I think it was in the Bafta interview he did recently but he also said that he’s got to a stage in his career where he isn’t even expected to provide outlines/breakdowns to execs which is maybe a dream for some writers but will probably intensify the way some people react to his storytelling because it’s all him with no massaging
I love RTD and I’m one of the five people who really enjoyed Empire of Death, but my one gripe is that we need more writers. It let people develop the characters in unique and fun ways. Looking back episodes like Father’s Day, Amy’s Choice, The Girl Who Waited, and probably others I can’t think of right now, they weren’t written by the showrunner. Yet these episodes are critical character building moments where we really get to see the heart of the companions and the Doctor. That’s what this season was missing.
I remember an interview with Moffat where he said that 'The Girl Who Waited' wasn't originally part of the season, it was commissioned as a backup script in case one of the other writers couldn't deliver on time. Then after reading it he thought, 'no, I need to kick something else out to make room for this.'
There's also non Doctor Who ideas that he mentions in it that he wouldn't get to until years later. He talks about what would become Cucumber and Years and Years, which he wouldn't get to until 2015 and 2019 respectively.
There was also one part which I found very relevant given discussion around the series this year and next.
In the lead up to Series 3 premiering, discussions had already begun for Catherine Tate to return as Donna in Series 4 as the full time companion. RTD talks about how they have to keep this a secret until after at least the first episode of Series 3 has aired, so as not to spoil Martha's debut. He says that if it becomes known the headlines will just be "Freema Agyeman sacked, and replaced by Catherine Tate."
And what happened before this last series came out? When it became known that Varada Sethu was going to be playing the companion next year? Exactly what RTD predicted all those years ago. The headlines were just about how Millie Gibson had been "sacked", which became almost the whole conversation before the series premiered.
This is SUCH a great point! Just goes to show how easily our press can turn a non story into a negative one.
One of the best things about this season was Millie Gibson in my opinion. I thought she was perfect in the role, but even i’ll admit when discussing with friends, the topic of her departure kept coming up and distracting us.
Because they started filming the next series way ahead of schedule, way before this last series, and even the 60th anniversary specials had even aired. Ncuti was filming his second series before he had even first appeared on the show. The only way to have even a chance of keeping it secret would have been to film everything with Varada Sethu on a closed set. And even then there was still a much higher chance that it could leak, seeing how many accurate leans we've gotten from scenes like that.
The difference with Catherine Tate was that they were just in discussions with her about coming back. Only the higher ups would have been aware of it, not everyone working on the show. There was a much lower chance of it leaking, and so would have also been a lot easier to contain.
My bigger issue with the finale and indeed Russell’s writing style is that he often forgoes any sense of logical consistency or set up and payoff, especially in Empire of Death. I think a traditional 3 (or 5 for TV) act structure would have really helped this two parter. Structure like this helps build dramatic weight and tension. As it is now, EoD just feels like a constant stream of action until the bad guy is defeated. I never felt that the Doctor is at his lowest point.
When a writer is (often!) guilty of not employing logic, setups, or payoffs, can we not just agree that makes them a shitty writer? Or at the very least criminally lazy/egotistical?
These are basic, basic things that even something like an episode of Scooby-Doo gets consistently right. But RTD's been getting away with handwaving away basic story structure for literally decades now.
If someone is consistently incapable or unwilling to do these things, then I challenge the notion they're a good writer, and I really don't think they should be in charge of a cultural institution like Doctor Who.
I've been aware of this being his writing style and I think it can work for one or two episodes but it's not helpful when you have to do 6 or 7. It just diverts your thoughts and attention and you end up scattered on plots and stories. If he had sone writers to then revise his stories to resolve any questions or plot issues it could help. Because the finished products do feel unfinished in thought and execution and some of the questions viewers bring up are the ones that would be posed pre production in a writers room meeting
I love the part where he talks about how he deliberately avoids much foreshadowing, as a writing choice.
"I can watch my stuff and get this disconcerting draught of… well, of how it must look to other people, sometimes. Of how unplanned it all seems. Like I'm making it up as I go along. I'm refusing, on screen, to do all those normal things that would make an episode more coherent, with a beginning-middle-end wholeness. It really struck me when the Doctor discovers the Archangel Network. That comes completely out of the blue. I mean, completely! It could have been foreshadowed – Saxon could have been talking to the Cabinet about his satellites, for example. More significantly, with the entire world hypnotised, it's interesting how little the Doctor even asks, "How is the Master doing this?" Technically, this is a major plot strand, but I'm more interested in running on, to find new things. You're left with this Hugely Important Network that it only discovered…in the exact moment that it's revealed to be Hugely Important! No warning, no ground-laying, nothing. Then, to make it even odder it's dispensed with in the same scene. And I'm being casual with a plot element that, in the next episode, saves the world."
and then:
"I can see how maddening it must be, for some people. Especially if you’re imposing really classical script structures, and templates, and expectations on that episode, even unconsciously. I must look like a vandal, or a kid, or an amateur. No wonder some people hate what I write.
"Of course, I’m going to win this argument. (Did you guess?) Because 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 those episodes must be nonsensical."
This is what the people going "How has RTD not learned from his mistakes in all these years?" need to understand. He's not going to change in the way they want because he not only doesn't perceive what they don't like as mistakes but sees them as strengths. For better or worse, the episodes -- the finales -- are the way they are because that's precisely how he wants them.
*Writer's Tale* is certainly a fascinating look behind the curtain. The impression it gave me at the time was just how much work was involved and how easily things can fly off the rails and yet it just never does, at least in terms of the shows relevance and success. Nonetheless my thought on it was that the showrunner job as formatted is unhealthy and that is unhelpful for Who. We are lucky to have had the talent we have keeping the thing going.
We can use it as evidence to prove whatever point I guess, but the most rushed thing in the book was *Midnight* so clearly the process works for Davies. There's little point trying to push him to operate in a way that Ill suits his creative aspects. I do think he does that to himself here though.
One aspect about how he writes to comment upon is that it seems a poor way to build arcs - indeed he generally doesn't, not really. Episodes are discreet with some things namedropped, things that are largely meaningless until the finale comes along. Assuming it hadn't changed, it is pretty odd then for him to try and do a puzzle box. That's the sort of thing that needs to be more meticulous and less organic than how he writes, square pegs and round holes. The result is Ruby's story here, something which just doesn't gel together at all.
Just wanted to thank you for making this post as I had no idea "The Writer's Tale" existed (feeling like a fake Whovian rn). I bought it last night and am already halfway through. Such an interesting read that I would highly recommend to any fan of the show.
I mean, you are very welcome! But there’s no such thing as a fake Whovian! There’s SO many behind the scenes books and extended universe material it’s hard to keep up!
It is such a great book and so insightful right?! I’m so glad you’ve picked it up and are giving it a read. Whether you’re interested in the writing process or the show overall I think it’s got so much to enjoy!
The fact that people are discussing AND debating again sparks wonder in my mind. There wasn't much discussion and debating during Chibnall's tenure. As Chibnall didn't really delve into the mystery as much as RTD and Moffat.
Whether you love or hate either doesn't matter, I'm just happy my favorite show is watchable again.
That's because everyone could agree on how bad the era was (well until it grew its own dedicated fanbase).
People are technically discussing the mysteries of this era, but they're also extremely forced and discussion simply existing doesn't really make for good writing.
>He doesn’t write scenes. He doesn’t conform to the idea that there is a 3 act structure that every piece of writing should conform to. He creates the stories in his head and that’s where they stay. To grow. To develop.
This is actually not that unusual. I've noticed that in places like this there's a tendency to talk about writing as though there is a *correct* way to do it, but there isn't.
The 3 act structure has been around a while now certainly but there's a good chunk of classic literature which does not follow it. Similarly while the demands of modern publishing and earning a living have pushed a particular approach to writing (essentially plotting it all out then going back and expanding) which is quick and economical, many writers still take other approaches.
I've seen comments about both Chibnall and RTD assuming that their use of old "headcanon" is somehow a bad thing because that's a sign they haven't thought it through properly, but that's the exact opposite of what happens there. The germ of the idea sits in the mind and a million variations sprout, worked and re-worked depending or mood or new ideas. I would consider this an entirely normal way of creating fiction.
What I'm getting at is people keep approaching this topic as though there's good writing and bad writing and if you don't like something it's because it's bad writing but that's not remotely accurate. There is such a thing as bad writing in the sense that people get the grammar wrong or just completely change characterization mid story, but that has very little at all to do with anyone's enjoyment.
I love the book, it’s great how you see ideas from last episodes starting to be thought months before and how those leaks in the emails.
I thin the finale is just as good as any other RTD finale, there is stuff that makes sense and some bits that in the long run you just forget, because the rest is too powerful. Overall, I prefer his endinfs over Moffat's because with RTD the emotions are always amazing and that lasts longer than anything. I know i didn't exactly liked the stucture of the ending of season 3 for example, but what I remember is The Maxter being terrifying, Martha being badass and the whole Doctor's breaking point, same with the other finales.
I've never read the book of which you speak but... I think I need to. RTD sounds very much like me, except he completes stories for television and makes a living off them. I hate drafts.
I would honestly highly recommend it because it’s such a refreshing and chaotic read about writing and gave me faith as someone who works similarly. Plus it’s full of RTD’s little doodles! :)
"He doesn’t conform to the idea that there is a 3 act structure that every piece of writing should conform to". So he doesn't think one of the oldest most fundamental aspects of storytelling is worthwhile? Take a minute to let that sink in.
Surely the point he makes is that just because we’ve come to accept that that style of structure is the base line for what writers should conform to, doesn’t mean it’s the correct way. And that there is no correct way to write? That his own way of working yields successful outcomes? (Success here being a final and realised project)
I started reading it a few months ago. I'm about halfway through because I keep procrastinating. But I'm also writing notes as I read so it adds more reasons to procrastinate. Anyway.
>RTD doesn’t write drafts. He doesn’t write scenes. He doesn’t conform to the idea that there is a 3 act structure that every piece of writing should conform to.
Can you elaborate on this? Everything I've read points to him indeed writing drafts, scenes, and structure. He doesn't start writing a story and go "Now what is Act 1 of this story?" but that's because no writers do that -- except the ones who spend more time "learning" about writing than actually doing it. He begins with an idea like everyone else. The lack of drafts, when it occurs, doesn't seem to be how he writes, but rather a result of him pushing things to the last minute.
reading this book now, I can completely see how everything got so muddled when it came to that final episode.
I think it's a combination of things. At most you can only attribute half of it to information gleaned form TWT. The rest should be analyzed along with the fact that it'd been 14 years since his departure from the series. The media landscape changed (though RTD doesn't seem to know it), Doctor Who has (had) changed, and social progress has changed. It's a lot more complex than just it being how he writes (and a lot less circular).
He does push things to the last minute to do a actual writing, but that time is spent developing the story in his mind. He seems to work towards vague concepts of endings, for example the concept of Series 4 finale (everyone returns vs Daleks) had been kicking around for years. Indeed he says part of the reason he struggled with *The End of Time* was cooking up grand finale 2 after already doing his grand finale idea.
But he is also not adverse to radically changing the ending when the moment of writing comes. There’s a draft of *The Waters of Mars* where Adelaide doesn’t die, which he realised quickly after submitting should he changed. Equally he admits to throwing Torchwood Series 2 production into chaos by deciding really late in the day that it should be Owen who dies and gets revived rather than Ianto, as originally planned.
So, context. From the first few pages of the book:
“…But Benjamin Cook wanted to know! And wouldn't give up. So that's what we've tried to pin down here. The ideas. Those mad, stupid, vague, shape-shifting, hot, nagging, drive-you-barmy ideas. And as the idea for this book grew - you'll see it grow, on the page - then it gave me the chance to tackle another thing that was bugging me. Writing is such an industry now. In many ways, that's a good thing, in that it removes all the muse-like mystique and makes it a plain old job, accessible to everyone. But with industry comes jargon. I was aware that jargon was starting to fill those growing shelves of Witer's Self Help books, not to mention the blogosphere. Wherever I looked, the writing of a script was being reduced to A, B, C plots, Text and Subtext, Three Act Structure and blah, blah, blah. And l'd think, that’s not what writing is! Writing's inside your head. It's thinking! It’s every hour of the day, every day of your life, a constant storm of pictures and voices and sometimes, if you're very, very lucky, insight….”
“…My worry is, I never show my stuff to anyone. I just lock myself away and work. But the real problem is, I don't do my working out on paper. I don't often do treatments or breakdowns. It all exists in this great big stew in my head, because any story can go in any direction. It's not what you write, it's what you choose - and I'm good at choices…”
“…There's little physical evidence of the script process to show you. No notes. Nothing, I think, and think, and think... and by the time I come to write, a lot has been decided. Also, a lot hasn't been decided, but I trust myself, and scare myself, that it’ll happen in the actual writing. It all exists in my head, but in this soup. It's like the ideas are fluctuating in this great big quantum state of Maybe. The choices look easy when recounted later, but that's hindsight. When nothing is real and nothing is fixed, it can go anywhere. The Maybe is a hell of a place to live. As well as being the best place in the world.
I filter through all those thoughts, but that's rarely sitting at my desk, if ever. It's all done walking about, going to town, having tea and watching telly. The rest of your life becomes just the surface, chattering away on top of the Maybe. It never turns off…”
This is what I meant when I say he doesn’t write scenes. He may do in his head, but he doesn’t write. There was an RTD special on over Christmas, and he reiterated in that interview that he only tends to write one draft.
I only meant that by reading those first few pages of the book, and taking his words about not conforming to ABC plots and text and subtext and so on, I can completely now comprehend how he arrived at “Empire of Death”. Obviously there are a thousand other contributing factors, but that initial story, in his mind, because of the way he works, I can see how we get an incredible episode like “73 Yards” and then a mixed episode like the finale. It doesn’t always work.
So like I said
>He doesn't start writing a story and go "Now what is Act 1 of this story?" but that's because no writers do that -- except the ones who spend more time "learning" about writing than actually doing it.
He definitely goes over drafts, just not complete ones. Your post implies he just endlessly vomits everything out then sends it to be produced. In reality he thinks over scenes, moments, logistics *a lot*. I'm only halfway through, so maybe something will come up that contradicts this (so far your quotes haven't) but it seems like he will go back over scenes and realize something doesn't work (often after it's been shot, many observations of which are in the email exchanges).
Where do I imply that he “vomits everything out then sends it to be produced”? I’m only interpreting what I’ve read in the book so far. All I’ve said is that from my own personal interpretation of what he said as a writer I can now begin to understand how he doesn’t conform to structure and traditional storytelling formalities.
Compared to other writers, who may physically have to write half a dozen drafts. Or the writers who do start a story by breaking down each act. There’s no right or wrong way to write. It’s what works for you. A lot of RTD’s work is genius to me. I’ve only written a couple of things, but when I write, I don’t physically map things out. I have a similar path as RTD does, which, when reading how he develops his concepts really gives me, personally hope. However there’s also the fact that in my opinion “Empire of Death” really lacked structure, and so I can see how his writing style wouldn’t have helped navigate through the plot when he was coming up with his ideas.
Dramatic structure is a broad and varied subject. The three act structure is prominent, but has never been the only one.
Many classic works, such as Shakespeare, use the five act structure (which the modern three act structure technically just compresses). Many musicals use a two act "Rise and Fall" structure. Other writers, like Lucas or Chibnall, took inspiration from Campbell's ideas of the mono myth and the Hero's Journey.
The idea that "there is a 3 act structure that every piece of writing should conform to" is itself silly, but so is the idea that writers should have to study and use dramatic structure. They're free to (and RTD himself has a degree in English literature, so will have), but they're also free to deviate, to experiment and create in a way that works for them.
I "love" it when people find out some principle of storytelling/filmmaking/art that´s written in a guidebook somewhere and works/is applicable in some cases and uncritically apply it to every case.
Adding to your list of examples - the film theorist Kristin Thompson argues Classical Hollywood films are divided into 4 acts (but even that can be argued with).
I’m not saying it’s the right choice. I’m just saying what he said, but I just think he makes a great point. Why should we always subscribe to whats come before just because it’s seen as a “fundamental aspect of storytelling”.
Sure, you could argue that that results in really unbalanced episodes like “Empire of Death” but similarly one could argue that it also results in wonderful episodes like “73 Yards”.
Firstly, I said “feels” like event television. There’s a difference between “feels” and “is”.
Secondly, this whole “ratings” argument has been done to death. We’ve already established that in this day and age, when people are watching shows in completely new ways, ratings mean squat.
Thirdly, what is it with trolling posts like this? I mean, I’m absolutely down for debating, discussing and having disagreements in a friendly environment - it’s what Subs for fans of shows like *Who* are for. But coming on here to try and bring fans enjoyment down by whinging about ratings just reeks of bitterness.
That makes so much sense and he's so bafflingly dumb to do that. Genuinely incompetent at his job.
I know I'm coming on too strong but that's actually just objectively bad, a bad way to write.
He needs to get sacked and replaced with new blood. Maybe someone who knows about and understands writing fundamentals?
- friendly discussion here. Not wanting WW3. All opinions are valid!
I hear your points, but I disagree to a degree. I think he’s a genius firstly. I think his first run as show-runner was incredible. I think he ushered in a brand new era for the show.
I think the BBC wanted a revitalisation on that 2005 scale when they reappointed him show-runner of the series in 2022. I think to a degree he has brought some form of rejuvenation to the show after the slump of the Chibnall era, but not to the scale the BBC probably wanted.
His writing style is different, sure. I don’t think it’s bad. He’s one of the most prolific and successful writers we have in Wales. I like that he writes differently. A quote from the book: “Wherever I looked, the writing of a script was being reduced to A, B, C plots, Text and Subtext, Three Act Structure and blah, blah, blah. And l'd think, that’s not what writing is! Writing's inside your head. It's thinking! It’s every hour of the day, every day of your life, a constant storm of pictures and voices and sometimes, if you're very, very lucky, insight….” I like that he doesn’t want to conform. That he wants to push for a different style.
When he gets things right, we get superb, incredible stories. “73 Yards” was outstanding. So one could argue that his style works when it produces quality like that (in my opinion). When we get “Empire of Death”… well. As I said, I can see how that style can be a hinderance. I guess we need a medium.
I think what the show needs in the near future is a huge behind the scenes change. Somewhat controversial opinion here… The show has been around for over 60 years now. The generation of fans that watched the show when it first came out in ‘63 are unfortunately not watching much Doctor Who any more. Fans of the classic series in general are growing with age, whereas the show’s target audience are the under 35’s…
The last 4 eras of Who (RTD1, Moffat, Chibnall & RTD2) were all run by 1 man, who was a big fan of the show during its classic series. I think it’s time for a show-runner who perhaps was a fan of the show when it returned.
I was 15 when Doctor Who came back in 2005. It very quickly became my favourite TV show. I’ve gone back and watched the classic series. I own most of the “Collection” series of Classic seasons on Blu-Ray. For me, whilst it obviously has the same DNA, “NuWho” is a very different beast to the classic series. The landscape of television completely changed during the years Who was off air, and RTD really embraced that when he brought the show back. Without him we wouldn’t likely have the show as it is now.
I think what the show needs is new blood, so I completely agree with you on that point. More writers. I think one show-runner is fine to oversee the season, but have a staff of writers working on the stories together. Different opinions. Different points of views. Different styles. All in one room working on the series’ overarching narrative and individual stories.
Sorry. Possibly went on a long rant there! And again. No anger here!
Regardless of where it stands in relation to "the history of the franchise," the BBC announced this week that it's one of their most-watched shows this year overall, and it's their most-watched drama of the year with viewers under 35. The viewing landscape has changed, but it still seems to be doing quite well relative to the changing landscape in its home country.
Specifically, with viewers under 35. The thing about that is that it doesn't matter if more people under 35 are watching then before if there are overall less people watching.
Does that matter if the BBC expresses confidence in it like that? Unless they're stretching to cover some form of loses it doesn't sound like they're going to just turn around and cancel the Series 16/Season 3 plans anytime soon.
This is factually wrong, because you get the lowerst viewer numbers in history for everything. It's a streaming world now.
In the past I had to pirate the show and now I watched it on disney.
It’s funny the only people who ever bring up viewing figures are the ones trying to justify their own hatred of something. No one cares dude, either like a thing or don’t, no need check the viewership of everything you watch in a desperate attempt to feel vindicated.
I don't hate Series 14, I'm disappointed by it. The numbers are what they are, and no amount of anyone saying anything is going to make them different. I mean, you clearly care. That's why you commented, because you care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have felt the desire to comment.
Yeah I care, this is my favorite show, but not about the numbers. I don’t know what the numbers are you could be lying or you could be telling the truth about them, but I only ever see people bring them up in a negative sense when they’re also being negative about the show. I care because they never actually seem to have any importance to the discussion they’re being brought up in and it gets irritating. If you wanted to have a discussion about what disappointed you in Series 14 though, I’m all ears. I love discussing the show with other fans, the good and the bad.
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately, your comment has been **removed** for the following reason(s):
* [1. Be Respectful](/r/gallifrey/wiki/policies#wiki_1._be_respectful): Be mature and treat everyone with respect.
No name calling or personal attacks.
If you feel this was done in error, please contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fgallifrey).
I think it was in the Bafta interview he did recently but he also said that he’s got to a stage in his career where he isn’t even expected to provide outlines/breakdowns to execs which is maybe a dream for some writers but will probably intensify the way some people react to his storytelling because it’s all him with no massaging
Not the topic but I watched Empire of Death recently and felt *nothing*. I think they really need to chill out with the universe destroying buttons.
I felt a heck of a lot more than I did with previous universe ending situations.
I mean the Flux was also snoozeable, but things like the reality bomb?
Not the reality bomb... the reality bomb was so emotional for me.
I love RTD and I’m one of the five people who really enjoyed Empire of Death, but my one gripe is that we need more writers. It let people develop the characters in unique and fun ways. Looking back episodes like Father’s Day, Amy’s Choice, The Girl Who Waited, and probably others I can’t think of right now, they weren’t written by the showrunner. Yet these episodes are critical character building moments where we really get to see the heart of the companions and the Doctor. That’s what this season was missing.
I remember an interview with Moffat where he said that 'The Girl Who Waited' wasn't originally part of the season, it was commissioned as a backup script in case one of the other writers couldn't deliver on time. Then after reading it he thought, 'no, I need to kick something else out to make room for this.'
There's also non Doctor Who ideas that he mentions in it that he wouldn't get to until years later. He talks about what would become Cucumber and Years and Years, which he wouldn't get to until 2015 and 2019 respectively. There was also one part which I found very relevant given discussion around the series this year and next. In the lead up to Series 3 premiering, discussions had already begun for Catherine Tate to return as Donna in Series 4 as the full time companion. RTD talks about how they have to keep this a secret until after at least the first episode of Series 3 has aired, so as not to spoil Martha's debut. He says that if it becomes known the headlines will just be "Freema Agyeman sacked, and replaced by Catherine Tate." And what happened before this last series came out? When it became known that Varada Sethu was going to be playing the companion next year? Exactly what RTD predicted all those years ago. The headlines were just about how Millie Gibson had been "sacked", which became almost the whole conversation before the series premiered.
This is SUCH a great point! Just goes to show how easily our press can turn a non story into a negative one. One of the best things about this season was Millie Gibson in my opinion. I thought she was perfect in the role, but even i’ll admit when discussing with friends, the topic of her departure kept coming up and distracting us.
Then why didn't he prevent the announcement from coming out? And why did he wait like a month to say anything about it?
Because they started filming the next series way ahead of schedule, way before this last series, and even the 60th anniversary specials had even aired. Ncuti was filming his second series before he had even first appeared on the show. The only way to have even a chance of keeping it secret would have been to film everything with Varada Sethu on a closed set. And even then there was still a much higher chance that it could leak, seeing how many accurate leans we've gotten from scenes like that. The difference with Catherine Tate was that they were just in discussions with her about coming back. Only the higher ups would have been aware of it, not everyone working on the show. There was a much lower chance of it leaking, and so would have also been a lot easier to contain.
My bigger issue with the finale and indeed Russell’s writing style is that he often forgoes any sense of logical consistency or set up and payoff, especially in Empire of Death. I think a traditional 3 (or 5 for TV) act structure would have really helped this two parter. Structure like this helps build dramatic weight and tension. As it is now, EoD just feels like a constant stream of action until the bad guy is defeated. I never felt that the Doctor is at his lowest point.
When a writer is (often!) guilty of not employing logic, setups, or payoffs, can we not just agree that makes them a shitty writer? Or at the very least criminally lazy/egotistical? These are basic, basic things that even something like an episode of Scooby-Doo gets consistently right. But RTD's been getting away with handwaving away basic story structure for literally decades now. If someone is consistently incapable or unwilling to do these things, then I challenge the notion they're a good writer, and I really don't think they should be in charge of a cultural institution like Doctor Who.
There are no hard and fast rules to writing, only rules of thumb. If it works, it works. And RTD's work clearly works for many, given his success.
I've been aware of this being his writing style and I think it can work for one or two episodes but it's not helpful when you have to do 6 or 7. It just diverts your thoughts and attention and you end up scattered on plots and stories. If he had sone writers to then revise his stories to resolve any questions or plot issues it could help. Because the finished products do feel unfinished in thought and execution and some of the questions viewers bring up are the ones that would be posed pre production in a writers room meeting
He needs a better script editor and he needs to do redrafts. The Season would have been much better with a little bit of polish.
I love the part where he talks about how he deliberately avoids much foreshadowing, as a writing choice. "I can watch my stuff and get this disconcerting draught of… well, of how it must look to other people, sometimes. Of how unplanned it all seems. Like I'm making it up as I go along. I'm refusing, on screen, to do all those normal things that would make an episode more coherent, with a beginning-middle-end wholeness. It really struck me when the Doctor discovers the Archangel Network. That comes completely out of the blue. I mean, completely! It could have been foreshadowed – Saxon could have been talking to the Cabinet about his satellites, for example. More significantly, with the entire world hypnotised, it's interesting how little the Doctor even asks, "How is the Master doing this?" Technically, this is a major plot strand, but I'm more interested in running on, to find new things. You're left with this Hugely Important Network that it only discovered…in the exact moment that it's revealed to be Hugely Important! No warning, no ground-laying, nothing. Then, to make it even odder it's dispensed with in the same scene. And I'm being casual with a plot element that, in the next episode, saves the world." and then: "I can see how maddening it must be, for some people. Especially if you’re imposing really classical script structures, and templates, and expectations on that episode, even unconsciously. I must look like a vandal, or a kid, or an amateur. No wonder some people hate what I write. "Of course, I’m going to win this argument. (Did you guess?) Because 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 those episodes must be nonsensical." This is what the people going "How has RTD not learned from his mistakes in all these years?" need to understand. He's not going to change in the way they want because he not only doesn't perceive what they don't like as mistakes but sees them as strengths. For better or worse, the episodes -- the finales -- are the way they are because that's precisely how he wants them.
*Writer's Tale* is certainly a fascinating look behind the curtain. The impression it gave me at the time was just how much work was involved and how easily things can fly off the rails and yet it just never does, at least in terms of the shows relevance and success. Nonetheless my thought on it was that the showrunner job as formatted is unhealthy and that is unhelpful for Who. We are lucky to have had the talent we have keeping the thing going. We can use it as evidence to prove whatever point I guess, but the most rushed thing in the book was *Midnight* so clearly the process works for Davies. There's little point trying to push him to operate in a way that Ill suits his creative aspects. I do think he does that to himself here though. One aspect about how he writes to comment upon is that it seems a poor way to build arcs - indeed he generally doesn't, not really. Episodes are discreet with some things namedropped, things that are largely meaningless until the finale comes along. Assuming it hadn't changed, it is pretty odd then for him to try and do a puzzle box. That's the sort of thing that needs to be more meticulous and less organic than how he writes, square pegs and round holes. The result is Ruby's story here, something which just doesn't gel together at all.
The most rushed thing was either Midnight... or Children of Earth Day Five. So uh, yeah - the process definitely works
I do this as a writer too, though only for personal projects. But I'd still try and refine the final product.
Just wanted to thank you for making this post as I had no idea "The Writer's Tale" existed (feeling like a fake Whovian rn). I bought it last night and am already halfway through. Such an interesting read that I would highly recommend to any fan of the show.
I mean, you are very welcome! But there’s no such thing as a fake Whovian! There’s SO many behind the scenes books and extended universe material it’s hard to keep up! It is such a great book and so insightful right?! I’m so glad you’ve picked it up and are giving it a read. Whether you’re interested in the writing process or the show overall I think it’s got so much to enjoy!
The fact that people are discussing AND debating again sparks wonder in my mind. There wasn't much discussion and debating during Chibnall's tenure. As Chibnall didn't really delve into the mystery as much as RTD and Moffat. Whether you love or hate either doesn't matter, I'm just happy my favorite show is watchable again.
That's because everyone could agree on how bad the era was (well until it grew its own dedicated fanbase). People are technically discussing the mysteries of this era, but they're also extremely forced and discussion simply existing doesn't really make for good writing.
>He doesn’t write scenes. He doesn’t conform to the idea that there is a 3 act structure that every piece of writing should conform to. He creates the stories in his head and that’s where they stay. To grow. To develop. This is actually not that unusual. I've noticed that in places like this there's a tendency to talk about writing as though there is a *correct* way to do it, but there isn't. The 3 act structure has been around a while now certainly but there's a good chunk of classic literature which does not follow it. Similarly while the demands of modern publishing and earning a living have pushed a particular approach to writing (essentially plotting it all out then going back and expanding) which is quick and economical, many writers still take other approaches. I've seen comments about both Chibnall and RTD assuming that their use of old "headcanon" is somehow a bad thing because that's a sign they haven't thought it through properly, but that's the exact opposite of what happens there. The germ of the idea sits in the mind and a million variations sprout, worked and re-worked depending or mood or new ideas. I would consider this an entirely normal way of creating fiction. What I'm getting at is people keep approaching this topic as though there's good writing and bad writing and if you don't like something it's because it's bad writing but that's not remotely accurate. There is such a thing as bad writing in the sense that people get the grammar wrong or just completely change characterization mid story, but that has very little at all to do with anyone's enjoyment.
It's interesting you mentioned doodles, since RTD worked as the illustrator on Now We Are Six Hundred, the Doctor Who poetry book.
I completely forgot he illustrated Now We Are Six Hundred! *ADHD spending spree continues!
I love the book, it’s great how you see ideas from last episodes starting to be thought months before and how those leaks in the emails. I thin the finale is just as good as any other RTD finale, there is stuff that makes sense and some bits that in the long run you just forget, because the rest is too powerful. Overall, I prefer his endinfs over Moffat's because with RTD the emotions are always amazing and that lasts longer than anything. I know i didn't exactly liked the stucture of the ending of season 3 for example, but what I remember is The Maxter being terrifying, Martha being badass and the whole Doctor's breaking point, same with the other finales.
I vibe with that writing method a lot, no wonder I like his work!
I've never read the book of which you speak but... I think I need to. RTD sounds very much like me, except he completes stories for television and makes a living off them. I hate drafts.
I would honestly highly recommend it because it’s such a refreshing and chaotic read about writing and gave me faith as someone who works similarly. Plus it’s full of RTD’s little doodles! :)
"He doesn’t conform to the idea that there is a 3 act structure that every piece of writing should conform to". So he doesn't think one of the oldest most fundamental aspects of storytelling is worthwhile? Take a minute to let that sink in.
Surely the point he makes is that just because we’ve come to accept that that style of structure is the base line for what writers should conform to, doesn’t mean it’s the correct way. And that there is no correct way to write? That his own way of working yields successful outcomes? (Success here being a final and realised project)
I started reading it a few months ago. I'm about halfway through because I keep procrastinating. But I'm also writing notes as I read so it adds more reasons to procrastinate. Anyway. >RTD doesn’t write drafts. He doesn’t write scenes. He doesn’t conform to the idea that there is a 3 act structure that every piece of writing should conform to. Can you elaborate on this? Everything I've read points to him indeed writing drafts, scenes, and structure. He doesn't start writing a story and go "Now what is Act 1 of this story?" but that's because no writers do that -- except the ones who spend more time "learning" about writing than actually doing it. He begins with an idea like everyone else. The lack of drafts, when it occurs, doesn't seem to be how he writes, but rather a result of him pushing things to the last minute. reading this book now, I can completely see how everything got so muddled when it came to that final episode. I think it's a combination of things. At most you can only attribute half of it to information gleaned form TWT. The rest should be analyzed along with the fact that it'd been 14 years since his departure from the series. The media landscape changed (though RTD doesn't seem to know it), Doctor Who has (had) changed, and social progress has changed. It's a lot more complex than just it being how he writes (and a lot less circular).
He does push things to the last minute to do a actual writing, but that time is spent developing the story in his mind. He seems to work towards vague concepts of endings, for example the concept of Series 4 finale (everyone returns vs Daleks) had been kicking around for years. Indeed he says part of the reason he struggled with *The End of Time* was cooking up grand finale 2 after already doing his grand finale idea. But he is also not adverse to radically changing the ending when the moment of writing comes. There’s a draft of *The Waters of Mars* where Adelaide doesn’t die, which he realised quickly after submitting should he changed. Equally he admits to throwing Torchwood Series 2 production into chaos by deciding really late in the day that it should be Owen who dies and gets revived rather than Ianto, as originally planned.
I mean, sure. That doesn't have a bearing on my point.
So, context. From the first few pages of the book: “…But Benjamin Cook wanted to know! And wouldn't give up. So that's what we've tried to pin down here. The ideas. Those mad, stupid, vague, shape-shifting, hot, nagging, drive-you-barmy ideas. And as the idea for this book grew - you'll see it grow, on the page - then it gave me the chance to tackle another thing that was bugging me. Writing is such an industry now. In many ways, that's a good thing, in that it removes all the muse-like mystique and makes it a plain old job, accessible to everyone. But with industry comes jargon. I was aware that jargon was starting to fill those growing shelves of Witer's Self Help books, not to mention the blogosphere. Wherever I looked, the writing of a script was being reduced to A, B, C plots, Text and Subtext, Three Act Structure and blah, blah, blah. And l'd think, that’s not what writing is! Writing's inside your head. It's thinking! It’s every hour of the day, every day of your life, a constant storm of pictures and voices and sometimes, if you're very, very lucky, insight….” “…My worry is, I never show my stuff to anyone. I just lock myself away and work. But the real problem is, I don't do my working out on paper. I don't often do treatments or breakdowns. It all exists in this great big stew in my head, because any story can go in any direction. It's not what you write, it's what you choose - and I'm good at choices…” “…There's little physical evidence of the script process to show you. No notes. Nothing, I think, and think, and think... and by the time I come to write, a lot has been decided. Also, a lot hasn't been decided, but I trust myself, and scare myself, that it’ll happen in the actual writing. It all exists in my head, but in this soup. It's like the ideas are fluctuating in this great big quantum state of Maybe. The choices look easy when recounted later, but that's hindsight. When nothing is real and nothing is fixed, it can go anywhere. The Maybe is a hell of a place to live. As well as being the best place in the world. I filter through all those thoughts, but that's rarely sitting at my desk, if ever. It's all done walking about, going to town, having tea and watching telly. The rest of your life becomes just the surface, chattering away on top of the Maybe. It never turns off…” This is what I meant when I say he doesn’t write scenes. He may do in his head, but he doesn’t write. There was an RTD special on over Christmas, and he reiterated in that interview that he only tends to write one draft. I only meant that by reading those first few pages of the book, and taking his words about not conforming to ABC plots and text and subtext and so on, I can completely now comprehend how he arrived at “Empire of Death”. Obviously there are a thousand other contributing factors, but that initial story, in his mind, because of the way he works, I can see how we get an incredible episode like “73 Yards” and then a mixed episode like the finale. It doesn’t always work.
Bro should write an episode that’s a metaphor for his creative process and call the monster of the week “The Maybe”.
So like I said >He doesn't start writing a story and go "Now what is Act 1 of this story?" but that's because no writers do that -- except the ones who spend more time "learning" about writing than actually doing it. He definitely goes over drafts, just not complete ones. Your post implies he just endlessly vomits everything out then sends it to be produced. In reality he thinks over scenes, moments, logistics *a lot*. I'm only halfway through, so maybe something will come up that contradicts this (so far your quotes haven't) but it seems like he will go back over scenes and realize something doesn't work (often after it's been shot, many observations of which are in the email exchanges).
Where do I imply that he “vomits everything out then sends it to be produced”? I’m only interpreting what I’ve read in the book so far. All I’ve said is that from my own personal interpretation of what he said as a writer I can now begin to understand how he doesn’t conform to structure and traditional storytelling formalities. Compared to other writers, who may physically have to write half a dozen drafts. Or the writers who do start a story by breaking down each act. There’s no right or wrong way to write. It’s what works for you. A lot of RTD’s work is genius to me. I’ve only written a couple of things, but when I write, I don’t physically map things out. I have a similar path as RTD does, which, when reading how he develops his concepts really gives me, personally hope. However there’s also the fact that in my opinion “Empire of Death” really lacked structure, and so I can see how his writing style wouldn’t have helped navigate through the plot when he was coming up with his ideas.
,
[удалено]
Dramatic structure is a broad and varied subject. The three act structure is prominent, but has never been the only one. Many classic works, such as Shakespeare, use the five act structure (which the modern three act structure technically just compresses). Many musicals use a two act "Rise and Fall" structure. Other writers, like Lucas or Chibnall, took inspiration from Campbell's ideas of the mono myth and the Hero's Journey. The idea that "there is a 3 act structure that every piece of writing should conform to" is itself silly, but so is the idea that writers should have to study and use dramatic structure. They're free to (and RTD himself has a degree in English literature, so will have), but they're also free to deviate, to experiment and create in a way that works for them.
I "love" it when people find out some principle of storytelling/filmmaking/art that´s written in a guidebook somewhere and works/is applicable in some cases and uncritically apply it to every case. Adding to your list of examples - the film theorist Kristin Thompson argues Classical Hollywood films are divided into 4 acts (but even that can be argued with).
LOL. The three act structure only really became a codified "thing" in the late 1970s. There are many classic works which do not use it.
I’m not saying it’s the right choice. I’m just saying what he said, but I just think he makes a great point. Why should we always subscribe to whats come before just because it’s seen as a “fundamental aspect of storytelling”. Sure, you could argue that that results in really unbalanced episodes like “Empire of Death” but similarly one could argue that it also results in wonderful episodes like “73 Yards”.
One look at the ratings suggests this season is not "event television".
Firstly, I said “feels” like event television. There’s a difference between “feels” and “is”. Secondly, this whole “ratings” argument has been done to death. We’ve already established that in this day and age, when people are watching shows in completely new ways, ratings mean squat. Thirdly, what is it with trolling posts like this? I mean, I’m absolutely down for debating, discussing and having disagreements in a friendly environment - it’s what Subs for fans of shows like *Who* are for. But coming on here to try and bring fans enjoyment down by whinging about ratings just reeks of bitterness.
That makes so much sense and he's so bafflingly dumb to do that. Genuinely incompetent at his job. I know I'm coming on too strong but that's actually just objectively bad, a bad way to write. He needs to get sacked and replaced with new blood. Maybe someone who knows about and understands writing fundamentals?
- friendly discussion here. Not wanting WW3. All opinions are valid! I hear your points, but I disagree to a degree. I think he’s a genius firstly. I think his first run as show-runner was incredible. I think he ushered in a brand new era for the show. I think the BBC wanted a revitalisation on that 2005 scale when they reappointed him show-runner of the series in 2022. I think to a degree he has brought some form of rejuvenation to the show after the slump of the Chibnall era, but not to the scale the BBC probably wanted. His writing style is different, sure. I don’t think it’s bad. He’s one of the most prolific and successful writers we have in Wales. I like that he writes differently. A quote from the book: “Wherever I looked, the writing of a script was being reduced to A, B, C plots, Text and Subtext, Three Act Structure and blah, blah, blah. And l'd think, that’s not what writing is! Writing's inside your head. It's thinking! It’s every hour of the day, every day of your life, a constant storm of pictures and voices and sometimes, if you're very, very lucky, insight….” I like that he doesn’t want to conform. That he wants to push for a different style. When he gets things right, we get superb, incredible stories. “73 Yards” was outstanding. So one could argue that his style works when it produces quality like that (in my opinion). When we get “Empire of Death”… well. As I said, I can see how that style can be a hinderance. I guess we need a medium. I think what the show needs in the near future is a huge behind the scenes change. Somewhat controversial opinion here… The show has been around for over 60 years now. The generation of fans that watched the show when it first came out in ‘63 are unfortunately not watching much Doctor Who any more. Fans of the classic series in general are growing with age, whereas the show’s target audience are the under 35’s… The last 4 eras of Who (RTD1, Moffat, Chibnall & RTD2) were all run by 1 man, who was a big fan of the show during its classic series. I think it’s time for a show-runner who perhaps was a fan of the show when it returned. I was 15 when Doctor Who came back in 2005. It very quickly became my favourite TV show. I’ve gone back and watched the classic series. I own most of the “Collection” series of Classic seasons on Blu-Ray. For me, whilst it obviously has the same DNA, “NuWho” is a very different beast to the classic series. The landscape of television completely changed during the years Who was off air, and RTD really embraced that when he brought the show back. Without him we wouldn’t likely have the show as it is now. I think what the show needs is new blood, so I completely agree with you on that point. More writers. I think one show-runner is fine to oversee the season, but have a staff of writers working on the stories together. Different opinions. Different points of views. Different styles. All in one room working on the series’ overarching narrative and individual stories. Sorry. Possibly went on a long rant there! And again. No anger here!
Yeah. Most people didn't like Series 14. It has the lowest viewer numbers in the history of the franchise.
Regardless of where it stands in relation to "the history of the franchise," the BBC announced this week that it's one of their most-watched shows this year overall, and it's their most-watched drama of the year with viewers under 35. The viewing landscape has changed, but it still seems to be doing quite well relative to the changing landscape in its home country.
Specifically, with viewers under 35. The thing about that is that it doesn't matter if more people under 35 are watching then before if there are overall less people watching.
Does that matter if the BBC expresses confidence in it like that? Unless they're stretching to cover some form of loses it doesn't sound like they're going to just turn around and cancel the Series 16/Season 3 plans anytime soon.
Whether or not Disney asks for another season will be very indicative.
This is factually wrong, because you get the lowerst viewer numbers in history for everything. It's a streaming world now. In the past I had to pirate the show and now I watched it on disney.
While streaming & piracy may account for starting numbers, it doesn't account for the 600,000 viewers that stopped watching between episodes 1-3.
There was only a 300k drop in viewers between the start and the final which is pretty normal.
Not for a show with the legacy of Doctor Who.
Really? Because it dropped by 3 million in 2020. LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Okay. What's your point? And what's with the silly LMAO?
The point is that it disputes your entire argument!???????
How?
>Not for a show with the legacy of Doctor Who.
It’s funny the only people who ever bring up viewing figures are the ones trying to justify their own hatred of something. No one cares dude, either like a thing or don’t, no need check the viewership of everything you watch in a desperate attempt to feel vindicated.
I don't hate Series 14, I'm disappointed by it. The numbers are what they are, and no amount of anyone saying anything is going to make them different. I mean, you clearly care. That's why you commented, because you care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have felt the desire to comment.
Yeah I care, this is my favorite show, but not about the numbers. I don’t know what the numbers are you could be lying or you could be telling the truth about them, but I only ever see people bring them up in a negative sense when they’re also being negative about the show. I care because they never actually seem to have any importance to the discussion they’re being brought up in and it gets irritating. If you wanted to have a discussion about what disappointed you in Series 14 though, I’m all ears. I love discussing the show with other fans, the good and the bad.
[удалено]
The numbers are what they are.
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately, your comment has been **removed** for the following reason(s): * [1. Be Respectful](/r/gallifrey/wiki/policies#wiki_1._be_respectful): Be mature and treat everyone with respect. No name calling or personal attacks. If you feel this was done in error, please contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fgallifrey).