.