Question of the week: which is better – old Doctor Who monsters or new ones?

A simple question for fans of Doctor Who this week. Steven Moffat has just gone on record as saying that he prefers new monsters to old ones. So today I’m asking you:

Is Steven right? And do you prefer old monsters or new monsters

Answers below or on your own blog please.

  • I’d say in a long-running story of any kind, you have all kinds of issues when you keep bringing back the same monsters. There’s a point where it becomes so contrived every time, which RTD managed to get to insanely quickly with the Daleks.
    Also, one of Who’s best features is it being a journey into the unknown. If you already pretty much know how a character is going to act, it’s less exciting.
    I’m certainly not against Daleks or Cybermen appearing in Who in the future, but I’d sooner see the show massively weighted towards new monsters, planets and situations, rather than dredging up monsters whose stories have already been told.

  • I think I’d largely agree with Craig, because it can be a bit ‘law of diminishing returns’ – those who knew the old versions of old monsters will almost certainly prefer the originals.
    I think it needs a mix: I get why Moff feels the need to fight the corner for new monsters and DW has an odd history with using lots of new and lots of old monsters at various times. At some points it seems to have been ALL about the Cybermen, the Daleks and (stretching to villains) the Master. And that isn’t a NuWho thing only…