How Steven Moffat Ruined Doctor Who - A Rant

(Loyal follower 'the_conqueress' has written this post about Dr Who that needs to be shared with the world. I wish I could write this well)

 

Despite being the BBC's most lauded show, when you remove the opening episodes and finales (which people are naturally most inclined to watch), Doctor Who's viewing figures have been declining since around mid series 6.

The reason for this? Steven Moffat. 

As one of the 'new generation' of Doctor Who fans -who make up a significant proportion of the audience the reboot was aimed at- I can say with complete honesty that I no longer enjoy Doctor Who. I am not alone in my dismay. A quick glance at the comments on various articles about Matt Smith leaving the show reveals many others who would rather replace the head writer than the Doctor.

And while I appreciate that there are many fans who continue to enjoy the show, there can be no denying that there is a problem, and that problem is Steven Moffat.

PLOT

As head writer Steven Moffat writes 6/13 episodes per season, and all the specials. He also drafts the season's overall plot arc and advises the other writers.

Under Moffat's reign the plot of Doctor Who has become convoluted and messy, with an over-reliance on monsters, huge buildups to reveals grand secrets (The Name of the Doctor, anyone?) and a lot of technobabble that sounds very impressive but holds nothing of any value. It's like Lucky's monologue from Waiting for Godot but without the underlying existential message… in other words, complete blah.

Russell T Davies, the previous showrunner, was not without his problems, but there can be no denying that when it came to dramatic, emotional moments, he was on the ball (case in point: the beach scene in Doomsday, the season 2 finale. Nothing in Moffat's era has even come close to this). Season 1's Bad Wolf message scattered throughout the series was done with incredible subtlety- so much so that you barely even noticed it was there until the final revelation.

Season 3's Master/Saxon plot was again done with a light touch, and while Season 4's disappearing planets was rather more clumsy, it was ultimately worth it for the fantastic crossover between all three spinoffs (Doctor Who, Torchwood and the Sarah Jane Adventures).

Moffat, on the other hand, takes these overarching plots to extremes. In series 5 we have 'cracks in the universe', which are shoved in the viewer's faces almost every episode. It is not enough for Moffat to have a crack on the wall in the background of a scene. No, we have to point out the crack, question the crack, ramble on about how absolutely STRANGE this crack is, golly gosh, I wonder what it could be! I guess we'll have to wait until the season finale to find out!

Then we have the Astronaut, in season 6, which ties in with the River Song plot. The idea of time travelers meeting each other 'in reverse' is an intriguing one, but Moffat fails to pull it off. The secret of River's identity is dangled in front of the viewer's faces often enough to become annoying, and the final reveal is not quite fantastic enough to make it worth it. As a side note, the 'meeting in reverse' gig became confusing after a few times - where they were in the timeline was consistently unclear.

I will go more into the problems with the River Song character later, but for now all I can say is: I hoped she was Romana. It would have been far more shocking, not to mention a nod to Classic Who and a setup for regeneration into a future companion with a unique dynamic with the Doctor.

There are those who argue that it's "not confusion, it's complexity!"

No. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Doctor Who may be complex but it is also confusing. Art can be complex but not everything complex is art, etc. And yes, it's all well and good to have these mysteries and encourage fandom debate about who the mysterious Professor River Song is, but, as one critic put it, viewers should not be turning to each other after an episode finishes and asking "So, what have we learned so far?" That's not good writing. That's not complexity.

And speaking of this buildup, the payoff is, as with River Song's identity, disappointing.

Let's take the name of the Doctor as an example. Moffat dangles this tantalising secret just out of our reach for a couple of episodes. There is a glaring problem with this plotline:

Whatever he does, it will be a letdown.

Because if he pulls out of revealing the actual name, it'll be a cop out. And no name that he can come up with could possibly live up to fan expectations. He's written himself into a corner all because he just had to have this great mysterious reveal.

(And now, of course, The Name of the Doctor has aired and shocker of all shockers, he didn't reveal the name.)

This worrying trend is starting to manifest in Sherlock as well, with an anti-climatic end to the season 1 cliffhanger. The season 2 one has been hyped up so much by now that it will have to be very impressive to avoid falling flat.

Moffat has built everything up to revolve around the Doctor, making him out as some incredible, godlike figure who the universe revolves around.

That's not who the Doctor is. My knowledge of Classic Who is limited, so correct me if I'm wrong, but for me Doctor Who is about exploration, adventure, going out and having fun in strange places and helping people. And yes, Moffat's Doctor still does this, but there's a sense of superiority about it. Maybe it's that unsubtle great mystery he always has lurking in the background, more likely it's the fact that he pulls tricks like:

- Season 5 finale revolving completely around the Doctor's enemies deciding he's too big a threat to live, universe almost gets destroyed.

- Whole of season 6 revolving around the Doctor's "death". The whole universe collapses into an aborted timeline! (Everything is fixed with the use of a reset button. Lazy writing.)

- The season 7 opener was a big kicker. The Daleks decide that for some reason he is the only person who can destroy their asylum of mad Daleks. Not only is this entire plotline incredibly problematic and ableist, it ends with the Daleks' memories being reset and forgetting the Doctor completely. The whole point of the Daleks, the reason they're so dangerous, is because they're creatures of hate and hate the Doctor so much. In one fell swoop Moffat has destroyed this legacy. Thank you, Moffat. What a contribution you've made to the show.

There are some glaring problems with the individual episodes as well. Moffat's reliance on CGI monsters and tropes are causing him to miss some spectacular writing opportunities.

The thing is, Doctor Who doesn't need CGI monsters. Yeah, they're nice, but they're ultimately unnecessary. Take The Ark In Space. The monster is literally a piece of green bubble wrap. And it is terrifying. Look at the Talons of Weng-Chiang. It's a guy with a puppet and an unconvincing giant rat. And it still manages to keep the audience engaged, both through the sense of suspense created by good writing and the charming addition of Leela learning to use cutlery.

The very nature of Doctor Who's plot lets it do almost anything. They can literally go anywhere. And it's the opportunity to go back into historical places that make the show so interesting for me.

Of the Doctor Who books I've read, three stand out to me. Jacqueline Rayner's The Stone Rose Tennant), set in Ancient Rome,  John Lucarotti's The Aztecs (Hartnell) and Donald Cotton's The Myth Makers (Hartnell) set during the Trojan War.

The thing that makes these books (and episodes, for the latter two) so interesting is that they are highly influenced by the context. They take into account the different cultures and time periods the characters are entering and explore the problems and reactions of characters within these contexts.

Now let's take a look at Moffat:

5.6 "Vampires of Venice"

Otherwise known as "the one where Moffat did Vampires!". Because, y'know, we've already done werewolves and ghosts, I guess this was next on the list. Let's see, they're in 16th Century Italy, smack bang in the middle of the Renaissance. They could have done anything. Leonardo da Vinci could bend iron bars with his bare hands. If that doesn't scream potential for an epic recurring character I don't know what does. They could have explored the shifting paradigms within the context and the tension between tradition and science.

But nope. Vampires. Okay, if you're going to do Vampires, explore the idea of immortality. Link it back to the Lazarus Experiment. Or look at addiction and restraint, ala John Mitchell from Being Human. But nah, Moffat decided to stick to the cliches. There are Vampires. They are evil. They all turn out to be fish! In continuation with society's insistence on oversexualising the undead, these vampirefish are stealing women to mate with.

5.10 Vincent and the Doctor

This one was good, actually.

It was also not written by Moffat.

6.3 The Curse of the Black Spot

Otherwise known as "the one where Moffat did Pirates!"

17th Century Pirate ship. We're still in the Renaissance. Could have given the pirates a 'Robin Hood' mentality and explored the morality of stealing from the rich. If you're gonna go the black spot route you could do fear and acceptance of death. Or explored the idea of seeking adventure, or gone more into depth with the father-son relationship established between two of the pirate characters.

Nope. There were pirates. There was a siren. Rory died (again) and basically it was all an excuse to put Amy in a Captain's hat and throw around a couple of pirate jokes.

6.8 Let's Kill Hitler

I can't even express how much wasted potential was in this episode. I think Hitler got about 30 seconds of screentime. Guess what the rest of the episode revolved around? THE DOCTOR AND RIVER SONG.

Really missed the mark there, Moffat.

The final element of bad writing that Moffat is guilty of is not-actually-killing-people.

Not-actually-killing-people is really bad. I can't even express how bad it is. There are occasions where writers can pull it off, if you only do it once and under exceptional circumstances (eg Gandalf in LOTR). Moffat is no Tolkien.

And given the number of times he does it, I have given up mourning anyone who dies under his reign, because I know they'll come back somehow. I mean, River Song's not technically dead, she lives on in a virtual reality program. We spent the whole of season 6 knowing the Doctor had to die… only he didn't die, did he? Amy and Rory didn't really die, they lived out the rest of their lives together. (Rory in particular kept dying…and dying… and dying some more.) Clara's died three times and counting.

CHARACTERISATION

I don't want to complain about the eleventh Doctor too much, because a) Matt Smith is doing the best he can with shoddy writing, and b) I think, given a proper plot with a character-based plot arc rather than some grand universe-threatening problem, the Doctor's personality could have worked.

I shall leave you with one choice quote from one of The Idiot Box's articles: "Under Moffat’s watch the Doctor has morphed from an alien who loves humans and feels their pain and experiences love and desire and empathy to a stunted, child-like and extremely bloody irritating space-goon who flaps about like an injured moth when other people’s emotions are making him uncomfortable…(he) can save human lives but does not seem to understand human feelings...he might be zany and charming and have nice boots, but he is fundamentally cold and unrelatable."

It's the companions I really want to talk about. Because this is the thing about Moffat: he likes to think he's so progressive.

Oh, look at me, I've written a lesbian inter-species relationship! Hoo har I'm so supportive! I'm  changing television history! I'm going to studiously ignore the fact that I completely stole this idea from Paul Cornell!

And guess what! My female companions are feisty! Good Lord they're feisty, they are STRONG FEMALE CHARACTERS! Gigglesnort try complain about this one, feminists!

No, Moffat. You are the opposite of feminist. Because you can't just write a 'feisty' female character and decide that she is well-rounded. Because she's feisty. Why am I using the word feisty so much? Because it's Steven Moffat's favourite word. He loves it so much that the entire personality of both Amy Pond and Clara/Oswin Oswald revolve entirely around feistyness.

Lazy writing. Lazy characterisation.

Feistyness is not a defining character trait. A good female character should be more than slapping people and calling them things like 'chin boy'. And no, Moffat, you're not providing brilliant female role models, because other people have already done that, far better than you, with well developed personalities and flaws and character growth. Look at Nyota Uhura. Laura Roslin. Kara Thrace. Sam Carter. The female characters of Star Wars the Clones Wars, a children's cartoon, are better developed and more distinctive than your barbie-doll Doctor Who companions!

And this is the thing about Moffat: he lives vicariously through the Doctor he has created and even the companions revolve around him. Amy's whole storyline is about her being the mother of the woman who grows up to kill-but-not-kill the Doctor and become his wife. The Doctor is only interested in Clara because she is a mystery for him to solve. She keeps dying and he wants to know why, so he stalks her for her whole life and doesn't even tell her why he's so interested in her. (This is not okay on so many levels and plays into the stalking-is-fine mentality promoted by books like Meyer's Twilight and Fitzpatrick's Hush Hush).

Look at Rose. A working-class teenager with a single mum who works in a shop. Or Martha, the only one of New Who to be pursuing a career other than just being the Doctor's companion. Donna, the only one who is not TV-thin or in her twenties.

What's missing from Amy and Clara? Families. I don't think anyone can forget Jackie Tyler, or Grandpa Wilf. We all loved to hate Martha's mother. Amy's family is conveniently not there, she lives with an aunt who conveniently doesn't care when she mysterious vanishes one day. Rory's father was not a recurring character; the Doctor made little to no effort to get to know him.

Amy is a kissogram. Is this the sort of role model you are providing for your young female viewers, Moffat? Not only that, after her journey with the Doctor she undergoes ZERO character growth and becomes a model!

Let's talk about River Song. A dislikable character from the start, with smugness to rival Moffat himself. I mentioned Let's Kill Hitler earlier as a terrible episode. Another vile element was the little montage where 'Mels', a troublesome black teenager who grew up alongside Amy and Rory, regenerates into River.

Not only does this feed into the 'all blacks are criminals' stereotype (gee Moffat, you're just so progressive), River's previous life as a black teenager has zero cultural impact on her. None. It's as though it never happened!

What about Amy? Had her baby ripped from her arms hours after it was born. Never saw it again. Oh, that's okay, she grew up with the baby, it turned out to be Mels who turned out to be River. No impact on her at all, she's perfectly fine.

LAZY WRITING. NON-EXISTENT CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT.

I get it. Eight incarnations of the Doctor and he always had at least one female companion (ex. Jamie, sorry Jamie, you're the exception). It's the way the show works.

That doesn't mean you can't be interesting about it, or that you can't change it! There's no rule that the companion has to be a young human female from modern Britain. Does it make the show more relatable to the viewer? Not really. Look at Leela, Nyssa, or Romana. Look at Turlough, his plot revolved around the Doctor but it was done in a way that didn't detract from his characterisation.

It's not even hard to come up with prospective new companions. How about a cynical Cold War spy who's lost his faith in humanity? That's the sort of person who could do with a trip around the stars. Or a freed slave from Ancient Rome. Or a black woman from the 1960s.

Or if she must be modern, how about a painfully shy, gawkish girl? How about she be the complete opposite of feisty, and through exploration and adventure learns to assert herself? That's the sort of role model young viewers need. How about an artist or a writer? A history teacher? How about a racist bigot who needs to learn a lesson- that gives you a plot arc based solely around character development.

I could go on for hours.

MISOGYNY

I'll keep this one brief because there are plenty of articles out there on this already. There are some highly problematic elements to Moffat's plots and characters.

Amy exists as a walking incubator with a plotline revolving around a pregnancy she didn't even know about. Not only that but under Moffat's reign the female companion became something that she never had before in Who history: objectified.

The Eleventh Doctor refers to Amy as "Legs", several times during his three seasons. Maybe it's a joke, but even so, it's not a very good joke. And this from the same man who:

And the thing is, people notice. And complain about it. And get to the point where they start to boycott the show, as I have.

I think Moffat sums it all up very well himself with this comment about Karen Gillan's audition:

“And I thought, ‘well she’s really good. It’s just a shame she’s so wee and dumpy…When she was about to come through to the auditions I nipped out for a minute and I saw Karen walking on the corridor towards me and I realised she was 5’11, slim and gorgeous and I thought ‘Oh, oh that’ll probably work’.”

THE NEXT DOCTOR

1. Needs to be older.

2. Needs to sport a ompletely different personality than "quirky and random".

3. Re: the 'female Doctor' debate - after the pleasant surprise that was NBC's Elementary I'm not as opposed to a gender change as I was previously, but such a shift would have psychological impacts that I'm sure Moffat would not bother to explore. And given his track record with female characters, I don't want him near a woman Doctor with a ten foot pole.

CONCLUSION

So why complain about Moffat's Who? If I don't like it, don't watch it, right?

The point is, I want to watch it. I want to enjoy it like I used to. I want to look forward to Saturday (or is it Sunday now?) nights.

It's not just me. People notice these problems with Moffat's writing, with his misogyny, with his boring female companions. And the statistics speak for themselves - Doctor Who is losing viewers.

It's been fifty years, let's not ruin it now.

 

Comments

[Dipak Panchal]

Wonderful synopsis that still rings true. Steven Moffat must go in order to preserve the show for the next generation of loyal fans. The concept of Dr. Who is much more than the sum of its parts and mere entertainment.

[PythonMagus]

Every now and then I find myself analysing the Doctor Who plot line. Then I slap myself n the wrist and remind myself that it is just fiction. Oddly, I don't have that problem with analysing Star Trek, Star Wars, Terry Pratchett's Diskworld, Harold Potter etc. I do agree there is something overly convoluted about Dr Who that makes each episode more like magic than sci-fi. That is, we wait for the doctor to reveal yet another awesome ability, rather than rely on one of the 1000 odd abilities he has from previous episodes. I think my success in dealing with the other works of fiction is that they set up the heroes abilities pretty early on and then just use them. (For that matter, I did like the end of Eragon where the magic that breaks the old magician was something the hero had done in the first book and completely ignored all the cleverness he learned in books 2,3 and 4. Perhaps it reflects my fondness for Luke 10:21.)

The family won't eat tonight if I comment on the full article, but good, well thought out argument.

For my self, I'll switch on Doctor Who next series to see what happens all the same. After all, fiction is fiction, and bends to the will of the creator. Science is brutal to anyone with such hubris.

[Dom]

*rapturous applause*