(spoilers for The Name of the Doctor)

Season 6 revolved around the church and the Silence coming up with an elaborate plot to kill the “evil” Doctor to stop him from revealing his name. Presumably, because it would make something really bad happen. So they sunk a ridiculous amount of effort into killing him.

…and the great intelligence intended to use the Doctor’s name to get at his rift thing to screw up the Doctor’s life.

So.. I don’t get it. They went to all that effort to kill the Doctor to prevent… the great intelligence from destroying the Doctor?

Also, why did the great intelligence have such a grudge against him?

(Doctor Who spoiler)

I’m not confident about Moffat’s assertion after the finale of Sherlock that “no one had it right”, because he didn’t notice that the very first and biggest theory over “what the secret in the 11th Hour was” was the implied return of the TARDIS.

ftmark: morgenst3rn: matt-smiths-legs: worthyourweightinfanfiction: “What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”Rebloggable by request The Bless you this is so true, Moffat has totally ruined DW for me, which used to be one of my favourite shows. what’s more, is I’m completely sure he’ll get the show cancelled if he keeps up at this rate because unexplainable quirk cannot hold down ratings for a show like that one I think a bunch of these points are kinda stupid/irrelevant/totally moot, but I agree that Moffat does have some large and frequent flaws, specifically with women and continuity. Moffat’s continuity has really sucked. It bothers me when lots of game-changing things are created for one episode when in reality if they were actually at all important they wouldn’t pop out of nowhere and then disappear. Asylum of the Daleks really bugged me for that kind of issue. Suddenly the Daleks have always used “The Predator” as a name for the Doctor… which we have never heard before and probably will never hear again. The name fit nicely with the new, darker Doctor of season 7, but it could’ve been presented as a name that was delivered on the spot (because they were looking for a predator and that meant Doctor) rather than something they’d always called him. The human/Dalek hybrids are something that seem like a very big deal, and would either be something outdated due to the Dalek’s obsession with purity, or a primary Dalek weapon. Instead we see them used as guards in a long-abandoned prison, and kidnappers. They’re clearly not new, but we’ve never seen them before and probably never will again. Plus, still on that episode, there was the weird temporary implosion of the Ponds’ relationship. I understand there were big time gaps between episodes there, but there wasn’t context of escalation given, and it felt like it was instantly solved based on the ending we saw. We saw they had a lot of animosity going on, but it went away really, really quickly in one conversation, and didn’t have the “I love you but this was really dysfunctional and we need to work on things” feel that actual conflict resolutions in relationships have. And the reason for the conflict… Amy was backing out because Rory wanted kids and she wasn’t able to be pregnant. Let’s just look at that. Amy saw that there was something he wanted that she couldn’t do, and instead of talking about adopting or seeing how important it was to him in the context of the complications (because there’s a massive different between “would really really like it” and “not happy without it” and it’s pretty important in relationships)… nope, no conversation, no communication, just some kind of hostile breakdown. They never talked about the issue at the centre of their breakup during the entire ordeal. It came as a complete surprise to Rory in this episode. While being a happy couple, the portrayal of their entire relationship has felt really unhealthy to me, but that’s another story. Let’s take a big consistency gaffe - weeping angels. Moffat wrote all of their appearances. He made up the “images of angels become angels” rule in season 5, which is slightly out of joint with Blink, where photos of the angels were inert and implied to have been taken into the TARDIS (which is what the angels had been trying to get to the entire time). But then, Moffat writes an episode where the Statue of Liberty is an angel and pictures of it seem to be inert, despite the fact that it must need an edge to hunting. We have to ask, why was it even in that episode? It didn’t make sense and was totally irrelevant to the plot. Alongside not caring about contradictions, Moffat doesn’t seem to think about the future implications of the canon he sets. Like, the rules of angels-looking-at-angels-counts and -images-of-angels-are-angels both have a significant impact on how they will work if they ever return… and clearly he didn’t stop to think about setting those restrictions. And I’m just going to stop before I talk about how he writes women because it makes me grumpy, doubly grumpy because most fans go “the women he writes are capable therefore they can’t be problematic”, and basically everything ever has been covered by more eloquent people.
Zoom
ftmark: morgenst3rn: matt-smiths-legs: worthyourweightinfanfiction: “What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”Rebloggable by request The Bless you this is so true, Moffat has totally ruined DW for me, which used to be one of my favourite shows. what’s more, is I’m completely sure he’ll get the show cancelled if he keeps up at this rate because unexplainable quirk cannot hold down ratings for a show like that one I think a bunch of these points are kinda stupid/irrelevant/totally moot, but I agree that Moffat does have some large and frequent flaws, specifically with women and continuity. Moffat’s continuity has really sucked. It bothers me when lots of game-changing things are created for one episode when in reality if they were actually at all important they wouldn’t pop out of nowhere and then disappear. Asylum of the Daleks really bugged me for that kind of issue. Suddenly the Daleks have always used “The Predator” as a name for the Doctor… which we have never heard before and probably will never hear again. The name fit nicely with the new, darker Doctor of season 7, but it could’ve been presented as a name that was delivered on the spot (because they were looking for a predator and that meant Doctor) rather than something they’d always called him. The human/Dalek hybrids are something that seem like a very big deal, and would either be something outdated due to the Dalek’s obsession with purity, or a primary Dalek weapon. Instead we see them used as guards in a long-abandoned prison, and kidnappers. They’re clearly not new, but we’ve never seen them before and probably never will again. Plus, still on that episode, there was the weird temporary implosion of the Ponds’ relationship. I understand there were big time gaps between episodes there, but there wasn’t context of escalation given, and it felt like it was instantly solved based on the ending we saw. We saw they had a lot of animosity going on, but it went away really, really quickly in one conversation, and didn’t have the “I love you but this was really dysfunctional and we need to work on things” feel that actual conflict resolutions in relationships have. And the reason for the conflict… Amy was backing out because Rory wanted kids and she wasn’t able to be pregnant. Let’s just look at that. Amy saw that there was something he wanted that she couldn’t do, and instead of talking about adopting or seeing how important it was to him in the context of the complications (because there’s a massive different between “would really really like it” and “not happy without it” and it’s pretty important in relationships)… nope, no conversation, no communication, just some kind of hostile breakdown. They never talked about the issue at the centre of their breakup during the entire ordeal. It came as a complete surprise to Rory in this episode. While being a happy couple, the portrayal of their entire relationship has felt really unhealthy to me, but that’s another story. Let’s take a big consistency gaffe - weeping angels. Moffat wrote all of their appearances. He made up the “images of angels become angels” rule in season 5, which is slightly out of joint with Blink, where photos of the angels were inert and implied to have been taken into the TARDIS (which is what the angels had been trying to get to the entire time). But then, Moffat writes an episode where the Statue of Liberty is an angel and pictures of it seem to be inert, despite the fact that it must need an edge to hunting. We have to ask, why was it even in that episode? It didn’t make sense and was totally irrelevant to the plot. Alongside not caring about contradictions, Moffat doesn’t seem to think about the future implications of the canon he sets. Like, the rules of angels-looking-at-angels-counts and -images-of-angels-are-angels both have a significant impact on how they will work if they ever return… and clearly he didn’t stop to think about setting those restrictions. And I’m just going to stop before I talk about how he writes women because it makes me grumpy, doubly grumpy because most fans go “the women he writes are capable therefore they can’t be problematic”, and basically everything ever has been covered by more eloquent people.
Zoom
ftmark: morgenst3rn: matt-smiths-legs: worthyourweightinfanfiction: “What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”Rebloggable by request The Bless you this is so true, Moffat has totally ruined DW for me, which used to be one of my favourite shows. what’s more, is I’m completely sure he’ll get the show cancelled if he keeps up at this rate because unexplainable quirk cannot hold down ratings for a show like that one I think a bunch of these points are kinda stupid/irrelevant/totally moot, but I agree that Moffat does have some large and frequent flaws, specifically with women and continuity. Moffat’s continuity has really sucked. It bothers me when lots of game-changing things are created for one episode when in reality if they were actually at all important they wouldn’t pop out of nowhere and then disappear. Asylum of the Daleks really bugged me for that kind of issue. Suddenly the Daleks have always used “The Predator” as a name for the Doctor… which we have never heard before and probably will never hear again. The name fit nicely with the new, darker Doctor of season 7, but it could’ve been presented as a name that was delivered on the spot (because they were looking for a predator and that meant Doctor) rather than something they’d always called him. The human/Dalek hybrids are something that seem like a very big deal, and would either be something outdated due to the Dalek’s obsession with purity, or a primary Dalek weapon. Instead we see them used as guards in a long-abandoned prison, and kidnappers. They’re clearly not new, but we’ve never seen them before and probably never will again. Plus, still on that episode, there was the weird temporary implosion of the Ponds’ relationship. I understand there were big time gaps between episodes there, but there wasn’t context of escalation given, and it felt like it was instantly solved based on the ending we saw. We saw they had a lot of animosity going on, but it went away really, really quickly in one conversation, and didn’t have the “I love you but this was really dysfunctional and we need to work on things” feel that actual conflict resolutions in relationships have. And the reason for the conflict… Amy was backing out because Rory wanted kids and she wasn’t able to be pregnant. Let’s just look at that. Amy saw that there was something he wanted that she couldn’t do, and instead of talking about adopting or seeing how important it was to him in the context of the complications (because there’s a massive different between “would really really like it” and “not happy without it” and it’s pretty important in relationships)… nope, no conversation, no communication, just some kind of hostile breakdown. They never talked about the issue at the centre of their breakup during the entire ordeal. It came as a complete surprise to Rory in this episode. While being a happy couple, the portrayal of their entire relationship has felt really unhealthy to me, but that’s another story. Let’s take a big consistency gaffe - weeping angels. Moffat wrote all of their appearances. He made up the “images of angels become angels” rule in season 5, which is slightly out of joint with Blink, where photos of the angels were inert and implied to have been taken into the TARDIS (which is what the angels had been trying to get to the entire time). But then, Moffat writes an episode where the Statue of Liberty is an angel and pictures of it seem to be inert, despite the fact that it must need an edge to hunting. We have to ask, why was it even in that episode? It didn’t make sense and was totally irrelevant to the plot. Alongside not caring about contradictions, Moffat doesn’t seem to think about the future implications of the canon he sets. Like, the rules of angels-looking-at-angels-counts and -images-of-angels-are-angels both have a significant impact on how they will work if they ever return… and clearly he didn’t stop to think about setting those restrictions. And I’m just going to stop before I talk about how he writes women because it makes me grumpy, doubly grumpy because most fans go “the women he writes are capable therefore they can’t be problematic”, and basically everything ever has been covered by more eloquent people.
Zoom
ftmark: morgenst3rn: matt-smiths-legs: worthyourweightinfanfiction: “What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”Rebloggable by request The Bless you this is so true, Moffat has totally ruined DW for me, which used to be one of my favourite shows. what’s more, is I’m completely sure he’ll get the show cancelled if he keeps up at this rate because unexplainable quirk cannot hold down ratings for a show like that one I think a bunch of these points are kinda stupid/irrelevant/totally moot, but I agree that Moffat does have some large and frequent flaws, specifically with women and continuity. Moffat’s continuity has really sucked. It bothers me when lots of game-changing things are created for one episode when in reality if they were actually at all important they wouldn’t pop out of nowhere and then disappear. Asylum of the Daleks really bugged me for that kind of issue. Suddenly the Daleks have always used “The Predator” as a name for the Doctor… which we have never heard before and probably will never hear again. The name fit nicely with the new, darker Doctor of season 7, but it could’ve been presented as a name that was delivered on the spot (because they were looking for a predator and that meant Doctor) rather than something they’d always called him. The human/Dalek hybrids are something that seem like a very big deal, and would either be something outdated due to the Dalek’s obsession with purity, or a primary Dalek weapon. Instead we see them used as guards in a long-abandoned prison, and kidnappers. They’re clearly not new, but we’ve never seen them before and probably never will again. Plus, still on that episode, there was the weird temporary implosion of the Ponds’ relationship. I understand there were big time gaps between episodes there, but there wasn’t context of escalation given, and it felt like it was instantly solved based on the ending we saw. We saw they had a lot of animosity going on, but it went away really, really quickly in one conversation, and didn’t have the “I love you but this was really dysfunctional and we need to work on things” feel that actual conflict resolutions in relationships have. And the reason for the conflict… Amy was backing out because Rory wanted kids and she wasn’t able to be pregnant. Let’s just look at that. Amy saw that there was something he wanted that she couldn’t do, and instead of talking about adopting or seeing how important it was to him in the context of the complications (because there’s a massive different between “would really really like it” and “not happy without it” and it’s pretty important in relationships)… nope, no conversation, no communication, just some kind of hostile breakdown. They never talked about the issue at the centre of their breakup during the entire ordeal. It came as a complete surprise to Rory in this episode. While being a happy couple, the portrayal of their entire relationship has felt really unhealthy to me, but that’s another story. Let’s take a big consistency gaffe - weeping angels. Moffat wrote all of their appearances. He made up the “images of angels become angels” rule in season 5, which is slightly out of joint with Blink, where photos of the angels were inert and implied to have been taken into the TARDIS (which is what the angels had been trying to get to the entire time). But then, Moffat writes an episode where the Statue of Liberty is an angel and pictures of it seem to be inert, despite the fact that it must need an edge to hunting. We have to ask, why was it even in that episode? It didn’t make sense and was totally irrelevant to the plot. Alongside not caring about contradictions, Moffat doesn’t seem to think about the future implications of the canon he sets. Like, the rules of angels-looking-at-angels-counts and -images-of-angels-are-angels both have a significant impact on how they will work if they ever return… and clearly he didn’t stop to think about setting those restrictions. And I’m just going to stop before I talk about how he writes women because it makes me grumpy, doubly grumpy because most fans go “the women he writes are capable therefore they can’t be problematic”, and basically everything ever has been covered by more eloquent people.
Zoom
ftmark: morgenst3rn: matt-smiths-legs: worthyourweightinfanfiction: “What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”Rebloggable by request The Bless you this is so true, Moffat has totally ruined DW for me, which used to be one of my favourite shows. what’s more, is I’m completely sure he’ll get the show cancelled if he keeps up at this rate because unexplainable quirk cannot hold down ratings for a show like that one I think a bunch of these points are kinda stupid/irrelevant/totally moot, but I agree that Moffat does have some large and frequent flaws, specifically with women and continuity. Moffat’s continuity has really sucked. It bothers me when lots of game-changing things are created for one episode when in reality if they were actually at all important they wouldn’t pop out of nowhere and then disappear. Asylum of the Daleks really bugged me for that kind of issue. Suddenly the Daleks have always used “The Predator” as a name for the Doctor… which we have never heard before and probably will never hear again. The name fit nicely with the new, darker Doctor of season 7, but it could’ve been presented as a name that was delivered on the spot (because they were looking for a predator and that meant Doctor) rather than something they’d always called him. The human/Dalek hybrids are something that seem like a very big deal, and would either be something outdated due to the Dalek’s obsession with purity, or a primary Dalek weapon. Instead we see them used as guards in a long-abandoned prison, and kidnappers. They’re clearly not new, but we’ve never seen them before and probably never will again. Plus, still on that episode, there was the weird temporary implosion of the Ponds’ relationship. I understand there were big time gaps between episodes there, but there wasn’t context of escalation given, and it felt like it was instantly solved based on the ending we saw. We saw they had a lot of animosity going on, but it went away really, really quickly in one conversation, and didn’t have the “I love you but this was really dysfunctional and we need to work on things” feel that actual conflict resolutions in relationships have. And the reason for the conflict… Amy was backing out because Rory wanted kids and she wasn’t able to be pregnant. Let’s just look at that. Amy saw that there was something he wanted that she couldn’t do, and instead of talking about adopting or seeing how important it was to him in the context of the complications (because there’s a massive different between “would really really like it” and “not happy without it” and it’s pretty important in relationships)… nope, no conversation, no communication, just some kind of hostile breakdown. They never talked about the issue at the centre of their breakup during the entire ordeal. It came as a complete surprise to Rory in this episode. While being a happy couple, the portrayal of their entire relationship has felt really unhealthy to me, but that’s another story. Let’s take a big consistency gaffe - weeping angels. Moffat wrote all of their appearances. He made up the “images of angels become angels” rule in season 5, which is slightly out of joint with Blink, where photos of the angels were inert and implied to have been taken into the TARDIS (which is what the angels had been trying to get to the entire time). But then, Moffat writes an episode where the Statue of Liberty is an angel and pictures of it seem to be inert, despite the fact that it must need an edge to hunting. We have to ask, why was it even in that episode? It didn’t make sense and was totally irrelevant to the plot. Alongside not caring about contradictions, Moffat doesn’t seem to think about the future implications of the canon he sets. Like, the rules of angels-looking-at-angels-counts and -images-of-angels-are-angels both have a significant impact on how they will work if they ever return… and clearly he didn’t stop to think about setting those restrictions. And I’m just going to stop before I talk about how he writes women because it makes me grumpy, doubly grumpy because most fans go “the women he writes are capable therefore they can’t be problematic”, and basically everything ever has been covered by more eloquent people.
Zoom
ftmark: morgenst3rn: matt-smiths-legs: worthyourweightinfanfiction: “What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”Rebloggable by request The Bless you this is so true, Moffat has totally ruined DW for me, which used to be one of my favourite shows. what’s more, is I’m completely sure he’ll get the show cancelled if he keeps up at this rate because unexplainable quirk cannot hold down ratings for a show like that one I think a bunch of these points are kinda stupid/irrelevant/totally moot, but I agree that Moffat does have some large and frequent flaws, specifically with women and continuity. Moffat’s continuity has really sucked. It bothers me when lots of game-changing things are created for one episode when in reality if they were actually at all important they wouldn’t pop out of nowhere and then disappear. Asylum of the Daleks really bugged me for that kind of issue. Suddenly the Daleks have always used “The Predator” as a name for the Doctor… which we have never heard before and probably will never hear again. The name fit nicely with the new, darker Doctor of season 7, but it could’ve been presented as a name that was delivered on the spot (because they were looking for a predator and that meant Doctor) rather than something they’d always called him. The human/Dalek hybrids are something that seem like a very big deal, and would either be something outdated due to the Dalek’s obsession with purity, or a primary Dalek weapon. Instead we see them used as guards in a long-abandoned prison, and kidnappers. They’re clearly not new, but we’ve never seen them before and probably never will again. Plus, still on that episode, there was the weird temporary implosion of the Ponds’ relationship. I understand there were big time gaps between episodes there, but there wasn’t context of escalation given, and it felt like it was instantly solved based on the ending we saw. We saw they had a lot of animosity going on, but it went away really, really quickly in one conversation, and didn’t have the “I love you but this was really dysfunctional and we need to work on things” feel that actual conflict resolutions in relationships have. And the reason for the conflict… Amy was backing out because Rory wanted kids and she wasn’t able to be pregnant. Let’s just look at that. Amy saw that there was something he wanted that she couldn’t do, and instead of talking about adopting or seeing how important it was to him in the context of the complications (because there’s a massive different between “would really really like it” and “not happy without it” and it’s pretty important in relationships)… nope, no conversation, no communication, just some kind of hostile breakdown. They never talked about the issue at the centre of their breakup during the entire ordeal. It came as a complete surprise to Rory in this episode. While being a happy couple, the portrayal of their entire relationship has felt really unhealthy to me, but that’s another story. Let’s take a big consistency gaffe - weeping angels. Moffat wrote all of their appearances. He made up the “images of angels become angels” rule in season 5, which is slightly out of joint with Blink, where photos of the angels were inert and implied to have been taken into the TARDIS (which is what the angels had been trying to get to the entire time). But then, Moffat writes an episode where the Statue of Liberty is an angel and pictures of it seem to be inert, despite the fact that it must need an edge to hunting. We have to ask, why was it even in that episode? It didn’t make sense and was totally irrelevant to the plot. Alongside not caring about contradictions, Moffat doesn’t seem to think about the future implications of the canon he sets. Like, the rules of angels-looking-at-angels-counts and -images-of-angels-are-angels both have a significant impact on how they will work if they ever return… and clearly he didn’t stop to think about setting those restrictions. And I’m just going to stop before I talk about how he writes women because it makes me grumpy, doubly grumpy because most fans go “the women he writes are capable therefore they can’t be problematic”, and basically everything ever has been covered by more eloquent people.
Zoom
ftmark: morgenst3rn: matt-smiths-legs: worthyourweightinfanfiction: “What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”Rebloggable by request The Bless you this is so true, Moffat has totally ruined DW for me, which used to be one of my favourite shows. what’s more, is I’m completely sure he’ll get the show cancelled if he keeps up at this rate because unexplainable quirk cannot hold down ratings for a show like that one I think a bunch of these points are kinda stupid/irrelevant/totally moot, but I agree that Moffat does have some large and frequent flaws, specifically with women and continuity. Moffat’s continuity has really sucked. It bothers me when lots of game-changing things are created for one episode when in reality if they were actually at all important they wouldn’t pop out of nowhere and then disappear. Asylum of the Daleks really bugged me for that kind of issue. Suddenly the Daleks have always used “The Predator” as a name for the Doctor… which we have never heard before and probably will never hear again. The name fit nicely with the new, darker Doctor of season 7, but it could’ve been presented as a name that was delivered on the spot (because they were looking for a predator and that meant Doctor) rather than something they’d always called him. The human/Dalek hybrids are something that seem like a very big deal, and would either be something outdated due to the Dalek’s obsession with purity, or a primary Dalek weapon. Instead we see them used as guards in a long-abandoned prison, and kidnappers. They’re clearly not new, but we’ve never seen them before and probably never will again. Plus, still on that episode, there was the weird temporary implosion of the Ponds’ relationship. I understand there were big time gaps between episodes there, but there wasn’t context of escalation given, and it felt like it was instantly solved based on the ending we saw. We saw they had a lot of animosity going on, but it went away really, really quickly in one conversation, and didn’t have the “I love you but this was really dysfunctional and we need to work on things” feel that actual conflict resolutions in relationships have. And the reason for the conflict… Amy was backing out because Rory wanted kids and she wasn’t able to be pregnant. Let’s just look at that. Amy saw that there was something he wanted that she couldn’t do, and instead of talking about adopting or seeing how important it was to him in the context of the complications (because there’s a massive different between “would really really like it” and “not happy without it” and it’s pretty important in relationships)… nope, no conversation, no communication, just some kind of hostile breakdown. They never talked about the issue at the centre of their breakup during the entire ordeal. It came as a complete surprise to Rory in this episode. While being a happy couple, the portrayal of their entire relationship has felt really unhealthy to me, but that’s another story. Let’s take a big consistency gaffe - weeping angels. Moffat wrote all of their appearances. He made up the “images of angels become angels” rule in season 5, which is slightly out of joint with Blink, where photos of the angels were inert and implied to have been taken into the TARDIS (which is what the angels had been trying to get to the entire time). But then, Moffat writes an episode where the Statue of Liberty is an angel and pictures of it seem to be inert, despite the fact that it must need an edge to hunting. We have to ask, why was it even in that episode? It didn’t make sense and was totally irrelevant to the plot. Alongside not caring about contradictions, Moffat doesn’t seem to think about the future implications of the canon he sets. Like, the rules of angels-looking-at-angels-counts and -images-of-angels-are-angels both have a significant impact on how they will work if they ever return… and clearly he didn’t stop to think about setting those restrictions. And I’m just going to stop before I talk about how he writes women because it makes me grumpy, doubly grumpy because most fans go “the women he writes are capable therefore they can’t be problematic”, and basically everything ever has been covered by more eloquent people.
Zoom
ftmark: morgenst3rn: matt-smiths-legs: worthyourweightinfanfiction: “What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”Rebloggable by request The Bless you this is so true, Moffat has totally ruined DW for me, which used to be one of my favourite shows. what’s more, is I’m completely sure he’ll get the show cancelled if he keeps up at this rate because unexplainable quirk cannot hold down ratings for a show like that one I think a bunch of these points are kinda stupid/irrelevant/totally moot, but I agree that Moffat does have some large and frequent flaws, specifically with women and continuity. Moffat’s continuity has really sucked. It bothers me when lots of game-changing things are created for one episode when in reality if they were actually at all important they wouldn’t pop out of nowhere and then disappear. Asylum of the Daleks really bugged me for that kind of issue. Suddenly the Daleks have always used “The Predator” as a name for the Doctor… which we have never heard before and probably will never hear again. The name fit nicely with the new, darker Doctor of season 7, but it could’ve been presented as a name that was delivered on the spot (because they were looking for a predator and that meant Doctor) rather than something they’d always called him. The human/Dalek hybrids are something that seem like a very big deal, and would either be something outdated due to the Dalek’s obsession with purity, or a primary Dalek weapon. Instead we see them used as guards in a long-abandoned prison, and kidnappers. They’re clearly not new, but we’ve never seen them before and probably never will again. Plus, still on that episode, there was the weird temporary implosion of the Ponds’ relationship. I understand there were big time gaps between episodes there, but there wasn’t context of escalation given, and it felt like it was instantly solved based on the ending we saw. We saw they had a lot of animosity going on, but it went away really, really quickly in one conversation, and didn’t have the “I love you but this was really dysfunctional and we need to work on things” feel that actual conflict resolutions in relationships have. And the reason for the conflict… Amy was backing out because Rory wanted kids and she wasn’t able to be pregnant. Let’s just look at that. Amy saw that there was something he wanted that she couldn’t do, and instead of talking about adopting or seeing how important it was to him in the context of the complications (because there’s a massive different between “would really really like it” and “not happy without it” and it’s pretty important in relationships)… nope, no conversation, no communication, just some kind of hostile breakdown. They never talked about the issue at the centre of their breakup during the entire ordeal. It came as a complete surprise to Rory in this episode. While being a happy couple, the portrayal of their entire relationship has felt really unhealthy to me, but that’s another story. Let’s take a big consistency gaffe - weeping angels. Moffat wrote all of their appearances. He made up the “images of angels become angels” rule in season 5, which is slightly out of joint with Blink, where photos of the angels were inert and implied to have been taken into the TARDIS (which is what the angels had been trying to get to the entire time). But then, Moffat writes an episode where the Statue of Liberty is an angel and pictures of it seem to be inert, despite the fact that it must need an edge to hunting. We have to ask, why was it even in that episode? It didn’t make sense and was totally irrelevant to the plot. Alongside not caring about contradictions, Moffat doesn’t seem to think about the future implications of the canon he sets. Like, the rules of angels-looking-at-angels-counts and -images-of-angels-are-angels both have a significant impact on how they will work if they ever return… and clearly he didn’t stop to think about setting those restrictions. And I’m just going to stop before I talk about how he writes women because it makes me grumpy, doubly grumpy because most fans go “the women he writes are capable therefore they can’t be problematic”, and basically everything ever has been covered by more eloquent people.
Zoom
ftmark: morgenst3rn: matt-smiths-legs: worthyourweightinfanfiction: “What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”Rebloggable by request The Bless you this is so true, Moffat has totally ruined DW for me, which used to be one of my favourite shows. what’s more, is I’m completely sure he’ll get the show cancelled if he keeps up at this rate because unexplainable quirk cannot hold down ratings for a show like that one I think a bunch of these points are kinda stupid/irrelevant/totally moot, but I agree that Moffat does have some large and frequent flaws, specifically with women and continuity. Moffat’s continuity has really sucked. It bothers me when lots of game-changing things are created for one episode when in reality if they were actually at all important they wouldn’t pop out of nowhere and then disappear. Asylum of the Daleks really bugged me for that kind of issue. Suddenly the Daleks have always used “The Predator” as a name for the Doctor… which we have never heard before and probably will never hear again. The name fit nicely with the new, darker Doctor of season 7, but it could’ve been presented as a name that was delivered on the spot (because they were looking for a predator and that meant Doctor) rather than something they’d always called him. The human/Dalek hybrids are something that seem like a very big deal, and would either be something outdated due to the Dalek’s obsession with purity, or a primary Dalek weapon. Instead we see them used as guards in a long-abandoned prison, and kidnappers. They’re clearly not new, but we’ve never seen them before and probably never will again. Plus, still on that episode, there was the weird temporary implosion of the Ponds’ relationship. I understand there were big time gaps between episodes there, but there wasn’t context of escalation given, and it felt like it was instantly solved based on the ending we saw. We saw they had a lot of animosity going on, but it went away really, really quickly in one conversation, and didn’t have the “I love you but this was really dysfunctional and we need to work on things” feel that actual conflict resolutions in relationships have. And the reason for the conflict… Amy was backing out because Rory wanted kids and she wasn’t able to be pregnant. Let’s just look at that. Amy saw that there was something he wanted that she couldn’t do, and instead of talking about adopting or seeing how important it was to him in the context of the complications (because there’s a massive different between “would really really like it” and “not happy without it” and it’s pretty important in relationships)… nope, no conversation, no communication, just some kind of hostile breakdown. They never talked about the issue at the centre of their breakup during the entire ordeal. It came as a complete surprise to Rory in this episode. While being a happy couple, the portrayal of their entire relationship has felt really unhealthy to me, but that’s another story. Let’s take a big consistency gaffe - weeping angels. Moffat wrote all of their appearances. He made up the “images of angels become angels” rule in season 5, which is slightly out of joint with Blink, where photos of the angels were inert and implied to have been taken into the TARDIS (which is what the angels had been trying to get to the entire time). But then, Moffat writes an episode where the Statue of Liberty is an angel and pictures of it seem to be inert, despite the fact that it must need an edge to hunting. We have to ask, why was it even in that episode? It didn’t make sense and was totally irrelevant to the plot. Alongside not caring about contradictions, Moffat doesn’t seem to think about the future implications of the canon he sets. Like, the rules of angels-looking-at-angels-counts and -images-of-angels-are-angels both have a significant impact on how they will work if they ever return… and clearly he didn’t stop to think about setting those restrictions. And I’m just going to stop before I talk about how he writes women because it makes me grumpy, doubly grumpy because most fans go “the women he writes are capable therefore they can’t be problematic”, and basically everything ever has been covered by more eloquent people.
Zoom

ftmark:

morgenst3rn:

matt-smiths-legs:

worthyourweightinfanfiction:

“What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”
Rebloggable by request

The

Bless you

this is so true, Moffat has totally ruined DW for me, which used to be one of my favourite shows. what’s more, is I’m completely sure he’ll get the show cancelled if he keeps up at this rate because unexplainable quirk cannot hold down ratings for a show like that one

I think a bunch of these points are kinda stupid/irrelevant/totally moot, but I agree that Moffat does have some large and frequent flaws, specifically with women and continuity.

Moffat’s continuity has really sucked. It bothers me when lots of game-changing things are created for one episode when in reality if they were actually at all important they wouldn’t pop out of nowhere and then disappear.

Asylum of the Daleks really bugged me for that kind of issue. Suddenly the Daleks have always used “The Predator” as a name for the Doctor… which we have never heard before and probably will never hear again. The name fit nicely with the new, darker Doctor of season 7, but it could’ve been presented as a name that was delivered on the spot (because they were looking for a predator and that meant Doctor) rather than something they’d always called him. The human/Dalek hybrids are something that seem like a very big deal, and would either be something outdated due to the Dalek’s obsession with purity, or a primary Dalek weapon. Instead we see them used as guards in a long-abandoned prison, and kidnappers. They’re clearly not new, but we’ve never seen them before and probably never will again.

Plus, still on that episode, there was the weird temporary implosion of the Ponds’ relationship. I understand there were big time gaps between episodes there, but there wasn’t context of escalation given, and it felt like it was instantly solved based on the ending we saw. We saw they had a lot of animosity going on, but it went away really, really quickly in one conversation, and didn’t have the “I love you but this was really dysfunctional and we need to work on things” feel that actual conflict resolutions in relationships have. And the reason for the conflict… Amy was backing out because Rory wanted kids and she wasn’t able to be pregnant. Let’s just look at that. Amy saw that there was something he wanted that she couldn’t do, and instead of talking about adopting or seeing how important it was to him in the context of the complications (because there’s a massive different between “would really really like it” and “not happy without it” and it’s pretty important in relationships)… nope, no conversation, no communication, just some kind of hostile breakdown. They never talked about the issue at the centre of their breakup during the entire ordeal. It came as a complete surprise to Rory in this episode. While being a happy couple, the portrayal of their entire relationship has felt really unhealthy to me, but that’s another story.

Let’s take a big consistency gaffe - weeping angels. Moffat wrote all of their appearances. He made up the “images of angels become angels” rule in season 5, which is slightly out of joint with Blink, where photos of the angels were inert and implied to have been taken into the TARDIS (which is what the angels had been trying to get to the entire time). But then, Moffat writes an episode where the Statue of Liberty is an angel and pictures of it seem to be inert, despite the fact that it must need an edge to hunting. We have to ask, why was it even in that episode? It didn’t make sense and was totally irrelevant to the plot.

Alongside not caring about contradictions, Moffat doesn’t seem to think about the future implications of the canon he sets. Like, the rules of angels-looking-at-angels-counts and -images-of-angels-are-angels both have a significant impact on how they will work if they ever return… and clearly he didn’t stop to think about setting those restrictions.

And I’m just going to stop before I talk about how he writes women because it makes me grumpy, doubly grumpy because most fans go “the women he writes are capable therefore they can’t be problematic”, and basically everything ever has been covered by more eloquent people.

sir-broccoli:

astudyintimelords: So I recently bought this Dalek talking plushie…

doctorwho:

astudyintimelords:

So I recently bought this Dalek talking plushie

image

and if you sleep hugging a stuffed plushie and roll over a lot take my word for it and don’t sleep with it because last night I was hugging this dalek and was perfectly asleep and happy and I rolled over and I rolled too much and the dalek got squished and yelled “EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!” really loudly at like 5 in the morning and yeah I was 200% sure I was about to be murdered.

lady-haylo:

insideabubblethatsomeoneblew:

sher-lady:

collidingkiss:

the doctor is literally so shitty at flying the tardis like how do u aim for vegas and end up on a soviet submarine in the middle of the north pole smdh

its because the TARDIS is meant to be piloted by 6-7 time lords. and the doctor has to pilot it alone. all alone…

Because he’s alone… All alone.

image

Can we also appreciate that he got the wrong destination in two of his three first flights with Rose?

My mom is almost done season 3 of Doctor Who and I’ve been laughing to myself for weeks about how much she’s going to flip at Rose’s reapparance because she really likes Rose and can’t accept that she left.

And now I just realized how loud she’s going to screech when she gets up to the 50th anniversary special.

My sister and I are not letting that slip.

On the incredibly slim chance that I ever go into screenplay writing and write for Doctor Who, I will be sure to release a bunch of PR about a new companion who will actually never be in the show and slip the actual companion in with zero warning and this person may or may not be a past character.

This is your one warning.

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union