I've personally found this current series experiment with single storyline episodes to be a letdown - before we generally had a couple of 2 parters per series - but I'd personally love to see the return of longer stories told over 3 or 4 episodes (complete with cliffhanger endings!!). I do find all these single story episodes rather rushed and often seem to suffer with weak easy endings. So mix up a series and allow stories to be told to a length that suits them, give them room to breathe and flesh them out - not every plot needs to be told at brake neck pace.

What are other people's view on this?

I personally miss the arcs. Which is mad considering I didn't like the way it panned out in S6. But I think Moffat should have stayed true to his vision (assuming it was) and kept with it. While individually brilliant at times I will admit S7 has felt a bit disjointed. The Clara mystery is a constant hook but not one that has worked for me thus far.

But then Moffat can't win. Either its too arc heavy or too slow paced and inter connected or its too stand alone and doesn't carry enough weight story wise. S7 feels like a reaction to the criticism levelled at 6 and yet now he is being criticized for that. Like I say. Lose lose situation. Which is why he should always stick to his own vision. I have no evidence to back it up, its just a feeling I get, but I don't think he has in S7. Good as it is there is something of the compromise about it. For me anyway.

I think abandoning two parters was a mistake. Sure. When they're bad it really is annoying (The flesh two parter) but at their best (S6 opening) there is nothing finer.

S6 ruined the magic of story arc's.

I miss the story arcs and I miss the occasional two-part, but I've said it many times before and I'll say it again- 45 minutes is ample time to have a well developed story. Just because you feel a few recent ones have been rushed, doesn't mean 45 minutes isn't enough time to tell a story. After all, the majority of stories since 2005 have all been 45 minutes. I also think a return to longer multi-part serials would be one of the worst decisions the production team could ever make. In this day and age, a lot of people simply don't have the attention spans to follow a story over the course of a few weeks. Look at the response we got 2 years ago with the series 6 arc. No imagine what the response would be if people had to follow a whole story over weeks rather than just a few arc details.
In my opinion, a return to longer stories will alienate the causal viewer and wouldn't be good for the show at all.
I'm not saying we can't have multi-part stories, but I think making every story multi-part would be a very bad idea.

I agree with the original poster. And people claiming their have been arcs in Doctor Who since it's return are mostly wrong, all they are is loose reacuring themes that then suddenly are revealed in the finale. I mean how many people truely noticed 'Bad Wolf' untl it was revealed? Or a vague torchwood theme of series 2. Same with series 3 and the Master references and series 5 with a crack showing up at the end of episodes. Series 6 is the only one that had anything close to being an arc.

45 minutes is long enough to tell a simply story - but not every story is simple, certainly not Sci-Fi. I agree give us longer stories over several episodes. If they stick to the 13 episode series, lets have a couple of 4 episode stories, and some 2 parters and the odd single episode. People who say people no longer have the attension span for multi episodes are talking rubbish - a well told story will alway hold people.

There appears to be differences in what people interpret as an 'arc' - certainly your version is more specific than mine, and mine is more specific than some.

Arcs, as I know of them, aren't just foreshadowing of a finale, nor are they something as vague as a phrase repeated like a catchphrase.

Mickey's transition from being discarded by Rose and mocked by the Doctor to being a valued freedom fighter having moved on from her, is an arc - a change in the character over a series of episodes. Similarly, Amy's transition from wanting to run away from her wedding to realising what Rory means to her, and also Rory managing to pull himself out of the shadow of the Doctor.

The crack in time caused by the TARDIS explosion is most definitely a arc, one in the plot. It's the basis for the Doctor's meeting with Amy, the way they defeat the Weeping Angels, the reason that Amy loses Rory, as well as being the focus of the finale. It's one story thread, spread out over the whole series.

With regards to Mickey and Amy i'd say that was basic character progression/growth, not really a story arc as such.

I agree. There's a distinction between a character's arc and an arc plot. Maybe a fine distinction, but one I'd certainly make.

I wouldn't really label two-parters as being 'arcs', either. They're just one story split over two episodes. An arc is more of a central story line which progresses throughout the season.

I don't mind either way, to be honest. An arc done well is a good thing and done badly is a bad thing. A two-parter done well is a good thing and done badly is a bad thing.

I wouldn't mind a couple of two-parters, though. It gives them the ability to go more epic with a story and I like epic

I think for an arc needs to be more concrete.. If they're trying to mimic US TV it usually involves a character appearing across episodes. If they arcs are too abstract then people can begin to dislike the whole thing.

There is a difference between an arc and multi-part stories.

An arc is a recurring theme which links individual episodes to the finale. Multi-part stories are one single adventure told through several episodes, leaving virtually nothing resolved by the end of the early episode(s) and continuing in the next.

In old-Who, the first episode merely set out the premise, met the monster and created the tension, although they would be three or four 30 minute shows. With 45 minute episodes, 2 or 3 is perfect.

The crack was an arc that tied the series together, but within that series how much more fleshed out and interesting the Weeping Angels episode would've been had it not had to resolve itself within the third act of a single episode (that is, 30 minutes setup and 15 minutes denouement). The problem with nu-Who is that within a single episode, the adventure must be wrapped up in 15 minutes, which often feels rushed and leads to the less clever 'deus ex machina' plots. With two episodes you double the third act.

For me, it would be better within a 12 part series, to have 6 to 8 individual adventures but with an over-riding series arc tying to the finale.

I still think Moffat should have ended the Ponds era with one huge 5 part episode.

I agree, I'd like to see stand-alone 2 parters make a return. Quite a few of the post popular stories have been 2 parters (Empty Child/Doctor Dances, Bad Wolf/Parting, Impossible Planet/Satan Pit, and quite a few more), as it allows more time for the narrative and characters to develop. Although that isn't to say there haven't been some great single parters.

The season finale definitely needs to be an event with a two parter IMO

I know that current Doctor Who is made with a serious thought to commercial channels through export and this is good for the show. But what about creating UK editions for each episode, which run longer than the exported version boosting the running time up to 50 minutes per episode. These can still be available on dvd and blu ray for overseas audiences, but gives the UK viewer a bit more with fleshing out the stories. I know that this could just create filler in some episodes but overall it might just work.

I thought the Weeping Angel episode in season 5 was a 2 parter?