Actually, I'll revise my initial argument. People can find plot holes in shows if they are bored; because they don't have an emotional connection, they are more aware of plot holes- even if there are not necessarily any more plot holes than any other show. So a show could be technically well-written in the sense that it has less contrivances and plot holes than other shows but it fails on an emotional level.

However, I think that if you are very emotionally engaged with a show and view it as being of very high standard, you can be tripped up by plot holes as well because you are questioning your judgement, wanting to see if it really is 'perfect'.

The plot hole that bugged me is a big spoiler for a show so I'll refer to it in generic terms. A character is being blamed for a murder they did not commit. Prior to reaching the crime scene, they receive a call in which the victim sounds incredibly distressed and actually names her murderer-to-be and says that he has a gun. So a search of the victim's call history would easily clear them.

In some respects, the characters' actions can be explained by the type of person they are and the fact that in all thriller/crime films and shows, there are necessarily moments where mistakes are made and things are overlooked.

Doctor Who's plots don't tend to have this type of plot hole because, well, your lead guy isn't human so we wouldn't expect him to use 'our' logic. It's more of a question of things being forgotten or contradicted. Part of this stems from the show having gone on for fifty years and partly it's a question of what individual writers or producers prefer.

OTT I know but I hardly think a farm boy from a remote planet fancying ( or being dazzled by the glamour of) a princess amounts to incest..as at first .especially as she tends to treats him more like a pet while trying not to eye up the bit of rough.

Not sure about your other questions, but I'm pretty sure this was addressed. I think Clara said in her voice-out in 'Name of the Doctor' that he only actually interacted with her in Asylum and Snowmen and that she saved him silently at all the other points in his timeline.
And it's probably fair to say he would have forgotten what the Clara who told him which Tardis to take looked like.

But she snogs him and then says at the end when he tells her they're brother and sister: "I know. Somehow, I've always known."

Clara said that sometimes he was aware of her and sometimes he wasn't. We then immediately got shown a scene where he was aware of her!

I think it stretches credulity a little bit if, of the apparent millions of Claras throughout the Doctor's timestream (all of which were actual living people who were born and grew up etc.), only three of them were ever spotted by the Doctor!

I suppose you could say that something that is massively improbable is still possible and, therefore, not a plot hole but that only takes care of the first part. The second part was the fact that, when the GI jumped into the timeline, things started changing. Strax turned bad, various people disappeared, planets disappeared, the Doctor started writhing around in agony...

However, if Clara being split into pieces throughout Time had already happened by the time that series 7 started then so must the GI having been split through Time already happened. So why would anything change when the GI jumps in, if the universe was already the result of both the Clara and GI fragments' actions?

I have a pet theory that adds additional material that can explain this stuff but it's too complicated a solution for me to think that this is what was intended. I think the writer just didn't think it through and, as such, I think it qualifies as a plot hole.

Being science fiction does not excuse bad writing. Its detractors regularly cite that as the reason why they dislike it compared to other genres.

I'm not sure it's still true today but there used to be a good deal of snobbery about sf.

Good writing should include some level of internal self consistency whatever the genre. Science fiction has the advantage of having many more ways of plausibly changing or explaining things than most other genres.

The weird thing is, I still like Doctor Who, despite the notable lack of consistency it often displays.

My beef with it is when it becomes so wound up in mythology and concepts and terminology that it becomes impenetrable. Of course, that is the allure for some, but I prefer characters and drama. What the relaunch of Doctor Who did was that it had characters and drama. The Doctor's backstory was much more simple and it relied on something emotional and dramatic.

I agree with you that all drama should have its own internal logic, even if the logic is a fantasy logic that bears no resemblance to our own human logic. I think that fantasy has a duty to keep to its own logic, because we grow to accept its logic as being an alternate reality, so you expect it to conform just as human logic conforms. Science fiction can change its logic with the snap of a finger; particularly easy for a show with time travel and alternate realities. So if you change your mind about a plot or character, just say it happened in an alternate reality! Or go back/forward in time and fix it all.

The downside to this is that things can never satisfyingly conclude. A dead character can easily pop back, a bit of plot can easily be rewritten. When you as the writer have the power to change history, the temptation is to fiddle with it as much as you want (though I think the War Doctor thing was justifiable, as the show needed something 'big' for its fiftieth anniversary).

Different rules for Royalty... Must be... :s

Why did River and the Doctor choose to run around in a hotal full of Angels when they could have just Vortex Manipulator-ed out?(TATM)

How about:

To avoid possible 'spoilers' River goes to Stormcage with Rory, then when he leaves just walks out again because she's not imprisoned there. So- she did it just to let Rory believe she was still serving her sentence there. That kinda works I think?

This is totally answered in that episode- because in all those scenes where she interacts with past doctors she is wearing the clothes of a current (to them) companion. So in those instances, she has 'quantum leap' style jumped into the body of that person temporarily. Although WE as the audience see HER face, to everyone else she doesn't look like that. So with Doc 1 on Gallifrey he has 2 'get outs' of a plot whole. 1- possible forgets her face from 100s of years ago, or 2 she didn't look like that to him. If it wasn't a supposed plot whole for quantum leap, then shouldn't be here either.

Even with these 'loop' stories where things have already happened in the future affecting your past there still has to be a sort of 'join' to where the loop begins and ends. or an overlap. In this case it was when the GI first jumped into the timestream and before Clara went in. That is the join/overlap. Of course, it is also possible that those things were happening just to show the viewer what would/should be happening or something

I fear for the mental stability of people who actively seek plotholes, and there are some who do this, and feel they have achieved something by doing so.

Fair enough if you want something explaining. I have on occasion, Inland Empire, for one.

But in the main let the story take you where it wants to lead you. It is more fun that way.

If you were insane enough to try you could find a plothole in every book, film, tv show or play ever written. Don't see what you get out it though.

Maybe the plot holes can be filled in?

I agree. People overthink things, especially when it comes to Doctor Who. I think it takes the enjoyment out of it, instead of just watching and enjoying it.

Indeedy. Of course science fiction doesn't make sense, otherwise it wouldn't be fiction!

Hey, hey, hey - do we start coming in to your threads and telling you that we fear for your mental stability since you don't pay any attention to plot holes?

They're not really "plot holes" ...


... they're just "cracks" in the narrative

Surely by the time anyone gets to the point of posting on this forum they have waved goodbye to any mental stability a long time ago?

Or perhaps that's just me....

Yes- a man from the (Klingon high) council comes round once a month to fill those plotholes in. Very thorough he is too. Although sometimes there may be a tiny alien spacecraft inside that will make a child down the street draw bad episodes

A lot of what people call plot holes are just little unexplained bits, that can be worked out/worked around if you just think them through. It doesn't mean it's right, but just means there are a few possibilities sometimes, and the story is not going to tell us EVERYTHING. Sometimes things are left unexplained for a reason, and we find out much later, sometimes they are just unexplained things.

Like in real life when people see UFOs or think they've seen a ghost- you don't HAVE an explanation, but there are possibilities that DO explain them. (yes one possibility is that the UFO actually was an alien spacecraft- that's a perfectly valid possibility- but it could also have been a weather balloon too etc.) ...I have to say I do have some holes myself though, now I'm thinking... perhaps someone has thought these through with possibilities:

Power of 3 with the heart attacks. Episode was looking like it might be excellent up until then. After that bit it just went so far downhill I don't think it has stopped yet. Makes me rate that episode as one of the bottom handful, (if I had to make a list that is) since 2005.

Also- Giant cyber king in Victorian London. You know... the one with millions of witnesses your great great granny used to tell your granny when she was wee, and then she told you about...no?- must just have been my granny then.

Then there was planet Earth being removed from orbit and taken to another part of the universe...but let's just keep all the people alive and make sure the people still have an atmosphere and oxygen, and heat. They are kind you know, those Daleks. They'd rather just leave us alive for no reason for a little bit longer before wiping out all life in the universe That one was actually alright at the time I thought, good effects in that episode and good characters etc, with a lot going on. But seeing it a 2nd ( or 3rd...) time, then thinking about it just makes you start to cringe.

Another episode like that was bad wolf. How Rose gets the Tardis panel off and then becomes bad wolf- again didn't bother me at the time much, but when I saw it not long ago I just thought 'uh oh'...

Thankfully those last 3 have all been covered with explanations in 2010 and in 2013 (Cyber King and Dalek crucible could have been victims of the cracks, then Rose/Bad Wolf is covered by the moment in the anniversary.) Possibly even doc9's arrival and first meeting with rose is also covered by the moment's interfering as well. He wouldn't remember, but he could have been left with an impulsion to go to that place at that time to 'bump into' Rose.

"Who blew up the Tardis" is NOT a plot hole. It was a deliberate mystery, and it was not blown up from the inside, but by external means. Everything fits that way, and we now know who caused it, and what they were really trying to do. The console at the end and the voice "Silence must fall"... a message the Tardis received (before anyone asks the back-question to that, how does the tardis receive any other type of message through the shows history. there have been a thousand ways). That's just one possibility. As it happened right at the end it could also be seen as a bit of a 'next time' trailer for the next series, to whet our appetites and get us all thinking and talking about it in between s5 and s6. A bit link you see the "NEXT TIME" words come up on shows etc. It might not have been an actual thing happening as part of events in the whoniverse. It might just have been a little audience teaser/ad or something like that. Anyway- I'm going with message from the future that was picked up by the Tardis on that one, which caused the sparks and the voice message to play.There are other possibilities.

I've got another Star Wars one too which kinda bugged me at the time when I first saw it. Not majorly though, just a minor point. In Attack of the Clones Amidala falls off the flying thing onto the sand, as they are chasing Dooku, which then disappears off somewhere during the chase, leaving her behind. Some more clone troopers show up and she tells them where to go- but they're long gone- how does she know where they went ( I'm going to get told she was using the force or something now aren't I? lol). Anyway- just a minor point as I said- as I did like that film

I hope he makes sure there are no bumps.

Sadly it was resolved in the worst possible way. It was an important part of that story, a big mystery and it was resolved as almost an afterthought. It might as well have been a "PS the butler did it" after the end credits

Is it the writer's responsibility to resolve mysteries and possible plot holes? No, I don't think so. But that has implications. Opinions form about the show purely based on the conclusion to mysteries. Look at Battlestar Galactica (modern version). Generally very well regarded but heavily tainted in the minds of many because of the resolutions to the mysteries it painted. Lost is another series that suffered the same.

And the sad reality is that, for me at least, I start to become apathetic about the show. For example, "The Curator" should be a mystery that has me chatting away about who that is. But I don't care. The resolutions in New Who have been so unsatisfying that I no longer care too much about the story - I'm less involved and engaged in the show than I ever have been. That's not to say it's a bad show, it's not. But it feels more disposable than it's ever felt. When the show introduces a mystery it's no longer a must watch to try and figure it out because, more often than not, you can't.

I can get what you're saying in general, but the mystery abiout the tardis blowing up was solved for many people by themselves just thinking about it not long after. It remained to be seen who wanted the doctor out of the way- which we knew was coming. Then in s6 when more people saw what was going on with the silence a lot more people just joined the dots. It's certainly not like lost or heroes where some things are introduced as being major plot lines and then dumped immediately the following weekm never to be heard of again. It's been on-going all the time with little hints here there and everywhere, and then the "PS the butler did it moment" as you put it was only a very small confirmation, just to put a full stop on that little mystery in case anyone was still wondering by then. It certainly didn't need any more. A lot of people will tell you it didn't need anything at all and ask why did they put that line in there. We've seen the answer already if we've been watching.
So- it's hard for the writers to win either way sometimes. There will always be people saying " you should have done the opposite to that" no matter which way round it's done. So- to me, the whole story of what this "endless bitter war" that the Koovarian silence wanted to prevent was what I wanted to see. We'd already seen the hints since s5 up until then about who what why etc- and the story showed us what it was all about in the first place. Story told, no loose ends? I'm not sure-Can't think of any glaring ones, but the loose ends some people have been moaning about have certainly been tied up.

I don't think it should, you know!

Nobody's expecting closure on the Curator, are they? The suggestion is that if he is relevant to the Doctor's timeline and he's not just a quirky curator, it's not an event that's going to happen within the Doctor's lifetime until long after the Doctor's TARDIS days are behind him. It's very heavily hinted as to who he is - he raises more answers than questions, but in a way that's just ambiguous enough to be rewritten should a later writer have a good idea.

I think the curator solves a lot too. Well at least it's a possible solution to quite a few things. The line that suggests he "revisits a few old favourites" when it comes to faces can be used to explain loads of stuff from the classic era. certain things could have been a future doctor doing something, he just looked like an old one..you know, that sorry of thing

Just seen while browsing this deal hunter website


Doctor Who: Tales of Trenzalore: The Eleventh Doctor's Last Stand [Kindle Edition]

Tales of Trenzalore documents four of the Doctor's adventures from different periods during the Siege of Trenzalore and the ensuing battle.

Maybe it would tie up a few things for some people??

(then again maybe it will cause a few more plot holes or something lol)

It was just a way of giving Tom Baker a cameo, with a knowing wink.