BIB: That's also bad writing - if a character stops to explain how something works or what something is, especially something that is an everyday thing to them. For example, in original Star Trek, they never explain what a phaser is; they just get one and and shoot. If it was a police drama, no policeman would explain what a gun is before firing. Some early SF movies were guilty of that sort of thing. The extra difficulty SF has is getting across a new concept or idea to an audience without masses of dull exposition. Good writing manages to convey such things in the story in a more natural way.

Companion: "What was that, Doctor?"
Cue long explanation....

It's not really fair to write yourself into a corner and then say "Oh, if you want the resolution to that, how about buying this additional (and clearly non canonical ) merchandise on top of the licence fee you're already paying

Not that I'm suggesting they're doing that at all. This book won't have any affect on the canon of the show, and quite right too!

The biggest plothole to me is how much Amy was supposed to mean to The Doctor yet he couldn't be bothered to fly his Tardis to the time she ended up in but land in England and get a boat or something over to her.
Or just fly to a year before she arrived and wait.
Or the myriad of other ways he could actually meet Amy that the end of her final episode didn't make clear enough were actually off limits too.

I actually suspect there was some lines cut in this regard, maybe they thought it'd lessen the emotional impact if the next scene was The Doctor listing all these ways he can reach her to River and her quietly shooting them down or something, but the way it's presented atm, the way he's mourning her doesn't quite mesh with the fact he could probably still reach her if he thought a bit creatively. He was a lot more creative sans Tardis in 1963 or whatever year it was 10 was marooned in with Blink.
If he tries hard enough, nothing is impossible so it was a bit weird he just immediately gave up on his special Amy.

He had already seen Rory as an old man so he couldn't go back without separating Amy from Rory as he couldn't return Rory to the present without altering a fixed point in time. She made the conscious decision to allow the Angel to take her back to same place as Rory as she wanted to spend the rest of her life with him. She sacrificed her time in the present to spend her life with him. That doesn't mean that the Doctor couldn't have gone back to visit them from time to time. He just wouldn't be able to take Rory, at least, with him.

Yep- I think for that story they had to come up with a way to have Amy and Rory leave. Of course he could have found some way to get round it. He got round his own death being a 'fixed point' in the previous series by trickery. If you are right, and there were cut scenes ( The scene with he and River in the Tardis looks like it could have been longer and was cut) then they could have had River explaining that it's partly her fault they can't go anywhere near that place and time etc because that's what she was doing in 30s New York in the first place, and trying to work out what happened to her parents. So by doing that she inadvertently became part of the events which caused them to be trapped there in the first place. So the doctor can't interfere incase he knocks those events out of whack or something. Then they're back to square one- still being chased by Angels or something. Still though- no reason he couldn't have gone over in like 1955 or something and visited.



That's a good possibility, but I think we are meant to assume the old Rory they saw didn't happen anymore by the end of the episode. But the general idea of not being able to interfere too much in case it stops their thwarting of the Angels happening, thereby bringing them back. Also probably causing yet another paradox, and the region was supposedly very unstable already and could have destroyed a chunk of Earth or something.

Its a problem Doctor Who has always suffered with and has been particularly the case in New Who. Its sort of one of the companions primary functions- to ask the questions on behalf of the audience. But it is an issue and can be quite glaring. I remember an article a while back which was a bit of a hatchet job on New Who. I'm afraid I have no idea where it was or by whom but one bit that did stick out and rang true among alot of other petty criticism was that too often the dialogue exists purely to push the plot along and was just a series of snazzy sentences that lacked any truth or depth. I don't think this is always the case but there are times when it has a ring of truth. Rather than reacting in a human and emotional way to what's happening instead you get lines like 'So what are you saying Doctor? Do you mean if you do that and then this happens then that thing over there will do this?' 'Yes. Yes I do'.

I don't think it matters as much if the thing is exciting but sometimes it just sounds like "This is X, that I just made up, and this is my paragraph summary". For something to take on significance, you need to see it in action. Then the companion can voice the audience's thoughts- "Wow, what is that?" (Okay, not phrased in that cheesy way).

Of course sci-fi involves explaining but you have to give the reason an audience to care first, not simply instruct them on how the game goes.

indeed. I think its a problem that affects the more convoluted episodes that demand alot of expositional dialogue. And i think you could argue that if you need too much of that sort of dialogue then there's a problem with the story.

True. TV is a visual medium; the images should speak for themselves.

One of the hardest things for me was 11 and Rivers back to front topsy turvey paradox of a "marriage". Way he treated her in S5 and S6 right up untill the big reveal at Demons Run. He kept asking her who she was. He allready knew he is the universes most dumbest smart person!. 10 watched her die to save him and their future relationship. What more prove of love and trust did he need?. Plus she was the one other person who knew his real name.Hopefully the story in S8 will be a littel easier to follow. We don't want to have question or try to explain everything. Just enjoy the story.

I think ‘BLINK’ demonstrates MOFFATS style over substance writing style, which leads to monstrous plot holes. For example, The Doctor and Martha are zapped back to 1969, which develops into The Doctor leaving a breadcrumb trail throughout the decades for Sally Sparrow to pick up on in 2008 (or whenever it was set). But the question was never answered as to what happened to The Doctor in 1969? Did him and Martha set up home in the Cotswolds to live out their lives together? Hang on, he’s a century spanning time lord. Why did he need to do leave the Easter Egg trail or involve the Jamaican cop to give his deathbed message. He could have just lived out the forty –odd years and told himself the message. Or why couldn’t he visit himself as Troughton, Pertwee or Baker and facilitate either getting off-world, or some other ‘timey wimey’ solution. He just seems to disappear from the story. The Angels are a stylish plot device, but the story doesn’t work.

He couldn't just live out the time for two reasons: a) because the Angels were after his TARDIS and b) because he was with Martha and, while she still might have "had desires" of him, she presumably didn't want to have to live out her life from the 1960s.

A bit of a disappointment after being offered the wonders of the universe!

He couldn't meet earlier versions because, although it has happened from time to time, he's not supposed to cross his own time stream.

Also, imagine the embarrassment at having to admit to his earlier selves that he'd lost the TARDIS.

reading the description for this I notice it states the doctor was defending trenzalore for 900 years, is this accurate?

Nothing you mentioned is a plot hole and its all clearly explained in the episode.

Two things I have picked up from GB;

First thing;
"Moffat's assumption that his fans are intelligent enough to fill in the gaps themselves is an insult to fan's intelligence." This is the opinion being pushed on that website by people who don't comprehend the 2010-13 silence story-arc and instead of just admit this, claim they aren't at fault - it's all to do with Moffat's "bad writing" and "incoherent plots." Fact is, Moffat is complementing fans by assuming they are clever enough (that is, of at least average intelligence) to keep up with events. The storyline does make sense, and just as Moffat said, questions nobody thought to ask were answered, such as, how is River still around in The Big Bang to give Amy her diary? And how did River teleport from the crash of the Byzantium (an event firmly in the pre-reboot universe given the importance of the crack-in-time there), to Amy's house which is firmly in the post-reboot universe in The Wedding of River Song? Answer? All of those events (cracks, bang, reboot, River's whole life, etc.) were part of an immutable timeline the Silence were unwittingly causing to happen in their misguided efforts to prevent it. River could still exist, and hop between the pre- and post-reboot universe because essentially, it was all pretty much set in stone. The Destiny Trap. It is all explained and does not take genius-level intelligence, just attention, thought and imagination.

Second thing;
"If you need to clarify bits of the plot in a magazine interview, you've failed." This was a statement in reference to the fact that Moffat confirmed in DWM that the Doctor and Clara "just walked out" of the timestream at the end of Name of the Doctor, something which some fans appeared physically and mentally incapable of imagining for themselves without the aid of a childishly didactic mini-episode or an info-dump final scene which would have killed the tension. My reply to this statement is, "if you lack the intelligence or imagination to connect the dots yourself and need to refer to a magazine interview to connect them for you, then you've failed as a sentient life form."

Many of the so-called "plot holes" and "unanswered questions" of DW are in fact, nothing of the sort. The notorious "why didn't Amy remember the Daleks?" question in episode 3 of Series 5 was answered in episode 5 of Series 5 - two weeks later - and yet people stuck at that question relentlessly for years afterwards. It's ridiculous.

Time will be the ultimate judge - in the future, those who binge on series 5, 6 and 7 box-sets will be able to connect the dots and the various wikis and write-ups about the Silence arc, and the Eleventh Doctor's time in the blue box, will catch up, vindicating Moffat and making a mockery of sites like GB.

AS someone else mentioned the Angels were after the Tardis, and he didn't want them to get it. And also - why would he want to live his life out in the Cotswolds when all he has to do is leave a few messages in the right places, and BAM! the Tardis should appear in 5 or 10 minutes time (to his point of view). Sorted- back on with the adventures. That's why you think he just 'disappears from the story'. It's on with the adventures- same time, same channel, same day, next week. So instead of the ending being Dr and Martha back on the Tardis saying "phew that was a close one" or whatever, we got the rather cool ending, following Sally Sparrow (who we've been following all episode, so it makes sense to follow her here- this is HER story really and not a Dr story, being the 'Dr Light' episode of the series) as she sees the Doctor, who hasn't had these events happen to him yet.



I can't remember if the exact number of years was shown, but it was definitely many hundreds.

300 years is the time given between the Doctor sending Clara home the first time and the TARDIS's creaky return after the wooden Cyberman bites the dust, but it is not stated how many years passes between then and the very old Doctor.

As a fairly new Doctor Who fan, I have always wondered if I have always been missing something. You have nailed it on the head for me. This is the exact same way that I have felt but listening to the discussions I was wondering if I was missing some deeper meaning. I should have just trusted my instincts and my eyes with the simple truths.

Thank you for simply putting it right out in the open for everyone. I particularly like the one about the timeline. It is exactly the way I put it to another poster - the Doctor and Clara just walked right back out the rift. It was the simple answer, the obvious answer. Why make it difficult?

A plot hole is not really an unanswered question. It's a question which the writer simply CAN'T solve because he would undermine his own logic by doing so. There's a difference between leaving a question open and being unable to answer it.

My understanding of it was that as Rory committed suicide ("Oh no! They killed Rory!") that the 'well' of the Weeping Angels had been poisoned by a paradox and as such the future with Rory being old and bed ridden in that hotel no longer occurs. Ergo Rory can now actually leave that time safely. It is no longer a fixed point. Actually, it can't have ever been a fixed point because it has now changed. Remember, it was explained that Amy wasn't there with Old Rory because he was so overjoyed at seeing her. So as Amy went back to be with Rory that future no longer exists.........................................

My head hurst....

That's certainly one type of plot hole, but it can certainly also be something as simple as a possible escape that the protagonists miss completely, or a fact that seems to contradict something that went before. It doesn't have to be impossible, it just has to defy common sense. The plot should provide obstacles that force the characters into action - a plot hole is something that would let them tunnel straight through the obstacles and circumvent the whole thing.

But of course the protagonists can't take that blindingly obvious route that they conveniently miss otherwise the whole thing would be over in a matter of minutes. I think this is why we have loads of angry hotheaded cops, who use common sense to solve crimes but then go and do something that makes no sense whatsoever.

was just wondering because if 900 years is now what is being officially stated(considering that it wasn't said in the episode and this book is official merchandise), and the new who doctor's were right about their age, that means his stint on trenzalore lasted almost as long as his entire life had until that point (the span from hartnell to tennant).That being the case, travelling the universe would feel so long ago he would feel a bit unsure of doing it again. Wonder if they will reflect on this and show a bit of reluctance to travel on capaldi's first episode

^^^This is genius. That is a great explanation to why he asked Clara if she knew hiw to fly the TARDIS. He's forgotten. It would also be an interesting way to reboot the character a little. Add this to the revelations at the end of the 50th and it could be a really different show when it returns.

Except there is a reason he can't go back and see them. The last page of the book. Unless you wish to disregard the rest of the episode beforehand, it is a perfectly adequate reason for him not going - because he hasn't gone.

From his perspective, he could find them as soon as they disappear, but then he reads the last page of the book, and knows he never now can go. This is established in the episode itself - that when the words are read, this is a fixed point. It might be unsatisfying, YMMV, but regardless, it was established to allow the fact that he can't go back and see them at all.

The 'how' was never really the problem. It's the consequences of doing it that was the risk.