Clearly didn't watch the episode properly and has the attention span of a gnat with ADHD.

I think if you read the responses to the Telegraph's review you'll get much the same reaction as on here and that's mainly one of derision.

Fuller wrote:


It was actually explained fully in the episode.

Umm one simple show to combat this... Lost. 8 series over 8 years with roughly 24 episodes in each and not many people had trouble forgetting anything that happened.

Lost was a 'simple' show?

'Not many people had trouble forgetting anything that happened' - couldn't agree more!!

Awesome episode!
Fantastic!
Sci-Fi Geek gone absolutely mindbogglingly mental.
Loved every minute, and even had to wrap my head around a few parts, which is a rarity for me.

.. I wonder what percentage of the audience Moffat's just alienated? ooopsy
Don't dumb it down, though, that was awesome!

I personally am loving these moffett storylines...that man is a genius! Now that I look back the storylines of RTD were far inferior to the moffett storylines. For example to keep the daleks alive they can use emergency temporal shift? Wouldnt they have used it a dozen times to regenerate the dalek race..and thats another thing..RTD completely overused the daleks...so moffett is a breath of fresh air to the show! at least we have to think about the episodes..

6 series

And people need to realise the difference between not knowing what will happen and not knowing what is going on.

tonights Ep was good its totally fried peoples brains (even better)as I said in another thread theres nothing more soul destroying for a Scifi show than everything being neatly tied up in 45 mins time after time.

what does worry me will a lot of younger viewers carry on watching?. IMO the quality of tonights Ep it deserved to be on primetime (9pm slot) thats the only concern.Dr Who needed this I cant see all the storylines being this complex I think its SM just giving people a good poke in the ribs.

Why, this is so simple a five-year-old child could understand it! Go find me a five-year-old child; I can't make heads or tails of it.
--Groucho Marx

It doesn't need to be "dumbed-down"; it needs to be refined. IMO, Moffat hit his writing zenith in terms of quality with Blink -- it was imaginative, elegant and economical. Nowadays, his scripts are chock-full of leaping around, manipulation of the narrative and more questions than answers. It's the difference between writing a one-off and head-writing an entire series, I suppose; while he's proven he can master the former, I don't think he's managed with the latter. And those crying with joy that they get to use their brains for once should bear in mind Occam's razor; throwing in every trick in the book does more harm than good and is the exact opposite of intelligent writing.

It reminds me a little of one of the reviews for TIA (can't remember where now) where the reviewer seemed confused that the Doctor is dead one minute, then inexplicably alive again - despite this being explained in the episode.

These were quite fast paced and full episodes, and you do need to pay attention and not be trying to do other things at the same time.


and that is a bad thing? Should SM be making TV reviewers life easy by having short plots with everything neatly wrapped up after 45 minutes? I personally was getting tired of RTD's pseudo-arcs (where there was very little substance to the arc throughout the series apart from a small recurrent meme) and wanted something more substantial.

Other series manage to keep plots going over several episodes, weeks or months (e.g. soaps). Star Trek Enterprise kept the Temporal Cold War arc going over three seasons!

I don't remember people complaining that RTD took 2 years before the resolution to the drumming in the Master's head!

Not that there aren't elements to SM writing that I'm not so convinced about - the three month jump at the start of the episode didn't feel a proper resolution to last weeks cliff hanger. There is a feeling of repetitiveness in elements as others have noticed (last year we had Rory die and get resurrected in Amy's Choice only to have Rory die and get resurrected, with a suspicion we will see something similar for the Doctor this season; Amy was pregnant/not pregnant last season and again this season; River yet again jumps out of something expecting the TARDIS to catch her; Amy once again listens to something she has recorded but forgotten etc.)

Matthew

I must say, I am starting to get the feeling they're 'over egging the pudding' a tad these days with the DW story lines. It's just a hunch but it feels they're maybe losing focus a touch, it's hard to really pin down what I mean exactly.

Something isn't right. I said around a year ago (although not on here) the show could perhaps do with a break for a few years, so they can come at it fresh, but I get the feeling it's becoming too much of a juggernaut now that can't be stopped. However stale it may get, they'll keep churning out the new series every year.

It's still okay, but it's all rather samey now. It's sad, but I just don't perceive it as being unmissable TV any more.

I dont know whats unfathomable

Dr & Crew fight aliens & win.

Same formula it has been since it began, However we are just getting a bit more depth and complexity with it. I for one applaud SMs vision and bravery!

Unfortunately it is now a thinking mans Doctor Who, but the problem is my kids 8 & 5 love it (or did) but now there's just too many questions afterwards about whats going on....which i can't answer because i don't have a clue.!!!

Bring back the simple Daleks/Cybermen/Weeping Angels invade, Doctor wins, its all fun & the kids enjoy it

Just a question, what were their questions about? The plot of the episode itself? (eg how did he beat The Silence, where has Amy gone?)

Or were they questions about things being set up for the future? (eg. Who is that girl, why is River sad, why did the girl 'explode')

If the former then yes they are lost with the plot, if the latter then why not just say 'Nobody knows that! You'll have to watch next time to see if we find out'

On topic - no. People just have the attention span of goldfish! I have managed to follow the episodes easily enough and that is saying something!

I fell a sleep half way through just like last week.

Yet some people are complaining the Doctor Who has changed too much to the point they don't understand it.

I simply do not get it, its been something that has happened since Hartnell left the show that when a new Doctor regenerates the show it self changes with him. What are people expecting the 11th Doctor to have similar plots to the 10th?.... now thats samey.

...and people are talking about archs etc, RTD had a arch in Bad Wolf, nobody had a clue what that was until the last show because thats what an arch is. You build it up, put the pieces together and in the end the arch is built, it answers itself.

Once more there was the Donna/DoctorDonna arch which again wasn't explained until the end. The Ood with the 10th Doctor proclaiming his end was never explained because thats the point of the arch.

The arch for this series has been set, who is the little girl, what is the connection to the silence, Amy and possibly River Song and what consequences does that have for the future Doctor, as the viewer knows the outcome but things can change. If you keep it simple like that, you can't be lost.

He obviously couldn't be bothered to follow the show, so why should we take anything he says seriously?

8:27 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...y_of_the_Moon/

So here's what I... know?
[LIST][*]The doctor is apparently facing a paradoxical murder,[*]Amy appears to be pregnant with Schrodingers baby,[*]River Song is in jail for killing "A good man", She;s also a bit of a screamer nudge nudge.[*]A child is capable of regenerating, but the Silents seemed to want her kept alive.[*]Rory, is still a clone with over 2000 years of repressed memories. (Thanks for the reminder)[*]The Silents will fall[*]Cliffhangers can be easily resolved with "3 months later" in bold font, some rushed flashbacks, and possibly an "It was all a dream I had in the shower" get out of jail free card if it all goes really pear shaped.[*]Some fairly large chunks of the densest material in the universe can be easily maneuvered by two men, and apparently carved to fit a neat little touch sensitive control panel, some form of motorised aperture and hinge system using 1950's technology
[*]Oh and the Doctor isn't really that strict on the whole "Thou shalt not kill" thing anymore.[/LIST]
Did I miss anything?

Rory's not a clone as far as I'm aware; he's now human. The Doctor riding the Pandorica into the crack made him human.

I'm a bit disappointed with Moffat's cliffhnagers so far - the only one which held up was Time of Angels into Flesh and Stone as it continued where it left off with no deux et machina or anything (though it did have Graham Norton ). Saying that, the query may be answered in later episodes so I won't be too critical as of yet.

Remember, the Silence have infiltrated the FBI. I'm sure they can get future technology into the 1950s without many questions being asked.

I'm wondering if the Doctor accepting violence is a clue to what may have happened in the three months which are 'missing' from our knowledge. He certainly supported River 'killing seven' Silence's.

It's a completely new show now - which is fine, keeps it fresh.

But it is less accessible now. All these questions that have to be answered throughout the series will turn off the more casual viewer.

It's a more thinking person's Doctor Who right enough. But I also think the Moff can get too caught up in his own cleverness at the expense of the story.

I thought last week's cliffhanger was brilliant. I cared about what happened to the little girl. But the resolution to that could have been handled much better in my opinion. Sometimes a straightforward linear conclusion isn't the worst thing in the world.

A lot of the digital spy Whovians seem to have enjoyed this a lot and that's great. But RTD's 'soap opera in space' was the more accessible approach for the casual viewer, which I think was reflected in the ratings for Season 5. Bit early to tell for Season 6.

Excellent post JimmytheSaint20 and welcome to the forum!

I agree.
TV has too many unfathomable plots these days. Join me in championing Hollyoaks - never a problem there my friends, oh no, straightforward storylines rule the roost in the land of blonde hair and orange skin.

These writers who challenge their audience and expect them to think; just who do they think they are? If I want to think I'll open a physics book thank you very much.

Imagine if JK Rowling had filled Harry Potter with lots of characters, with twists and turns and people with mysterious motives, she'd never have sold a copy.
Oh...wait a minute.

I do find the whole "how are kids supposed to understand this?!" from some 'adults' incredibly patronising. I think it says more about those 'adults' than it does the kids!

Sure, there will undoubtedly be a few kids who are switched off by it, just as there are a few adults. I'd be willing to wager though that most kids are loving the mystery.

I know I, as a kid, was fascinated by stuff that I didn't understand. The mind of a child is a remarkable thing that, you could argue, is essentially programmed to be attracted to something it doesn't understand in order to learn.