[NetBehaviour] The New Who vs Oldskool Timey-Wimey Whovians

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Fri Jan 3 20:27:39 CET 2014


On 03/01/14 02:48 AM, mark.r.hancock wrote:
> I just kept thinking that maybe Moffat's time bad been taken  up with
> working on the new Sherlock series 

And then you saw the first episode of the new Sherlock? :-)

Mez you're much more generous to Moffat than I would be. He's
misunderstood the very basis of the show (to the extent that fairytales
and SF both take place in a strange and distant land yes they share some
aesthetics and affordances, but he's thrown out Who's techno/social
ethic in favour of an aesthetic of robes and staffs) and is worshiping
at the altar of the "story arc" without being willing or able to do any
of the planning or resolution that involves.

I prefer the old American commentator's description of "that crazy space
bum" to the aging British fanboy's "that wonderful man[.......]who is
watching over us".

I'm not the only one. This article describes the schmaltz, cowardice and
nastiness of Moffat's storytelling well:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/the-captain-kirk-problem-how-em-doctor-who-em-betrayed-matt-smith/282690/

"Smith’s approach to the character, and the obvious on-screen chemistry
he had with co-stars Karen Gillan as Amy Pond, Arthur Darvill as Rory
Williams, and Alex Kingston as River Song helped the whole ensemble sell
the entire ridiculous package that is Doctor Who. His first season had
its problems, but the individual episodes and the season-long arc had
enough momentum that—along with the slicker direction and more polished
production values compared to the previous rebooted Who—the whole thing
hung together well.

The problem was never with Smith’s performance. It was with Steven
Moffat’s conception of the character."

- Rob.




More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list