Completely agree with you and Saladfingers81.

Moffats era put my wife off Doctor Who, but my wife likes to watch 'charmed' and she used to only watch who because of Tennant. I like Luther, I like programs that make me think. Idont love everything Moffat has written, but I respect him for trying new interesting ideas.

Idea1 - introduce a recurring character that the Doctor meets in reverse order, why hasn't this happen already he is a time traveller after all.

Idea2 - introduce a forgotten regeneration. We know very little about the origins of the Doctor, who's to say we knew everything about his life after he ran away in Gallifrey too. Not only does he give us a forgotten regeneration, he gives us details on storylines we didn't know all the details about, to incarnations we thought we knew everything about (Tennant & Queen)

Idea3 - introduce a way to bring the timelords back and link it to an entire incarnation arc

Idea4 - allow the doctor a mechanism to carry on for years to come (reset) but also stay true to established rules for regeneration (and take all the flack on his own back)

Idea5 - highlight the effect the Doctor has on the people around him. Amelia ends up beng sent to psychs as a kid, and develops a capricious feisty nature because no one believes her story. Contrast this with Lorna, a girl who meets the Doctor when she is young, runs with him, grows up thinking about him, joins the army tasked with killing him, but remains the most sweetest person dedicated to the doctor after just one breif meeting who ends up getting killed trying to protect him "when a good man goes to war"

Idea6 - Create new iconic scary villians for New Who (silence, weeping angels, whisper men)

Idea7 - Create a story where all the Doctors worst enemies actually collude together to trap him (Pandorica opens)

And on and on.


No one is perfect, Moffat certainly isn't but I dont get why people like to jump on him.

The poster you responded to didn't say anything about Moffat personally. I agree with them that his writing comes across smug and self indulgent. That's not me saying he as a person is that way but his writing has become that.

I feel both Doctor Who and Sherlock have disappeared up their own arses. People are entitled to that opinion.

(I've italisised the Buffy-heavy commentary here, for people who haven't watched it and don't want to read it)

The thing is that Buffy maintained the ongoing depth by crafting characters so well written that it didn't need endless story arcs to feel fluent. There were references to events in series gone by and clever returns that made the arcs all flow as one ongoing story too...

The final Big Bad is The First Evil. If it wasn't enough that it started out as a one-off baddie in Season 3 before being the main baddie of Season 7, it's first reappearance was in the form of every other Big Bad previously*. The Doctor Who equivalent would be The Great Intelligence showing up mysteriously and morphing as the Emperor Dalek, Dalek Sec, The Master, Davros, Rassilon, and Madame Kovarian all in the same scene It would be utterly rewarding for long-term viewers just to catch a glimpse of characters previously invested in, without alienating the casual viewer because scenes like that are quickly over with.

There were many other clever examples. An episode set in an alternate reality whilst Buffy was in a coma gave a possible explanation for the few plot holes that had appeared across the series (whilst also being a clever psychological analysis of the show itself). And I remember a comment that Xander made in the Season 2 finale that wasn't picked up on again until a random episode in Season 7 - I didn't even notice it the first time, but it was so clever.

Joss Whedon managed to craft something that was wonderfully complex, but seldom complicated. While Moffat seems to have so far crafted something that is often complicated, but seldom complex. Between some amazing stories from him, he really does take the long way around to say very little at all a lot of the time (Series 6 being the biggest culprit).

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omUGzRjiGsA
Not great quality at all, but this is the scene that introduces Buffy's greatest and final big bad. It cleverly takes on the form of the previous Big Bad's that she came up against in the show. Hugely rewarding for the long-term viewer, and not intrusive enough to put off casual viewers.

Brilliant description. Often complicated, but seldom complex.

He really does take the longest and most complicated option to say very little. Some would say style over substance.

So Moffat gets criticised for using too much obscure continuity from his own era within his episodes but the same people say it would be fine if Dalek Sec suddenly appeared as a manifestation of the Great Intelligence? Ok. So that's fine and wouldn't alienate casual viewers but minor references in The Time of the Doctor to past episodes are self indulgent and confusing?

Also. If Moffat ever tried to pull a trick like Whedon did with Dawn he would never hear the end of it. But it seems its one rule for Moffat and another for everyone else. Isn't it annoying though how Moffat brings characters back from the dead! Whedon would never do that just to suit his plots. Cough SPIKE cough AGENT COULSON.

Far from it, I quite admire Moffat for trying to address the loose threads of his series. Unfortunately despite that admiration, it isn't enough to necessarily think that what he did was good (though there was much I liked about The Time of the Doctor). The difference between Whedon and Moffat here is that Whedon would only drip-feed references to continuity within a wider narrative, whilst Moffat writes it so that the references ARE the narrative. Buffy: Lessons was a largely standalone story that opened the seventh series, and the scene which reintroduced The First Evil in the form of the previous Big Bad's lasted about 90 seconds at the episodes end. But if Whedon had used the same approach as Moffat used for DW: The Time of the Doctor then the Buffy episode would have spent almost the whole duration on that final scene, referencing different aspects of the shows past continually and struggling to shoehorn in some new ground. For me, not a problem exactly as I've watched Buffy and Doctor Who avidly throughout, even though this does mean that all I'm doing is treading on familiar ground. But to the casual viewer there is far less on offer and very little to encourage them to watch now, or certainly watch again.

There's nothing wrong with referencing continuity, or obscure continuity. But it's got to be very carefully done...it's a delicate balancing act of pleasing fans who have waited a long time for an answer, and the casual fans who want accessibility to the programme. Moffat is not the first writer of his calibre to have disappointed people in this regard and he won't be the last. It's about plotting, and pacing, and perhaps the most overlooked one - character. If you're going to try and be clever and complex, you need to be taking well written characters into the fray. You need to make the viewer care that the character has been on this journey and is still facing the same perils and plots that they faced a long time ago. If you don't make the viewer care, then all they see is a repetitive storyline that is self-indulgent and complicated.
Buffy has stood the test of time and come out glowing. It's a successful show that still gains fans to this day. It's characters are accessible, it's continuity is tight, and it was more-or-less consistently good. It was able to afford to make obscure references to its own past because it was a past that people remembered consistently fondly. It hadn't over complicated itself and left too many hanging questions.

And on the topic of death (I hate the Angel spin-off by the way, in part for the error of bringing Spike back) I think it's another misjudged element from Moffat's Who. I don't enjoy highlighting that, because again I love a lot of Moffat's work. But death is meant to matter, and it is meant to have consequence.
When Buffy dies, we not only get a two-parter to bring her back in, we get a whole series that explores her return and the events that followed were a result of the action of her death... the arcs of Seasons 6 and 7 were a consequence of her death in Season 5.
The Doctor hasn't died exactly but his closest encounter at the start of Series 6 was resolved at the end of Series 6 and we're told the consequence would be that he would have to 'return to the shadows'. It was a brilliant notion that despite the mediocre Lake Silencio arc, there would be a consequence to the Doctor's death that meant the next series was sparked off by it. Instead he's blowing up a spaceship above the Earth in the 1940's at the start of the very next episode, and then he's facing the Daleks in the story after that!
It's not the only example of a 'death' that has undermined the concept of death within Doctor Who during Moffat's era. Jenny's death was a powerful scene in The Name of the Doctor, but she was back within ten minutes and there was absolutely no consequence and it didn't develop the character at all. Put simply, it was a cheap shot to evoke an emotional response.
As a sci-fi show I can't pretend that death should always be permanent, particularly when time travel can be involved. But it should always have a consequence that develops the story or the characters. It isn't something that should just be shrugged off like you'd taken a nap. When you do that it eliminates the sense of threat, undermines the villain, and makes it difficult for the viewer to care.

Once more, I'd like to reiterate that I love Moffat's Who and the ideas he brings to it, and as stated elsewhere I don't consider him to be overly self-indulgent. But I don't care much for his grander vision which disproportionately allocates time to being stylish rather than substantial, and becomes frustratingly complicated rather than anything remotely complex. It's all just my singular opinion, which I could have summed up in this paragraph I guess... but I took what I consider the Moffat approach and went the long away around to reach the same conclusion.

Well I HATE these story arcs!! I much preferred RTD's era...OK - he had 'arcs' such as 'Bad Wolf' and 'Saxon' etc - but they were very subtle and only made sense at the end of the series.
Moffat has rather overdone the idea and mish-mashed the whole lot over the entire Smith series. I think in future years, Matt Smith's era will be referred to as "The Amy/Rory/River era". Because that's what it mainly consisted of!
I hope Peter's reign will become a bit more like the old-style format, and settle into individual adventures. If they want us to tune in again - do a cliffhanger at the end of a story, leading us into the next story! (It worked in the past!)

They weren't "arcs" they were simply "words" and "phrases".

Not just that, but they were words and phrases that didn't seem like they belonged in the script ....

They were escapees from production notes that should have never made it past the first reading of the scripts ...

Phrases that function in the production process to concisely signify a wider concept to those who have developed that concept and subsequently come up with a term to condense that concept into a single phrase to speed up communication of that concept in the production process...

"Time Lord Victorious"? ...... no-one talks like that, it was ridiculous!

Moff's arcs ARE arcs whereas Davies' arcs were simply hints at what was coming in the finale.


I think what is evident is a certain difference in how they structure a series ...

Moffat starts with multiple threads and tries to point them towards each other, not always succesfully but at the end of the day it's not about the spectacle at the end, it's about the twists in the middle. He writes for the journey, not the destination.

Davies on the other hand seemed, with hindsight, to work backwards. First deciding what he wanted the end of season spectacle to be and then dropping hints of it earlier on in the series.

Neither works perfectly, both have their pros and cons...

But one thing I will say is that I haven't the foggiest idea why some people think Moff-bashing is justified...

No matter what adjective he might prefix a description of an episode with, he still describes his own work in a tone that to me comes across as demonstrating more humility, caution, respect for the wider audience, respect for the classic series and with his personal contribution to the show taking precedence over the show's contribution to his portfolio.

"Silence will Fall"
"The Fall of the Eleventh"
"Doctor who? Doctor who? Doctor who?"

Just saying

EXACTLY

"Silence Will Fall" and "The Fall Of The Eleventh" turn out to be excerpts from the prophecy which pertains to the question "Doctor who? Doctor who? Doctor who?"

As such, despite being very poetically presented, these phrases serve a communicative function in the show's dialogue that contributes to the narrative and allows the audience to share the mystery with the main characters.

Davies only did that with the Face Of Boe's "You are not alone" comment and the "He will knock 4 times" warning.

(although the Mister Saxon = Master No.Six anagram was a nice nod to the 70s but the nature of the anagram was not a part of the story itself, just a hidden message to the audience which bypassed the characters)

Bad Wolf, Doctor-Donna and Time Lord Victorious all make me cringe!

It's like Russell put these phrases in because they were using them in discussing the stories and the terms stuck through overuse.
They're just "there".
They don't significantly contribute to the telling of the story or raise questions in a way that has the characters and audience sharing the experience.
What they mainly serve to do is make the show sound cheesey!

They are also prime examples of your previous criticism: "No one talks like that - it's ridiculous!"

You don't say "silence will fall" when what you mean is, "We will make sure that the Doctor doesn't speak his name". There is actually no silence falling at any time! It's an even sillier thing to say when you yourself are called "the Silence".

You don't refer to the "fall of the 11th" when what you mean is "The TARDIS crash lands on Trenzalore with the 11th incarnation of the Doctor in it". It's just a phrase created to deliberately obfuscate and mislead with no reason to make the event at all significant.

"Doctor who?" is not the question. The Doctor's true name is highly unlikely to be preceded by the title "Doctor". Also, the premise is that the Doctor has to speak his name ibn order to verify that it was indeed the Doctor speaking. That question could be answered by anyone who knows the name including his enemies if they had managed to extract the information. If they want to be sure it's the Doctor by requiring his true name why not ask "What is your true name?". The only reason to ask "Doctor who?" is as a riff on the show's title. It is not a realistic way to form that question.

These kinds of things actually annoy me because they break the fourth wall, IMO. They are there to thrill the fans and sound clever but, actually, it makes no sense to phrase them like that at all.

Come on- the "Doctor Who?" question is THE ONLY one they can ask, sure and makes perfect sense. If they just ask "who are you" or something, then mr Jim Bob comes along and says "I am Jim Bob" - is that really a good question then if anybody thinks it's a relevant question to them? Even casual viewers get that question, surely? All they need to know is the knock knock joke. It's probably the first joke most people learned, doctor who fan or not. You can't really say no one is going to get this, or it is going to break the 4th wall in doing so?

Because our doc just says "I am the Doctor," and everyone ask "Doctor Who?" - (as we see all the time) that is then a very relevant question that probably only he will both be able to hear (/receive the transmissions) AS WELL AS be able to answer. It's like in James Bond, when the title of the movie appears in the film or something. It's not breaking the 4th wallm it's just a reason for why it's called that sometimes- you can't just call it film 1 and film 2 etc. for fear of 'breaking the 4th wall'. Same with doctor who. Does every time a character asks "Doctor Who" to be told "Just the Doctor"- that doesn't break the 4th wall. Not with me at least.

I've also seen a few comments that say they think whole epeisodes ( almost) consist of arc stuff. I don't get that at all. There's hardly any to it- I wish there was MORE. Some episodes have nothing, and I'm there at the end of the episode, with the villain just defeated, thinking "Ooh- I wonder what the next jigsaw piece to the overall picture will be now"... then there's nothing. I must admit that even when this happens in a good episode it makes me feel a little bit of a let down.

I'd still rate an excellent episode excellent though- and did that with pretty much all of 7b. But the lack of over all picture-revealing-stuff makes that string of episodes lacking somewhat. There was some Clara stuff/ GI stuff and pretty much nothing else happening when I think back. Thankfully in the end we had an absolutely amazing finale which which tied a lot of things in. Quite to the contrary of a previous poster who thinks that stuff is, to paraphrase, 'referencing his own/the sows continuity, meaning casual viewers are left confused, and long term fans bored etc.' I thought that was perfectly done. EVERYONE knows this is a long running show, whether you know any details of it or not. EVERYONE knows and could probably instantly recognise more than a couple of past doctors. My wife doesn't really watch the show much -except when I leave her little choice, lol- she watched that episode and was moved to tears- literally. She knows who they all are and what was happening to Clara. My son watched and he knew they were all 'old doctors'. He doesn't watch every single week. but will tell you he loves it. (has his own sonic and everything ).

My point is - if there is one show iconic enough like this- you CAN do that with some elements of it. Show someone a picture of a blue police call box, and ask them what it is and I pretty much guarantee they wont say it's a blue police call box from 100 years ago. NOT all of those same people will say they even watch Doctor Who. Show them a pic of Tom Baker in scarf, hat etc. and they will know who the character is, even if they don't know Tom Baker's name.

So- showing Clara and hearing her describe her stepping in to interfere with (Way HEY!) past doctors certainly does not confuse casual viewers. There was a quick bit at the beginning of that ep, and then more at the end- the conclusion of 'Clara's Story'.

Yet again I cant help but find some of the criticism levelled at Moffat odd and slightly inconsistent.

I would ask if the people who think lines like 'the fall of the eleventh' etc are problematic and 'break the fourth wall' (they don't. That's not what that expression means) had similar problems with 'Your song is ending soon' and 'he will knock four times' and similarly vague lines and statements from the past. For me its called dramatic flourish. Using interesting language. Who wants everything to be set out like a science text book and terribly literal? Things such as 'the fall of the eleventh' had become legend across the universe. And such things have throughout history been described in grand and flowery language. Read Greek Myths.

Yes. Because it wouldve been so much better if instead of the mysterious and vague 'You are not alone' the FOB had just said 'Look mate. You've been going around all sour faced and whining about being the last of your kind. But you aren't. The Master is still alive. And hes coming back'. Yeah that wouldve been fantastic drama!

Exactly- and there were good reasons for FOB to only give that little hint. He obviously knows about 'spoilers' etc.

And I like your Greek Myth idea. It makes me think people like Dorium have had stories about the Doctor in their culture for thousands of years, talking about the fall of the 11th, as if it is the fall of troy or something. And actually finding out it's a real thing (similar to Troy now being an actual, known 'thing' - ok maybe not ALL of the Illiad, but the place etc, and there must have been real events to inspire the story). So the fall of the 11th was told like the Illiad in flowery language and with lots of made up bits to add dramatic license by the authors of this ancient tale - With perhaps a bit too many timey-wimey bits from one or 2 of the authors of these tales?? lol

Precisely! I liked those sorts of phrases in RTDs era as I do in Moffats. Though I didn't like Doctor/Donna.

and it ties in with the development of the Doctor as a legend that has spread across the universe and tales of his adventures get embellished and become a drama of their own.

Look at Robin Hood. His legend grew due to people telling stories of him and writing poems or sonnets or whatever the correct historical term is. It built on the myth. You didn't get men with lutes saying 'Yeah verily there's this guy who lives in a tree, has a bow and arrow and robs rich people. What a geezer'. In the same way as that infinitely quotable speech about the Doctor being a goblin and a trickster is a wonderful piece of writing. Of course they could've said 'skinny man. Sometimes not. Wears a scarf. Talks alot. Sometimes a bow tie. Flies around in a blue box and changes his face. Likes getting a bit busy and involved in other peoples problems. He's trouble'. Yes that might be closer to what one might say in real life modern day earth. But I don't want that. Its wonderful science fiction and myth.

Doctor Who is full of this sort of thing and New Who even more so. Its not supposed to be naturalistic dialogue. If we start picking it apart for that where does it end.

Would anyone in real life really say 'Im bringing you back to earth?' as per Marthas awful line? No. You'd say 'Doctor. I'm in trouble. Can you please come and help me?'. But that would sound even worse than that already bad line.

Just an example I found someone passed on to me tonight- about Doctor Who things in popular culture:

Copy this into google maps:

Police Telephone Box
Earl's Court Rd, London SW5 9RB, United Kingdom

then go into street view and you will see a 'Tardis' if you look around. Navigate close enough and you can go inside

Are they looking for the next page?

I'm not sure where the knock, knock joke comes in. That is not a joke that makes sense in the Universe of Doctor Who, it only makes sense in our own Universe. That is precisely my point about the fourth wall. If characters are using dialogue that makes no sense in the world in which the drama is set in order to communicate something to the viewing audience then I am calling that breaking the fourth wall.

I thought I'd explained why the question makes no sense within the Doctor Who Universe but I'll try again in more detail:

1) The queston "Doctor who?" is presumably meant to ask what is the name that follows the title "Doctor". That's what it was meant to mean in the show's title. Except that we know that the name "The Doctor" is really more of a job description. Some Time Lords take these nicknames on like "The Master", "The Monk", "The Warrior", "The War Chief". Nobody expects the Master's real name to be something like "Master Beta Sigma". It would just be "Beta Sigma". Similarly, the Doctor's real name is not going to be something like "Doctor Alpha Sigma" (for example) it would just be "Alpha Sigma". So the question "Doctor Who?" in that context is a meaningless question. His true name isn't "Doctor" anything.

2) It is a highly ambiguous question. Which Doctor is it referring to? If Doc Holliday was asked the question he could answer it as "Doctor John Henry Holliday" and he'd be correct. Is it even asking for a name? it could be asking "Doctor who did what?". Doc Holliday could answer it as "The Doctor who was at the OK Corral". Clara could answer it as "Doctor who I like travelling with".

3) It can be answered by anyone who knows the answer, it doesn't have to be the Doctor. River could have answered with the Doctor's true name. So could Clara at one point (having read it in the book "History of the Time War" in the TARDIS library). For that matter, the Kovarian Chapter could have read the book when they infiltrated the TARDIS to blow it up.

So, we have established that this vitally important question is phrased in such a way that it completely fails to prove that the Doctor is the one answering it even if it weren't so ambiguous what the question being asked actually was! What's the point of a truth field if answering truthfully fails to prove anything?

It makes no logical sense for that to be the question. It is quite clear that the only reason that is the question is to refer to the show's title. That is why I call it breaking the fourth wall. I admit that I am using the expression loosely but, basically, it is dialogue within the show that does not fit the universe that the show is set in but, instead, only works for the viewing audience.


Not with me either, because that use of the phrase makes sense within the world that the drama is set. Even though we know it's an in-joke it can still work in that context. When something is said by characters in a drama that don't make sense within the world that that drama is set because it is alluding to a meaning that only makes sense to the viewing audience then I am calling that "breaking the fourth wall". I admit that might not be correct usage for the term but I'm not too bothered if you want to call it something else. I would consider it bad form whether it fits the definition of fourth wall or not.

Can I just point out that the reason I brought up these phrases was in response to someone who brought up seemingly nonsensical phrases used by RTD to criticise RTD. I was just seeking balance by pointing out that Moffat has used similarly nonsensical phrases.

I really don't consider these things a big deal. I like both RTD and Moffat. In fact the only Doctor Who episode I can think of which I haven't ranked Good or Excellent was Dinosaurs on a Space Ship (which I found awful).


I have no objection to flowery phrases but, as a flowery phrase, "the fall of the eleventh" should really means his downfall not, "the TARDIS happened to crash and cracked the window a bit". I would expect some kind of prophecy that has achieved legend status would have been about something world-shattering or at least important to the person being prophesied about. Why is the fact that the TARDIS crash-landed a legend across the Universe? So it was a bumpy landing, big deal, it's not the first time! Why would anyone have bothered to make such an innocuous event a legend?

The only thing I can think of is that it was done for a laugh. "Ha, ha, you all thought it meant his downfall but actually it just meant that the TARDIS crashed, ha, ha, fooled you!" Which is all very well, and may even have been amusing, but it makes no sense for the author of that prophecy to have just said it for a joke, it only makes sense for Moffat to have said it for a joke.

Like I said, I don't really care that much. I got the joke and found it funny myself. I'm just mildly irritated that it was at the cost of the verisimilitude that I prefer.

You can call it that, but it isn't. The closest thing would be self-referential or metafiction; a moment where the work of fiction recognises that it is a work of fiction. An example would be if a character in a soap said to another character: "This isn't some soap!" Of course, we the audience and the writers know that it is a soap, hence the humour.

'Breaking the fourth wall' is when a character directly talks to an audience. It comes from the theatre- when we watch a play set in a dining room, we know that in real life, we wouldn't be able to see the action inside, because there is a fourth wall that prevents us seeing inside. However, the characters behave as if there is an invisible fourth wall, so they don't acknowledge the fact that they are being watched. Nineteenth-century fiction breaks the fourth wall a lot: things like 'Reader, I married him' are breaking the fourth wall, because we are meant to be viewing the events as real.

Here's a clip where at the end, the character breaks the fourth wall. Until this point, they are still being self-referential but it culminates in breaking the fourth wall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24juIC****Q

No they are not because they are phrases which are quoted from the prophecy that Dorium tells the Doctor about.

Within the context of the show they are phrases that are written to be quotable and passed on so if they sound like they'eve jumped off the page there is a reason for that. ...that is the very difference I was pointing out.




Yeah, that would be like calling yourself the Knights Of The Round Table and then afterwards going out and buying a table that was round




You must be the only person that doesn't now see...
"On the fields of Trenzalore, at the fall of the eleventh, when no living creature can speak falsely or fail to answer, a Question will be asked, a question that must never, ever be answered."
...as pertaining to TNOTD rather than TTOTD




"Knock Knock"




Seriously?
Moff's arcs break the fourth wall and Davies' dialogue didn't?

Time Lord Victorious?
Doctor-Donna?

Are you having a Giraffe?

That doesn't make them sensible things to say. I'm aware that prophecies like to be mysterious but "Silence will Fall" never actually happened. When was there ever silence on Trenzalore?



It's more like someone giving a prophecy in King Arthur's court and saying that "The round table will crack" to refer to a time in the future when a completely different table that happens to be round will catch fire. I mean there's mysterious prophecy and then there's inaccurate and deliberately misleading!



Ah. You got me there! I always thought Moffat had confirmed that it was referring to the TARDIS crash. Never thought to connect it to TTOTD

Ok, you can have that one


I'm not sure what is illogical about those two phrases? They say what they mean and the meaning is perfectly defined in the Doctor Who universe.

However, I really wasn't trying to say that the RTD ones weren't nonsensical I was just trying to say that these sorts of phrases have been used throughout the show's history and it's not fair to criticise RTD for something that you have no problem with under Moffat.

Yes but what the character said still makes sense within the show even if it has a wider meaning to the audience. My (albeit, minor) problem is where what is said only has meaning to the audience and wouldn't make sense as something said in the world the drama is set in.

I do understand that breaking the fourth wall is more commonly used to describe when actors specifically address the audience, however. Like when the first Doctor turned to camera during the Daleks Master Plan and wished all the viewers a Happy Christmas!

In the future of the original timeline before the Time Lords managed to change the future by giving the Doctor a new lifecycle




I'm not saying they're sensible things to say, I'm saying there is a context for their use.

Repeating quotes from ancient prophecies never sounds "sensible" but millions of people do it every day




They are cheesey in a way Moffat's wording has never been and there isn't enough context for the way in which they are delivered.
As I said before, they sound like production notes have leaked into the script, and THAT, if anything, is "breaking the fourth wall" as you put it.



Absolutely,

But what I was pointing out to those who criticise Moffat (who often do so as a roundabout way of bigging up the RTD era which is their preference) is that those criticisms apply more to S1-4 than to Moffs series OR the classic series!

Is it OK to realy like something but still be totally confused ?