sometimes i wonder why it is that post-moffat doctor who looks worse than it did during that era, and i feel like it's a combination of the moffat era just lucking out with getting really good directors (haynes, talalay, wheatley, etc) and moffat's style and general story concepts just lending itself to more interesting imagery? like fish swimming in the air during a christmas night is going to get you more interesting shots than, idk, the doctor standing in a cage for 45 minutes while the master explains her backstory to her
but even then there have been interesting concepts in both the chibnall era and RTD2 and yet there's still something a little..... not as good about it. the chibnall era especially has some absolutely dreadful colour grading, and RTD2 just feels kinda flat? it's got a bit of that netflix feel (tho i think the 60th specials don't quite have this and shocker, one of them is directed by talalay, so maybe it is just a director thing?)
feel like the moffat era trusted the visuals to do the talking more than both chibnall and RTD2 also. like, im thinking of the apple scene in the eleventh hour - no dialogue, just the doctor and amy looking at each other while we see this ethereal glow growing around them and that lens flare coming in
and we know in that moment amy is remembering the doctor crashing into her garden all those years ago, and that she decides to trust him, we don't have to be told that.
whereas with chibnall and RTD2 it does really feel like they're writing for the 'second screen' (aka writing so that you can be on your phone while watching and won't miss anything) and it makes the visuals less important and thus worse.
idk that's just my Thoughts. moffat era stays goated
