I can't really explain why I dislike his era. I think Matt Smith is outstanding, but the stories for him are lacking. It's almost like I don't feel Moffat lets us in on the story.
I have some sympathy with this.
Matt Smith's Doctor (and Amy, and Rory) are superb characters. They're full of life, energy and fun. I dearly love the three of them. HOWEVER, I haven't got the faintest idea what they are doing or why they are doing it.
I loved the James Corden episode. It was FUN. There was no sinister doom-and-gloom, no all-conquering "story arc". It was just straightforward and fun. Like Doctor Who used to be.
SJA is thoroughly enjoyable and feels closer to C20 DW because it doesn't have the self-important, pompous, "meaningful" story arc stuff. I find all of that terribly boring and would be much happier with standalone stories.
...it doesn't have the self-important, pompous, "meaningful" story arc stuff. I find all of that terribly boring and would be much happier with standalone stories.
Well maybe a subtle one a la Badwolf but agree that an in your face, lets all look for the 'clues and twists' story arc is getting a little tiresome!
I am boggled at the thought that having children in an episode somehow makes it either stupid, or tailored to children.
The very theme and subtext in those episodes are ones that I can relate to, given that I'm due to become a father in six months myself. Although presented as a light-hearted romp, Craig's fear of how to bond with and confidently handle a baby is a very real, and very human thing - something that will fly straight over a child's head but that an adult will identify with. The only downside is that Night Terrors covers much the same ground, but from the perspective of an adult finding his control over the situation pulled away.
I am boggled at the thought that having children in an episode somehow makes it either stupid, or tailored to children.
I agree entirely. Sounds to me like a flimsy excuse to have a pop at Moffatt without really having a good reason to. This series has been far from childish, when you look back at episodes like the opening two-parter, The Doctor's Wife, the magnificent The Girl Who Waited, God Complex and plenty more. The James Corden episode was blatantly a little, light-hearted break from the bigger arc, a touch of light relief before the big finale, and Night Terrors dealt directly with childhood fears, but that doesn't make it childish, especially with creepy things happening like Amy being turned into a doll.
What I would say is that Matt Smith's version of the Doctor is more often child-like in some of his mannerisms than his immediate predecessors. You look at the way in the Christmas special he whizzed from room to room, showing off the wonderful toys he made, the lemonade tap, all of that. But child-like and childish are two very different things. And at the other extreme, he also seems more often very, very old, with all the age, experience and weariness of the forever time traveller.
Well maybe a subtle one a la Badwolf but agree that an in your face, lets all look for the 'clues and twists' story arc is getting a little tiresome!
That's the viewer, not the show. The show never asks you to guess what's going to happen next. It does, however want you to be intrigued about it.
"Bad Wolf" was about spotting 'clues' that were hidden (not that any of the references had any impact whatsoever on the plot), the recent series presented the arc plot elements clearly.
i have registered on this forum to air my concerns about doctor who, i first started watching the programme in the pertwee era !
my main concern is that the programme is been aimed at too lower age group, with the recent emphasis on children and babies been just a bit too much to stomach.
on the plus side i think matt smith is great and some of the recent episodes have been decent like the mysterious hotel one.please writers stop dumbing down dr who and get back to the scares and suspense.
I would like to disagree with you, but I fear I cannot!!:(
That's the viewer, not the show. The show never asks you to guess what's going to happen next. It does, however want you to be intrigued about it.
"Bad Wolf" was about spotting 'clues' that were hidden (not that any of the references had any impact whatsoever on the plot), the recent series presented the arc plot elements clearly.
Bad wolf was hidden in plain sight but at that time, we, the viewers didn't know that there was a story arc (well, I didn't anyway!). Following that while I agree that its the viewer that was looking for the clues etc, I don't agree that the show doesn't ask you to look for them. The nature of the show imo, is now very much geared toward the arc and getting clues in and yes making you intrigued but in turn also compelling viewers to look for the clues. Particularly so for the last two series where the 'arc' appeared to be heavily (in a subtle way) marketed. All imo of course!:)
Bad wolf was hidden in plain sight but at that time, we, the viewers didn't know that there was a story arc (well, I didn't anyway!). Following that while I agree that its the viewer that was looking for the clues etc, I don't agree that the show doesn't ask you to look for them. The nature of the show imo, is now very much geared toward the arc and getting clues in and yes making you intrigued but in turn also compelling viewers to look for the clues. Particularly so for the last two series where the 'arc' appeared to be heavily (in a subtle way) marketed. All imo of course!:)
Well IMO as well. The show and the writer seem to be actively encouraging the viewers to look for clues. Moffat always teases us about them in the interviews.
Surely, people are not suggesting now that the story arc is a kind of byproduct and that the viewer could chose to overlook any of the arc cues without losing the clarity of the overall series.
I actually enjoy story arcs, although I would like them a bit less prominent in the next series and I would have liked some answers to some of the questions raised in series 5 (e.g., who took control and was responsible for the blow up the tardis).
Well IMO as well. The show and the writer seem to be actively encouraging the viewers to look for clues. Moffat always teases us about them in the interviews.
But that's for the hardcore fans, the ones who want to play that game. There's only a small minority of viewers that watch interviews or spend much time thinking about the programme outside of actually watching it.
But that's for the hardcore fans, the ones who want to play that game. There's only a small minority of viewers that watch interviews or spend much time thinking about the programme outside of actually watching it.
Are you saying that people only know or need to know about the story arc if they are hardcore fans and read the interview? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me, and I suspect that's not what Moffat intends at all (i.e., why write an elaborate plot for a bunch of hardcore fans).
The regular viewer is still reminded about the story arc in the repetition of the key scenes at the end of the series and throughout the series. As such the story arc is part of the show and the writer - with the writing - encourages us (inlcuding the regular viewers) to look for these clues. There is nothing wrong with this, but for some people it might get a bit too much.
IMO if you think that the regular viewer is not aware of the story arc or thinking about the story arc, then Moffat clearly is doing something wrong with his writing. Regular viewers still have the ability to think about and interpret what they see in a drama.
Are you saying that people only know or need to know about the story arc if they are hardcore fans and read the interview? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me, and I suspect that's not what Moffat intends at all (i.e., why write an elaborate plot for a bunch of hardcore fans).
The regular viewer is still reminded about the story arc in the repetition of the key scenes at the end of the series and throughout the series. As such the story arc is part of the show and the writer - with the writing - encourages us (inlcuding the regular viewers) to look for these clues. There is nothing wrong with this, but for some people it might get a bit too much.
IMO if you think that the regular viewer is not aware of the story arc or thinking about the story arc, then Moffat clearly is doing something wrong with his writing. Regular viewers still have the ability to think about and interpret what they see in a drama.
^^^ this!
I very much feel it is all in the clues and the hints of where we go....every show ever made has a dedicated fanbase and casual viewers. Some can join and follow whereas others cannot. But series 6 proved that Doctor Who very much is the definition of event television.
People want to know the answers, but only get a few and then are delivered more questions to whet our appetites. It is exciting. As a finale Series 6 hit it dead on, it provided a resolution and then more questions raised. It resolved a main storyline yet provided more focus for where we are heading with the show. It allowed for one single episode to draw the entire series to a close in such an epic way...yet also means the first two episodes also conclude a storyline as well as start it.
Sure some may see it as complicated...but what i find so fascinating about this is is simplicity as well. We have this new force and foe out there to face...and i cannot wait to see where The Moff takes us...i hope we have more twists and turns and dramatic cliffhangers! Because that is what the show is about...again, finally!
Watching The Moff in action and at his best on Sunday (Sherlock), I'll put this bit in spoilers just in case...
that bit in the plane when Mycroft tells Sherlock what he has missed regarding the bodies ie all those 'boring' cases he dismissed about dead people
thats how I want a arc to be, a complete mystery until it happens at which point we all go 'Oooohhh yeeeeaaaah'!:)
If I know something's coming and its over emphasised, it loses its impact! I'm ok with knowing that there is going to be a twist, but I prefer misdirection and then being completely thrown at the end. Thats what Badwolf did for me! As much as I didn't like the RTD era, he managed the first arc really well. Sadly, imo, It became the driving force.
Have a look at the first page of this forum, I think you'll find there are a grand total of 2 'negative' threads, this one and the losing faith in Moffatt one.
IMO the biggest problem with this forum is the way that certain posters jump on anyone with the slightest bad thing to say about the show, even going as far as calling them trolls just because they dare to criticise.
Why we've even got an "hilarious" spoof thread actively taking the piss out of these so called 'trolls'.
It's no wonder this forum is getting an ever growing reputation of being one big clique......
I agree Welsh Nige. Scolding "Happiness Patrol" reaction to comment and criticism is tiresome.
Watching The Moff in action and at his best on Sunday (Sherlock), I'll put this bit in spoilers just in case...
that bit in the plane when Mycroft tells Sherlock what he has missed regarding the bodies ie all those 'boring' cases he dismissed about dead people
thats how I want a arc to be, a complete mystery until it happens at which point we all go 'Oooohhh yeeeeaaaah'!:)
If I know something's coming and its over emphasised, it loses its impact! I'm ok with knowing that there is going to be a twist, but I prefer misdirection and then being completely thrown at the end. Thats what Badwolf did for me! As much as I didn't like the RTD era, he managed the first arc really well. Sadly, imo, It became the driving force.
I thought that was brilliantly done as well, and my favourite arc of all the series. The first time I realised that there was a recurring theme was when it was written on the Tardis.
The bit in the spoiler, that was great as well. I certainly didn't have an idea until it was revealed.
I did like the Bad Wolf arc but for me it wasn't engaging enough. Likewise series 6 was only just too arc heavy. If they'd taken out the bit in the opening parter about Amy being pregnant, it would have vastly improved it. Bad Wolf was good but there were no clues at all, the reveal was good but it didn't have me slapping myself in the face going OH YEAH. I would want it to be subtle but still to grab me and series 6 was close to this but just overplayed.
I did like the Bad Wolf arc but for me it wasn't engaging enough. Likewise series 6 was only just too arc heavy. If they'd taken out the bit in the opening parter about Amy being pregnant, it would have vastly improved it. Bad Wolf was good but there were no clues at all, the reveal was good but it didn't have me slapping myself in the face going OH YEAH. I would want it to be subtle but still to grab me and series 6 was close to this but just overplayed.
I sort of agree. I did like the series 6 arc, but at times it did seem like there were too many different things going on at once and at times it felt like it was too prominent.
I also agree with the Series 1 arc. The word "Bad Wolf" was interesting to spot and look out for, but it didn't give much to think and speculate about and just as you said, the reveal was interesting, but nothing shocking.
To my mind, series 5 had the arc just right- perfect in my opinion. The first episode set up a few clues to the overall arc (The crack, the Pandorica opening and even a mention to Silence Falling) then we had a few glimpses of the cracks in the following episodes, making the mystery deepen. In Flesh and Stone we learnt a bit more about the cracks as well as some stuff which would come into play in series 6. Vampires of Venice briefly mentioned the cracks. This was followed by Amy's Choice and The Hungry Earth which gave us a break from the arc, a break which lasted right up until the last 5 minutes of Cold Blood where there were some more dramatic developments. Finally we had another two episodes break (apart from one tiny appearance of the crack) before (almost) all was revealed in the two-part finale.
I really loved the Series 5 arc and I hope Series 7 is similar in structure.
Between 1989 and 2005 we had no (new) Who apart from one movie!
So The Moff writes a few stinkers, I don't think frilly Christmas episodes are his forte, but lets just remember one thing...we have a regular series of DW for the foreseeable!
Surely for that reason alone, who cares if some episodes are crap!
Im getting increasingly sick of all these nicey nicey christmas episodes. If soaps are going to have nasty characters killing someone at christmas time why cant we have something similar in Doctor Who on xmas day! Why does everyone have to always be saved?
Each year you ll have fatalities happen only for some idiot whos producing the series to do some reset thing so basically the deaths never happenned.
Id rather have JNT anyday than these 2 idiots who run things these days. Bout time we had producers writing stories for doctor who fans and not kids!
I liked the series 3 arc the best- Mr Saxon culminating in Utopia but then falling on its backside with the two-part finale
That is probably my favourite as well, I loved the little touches of that arc such as when Martha, facing certain death in the escape pod in 42, calls her mum, then during the conversation the camera pans to show a 'spook' taping and tracking the call. :eek:
Its moments like that when arcs work for me, when they are not part of the main story but extremely well handled when placed into an episode without overshadowing it, really liked the like Bad Wolf one as well, first new series and an unexpected little teaser arc by just using two words, well placed and executed. Top stuff.
I prefer an arc in Who to be hinted at and not to beaten about my face with it like a wet fish.
It's been a long while since I posted here, but I've been lurking... Anyhow, thinking about the question of why the current series leaving me feeling less than satisfied: I think it is simply because the 'big finish' at the end of the series has become all-absorbing, with stories seemingly being written simply to provide a tool/mechanism for the big story at the end (like the half-hearted and wasted 'Let's Kill Hitler', just to introduce the mechanism for the 'fake' Doctor at the end. It feels like the other stories are just fillers waiting for that end one to come about ).
There's nothing complicated at all about the plots if you look at them. Like an Agatha Christie, it's all about covering the story with as much fluff or fog as possible until the big reveal at the end. If you spot the technique and remove the fluff, then it's fairly straightforward. I can't think of a single story this year that I found challenging.
All in all, I think each recent series is losing out by trying to make the end a big surprise. If the purpose of the show is to surprise then once you know what happened, what's left? You are not going to be surprised watching it again, are you?
What else? I think that in previous years the writers made an attempt to create a difference between the episodes and use different theatrical styles (for example, Midnight; when I did drama I remember the old lesson about containing a story in one set with no more than eight characters in the 'core'). At the moment, with a very few exceptions, most of the episodes have the same feel to them, but this is probably because they are being governed by the need to service the all-embracing story arc.
Final bit: it's no detriment nor insult to Moffat as a writer to say that some episodes just don't work. Almost all really good writers need an editor. On some threads here, people are referring to his 'excellent' Sherlock Holmes; he has a partner for that project and to be honest, seems to show a spark and an enthusiasm for it that I haven't seen in DW for a while. .
So, will I go on watching? Why not? I even watched during the camped up Master/McCoy era! But right now I don't feel any urge to watch them more than once; my DVD gifts of the last two series are still shrinkwrapped on the shelf (unlike previous years) and I'll wait for a time when I do find it really enjoyable again.
Oh, and Post #70, Astrid stayed dead in that Christmas episode, as did everyone except two crew, one passenger (who was vile) and the Doctor, so I think that's a fairly high body count for a 'nicey nicey' Christmas story.
I've said my bit, so I'll probably go away now for another year!
Im getting increasingly sick of all these nicey nicey christmas episodes. If soaps are going to have nasty characters killing someone at christmas time why cant we have something similar in Doctor Who on xmas day! Why does everyone have to always be saved?
Each year you ll have fatalities happen only for some idiot whos producing the series to do some reset thing so basically the deaths never happenned.
Id rather have JNT anyday than these 2 idiots who run things these days. Bout time we had producers writing stories for doctor who fans and not kids!
Those Doctor Who fans mostly started off as kids. What gives us the right to demand it be written for us as adults when it it's predominantly a child-friendly family show? You'd rather it was written for only the adults now, when it was written for children when you became a fan? How selfish of you!
This is going to start off off-topic, but I am replying to comments made on this thread.
I am absolutely amazed to read positive things on here about that latest Sherlock epsisode (and that as someone who adored the first episode Moffat wrote). For me it was all - and only - 'clever' stuff throughout, all for the purpose of just the pay-offs at the end.
The same was true of all the arc-heavy episodes of series 6 for me. Series 5 worked in that sense, I thought overall it was magical.
The thing is, Sherlock didn't make sense - not a jot - if you spent time analysing it afterwards, and nor did the series 6 arc. None.
I am hoping and praying that Moffat does pull it back for series 7, because it's not just myself (a great long-term fan) that he has made almost not care anymore or have much hope for the future - it's people like my Dad, a 'casual' viewer who nevertheless saw the RTD-era eps as must-sees. He just doesn't care anymore, and mostly shrugs his shoulders at the end and then frowns. Interestingly, he enjoyed most RTD-era stuff that I wasn't so keen on, whereas he hasn't liked much Moffat stuff, even the few episodes of series 6 I really liked.
If Moffat doesn't rein it in it will be (for me) two series he has 'killed'. Alright, I am most probably being overly-dramatic, but that is honestly how I feel, and first have done since AGMGtW. At least with Sherlock it's his own creation he's destroying...
I think all this thread proves (again) is that some people preferred RTD and Tennant and some prefer Moffat and Matt. Some just enjoy it regardless. Which we know anyway. It's more 'I don't enjoy it as much any more so it's not much good' than anything else - much like I felt during those dreary 'Specials' when it was more a duty to watch than looking forward to it. I've never been able to make myself re-watch them but series 5 and 6 I can go back to anytime because they're like a breath of fresh air. For me, anyway.
It really is just a matter of opinion, as Who has never been more high-profile since 2005 and we all know that every few years it changes cast and direction, and someone won't like the changes. We'd have had the same reactions if there had been internet forums in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
Comments
I have some sympathy with this.
Matt Smith's Doctor (and Amy, and Rory) are superb characters. They're full of life, energy and fun. I dearly love the three of them. HOWEVER, I haven't got the faintest idea what they are doing or why they are doing it.
I loved the James Corden episode. It was FUN. There was no sinister doom-and-gloom, no all-conquering "story arc". It was just straightforward and fun. Like Doctor Who used to be.
SJA is thoroughly enjoyable and feels closer to C20 DW because it doesn't have the self-important, pompous, "meaningful" story arc stuff. I find all of that terribly boring and would be much happier with standalone stories.
Well maybe a subtle one a la Badwolf but agree that an in your face, lets all look for the 'clues and twists' story arc is getting a little tiresome!
The very theme and subtext in those episodes are ones that I can relate to, given that I'm due to become a father in six months myself. Although presented as a light-hearted romp, Craig's fear of how to bond with and confidently handle a baby is a very real, and very human thing - something that will fly straight over a child's head but that an adult will identify with. The only downside is that Night Terrors covers much the same ground, but from the perspective of an adult finding his control over the situation pulled away.
I agree entirely. Sounds to me like a flimsy excuse to have a pop at Moffatt without really having a good reason to. This series has been far from childish, when you look back at episodes like the opening two-parter, The Doctor's Wife, the magnificent The Girl Who Waited, God Complex and plenty more. The James Corden episode was blatantly a little, light-hearted break from the bigger arc, a touch of light relief before the big finale, and Night Terrors dealt directly with childhood fears, but that doesn't make it childish, especially with creepy things happening like Amy being turned into a doll.
What I would say is that Matt Smith's version of the Doctor is more often child-like in some of his mannerisms than his immediate predecessors. You look at the way in the Christmas special he whizzed from room to room, showing off the wonderful toys he made, the lemonade tap, all of that. But child-like and childish are two very different things. And at the other extreme, he also seems more often very, very old, with all the age, experience and weariness of the forever time traveller.
That's the viewer, not the show. The show never asks you to guess what's going to happen next. It does, however want you to be intrigued about it.
"Bad Wolf" was about spotting 'clues' that were hidden (not that any of the references had any impact whatsoever on the plot), the recent series presented the arc plot elements clearly.
I would like to disagree with you, but I fear I cannot!!:(
Bad wolf was hidden in plain sight but at that time, we, the viewers didn't know that there was a story arc (well, I didn't anyway!). Following that while I agree that its the viewer that was looking for the clues etc, I don't agree that the show doesn't ask you to look for them. The nature of the show imo, is now very much geared toward the arc and getting clues in and yes making you intrigued but in turn also compelling viewers to look for the clues. Particularly so for the last two series where the 'arc' appeared to be heavily (in a subtle way) marketed. All imo of course!:)
Well IMO as well. The show and the writer seem to be actively encouraging the viewers to look for clues. Moffat always teases us about them in the interviews.
Surely, people are not suggesting now that the story arc is a kind of byproduct and that the viewer could chose to overlook any of the arc cues without losing the clarity of the overall series
I actually enjoy story arcs, although I would like them a bit less prominent in the next series and I would have liked some answers to some of the questions raised in series 5 (e.g., who took control and was responsible for the blow up the tardis).
But that's for the hardcore fans, the ones who want to play that game. There's only a small minority of viewers that watch interviews or spend much time thinking about the programme outside of actually watching it.
Are you saying that people only know or need to know about the story arc if they are hardcore fans and read the interview? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me, and I suspect that's not what Moffat intends at all (i.e., why write an elaborate plot for a bunch of hardcore fans
The regular viewer is still reminded about the story arc in the repetition of the key scenes at the end of the series and throughout the series. As such the story arc is part of the show and the writer - with the writing - encourages us (inlcuding the regular viewers) to look for these clues. There is nothing wrong with this, but for some people it might get a bit too much.
IMO if you think that the regular viewer is not aware of the story arc or thinking about the story arc, then Moffat clearly is doing something wrong with his writing. Regular viewers still have the ability to think about and interpret what they see in a drama.
^^^ this!
I very much feel it is all in the clues and the hints of where we go....every show ever made has a dedicated fanbase and casual viewers. Some can join and follow whereas others cannot. But series 6 proved that Doctor Who very much is the definition of event television.
People want to know the answers, but only get a few and then are delivered more questions to whet our appetites. It is exciting. As a finale Series 6 hit it dead on, it provided a resolution and then more questions raised. It resolved a main storyline yet provided more focus for where we are heading with the show. It allowed for one single episode to draw the entire series to a close in such an epic way...yet also means the first two episodes also conclude a storyline as well as start it.
Sure some may see it as complicated...but what i find so fascinating about this is is simplicity as well. We have this new force and foe out there to face...and i cannot wait to see where The Moff takes us...i hope we have more twists and turns and dramatic cliffhangers! Because that is what the show is about...again, finally!
If I know something's coming and its over emphasised, it loses its impact! I'm ok with knowing that there is going to be a twist, but I prefer misdirection and then being completely thrown at the end. Thats what Badwolf did for me! As much as I didn't like the RTD era, he managed the first arc really well. Sadly, imo, It became the driving force.
I agree Welsh Nige. Scolding "Happiness Patrol" reaction to comment and criticism is tiresome.
I thought that was brilliantly done as well, and my favourite arc of all the series. The first time I realised that there was a recurring theme was when it was written on the Tardis.
The bit in the spoiler, that was great as well. I certainly didn't have an idea until it was revealed.
I sort of agree. I did like the series 6 arc, but at times it did seem like there were too many different things going on at once and at times it felt like it was too prominent.
I also agree with the Series 1 arc. The word "Bad Wolf" was interesting to spot and look out for, but it didn't give much to think and speculate about and just as you said, the reveal was interesting, but nothing shocking.
To my mind, series 5 had the arc just right- perfect in my opinion. The first episode set up a few clues to the overall arc (The crack, the Pandorica opening and even a mention to Silence Falling) then we had a few glimpses of the cracks in the following episodes, making the mystery deepen. In Flesh and Stone we learnt a bit more about the cracks as well as some stuff which would come into play in series 6. Vampires of Venice briefly mentioned the cracks. This was followed by Amy's Choice and The Hungry Earth which gave us a break from the arc, a break which lasted right up until the last 5 minutes of Cold Blood where there were some more dramatic developments. Finally we had another two episodes break (apart from one tiny appearance of the crack) before (almost) all was revealed in the two-part finale.
I really loved the Series 5 arc and I hope Series 7 is similar in structure.
Im getting increasingly sick of all these nicey nicey christmas episodes. If soaps are going to have nasty characters killing someone at christmas time why cant we have something similar in Doctor Who on xmas day! Why does everyone have to always be saved?
Each year you ll have fatalities happen only for some idiot whos producing the series to do some reset thing so basically the deaths never happenned.
Id rather have JNT anyday than these 2 idiots who run things these days. Bout time we had producers writing stories for doctor who fans and not kids!
That is probably my favourite as well, I loved the little touches of that arc such as when Martha, facing certain death in the escape pod in 42, calls her mum, then during the conversation the camera pans to show a 'spook' taping and tracking the call. :eek:
Its moments like that when arcs work for me, when they are not part of the main story but extremely well handled when placed into an episode without overshadowing it, really liked the like Bad Wolf one as well, first new series and an unexpected little teaser arc by just using two words, well placed and executed. Top stuff.
I prefer an arc in Who to be hinted at and not to beaten about my face with it like a wet fish.
And there's the fish arc surfacing again!
There's nothing complicated at all about the plots if you look at them. Like an Agatha Christie, it's all about covering the story with as much fluff or fog as possible until the big reveal at the end. If you spot the technique and remove the fluff, then it's fairly straightforward. I can't think of a single story this year that I found challenging.
All in all, I think each recent series is losing out by trying to make the end a big surprise. If the purpose of the show is to surprise then once you know what happened, what's left? You are not going to be surprised watching it again, are you?
What else? I think that in previous years the writers made an attempt to create a difference between the episodes and use different theatrical styles (for example, Midnight; when I did drama I remember the old lesson about containing a story in one set with no more than eight characters in the 'core'). At the moment, with a very few exceptions, most of the episodes have the same feel to them, but this is probably because they are being governed by the need to service the all-embracing story arc.
Final bit: it's no detriment nor insult to Moffat as a writer to say that some episodes just don't work. Almost all really good writers need an editor. On some threads here, people are referring to his 'excellent' Sherlock Holmes; he has a partner for that project and to be honest, seems to show a spark and an enthusiasm for it that I haven't seen in DW for a while. .
So, will I go on watching? Why not? I even watched during the camped up Master/McCoy era! But right now I don't feel any urge to watch them more than once; my DVD gifts of the last two series are still shrinkwrapped on the shelf (unlike previous years) and I'll wait for a time when I do find it really enjoyable again.
Oh, and Post #70, Astrid stayed dead in that Christmas episode, as did everyone except two crew, one passenger (who was vile) and the Doctor, so I think that's a fairly high body count for a 'nicey nicey' Christmas story.
I've said my bit, so I'll probably go away now for another year!
Those Doctor Who fans mostly started off as kids. What gives us the right to demand it be written for us as adults when it it's predominantly a child-friendly family show? You'd rather it was written for only the adults now, when it was written for children when you became a fan? How selfish of you!
I am absolutely amazed to read positive things on here about that latest Sherlock epsisode (and that as someone who adored the first episode Moffat wrote). For me it was all - and only - 'clever' stuff throughout, all for the purpose of just the pay-offs at the end.
The same was true of all the arc-heavy episodes of series 6 for me. Series 5 worked in that sense, I thought overall it was magical.
The thing is, Sherlock didn't make sense - not a jot - if you spent time analysing it afterwards, and nor did the series 6 arc. None.
I am hoping and praying that Moffat does pull it back for series 7, because it's not just myself (a great long-term fan) that he has made almost not care anymore or have much hope for the future - it's people like my Dad, a 'casual' viewer who nevertheless saw the RTD-era eps as must-sees. He just doesn't care anymore, and mostly shrugs his shoulders at the end and then frowns. Interestingly, he enjoyed most RTD-era stuff that I wasn't so keen on, whereas he hasn't liked much Moffat stuff, even the few episodes of series 6 I really liked.
If Moffat doesn't rein it in it will be (for me) two series he has 'killed'. Alright, I am most probably being overly-dramatic, but that is honestly how I feel, and first have done since AGMGtW. At least with Sherlock it's his own creation he's destroying...
It really is just a matter of opinion, as Who has never been more high-profile since 2005 and we all know that every few years it changes cast and direction, and someone won't like the changes. We'd have had the same reactions if there had been internet forums in the 60s, 70s and 80s.