Moffat Strikes Back

The Moff has used his Production Notes column in the new Doctor Who Magazine to have a go right back at Jimmy McGovern. (So I'm a week late, sue me.) He makes a lot of very good points and I was nodding along noddily, but this is the point at which I sat up and started to chortle:

"And how about Richard Curtis’ soaring Vincent and the Doctor? A life-affirming heartbreaking tale of depression, suicide and art; it is both hilarious and haunting, yet sits quite happily on Saturday evening at six o’clock.

"Now any old fool can do a ‘searing drama’ about mental illness late at night, with lots of shouting and crying, and blaming the government (and posh people in general) but to make a gorgeous, thrilling entertainment out of it, and to explain the seemingly unexplainable in a way that the youngest child can understand, takes Richard Curtis. And, damn it, it takes Doctor Who.

...

"Writing for an audience that goes from eight to eighty doesn’t mean you have to write simply or stupidly - the fact that you have to keep whole families in mind, and keep it clear for the kids, and not upset the grannies, doesn't mean you have to be weak or bland or vacuous.

"It just means you have to write better. Just that. Just better."


I have to say I much prefer the emotional sweep of Russell's series to the clever plottiness of Steven's, but at this point I literally cheered out loud. On this I am with Steven all the way. Some of the things McGovern said were completely unacceptable insofar as he seemed to be setting himself up as the sole arbiter of what makes a good drama, and his own work the only definition.

I don't watch much TV and have never yet seen a McGovern programme, so I have no idea what I'm missing. But I don't actually care. That attitude of his put me right off forever.

Moffat Strikes Back

The Moff has used his Production Notes column in the new Doctor Who Magazine to have a go right back at Jimmy McGovern. (So I'm a week late, sue me.) He makes a lot of very good points and I was nodding along noddily, but this is the point at which I sat up and started to chortle:

"And how about Richard Curtis’ soaring Vincent and the Doctor? A life-affirming heartbreaking tale of depression, suicide and art; it is both hilarious and haunting, yet sits quite happily on Saturday evening at six o’clock.

"Now any old fool can do a ‘searing drama’ about mental illness late at night, with lots of shouting and crying, and blaming the government (and posh people in general) but to make a gorgeous, thrilling entertainment out of it, and to explain the seemingly unexplainable in a way that the youngest child can understand, takes Richard Curtis. And, damn it, it takes Doctor Who.

...

"Writing for an audience that goes from eight to eighty doesn’t mean you have to write simply or stupidly - the fact that you have to keep whole families in mind, and keep it clear for the kids, and not upset the grannies, doesn't mean you have to be weak or bland or vacuous.

"It just means you have to write better. Just that. Just better."


I have to say I much prefer the emotional sweep of Russell's series to the clever plottiness of Steven's, but at this point I literally cheered out loud. On this I am with Steven all the way. Some of the things McGovern said were completely unacceptable insofar as he seemed to be setting himself up as the sole arbiter of what makes a good drama, and his own work the only definition.

I don't watch much TV and have never yet seen a McGovern programme, so I have no idea what I'm missing. But I don't actually care. That attitude of his put me right off forever.