Is it basically better to be out with the old and in with the new on Doctor Who?

Well, Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat thinks that brand-new monsters and characters are far better—and are at their best—in their very first appearances on the show, than all the repeated encores of those classic Big Bads (and not-so-Big Bads) we all know and love.

While Moffat was at the Edinburgh Fringe, this is how he addressed the interesting issue:

“I always think it’s probably true the first anything or anyone appears on Doctor Who is their best story, and Doctor Who is never more Doctor Who than when everything is brand new on it, a new monster and the Doctor doesn’t know what’s going on. When you bring back a monster it’s automatically a sequel, and sequels are never quite as good. On the other hand, it’s part of the ecology of Doctor Who that he encounters the same monsters and that hit monsters and hit characters do come back, so it’s just when you have a good idea for a plot.”

How about you? Do you agree with Moffat’s views on brand-new monsters and characters vs. returning ones? Do you prefer a cool Doctor Who story with a brand-new Big Bad our beloved Time Lord doesn't know; or would you rather have one featuring a monster we (and he) all know and love to hate? Does new automatically mean better?



(via Geek Chocolate)