A story is based on conflict, as well. Often internal conflict. You have a character that wants something and you stymie him. And while conflict can be generated by a puzzle...where are all the pieces, for example...good stories require characters with internal lives. Something that Moff simply can't seem to deliver. Going back to my work, Rose and Ten have clashing cultures and expectations and trouble communicating. All of this adds to the conflict within the story. The story is about...rescuing a world from destruction. But, there is also how that will effect the characters.
In Clara we do see Moff at his most vulnerable, I think...and what is she? She's a puzzle. BTW, I think you are spot on about him and Sherlock. He can't change Sherlock's reality, so that holds his impulses in check. We all would have been better served if he'd taken the same approach with Doctor Who, if he'd thought, well, I can't change what has worked for 50 years. Instead, he saw RTD had made sweeping changes, and thought he would just apply his own cleverness to it all. And he's made a muddle of it.
That is a very interesting observation about English vs. American TV writers. English writers do some extraordinary work, like Broadchurch, that would have trouble getting off the ground here. But we do respect our TV writers and compensate them, accordingly, sometimes too much. Though, to be fair, most Americans have no idea who Joss Whedon is. Internet users are naturally geeky.
Someone, on my Flist, just remarked that our seasons run too long. I feel your seasons are too short. Too short to satisfy my need to interaction with the characters, that is. I think they might be just right to tell a competent story without a lot of filler. In any season of American TV there will be about five very bad episodes, ones that make you wonder what the writers were smoking. And my other LJ friend was saying, in a comment to my post about Castle, that she thinks writers don't react well to having to continue writing even when they have no new ideas. They burn out.
Writing is such an organic process. Even if you are machine, like Isaac Asimov, you start repeating your personal themes. We all need time to regroup. Your writers, though, seem to write for several shows. The same way that your actors move from one show to another in the same year.
And I often point that out about Shakespeare, that he was a hack writer in his day. Sometimes I think removing the snooty mystique from his work would help people connect with it. We went to see Titus Andronicus last month. I'd never read it, but had been warned that I would hate it. And a lot of people had issues with the graphic novel meets Mad Max, blood-saturated, approach that the director took with the play. But it did allow us to revel in the pure spectacle of entertainment, rather than thinking..."What is the deeper meaning here?"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-05-01 06:55 pm (UTC)In Clara we do see Moff at his most vulnerable, I think...and what is she? She's a puzzle. BTW, I think you are spot on about him and Sherlock. He can't change Sherlock's reality, so that holds his impulses in check. We all would have been better served if he'd taken the same approach with Doctor Who, if he'd thought, well, I can't change what has worked for 50 years. Instead, he saw RTD had made sweeping changes, and thought he would just apply his own cleverness to it all. And he's made a muddle of it.
That is a very interesting observation about English vs. American TV writers. English writers do some extraordinary work, like Broadchurch, that would have trouble getting off the ground here. But we do respect our TV writers and compensate them, accordingly, sometimes too much. Though, to be fair, most Americans have no idea who Joss Whedon is. Internet users are naturally geeky.
Someone, on my Flist, just remarked that our seasons run too long. I feel your seasons are too short. Too short to satisfy my need to interaction with the characters, that is. I think they might be just right to tell a competent story without a lot of filler. In any season of American TV there will be about five very bad episodes, ones that make you wonder what the writers were smoking. And my other LJ friend was saying, in a comment to my post about Castle, that she thinks writers don't react well to having to continue writing even when they have no new ideas. They burn out.
Writing is such an organic process. Even if you are machine, like Isaac Asimov, you start repeating your personal themes. We all need time to regroup. Your writers, though, seem to write for several shows. The same way that your actors move from one show to another in the same year.
And I often point that out about Shakespeare, that he was a hack writer in his day. Sometimes I think removing the snooty mystique from his work would help people connect with it. We went to see Titus Andronicus last month. I'd never read it, but had been warned that I would hate it. And a lot of people had issues with the graphic novel meets Mad Max, blood-saturated, approach that the director took with the play. But it did allow us to revel in the pure spectacle of entertainment, rather than thinking..."What is the deeper meaning here?"
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-04-01/entertainment/os-titus-andronicus-review-orlando-shakes-20130330_1_orlando-shakespeare-theater-titus-andronicus-esau-pritchett