You actually missed my point, by a fair bit, so I'll have to get specific: You'd be surprised how much shows change with something as simple as different producers (Ala Phil Collinson).
In the case of Series 5, EVERYTHING was changed: Head writer, other writers, directors, producers, actors, etc. etc. Heck, even being in HD changed things when you compare "Planet of the Dead" to "Runaway Bride"
So what can you possibly use as a base-line between say "Doctor's Wife" and "End of the World"? Unless you're planning on comparing Doctor Who to everything else out there, which is a bit silly, considering the history and breadth that DW has.
Which is why I suggest to compare Series 5 to 6, you'll have a base-line then to draw your comparisons. Unless you're going to compare each area. And if so? Good luck, because that's gonna take you awhile.
Also, what are you using as your criteria for the different areas, say: "good writing" vs. "bad writing"?
Case in point: the 1997 movie Titanic was a CRAP script. No really, I've read the script. It was crap. But watching the movie you would never know that! (The fact that Titanic won Oscar for Best Movie that year and DiCaprio and Winslet didn't win anything is why I don't watch the Oscars anymore). The actors (and everyone else) took this crap script and made it into something positively BRILLIANT! You would never know how bad that script was without reading it.
My point is: So many elements go into a show, you need know which are the 'good' vs. the 'bad' elements first. Otherwise, how do you tell which element is causing the failure vs. success?
no subject
You'd be surprised how much shows change with something as simple as different producers (Ala Phil Collinson).
In the case of Series 5, EVERYTHING was changed: Head writer, other writers, directors, producers, actors, etc. etc. Heck, even being in HD changed things when you compare "Planet of the Dead" to "Runaway Bride"
So what can you possibly use as a base-line between say "Doctor's Wife" and "End of the World"? Unless you're planning on comparing Doctor Who to everything else out there, which is a bit silly, considering the history and breadth that DW has.
Which is why I suggest to compare Series 5 to 6, you'll have a base-line then to draw your comparisons. Unless you're going to compare each area. And if so? Good luck, because that's gonna take you awhile.
Also, what are you using as your criteria for the different areas, say: "good writing" vs. "bad writing"?
Case in point: the 1997 movie Titanic was a CRAP script. No really, I've read the script. It was crap. But watching the movie you would never know that! (The fact that Titanic won Oscar for Best Movie that year and DiCaprio and Winslet didn't win anything is why I don't watch the Oscars anymore). The actors (and everyone else) took this crap script and made it into something positively BRILLIANT! You would never know how bad that script was without reading it.
My point is: So many elements go into a show, you need know which are the 'good' vs. the 'bad' elements first. Otherwise, how do you tell which element is causing the failure vs. success?