Writers Chair

Welcome to director's chair...sort of. Today I am looking at the main reason people love this show and the scapegoat of many's hatred. It's Russell T. Davies versus Steven Moffat. 

As with most TV show's, you can't expect it to be amazing all the time, hence the cancellation of the show in 1989 by the BBC when they felt the viewing figures dipped to low (As a matter of fact, when you think about it, that makes this the 37th anniversary of the shows run, but 50th anniversary since its original airing.) In 2005, the series was revived by Davies for the new age. He was Producer and Head Writer until 2010, when he stepped down from his role and gave way for Steven to step in as writer and Producer. It was here that Tennant also announced his leave. The Doctor was regenerated into Matt Smith and from here there have been trolls, uninitiated whovians and even some long time fans that started bashing the show for being dull, lazy and even more rude words to describe it. Many have blamed Steven, but I am here to set the record straight. Your not angry at Steven, but nostalgic and unaware of what your saying. 

To begin, lets see what you liked about the series in it's revival stages and year two. Well it had a sense that it was grounded in reality, the use of practical effects and landscapes of Cardiff, Wales was used more than green screens or CGI. This allowed us to appreciate the work and effort done in the show. Also the stories were, in my opinion, a little better than the later episodes of the show (even the later ones in Russell's run). There was a real sense of fun in each, combined with scares, drama and some heartbreaking moments. But maybe a little too much Drama. Don't get me wrong, drama is good. But too much can become melodramatic and that's no fun for anyone (yes, Coronation Street/Eastenders/hollyoaks/Fair City we are all looking at you.). What people forget is that Doctor Who is meant to be fun, not melodrama. Even William Hartnell, famous for his tough guy roles, admitted the Doctor should be whimsical than force. Russell brought both together in the first and second series, but it slowly dawned on him maybe he should try going one way completely. This led to an overly serious Series 3 and a quite goofy series 4. Now I like both series, but you can't say that under Russell's run Doctor Who was perfect.

As for Steven Moffat, he also tried to do what Russell did in the beginning. He also wrote some very heavy duty stuff like "The Empty Child, The Doctor dances, Blink" just to name a few. And all where very well acclaimed. So where apparently did it all go wrong. He balanced perfectly the whimsy, scares and heaviness of series 1, went full scares for "blink" and full drama for "The Girl in the fireplace". To tell the truth I believe that both writers are kind of similar. Both have tries to balance the fun, scares and drama of Doctor Who, succeeding in some areas like those above, but also doing poorly in episodes like "the Wedding of River Song" and "Let's Kill Hitler" for Steven Moffat and "Love and Monsters" and "Tooth & Claw" for Russell T. Davies. I know that some episodes have in recent times been seen as rushed or dull, but there have been, in all honesty, many more better ones.

To tell the truth no TV show is exactly perfect, unless your called Avatar the Last Airbender and every episode is a dream. So how can you claim that Doctor Who has gone bad or that Steven Moffat is a bad writer when he has done just as many good as Russell and even Russell holds Moffat in high regards. I say keep the faith and he will become a "better writer"(if that is even possible to get better) and spew out hit after Hit, just like every writer on every show does. #SaveTheDay

This how well he has done for the show, give him some credit after all.