A little read from the tour.

Moffat:


Jenna:


Peter:


http://www.themarysue.com/steven-mof...or-who-fandom/

I have to agree with every word Moffat said. In fact, I've said similar here on DS many times - how important it is to separate fans from viewers more generally. And the last place they should look for useful feedback is here.

RTD has a story about (I think) Helen Raynor being left devastated after reading online feedback about (again, I think) Daleks in Manhatten and how angry he was as a result.

These forums are a place for hard-core Who fans to moan, complain, praise and argue. Don't come here for commonsensical critical feedback!

There's no excuses or hand waving when the general sentiment is in favour of an episode though. Then it's fine for Who fans to be the loudest voice. If he took that attitude toward positive comments the same as negative then I'd respect his opinion, but as it is he's happy to bask in praise while poo-pooing criticism as meaningless.

To be fair to Moffat, the show's undergone significant changes in direction over the past few seasons.

It feels as though he has moved away from what he originally intended following a lot of critical feedback, so it does feel as though he listens to criticisms.

I'm starting to learn not to read the comments on Doctor Who Facebook posts. Unnecessarily toxic. Go and check out the moaning and complaining about the BBC putting out teasers for the new series. A waste of time! Utterly pointless! Why would you upload this? Why did I just watch this? What was the point of this, BBC?! David Tennant will always be the best!


Even admitted that The Beast Below was a bit of a mess

I'll be interested to see the day when Moffat disagrees with outrageously positive and biased comments about his show. We'll all be complaining about it, I'm sure.

"Yeah... Doctor Who isn't actually that good - you silly, silly people."

We'll all be complaining about it, I'm sure. Are there many examples of producers making excuses for and "hand-waving" positive feedback?

Of course not, because then they're more than happy to accept it as correct. That's the double standard that makes his opinion worthless to me.

If that's the case then he shouldn't dismiss them as being so meaningless.

I think Moffat is referring to a certain kind of commenter we all have seen. Not those like yourself and most on here who voice legitimate and fair criticisms. He's talking more about the bizarre sub culture of comments section warriors. They are a minority but they can have devastating effects on peoples confidence (Helen Raynor) if you're not prepared to just take them entirely with a massive pinch of salt and laugh it off.

Like the Sherlock threads. Don't like the episode? Many didn't. But calling the show a national embarrassment, that Moffat shames British writing and its the worst program of the last ten years? That's just silly. Its like the people who troll the comments threads on Guardian music. You can bet the house that any Coldplay article will be full of comments not from Coldplay fans or anyone every vaguely interested. Itll be all 'worst band ever' and 'there music isn't even music' and other grandstanding statements. These sad sacks are a pox on the internet. Like a certain Twitter account entirely dedicated to trashing Moffats Who and nothing else. Mindless. And stupid. And rightly should be ignored.

But those who have decent arguments? Moffat wouldn't seek to silence them. No evidence he ever has. Of course he would prefer to hear praise. Who wouldn't. But its clear he does listen. Just not to idiots and trolls.

And by idiots and trolls I don't mean someone who doesn't like X, Y and Z. I mean the sort who go no further than 'youre the worst such and such ever'. Moffat got some vile abuse. You can guarantee since Jenna joined some sociopathic malcontent has been sending nasty drivel. Look at Zelda Williams. Says it all.

Spot on.
I think Moffat doesn't want to be seen to be bowing to pressure from fans. He maintains this air of 'I don't care what's tweeted about Doctor Who' and he's very quick to dismiss (frequently valid) criticism as merely the product of crazed fans, but it's quite clear that he still does take notice of what's said and written on the net.

A very obvious case in point - the Big Fat Gypsy Daleks. Look how fast he back-pedalled over these when it became clear that the redesign was a huge mistake and that almost no-one liked them. So he does listen, to reasonable arguments, and vaguely sensible comments.

But there is a subculture of really bizarre commentary however, especially on these news sites (why is that?) and this may well be the product of crazed fans...

I can't imagine any writer dissing positive feedback. That's basically what Gerald Ratner did, and look what happened to the Ratners Group!

But a lot of it is meaningless - and is most likely what his remarks are aimed at. Let us remember that this man was on Twitter. In being so - he opened what The Thick of It called "the sh*t room." But all that stuff is still there. It's still on Twitter and Facebook and blogs and every other corner of the Internet on every other form of media.



This stuff is churned out over and over again, day after day after day... is this the sort of criticism that Moffat is going to take on board? I doubt it.

Even positive comments and blind praise are meaningless to a certain degree on the Internet. Facebook and Twitter posts don't generally decide whether a TV show is a success or not. The third series of Sherlock was the most successful for the BBC - but if you looked at the DS discussion thread - you would assume that nobody has anything good to say about it.

Yep. I'd also like to thank the Digital Spy Doctor Who forums very own spokesman for the very thing Moffat is talking about for contributing to this thread and proving his point (no name necessary....work it out )

You're right, she was on the phone to him, and she had convinced herself that she couldn't write, RTD had to spend a significant amount of time consoling her.

Thinking aloud, could this be why she got to write the Sontaran two parter in series 4? Was this RTD showing faith in Helen because he knew that she could write?

Either way they were a great couple of eps

Yes, and very sad that the show nearly lost a great writer like Helen because of what's said on forums like this.

I do think Moffat has taken feedback on board, though, and I do think there have been changes as a result; format changes, story arcs dropped, Peter Capaldi getting a 'clean slate' with all the outstanding storylines wrapped up in "The Time of the Doctor".

So I would certainly argue that there were clear changes in direction from Moffat's starting point that indicate he did revise his master-plan as he went along. And I think that reflects well on him that he was willing to listen and adapt.

or rather than making snide sideswipes against other forum members you could have courage and say who you are referring to.

I can see the issue with Twitter and Facebook but I have to say that Moffatt could worse than read forums like this, particularly out of season.

Immediate reaction to episodes is no use to him but there have been interesting points on the general trend of the show which I am sure are valid.

Is it wrong that I want to see that show?

From my own experience, 80% of anything said on the internet about anything is absolute shite. Just look at the YouTube comments of any video.

But it's not exactly a clean slate, sure the Silence storyline was tied up but there is still a matter of how The Doctor and Clara got out of his timestream and the fact that it was clearly a rushed and quite frankly disappointingly poor pay off that left a lot to be desired. My thought is that he was starting to run out of ideas on that and just called it a day and moved on to a new Doctor because it was going away from where he was originally intending to go and he was able to return to where he wanted to go - a more traditional Doctor Who than the soap opera it was becoming.


Agreed, it is depressing how so many people here and else where on the internet feel the need to resort to personal insults to respond to the slightest bit of criticism. Why can't people just get along with each other and live and let live?

Hear hear. A spot on comment.


I would so PAY to see that TV show...

I normally agree with most of what you write, but I don't in this instance. "Ordinary" viewers let the plot holes and inconsistencies wash over them. Just because we take a more analytical approach doesn't mean we are wrong or cannot offer commonsensical feedback.

One thing that really grates with me about Moffat is how his stories (and others on his watch) are always bigged up in DWM before transmission as if they are the best works of fiction since Shakespeare. When they are transmitted most do not live up to the hype. He shouldn't therefore complain when people are not satisfied that what they were promised wasn't delivered.

I would like to think the shows creators, producers, actors etc had the conviction to make the show out of their own ideas and inspirations and have it stand on its own two feet in regards to the praise and criticisms that came after it aired.

Some of the worst Who was made when it was listening to its fanbase too much and trying to make a show to please them

On the other hand some of Who's finest hours have been when it set out to tell a quality story, fanbase be damned. (and yet, they end up being the most popular episodes with said fanbase too!)

That said ,everyone involved with the show is human and I'm sure no one can resist googling their names occasionally to see what people think of them.
As long as they realise that people only really come on the internet, and discussion forums such as this, to bitch, moan and complain.
Those who are happy and satisfied with episodes or series never seem to feel the need to pic up their keyboard, but those who have even the most minor niggle with it rush straight to their computers to get their opinions aried.

Unless there's a second, more positive internet out there I haven't been made aware of yet

Just make the show you need to make guys, nobody is perfect in the end and I'm sure the Who we're getting is a hell of a lot better than any story a crazed internet commenter could ever manage in their wildest dreams

I think the production team usually find exactly the right balance between the hopes of the fans and the mind boggling demands that must go with making a high profile programme.

We're thousands out of millions, and lots of 'serious' fans are quite happy to let many plot holes and the like pass. After all, what's Doctor Who without plot holes and inconsistencies? This forum would be half the size if everything was neat and tidy. I love being a Doctor Who fan and I enjoy discussions like we see on this forum, but I know that much of is just obsessional madness to most people. They're right, of course, and that's fine by me. I'm glad those who have influence over the show know it too.

I doubt you're a creative type if you believe that.

One can't be creative if one is going to listen to and take into account every negative voice. You can't. It will destroy your confidence. It will make you second guess every thing you do. What some people don't realize is that creators are human. Further to that they can be very sensitive. They are putting themselves into a vunerable position, putting themselves out there to be shot at out of passion for what they do, and they need some sort of shield to be able to do that. That shield is to NOT read every random screed against their work on the internet.

Imagine having to hand your schoolwork into not just the teacher, but a million different people you don't know and if it's not good they're all going to put a big red line through it, tell you you're useless, you're worthless, and alot of them will insult you personally, which shouldn't hurt, because they don't even know, you BUT IT DOES BECAUSE YOU'RE HUMAN.

I would be horrified if I thought Mark Gattiss, for example, had read my views on his work on this forum. I make them on the assumption that he will not.

If you really think creators should be leaving themselves open to the abuse of the Internet then as I say, I doubt you've ever done any creative endeavour.

You seem to have based your entire response on the premise that I'm saying they should lap up every comment out there; I'm not. I simply highlighted the double standard that stops me from taking their view on internet critics particularly seriously.

Besides which, Moffat's frequent pontificating on this issue shows that he probably is reading these opinions all the time anyway. Perhaps you should tell him he's not creative?