I noticed on DWTV that Moffat has spoken very briefly on the subject of 'plot holes' in the last few series. He brings out a familiar reply of assuming the audience is clever and can put two and two together.

This brings me to ask for what you consider to be genuine plot holes left behind since Moffat took over as Head Writer. By plot hole, I don't just mean 'questions left to be answered.' For example, the woman in the shop could yet be explained at a point during Clara's story - such as Amelia Pond hearing the TARDIS in her garden, which was picked up in her final story. Whether this was always planned, or not.

What are the gaps which can't be filled? What "plot holes" didn't deserve to fit the criteria? An example adapted from GB:


Is it the writer's duty to deliver explanations such as those given in Time of The Doctor to make such a connection (an order called The Silence, whose slogan is Silence will Fall, trying to kill The Doctor - had something to do with The Doctor's spaceship blowing up, preceded by the words Silence Will Fall). Or is it Moffat's prerogative to assume will carry these details will them to bridge the gap?

Do we just need that tiny bit of further acknowledgement to say "Yes! That solid theory you're holding - it's absolutely true!"

Examples don't have to be recent, but if we venture in to Classic Who - we may be here a while

The problem (or perhaps lack of one) is that because it's sci-fi, you need never worry about a plot hole, or getting yourself in a knot, because you can simply rewrite the show's logic.

I think its a damn shame that only Steven Moffat created plot holes, no other writer did this. I'm going to stop watching Doctor Who from now on and I'm just going to switch to the Sherlock forums instead.

This thread seems strangely quiet considering the often repeated battle cry of Moffats detractors is that he writes episodes full of plot holes. Lets hear them then!

Also as The Judge sagely alluded...its nothing new. There is no series of DW throughout its fifty years that didn't contain something that could be called a plot hole.

And anyway as Lady Xanax points out this is science fiction. Not only are plot holes likely but can be easily glossed over or written around. I think as long as the show doesn't break its own internal logic and rules then its pretty much fine.

And even then...does the occasional plot hole ruin something? Especially in this day and age when every single thing is forensically taken apart and examined and debated ad nauseum- there are videos all over Youtube whose only purpose is to point these things out. Theyre often very entertaining. But what you notice is there are very few TV shows or movies that escape falling into plot holes. Even classics. So many examples but just look at Terminator 2. Widely seen as one of the ultimate big budget sci-fi classics of all time. Beloved by many. But if you wish you can destroy the entire logic of it within three minutes. Does it make it any less of a movie? Not for me. I think there's a balance. No one wants lazy or stupid plotting. But one thing I've learnt from a lifetime of watching horror and science fiction is that you accept a degree of suspension of disbelief otherwise you'll never enjoy anything.

Do Moffats plots always work perfectly and make perfect sense? Nope. But why he gets singled out for this when not only all his predecessors but almost anyone who has written such a show or film has done the same is perplexing to me.

All stories rely on coincidence and contrivances- some more so than others. Anything built on coincidence and contrivances is bound to have plot-holes. However, we forget them because we are so caught up in the story. Shakespeare is probably the best example- he didn't give a hang about things being believable or logical. He used three great tricks: the 'bed trick', the 'head trick' and the 'dead trick'. However the tricks were so idiotic that the fact that the characters fell for them actually commented on human nature.

The viewer being alert to plot-holes either suggests a very badly written script or simply a dull one.

I think it's because his shows are about heroic geniuses so the onus on him is to be clever. Sherlock must be a nightmare to write.

But someone could easily sit down and tear apart the Conan-Doyle originals.

As per your previous point I don't think its because the script is necessarily bad. Its just personal preference. I think alot of the flaws of the RTD era get ignored because Ten and Rose OMG! And equally I ignore some of the flaws of the Moffat era because Amy and Rory! I love the characters. I can imagine that if the characters or setting or Doctor don't appeal then suddenly the underlying bits that annoy become more pronounced. I'm lucky that I've loved every season of the new show to one extent or another. But should the day come when we get a really bad Doctor or at least one I don't like then I will become detached and likely to be more critical as in focussing on other things.

A rather lazy example but makes sense to me. Take the two Star Wars trilogies...the original has just as many plot holes and silly moments as the prequels. But in the wider narrative that gets ignored because the films themselves and characters and universe they created was more compelling and loved by the viewers.

It make sense to me too Though the main thing I remember from the prequels is being disturbed by the incest.

What it comes down to is head over heart. Love is illogical after all, so if the writer has got you to care about a story or the characters, you forgive plot holes. It's probably why some fans get so het up on the half-human thing that they try to make it fit into the canon by explaining it away. Sometimes they even try to explain it away for the film, which is a little harder because it's a plot point. But such is their love that they bend logic and stretch belief in order to make things make sense. I think for sci-fi and fantasy fans, this need for things to make sense and be explained is much greater- although maybe I would defend the logic of my own favourite shows/films/literature just as passionately.

Totally agree. As you said before I think if the wider story captures your imagination you ignore the plot holes. If you're there picking it to pieces then it hasn't grabbed you. I actually find that with individual episodes. I hated 'The Wedding of River Song' and so even on first viewing found myself picking it apart in a way I wouldn't usually with Doctor Who. For whatever reason it didn't work for me and so rather than getting swept up in the story I was being fussy about it.

Whoa whoa whoa. When does that happen in the prequels? I can only think of it occurring in the originals with Leia and Luke.

Out of interest, did anyone actually catch the full interview, which show was it? They must have talked about more than plot holes, I'd like to get some context. Also, is their some irony here that JNT invaded kids Saturday Tv to talk /promote Doctor Who and Moffat is on Radio 2

The fact that- is it even worth putting a spoiler?- they don't mention the incest when they find out that they're brother and sister! I recall Leia saying something like "I've always known" or something profoundly ODD like that.

Probably because Moffat's plot holes are far far too numerous to mention. And anyway this has all been done to death before so why keep going over it? Neither the Moffat haters nor the Moffat fanboys are going to change their opinions now (unless something spectacular happens in Series 8).

True. I just hope the Moffat haters go into S8 with an open mind. As should the fanboys. A fresh start with all the divisive elements of the last few years pretty much finished. I think everyone needs to check their preconceptions at the door and see how it goes.

He's not singled out. But when his plots are focussed on trying to be clever with the smaller details and the "timey-wimey" aspect of it, then when the timey-wimey aspect doesn't add up then it's buggered.

I think the thing about the Silence wasn't that people were nervous of adding two and two, it's that their plan made absolutely no sense. They were destroying the universe in order to... prevent the Doctor from destroying the universe at a later date? Everyone understood the implication, but it didn't make narrative sense going with the data we currently had.

The explanation isn't, "Yes, it was the Silence," everyone got that, it was, "Yes, that's a rogue sect of the Silence, it was contrary to the aim of the rest of the church, and had no idea the universe was going to collapse like that."

A big plot hole in time of the doctor was that the doctor failed to answer the question, when dorium's prophecy said that no living creature would '...fail to answer'

Other than that, I got nothin'

This is why Skyfall bugged me. It kept trying to be clever but it was just ridiculous (well, I suppose that is in keeping with the older Bond films). I'm not one of those people who prod around for plot holes because plots are a dime a dozen; when it gets down to it, what people really care about are characters- but no prodding was required in Skyfall's case!

Also, the problem is that people are naturally irritated if they know that something is meant to be clever/moving/romantic and then it falls short.

Nothing beats The Android Invasion for plotholes (A story which I love).

Just to be clear, I'm not bashing Moffat and I actually have some theories to explain some of the following but spotting plot holes is fun and these are some that I have found:

I consider Capaldi and the Curator turning up in Day of the Doctor a plot hole since he shouldn't have existed in the same timeline that the Doctor dies at Trenzalore (which until Time of the Doctor is still the timeline).

Clara already having been split through time and turning up in Asylum and Snowmen before she jumps in the crack to change the timeline is, IMO, a plot hole. If the crack was predestination then why wouldn't the Doctor remember all the other Claras and why would things be changing when the GI goes in the crack if Clara has, as far as the Universe is concerned, already gone through the crack?

Why did the Doctor not just tell the Time Lords it wasn't safe on Trenzalore instead of fending their enemies off for 300+ years? If Clara could speak to them through the crack then presumably he could.

Why did the Time Lords close the crack and retreat after saving the Dcotor when, at that point, it was actually safe to come through?

How come the Korvarian faction didn't already know that the Doctor wasn't going to let the Time Lords through? Couldn't they just go into the future and see that he died on Trenzalore steadfastly refusing to speak his name? There would have been no reason to try to kill him.

How come the War Doctor assumes he is 800 years old, regenerates into the 9th Doctor and shortly afterwards announces that he is 900 years old?

How come the message of Time of the Doctor is that you can't change events that you're a part of (which is consistent with rules set up as far back as classic Who) and yet Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS and Name of the Doctor featured people doing precisely that?

How come River is so upset when Rory goes to Stormcage in AGMGTW, as though she already knows his and Amy's fate?

...Because by the time TATM it happens she has already been released from Stormcage

I wouldn't say things like that are plot holes, they're just unexplained. I'd say it's rather things that contradict each other or don't make sense it terms of what has already been established.

The Two Doctors contained a massive plot hole, which spawned a whole bunch of fan theories as to how an older Second Doctor and Jamie could be travelling together, with Jamie knowing about the time lords, when at the end of the Second Doctor's life he was sent back to Scotland with his memories of the Doctor wiped while the Doctor regenerated.

While the fan theories are quite compelling, and make sense, this situation has never been explained onscreen nor even alluded to in the episode, from what I remember of it...

ETA: I suspect it was just a plain continuity error - no one thought about the implications at the time...

this pretty much sums it up. Though just to say as someone who has felt let down by moffat's arc's (although still think overall their are more good singular episodes than bad in each series) I am going into series 8 with an open mind, and hoping that something spectacular will happen in series 8 that will make up for everything else. The fact that it is heavily rumoured to be his last series gives me hope that he will create a simple arc which can be started and finished within one series.

Yes, there were quite a few plot holes related to the second Doctor. It's all explained here:

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Season_6B