I'm not too confused by the idea of the future Doctor asking the past Doctor to be at a certain place at a certain time, at which point the future Doctor dies, finally and permanently. What I am interested to see is how the next regeneration is explained away, now that we know that the current body is the one that the Doctor dies in.
Or maybe Matt Smith really is going to be the last actor to play the Doctor? Or maybe there's a huge hole in a future plot?

Well, this is where I think American audiences have been going forwards in recent years while British audiences have regressed. Of course, perhaps it's not the audiences that are to blame but the programme makers.

So much British television is absolutely interminable with its over explanation of every aspect of the plot and every detail of what every character is thinking revealed in long monologues with dramatic pauses. Everything is fed to you on a plate and it's all tied up with a bow for you at the end. I simply can't stand it.

So when Doctor Who comes along and has mystery elements such as Lost and the punchy dialogue of Buffy some of the audience just doesn't know how to react because it is so out with their usual frame of reference.

It just seems weird to think that a show that was originally based in mystery - for goodness' sake, it's even in the title - should ever cease to be confusing.

I thought this episode was pretty straight forward for Moffat.

Although it's not said why the Doctor does what he does, it's safe to assume that it's to bring the Silence out or defeat them. A trap of sorts.

This is supported by the Silence trying to manipulate Amy into telling the Doctor of his future.

I think the real case here is that, ever since Chris Eccleston said "I'm the Doctor ... run!" there hasn't actually been any Doctor Who on tv.
The new show, some of which I have enjoyed, fails to see what the point of the old stories was. RTD and Moffat treat the Doctor (and his relationship with the companions) as the centre of the show. This is not how it was. The story, the adventure, the mystery or the crisi was the centre. The Doctor breezed in, messed up a few things, lost his companion for a while, then uncovered and foiled the plot. He then left the situaiton, pretty much as he found it minus the alien invasion/infestation/plot.
The new era of DW seems to treat the Doctor as a God like figure, in a universe where evrything is solved by going back and forth in time in the highly reliable and infintely pilotable TARDIS. What happened to that ramshackle machine that would throw us off to some corner of the universe where plots lurked, aliens plotted and folk were in need of a bohemian hero?
Too much of what made the original show has been cast aside to serve the ego of the producers. Increased production values do not necessarily improve a show. Too often in the new era the story revolves around the companion, leaving the story of the week as nothing more than a backdrop. Whilst I applaud the attempts to change the show from its episodic "monster of the week" format, I think it's time people admitted that, to a large extent it has failed.
DW was never a soap, it was an adventure series. They say never meet your heroes. I say fans of a show don't necessarily make the best guardians of it (there is enough bad fan fiction out there to prove this a billion times over).
After the opening two parter of series 6 I find myself, a long time DW fan since "The Curse of Peladon" wondering if I will remain watching. This Doctor is not my Doctor and I think that's a shame.
These are just some late night thoughts - not an attenpt to stir up a hornets nest ...

I think that sums it up...

It's not supposed to be 'your Doctor' after your time. The reason the format has changed is because the viewing public has changed - audiences are different to how they used to be. This is reflected in the output.

If the same format from years ago had been used then this rebooted Doctor Who would not have worked.

Whilst you are obviously allowed to lament your lost Doctor, you can't force people to admit that it has failed (your words), when it quite obviously hasn't! Remember - your Doctor was different to those that came before, and also to those that came after.

It also seems a great pity that you fail to grasp the fact that Doctor Who was evolved through change. Quite a lot of older fans seem to be unable to grasp this, too. The show used to embrace change - and that is how it succeeded and became the legend it is. Why can you not allow it to keep changing and evolving? Would you seriously prefer a stagnated Doctor?

In terms of the the criteria you're describing MKPatrick, I can see zero difference between the new stories and the old ones. The methods of story telling have changed, the pacing and timing of the episodes have changed, but I really don't see any major changes to the concept, except having a little more direction to the companion characters, and their relationships to the Doctor.

Big moments are bigger, emotional moments are more emotional, action sequences are more , er, actiony, and they spend more time going into what makes the Doctor tick, but the TARDIS still goes off course when it wants to, the Doctor still stumbles randomly into strange goings-on. The current Doctor is every bit my Doctor as Peter Davison was.

Doctor Who changes and it always has done. Someone who started watching in 1963 could turn some your criticisms into complaints of the Pertwee era. In the 60s the companions were equal to the Doctor and saved the day almost as often as he did. It was an ensemble in those days.

Then along comes the Pertwee Doctor... the Doctor is now the undisputed hero and solver of all problems and the companion is a not terribly bright young woman who gets into trouble a lot and screams for help.

In some ways Moffat has returned DW to its roots.

Take a look back to 1966 - The Time Meddler.

Many viewers felt that, by episode 2, they didn't understand the story. The "historical inaccuracy" of the gramaphone upset some viewers felt that they couldn't understand what the story was trying to do.

That story turned out to be a pretty simple one, and IMO was not complicated at all. Doctor Who hasn't changed. It's still being misunderstood

I don't understand all these people saying what about this type of viewer or that type of viewer. To be honest I only care about my viewing, I'm enjoying it, I don't care about casual viewers or younger viewers or viewers who are a bit intellectually challenged.

Excellent post!

But then as the Pertwee era is my least favourite one of Classic Who for the reasons you state (and one or two other reasons) how could I not agree with you?

To be fair, they were faced with a show on the brink of cancellation and boldly shook a lot of things up. Not everything worked for everyone, but it did save the show. Largely intact. Replacing Liz with a Jo type was a mistake. Lovely and brave girl, but still. He did, at least, end his era with Sarah Jane. It was a deliberate step to make the Doctor the sole expert - I read Barry Letts memoirs. (There were still stories where he had to work with and learn from others though, so it wasn't totally shallow in that sense.)

I also very much like the ensemble epsides. Loved the scene in Vampires of Venice where they went back to the merchants house to discuss next steps - together. All the River Song episodes have had that feel to them too. The last two especially so. (edit: It's also why Romana worked for me)

The way I see it, since many people complained that some RTD era stories were dumbing down and too simple, there has to be a counter to that for the Moffat era from the opposite side who now complain that the stories are complicated and confusing.

Think of it as Yin & Yang, Yin complained that RTD was too basic and simple, Yang complained that Moffat is too complicated and confusing. If you change in either direction, you're just pleasing one crowed whilst another will complain.

100% agree. While Moffat writes solid sci-fi, there are still many other writers involved in the series, producing lots of different types of story.

I don't think you can say there's no basic change to the format. We never got a story dominated by an ongoing storyline in the way The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon was, nor was there ever any mystery surrounding the companions (Turlough had at first a purpose he hid from the Doctor and his fellow companions, but the viewers were privy to it). Maybe the changes are improvements, but no-one can deny their existence.

You might not care, but the producers and writers certainly should. Firstly, because holding on to viewers is important (you'd soon care if the show got cancelled because you were the only one watching). Secondly, because a lot of children really love the show and it would be rather sad to see them lose it.

Of course, many children may still be loving it, but I know The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon was the first Who story my young nephew ever disliked.

I find it interesting this strange backlash about the story telling of Doctor Who. A show that has been on air since the early 60's which has had to change to remain successfull. I think the fans of the new series are having trouble with the idea that Doctor Who isn't just what RTD did its has to change and be different. Also you may not know this but Broadcasters don't make TV shows primaily for viewers sat at home. TV programmes are a commodity and made to be sold around the countries, I live in North America and Matt Smith is getting a huge following and many are US fans are coming to Doctor who for the first time. Many of them have no idea that other actors have played the role. The reactions the first two episodes for me were astonishing watching people in my office sharing theories of the time paradoxes on a Monday morning. I think DW like torchwood is being made for other territories and although RTD did a great Job I think the generation who watch LOST,BSG,Fringe etc demand more from there Sci-Fi and timey wimey is seen as a bit Cbeebies.

I've been watching DW since I was 3 and understood very little but loved the monsters and as i got older there was different things that I loved . as 10 year old i love exploding daleks as a 14year old i fancied Nyssa. DW has never just been one thing, in fact its little bit of everything, just enjoy it and if its complex try and work it out. If your kids don't understand then go for a milkshake and work it out together. DW is a gift and what other show is capturing so much fun and fantasy and bringing families together.

Hmm, but the BBC does make the series with license payers money, so UK viewers should come first.

The BBC is still a business and they make revenue from selling TV formats and merchandise. All the bleating from the likes of Trevor eve know that the BBC investment in Doctor Who is also about profit.

No, I meant I couldn't see any differences in the aspects that MKPatrick was discussing, not that I couldn't see any changes in general. Shorter series with more stories told in fewer episodes are always going to mean some changes to format and structure, but I don't see that the focus or attitude have changed.

It's a public service not a business. Just like libraries, hospitals, schools, ect.

But they need money to do their job, and Dr Who enables them to spend more money on other programmes than would be the case otherwise.

It's happened with every change of producer/head writer and ever change of lead actor playing the Doctor. Heck, it's often happened with a change of companion, too.

People moaning that it's not the same and will therefore soon die are not new. Its happened throughout the show's history and its survived those changes more often than not. But despite that, we get the same situation every single time.

Some people will lament the changes and predict the show's demise, abadoning it forever. Others will love the changes and start watching the show - possibly for the first time or as a returning viewer who hated the last era. Other's will hate it, but continue watching. Some will change their attitude and come to like the new era as it progresses. Some will like the new era as much as the last.

The great thing about the internet is we now have a record of these trends. Last year, someone pulled up an old thread of David Tennant's first year as the Doctor. It was surprising how many hated it and were predicting the show would be cancelled in a year. Many of which were the same people criticising Matt Smith's first year as not being as good as the David Tennant years!

It's the way it goes. It's the way its always gone.

Whilst everyone has their own view, I find I'm a little confused by this. Yes we have the drama of the main characters' interplay, it is a bit soapish. We also have the convoluted time-meddling storylines like TIA and DOTM. but we still have situation led adventures, look at tonight on the stranded pirate ship! The first Doctor I ever saw was John Pertwee so the new style of the "non-patriarch" is a bit new to me, though an obvious change and in many ways fun. My only concern is that the show is Dr. Who, he is the main character and the current characters played by Karen Gillan and Alex Kingston mustn't take over in the public's minds. That is the province of the writers though and it hasn't happened so far.

I think this thread (as well as seveal many others floating around) is proof that some people are ever going to be satisfied completely with DW. I mean this has started ever since Christopher Ecclestone started some fans wanted him to leave due to him not really having full commitment to the show, in steps Tennant who to some was far too OTT with some of his expressions and also some were sick with the Doc/Rose storyline so in S3 we get rid of Rose and replace her with Martha who was now too boring and again too lovey for The Doctor, so now its bye bye Martha and back too Donna who was immediately approached hesitantly due to being to annoying in her previous episode but was soon welcomed with open arms after being Doctor friend rather than anything which was a breath of fresh air, unlike RTD's version of the show which was now apparently becoming stale and fans wanted a decent send off for one of the most well recieved Doctors in history but instead we got what has been hailed as some of the poorest episodes of the entire new era.

Many wanted a brand new start to keep things fresh and new so in steps Matt Smith, Karen Gillan and Steven Moffat but now the show was considered too different with a too alieny Doctor and an unlikeable companion and an entirely different feel but too some others was much better and the kick DW had been looking for. But now this was still not eough to some others as more was expected from Moffat the man behind Blink and Silence in the Library, fans wanted and more intriguing storylines as this is what some have come to expect from Moffat so we get given the crack arc ending with The Big Bang which to some was a huge cop out others a complete success and refreshing compared to RTD's action finales, leading overall to either a very dissapointing or absolutely brilliant series But now Moffat could try his hand at a christmas episode which in the past had been arguably dissapointing for being either a) boring b) unchristmassy. So up comes Moffat with A Christmas Carol which again arguably is possibly the most christmassy and well recieved christmas ep of Who but still managed to fall victim to the "booooorrrriiinnngggg" brigade". However, afterwards all hype steered toward Series 6 and some people wanted more complexity and scariness from the man behind Blink. So Moffat delivers The Impossible Astronaut, Day of the Moon and more of River Song leading to "is Doctor Who too scary now?" and "Are Doctor Who plots becoming unfathomable?" also wanting more time off of the arc but to others is the best opening new has had to offer. So after this a lot of people wanted a break from the timey wimeyness of Big Bang, Christmas Carol, Astronaut, Day of the Moon so in comes The Curse of the Black Spot which now was bombared by people saying "boring" and "it needed to be more complicated" however some saying "it was an enjoyable romp something we needed".

So I personally I dont think they are but with this show it seems not many do know what they want.