What hasn’t been said in criticism levelled at the Moffat era of Doctor Who is that most of the complaints: ‘Its changed too much’, ‘the writing is bad’ ‘its too sexualised’ have all been levelled at the show before.
They’re not unique to Moffat’s rule at all. They are the general gripes and moans that come with watching a programme that can give the greatest and occasionally toss the worthless in our general direction.
In an attempt to address these criticisms Den of Geek’s James T. Cornish has asked the burning question: Is Doctor Who really in trouble?
Taking on each criticism the article adds a sober, common sense perspective where other mediums may have jumped on the issue.
Although its readiness to dismiss the Private Eye rumours out of hand – especially using the example of Planet of the Dead’s budgetary issues after the damage to the iconic double decker (surely a one off accident is different to the internal management problems that Private Eye reports?) – is a bit disappointing after the considered approach it takes to:
Doctor Who becoming too dark:
“Doctor Who has always had a dark streak running through it, right from the very first episode…In The Daleks’ Masterplan, Sara Kingdom was aged by the Daleks’ Time Destructor until she turned to dust… Not to mention the Master’s penchant for eating the homeless in The End Of Time.
And if you don’t think Midnight is dark, then you’re made of sterner stuff than most people.
It’s changed too much:
“In 1970, Doctor Who was given a radical overhaul. It was in colour, the producers and script editors had changed, and the Doctor was stuck on Earth helping UNIT. From then on, the series went from strength to strength.
Doctor Who’s success is rooted in how freely it can change.”
And Doctor Who has become too sexual:
“There’s been a pseudo-sexual element to Doctor Who since the 1960s. It’s there to keep the dads and teenage boys watching. Why else do you think the costume designers put Wendy Padbury (the Second Doctor’s companion, Zoe) in such short skirts?”