Doctor Who: 5 Things To Learn From Classic Series & 5 Things That Are Better

2.Writing Agendas

In two other articles I've written for this site, I've mentioned that the writing pool could benefit from being widened, particularly in the current Moffat regime. The Classic Series certainly did take more risks and wins in that particular department; I won't flog that particular dead horse here. Instead, I'll turn to the elephants in the room...."Sherlock" and "Torchwood" (Probably the ONLY instance in recent memory I've grouped those two together.) I'll be blunt. Steven Moffat and Russell T. Davies are great writers. Nag on them for their pet features or characters/dialogue, they are very good at what they do. Most people who rag on Moffat now are probably conveniently forgetting how much they loved him when he was writing for David Tennant's Doctor. Perversely, I've heard some people say Tennant was what made those stories good - If that's true, I'd really have appreciated Davey T fixing "New Earth", "Fear Her", or "Planet of the Dead".

So, two great writers running Doctor Who - Should be great, right? Even a duff script can get a good touch up from them. It's not like they're busy with other projects or agendas that - oh. Blunt again. Torchwood reeked of the dirtiest kind of piggybacking; Davies shoehorned the name or organization into every episode of Who's Series 2. (He clearly learned his lesson, as the "Saxon" hints in series 3 were much better and subtly placed in only appropriate stories) The show's quality veered wildly; Even supporters of Torchwood tend to admit that first year, at best, was a rough birth. And hilariously, it seemed almost ashamed to mention where it came from - As though that silly "Doctor Who" show WASN'T bringing in the bulk of its audience. One could be forgiven for thinking that Davies was looking AHEAD with Torchwood, and thought that Doctor Who would really only ever be taken seriously by the kind of sad anoraks that were willing to spend money on "Time and the Rani" (Before you ask - No, I didn't). The REAL drama and character show would be "Torchwood". THAT was adult. Of course, this show posited that adults are the most sexually selfish and immature people in the UNIVERSE (Jack certainly helps that be fact rather than exaggeration). Also, what in blazes is even remotely adult about a Cyberwoman in a bikini taking hits from an attacking dinosaur? That's only "adult" in the sense that when I was 8 years old I'd have thought that it was a GREAT idea for a TV show to make when I was older (Notice I don't work in television now that I am). Series 2 got better, but at that point Doctor Who was showing a lead (Tennant) and thematic maturity in Series 3 that made Torchwood look like a juvenile show for people to watch when they wanted to see who banged Gwen that week (I'm surprised PC Andy didn't get a look in), or what Jack would kiss next (The answer: Ianto, or whatever dude was around when he wasn't). It seemed as Doctor Who soared, Torchwood sputtered with one grand last gesture ("Children of Earth", which is a Pertwee "Doctor Who" without the Doctor) and then a poorly paced encore ("Miracle Day", which proves no one learned anything from McGann's "Doctor Who" movie regarding diluting Britishness with American convention). And throughout those times, Davies seemed to suddenly remember to put his weight mostly behind "Who" - And it REALLY showed. Series 2, the "Torchwood Primer", is the weakest of his Tennant years. And as Torchwood ebbed and flowed, it began to namecheck "Doctor Who" more and more - It's as though the pasting it took in year one taught it a lesson - Don't forget where you came from. (That line is SO satisfying if you imagine Eccleston's Doctor yelling it at the Torchwood team.) So it's funny Moffat's done the same thing all over again. And he can claim that "Sherlock" is not interfering with "Who" at all. Except that its leads' lines are at times INTERCHANGEABLE. Go on, imagine Matt Smith delivering the same rant Cumberbatch does in "A Study in Pink" about how slow and frustrating everyone else's mind is. Doesn't take much. It's telling that the "categorization/analysis" via film zoom Smith does in 'The Eleventh Hour" is NEVER repeated in Who....seeing as Cumberbatch inherited that trick to his series. Sherlock series 3 starts filming this month. So does the 50th anniversary special. And isn't it funny, that Series 8 won't be along sooner? Hmm, that couldn't be down to anything taking up extra time and resources.....of the two primary writers who are responsible for BOTH shows.

Look, don't get me wrong, "Sherlock" is actually very good (Certainly better than "Torchwood" on the whole). But the classic series of Doctor Who put EVERYTHING into its production, or brought in other writers or resources when it was spread thin. Notably, when "Who" lost MANY of its regular contributors in the late 70s to the BBC producing "Blakes 7", the quality took a bit of a dip. If the producers of the classic series of "Doctor Who" had big plans outside of "Doctor Who" they did something very obvious - They left. If they didn't (as in the late 80s) the show often floundered, as did their careers. There's a lesson to be learned here..... I know the production of "Who" is very different now. But the cracks are beginning to show, and rather than going on about Prisoner Zero, they're instead saying "Sorry about Series 8. There's no connection, we swear". Forgive me for saying this harshly, but that has smacked of asking us to ignore the man behind the curtain. It may be true, but even Cumberbatch would probably grimace upon analysis of the facts.