Well, That’s All the Time We Have for Now

Hello, dear listener, and welcome back to Flight Through Entirety the only Doctor Who podcast that knows how many seconds there are in eternity. I'm Nathan. I'm Brendan. I'm Todd. I'm James. I'm Peter. I'm Simon. And I'm the last of the Hogmany T for this one. Well, just last week, we said goodbye, not only to Peter Capaldi's doctor, but also to the new series 2nd showrunner, Stephen Moffat during whose tenure, we've had 84 episodes. We've met 2 doctors, 5 companions, and 3 wives, and we've travelled to Gallifre, Trezalore, The Big Bang, and the very end of time itself. And we've also spent an inordinately creepy amount of time lurking under people's beds. So let's find out what we've learned in the Capoldi Moffat Retrospective. All right, I'm going to ask a question, and the question is this. What is your favourite Peter Cabaldi season, starting with Richard? 10 out of 10? I think maybe eight. I have to agree with Richard 10. That's brilliant. 10 for the characters I'd have to say 8 as well. There's a big case for eight, but I'm going 10. I'm going 10. I mean, I have a massive soft spot for 10 and I've loved it as we've gone through this time. It's good too, though. It's a sort of RTD season. It's got the romance subplot, all of that sort of thing. I mean, I'm going to be controversial and say I ate was a difficult choice because I was going to, I want what I really want to say was, well, none of them really, none of them for me really stand out. I think they've all got problems. I don't buy the O season 10 is absolutely fantastic. I'm not in that group because I think there are too many kind of really ordinary episodes in it, even though there are some great some of the, I think some of the best Capaldi episodes are in season 10, but I think there's just a lot of ordinariness and there's just things that annoy me too much about all 3 seasons, I'm afraid. I think they're sort of good for different reasons because season 8 has a very strong arc and through line, and that helps to make that good, whereas series 10 is just Moffat on autopilot, and I don't mean that as a bad thing. He just turns out a really great series of episodes, and so it's good for that reason. This is not the response I was expecting. I thought we were going to get a universal 10 out of 10, so we could discuss season 10 and put it to 10. But, you know, that's the joy of doing these episodes. So let's go back to the beginning, which is deep breath. And did we all see deep breath at the... State Theatre? Yes. No. I saw it at a theatre in Clapham with Matt Jones and Bexlovin. Yes, you went back yet, were you? I saw it in Washington, DC. with some friends at a gay bar. I think I saw it at the Dandy in Newtown. I don't think I saw it at the state theatre. I have this just very strong memory of leaving the state theatre going, I can't believe that they went with that music. I can't believe they went with those credits. Because wasn't there a Capaldi interview alive? like he was there. Yeah, Cabaldi and Coleman were both there, I think. I can't remember. They were. I guess I was at that. Yes. Was there the one where the ABC presenter who was doing the interviewing called mentioned a list of companions, including the Australian one played by Jane Fielding? possibly. There was that guy. He kind of lost credibility from that point. I can't remember. He's the same guy who interviewed Frone Lieberitz at the Opera House and got it all wrong as well. I haven't seen him on the radio since then. And yes, I am mixing my media. He also said that Nissa was played by Matthew Waterhouse, right? So it wasn't always... So when you left that episode. What were your feelings at that point in time with this new era embarking upon us? It is a little bit hard to remember. There's a way in which the 11th hour is kind of a perfect polished thing, you know. And so deep breath isn't that. Deep breath is doing something different. In fact, it's the opposite. It's doing the trick that robot does, isn't it? Where you drop the new doctor into the old doctor's show? That's right. I always feel like 11th hour is spearhead from space. Yeah, deep breath is robot. Yeah, I think that's kind of right, isn't it? Like, I think it's good. It's bleak, and maybe the doctor is a little bit too much, but it's Capaldi, and I think I loved him immediately. Were you concerned at all about the direction of this new doctor like the fact that he wasn't as perhaps as likeable as the previous? Well, I think the show was concerned. You know, the way it is. I had concerns walking away from that going, that's the direction they're going. Like we've had 2 young doctors. We've now got an older, grumpier doctor. Like, you know, this is the Colin situation where he's perhaps not as likeable. I was concerned about that direction. And it's good to go back and revisit all of this because I really enjoyed this episode so much more and seeing the through line for series 8 when, you know, we very watched it. I really have appreciated so much more, because at the time I was much more concerned about, am I a good man? I think the show spends far too much time going over and over and over that. Like, I think maybe it needed to be put to bed sooner. The am I a good man thing? Yeah. I mean, it's dramatically valid. It's an interesting path for the character to take, but the fact that it's an basically entire season, and then part of the next one as well, like he really doesn't kind of become the doctor unfettered until his last season. It's also asking a question. We don't need an answer to. Yes, he's the doctor. He is a good man. Move on. The thing that I find a little bit irritating is the obsession about his age because I think it's a little bit demeaning to Peter Capaldi to keep harping on about the fact that, oh, you're so old. Well, Clara, want to stay with you because you're not hot anymore. You're old, that I find a little bit, yeah. And so I'm glad they left that behind fairly quickly. I think they, it's almost like they cast Peter Capaldi and then immediately had 2nd thoughts and think, oh, God, what have you done? And is this going to be a problem? And I remember someone we know who said he walked into a news agent, WH Smith, or whatever it was over there and suddenly saw the front cover of Doctor Who magazine with what he said was an old man on the cover and he went, oh, oh. I actually had the same kind of reaction. I think Todd, you and I came out of the state theatre wondering whether they were going to try and do the Colin Baker thing, but do it right, or at least not be interrupted by an unfortunate hiatus. Because remember the plan of the Colin Baker year, it was that he was going to become, you know, he was going to become softer over his 20 year run as the doctor because, you know, he was going to break all the records. But yeah, I didn't concern me per se. I was very happy with, yes, let's try something different. Let's try something else. And I think broadly speaking, it does sort of work. I mean, they kind of throw it away sometimes and bring it back. But, I mean, the character, the great thing is the character does evolve and change over the 3 seasons, and I think that's a good thing. I certainly like the series 8 characterisation a lot and how ambiguous it is. And I think it works better than the Colin Baker characterisation partly just because it's better written and the... Might be a slightly better actor. And he's a better actor. Much as I love home. We all love Colin, but... I don't even think that Colin is to most valid comparison. I think it's Pertwee at his spikiest. Yeah, yeah. Peter, yes, I agree. I mentioned that a number of times where, you know, season 7 is very, and even into the beginning of eight, he's very different. It's Joe. It's the way that Bill humanises Capaldi's doctor. He's what Joe does to Pertwe's doctor. And even when Pertweese doctors being grumpy, we know he loves Joe and so he has to be kind of a good guy. Simon and Nathan, you've said that it's your favourite season. Why is that? I like that it follows the RTD structure after some experiments in 6 and 7. We're kind of back to just doing a normal season finally, and that's a little bit of a relief. I like the through line a lot. It introduces Missy. There's a lot of missy in it, and I think that the, uh, the school staff and the rom-com staff is so close to what Moffatt probably always wanted to do, given the way his TV writing career started. So I just think all of that works really well. I just think it's got better episodes in it, because as I keep saying, that season 10 has not got that many. It's got some great episodes in it and certainly anything with Missy, it's just absolutely spectacular. It's got some great episodes, particularly the pilot and world enough in time, but there's a lot of them, which I go, I just don't care. I'm not, I'm not feeling it. It's all, they all feel like they need an extra draft. Then it makes sense. We were saying a lot of this all the way through, whether it was things like knock, knock, or even that back end, like with the eases of light and Empress of Mars. I'm not a big fan of any of those. Whereas I think that all that, that missy through line in series 8 I think, I think does work really well, especially because even though we know she's going to be the master. We all know she's going to be the master, but it's the way that'll unfold. I like the school stuff, the thing I don't like. The only thing I don't like about the school stuff is, of course the PE, all the PE stuff. I think that is ill judged. Basically the caretaker. Yeah, and that's basically summarised by the caretaker, which is a woeful episode for me anyway, even though there's some great fun parts of it. But look, I, as I said before, I'm not saying season 8 series 8 is my favourite of the 3 because I love it. I'm saying series A is my preferred of the three, but it's a very very subtle variation. Because even series 9. I love it. I don't know why series 9 doesn't get any love because I love that opening 2 part. I think it's fantastic. I adore all three. Coming back to him. There's a lot of strength in nine, which I love, but as we, we'll get on to tonight in a moment, but coming back to eight, like I had to think about whether it was 8 or 10 and I really like a lot of episodes a lot in eight. It's just, it's the am I good man thing. And it's a variation within episodes where the doctor can be really funny one moment and then quite harsh. And I found that a little bit jarring throughout. And as you said, like, there's episodes where you, like, Robert Sherwood. he's much more what he is much later on. And it sort of jumps backwards and forwards between things and that's interesting, but I also find it a bit jarring throughout the season. But certainly I think there's this perception that he's just very harsh all the way through. And like even in time heist. He's not. Like there's there's a lot that isn't, you know? I think so much of a season's success is actually a little bit outside of the showrunners purview. So if we think of a good season. It tends to be that there are good episodes dotted throughout. You don't get clumps of good and clumps of bad episodes. And so series 8 starts well with deep breath. I personally think Time Heist is really good. Others think listen is really good. Then we've got that one, two, punch from Jamie Matheson of Mummy on the Orient Express and Flatline, and then it ends with Dark Water and its 2nd half. And so all the good episodes are placed and evenly spaced out, and that leaves you feeling that it's a great season. I honestly think, too, that Kill the Moon is also a good episode. Congratulations, honesty. There are some seminars you can attend, yeah. to help you work with that too. I would like to. I would just like to say I'm glad that Simon and Nathan are on opposite sides of the room after that comment because I was on that episode. Yes, but I dislike that and think it's terrible not for everyone that sort of says, oh, it's terrible because the moon's an egg. No, that's actually not why it's terrible. No, no, I remember. Actually, every other... One, you're going to make the sewer mutants angry. Two, everything else that's horribly wrong. I guess we'll get back to the 1st half of the morphant era later but the other reason, I think, why I have such a lukewarm reaction to this era, even though I think Capelli's a great actor, and even though there's so much I love about his characterisation to the doctor, is that for me, the whole thing is just a step down from what we've just had. Even the slight dodginess of series seven. I'll take series 7, 6 over any of the Capaldi seasons any day. I think that 5 and 6 are 2 of the strongest. are the 2 stronger seasons that the new show has produced by a substantial margin. I know that 6 doesn't get a lot of love, but I still think it's up there. I think 6 is great. I think it is really good. That's also where I'm coming from. It's a step. The whole capacity is a step down. Do you know, Simon, I might have once agreed with you, but actually on rewatching... We agree on many things. This is just that we enjoy the things that we don't. Yeah, I had the reverse experience, actually. I actually think that... Not a Tot experience. No, he's having a tot experience, right? Aren't we all do this? A bit moist on this side. Oh, thank you. I actually... you the mints in our sausage roll pastry, does it? That mints a lot. Todd, when Nathan said to you at the beginning of this recording why don't you sit in the middle? Anyway, I had a slightly reversed experience assignment and that I actually think the Capaldi era is a little bit better than the Matt Smith era. There's not much in it, but I think 8 and 10 do elevate it above Matt Smith's years. I agree. I agree with you. My experience is that I really, really love the commolder is so much more and I have problems with the back end of 7 and I have problems with the weaker episodes in six. So for me, where, you know, it's a line ball thing between six seven, 9 and 8 and I'm just edging slightly ahead for 8 and 9 over those other 2 series. One of our listeners, Kate Orman, and dear friends, has this. Watching Doctor Who requires us to suspend disbelief, of course. But have there been any stories that have strange or credulity anything that was simply difficult to believe in the forest of the night? So this was an episode where I actually requested not to be on because I didn't want to be a massively negative voice about it. Oh, it's great fun. should do it. Well, this is my shot, and I'm going to say sleep no more. Because sleep no more. You know what? It has a lot going for it. The direction's amazing. I think the relationship between Bethany Black's character and Blue Ando is it? Their love interest, I think, is one of the great tragic romances Doctor Who has done in the new series. But with Sleep No More, it's, you know, it functions on horror movie logic, and they kind of use that as an excuse to not really explain things, and then at the end we're told, oh, maybe this didn't happen anyway, and we have the doctor screaming, none of this makes any sense. And I literally, during the credits turn to Rod, and I said, I have never been told by a writer, the last 45 minutes you've spent watching this are worthless. And I just, I'm just angry every time I think about that episode. And the thing is, that's why I said, actually, James, I don't, I could, I could come on and be incredibly entertained or get incredibly bitchy, but I don't want to be because I feel like it is already kicked that one. I fairly. Think yourself lucky, Brendan. It was supposed to be a two-parter. Yes, oh God. Oh, Mark. Yeah, but I do think it's one of the few times that Mark 8 is really, really fumbles. It's fires. Nathan? I want to challenge the premise of the question. Yes. Because we have to suspend disbelief anyway watching this incredible... don't suspend disbelief. It's a TV show and you're watching it. And Moffatt in particular is not creating a coherent world for these adventures to happen in. He's telling a type of story that involves these characters. And so you're never, ever invited to forget that this is a story and that it operates on the logic of a story. And I think that that's kind of what Gatus is going for in sleep no more, for instance, that the whole scaffolding of the fact that it's a story is there on display. And that's what Moffat does all the time. It's just a story. And so I don't think anything happens that's so implausible that I can't believe it. May I reinforce the premise of the question then? Because I get what you're saying, that it's all a TV show and it's all made up, et cetera, et cetera. But whenever you're watching any TV program, it needs to work consistently within itself. There are rules that are set up, often in the 1st few minutes of watching a film, television show, whatever it is, where you accept certain things, that you can travel through time and space in a police box at the dog. Whatever it happens to bear. All the. established a world for you. You establish a work for you. Basically, it's when the suspension of disbelief means that you are, once you've bought the fact that those incredulous things are real in the context of this story, those rules have to then be applied throughout the rest of the at least the episode that you're watching. Doctor Who has the flexibility that different stories can mix that up and have completely different universes that the show visits and different styles of the program. It's when you're in the middle of an episode where there are wires that get crossed because of whether the way it's written, whether the way it's being performed, whatever it is, that interrupts that I think that is what we're talking about. Not the fact that the moon is an egg, for instance. Yeah, well, how about this then? Because Moffat centres the stories very much on the regular cast. We have lots and lots of episodes that don't have a large guest cast. And so the rules that are established are established within the well-drawn personalities of the characters. And so one way that you could have your suspension of disbelief challenge is if one of them behaved in a way that was implausible or inconsistent with their previous behaviour. And I still think it's the moment that Amy's baby collapses into a puddle of seek in front of her and she continues to travel with the doctor after that. I was going to say, I think for you, I was thinking back to Resurrection of the Darwix, and you saying, if your script has, the doctor picks up a gun and unloads the clip into a creature, that's where the story's gone wrong. And I think I think for you it's less about the conception of the world more about the conception of the character. Yeah. But the point being that the question is still valid because it'll mean slightly different things for different people. right. And so I suppose you must have, what was your answer then if you accept that that's a possible... it's that. If a character... sort of doesn't behave in the right way. Think about the Russell era creates a world and it might be a world that is perhaps a little bit too small, but it's a world where all of these things have happened where people remember them and react to them and the adventures take place in that world and it's possible for that world to be inconsistent. But Russell's very careful about not doing that. Moffatt doesn't care about that. That's not his approach. And he is more like a sitcom rider in that he has a stable of characters who behave in ways that we recognise as predictable or who act against type for one reason or another. And so in that sense, I think, given that the world that Moffatt creates is the world of those characters, I think that when those characters behave inconsistently, that's where I'm going to find the biggest problem. So, I mean, I broadly agree with what you were saying about sort of internal logic to a world that's set up. There's a reason that I don't like in the forest of the night because there's a certain subset of Doctor Who stories that are telling an allegorical story. I think Kilamoon is one of them, I think, um, in the Forest and I obviously. Gridlock. Gridlock, that's the one I was going to say. Obviously, gridlock is a far superior episode to in the forest of the night. But when you're being asked to believe that this is set on the recognisable earth of Clara and Danny dating and being school teacher and that, and that the world has just forested over and that you're in the middle of Piccadilly Circus and you're just in a forest and then the forest disappears because we want to make a point, I don't buy that. It's the kind of story where you think you don't have an internal logic here. I'm being asked to believe things in the story that step outside of what it's setting up. See, I don't think I have that limit. And I think that having that limit is kind of asking the show to do less ambitious things, I think. I don't think it's asking it to do less ambitious things at all because I think it is something like Mummy on the Orient Express that that doesn't challenge my sense of my suspension of disbelief because, even though it's a tradition. Even though it's technics, it's no difference to, you know, sailing ships going through space and enlightenment. we've done that sort of thing before, that doesn't matter. It's because of the way, again, the way it's treated internally, it all kind of just works together. I get what you're saying about, you know, Amy's baby turning into a bucket of sick being actually a far worse crime than anything else. But I'd probably have to say in the forest of the night would be my my selection too, which is just because this just doesn't work for me. And I don't I'm not buying it. For whatever reason, even though I can see lots of other stupid things. The other one I don't particularly like for the same reason is just Empress of Mars. I think it just stretches a bit too far. But, you know, I could go on. They're all looking at Todd now. What's your choice? My choices are the end of kill the moon. I just can't believe the egg gets laid in exactly the same place right? I can buy it up to that point, but it's the same. Just, yeah, it just doesn't, that just doesn't work for me. And it's the whole forest disappearing in the forest of the night. They're the 2 episodes from this era that I just... Killer Moon is such a divisive episode. Do you think we ought to divide into separate corners of the room and turn on our lights if we like it? turn on our lights if we don't like it. Richard. Listening to all of you, I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I look at the arc and the position that Gattus and Mark and Stephen come from, and that they really embrace YA, the new kind of fusion writing of fiction and allegory and fairy tale and run of the mill ordinariness. And then I look at Russell's time, which is very much buried in the here and now and the substantive and the 3D and the soap, but then expanding on that. And I really appreciate where Stephen was trying to go and maybe it's the dictates of time. It's always time to do dumb, but it is. And, you know, the ideas that he had and some of them were really glorious. There were some, you know, from Charles Foss to, I'm trying to think of the SF Riders writing about 20 years ago that, anyway they were picking up on these guys, trying to bring that in. And you can see it when you watch the San Diego Comic-Con footage of, you know, of our people in the audience who are all readers as well as or even before their viewers. And I wonder if that's something that Stephen and Mark Gattus brought in, because I do see Markus, the 2nd unofficial writer for tone anyway, for these ideas. And yes, they don't succeed, and that's kind of impossible to do that in 45 minutes and on this budget. But there are ideas just flowing constantly. And finally, with Capaldi, I was able to get out of my crawl, that whole business that we've talked again so much about with Amy's child and how a tub of silly putty can become River song. I don't know. I don't remember how any of that works because I don't really, even though I watched it twice, it's just such a unholy mess of a misunderstanding of how to write for women. And that's just me saying that. But anyway, where I'm trying to go with this is they're a brilliant concepts. They may fall, but my goodness, we are taken to places. We've never been to in the show before. It's interesting what you say about Moffat and Mark Gitas, almost being like an assistant showrunner, because that's what happened in the 1st series where Doctor 2 came back. You had the people who brought in like Paul Cornell and Gaitas and Rob Scherman, and they were all looking back. They were looking at the greatest hits of what Doctor Who was and what they wanted to do. Russell was charged with looking forward and creating a series that would work in the 21st century. I think Moffat and Gaitas work in the same way. Moffat's always thinking about the future and where the series needs to go, whereas Gatus is this reassuring presence who always looks back at classic Doctor Who and references that and those kinds stories. Yeah, I think that Gatus does challenge himself more as he goes on and that late Gatus is more interesting and does things that the show has never done before, but he does it from a basis of a real proper sense of what works in Doctor Who and what has worked and even when he's being experimental, like in Empress of Mars, which has a very strange premise. And we said that it would have been set in the far future and and the Earth Empire, rather than the British Empire, and deciding, no damn it, we're going to do the British Empire, is absolutely kind of a moment of genius, I think. I don't understand how that timeline works, though, if Mars is joining the Galactic Federation in the Victorian era. Why do we have invasions of Earth by the ice warriors? in the 21st, 22nd century? If only there was some kind of boring Bible you could read. Put all of that into perspective. I think that big Mondassian colony ship just went past them at some point. and sent them back in time. If I may quote an explanation from the life of Brian. splitters. We've talked a lot now about series 8. Dr. Watt asks us. Jenna Common was originally going to leave the show after last Christmas. Would Bill have been a good companion for series nine? No, but another companion would have been great. Well, I think Shona was like the sort of the template in the Christmas special. Yeah, it should have been great. And I do think she's a sort of prototype sort of Bill character in some aspects in the way she reacts to things. Well, I mean, we talked about this at the time. I was deeply concerned about coming into it, like, you know, Clara should have gone, but I was okay with Clara staying on for a bit longer having a, perhaps mentoring somebody else to be the companion, but the direction he took it in was, you know, a lot darker than that. Yeah, I agree with what Simon says, Bill couldn't have really come into series 9 as it was because for better or for worse, when Jenner decides to stay on, Stephen absolutely writes an arc for Clara. You know, yes, you could have created a new character for that arc but the arc he writes is for Jenna, and it seems to be sort of okay, you know, Jenna is becoming a huge star. She's getting a lot of attention and she's decided to stay with us. We're going to give her some really good stuff. And I think this is possibly why the season is less well regarded because it goes to some very dark places, but I can't fault the execution. I agree. It's very dark, but they've kept her on and they give her something meaty to do with the character. It doesn't ask you to suspend your disbelief. Like you can believe that character is going to that place. The love of her life has died terribly. She is heartbroken. She has, you know, nothing to live for, really. Like, you can understand that she's got a death wish. She can understand that she goes to that very dark place because she's in mourning. I mean the question is, is that very interesting? And I think it's the clash of the real world imperatives and the fiction of the show. If Jenna Coleman turns around and says, yes, I'm going to stay for another season. That's fine. You write another season for Clara. If Elizabeth Slayton had said to Philip Hinchcliffe in 1976, I'll do another season, regardless of whether they thought they'd run out of stories for Sarah or that she'd reached her potential. They would have held open the door and said, absolutely. I don't think Clara necessarily had another season in her. I think what they do with the character is fairly, um, it's not all that interesting. It's just because they have to continue the same character. And I think that that was the problem. You know, that was why I think our reaction to series 10 is so much more positive than perhaps the quality of the episodes would suggest because it's so delightful to have Capaldi introduce a new companion to the show. And it turns out, you know, I think I said this before, that Russell didn't expect to change the cast every year. You know, he had what became a hit show. He had good reason to believe that his 2 leads would just continue for years and years, and then Eccleston leaves, and kind of as a result, Billy leaves a year later, and it turns out that was great and that was, you know, the best thing about the ITD era, is it builds up that sort of stable of characters by changing the cast every year. Moffat doesn't do that. And I think it like I wonder whether we lose something for that reason. I think we definitely do. I mean, I love Amy and Rory, but I think they're there too long. They shouldn't have come back for that extra half season. I think Clara is done by her, by the time she's done that one. 5 seasons. I think. Peter, did you say that the advertising campaign in Britain for series 9 is Dr. and Clara same, same or something? Dr. and Clara in the TARDIS. same old, same old. Which is a bizarre thing to say. It's willing, but it's, and maybe that's why we sort of feel serious. I was actually just looking through the episodes of series 9 and I may actually revoke my previous fate for series eight. I might say series 9 as my favourite of 3 because whilst there's a run of dreadful episodes right in the middle of it, there is such good stuff, which things like Magician's Apprentice, which is familiar. There's, um, uh, there's a igon in 2 part, which I've enjoyed much more this time around than I did on. I think it's actually brilliant. Sleep no more. Sorry, Brandon. And, you know, a brief interlude of the tedious face, the raven and then you have the mind-bogglingly superb heaven sent, which is probably amongst the best 15, 45 minutes program the program's ever done. I love how differently people can respond because I would have said if I was going through Sirius 9, A brief interlude for the boring sleep no more before you get into the brilliant face the Raven. Yeah, I think that last 3 episodes of that season is great, and the one regret I have is that Sarah Dollard's episode gets cancelled, you know, at two-thirds of the way through, to be replaced by whatever Moffatt's doing to get Capaldi into Heaven's Sand. I would also say that the Me 2 parter is underrated, and I think particularly the 1st one is actually pretty good. I think the hashtag Me Too partter? I think it's appropriately rated. I'm going to agree with you. I think the girl who died, I liked so much more this time. The 2nd one, I think, has got some really great comedy stuff between Maisie and Peter. rest of it's rubbish. It forced to beats at the end. Oh, the worst way. Totally. The Zigon 2 parter, I think, is really solidly great. The 3 at the end are brilliant. I adore the Dalek story, for all the missy stuff. But I absolutely love the flood. Under the lake. Under the lake. Is that the reason this sofa is moist? Just stop it, Peter. It's a very warm day. You'll get a Snogmarrier void, which I'm not going to... a reasonable moistness. But I absolutely adore that to parter, but and I know a lot of other people don't. But I was saying, I was really surprised how many episodes in that season I really, really like. just how exhausted you are from the Saigon onwards because it's so insular looking that by the end of it. So, 0 my goodness, I just want this to end. And so you not because they're not good episodes. It's just because I'm utterly shattered. And so I'm really, if I actually go down and do all my lovely little ratings. I actually think season 9 probably would come out on top. If you have to do that, in terms of a feeling. It the one that I just can't sit down and watch like the other 2 that I can. I think that's why I love series 10 is because you touched on it before Nathan, it's a breath of fresh air. It's it's a relief. It's a release because you've had this incredibly dark, like emotionally draining season before it. And then you get this wonderful, joyous character in Bill who just is enjoying having fun with her new sort of university professor friend. And it's oh, it's just so much fun. And even though many of the stories are weaker, There's still a joy to watch. I don't buy that. I think a lot of the episodes in series 10 are really strong. No. See, I think they're consistently good. Without being consistently ordinary is the problem. Most of them. I feel I'm sorry. At the point, I was making pizza. like they're not bad. Some of them are more around the average area and some of them are utterly brilliant. But to me, that season is more consistently higher in its quality. I agree. And also it goes back to what I was saying about structure. Series 10 has good episodes dotted throughout. Series 9 suffers by having that Me Too Parta in the middle, which a lot of people don't like, which kind of stalls the momentum. I also think there is a problem with the structure. The reason there's a problem with the structure is they were still doing half season DVDs. So each one had to have 6 episodes because I think the Me Too parter should have been more spread out. So it's like if you have the Dalek 2 parter, the girl who died under the lake before the flood, the woman who lived. You know, the thing is, that still fits in 6 episodes. So you could have done that. And then you have the Zygon 2 parter, and then you have Sleep No More Face the Raven. It gives you time to miss a shoulder because what happens is you get to the end of the girl who died and the ending is such that. Well, you know she's going to come back. And then you come back next week. You don't have Clara. It's called the woman who lived. There's a small highway man in inverted commas running around. It's like, who's this going to be? Whereas if she's been gone for a few weeks. You're like, when is she going to turn up? And I think it would be more fondly remembered, if that were the case, because it just feels like a ploy to get Maisie Williams in because she was hot property. But isn't it doing the trick that the arc does? Isn't that what's happening? Like you go between episode 2 and episode 3 and you head into the future. I think techniques of structuring television programs has evolved a little since 1965 though. Not in Doctor Who. Look, my problem, I like the concept of the girl who died and the woman who lived in, and I don't mind the girl who died actually and people who complain about Odin appearing in the sky and all that stuff, that's just nonsense, because it's all completely consistent, and Capaldi's reaction to it is great. I think you do that episode as the comedy episode, which you do. I think it's disappointing for me that then the woman who lived, I think it wastes the opportunity of, I think that needs to be a bit more sombre, a bit darker. I find it too trite. And that's where it's like, this could be this concept is great. Let's do it a lot better. It just needed a better episode. Well, no, but everything about it. It is fine apart from, well, everything about it. It's fine in terms of the concept is fine, but they just make it too silly and I think that's unnecessary. But then you've got Rufus Hound in it. So it's always going to verge on the on the silliness side of things. I don't even know who that is. No, I think you played the gum. Sam, Sam Swift. still don't know who that is. He's the meddling monk for Big Finish. you know who that is? I think we also lose out a bit in Series 9, and we didn't know this at the time, but we have found out since that a writer was working on a story called How the Monk Got His Habit, and it was going to be a Pre-Peter Butterworth Monk, played by Matt Berry. Wow. And he meddles so much that he actually has to become Rasputin. Otherwise, that otherwise history will be destroyed kind of thing. And losing that gives us the woman who lived, like that concept of Sam Swift. And the whole Beethoven's 5th thing. So why does that all fall over? I believe the writer was committed to other things. That would have been so toasty. Absolutely. They absolutely should bring back the meddling punk and you know who should play him. David Mitchell. That would really work. Disney would, you know, want to put someone with an even bigger face, probably. don't know. I have been here for 200 years waiting for William Shakespeare only to find out he's me. Actually, that will be a really sweet duo. Oh, we could have the massacre all over again. But no, I would love to see Matt Burying Doctor Who. It's long overdue. Yeah, yeah. He does a great Doctor Who theme. I have it right now. So I think I think that there's a there's a failure mode that Moffat does, which is because he's focussed on his characters and because it's drama and drama is about bad things happening to people on the whole, that 9 falls into this hole where everyone's having a really dreadful time and that's hard to watch. And when you compare it to, say, River Song in the Matt Smith era who is suffering this loss, you know, is anticipating the end of her relationship with the doctor, but she's still determined to have fun. She's in prison, but she's fun and funny. And there's a lightness to that. Even though terrible things are happening in the Matt Smith era. It never feels quite as ground down as series 9 does. That's just because of the doctor as well. He is a lighter, brighter person. Yeah, yeah. Something that series 9 made me think of at the time and still does is the earlier seasons of The Walking Dead. Because, you know, I fell off that show around season three. But especially the 1st season, it's 6 very tight episodes. There are characters who are quickly introduced and then dispatched, but they're well, they're well characterised. You care when they go, but getting through series 2, which was longer was in such a slog because it is so dark, even though the character is great, even though the story is great, even though the stakes make you invested, it's hard to get through. And, you know, that was a big property at the same time. And I have to wonder if that style of TV storytelling that Game of Thrones Vikings, I think, was around at that time as well, then you know, influenced Stephen Moffatt because something Richard always says is, you know, Doctor Who does what other shows do at the same time. It looks around to what other entertainment's doing. Or 5 years after. Or 5 years, or 5 years after. Yeah, you can't turn a cruise ship on a sixpence. But yeah, I have to wonder if maybe they then get to the end of this and go, oh, no, God, let's have some fun next year. Where do we all now sit with Peter as the doctor, having watched him all the way through again? What's his legacy? What's your feelings towards what is brought to the show? I think he's my favourite. Like, Stephen Moffat has not always been particularly successful with casting in his TV shows over the years, although post-doctor Who, he's tended to be able to get better people in for his shows but he, I think, casts the 2 best actors to play the doctor. Unquestionably. I was going to say Capaldi is not actually my favourite, but I think he might be one of the best. Nuance colour and range, just what he brings to it. And that's why season 10 works for me. It's Bill. It's the refresher and Nardol. And yes, absolutely, it's Michelle. But it's actually Peter responding to all of them. He's the showrunner, not Stephen Moffat. The doctor is the showrunner as far as the viewer is concerned. And all of the subtleties. And you can, I, I don't know. I mean, we met at this because we know so much about it. But my gut, and what you were both just saying, is that Capaldi has watched all the horrors that have gone on behind the scenes for poor Stephen Moffat and Paul Mark Gatis and everybody else involved, and that mess that Stephen had to bring together, and even in, you know, in season nine. There were huge problems going on for him. And I think Capaldi just does that pert wee thing of the big chook with the big fluttery cape wings. You can just see him bringing everyone together and the doctor himself calms down and knows he is in control and there is a subtlety in what he does. And when he goes to the depths, it's absolutely to the depths and it's just a look in the eye, Capelli nails this season. Well, you were talking about the big fluttery chicken wings and season nine, I could only picture the time monster. Well, that is exactly what I was referring to. Thank you very much. A naked Benton. James? I agree with everything that's been said about Capaldi. He is he's my favourite. actor to play the doctor. I wouldn't have said that. I mean, for many years it would have been Sylves McCoy, obviously because of Sylvester was my doctor when I was a kid. But Caboldi is just, like, there's so much variety in his performance. There's so much colour there and he is the best actor to regularly play this character. He's actually the Maggie Smith of Doctor. And I don't mean, if you've seen Miss Jean Brody. Has anyone seen that recently? I'm in my prime. I know, and she does the Capaldi accent. It's a wonderful book, you know, Mural Spark was a Bletchly codebreaker and devout hater of other women. in that she would pick the characters of failure apart. But Smith won that Oscar through the nuance and variety and just an eye, just the change of emotion. And I was thinking of her when I was watching Capaldi this year. Brendan? Something I found sort of rewatching his era in close succession for the podcast is, and I think this is something that comes from Peter Capaldi himself. So famously, his doctor wears a very chunky ring. And the reason he wears that ring is Peter Capello, the actor, did not want to remove his wedding band. He adores his wife to the point that I've seen an interview at a convention where someone calls him a silver fox and then the interviewer has to explain what silver fox is and he gets terribly embarrassed and says, well, you'd have to ask my wife about that you know. But I think what he brings to the doctor is this very guarded love and affection, which he masks with contempt and rudeness and what have you. But it's absolutely there from the beginning when he says to Clara I'm not your boyfriend. I didn't say it was your mistake. You know, um, much in the same way that Sylvester McCoy says a big core of his character was thinking this is a very old person and everyone they know is gone. And what does that do to you? I think what Capaldi hooks into is that, but also he's loved all these people. And so when we get to the end of his era and he doesn't want to regenerate, he doesn't want to go on. At the time, I really hated that. But watching it all sort of compress close together. It's like, no, that is totally in keeping with this character. He's not my favourite of the new ones. That's still Christopher Eccleston, and I think it's the Sylvester McCoy effect. He was my doctor as well along with James. So it's like Christopher Eccleston brings it back. He saves Doctor Who, like so many other people do at that time as well. But yeah, there is no moment. I saw Peter Capaldi as a doctor where I'm like, no, you should have done that differently. And I'm including like very early stuff. Like, I know people criticise his comedy and robot of Sherwood. No, I think he absolutely nails that. They're wrong. It's very nice to do. Yeah. I think he's the one actor who doesn't put a foot wrong in his portrayal, and it's consistent and believable and concrete, and I find it so interesting that he's declined to return for big finish and I think it's a matter of maybe, you know, it's like it's a perfect part of his life. Why revisit it? You know, famously, he was so thrilled when Jenna stayed on because he adored Jenna. And then Pearl comes along and Pearl has spoken about how much Peter adored her and welcomed her. I think for him, it's just, this is a perfect discrete 4 years of my life. And he's actually said that in interviews since he's been asked to come back and said, no, to me, the doctor is something I inhabited. It was this moment in my life that, you know, it's a whole thing. Yeah, I can't revisit it. That was around him not so saying in advance that he wouldn't come back if invited for a 60th, I think, wasn't it? I think also, wasn't that also to do with that argument that he wants his successes to have clear air before the previous doctor come back? So it comes back. So I wouldn't necessarily say he'll never do. Oh no. anything, but certainly at this moment in time. So, Simon, your thoughts? Look, I agree with you that I think he doesn't put it foot wrong. I don't think Matt Smith puts a fit foot wrong either. Disagree. I think he has one or 2 moments. victory of the Daleks, for instance. I think he's not quite there yet. Some of those sequences in Nightmare and Silver, where he's enough to do things. Yeah, yeah. Maybe I'll forgive some of those. I don't see them as wrongfooted. Like I've seen happened since the computer Capaldi era, as you say. But the thing is that I was mournful when Matt Smith left because I thought, oh, they'd only got their act together and they could be, there could be another season. He could have done another season. He's so brilliant. He's just such a perfect doctor. I love him. I'm also mournful when Capaldi left for a similar reason, but I thought that Matt had been very well served by the material he'd been given. Whereas whilst I think that Capelli never puts a foot wrong, and I do think he's personification, the doctor is fantastic and there's a lot of subtlety there and he works with it all. It's the fact that I don't think he's nearly as well served by the writing as he could have been and should have been and I think he saves a lot of things that would otherwise, in lesser hands, be dull, dull, dull. That's what I was going to say earlier, Simon, the acid, the traditional acid test for any doctor is, are you bereft when they leave? Or are you interested in what comes next and that's fine? They've done their stretch and you enjoyed it and that's great. Both of Mothat's doctors, Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi, you want that next season for both of them. I agree with you, Peter. I absolutely adore Capaldi in the role. And I think what you're saying, Simon, is right. He saved so much, and I think for me, that is a huge thing, whereas I think Matt gets delivered material that he can do, and he does it well rather than there's moments where I think needs saving that he doesn't save. And there's only a few, but it's enough for me. I mean, I love Matt Smith. They're my favourite 2 doctors by far. in the new series. But for me, coming back to this watching whole era, seeing his evolution, the doctor's evolution, just the way he portrays that his hair, his hair. Yeah, totally. The costume. Like, it's really interesting to see, like, even with the costume it's not just a set. I'm in a costume, the same costume, right? It's not silhouette. He actually changes shirts and all that sort of stuff and then he has the more formal and the less formal and all that sort of thing. And I love that. And the hoodie. Yeah, it's fantastic. But I'd go further than what you were saying before, Simon. It's not that he saves this material. He lifts it. Like, even when a story... Okay, that's a better way of expressing it. Yeah, even when a story is, yeah, he is nothing short of brilliant in it. Can I say he brings new meaning to the concept of talking urgently in corridors? He really does. That's a lot of it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, but you can see he's raised on that on that classic material. He understands how to heighten a sequence where there's just 3 people standing by a flat wall. And that's the important thing for us who are reared on the classic series. I think Peter Cabaldi's doctor is a doctor who is looking back to the classic series and the way he's presented and we are primed to like that. He's recognisable. Also, he brings to it something that, say, only David Tennant could bring to the role, which is an understanding of the show as a fan. Like, no other doctors, apart from the 2 of them, have maybe the original Peter. our fans in the sense that we are fans, that he understands the DNA of the show because he has watched every episode a 1000000 times and can quote lines from the arc. It's always the arc. That's an elephant in that. Although they came 2nd or 3rd at the Comic Con, Doctor Who trivia. Do you remember that one? Yes, I thought they came from practically last. Third or so, it wasn't good. There weren't a lot of arc questions. It's the thing that I said before about Gaitas, knowing what worked. That's what Capoldi does. And the place that I really noticed at this time is in The Girl Who Died, which is an episode about who the doctor is and what he does and where all of the structure is on display and Capoli is sort of rummaging through previous performances, actors in the role. Tom, John, and just absolutely getting it 100% Ryan. Peter is one of Stephen Moffat's doctors. lets segue into Stephen Moffat's time on the show. His other doctors, obviously, include Matt Smith. Jim Broadband. John Hurt. Joanne, talk about the ones here. Let's talk about John Hurt. What are your feelings now on his performance in Day of the Doctor and reflect on what Stephen had to do there? General witch finders, ask this question. How different would it have been to have 9 in Dave the doctor rather than the war doctor? Would it have worked? Sharper. It would have been more astringent. He's brilliant. Hurt is brilliant and brings gravitas and history and like clavitives levels of heaviness and pain, but it's not the same. He does the thing that we were just talking about with Capaldi in that he represents a classic serious doctor. Yeah. Well, it's in fact what we talked about in twice upon a time where Moffat redoes what he does in the day of the doctor with the war doctor, because you've got Capaldi's doctor reacting against a classic series doctor, and Capaldi's doctor is slightly embarrassed by the classic series doctor and vice versa. And that's definitely what's going on. You know, with the stuff about waving your magic wands and saying timey-wimey, and all of that sort of contempt that John Hertz doctor has for these 2 successors and then he learns that they're heroes and why it's worth continuing on to become them. And he's really similar to twice upon a time. Now that I think about it. And so he does that job of being a classic series doctor, the way that John Sim in world enough and time does the job of being a classic series master as well. I think the disappointing thing, and I know why Moffatt didn't do it, is that it wasn't one of the doctors that we loved that pushed the button. Imagine how we would feel if in story, Eccleston or Paul McGann had pushed the button and killed 1000000000s of people. And because Moffatt can't believe that the doctor would ever do that, when he gets hold of the show and when he gets a big enough event to superintend, he makes it so that that never happened. And so by giving it to a doctor that we don't know otherwise, he leaves our doctors kind of somewhat less genocidal than they might have been otherwise. Having said a few minutes ago, that Eccleston is my favourite doctor of the new series. I was disappointed. I was disappointed that he chose not to come back. You know, I entirely understand his reasoning for not wanting to come back. And also, I really respect the way both he and Moffatt tell the story of, you know, they discussed it in person. They talked, and Chris then let him down in person and said, no I'm really sorry. I can't, but, you know, you have my blessing to use my image, et cetera, et cetera. So getting past that disappointment, I think he would have been absolutely brilliant in it. It's impossible to say he would have been better than John Hurt because it's John Hurt, you know. Yeah, John Hurt was a cartoon dragon in Merlin. My point is, it would be like saying, okay, we can have Alex Kingston for this Christmas special or Maggie Smith. You know, it's no insult to Alex Kingston to say, give me a Christmas special with Maggie Smith. You know what I mean? Yeah. But what I what I love so much about how he comes in and does it is he said in interviews that he hadn't watched Doctor Who since the 60s. He hadn't kept up with it. He didn't know anything about it. And it was actually his wife who said to him, you do realise how seriously you have to take this. Like, this is a cultural institution. It's not just running around in corridors and it's going to be fun but you have to take it seriously. And he says, you know, that made me actually think about who this character is, et cetera, et cetera. So he approaches it with the same level of commitment as any of the main actors who've played it, but also with the knowledge that he can do whatever he likes for 90 minutes and that he's out. And that brings a little bit of a twinkle. And I think possibly the scene than I would have loved to see Eccleston most in is actually the scene in the unit vault when John Hertz doctor is talking to Clara. And she figures it out. I would have loved to see Eccleston play that because we have only seen that kind of chemistry with Eccleston in the role with Billy Piper. And I would have loved to see that with Jenna Coleman, who is a fantastic actor, attributed to the fact that there's like 3 doctors that she has brilliant chemistry with. would have made those scenes in the barn with the moment and the John Hurt slash Christopher Eccleston doctor, quite meaningful. Oh, absolutely. And you know what? I'm, uh, hats off to Moffatt for, you know, obviously he wanted Christopher Eccleston and Billy Piper together again. He loses Christopher Eccleston. He doesn't then say, oh, well, get rid of Billy Piper. I mean, why would you? Why would you? But also it would be totally sensible for him to then go, you know what? This is a great opportunity to bring in Lullaward as the moment. Jackie. Why does he always come back to poor old Jackie Lane? It's the arc connection. Yeah, I would have loved to see Eccleston back, but I'm not sorry we have John Hurtle. So we're moving back in time now to Stephen Moffat and his legacy and what he brought to the show to begin with. And of course, that's Matt Smith and Karen and Arthur. How do you feel about all these things now, Simon? Well, I mean, he is the best show runner that the 21st century has had by a substantial margin. And even though despite the fact that some of the lows are maybe a little bit lower than what we've had up to this point with one or 2 exceptions, I fear her. But aside from that, the highs are just far, far higher. And I think what Moffatt did was he's the only one of the 21st century who I think truly understands what makes the show magical. And he's certainly not trying to dumb it down, which is the fear that I have with, I think of a lot of the RTD stuff, but we sort of discussed that. I discussed that at length before. My only regret is that he actually stays too long. Like JNT, who I think is also in his own way a very good showrunner. I think there is not enough gas in the tank. Now, it's odd, because of course, some of the very last episodes that he does are some of the best he does. Much like JNT. Much like JNT. In fact, maybe it's because he knows he really is leaving at that point. But I think, like, there is something unfortunate about staying that little bit too long and I think that it would have been nicer if you'd have maybe done 4 seasons and then handed it to somebody else, had that person been ready. Do you know I'm going to say I don't think he actually stays too long? I think it's really interesting that we have a showrunner. The only showrunner slash classic series producer in the show's history who oversees 2 complete doctors eras? And I really like the fact that you can look at the Matt Smith era and you can look at the PT bold era. They're both of the same length and the same Roth structure, and yet they are sufficiently different from each other that you can take away different things and enjoy things on a different level. I think to have that mastery of the series where you can do that and not just repeat yourself is something pretty wonderful. Nathan. So I would say that there are significant flaws in his ability to be a showrunner. And I think while he is one of the best writers that the show has ever had, including the classic series, I don't think he's the best showrunner, and I think that Russell T. Davis does a better job of getting the show made during his era and of giving it a sort of consistent feel and getting it to be a big thing in the public's consciousness. And none of those things are things that Moffatt is that good at and there are all kinds of reasons for that as well that we know about that Richard alluded to earlier, but the show does start to go off the boil as far as audience is concerned and some of that's just inevitable. Yeah, after a period of time. But Doctor Who has the ability to reinvent itself and to kind of claw back or kind of renew its audience. Do you know what I mean? There's always 8 to 10 year olds graduating into doctors and if they were doing that in 2015, they were going to have a pretty rough time of it, I think. But I love how he writes. I love what the show is like during his time. And that's what I'm talking about, not talking about. And that's why I think the whole modern concept of Showrunner is wrong. It needs to be, you need to have the creative side and you need to have the the production side to say, make sure it's done on time. Make sure they're at conventions and make sure they're spinning the show correctly in the media. I agree with you from that point of view. He's not a great show runner. The creative direction of the show. just streets ahead of the blandness and cheesiness that we've had before. It would be better if they'd split those 2 roles. Exactly. head writer and and and that left all the production side of things to everybody else. But I think that's the main failing of the way that the show is produced at the time. And also Sherlock. Like he has 2 of the biggest shows on television. But that's not our problem. You know, then say no to something. You know what I mean? That's enough. you know? I'm actually going to reverse what Nathan was saying about, you know, you're going to eventually go downhill. I think Moffa actually staves that off in concert with Matt Smith. I think the time is for long off the boil was after David Tennant this incredibly popular doctor left. Instead, they sustain that for the next three, maybe 4 years, and that's pretty impressive. Yeah, I'd say maybe 2 years, but yes. Well, until the 50th anniversary. Yeah, that's right. They get the goodwill to the 50th based on the 2 years they've done previous. Yeah, yeah. Maybe even Peter's 1st season. And I still think the parallel to the 20th anniversary applies actually. It's sort of like we're here at this and maybe it's time to... And basically the media after the anniversary, the hangover after the 20th and 50th anniversaries, I think, are very, very similar. One of the things I've loved revisiting this is things that you've said, Nathan, regarding Stephen reacting to what he's done before and also looking at his mistakes and seeing what he, you know, how he can better himself. And I think that's been amazing to see and watch throughout this run. Yeah, I guess the other thing that I would say is that Russell T Davis has a much clearer idea of what Doctor Who should be, and that is an advantage and a disadvantage, I think. I think because Moffatt goes careening all over the place. You get these incredible highs, but what you don't get is, you know, the kind of consistency that you get from seasons one to four. Russell has clearer idea of what he wants Doctor Who to be. I think Stephen Moffat has a clearer idea of what Simon wants Doctor. I think I think that's that's a little cruel. I would suggest that if I may expand on that. Because obviously what I want Doctor Who to be is the correct vision for the show. Mostly silent. But in some respects, Moffat is a bit truer to that originally iteration, the show where it can be anything. And I think with Rusty Davies era, he succeeds in making it modern television. And I am kind of spitting those words out slightly because, well no, because it's that kind of thing. It's like because it just becomes like every other show on television. And the reason I loved Doctors who was a kid was because it was utterly different. I'll take full credit for this entire discussion, which I planned from the beginning, listeners. But one of the things that in preparing for this, I started reflecting on where all classic series fans, RTD years as well, as is Stephen Moffatt. And it's interesting to see the different approaches, Russell has families, like blood relatives, like actual families. But Steven's much more classic series. If you look back at the classic series and every single companion they're either an orphan, a single person with no other family their whole family is destroyed. It's really only Tegan who's got like an aunt, a cousin, a grandfather for long. in some cases. And so all the companions are just singular, they're not in the real world. Like they're not really connected in classic series, like you've got the unit family and that sort of thing. fit to work on sailors really. But when you look at what Stephen brings, again, you look at the families, like Amy's aunt, mother and father are barely in it, you know? Rory's the same. Like his father's only into episodes. Clara's family is in the background in a couple episodes. But that's the point, isn't it? That's all goes with nuclear families. Moffat goes with constructed families. Yeah, but how did you feel about that, Todd, watching the difference? Well, I'm just saying, like, it is a different thing. Like, this is what is Steven's. He's constructing the families within. You've got your unit family, you've got the past, the, I can never say this. Patternoster? Thank you. I'm just going to give up. You've got them as a family. You've got, you know, obviously Amy Rory and River, like Stephen is very much, I think, in line with original who, which makes it very different to the real world. The Dr. Nardol, Bill, and Bill's mother. Exactly. family feel to it. Yes, they're like the constructed family. But yeah, Russell C. Davis, he loves his soaps and it's constructed around that. And that's probably one of the reasons why I don't like his Europe very much because soaps have absolutely no interest for me. That's why I was watching Doctor Who are not Neighbours, you know what I mean? Whereas Moffat, of course, is the sitcom situation where you got these disparate groups of people who are sort of thrown together in situations and you say funny lines. So it's that dichotomy as well. Yeah, you've got your unit family with Peter's favourite actress Jennifer Osgood. And yeah, it's just it just gives a different feel. Like it's not as real worldly. I don't know, connected to the real world and we talk about the audience that are tapering off and that sort of thing. I think, though, there is a way in which Moffat is absolutely completely different from the classics series, and he has, in unguarded moments, expressed various degrees of contempt for the classic series, in fact. And it... No. But it is that his regular characters are the focus in a way that's nearly never true in the classic series until perhaps Ace where the characters perform plot functions, essentially, in classic who? And even when people are leaving, the story isn't about how they've grown or anything about them as a person. Oh, where the hell is Croydon? Except in the very best iterations, like say Joe Grant. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think Joe's the close. I was thinking that to Katie's portrayal as well. It's just the closest to the modern era. Maybe that's why she's just so much, I don't know. I mean, I'm a big, big finish, big, big, big, big finish subscriber. Katie's in everything. I do often feel, though, that all the modern Shea runners, um, both Moffat and particularly Moffat and ITD, I think there is a certain shame there about the original series. They still remember being teased for liking it at school because it's a bit silly, it's a bit stupid. And I think they try and deal with that by, by unfortunately sometimes leaning and Moffatt is guilty of this too, but Russell particularly leaning into the silliness and the stupidity, because the 1st time round, it was often an accident. And the 2nd time round, though, they're doing it deliberately which I think is like, well, why would you actually deliberately want to do that? Yeah, you kind of they're going, no, don't react against that. was great. Yes, exactly. Yeah, I mean, you know, they're people who've written TV before they came to ride. And so they know what real TV has to be like. And it can't be like the classic series in certain ways. Well, Jane Baker had written lots of real TV before they came to... Great. Shut up. They are, in fact, one day. If you say so. Yeah, if we want the other example. It's Bob Baker and Dave Martin had not written much real TV before the claws of Axos. on Doctor Who either. Anyway. I don't know. I don't know what the comparison is there. Something I find so interesting about the Moffeteera is the finales. With the exception of Darkwater Death in Heaven, they're all about a small group of people, you know? And yes, you might have a flood of cybermen, but really the story is about Bill, Missy, and the master, you know? And I remember having that thought when I was watching The Big Bang for the 1st time. And the word that popped into my head was this is so insular compared to what we got under Russell T. Davies. And I didn't necessarily mean that in a pejorative sense, but it was inward looking. It comes back to what you were saying about sort of how he focusses on character. And for me, that leads to what I think is a big flawed part of his era, which is actually something Simon loves. I think the arc of series 6 for me is the Nadir of the new series. I think it's too dark. I think it's too cruel. But at the same time, I cannot fault the performances, it gives us I cannot fault the character work it does. I think then the fact that we kind of sweep it under the rug a bit except for a few lines in asylum of the Daleks is a bit of a mistake. But at the same time, I'm saying, I don't want that, but I also don't want you not to acknowledge that, Mr. Boffett. He can't win, you know. So he definitely does react to the feedback he gets to the point that he quit social media, which I think is a thing Russell didn't have to deal with. There was no Twitter. I think 2012, 2000, 2000, anyway, yes. Yeah. And, you know, it really takes off in 2019, 2010 when he's on his way out, whereas Moffat was on there as a public face and just copying a lot of harsh criticism, you know, and I'll be the 1st to put my hand up and say, I'm critical of stuff he does in series 6 but I wouldn't go on social media and at him. Stephen Moffatt, I don't like what you're doing. And he does learn and he includes that. I say it's a response to fans, but maybe it's just a response to himself. Maybe he's looking at his own work and saying, oh, actually, I could do that better. He seems to be very self-aware. Or maybe he's just saying, oh, I did that last time and it's just something different this time. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, but those season finales that he does. are just streets ahead of the stuff that we get from the previous era. I don't feel, yeah. Yeah, I'm not sure about that. And I had the same feeling about the Big Bang, which I think is really great now. But I remember being shocked that it's just 5 people walking around a museum. sort of inverts things, doesn't it? has like the big season finale in the 1st episode. Yes, yes, yeah. Whereas one of the things that RTD does, which was just a peculiar pleasure, and which mirrored the profile of the show itself, that your alien invasions didn't happen in a priory or... Yes, exactly. Exactly. But far better. But when they happen on the world stage, because we can finally do that. We can do cable news. It's not just cable news, but also, because it was always a thing that you could have done. I mean, all of London gets evacuated in invasion of the dinosaurs. Like you could choose to do that, but most of the time you don't and where he says, all right, we're going to have a big spectacle of the kind that you have never seen on TV before and you've never seen in Doctor Who before. It was the one reason why I think that even though aliens of London and World War 3 doesn't work completely. I love it so much because it's going somewhere so new. And so those finale. So all those big, dumb, blaring, wonderful things that all ended in a little sort of personal tragedy of one kind or another because we're changing cast at the end of each season. And so things like, for instance, death in heaven, I don't think really works. because it is too much like that. And because what we're talking about, the character stuff that we're talking about is weird and not very interesting. Whereas I think dark water is surpassingly brilliant. So I don't know. I think that that is a flaw that the finales can be great in all sorts of ways, but I do miss the the scale. I remember missing London. One of the great places of day of the doctor was London is back and that's pretty great. I will say Hellbent still gives me this whole tension because I freaking love a galafray story. Like, except for fucking Infinity. But actually. 1st 5 minutes of mysterious planet. Hey, trials are 7 out of 10 for me, isn't it? But here's the thing. I remember watching Hellbent, and I think it's the bit where the doctor shoots the general. And I just found myself suddenly thinking, what is someone who loved Doctor Who when Catherine Tate was in it making of this, but you know, doesn't own the discontinuity guide? And then I thought, I don't care. I love this stuff. Great outcome. But, you know, that Moffat gives me that kind of tension in that he's not making it for the soap crowd, as you might say, he's still doing his best to make it accessible for people who don't consider themselves a science fiction fan or a Doctor Who fan. It still has to be accessible to them. But at the same time, he can't just do what Russell T Davies did. So he has to do more varied stuff. That's what so much talk about the moth era of do the arcs work, do they not? It just comes down to what I was saying earlier about episode quality. Series 6 and series 9 are viewed as lesser entries because I don't think the episode quality is there to support the arc. So in series 6, you think it's been nasty about Amy's because not handled very well. And let's kill Hitler is a problematic episode. If that was a good episode that delivered on what I was trying to do, we'd think of the arc much more positively. Very true. It's just that whole run of episodes in series 6 where you wish someone would turn the goddamn lights on. That's true. What do you think of Stephen's handling of classic series monsters? The Daleks, the Cybermen, the Ice Warriors, the Santara. I think that he's not interested in doing Dalek stories or Ice Warrior stories or anything like that. And I think that's good because we've got a lot of them. And so he uses them in sort of different ways. I thought that he had probably rendered the Santarins unuseable after Strax. But I'm pleased to be proved wrong because I think war of the Sontarans is probably the best episode of that season. And certainly the Santarians work on some functional level still in it. So I don't know. He isn't interested in Daleks at all, is he really? No, I agree with you. Like, you know, Davros is a character, but not the Daleks secondary and he tends to use them as one of things or the human dialect in a sort of different way. He's certainly much more interested in the cyberman as... And the Mavellans. a good thing. absolutely. Alpha Centauri. I think he's more interested in telling a story. And if those aliens or those monsters fit into that story. Great. We can make that work. But it's not, yeah, he's just not just doing a Dalek story for the sake of doing a Dalek story. He's doing it because he's interested in what he can do with a character like Davros. Do you know who I'm really surprised Mothat didn't do a sequel for? The Mara. Yeah. Yeah. I think so much. I think the Murr is perfect as it is. I don't think it needs anything. And in fact, I was... I was slightly annoyed by the reference to the Mara in the season one finale this year because I think it should probably have just been left alone. Stephen's known as Mr. Christmas. He's coming back for Christmas this year. Who calls him Mr. Christmas? Me, I thought it was... Sorry, Nathan calls in. Thank you for that correction, Peter. As a whole, what do you think of his contribution to the Christmas specials of which there are many. Does he do 10 or 11? How many did he do Christmas Carol? The Doctor Widow in the wardrobe, the snowman? The doctor? Last Christmas. Husbands of River Song. The Return of Dr. Mysterio Twice Upon a Time. There you go. Well, I mean, obviously there are some of the absolute most spectacular Christmas specials in there, like a Christmas carol and I actually probably think twice upon a time now, frankly. Time of the doctor. Last Christmas, it was beautiful. Last Christmas, I think is really good. Dr. Woodrow in the wardrobe. On the other end of the spectrum for me, and the husbands of River song is actually, I thought it was just bad rather than terrible when I watched it this time round. that an improvement? Yes. Oh, yes, bad, not dire because it's actually, it's just the 1st half because the 2nd half is, is actually beautiful and it's just ruined, unfortunately, by the 1st half. But I think he actually does a really good job 98% of the time. Yeah, yeah. I think, you know, the idea that we run out of Christmas things are we should do Christmas because it's stupid that every 13th episode of Doctor Who is set at Christmas. It snows at the end. Like, that's ridiculous. No, that's my point. Yeah, that's a ridiculous point. You should wake up to yourself. Sometimes not even every 8th episode, can I say? I mean, like in November, there's Christmas carols in Meyer. That's I should wake up to a time. You think that's bad. When I went to David Jones back in my early 20s, one Christmas, we put the decorations out at the end of August. Yes. Yes. Did they sell? So I think Christmas is super important. It's absolutely a thing that Doctor Who should be known for. And, you know, Moffat does that thing where he equates Santa and the doctor, they both come at Christmas and they both bring sort of presents and things and make people's lives better. I think the Christmas special in Russell Theatre was of sort of variable quality. But I think that a Christmas carol, and I think I said this at the time, as a pretty fair claim to being the best Doctor Who story at that point, like, and it depends on kind of how I'm feeling on a particular day, but I think that that is an extraordinary and perfect thing, that episode. There's no doubt that the Christmas episodes of the modern era are some of the best. But there's also some of the worst. And I think it's just the kind of story that it dictates Doctor Who has to tell on Christmas Day. I don't have that much time for. It's like, can't we have a more Doctor Who episode for every 13th episode? I agree with that the point you're making there, Peter, which is why I really enjoy twice upon a time because it just happens to happen at Christmas for part of it. The snowmen. Okay, we've got Victorian London. It's just a backdrop. It's not about Christmas. It's Christmas Eve, but it's not about Christmas. That's right. Comparing them to the Russell Christmas specials. The Russell Christmas specials are everyday Doctor Who stories with Christmas trimmings. And also it's kind of like Russell's Christmas specials go, giant thing is above London. Giant thing is below London. Giant thing is gonna crash into London. Um, giant Victorian, London. Victoria, London. John Sim with a jetpack. Whereas Stephen Moffat for most of his Christmas specials really goes, okay, what's Christmas about? Like, I'm going to retell a Christmas carol. I'm going to have a family who aren't going to find out about a loss because it's Christmas and you can't do that on Christmas. I'm going to have the doctor stay on a planet called Christmas. It's it's kind of interesting that when you look at the 2 showrunners Christmas specials together. Russell's Christmas specials, indeed, with the Runaway Bride started as an episode just within the season. But it gets moved to Christmas. It gets the casting of Catherine Tate to give it the Christmas boost, but there's nothing especially Christmassy about those stories, whereas most of Moffatt's Christmas specials don't work if they're not a Christmas special. And I know Dr. Widow and the Wardrobe and Husbands of River Song get a lot of Flack. They're actually my favourite Moffat Christmas specials because I am a soppy git. I love husband's forever song for the same reason as you, Brandon. And I actually really enjoy, although it's not the best, the line between the wardrobe. Sorry. It's just, I can never get the name of the story right. The Doctor, the Widow, and the War. Think of the name of the show you're watching. Take it from there. Flaws aside, I love that story because it's about a family and it's about a mother trying to protect her children and it's there's some really something really emotionally valid there, I guess. And then it and then it doesn't end with the tragedy. Because it's Doctor Who, because, you know, because it's Christmas. Yeah, because it's Christmas, he manages to save, save their father. Are you sure you don't like it just because it's got the mum from outnumbered in it? I never watched Outnumbered. Okay. It's got Bill Bailey. So what are your final thoughts on the Stephen Moffat era of the show? We were lucky to have him. Yeah. Yeah, and I think we were lucky to have him for quite so long. I love the RTD era more, um, and I think, you know, it's got people like Camille Kajuri and, you know, the companions, the moms and just that sheer joy at having the show back and having it so incredibly well documented, having Julie and Russell and all of those people, there was something just really quite magical about that era. And the mafia is sort of sprawling and rhubarbative and complex. But it's really amazingly great. And as I said before, it has, I think, the 2 best doctors in the history of the show. So I am a massive fan of that as well. And perhaps even more after this leg of our flight. And again, it goes back to structure. They were saying earlier, he starts and ends with the best. I think he gets so much more right than I would hesitate to even use the word wrong. I think there are some missteps which he then recalculates, and I think in that he's a far more experimental writer than Russell, but you know, he's also got to follow Russell. Do something different and then do something different from himself every year. Look, I mean, it's, I think, I think it's a great ear, one of the best eras of shows ever had. I think both of them, you know, even though I prefer the Matt Smith, half of his era. I still think most of the Capaldi stuff is good. And I think we are lucky to have had him and had him so long despite me suggesting that maybe if he'd been there a bit less, may have all come together better. But I think the thing that we're missing is a doctor, to be a single doctor, to be covered by 2 different showrunners, or a, you know, a bit more of that, bit more of that variety, to see how a doctor can be, you know, wouldn't it have been interesting if Chippin had picked up and Capaldi's still a doctor? But yeah, it's great. And I think we'll know what we've lost very soon. I need to agree with Simon and that looking at this point now, just the range, emotions and colour, and of course it wasn't all successful. And it was quite jarring at the time. I'm not just talking about the beats that we've named on FTE in the past, but that actually works when you see what they all managed to bring together, Rachel Talloway. I mean, honestly, and the extraordinary work she's done. But honestly, Capaldi saved the end of this period of Doctor Who simply by holding that moment in the camera and just being so expert at what he does. I mean, I prefer Russell's 1st year of the show as a whole. for many of the same reasons as Nathan, but Doctor Who has never been more experimental or more varied than it is in Moffatt's era. And I think that that is something glorious. And I'm so glad we had it. I've got nothing more, except to say, now, what are your thoughts on class? Well, that's all the time we have for now. We'll be back in a few years' time to watch a new Dr. Fall Out of the Sky and change our world forever in The Woman Who Fell to Earth. In the meantime, we'll be back in just a few months with a new season of 500 year diary called The Second Coming, in which we discuss all of the doctor's most terrifying adversaries in their 2nd appearance in the show, and we'll also be back to deliver our ill considered hot takes on season 2 of the 2nd RTD era in the 2nd great and bountiful Human Empire. Until next time, it's a big universe, but we hope to see you again. Thank you very much for listening and good night. Good night. See you soon. Ta-ta. Good night. until next time. And good win. That was Flight 3 Entirety, starring Todd Bealby, Nathan Bottomley Peter Griffith, Brendan Jones, Simon Moore, James Selwood, and Richard Stone. Theme arrangement by Cameron Lamb. This episode? Well, that's all the time we have for now, was recorded on the 1st of December 2024 and released on New Year's Day, 2025. If you've ever laughed out loud at us while sitting on the bus or like one of our posts or told a friend about us or written a review or sent us a message or become our lifelong friend, then thank you. We love you and we'll see you soon. Yeah, perfect. Okay. We'll do class on, let's do class at some point. Let's not. I shan't be on that. I'm a 500-year diary. Yeah, if I haven't read your diary. How many episodes is that? 10? eight. eight, eight, eight, eight. Okay. Okay. Oh, thank you.