Terry Nation wrote and created the brilliant "Blakes 7", which is by far one of the greatest Sci Fi shows the BBC ever produced, better in many ways than both the old and new Dr Who.. The same scripts with the bigger budget and slightly better actors would wipe out Dr Who completely IMO.. So, that alone puts him far above Mr Davis.... Go onto IMDb sometime and look at the bloke's writing credits.....

 

I

 

but dr who was primarily a kids show, blakes 7 was more adult. and i wasnt dissing tn, just doubting how good he was.

For me has to be Romana in the Tom Baker era, I can't remember who played her, but she was pretty hot.

Well prepare to be shocked.

 

I watched the first two episodes of Jekyll, and was not impressed.

 

The fact its first episode started off with 5.1million, then each week dropped away down so by Week 4 it was down to a disastrous 2.8million before slightly reviving before its finale to 3.2million tells its own story.

 

But then again I always thought the original Robert Louis Stevenson story of duality of human nature was over simplistic. Added to the fact I can't stand James Nesbitt as an actor in anything (If he became the next Dr Who I think I would get clinically depressed because I dislike his OTT larky slightly cheesy humour in everything he appears in), add an Eastenders actress whom I thought was dreadfully overrated and whos (lack of) acting abilities were exposed in her run in Bionic Woman (lets face it she is no Anna Friel (whom I remember in the mid 1990s saying how gutted she was that there was no longer Dr Who on, as her father loved the show & she would have loved to have been a Doctor's assistant) acting wise).

 

Give RTD some credit at least he was not mug enough to take her on as a Dr Who assistant (Freema Agyeman pipped Michelle Ryan for the role of Martha). Whatever Freema's shortcomings are as an actress (she was incredibly unlucky to have to follow Billie Piper & be followed by Catherine Tate), but at least I can live rest assured knowing at least it was not Michelle Ryan playing Martha.

 

For me Jekyll is the one big black spot in Steven Moffatt's writing career so far.

 

As I've said before I loved Press Gang. I loved Coupling, Murder Most Horrid & Chalk, whilst Jekyll was his first "miss" for me.

 

Incidentally Jekyll was the first time in his career he Executively Produced as well as wrote the show, which is why I'm not in the camp taking it for granted that Dr Who will get better when he becomes the Executive Producer of Dr Who in Series 5, because when he had the opportunity of casting and producing a show as well as writing it, and in my opinion he got it wrong.

 

As for RTD.

 

From my point of view from all his work Queer As Folk, Bob & Rose, The Second Coming his weakness has always been the plot development seems to have as much substance as if it was written by a 9 year old with a purple crayon. But as he is such a good writer, writing some great lines, and storytelling full of emotion, drama, humour & tragedy then who cares. Especially as a producer he always seems to be able to get the best out of the cast he has had. For me people who over analyse the plot are missing out on what makes a great TV drama show.

 

Well Series 5 of Dr Who, and it appears that Steven Moffatt has made his first key casting decision, and personally I think this is not a good move/decision:

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showb...icle1473982.ece

 

OK, it is in the Sun Newspaper, but that is the same paper that revealed first (& which all were originally denied by the BBC/Dr Who) :

 

1. Christopher Eccleston was going to quit after one series.

2. Casanova actor David Tennant was going to be the new Dr.

3. Billie Piper was going to quit at the end of Series 2.

4. Catherine Tate was going to be the new assistant for Series 4 (how we all laughed at that "story"/idea at the time!)

 

 

.... And a very recent interview with the new Executive Producer:

 

http://io9.com/5028464/exclusive-interview...s-steven-moffat

 

Q: We've been debating on our site endlessly: Is Doctor Who a kids' program?

 

SM: Yes. Debate over. It's good to fix those things quickly.

 

 

Do you still think Dr Who is going to much better under Steven Moffatt ten it was under RTD?

Q: We've been debating on our site endlessly: Is Doctor Who a kids' program?

 

SM: Yes. Debate over. It's good to fix those things quickly.

Do you still think Dr Who is going to much better under Steven Moffatt ten it was under RTD?

 

Easy to pull a quote like that out of thin air and ignore the fact that Moffat totally contextualises what he's said in the rest of the interview....

 

Here's a bit more...

 

"The misconception about children's ficition is that it's lightweight or fluffy. It's about really big and important things. It's adults who like light and fluffy. Everything is big and imprtant to a child, [so] their stories are about big and important events." You see - CONTEXT....

 

Children's fiction at its best is NOT 'fluffy' nor insubstantial, Moffat is absolutly 100% correct.... A cursory read of any Roald Dahl or Tolkien book should tell you that one mate.... And it's still a fact that Steve Moffat wrote the best and most disturbing episodes of Dr Who.... RTD has NEVER written anything as good for Dr Who as "The Empty Child", "Silence In The Library/Forest of the Dead" or "Blink", nor anything as genuinely emotional as "The Girl In The Fireplace", not even fukkin' close.... Bottom line, Moffat has never dumbed down the Doc, RTD did nothing BUT dumb him down.....

 

Children's fiction is not synonymous with "childish" mate, much of what RTD did during his tenure was childish, repetitive and banal...... NONE of these things can be applied to Moffat's sterling work on the show, he wants to keep it as a kids's show, so fukkin' what... It was actually at its BEST when it was geared more at kids back in the 60s/70s/80s.. You also totally fail to take on board that "Press Gang" was a "kids' show" as well... Was that "childish" or banal.. HELL NO..... Like I say, children's fiction at its best is NOT childish.... And I have no reason to doubt Moffat's abilities, because his writing is consistently good and challenging and doesn't treat children OR adults like bloody morons.....

Easy to pull a quote like that out of thin air and ignore the fact that Moffat totally contextualises what he's said in the rest of the interview....

 

Here's a bit more...

 

"The misconception about children's ficition is that it's lightweight or fluffy. It's about really big and important things. It's adults who like light and fluffy. Everything is big and imprtant to a child, [so] their stories are about big and important events." You see - CONTEXT....

 

Children's fiction at its best is NOT 'fluffy' nor insubstantial, Moffat is absolutly 100% correct.... A cursory read of any Roald Dahl or Tolkien book should tell you that one mate.... And it's still a fact that Steve Moffat wrote the best and most disturbing episodes of Dr Who.... RTD has NEVER written anything as good for Dr Who as "The Empty Child", "Silence In The Library/Forest of the Dead" or "Blink", nor anything as genuinely emotional as "The Girl In The Fireplace", not even fukkin' close.... Bottom line, Moffat has never dumbed down the Doc, RTD did nothing BUT dumb him down.....

 

Children's fiction is not synonymous with "childish" mate, much of what RTD did during his tenure was childish, repetitive and banal...... NONE of these things can be applied to Moffat's sterling work on the show, he wants to keep it as a kids's show, so fukkin' what... It was actually at its BEST when it was geared more at kids back in the 60s/70s/80s.. You also totally fail to take on board that "Press Gang" was a "kids' show" as well... Was that "childish" or banal.. HELL NO..... Like I say, children's fiction at its best is NOT childish.... And I have no reason to doubt Moffat's abilities, because his writing is consistently good and challenging and doesn't treat children OR adults like bloody morons.....

 

Hello!!!!!! :angry:

 

Yet again you COMPLETELY disregard several posts that I have made on numerous occasions stating that Press Gang was in my opinion the best kids TV show ever.

 

Whilst in your typical style you completely disregard a rather substantial thing, he is a brilliant writer, that is not in dispute. But his one attempt at being a Executive Director (namely Jekyll, was not a commercial or critical success), as several critics pulled it apart (of course they praised the writing), largely due to some of the casting decisions that he was responsible for.

 

So with the first key decision to make in Series 5, it appears (given the Sun's rather accurate recent track record on facts Who related) that he has decided to cast the worst thing, from the worst episode of Series 4 as the Doctor's new assistant.

 

Why do you think Spielberg wanted him as a Scriptwriter for the TinTin film? Answer: Because he is a great writer. But Hollywood did/does not want him as a Producer or a Director, because on his one attempt in complete control he failed to deliver.

 

But I feel you are raising your expectations way too high for the next series of Dr Who. Especially as you have gone against the critics grain that Series 4 was the best series so far of the 21st Century revival of Dr Who, which unusually was matched by the public's opinion of the show as well with it's popularity, and some extraordinarily high ABC ratings in the 90%+. Lets face it, if Dr Who turns into a Jekyll type of show then you will love it ......... but from his previous evidence the audience will haemorrhage from it in their millions.

 

But hey you obviously know better than everybody else don't you.

Well prepare to be shocked.

 

 

Give RTD some credit at least he was not mug enough to take her on as a Dr Who assistant (Freema Agyeman pipped Michelle Ryan for the role of Martha). Whatever Freema's shortcomings are as an actress (she was incredibly unlucky to have to follow Billie Piper & be followed by Catherine Tate), but at least I can live rest assured knowing at least it was not Michelle Ryan playing Martha.

 

I didn't see any shortcomings with Freema. IMO she's a very talented actress and played Martha extremely well. Billie Piper was also fantastic, but Catherine Tate :puke2:

 

Hello!!!!!! :angry:

 

Yet again you COMPLETELY disregard several posts that I have made on numerous occasions stating that Press Gang was in my opinion the best kids TV show ever.

 

Whilst in your typical style you completely disregard a rather substantial thing, he is a brilliant writer, that is not in dispute. But his one attempt at being a Executive Director (namely Jekyll, was not a commercial or critical success), as several critics pulled it apart (of course they praised the writing), largely due to some of the casting decisions that he was responsible for.

 

So with the first key decision to make in Series 5, it appears (given the Sun's rather accurate recent track record on facts Who related) that he has decided to cast the worst thing, from the worst episode of Series 4 as the Doctor's new assistant.

 

Why do you think Spielberg wanted him as a Scriptwriter for the TinTin film? Answer: Because he is a great writer. But Hollywood did/does not want him as a Producer or a Director, because on his one attempt in complete control he failed to deliver.

 

But I feel you are raising your expectations way too high for the next series of Dr Who. Especially as you have gone against the critics grain that Series 4 was the best series so far of the 21st Century revival of Dr Who, which unusually was matched by the public's opinion of the show as well with it's popularity, and some extraordinarily high ABC ratings in the 90%+. Lets face it, if Dr Who turns into a Jekyll type of show then you will love it ......... but from his previous evidence the audience will haemorrhage from it in their millions.

 

But hey you obviously know better than everybody else don't you.

 

Then why do you have a problem with Moffat's decision to keep the Doc as a Children's Fiction....? My main problem was that you pulled out that one quote without actually bothering to contextualise it, as Moffat himself did.... The implication being that he was going to turn the show into some awful CBBC sort of rubbish which even five-year olds would find patronising, as opposed to the sort of high quality Children's Fiction (which adults can equally enjoy..) that he's done in the past...

 

Jekyll's rating on IMDb is 8.3/10.... Erm, yeah, what a disaster..... :rolleyes: Okay, perhaps Michelle Ryan was a bit of a mistake, but as I have pointed out, SHE WAS NOT THE MAIN CHARACTER ANYWAY or even the main FEMALE ROLE. Frankly, I objected more to the annoying git with the blatantly FALSE American accent (GOD I was sooooooooo glad when Hyde slit that tw@t's throat :lol: )....... Personally, I saw nothing wrong with James Nesbit in the titular role, it was some of the best acting I've seen him do.. Opinions are like arseholes Rich - everyone has one.... The "critics" aren't any more right or wrong than anyone else.... And Jekyll was never really meant to be in the big audience leagues of Dr Who anyway, the story was a bit too dark for that sort of mass audience appeal......

 

Obviously I dont want to see the Doc be like "Jekyll", the concepts and themes of the shows are as different as chalk and cheese.... Moffat has made it plain that he is keeping the Doc as a children's fiction, "Jekyll" was blatantly NOT a children's fiction... I would be more happy if Dr Who goes back to the quality and consistency of the first series to be honest, where I reckon RTD shot much of his creative load...

 

Any you're making one or two assumptions yourself... Don't suppose it's occurred to you that this story in the press might be a plant to throw people off the scent as to what he's gonna do with the show.... If I was a producer, I'd do that, I'd "leak" all sorts of credible-sounding, but entirely fictitious stories to keep people guessing..... The next series is TWO YEARS away mate, gotta keep people interested somehow...... :rolleyes:

 

My main probs were with series 2/3 to be honest, and that sh!tty Christmas Special that was on last year..... Series 4, I'm in the process of downloading atm..... But from the first few episodes that I did see on telly, I wasn't overly impressed (although the "Silence In The Library" two parter which I did watch deffo is the exception).... Catherine Tate was frankly the biggest turn-off for me, and the main reason for my rejecting the show generally... Maybe the last three episodes are the "big finale" they claim, but, does it really make up for series 2/3 being rather cr@p in terms of writing....? Sorry mate, but for me, the writing is the most important thing, a good script can cover a multitude of sins, but absolutely NOTHING can hide a bad one, not even Daniel Day Lewis playing the Doc could make some of the worst season 2/3 episodes look good.....

I didn't see any shortcomings with Freema. IMO she's a very talented actress and played Martha extremely well. Billie Piper was also fantastic, but Catherine Tate :puke2:

 

She was adequate... But frankly a bit like Michelle Ryan insofar as when a more expressive female actor comes on the screen, she shrinks away practically into nothing... The two parter with Juliet Stevenson was probably the most obvious example of this... She got a bit better though, I was more impressed by her contributions to "Torchwood" in a lot of ways.... But then, there you have a rather weak actor playing the main role (John Barrowman)...