I disagree with the article's premise. As someone already said, Holmes is a celebrity within the show's universe, so it's quite logical to suppose there are obsessives in that world and for the writer to play with that. The fact that he's also teasing real world fans as well only adds to it.

The same has already been done in the revived Doctor Who as early as the first episode, "Rose", and several times since in both RTD's and SM's eras.

Anyone who was totally unfamiliar with either show would have struggled a little bit with the Christmas and New Year episodes. How would someone who didn't know Sherlock had faked his death or that the Doctor was on his last regeneration have faired? Quite well actually. The Sherlock episode spent a lot of time giving that backstory because it was integral to the main part of the story - his reuniting with Watson and it's consequences. The Time of the Doctor took the opposite approach and spent very little time explaining the last regeneration and other dangling plot threads. They were not particularly significant to this episode's story and were explained away in a few lines of exposition from Matt's Doctor.

He didn't. But sadly the term gets bandied around on DS by people who clearly don't know what it means.

On topic, I think this is an excellent article. Fans are the very last people producers should take notice of.

Exactly! That way lies madness, or Attack Of The Cybermen, if indeed there's a difference...

Sherlock wasn't really breaking the fourth wall. Sure, it was metafictional but to break the fourth wall, the characters have to overtly talk to or acknowledge the presence of the audience- the fact that somebody is observing the action. Obviously there were parallels but it made perfect sense within the programme. The closest term would be 'mise en abyme'- different layers of spectators.

You have made a good point, but what I meant was that Davies and Moffat, being fans of Doctor Who before they wrote the series, made too many changes to the programme itself - in particular Davies changed Doctor Who considerably compared to the original series, sorry if I misinterpreted the thread.

It's dead on about Doctor Who. An awful lot of the episode was devoted to mopping up anal fan continuity with episodes that had aired years before.

99.9% of people watching on Christmas aren't going to give a tupenny damn who blew up the TARDIS. They most likely won't remember that it was blown up at all, let alone write letters into the BBC entitled "Why Moffat Has To Go As I Demand an Explanation of (insert minuscule detail from an episode screened 3 years ago here)".

Fans should never be allowed anywhere near the making of the show.

With the Christmas special- hell, with any of the episodes- people just want a good solid well-told story. It's not the writer's job to answer every fan question; of all TV shows, Doctor Who is the easiest to rewrite the rules for because it's not tied down by human logic.

Indeed and so its strange that for a show that relies on the fantastical and mystery so many fans seem to demand a forensic text book explanation for everything or else they claim bad writing or feel short changed. I personally don't mind a bit of ambiguity especially in science fiction/mystery shows and films. What exactly is 2001 all about? Was Deckard really a replicant? Who or what really was Bob in Twin Peaks? What was in the suitcase in Pulp Fiction? Why did Jessica Rabbit date Roger?

People spend years writing books and essays debating such things. They capture the imagination. And what happens when people try and go back and explain things best left alone? You get Prometheus. The Space Jockey in Alien captured many peoples imaginations as kids/young adults. Me and my brother used to argue over what it was. Theories would run wild. We could dream up for ourselves amazing back stories which were always going to be better than a definite explanation. And oh look! When a half arsed one was given years later it killed it stone dead. Its robbed those opening scenes of there power.

Same can be applied to Doctor Who. Who was the woman in the shop? Who cares! She can be whoever you want her to be! Who blew up the Tardid? Who knows. But wasn't it cool! I could go on.

As long as the main plot points are addressed then all the better. And Moffat always has done. What was in Room 11 never needed revealing. And in that respect I think Moffat does pay more attention to fandom than he would admit. We now know Gatiss does.

I agree with Salad, to a large extent. We didn't need to know what was behind the door right now; it should have been saved for a future story.

And there are still RTD loose ends anyway, like the doctor's daughter.

Hell, we don't even know what happened to Susan.

The Doctors Daughter is one loose end that never needs tieing up. Unless its to a chair in preparation for a merciful execution. Utterly awful! A wonderbra/Lara Croft/Zoe Ball ladette hybrid. And people say River is annoying! To think such an irritant could be cloned from our beloved Timelord! An all time low point.

Must admit it's one of the few episodes I'm not bothered if I never watched again, which is pretty damning for me as it's got my favourite companion in it. (I could fast forward to the couple of good Donna moments, maybe.)

BTW, Jessica was attracted to Roger Rabbit's sense of humour...obviously.

Like a bit of ambiguity myself. Fan of the 'The Prisoner'!

I went to Port Merieon (sp?) a few years ago. There was a japanese TV crew running up and down the beach with inflatable balls.

They were having a great time

I liked The Doctor's Daughter.

But then I fancied the pants off Roger Rabbit, so what do I know.

(The long, silky, floppy ears....yum.)

Kinky!

You think so? Just don't get me started on Alpha Centauri...

Well I always had a thing for the Cadbury Caramel Bunny Girl so who am I to be Judgy McJudginton?

Portmeirion's a *beautiful* place, isn't it. Been there a few times, but sadly ages ago. Hope whilst they were running around the beach, the crew were pondering Rover's symbolism. Seen from afar, it resembles a circle, which obviously references the circular nature of the show as a whole, hence the deliberately microcosm/macrocosm nature of the Penny farthing symbol with it's big wheel/little wheel, reflecting the World/Village comparisons that I will now expound upon at great leng..

Ahem. Sorry. Might be a tad OT. Or, indeed, OTT.

Edit: Not too OT. Things get analysed to death by fans. I enjoy it myself!

So, according to your last sentence, no RTD and no Moffat and no past 8 years of Who.

It was the writer who raised the questions in the first place!! So, yes, it isn't unreasonable to expect the same writer to answer them.

It's an amazing folly.

The japanese crew were definitely on a Prisoner doc, or fan show, or whatever. They were very very happy.

I loved Georgia, and I mean I loved Georgia I don't think the character has a future in the main show though but I was surprised Jenny's adventures never got made into a CBBC spin-off - she had the right vibe for the kiddies

Drama isn't just about asking some questions and then answering those questions. Writers should know what needs to be answered and what can be left to the imagination.

Exactly. It was Moffat who ended Series 5 (pretty much literally) with the "who blew up the TARDIS?" tease, and it was Moffat who decided to never mention said plot point again until Christmas Day 2013. He could have explained it with a one-liner in The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon, but didn't and decided to instead finally explain it three and a half years later. That's his fault, not the fans.

Mark Lawson has commented nay almost salivated with excitement in the past when talking about tennants leaving scene. He said Russell's script had typical depths of intelligence and it was clearly modelled on the classic shakespearan works of Hamlet, he said Tennant unlike his predecessors was the first actor to bring a proper tragic force to the doctor and not just play it as comedy or camp.....

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...who-regenerate

EDiT: reading this article and the OP link, you sense Lawson was a Doctor Who fan in the RTD era, I gather they did many interviews together, but perhaps his love has waned in recent years.....

Not now he wouldn't no. But if he was concerned about fan service why no article four years ago at a time when even some fans felt it was an indulgence too far? It shows selective memory/criticism and inconsistencies in his opinion.