DS Forums

 
 

question to fans who get confused by arcs


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-01-2014, 11:55
Chester666666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,811
I love lost unlike the idiots who diss it who have no brains
Seventh doc had an excellent arc unlike RTD or moffat
I also loved the first episode of sherlock
Chester666666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-01-2014, 12:23
Shoppy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,063
I love lost unlike the idiots who diss it who have no brains
Seventh doc had an excellent arc unlike RTD or moffat
I also loved the first episode of sherlock
I dislike Lost, I thought it lost all sense of direction towards the end of the first season, That's just my personal opinion ... I also have a brain.

I have enjoyed Moffats arcs, though I think he has shown signs of changing ideas as he goes along.
All in all I prefere his direction to Davies',

I don't think you could call what the Seventh Doctor had an "arc", there were just hints towards stuff towards the end that were never followed through cos the series was cancelled.
Series 26 was amazing and Remembrance... was the high point of S25 but I think Mel worked better with the 6th Doctor...

...also, looking back, McCoy had a terrible logo and title music :/
Shoppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 12:52
kyllerbuzcut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,740
I'm glad everyone has come round to thinking about possibilities. Not so long ago there were no possibilities and it was well just crap that didn't make sense.

Just because I have thought of an explanation for something doesn't make it 100% cast iron guaranteed to be right, you know. I think what I have come up with for certain bits fits as far as the story goes and am happy with that. I don't see any inconsistencies anywhere. All seems to workout fine. Because of time travel being involved, I see a lot of people seem to get confused and think that things must still happen in a linear fashion, when a lot of the sort involves things deliberately NOT happening in a normal linear fashion. That doesn't mean the story did not make sense, and it didn't make it crap because it didn't make sense to you.

The whole point is that not every story will give you everything on a plate. It is actually necessary to leave bits out. Have we ever seen the doctor or a companion go to the toilet? Does the Tardis even have a toilet? Will we ever get an answer to this important question? No. What about a kitchen out a pace to get food on board? If I assume the Tardis does not have food or a toilet because it had never been shown on screen, then nothing make sense. How are any if them still alive. It must be crap writing? That is the basic argument I am seeing coming from a slightly different angle.

The answer is no one needs to see any of that for the story to work. We can all assume these things take place while we are not watching. With a lot of the things people have been complaining about, there are possible answers. We don't need to have every minute detail spelled out because we can think. We can join dots. If a lot of this stuff required further spelling out I guarantee that stories would become very dull very fast. We could have a while episode of the doctor having to get out of bed and get dressed, then sitting around the Tardis waiting for it to travel somewhere. Looking at his watch and yawning a few times. Reading a newspaper with a huge big date on the front so we know exactly what date it is.

That again is in the extreme. What dinner other people are wanting is for every surprise to be revealed straight away, and every plan to work exactly the way the main character wants it to. Come off it. That really is Telly tubby territory.

To answer about the faked death. That event still had to happen. It had to happen the way it did not just for the silence do they would be thrown off the scent (temporarily to buy some time to erase himself if for nothing else). But river Amy and Rory also had to have the same event, and the 'cosmic police' or whatever/papal mainframe people had to have a reason to lock up River. Those things are apart of the stories in episodes, so no assumptions involved there. River gets released from prison in her future because post of the doctors plan WAS working. In s7 he was having some success erasing himself. No need for river to be locked up any more.

A lot of things were directly leading up to trenzalore. We now know a lot of it. Not all, but like I said just join some dots for heavens sake.
kyllerbuzcut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 13:01
The Gatherer
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,610
Personally, and without wishing to get into an argument with Kyllerbuzzcut again, I just put it down to crap writing. Not one single person has been able to provide an accurate, consistent story line from The 11th Hour to Time of the Doctor. Many have tried and failed miserably. It's all very well saying fill in the dots, but you can't if there is nothing to fill them in with. Leaving great big holes in the plot for the viewer to work out for themselves is lazy writing, not clever or good. I would bet my house that even Moffat himself couldn't explain what he has written.
The Gatherer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 13:24
Thrombin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edgware, Middlesex
Posts: 8,277
Personally, and without wishing to get into an argument with Kyllerbuzzcut again, I just put it down to crap writing. Not one single person has been able to provide an accurate, consistent story line from The 11th Hour to Time of the Doctor. Many have tried and failed miserably. It's all very well saying fill in the dots, but you can't if there is nothing to fill them in with. Leaving great big holes in the plot for the viewer to work out for themselves is lazy writing, not clever or good. I would bet my house that even Moffat himself couldn't explain what he has written.
I would agree with most of that although I think Moffat's writing is fine, on the whole. I've immensely enjoyed pretty much all of his stuff.

I actually enjoy the odd predestination paradox or bootstrap paradox and I'm pretty sure I understood the story for the most part. I have even enjoyed creating theories to fill the gaps and inconsistencies that I have seen.

However, I think it's wrong to suggest that the whole thing was perfect and couldn't have been improved upon. Saying it's not complex just belies belief but it's not the complexity that bothers me. To me, the arc was over-extended, badly structured, overly ambiguous and sometimes contradictory. I was able to enjoy the shows despite the problems with the arc but I completely disagree that there were no problems.
Thrombin is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 14:45
kyllerbuzcut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,740
I'm not saying there are zero problems. And some episodes could have been better-sure. There were complex parts to the overall story too. All I'm saying is to challenge those who say it is impossible to figure out. I too really enjoy trying to work some of the things out. There are parts that I still wonder about, but know there are a few possibles that could work for that too. Just because Moffat didn't send me a personal 6000 page letter telling me everything in great detail, and all the plans for how it joins up, does not mean that it it's all crap/lazy etc. There are ideas that work and make it work. Again- we do not need spoon fed, or else that WOULD be lazy and crap. And very boring also.

I do agree the structure of the arc could have been a bit better, (the episode order, the huge gap up til s7, then in the middle of s7 was alarge part of that. Things the bbc were possibly a lot to blame for), but the actual story it told was fine for me, no inconsistencies really, and I enjoyed it. Certainly nothing I would describe as a plot hole.
kyllerbuzcut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 15:11
Irma Bunt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,813
Personally, and without wishing to get into an argument with Kyllerbuzzcut again, I just put it down to crap writing. Not one single person has been able to provide an accurate, consistent story line from The 11th Hour to Time of the Doctor. Many have tried and failed miserably. It's all very well saying fill in the dots, but you can't if there is nothing to fill them in with. Leaving great big holes in the plot for the viewer to work out for themselves is lazy writing, not clever or good. I would bet my house that even Moffat himself couldn't explain what he has written.
I agree with all of that, although I don't think Moffat is a lazy or bad writer. What he is, is a writer in desperate need of a script editor. He has a whole load of ideas - some great, some terrible - and chucks the whole lot in. But he needs someone with the balls to stand up to him and say, "This doesn't make sense."

I have no problem with arcs. Every episode, every story beat, of every show should have an arc if a writer is doing his/her job properly. Hell, the Third Doctor's entire tenure can be seen as one huge arc. But for an arc to work, it should be satisfying. And I'm afraid Moffat's arcs have, largely, not satisfied me. I had no problem following the arc in S6. My problem was that I couldn't have cared less at the end of it. Still, I might be biased because if I never see bloody River Song again it will be too soon.
Irma Bunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 16:06
Abomination
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London or Valencia
Posts: 5,733
I think there's a distinct difference between 'complex' and 'complicated' when it comes to story writing. The former would be a successfully woven story that crafts everything satisfactorily together in the end, no matter what winding path it took to get there. The latter is a bit more of a mess which might have the makings of a wonderfully complex story, but it ultimately falls short because of plot holes, inaccuracies, or sometimes because it asks the viewer/reader to suspend belief a little too much.

Moffat's writing teeters on a frustrating knife edge between complex and complicated. Now and again it manages to work pure magic in terms of storytelling. But also quite often his writing leaves something to be desired as well. Some elements of his writing are wonderfully complex, and the ideas he explores are often stunning - totally appropriate for an ambitious show like Doctor Who. But sometimes he seems to hit a snag where not everything ties up nicely, or something is in contradiction to something else, and it's not nice to have to admit he does cave in to some of the common traits of very lazy writing;

"The Doctor lies" is a prime example. On the surface this could be an avenue to create a complex character out of The Doctor - trying to deduct some of his lies and make you genuinely think about the character. However Moffat's use of this idea is always explicitly stated when it's relevant, and it's not to make the character any more complex. Instead it's to get around a trap in his own writing, to advance the story he's telling now. There will often have been no indication that The Doctor was lying prior to the confession that he did.
As a viewer we're supposed to be more aware of the characters than the characters are, and Moffat neither allows us to be a lot of the time nor does he plant the seeds that allow more attentive viewers to figure these things out for themselves. 'The Doctor lies' becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card for Moffat and any other writer that decides they want to use it, and it over complicates things because the viewer will now need to keep up with individual scenes to keep continuity rather than watching it develop naturally. It is not in any way clever to suggest that your main protagonist lies as a means to resolve a plot against conflicting continuity, more so continuity that the very same writer imposed.

I absolutely love a good story arc, but it needs to be treated with care and done right. RTD nailed this more than once, by feeding subtle hints that don't detract from individual episodes but reward viewers who have stuck around the longest. On the other hand some of Moffat's episodes have submitted themselves to a story arc so intrinsic that you need to follow things a lot more attentively. That doesn't make the story any more complex or clever, that just makes it a whole lot more demanding. A more demanding storyline can only work when the pay off is satisfactory - if you fail at this, it makes viewing past episodes a far less enjoyable experience, as you have to waste so much time on a storyline you don't really care for.
When you end up resorting to ideas like 'The Doctor lies' when resolving some long-term unanswered questions it understandably doesn't satisfy as many people as a coherent explanation might have done. In fact it will frustrate many viewers who have stuck by the story and invested in it, only to be told that the characters knew more than they did all along. Doing it once well could be an interesting plot twist, but as a continuing motif it's both tiresome and lazy.
Perhaps not so much the fault of the writer, but the pacing of the story permitted by the episodes is also a major factor and this has knock-on effects. Series 6 suffered a lot from this - having over 90 minutes to introduce a series-spanning story arc, having the same again to give it depth in the middle of the series, and then less than 45 minutes to wrap it all up in a mediocre finale. That's the equivalent of making six Harry Potter films and then summing up the final book in a minisode. Doctor Who is never far off of that these days, bunging all manner of important and interesting content into mini-episodes. The proper episodes are no longer given any additional running time and while this isn't the fault of the writer, Moffat should all-the-same ensure the story he is telling can be adequately received by the viewer. I enjoy a lot of what he writes, but even my favourite episodes from him have major shortfalls and frustrating issues. He throws in what could be interesting, mature ideas regarding his characters - Baby Melody's kidnapping in Series 6, Amy's infertility in Series 7... but these are glossed over in the space of a single episode. True, Doctor Who should never be a domesticated soap opera but if Moffat isn't going to write these ideas into the show properly then I wish he'd not include them at all and spend more time explaining his plots in a satisfactory way. It's a matter of including the absolute best elements that suit a particular story, be that the best aliens for the episode, or the appropriate use of emotional gravitas. If The Time of the Doctor needs more time to explain the various plot threads in the air, then take out that Weeping Angel scene that added nothing apart from reminding us that they were there...again. If The Angels Take Manhattan is going for an emotional wallop at its end, give the scenes time to breathe rather than shifting the two longest-serving companions of NuWho in a third of the time Rose alone got at the end of Doomsday. If The Bells of Saint John is going to spend some time in Cumbria at its start, will it mean that time is wasted and the face-off against Miss Kizlet lasts only about sixty seconds? The writer should always be aware of what matters most in a story, and quite often I think Moffat completely loses focus. The Wedding of River Song had a constrained 45 minutes to wrap up the enduring arc of Series 6 but went off on a tangent to tell its own story complete with floating Mini Cooper's and Steam Trains in pyramids. The story went on slightly unresolved, whilst the main antagonist of the series was left in a state of limbo and we never found out what happened to her. The Time of the Doctor was so busy wrapping up plot threads that had been left dangling that it had to invent a brand new character from The Doctor's past in Tasha Lem, purely because time wasn't spared to bring back a former character we already knew or flesh out a whole new one - but we still had time for scenes of nakedness and angels. :where's that roll eyes emoticon when you need it?:

I love a lot of what Moffat writes, and when he gets it right he does it well. But unlike RTD he can't fall back on quite so endearing characters when the technicalities are brought into question. He can't single out many defining classics across his era because so many of his stories are wrapped up in his own ongoing saga of endless questions and few answers. A decent story has a beginning, middle and an end... there's no rule saying they have to be in that order, and it's inspiring that Moffat so adamantly wants to challenge that idea in a show rooted in time-travel. But the thing is that the end of the story never seems to have been in sight when it often should have been, and the overall impression made between some lazy ideas and some poor creative decisions is that Moffat has offered up something that is complicated, rather than complex.
Abomination is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 16:19
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,077
I think there's a distinct difference between 'complex' and 'complicated' when it comes to story writing. The former would be a successfully woven story that crafts everything satisfactorily together in the end, no matter what winding path it took to get there. The latter is a bit more of a mess which might have the makings of a wonderfully complex story, but it ultimately falls short because of plot holes, inaccuracies, or sometimes because it asks the viewer/reader to suspend belief a little too much.

Moffat's writing teeters on a frustrating knife edge between complex and complicated. Now and again it manages to work pure magic in terms of storytelling. But also quite often his writing leaves something to be desired as well. Some elements of his writing are wonderfully complex, and the ideas he explores are often stunning - totally appropriate for an ambitious show like Doctor Who. But sometimes he seems to hit a snag where not everything ties up nicely, or something is in contradiction to something else, and it's not nice to have to admit he does cave in to some of the common traits of very lazy writing;

"The Doctor lies" is a prime example. On the surface this could be an avenue to create a complex character out of The Doctor - trying to deduct some of his lies and make you genuinely think about the character. However Moffat's use of this idea is always explicitly stated when it's relevant, and it's not to make the character any more complex. Instead it's to get around a trap in his own writing, to advance the story he's telling now. There will often have been no indication that The Doctor was lying prior to the confession that he did.
As a viewer we're supposed to be more aware of the characters than the characters are, and Moffat neither allows us to be a lot of the time nor does he plant the seeds that allow more attentive viewers to figure these things out for themselves. 'The Doctor lies' becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card for Moffat and any other writer that decides they want to use it, and it over complicates things because the viewer will now need to keep up with individual scenes to keep continuity rather than watching it develop naturally. It is not in any way clever to suggest that your main protagonist lies as a means to resolve a plot against conflicting continuity, more so continuity that the very same writer imposed.

I absolutely love a good story arc, but it needs to be treated with care and done right. RTD nailed this more than once, by feeding subtle hints that don't detract from individual episodes but reward viewers who have stuck around the longest. On the other hand some of Moffat's episodes have submitted themselves to a story arc so intrinsic that you need to follow things a lot more attentively. That doesn't make the story any more complex or clever, that just makes it a whole lot more demanding. A more demanding storyline can only work when the pay off is satisfactory - if you fail at this, it makes viewing past episodes a far less enjoyable experience, as you have to waste so much time on a storyline you don't really care for.
When you end up resorting to ideas like 'The Doctor lies' when resolving some long-term unanswered questions it understandably doesn't satisfy as many people as a coherent explanation might have done. In fact it will frustrate many viewers who have stuck by the story and invested in it, only to be told that the characters knew more than they did all along. Doing it once well could be an interesting plot twist, but as a continuing motif it's both tiresome and lazy.
Perhaps not so much the fault of the writer, but the pacing of the story permitted by the episodes is also a major factor and this has knock-on effects. Series 6 suffered a lot from this - having over 90 minutes to introduce a series-spanning story arc, having the same again to give it depth in the middle of the series, and then less than 45 minutes to wrap it all up in a mediocre finale. That's the equivalent of making six Harry Potter films and then summing up the final book in a minisode. Doctor Who is never far off of that these days, bunging all manner of important and interesting content into mini-episodes. The proper episodes are no longer given any additional running time and while this isn't the fault of the writer, Moffat should all-the-same ensure the story he is telling can be adequately received by the viewer. I enjoy a lot of what he writes, but even my favourite episodes from him have major shortfalls and frustrating issues. He throws in what could be interesting, mature ideas regarding his characters - Baby Melody's kidnapping in Series 6, Amy's infertility in Series 7... but these are glossed over in the space of a single episode. True, Doctor Who should never be a domesticated soap opera but if Moffat isn't going to write these ideas into the show properly then I wish he'd not include them at all and spend more time explaining his plots in a satisfactory way. It's a matter of including the absolute best elements that suit a particular story, be that the best aliens for the episode, or the appropriate use of emotional gravitas. If The Time of the Doctor needs more time to explain the various plot threads in the air, then take out that Weeping Angel scene that added nothing apart from reminding us that they were there...again. If The Angels Take Manhattan is going for an emotional wallop at its end, give the scenes time to breathe rather than shifting the two longest-serving companions of NuWho in a third of the time Rose alone got at the end of Doomsday. If The Bells of Saint John is going to spend some time in Cumbria at its start, will it mean that time is wasted and the face-off against Miss Kizlet lasts only about sixty seconds? The writer should always be aware of what matters most in a story, and quite often I think Moffat completely loses focus. The Wedding of River Song had a constrained 45 minutes to wrap up the enduring arc of Series 6 but went off on a tangent to tell its own story complete with floating Mini Cooper's and Steam Trains in pyramids. The story went on slightly unresolved, whilst the main antagonist of the series was left in a state of limbo and we never found out what happened to her. The Time of the Doctor was so busy wrapping up plot threads that had been left dangling that it had to invent a brand new character from The Doctor's past in Tasha Lem, purely because time wasn't spared to bring back a former character we already knew or flesh out a whole new one - but we still had time for scenes of nakedness and angels. :where's that roll eyes emoticon when you need it?:

I love a lot of what Moffat writes, and when he gets it right he does it well. But unlike RTD he can't fall back on quite so endearing characters when the technicalities are brought into question. He can't single out many defining classics across his era because so many of his stories are wrapped up in his own ongoing saga of endless questions and few answers. A decent story has a beginning, middle and an end... there's no rule saying they have to be in that order, and it's inspiring that Moffat so adamantly wants to challenge that idea in a show rooted in time-travel. But the thing is that the end of the story never seems to have been in sight when it often should have been, and the overall impression made between some lazy ideas and some poor creative decisions is that Moffat has offered up something that is complicated, rather than complex.

I couldn't agree more. Pretty much a perfect analysis.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 16:35
Thrombin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edgware, Middlesex
Posts: 8,277
I couldn't agree more. Pretty much a perfect analysis.
Seconded! Good post
Thrombin is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 18:52
kyllerbuzcut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,740
I liked that post abomination. Good reasons and no personal attacks you certainly some good points. not that you ever do personal attacks, I'm talking about others who could learn (probably me too because I can have a switch at tines when I'm not careful if I see someone attacking others personally for no reason etc )I think a lot if the faults you pick up would be more problems with direction of the episodes though. Especially things like pacing that a lot complain about.
Beginning middle and end with the arcs is also a common coMplaint, but the way I see it s5 was a normal one like s1-4. Perhaps a little bit more linked up. At the end it planted a seed about who would be out to get the doctor and why? (that also us a big complaint, that this is not answered one second later because people don't want to think for more a minute our something apparently).

S6 began with the end. That was the end, the doctor being 'killed' then we pick up with the doctor in his past, and the companions in almost 'normal time' as we view it. The middle takes up with them as we are introduced to the silence, who are the ones out to get him from the end of s5, and we have the ongoing story of trying to figure out how he is going to end up by the lake being shot, and also River's story. The end wraps that stuff up by showing how things turned out, the chaos/paradox world that would have been if the silence succeed, except they haven't quite won yet, as the doctor had something up his slave to allow the event if the lake to still take place, yet remain alive. We then get a hint of the next party of 11s overall story about the question and tranzalore. That's all out is a very shall hint that built on s5 end 'silence will fall'

S7 starts with an end too, with Clara. We see how she got there at the the end of s7. We have the ponds final episodes with not really much arc to speak of until we get to 7b, then we see the doctor trying to figure her out and how she got to be a dalek AND a governess. Very simple arc that was hardly there mostly. Ended with a full explanation. At the end there we now know his destiny and what Erik happen to him, as the 3rd bit on the too of the s5 and 6 hints.

Anniversary then

Christmas finale that ends 11s story, tying everything up again. Silence explained. Tranzalore explained, 13regen limit resolved. Some rtd era stuff ties up in there too along the way, as will as stiff from decades ago.

There might well be some other problems with individual episodes etc, but the series arcs all have beginning middle and end. There is also an overall 11th doc arc, which was very minor really over those to.
kyllerbuzcut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:30
Shoppy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,063
I posted this thread earlier...

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1930691
...placing a re-watch of River's timeline after Closing Time and framing The Angels Take Manhattan with TTOA/FAS and SITL/FOTD to unravel some of the timey wimey in a Moffat Marathon

...and It got me thinking about Moffat's story arcs and the stories he's written for the new series.

He's not really written many stories that don't play a part in one of his arcs...

The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances introduces Jack's vortex manipulator
The Girl In The Fireplace introduces Time Window similar to the Time Lord Art in TDOTD
Blink introduces the Weeping Angels
Time Crash was the new series' first multi-Doctor story
Silence In The Library/Forest Of The Dead introduces River Song

...so elements of all his S1-4 stories contribute to his own arcs.


The Eleventh Hour introduces the Cracks and most of his other S5 stories feature River Song so there's only really The Beast Below there that's not arc-heavy.

Then there's A Christmas Carol (although it's roughly around this time that Amy is swicthed for a Flesh clone) and the next non-arc story after that would be The Doctor, The Widow And The Wardrobe

...but that's about it, The Beast Below and 2 Christmas Specials out of I think 22 (correct me if I'm wrong) full episodes since 2005 that are truly standalone episodes in relation to his wider story arcs.




The three major "arcs" of S5-7...

-Amy, Rory, the "Cracks in Time" and The Alliance
-River Song and the Silence/Silents
-and "The Impossible Girl", Great Intelligence and "The Question"

...converge over the course of the "The Name of...", "The Day of..." and "The Time of..." and that, I think, is fantastic, the way that the whole of the past four years is connected to the last three episodes.

Let's get these Time Lords found now please
Shoppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 20:24
kyllerbuzcut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,740
I posted this thread earlier...

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1930691
...placing a re-watch of River's timeline after Closing Time and framing The Angels Take Manhattan with TTOA/FAS and SITL/FOTD to unravel some of the timey wimey in a Moffat Marathon

...and It got me thinking about Moffat's story arcs and the stories he's written for the new series.

He's not really written many stories that don't play a part in one of his arcs...

The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances introduces Jack's vortex manipulator
The Girl In The Fireplace introduces Time Window similar to the Time Lord Art in TDOTD
Blink introduces the Weeping Angels
Time Crash was the new series' first multi-Doctor story
Silence In The Library/Forest Of The Dead introduces River Song

...so elements of all his S1-4 stories contribute to his own arcs.


The Eleventh Hour introduces the Cracks and most of his other S5 stories feature River Song so there's only really The Beast Below there that's not arc-heavy.

Then there's A Christmas Carol (although it's roughly around this time that Amy is swicthed for a Flesh clone) and the next non-arc story after that would be The Doctor, The Widow And The Wardrobe

...but that's about it, The Beast Below and 2 Christmas Specials out of I think 22 (correct me if I'm wrong) full episodes since 2005 that are truly standalone episodes in relation to his wider story arcs.




The three major "arcs" of S5-7...

-Amy, Rory, the "Cracks in Time" and The Alliance
-River Song and the Silence/Silents
-and "The Impossible Girl", Great Intelligence and "The Question"

...converge over the course of the "The Name of...", "The Day of..." and "The Time of..." and that, I think, is fantastic, the way that the whole of the past four years is connected to the last three episodes.

Let's get these Time Lords found now please

Don't need a +1 button for this post, I wish instead there was an 'amen' button lol. The time lords have been the hint at the end this time for what us to vine in the next series or 2. Might be a thing we get resolved after one series, or it might get forgotten about until the end and then we get another little hint, with a different story in the meantime.

The time lords and trying to get back to being low key I think might continue/pick up again with Capaldi. We shall have to wait and see of course
kyllerbuzcut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 21:14
lady_xanax
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,042
There's something about Moffat's writing that I find insufferably smug and arrogant. It's Abomination's distinction between 'complex' and 'complicated', which Moffat seems to think of as being the same thing.
lady_xanax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 21:33
saladfingers81
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Steven Moffats pantry
Posts: 8,808
There's something about Moffat's writing that I find insufferably smug and arrogant. It's Abomination's distinction between 'complex' and 'complicated', which Moffat seems to think of as being the same thing.
There seems to be this bizarre cult of personality that has sprung up around Moffat. And I cant find an evidence its based on anything anyone knows about the man himself. He pretty much shuns the limelight apart from the usual PR written stuff that is a sad duty as he is show runner of both shows.

Some people seem convinced he sits there writing episodes to wind people up and that he looks down on viewers. Where has this come from? Its based on nothing. Maybe he just writes what he likes and wants to write. And then he puts it out there and then how people choose to perceive it is out of his hands. What's all this 'smug' and 'arrogant' nonsense about? I think it reflects the insecurities of those making such claims as it does on Moffat himself. E just writes TV shows with his own vision. They are immensely popular. This seems to annoy some people. And that's their problem not his.

God forbid a writer might follow their own vision and even try and challenge an audience. Because hey RTD never did that! Oh wait he did. Anyone who has read The Writers Tale knows this to be true. But hey! Its Moffat. Lets attack the man and his episodes. Lets imagine our own weird motivations and subtext for his writing! Its getting so sad.
saladfingers81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 21:58
lady_xanax
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,042
God forbid a writer might follow their own vision and even try and challenge an audience.
I actually like Sherlock and find it quite entertaining, so perhaps my perception stems more from the press and everybody saying how clever it is.

Trying to be clever isn't the same as challenging an audience. This is challenging an audience: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115964/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

Challenging writing means writing that provokes the audience to reconsider their beliefs, question morality, become more aware of themselves. Twisty-turny plots are entertaining and appropriate in the case of Sherlock but they're only intellectually stimulating on a superficial level.
lady_xanax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 22:22
saladfingers81
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Steven Moffats pantry
Posts: 8,808
I actually like Sherlock and find it quite entertaining, so perhaps my perception stems more from the press and everybody saying how clever it is.

Trying to be clever isn't the same as challenging an audience. This is challenging an audience: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115964/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

Challenging writing means writing that provokes the audience to reconsider their beliefs, question morality, become more aware of themselves. Twisty-turny plots are entertaining and appropriate in the case of Sherlock but they're only intellectually stimulating on a superficial level.
Annoyingly I have to agree again! I see what you mean. There is a difference between truly challenging TV or movies and a slightly complex or convoluted plot. I suppose what I mean is Moffat seems to like pushing the boundaries a bit within the confines of DW and Sherlock and enjoys a bit of trickery. This proves divisive. And I think he does like to play with the audience a bit. I just don't subscribe to the idea that Moffat sits in an ivory tower purposefully seeking to wind people up or try and prove his own intelligence. I don't see where this comes from. Like any writer he just writes what he knows and wants to see and thinks is best. Its then put out there to the wider world and people take it as they wish. I don't think Moffat has any more arrogance or ego than any other writer. He just has a certain style. One that seems to wind up a minority of viewers but equally captures the imagination of many others.
saladfingers81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 22:40
Chester666666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,811
I dislike Lost, I thought it lost all sense of direction towards the end of the first season, That's just my personal opinion ... I also have a brain.

I have enjoyed Moffats arcs, though I think he has shown signs of changing ideas as he goes along.
All in all I prefere his direction to Davies',

I don't think you could call what the Seventh Doctor had an "arc", there were just hints towards stuff towards the end that were never followed through cos the series was cancelled.
Series 26 was amazing and Remembrance... was the high point of S25 but I think Mel worked better with the 6th Doctor...

...also, looking back, McCoy had a terrible logo and title music :/
Don't agree about lost and it never lost direction

You'd agree with me if you actually had a brain

The arc was there like with the chess etc
Chester666666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 23:10
kyllerbuzcut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,740
There seems to be this bizarre cult of personality that has sprung up around Moffat. And I cant find an evidence its based on anything anyone knows about the man himself. He pretty much shuns the limelight apart from the usual PR written stuff that is a sad duty as he is show runner of both shows.

Some people seem convinced he sits there writing episodes to wind people up and that he looks down on viewers. Where has this come from? Its based on nothing. Maybe he just writes what he likes and wants to write. And then he puts it out there and then how people choose to perceive it is out of his hands. What's all this 'smug' and 'arrogant' nonsense about? I think it reflects the insecurities of those making such claims as it does on Moffat himself. E just writes TV shows with his own vision. They are immensely popular. This seems to annoy some people. And that's their problem not his.

God forbid a writer might follow their own vision and even try and challenge an audience. Because hey RTD never did that! Oh wait he did. Anyone who has read The Writers Tale knows this to be true. But hey! Its Moffat. Lets attack the man and his episodes. Lets imagine our own weird motivations and subtext for his writing! Its getting so sad.

I actually clapped my hands in real life saying yes when I read this. My wife looked at me funny - lol.

That's exactly it I think. And it's when he gets attacked and accused of such things and you describe, as if he is deliberately trying to ruin the show, that I end up feeling the need to jump in to defend. Not because I absolutely love the man and want to lick his bum or anything. I loved RTDs vision of the whoniverse at the time when he was in charge too. Although looking back at it now, some bits weren't as good as I remember at the time- I think Moffat has shown that up with some of his stuff, and having to explain some of that stuff away. Perhaps when a new writer takes over I will feel the same about Moffat etc, it doesn't really matter. Right now I am enjoying the show and that's what counts. There will be people who like bits and dislike other bits of course, but as long as they are enjoying the show in general then something must be going right. Millions of others seem to enjoy it too- all over the world.

I just wish there wasn't so much Moffat-hate around. I don't know what these people want. Will nothing except Rose turning up again satisfy them? And Peter Capaldi pulling off a rubber mask to reveal David Tennant ( who I also totally love as an actor and as the doctor), and then them running off together, having babies and settling down on walford space station square? It's not going to happen. This show is a show about change and it always has been, and always will. Who knows what will happen with the next writer, but I for one will give them all the support they need and continue watching. I am absolutely positive that even if it does go downhill slightly, this will probably still be about the best thing on TV even then. And I also think I will more than likey still love it or love it even more.


EDIT: also knew what you meant with the word challenging I think
kyllerbuzcut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 23:19
Abomination
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London or Valencia
Posts: 5,733
God forbid a writer might follow their own vision and even try and challenge an audience. Because hey RTD never did that! Oh wait he did. Anyone who has read The Writers Tale knows this to be true. But hey! Its Moffat. Lets attack the man and his episodes. Lets imagine our own weird motivations and subtext for his writing! Its getting so sad.
I think Moffat gets a lot of undue hate, and I don't think he's got some underlying motives with his writing, nor do I think he's smug or anything quite so conspiring...so essentially I agree with you.
I do think he does sometimes verge too often into the realm of the 'self-referential' though. To some people I guess that could be read into as being smug or arrogant, though personally I see it as the more likely situation that he is just confident in his characters, his writing and his previous efforts to the point he feels he can reference them again.

Now and again we get the odd "humany-wumany" that takes it a little too far, and now and again something feels like it's trying too hard to set itself up as an inevitable Tumblr gifset... but for the most part I think it's just a trademark of his writing. Do I like it? Not all the time. Do I think he's being smug? Not in the slightest. He comes up with these recurring phrases because kids and bloggers seem to like them a lot... they get yelled across the playground and slapped on a t-shirt and it's just him leaving his mark on the show.

So yes, I agree with you entirely. Though I think I see where the opposing view stems from too


Don't agree about lost and it never lost direction

You'd agree with me if you actually had a brain

The arc was there like with the chess etc
Because heaven forbid someone actually has a different opinion to you. Your lack of grammatical coherency also makes your comments about other people not having a brain rather ironic. For reference my interest in Lost waned incredibly fast, and by its end it was an overblown, convoluted mess. Just an opinion, by the way, not a commentary on who does, or who doesn't have a brain.
Abomination is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 23:20
Shoppy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,063
Don't agree about lost and it never lost direction
You're entitled to your opinion ...I acknowledged the subjectivity of mine when putting it forth.

Try it, You might like it


You'd agree with me if you actually had a brain
and you'd quit with the insults if you had any humility


The arc was there like with the chess etc
Yeah you're right...

..Did the Seventh Doctor's "arc" start with The Celestial Toymaker then?


... and please explain the "etc" to someone like myself who missed which bits you mean and I'll try and get my empty head around it

EDIT:
Spoiler
Shoppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 23:25
The Gatherer
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,610
I actually clapped my hands in real life saying yes when I read this. My wife looked at me funny - lol.

That's exactly it I think. And it's when he gets attacked and accused of such things and you describe, as if he is deliberately trying to ruin the show, that I end up feeling the need to jump in to defend. Not because I absolutely love the man and want to lick his bum or anything. I loved RTDs vision of the whoniverse at the time when he was in charge too. Although looking back at it now, some bits weren't as good as I remember at the time- I think Moffat has shown that up with some of his stuff, and having to explain some of that stuff away. Perhaps when a new writer takes over I will feel the same about Moffat etc, it doesn't really matter. Right now I am enjoying the show and that's what counts. There will be people who like bits and dislike other bits of course, but as long as they are enjoying the show in general then something must be going right. Millions of others seem to enjoy it too- all over the world.

I just wish there wasn't so much Moffat-hate around. I don't know what these people want. Will nothing except Rose turning up again satisfy them? And Peter Capaldi pulling off a rubber mask to reveal David Tennant ( who I also totally love as an actor and as the doctor), and then them running off together, having babies and settling down on walford space station square? It's not going to happen. This show is a show about change and it always has been, and always will. Who knows what will happen with the next writer, but I for one will give them all the support they need and continue watching. I am absolutely positive that even if it does go downhill slightly, this will probably still be about the best thing on TV even then. And I also think I will more than likey still love it or love it even more.


EDIT: also knew what you meant with the word challenging I think
Why undermine your argument with crap about Walford space station and Capaldi pulling off a rubber mask? You just make yourself look foolish. People can dislike Moffat's writing without having any agenda.
The Gatherer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 23:29
lady_xanax
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,042
I do think he does sometimes verge too often into the realm of the 'self-referential' though. To some people I guess that could be read into as being smug or arrogant, though personally I see it as the more likely situation that he is just confident in his characters, his writing and his previous efforts to the point he feels he can reference them again.
This is it, I think. There is a thin line between being self-referential and masturbatory.
lady_xanax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 23:32
kyllerbuzcut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,740
Why undermine your argument with crap about Walford space station and Capaldi pulling off a rubber mask? You just make yourself look foolish. People can dislike Moffat's writing without having any agenda.
And I have said exactly that in the past. Everyone is allowed to like or not like something. If you can't tell when I am being obviously over top to exaggerate with the mask etc, then maybe I can see how you don't get a lot if some of the plots.

There are also, however, some who just seem to view him as some kind if anti-christ it something, which I made clear I was talking about. The same people who seem to think I and others are not allowed to enjoy the show or something. Unless, that is it conforms to exactly how they think it should be.
kyllerbuzcut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 23:42
Old Man 43
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,583
The best Sci-Fi TV series have story arcs.

Some like Buffy the main arc is over by the end of the season/series.

Others like ST DS9 and Babylon 5 have stories that run over several series.

Some of the multi-season arcs are laid out in advance with only minor tweaks (Babylon 5 is an example of that). However others (Like DS9) are plotted on a season by season basis with only a vague idea on the ending.

The only problem with Doctor Who is that it sometimes feels as bit disjointed. It is almost as if the writers don't talk to each other enough.

I think that this may be the problem. Most American series have a team of staff writers who write most of the stories with the show runner as the head writer. They always meet during the break between season to plane the next season. They also meet regularly during the filming of the series to iron out any problems. This has the benefit of the writers being able to co-ordinate the stories and ensure that they make sense.

I don't think this happens in Doctor Who. Ironically I remember a writer complaining that no one told him that Rose would not be happy that Micky was going to come along at the end of "School Reunion". That is why he did not write it into the next episode. The next episode being "The Girl in the Fireplace" by Steven Moffat.

I think that whoever takes over from Steven Moffat should try to persuade the BBC to come up with the money to try and do the same.
Old Man 43 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:59.