Blogarithm

I dislike Moffat because his ability to write has declined in recent years. I think he really needs someone to tell him his ideas are terrible. He seems like George Lucas now, someone who was good before he ran everything.

Yeah, "he made the last 7 seasons irrelevant!!!" was never a good argument. Not only did it not change anything except give Gallifrey a chance to return eventually, it fixed RTD's changes, no change the entire nature of the show.

I wholeheartedly agree that Moffat has great ideas, but just can't pull 'em off properly. I'm going to give him this season because Smith's departure was so sudden and he had to repurpose a lot of plots and episodes. Not that I didn't love it anyways

I think at least half (and more probably) of his ideas for the show have been excellent, and honestly Doctor Who's a show where you learn to accept pretty much anyhting. The problem comes when those "limits" aren't enough, and moffat sees the need to break the very, very few rules the show actually has and shatter your suspension of disbelief into pure "what". Also subverting real actual science is huge peeve of mine. Giant dinosaurs, sunless solar systems (an inherent contradiction), and a sonic screwdriver which is basically just a magic thought-wand now.

 

Seriously I take huge issue with the sonic screwdriver - the concept is a small probe device that manipulates soundwaves to affect matter (theoretically sound). This concept has been stretched and occasionally broken in the RTD era stuff, but it was largely still used for actual sonic thingies. When moffat took over all of a sudden it can seal walls and be a remote control for all machinery and interface with your mind to do exactly what you need it to. Moffat was saying he was going to use it less because it was becoming a crutch, but if he actually used the cursed thing within reasonable boundaries it'd be useless most of the time anyway.

 

anyway yeah I don't hate moffat's ideas I simply hate how his writing has degraded and everything is so overblown and predictable and spunky and edge-of-your-seat all the time.

the reason people are criticising moffat for bringing back gallifrey (and i don't just speak for myself, although maybe there are a few individuals who treat it the way you seem to think they do?) is because usually when RTD was changing elements of Doctor Who (for the most part, anyway, and i would be criticising the times he messed up if he were still running the show), he was changing them going forward -- as in, 'the Time Lords are now dead' as opposed to 'the Time Lords have always been dead'. In the case of the Master, I do think that the different characterisation is justified -- after all, he's lost Gallifrey too, it's understandable that that would have a big impact on him, although I do understand other people's dislike of the character. When RTD changed the TARDIS and the titles, he changed them relevant to the current series, he didn't go back and edit every previous TARDIS and and every previous title sequence to fit with his image (in fact, he didn't go back and edit any of them).

 

RTD did something that changed the dynamic in the show in a big way because, as far as I recall, the BBC did not want to bring Doctor Who back. It was a harsh uphill struggle, and some changes would have to be made in order to convince the BBC that there was something new that could be done with it, and I think killing off the Time Lords was one of those things.

I don't dislike Moffat because he's changing the show -- I dislike Moffat because he is retroactively changing the show. I dislike the fact that he's going back and retconning huge decisions. As you mentioned, the destruction of Gallifrey was a big deal. And then Moffat comes in like, 'Nope. Didn't actually happen.' The end result is not the same -- because the original end result wasn't that the Doctor couldn't get to Gallifrey, it was that he had had to destroy his own species in order to save the universe. As we saw, had Clara not cried, the Doctor would have gone back and made the exact same choice again, no matter how fondly he looked back on some elements of Gallifrey, because he knew it was the only way to protect the universe from the horrors of the Time War (speaking of which, what happened to those and to the Time Lock? do we get an explanation for that? i could've sworn a big part of it was trapping the various things that were inside the time war as well as gallifrey). And then he goes back and inserts Clara into every moment of the Doctor's history, and makes her the person who inspired him to become the Doctor. The issue isn't just Moffat's execution -- while that is a problem -- it's his need to leave his mark not just on the show's current incarnation, but on everything that has come before it. You can see this in subtler ways with the little insults he flings at older Doctors and there companions, but it's never clearer than with Clara and, to a degree, with Gallifrey (side-note, why were there maypole children on Gallifrey? not only could I have sworn looms were a thing, but maypoles? really? last glimpse i saw of time lord childhood they were taken out at the age of eight and forced to stare into the time vortex). Moffat's execution is terrible, but there is an ego that goes with it as a result of the success Doctor Who has been riding on since Tennant left (take a look at the viewing figures in the UK sometime) that he attributes to himself ('Eleven's the best', as one of his own characters once said in an episode, and let's not forget that 'any old idiot can be a hero').

 

So, yeah. That's my issue with Moffat when I mention those things, and the same goes for an awful lot of the other people who bring them up too. Not that the show is different.

 

- Indigo Individual

I agree that Moffat is a great ideas guy and his issues are with executing those ideas. Kind of like George Lucas in that respect, I suppose.

the reason people are criticising moffat for bringing back gallifrey (and i don't just speak for myself, although maybe there are a few individuals who treat it the way you seem to think they do?) is because usually when RTD was changing elements of Doctor Who (for the most part, anyway, and i would be criticising the times he messed up if he were still running the show), he was changing them going forward -- as in, 'the Time Lords are now dead' as opposed to 'the Time Lords have always been dead'. In the case of the Master, I do think that the different characterisation is justified -- after all, he's lost Gallifrey too, it's understandable that that would have a big impact on him, although I do understand other people's dislike of the character. When RTD changed the TARDIS and the titles, he changed them relevant to the current series, he didn't go back and edit every previous TARDIS and and every previous title sequence to fit with his image (in fact, he didn't go back and edit any of them).

 

RTD did something that changed the dynamic in the show in a big way because, as far as I recall, the BBC did not want to bring Doctor Who back. It was a harsh uphill struggle, and some changes would have to be made in order to convince the BBC that there was something new that could be done with it, and I think killing off the Time Lords was one of those things.

 

The overall point is that they've both put their marks on the series, but that RTD's changes were much more sweeping and sudden. The events of the 50th don't change the result, but kind of give a more hopeful aspect to things; there's only so much you can do with a Doctor who gets all mopey about not having a home to return to.

 

As far as I can recall, the BBC never actually cancelled the show as much as put it on an indefinite hiatus. Once there was proof that it could make it, with the right actors and writers, they promoted it and everyone was quite pleased at its return.

 

I don't dislike Moffat because he's changing the show -- I dislike Moffat because he is retroactively changing the show. I dislike the fact that he's going back and retconning huge decisions. As you mentioned, the destruction of Gallifrey was a big deal. And then Moffat comes in like, 'Nope. Didn't actually happen.' The end result is not the same -- because the original end result wasn't that the Doctor couldn't get to Gallifrey, it was that he had had to destroy his own species in order to save the universe. As we saw, had Clara not cried, the Doctor would have gone back and made the exact same choice again, no matter how fondly he looked back on some elements of Gallifrey, because he knew it was the only way to protect the universe from the horrors of the Time War (speaking of which, what happened to those and to the Time Lock? do we get an explanation for that? i could've sworn a big part of it was trapping the various things that were inside the time war as well as gallifrey). And then he goes back and inserts Clara into every moment of the Doctor's history, and makes her the person who inspired him to become the Doctor. The issue isn't just Moffat's execution -- while that is a problem -- it's his need to leave his mark not just on the show's current incarnation, but on everything that has come before it.

 

[snip]

 

Moffat's execution is terrible, but there is an ego that goes with it as a result of the success Doctor Who has been riding on since Tennant left (take a look at the viewing figures in the UK sometime) that he attributes to himself ('Eleven's the best', as one of his own characters once said in an episode, and let's not forget that 'any old idiot can be a hero').

 

Well, I think we agree that the execution is terrible. Moffat's ideas, on paper, are bold and sweeping and I don't mind that; we've had plenty of that with RTD and I think showrunners for the revival era have to have audacious plans in order to keep the show alive. The problem is that the transfer of idea to episode often leaves much to be desired. (The Clara thing was a tad much.)

 

What Moffat's doing and what RTD did aren't as dissimilar as many people would imagine; both have had their ups and downs as lead writers and have written bad and good episodes alike.

 

I guess I'm just a little confused as to how Moffat can be disliked for semi-retconning the Time War (and I say semi-retconning because, again, the end result to the rest of the Universe is practically the same) yet RTD gets hailed as some kind of hero to the show because he came up with the concept of the Time War itself, which is the single biggest event to happen in the Whoniverse.

for me, it's not the decision to retcon the time war. As I said, anything can happen in this show. He's just really bad at it and there's plotholes left right and center and up and down and in all the spaces in between and it feels less like a plot point and more like "what the heck are you trying to accomplish" if that makes any sense.

Yeah but part of my point is, the end result should not be the same. As Xinlo has mentioned, Moffat leaves plotholes all over the place, and the reason it's so obvious in his plot changes is because he chooses to retcon rather than change things going forward; he changed it so that Gallifrey was never destroyed (which, as I mentioned, makes no sense, because the Doctor wasn't just getting rid of Gallifrey using the Moment, he was getting rid of all of the Time War and what was in it), instead of having the Time Lords somehow break out of the Time Lock (like they came near to doing in The End of Time), or having another plot point which doesn't detract from what's come before by leaving holes in it. That is a matter of execution, but I think it's also an idea issue -- as he's stated in interviews, he felt like the Doctor wouldn't have done that (obviously because he didn't understand the stakes, which i've mentioned here a few times), so he went and changed it. It felt less like it was about bringing back Gallifrey and more like it was to reshape the history of the show in his own image, just as he did with Clara.

 

And I'd recommend researching the BBC thing. As far as I'm aware, there are multiple documentaries about how difficult it was to bring Doctor Who back on air, and while I can't recall whether or not the Time War was chosen specifically for that, I'm pretty sure it was mentioned at one point to be in order to help avoid continuity lockout for new fans and it's probably safe to say that if you're trying to get a show back and you can present a huge change to the dynamic which leaves whole new directions to go in that's going to help.

 

 

Also, I love how you're using the 'mopey' point even after we've been shown that that doesn't matter to Moffat, making the Twelfth Doctor THE DARKEST DOCTOR YET!!11!1!one!! (read: unnecessarily cruel, regularly disparaging of his companion's appearance, carrying an irrational hatred of soldiers, all with no real justification apart from making him more like the First Doctor whose arc was about him growing out of that and some of the other Classic Who Doctors, and given that recent Doctors have been shown to have more compassion in light of the Time War I don't think the Doctor would suddenly decide it was time to stop being nice to humans now that he apparently didn't destroy Gallifrey; the emotional impact is something that should have stayed with him) despite all of this. Yeah, I don't think that justification really functions as well as it did after the 50th.

 

- Indigo Individual

Yeah but part of my point is, the end result should not be the same. As Xinlo has mentioned, Moffat leaves plotholes all over the place, and the reason it's so obvious in his plot changes is because he chooses to retcon rather than change things going forward; he changed it so that Gallifrey was never destroyed (which, as I mentioned, makes no sense, because the Doctor wasn't just getting rid of Gallifrey using the Moment, he was getting rid of all of the Time War and what was in it), instead of having the Time Lords somehow break out of the Time Lock (like they came near to doing in The End of Time), or having another plot point which doesn't detract from what's come before by leaving holes in it. That is a matter of execution, but I think it's also an idea issue -- as he's stated in interviews, he felt like the Doctor wouldn't have done that (obviously because he didn't understand the stakes, which i've mentioned here a few times), so he went and changed it. It felt less like it was about bringing back Gallifrey and more like it was to reshape the history of the show in his own image, just as he did with Clara.

 

Sure, he's reshaping history, but it's a history that's not even a decade old. A history of the revival era? Sure. But in the context of, like, 1963 to the present day? Not so much.

 

I'm not saying that I like what he did—I'm more ambivalent than anything else—rather, I'm trying to find out why Moffat gets the criticisms that RTD never did when RTD's show-changers were infinitely bigger.

 

Again, I agree that what he did with Clara was over-the-top.

 

And I'd recommend researching the BBC thing. As far as I'm aware, there are multiple documentaries about how difficult it was to bring Doctor Who back on air, and while I can't recall whether or not the Time War was chosen specifically for that, I'm pretty sure it was mentioned at one point to be in order to help avoid continuity lockout for new fans and it's probably safe to say that if you're trying to get a show back and you can present a huge change to the dynamic which leaves whole new directions to go in that's going to help.

 

I'm sure it did—in essence, it was a very soft reboot of the show. It's also why there was never a regeneration sequence between Paul McGann to Christopher Eccleston (which opened another can of worms with the whole "War Doctor" thing, which was one of my biggest problems with the 50th).

 

A lot of things had to come together to make the show come back on the air, and I'm fairly certain that the Time War was not the deal-maker, although I'm sure that the concept helped RTD pitch it.

 

If I'm wrong and the existence of the Time War was an invention that got the show back on the air, that doesn't automatically mean that a) it was a good idea or b) it's immune to alteration. I guess I just wouldn't consider a decision made under such circumstances to be unchangeable show lore?

 

Also, I love how you're using the 'mopey' point even after we've been shown that that doesn't matter to Moffat, making the Twelfth Doctor THE DARKEST DOCTOR YET!!11!1!one!! (read: unnecessarily cruel, regularly disparaging of his companion's appearance, carrying an irrational hatred of soldiers, all with no real justification apart from making him more like the First Doctor whose arc was about him growing out of that and some of the other Classic Who Doctors, and given that recent Doctors have been shown to have more compassion in light of the Time War I don't think the Doctor would suddenly decide it was time to stop being nice to humans now that he apparently didn't destroy Gallifrey; the emotional impact is something that should have stayed with him) despite all of this. Yeah, I don't think that justification really functions as well as it did after the 50th.

 

"Mopey" in the sense that the Doctor was very clearly distraught over the fact that he believed his race was gone, which is clear in the context of the original comment. 9, 10, and 11 all had their moments of sorrow over this and it doesn't mean that they're super-weepy or anything (unless you're talking about Tennant's final episodes, but that was more shoddy writing than anything else.)

 

(Also: "DARKEST DOCTOR YET?" Seriously? If 9 is "dark," we've not had a "dark" Doctor in the better part of a decade. Both 10 and 11 were lighthearted characters, and in terms of personality they were very similar. I like the fact that they change it up; young and excitable actors portraying the Doctor is fun, but it gets old.)

 

I think a lot of what Moffat's trying to do—especially since the latter half of Series 7—is take elements of the show back to their roots, with the TARDIS and the title sequence. I wouldn't be surprised if Capaldi's arc is very much similar to what Colin Baker's was supposed to be had he not been forced off the show prematurely.

 

I wouldn't put it past Moffat to have given 12 such a hatred for soldiers to prove that the Doctor can be wrong, or simply for the sake of the final scenes of the finale. If so, that's exceptionally terrible writing on his part, and there's really no one else to blame for that.

 

On a related note, Moffat's line of thinking may be thus: the Doctor doesn't destroy Gallifrey -> the Doctor realizes all war is pointless -> the Doctor thinks that all soldiers are evil -> the Doctor hates soldiers. That's not logical in the slightest, but it's the only way I can even half-justify it within the context of the show.

I think how recent the history is actually makes it stand out even more; there are a whole lot of fans (those who haven't left the show, at least) who have been watching the revived Doctor Who since 2005, so changing something so recent and so huge in terms of its effect on the show in such a big way really does stand out. The reason the changes for criticism come in because it's reshaping history, and judging by Moffat's attitude toward it he's doing it because he feels his interpretation of the character is somehow more 'right' than that of showrunners before him and he's doing it in a way that leaves holes. RTD did receive criticism, too (you are criticising him right now, after all, and I can guarantee you people were saying the same things you are now when the show returned), although to some degree that was offset by the fact that he'd managed to get Doctor Who back on the air. Another reason he isn't getting as much criticism nowadays is because he isn't running the show, and I can guarantee you I'd be complaining about a lot of his stuff were he still in charge. I guess a lot of it is a matter of relevance, but once again it is an issue of reshaping history, and the reason RTD doesn't get as much criticism is that he did not. 

 

 

Don't even get me started on the War Doctor, I detest Moffat's 'IT DIDN'T HAPPEN ON-SCREEN IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY CANON' (gallifrey's destruction was actually shown in a canon comic, though, if i recall correctly, so that's another plot hole left in his wake) attitude.

I feel pretty sure it would have been a big help in pitching it, and I feel that right now is a little too soon to change one of the biggest details of it in a way that made so little sense, and my argument isn't that it's unchangeable show lore. It's that the way in which it was changed was, in some ways, even a personal insult against a previous showrunner (and despite his faults, the one who managed to get the show back so that moffat could be in the position he's currently in) -- 'the doctor wouldn't do that' -- that it nullified a big character detail for the Doctor and that it's one of Moffat's typical plot twists ('ahahaha i lied, get it? it's a plot twist' [see the master's return as missy]), alongside the issues I've previously mentioned. We have seen characters breaking through the Time Lock before, and while people would be complaining if Moffat had done that instead it's probably safe to say that as long as it was handled well the complaints wouldn't have been nearly as vocal, because it's a change to the show's present state rather than one that alters its past, which were exactly the kinds of changes RTD made and part of the reason, in my opinion, that he hasn't received as much criticism for them.

 

 

And here the Doctor has been angsting over whether or not he's a 'good man' for the better part of the series, with no explanation as to why he's doing it. Sure, as an audience we can try and seek out explanations (as you've done for the soldier thing), but that's headcanon. (and personally i don't see how being sad about the fact that you're about to die is shoddy writing, but idk. maybe i just like writing with legitimate, long-term emotional consequences)

 

(also, Steven Moffat, not me. he made a pretty big deal out of talking about how this doctor would be darker. and ten as lighthearted strikes me as a little odd -- he had his lighthearted moments, yes, but an awful lot of the time he was deadly serious [and i felt like that was a good balance to strike with the doctor, tbh; someone who was still excited to see and discover new things but could still be very serious when the occasion called for it]. eleven, however, i don't think really resembled ten; on an exterior level, maybe, but below that the various sexist jokes and repeated sexual assault of other characters (rory, jenny, clara), as long as the obvious not only genocide of the silence but brainwashing an unknowing human populace into committing the genocide for him strikes me as a little odd coming from the same man who answered the question of whether an unknowing slave was still a slave with 'yes' [and while i know that's nine, it does seem like something ten would have said too] and who said dictionary entries on genocide would be captioned with his face and the words 'over my dead body'. an awful lot of ten's characterisation came from his response to the events of the time war and to the love for humanity he'd found again with rose, and i don't feel we can say that they had very similar personalities when there's such a huge difference between their ideals)

 

and as i seem to recall going back to colin baker's era wouldn't seem a terribly good idea, given how hard Michael Grade was trying to get rid of it at the time -- not the show's best moment, and it is not a good sign if something is going back to the tone it had while the BBC's Controller was doing his darndest to destroy it.

 

I'm pretty sure it was for the sake of the finale, and seriously don't worry about trying to justify it, you're right. It is exceptionally terrible writing.

 

- Indigo Individual