The OP has a point. To the person who said ''they were from a 2D univers, explained'' you really must enjoy watching Cbeebies.

Back when RTD was EP he would always explain the villians reasons, e.g Slitheen- for profit from blown up Earth, Cybermen- to upgrade the human race, carrionitates- to release their trapped race, Toclafame- fun, Adipose- breeding planet lost and needed human fat to make children, Sontarans- to create a clone planet to win a war with the Rutans. RTD took time to explain character, plot and monsters. Moffat tries to do one and misses the other two.

Saying they are from a ''2D universe'' is not sufficient. We need back stories for all characters instead of Moffast continuous implying.

Rant over

Serious question - Why do we need back stories for all characters?
There have been plenty of characters across all 51 years of Doctor Who who've never had back stories.
To pick one at random - Sgt Benton.
He was a consistent part of the show in the early 1970s yet we know precisely nothing about him (apart from the fact that has a sister who he goes dancing with!).
We don't know his background, anything about his parents, why he joined the army / UNIT, not even his first name!
Yet he's there. Good old dependable Benton. Fans have imagined various back stories for him - isn't that more fun?

Better a 2D universe than a 1D monster, is all I'd say. "Let's have a scary monster?" "Okay, what's their motivation?" "Er, fun?" The sole distinguishing characteristic is the means they want to use to take over the planet, killers cars or diet pills or Big Brother.

RTD didn't waste any time explaining motivation, they were just bad guys and that's that. Moffat at least would have a scene with the Sontarans explaining why they weren't trying the kill the humans out of malice, but because it was a necessary step in their righteous war, and surely they must understand the greater good?

The one thing Moffat has brought to the table is to make monsters more than just monsters. Surely we can let his team away with a species that are just, by their very natures, 'unknowable'?

I starting to go off the show. I'm not sure what my problem is with the show.

I'm finding some good ideas
A good Doctor
Some witty one lines

but...

I don't know, I'm not finding the stories very good - for Capaldi. It's like the writers still see Smith or Tennant in the role. Maybe I expected something radically different I don't know - Flatliners - I loved the possibility of the people trapped in the walls but found the execution of the script disappointing.

The mummy episode seemed too rushed. That could have been a 2 parter - part 1 being the menace on the train and then part 2 about finding a way to kill it. As soon as I'm into a story, its over. Don't even get me started on egg moon (that for me was the worst story EVER!)

Isn't that a natural consequence of one-episode stories? In the old days, stories used to be developed over four weeks. Quite a few Pertwee adventures had six or seven episodes.

Not entirely disagreeing with your main point but doesn't it depend on how you define "back story". Sgt Benton wasn't just put on screen and given a gun - we at least knew why he was wearing a uniform and was armed and why he was in the building - because UNIT's back-story already encompassed those points.

Compare that with a character that just walks up, punches the Tardis and walks off. If it was a Dalek, we'd already know why - but not some random bloke with absolutely no "history". And it doesn't help that if we DO speculate on such a bloke's motives, we are lambasted by the "Do you need it all spelled out for you" brigade so the idea that it's fun to imagine is somewhat limited also for anyone wanting to discuss the show on this forum.

The point is, there needs to be a context for characters and ONE WAY of providing that without taking up hours of valuable screen time is to give them a back-story that can be quickly explained by the Doctor - simply saying "I landed the Tardis on his prize marrow" is all it takes - no need to show it happening. Even then, there will be occasions where maintaining mystery is a deliberate element - as it was on Saturday.

Failing that, we need to accept that a lot more things will be open to interpretation and "theories" - which will upset some people.

Maybe thats why I am expecting too much. Too much detail. Too much story that can be squeezed into 45 minutes. Maybe the 2 part story coming up will change how I feel. I mean some of the 6 parters were padded but I think the 4 parters were just about the right duration.

Moffat tried to give us the best of both worlds - a series long story with one and two part episodic adventures forming parts of that whole. I loved it but some other "fans" were uncomplimentary and the phrase "series arc" was spat out like a swear word.

No matter what they do, there will always be someone to complain about it - which is why Moffat stopped reading "fan" forums when he got the job.

No, they were all (with the obvious exception of the entity in Listen) explained very clearly. You should pay more attention to the episodes.

No - they wanted to stop the Doctor, so they blew up his ship. They didn't know it would destroy the universe. And the only reason it did destroy the universe was due to the Alliance placing the Doctor in the Pandorica.

The goal was not to blow up the universe - as you have already pointed out...

You're right Minky, there's back stories and there's back stories, but I think the point I was trying to make, probably not very clearly, is that surely we don't always need to know everything about a character. Sometimes not knowing is just as much fun.

Also, to pick up on one of your other points - even saying "I landed the TARDIS on a prize marrow" would never be enough for some fans, who'd probably try to theorize that the marrow was actually the Valeyard in disguise!

i agree with the OP, even if no one else does

im mostly always left thinking 'WTF' after each episode. but they are still enjoyable enough.
i do wonder if sometimes its largely down to the fact there never seem to be any 2 parters anymore, which is why we tend to be left with silly endings like a sonic screw driver solving everything. theres no time for a proper plot.

apparently the 21st century audience has the attention span of a goldfish, which always seems to be the excuse as to why Doctor Who is the way it is today.

What, still the best thing on TV after 50 years?
Some people love two-partners, others complain about them. It's called trying to fit in something for everyone in a series and having the best writers available to do it and still never being able to keep everyone happy whatever you do.

Most people in forums are not poets, they are simply doing their best to explain how they feel about a show and might not really nail the actual reason.

So when the OP says that monsters are "not explained" I'm taking this to mean the monsters have little to no character development. They are as 2D as the last lot of "monsters".

They don't present as a "mind" at work.

Obviously some people don't mind this and watch DW for other reasons that they do find are satisfied by the show. The concepts for example which are still very good and clever.


Personally I think he show has gradually become empty. No humanity to it. I don't care about the clever ideas, I want a story about real people not cardboard cut-out soap characters.

Yes I'm sure we all long for the days of well rounded three dimensional characters like Jackie Tyler and Mickey the Idiot and Sylvia Noble and Martha Jones! Oh for such truthful hard hitting drama to return to our screen! Alas those halcyon days are gone.

He comes up with good ideas but there is little or no follow through. He writes himself into a corner and then struggles to get out of it. For example how Amy and Rory reacted to losing their daughter and not being able to have other children. 11 and Rivers marriage was also neglected.Only after Vastra summoned Rivers data ghost did we finally hear him admit what happened to her was his fault. Just hope we get a more satisfying resoloution to S8 with 12 trying to figure out what kind of man and doctor he is. Clara also needs to sort her life out.

I have very little sympathy with most of the comments here, particularly the bitter tone of many of them, but I do agree with one point that has been made and that is the limitation of 45 minutes per episode. I've mentioned a number of times now that this series has led me to the conclusion that the show needs to be an hour long. An extra 15 minutes doesn't sound like a lot but it really is enough to get a lot of extra plot into the story, back stories, characterization for the guest cast etc. There's nothing 'wrong' with most of these episodes, saving being too rushed.

I really think 60 minutes per episode is the way to go. I understand the practical necessity of 45 minutes for foreign sale but I do feel it's detrimental to the quality.

Before the season they talked about 'longer scenes'. I'd love there to be but how?

How does putting the Doctor in an inescapable box cause an exploding TARDIS to destroy the Universe?

I don't ever remember the Silence saying they didn't know that blowing up the TARDIS would destroy the universe either which is evidence of Moffatt not explaining himself very well.

Watch Time of the Doctor. And when I say watch, I mean listen as well. I'm guessing when it was broadcast you were probably too busy ranting online to do that.

I agree we could do with a 60 min show but not much longer as much as I love the classic series sometimes you could tell they had to have a lot of filler dialogue and scenes just to pad out the episodes.

Given that one of the most popular marrows grown in the UK is "Clarita" - and one of its main pests is the Red Spider Mite, I think I could come up with something better

Definitely keep self-contained episodes, except for the occasional two-parter that really merits the extra length. But that extra 15 minutes could work wonders on most of the episodes.

I think we have had some "longer scenes" of which you speak. Unfortunately, some people dislike them because to them it's all rather boring and "soapy". Personally, I think they've got the balance right this season, especially in "Mummy..." and "Flatline". The time spent on Clara, the Doctor and Danny scenes has been well spent.

I do agree on longer episodes though. Most could have done with a little extra to give time to care about this week's guest stars or victims, like the community service gang and the train driver. We hardly got to know them before they were "offed" or off.

The Silence didn't put him in the box, the Alliance did. The Alliance didn't know about the Silence. They thought the explosion was the Doctor. But by putting him in the box they caused that very explosion, because he was the only one who could have stopped it from happening. Had he been around, it wouldn't have happened - evidenced by it not happening when he was actually around. He would have stopped the TARDIS being destroyed.

The silence didn't know it would low up the universe. Evidenced by them not wanting the universe destroyed, and them doing the one thing they the Doctor by any means.

The Alliance and the Silence were working separately, and only because they were, did the universe get destroyed.

Everything was explained then, as evidenced by people being able to explain it now. And it has been explained countless times on this forum.

11 should have had better security. How did someone sneek into the tardis and put a bomb in there ?. Plus they said he was the only one who could fly the tardis. Wrong! River was aboard the only other person in the universe who could. Untill he met Clara and tried to teach her in JTTCOTT.