In case you've been wondering why RTD's Doctor Who is largely unwatchable rubbish

[andrewducker]

From an SFX writeup of the behind the scenes book due soon:

And there’s also a very interesting entry where Davies discusses the way he writes Doctor Who, which answers a recurring criticism. Discussing rewatching a repeat of “The Sound Of Drums”, he ponders the fact that you suddenly learn about things like the Archangel network, the Valiant, and the TARDIS becoming a Paradox Machine out of nowhere, with no advance seeding or foreshadowing in the script. It’s a fascinating passage, worth quoting at length:

“I can see how annoying that looks. I can see how maddening it must be, for some people. Especially if you’re imposing really classical script structures and templates on that episode, even unconsciously. I must look like a vandal, a kid or an amateur… The simple fact is, all those things were planned. All of them were my choice. They’re not lazy, clumsy or desperate. They’re chosen. I can see more traditional ways of telling those stories, but I’m not interested. I think the stuff that you gain from writing in this way – the shock, the whirlwind, the freedom, the exhilaration – is worth the world. I’ve got this sort of tumbling, freewheeling style that somersaults along, with everything happening now - not later, not before, but now, now, now. I’ve made a Doctor Who that exists in the present tense. It’s happening now, right in front of your eyes! If you don’t like it, if you don’t join in with it then… blimey, these episodes must be nonsensical. But those classical structures can be seen in Primeval, in Demons, in Merlin, in all of them – and yet we stand with millions more viewers. And I think that’s partly why.”

cheers to laserboy for that one.

Comments

[heron61.livejournal.com]

In short, it's more free, and more popular to not both making any sort of sense. I worry he may be right about the 2nd, but dear gods, what a wretched idea. Thank the gods we've got Moffatt now.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

FWIW I think this is a very fine manifesto for writing. I think sometimes it goes wrong, and it goes wrong in a more obvious way than a heavily-plotted narrative. But I would and do watch Doctor Who with pleasure, whereas Primeval, Demons and Merlin are all unwatchably pedestrian to me. I would have guessed that RTD was doing this by the seat of his pants, and I'm surprised he's as analytical and verbal about it as that.

[zz]

this.

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem with this idea as a style of writing is that in that quote, he makes the mistake of confusing tense or time structure with drama and emotion.

That doesn't make any sense to me either, so I'll put it another way.

He thinks that it's a design and a good idea to have stuff get created on the fly and go go go now now now. He's probably right, at least a little. But that's not the reason his stuff sucks, either. It sucks because he's constructed a framework where he's trying to evoke emotion without creating any investment, and broken all suspension of disbelief in doing so.

We care about the Doctor and his companions because of how they suffer, their trials, their joy, all of the many ways they get screwed over, cry about it, and then kick some ass and come back for more. But when you break the suspension of disbelief, you destroy that investment. I can't care about a noble sacrifice as easily when I look at the situation that requires the noble sacrifice and criticize it with something a 5 year old kid could point out. Or because it's nonsensical for the Doctor to run into this situation, or for someone to create it, and so on.

Four knocks sells on one thing and only one thing. The fact that we care about the Doctor and Wilfred. The fact that the entire scene makes so little sense as to be a giant WTF moment is one glaring big red stop button that screams at me 'HEY, LOOK, YOU SHOULD JUST FEEL THIS SCENE RIGHT NOW, OKAY? DON'T LET ME GET IN THE WAY, I'M NOTHING, RIGHT?' until my ears bleed and I just can't ignore it anymore.

And unfortunately, him thinking that this is for some reason one of the things that gets the Doctor great ratings is...well, at least the rest of his spiel wasn't as arrogant.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I do agree with a lot of what you say. I think (and I've said elsewhere) that the modern DW relies very heavily on audience investment in the characters.

Having said that, I think there's a difference between 'inventing on the fly' and 'trying to reproduce the ever-improvised feeling that real life has'. That is, reality doesn't make sense as it is happening, but this isn't quite the same as real chaos.

Of course, I think the best art should have both a feeling of present intensity and chaos which can nevertheless be unpacked to make sense. I'm not an uncritical viewer by any means.

[undeadbydawn.livejournal.com]

My major issue with The End Of Time was, oh the irony, David Tennets chronic overacting. I totally got why he had to do it - for the plot to work on any level at all he *had* to be the epicentre of every emotional string RTD was desperately flailing to pull. But my God did he look silly.

The whole thing was pretty dire, but that killed it.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

It seems curious to refer to something as "unwatchable" when about 10 million people watch it (and indeed rate it highly). You are expressing your own personal artistic preference as if it were an objective fact about the work.

[andrewducker]

Yes. Yes I am. It's easier than prefacing everything with a paragraph of explanation about how all art is entirely subjective, opinions are personal, that I may use hyperbole, expressions are not intended to be taken literally, etc.

[pennski.livejournal.com]

How about creating a nifty icon to say it for you?

And then pointing out that you've used it?

[andrewducker]

I created this a couple of years back:
http://notzen.com/andrew/wiki/wiki.pl?Sprinkle_This_Over_Everything_I_Say

[drjon.livejournal.com]

basically, he's taken the macdonalds approach. don't think about this food, don't savour this food. bolt it down. it's easy and it's sweet and you'll like it and you don't have to think about it. over 10 million served!

[amberite.livejournal.com]

Apropos of nothing, that's a wonderfully evocative icon.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

'I meant to make it shit'.

Oh yes.

Though actually I didn't mind about the Valiant too much. The Paradox Machine was a total deux ex machina though.

It's more the total sciencewank that bothers me. I'm fine with Daleks levitating but if the Earth gets towed in space I want it to look reasonably like what might happen. Same with Cybermen getting sucked through a portal.

[andrewducker]

if the Earth gets towed in space I want it to look reasonably like what might happen

Hah! Not in a million years. Dr Who is just not that kind of show, and never has been.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it was never THAT bad in the old days. Or maybe they didn't have the money to do that kind of stuff then.

[andrewducker]

It's mostly a budget thing, I think. Certainly Jon Pertwee was famous for not being willing to deliver any line of technobabble other than "invert the polarity of the neutron flow" with the result that that was the answer to _every_ problem.

[blearyboy.livejournal.com]

those classical structures can be seen in Primeval, in Demons, in Merlin, in all of them – and yet we stand with millions more viewers.

Those three shows don't have the same phenomenal stores of goodwill to draw from. Doctor Who is an institution and there are plenty of people who will watch it no matter how hokey it is. Torchwood doesn't have the same goodwill, and that's struggled like Primeval to find an audience.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Agreed. RTD's arrogance is just astounding.

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

Well, you and I and he can't really *say* whether he gets high ratings because of his fast-and-loose approach, or despite it. I suspect that the answer is that he would have got them either way. So why should he bother, really.

I kind of like the idea that "classical plot structures" are an affectation, that we should care about events happening in a strict logical, causal chain as little as we care about Aristotle's unities now (a good drama should take place in one single location, inside of a 24 hour time period, etc etc). I just feel like if RTD was really intent on subverting that kind of thing he could have done it much more boldly, rather than just inflicting constant back-of-a-napkin-the-morning-of-shooting shit on us.

In other news, Doctor Who didn't make it into the Guardian's rundown of the top 50 TV dramas of all time, which seems sad. Is it really far below Buffy, BSG and the X-Files, all of which did get in?

[andrewducker]

Yes.

It has the occasional episode which raises it to that level, but it's dragged down by godawful plotting that makes Joss Whedon look like he actually cares about plot.

[call-waiting.livejournal.com]

Oh! I get it! What he's saying is that I've just been watching it wrong. I see. Phew! Glad that's cleared up.

[onemildrat.livejournal.com]

Well, as Voltaire (the musician, not the writer) pointed out, Doctor Who is hardly the sole show to make up things as it goes along.

My main problem with the MacGuffins in the Season 3 finale is that they really don't lead anywhere. Okay, The Master finds a way for the descendants of present-day humans to come back and kill them. And the fact that humanity is destined to become insane mutants living in a void? We'll just skip over that. In fact, we'll just skip over everything and reset the time clock. Davies takes dramatic shortcuts in order to reach...another dramatic shortcut.

And then, of course, there's the "clap your hands and believe" resolution. Which I find irritating not because it's improbable, but it's part and parcel of the whole "mythologizing" approach to the Doctor that's gotten out of control.

Cough. Sorry. Just had to express all that.

[andrewducker]

That's ok - we're here for you.

"My Name is Andrew, and I can't stand Russell T Davies' Season Finales."