Rate "A Christmas Carol"

sparacus wrote:I gave it 1/5 but really it deserved 0/5. Sub-Tim Burtonish banal fare with a confused plot . Unengaging to the extent that I kept switching over to Emmerdale.

....but engaging enough that you kept switching back...

But you must admit Emperor - as a fish deity yourself that the alien aquatic life was nice to look at.

sparacus wrote:I gave it 1/5 but really it deserved 0/5. Sub-Tim Burtonish banal fare with a confused plot .

This story did not have a confused plot. It was simple linear storytelling and anyone who found it complicated or confusing should not be allowd to watch anything more challenging that Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom.

The Browncoat Cat wrote:This story did not have a confused plot. It was simple linear storytelling and anyone who found it complicated or confusing should not be allowd to watch anything more challenging that Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom.

Hmmmm...Cat, we are talking about Spara here. It was probably the lack of references to Absinthe, that threw him off balance.

The Browncoat Cat wrote:This story did not have a confused plot. It was simple linear storytelling and anyone who found it complicated or confusing should not be allowd to watch anything more challenging that Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom.

It was full of holes, like Moffat's timey-wimey stories usually are.

The Browncoat Cat wrote:

sparacus wrote:I gave it 1/5 but really it deserved 0/5. Sub-Tim Burtonish banal fare with a confused plot .

This story did not have a confused plot. It was simple linear storytelling and anyone who found it complicated or confusing should not be allowd to watch anything more challenging that Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom.

It wasn't Doctor Who. It bore no resemblance in style and production values at all to classic stories such as 'The Daemons' or 'The Seeds of Doom'. It was more akin to 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'.

sparacus wrote:It wasn't Doctor Who. It bore no resemblance in style and production values at all to classic stories such as 'The Daemons' or 'The Seeds of Doom'. It was more akin to 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'.

I must take issue. Clearly it was Doctor Who. Both the opening titles and the Radio Times listing for the programme attest to this.

sparacus wrote:

It wasn't Doctor Who. It bore no resemblance in style and production values at all to classic stories such as 'The Daemons' or 'The Seeds of Doom'. It was more akin to 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'.

But then again, neither the Daemons nor The Seeds of Doom bore any resemblance to The Mind Robber or The Carnival of Monsters, so by your argument, does that mean the Daemons and the Seeds of Doom aren't Doctor Who?

Really, Sparacus, you're talking complete bollocks here and you know it. Doctor Who is one of the few programmes on tv that changes style from story to story, let alone decade to decade, and you really can't pluck two stories and compare them to another to prove one isn't 'proper' Doctor Who. There's no such thing as 'proper' Doctor Who.

Come back when your argument has one iota of substance.

Not meaning to be funny or anything, but has anyone noticed that whereas before, we had RTD writing Doctor Who, and a great many people criticised almost everything he did, saying they would be glad when Steven Moffat took over.. Now that we have Steven Moffat, some are criticising his writing as well.. I know that everyone is different, and also it's not everyone who is saying it, but in regard to those who are, I would like to ask, "Is there any writer or style of writing that you DO actually like?" Whatever happened to simply enjoying the show, instead of nitpicking criticism on every tiny detail? That was one of the big reasons I came to this forum, having left a certain other major one because of the too serious approach to criticism of its members.. If I am speaking out of turn, then let a moderator please feel free to delete this post, and I shan't bother again.. But I just felt I had to say something, as it seems to me that certain people have no intention of giving Moffat, or the show in any context, any chance at all..

Moffat has written some of my favourite stories - but not since he took over the show. He gets every chance - i watch them two or three times. But with the exception of the Eleventh Hour and Vincent there hasn't been anything since he took over that matches up to the previous 5 years. There is a lack of attention to character, and a lack of emotional integrity. And the increasing reliance on timey-wimey means that narratively the characters often have little to do with the plot. Other disappointments include the Dalek redesign.

All I want is for The Moff to produce something as good as Silence of the Library. And if you think any criticism of Moffat round these parts is coming from people who disliked the RTD era, then you're mistaken.*

* apart from Sparacus, but we know what he's like!

I think most wrinklies did like RTD's vision of Doctor Who butsome of us are less keen on Steven Moffat's (others love it). The last series didn't, as a whole, feel quite right to me. This isn't meant as a criticism, just an observation that maybe the overall tone of RTD's Doctor Who suited me better than that of Steven Moffat - possibly because I've always been very ambivalent about fairytales, Peter Pan, Narnia etc. I have no more criticism of the writing, acting or anything else than I did for the RTD series and I iked many episodes. The funny thing is, I loved SM's episodes when set within an RTD series.

And spara is out on his own - as always...

Ah, I see Rich has posted while I wrote this, covering some similar ground but I'll just post what I wrote anyway.

And the above two posts pretty much encapsulate the Wrinkly creed, John. Wew accept, welcome and even encourage critism, as long as those doing the critising back their issues up in an open-minded and receptive to differing views manner.

The very fact that there are quiet a number of regulars here who are experiencing problems/misgivings re the style/direction Moffat is taking the show, post RTD era, far from indicates a lack of tolerance from these people or the forum in general. Rather it's simply them doing what we're all here for: putting forwards their personal views of the series safe in the knowledge that they'll neither be attacked nor encouraged - simply listend to.

And rest assured, you need never worry about OW going the unfortunate way of certain larger forums - it simply isn't going to happen. Certainly not while I'm around.

*peers Clint Eastwood-like around the forum*

Oh yes, and as for Sparacus - well, just consider him our very own slightlly dotty-but-amusing grumpy old man.

John the Vic wrote:Not meaning to be funny or anything, but has anyone noticed that whereas before, we had RTD writing Doctor Who, and a great many people criticised almost everything he did, saying they would be glad when Steven Moffat took over.. Now that we have Steven Moffat, some are criticising his writing as well.. I know that everyone is different, and also it's not everyone who is saying it, but in regard to those who are, I would like to ask, "Is there any writer or style of writing that you DO actually like?" Whatever happened to simply enjoying the show, instead of nitpicking criticism on every tiny detail? That was one of the big reasons I came to this forum, having left a certain other major one because of the too serious approach to criticism of its members.. If I am speaking out of turn, then let a moderator please feel free to delete this post, and I shan't bother again.. But I just felt I had to say something, as it seems to me that certain people have no intention of giving Moffat, or the show in any context, any chance at all..

Unfortunately, I think a lot of us predicted that when Moffat took over the production duties, vast sections of fandom who had previously been grousing about RTD would soon start grousing about the Moff. Sparacus seems to prove that prediction accurate.

Lee makes a very good point: I think if you break the eras of the shows history down by who was the producer at the time, you can get a clear indication of how the show has evolved, stylistically, based upon the emphases those producers wished to underscore in the narrative. The show simply changes as it goes along. The Moff's style is simply different than RTD's, and our challenge as viewers is to find what we like in this new style.

Indeed. Just as it's part of Moffat's ongoing job as Showrunner to navigate a safe course between fan wishes and those of the greater general audience. Look at it as a settling in period for both sides.

That's certainly my view on the matter. Roll on Series 6!

Patrick wrote:That's certainly my view on the matter. Roll on Series 6!

I concur!

John the Vic wrote:Not meaning to be funny or anything, but has anyone noticed that whereas before, we had RTD writing Doctor Who, and a great many people criticised almost everything he did, saying they would be glad when Steven Moffat took over.. Now that we have Steven Moffat, some are criticising his writing as well..

Being the Head Writer/Executive Producer on Doctor Who is like being the England Football Manager or Captain of the English Cricket Team. Everyone thinks they can do a better job, everyone thinks you have lost the plot and everyone knows things will be so much better if another manager/cricketer was doing the job.

Everyone except me. I know I'd be rubbish at the job.

Thanks guys, that's reassuring.. Sorry if it sounded like a moan..

John the Vic wrote:Thanks guys, that's reassuring.. Sorry if it sounded like a moan..

Nothing to apologise for, John. We take some getting used to even at the best of times.

The Browncoat Cat wrote:Being the Head Writer/Executive Producer on Doctor Who is like being the England Football Manager or Captain of the English Cricket Team. Everyone thinks they can do a better job, everyone thinks you have lost the plot and everyone knows things will be so much better if another manager/cricketer was doing the job.

No-one round here thinks that. I can't do a better job than Moffat, I don't think he's lost the plot and I think he's the best man for the job.
I just think that he can do better!

The Browncoat Cat wrote:

John the Vic wrote:Not meaning to be funny or anything, but has anyone noticed that whereas before, we had RTD writing Doctor Who, and a great many people criticised almost everything he did, saying they would be glad when Steven Moffat took over.. Now that we have Steven Moffat, some are criticising his writing as well..

Being the Head Writer/Executive Producer on Doctor Who is like being the England Football Manager or Captain of the English Cricket Team. Everyone thinks they can do a better job, everyone thinks you have lost the plot and everyone knows things will be so much better if another manager/cricketer was doing the job.

I suppose the difference is that people only criticise the England Football Manager or Captain of the English Cricket Team after a run of defeats, people criticise the Doctor Who head honcho for serving up different types of victory....

I sent an article off to CT that was uniformly positive about A Christmas Carol, but on here I spent most of my effort talking about a relatively minor niggle. Sorry. I sometimes forget that people aren't telepathic!

I was fascinated to read your positivity in the article. Most feedback we got from members was negative. Far, far more so than for Series 5, which on the whole went down fairly well.

I've always wanted to write something that generates a few complaints...