The Top Five Steven Moffat Plot Holes in Doctor Who
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- Steven Moffat has been the showrunner of Doctor Who for seven years now, and while I love some of his ideas and stories, his story arcs are generally very overcomplicated, and he is often too preoccupied with implying interesting details to properly resolve his story arcs.
This is my countdown of the top five worst plot holes in episodes written by Moffat during his tenure as showrunner.
MEDIA USED IN THIS VIDEO:
'Doctor Who' (TV show) - BBC
'The Five-Ish Doctors Reboot' (TV movie) - BBC
'Doctor Who Vortex - Clean' (animation) - Thomas Jane Thornton
The use of copyrighted material in this video is permitted by fair use laws for the purposes of criticism and review.
Cheers! - Фільми й анімація
Remember the time Clara met her grandson from the kids she never had.
Wishful Thinking actually she kept travelling in time and space with Me so it's possible she'd met Mr. Pink again
Didn't Danny Pink die, turn into a cyberman and explode though
No, she met a guy named Pink who was told stories of time travel by his grandmother. That merely implies she was his grandmother: it could have been one of her students who just happened to marry someone named Pink.
Possibly... Plausibly.
Yes, but she could logically go back to before he died, sleep with him, and get pregnant then... at least, she could were her body not 'looped'. Her body is stuck in a second-ish of time (assuming 60 beats per minute), so presumably that would not be possible.
Alternate universes. Doomsday / Army of Ghosts refer to the space/void between worlds, which suggests the Whoniverse is a multiverse (to say nothing of Rise of the Cybermen / The Age of Steel straight-out stating this). In another universe, Danny didn't die, he and Clara had kids, and Orson Pink mightve been a time traveler from that universe to this one.
I'm just impressed you managed to cut the list down to only 5 plot holes.
Kate McDonell there's over 9000
I believe the Silence had only a limited understanding of timelord technology, so blowing up the Tardis to kill the Doctor made sense to them. The fact that the Tardis had the power to destroy the universe was not known to them.
Biggest issue with the angels is they've been shown when they look at each other they also turn to stone SO THEY COULD NEVER FUNCTION IN LARGE GROUPS. so every time after their first appearance its been nonsense
you guys keep forggeting the most important rule about watching tv... " Dont Think, Dont even think! think and your fun is dead"
EZO1988 Brilliant pun!
I think with the angels you missed the most major plot hole and generally stupid "twist" on their abilities -- that you could fool them into staying still by PRETENDING to be able to see them. The angels aren't standing still because they want to; this isn't some game of red light, green light they're playing. They are physically frozen by the act of being observed. Setting aside how ridiculous it is that Amy stumbling around with her eyes closed was enough to fool the angels at all (like no one has ever walked with their eyes closed, or they've never encountered blind people, so the fact that she was able to move was PROOF that she must be able to see them) they shouldn't have been ABLE to be fooled at all. In "Blink" they moved forward in the span of an eye flutter, then locked in place again when someone saw them again. This plot point was ridiculous, and pretty much destroyed the threatening nature of the Weeping Angels for me altogether.
How about the moon being an egg. Which hatches a space dragon who immediately lays an egg as large as the one it hatched from. Really didn't anyone else just go "wtf?".
@DepletedWisdom:
Oh, yeah. That's the story that made me realize that the then-current production team thought their audience had the intellectual capacity of scientifically-illiterate 8-year-olds who couldn't handle anything more than fairy tales.
DepletedWisdom that was one of my least favourite moments in series 8 :(
1. It's not a moffat episode. It was written by Peter Harness.
2. It's alien.
It's irrelevant who wrote it. Being "alien" doesn't excuse the fact that it's crap. Could your mother give birth to a baby the same size as herself? That's what we were asked to believe in this story, and that's really, REALLY bad, no matter what genre you're writing in. And it's an insult to the audience's intelligence.
Unless, of course, you really do only have the intellectual capacity of a scientifically-illiterate 8-year-old who can't handle anything more than fairy tales.
There is a plot hole with the creature in _Kill the Moon,_ but that's not it. The creature had grown enough inside the egg that the gravity of the moon was much stronger than normal. In other words it was much heavier than the moon normally is, so laying a new egg is fine. There's also no reason to assume the new moon was as big as the old one. The problem is, how did it grow so big, so quickly, while inside the egg? How did it "put on weight" without violating conservation of energy (specifically mass).
The Angel Statue of Liberty has an even bigger plot hole - it's made of copper! The very point of the Angels is that they *turn to stone* when observed. It's a fact of their biology!
That's not actually a plot hole, but rather a non-directly stated (though alluded to) metaphysical quality of the Angels. That is, despite the in-narrative -- and let's not forget, The Doctor is often a veritable *study* in terms of The Unreliable Narrator on several occasions -- qualities attributed to The Angels, it *isn't* that they are "biological" beings in any actual way: they are *abstract entities* who _manifest_ through their "images" (backed by their metaphysical power). This is why, for example, the image of the Angel on the recording/television in The Time of Angels could manifest through it... not as a stone statue, but as an electrical image. Further, in that same episode, when the same Angel was moving behind a pillar (when two of the soldier-clerics were near her), we heard the scraping/dragging of her stone "body" as it moved carefully behind the rocks. The Angels don't "turn to stone", despite the Doctor's assertions -- their stone "bodies" are already stone via their manifested images. But they can manifest through *any* embodiment of their images... and as they gained power from Battery Park, their metaphysical identities began to usurp the meta-identities of *other* statues (the pioneer woman-and-child, the Statue of Liberty, the "baby" Angels in the basement as well as at the fountain, et al) as well as other image-forms (the Angel that was on the elevator when the detective went up in the cold open, the one that caused the elevator to move... or did you/others not notice the picture of the Statue of Liberty within the elevator, purposefully put there by the prop department as part of the storyline...? ;) ) Moffat is a clever writer, and he very often writes on many levels simultaneously. To the less-than-astute viewer, that may sometimes come across as a "plot hole"... but it isn't... ;)
they don't 'turn to stone', they're 'quantum locked'. They just look like stone.
james groves it was said in EVERY SINGLE STORY with the weeping angels that they turn to STONE. stop making excuses for an idiotic plot. Stone. Not copper, steel or wood. STONE.
Remember “Blink” and “The Time of Angels” to quote the Doctor “when observed by any living thing they turn to stone. And you can’t kill stone”
tideoftime I’m very astute and your obfuscation of transparent establishments is laughable. Now can we dispense with the bs.
MAJOR PLOT HOLES.
The weeping angels turn to STONE WHEN OBSERVED BY ANY LIVING THING. That was established as the cannon of the weeping angels. Just because you choose to swallow the bs that Moffat spits out doesn’t make you astute.
It just marks a choice that you have made to accept his MAJOR PLOT HOLES
No, sweetie -- it just goes hand-in-hand with the type of viewer (you, for instance) that Moffat has gently (and, admittedly, not so gently) poked fun at for many, many years (since before there was an internet and comments by him were noted in fanzines during the 80s, which he reiterated in some interviews and fanpages in the 90s and early 00s). You, and those like you, are the "two dimensional thinkers" -- can't see anything past the pane of glass that's on the surface while not "getting" so much context/subtext beneath it. If you were, in fact, astute then you'd note the many, many allusions to real-world metaphysics that pepper much of Moffat's works. (The Angels? -- I told all of my friends years before they re-appeared in 2010 just how they'd play out -- usurping the power behind "images" to eventually adapt and become other things... whether figures that people simultaneously worship-yet-also-overlook (The Statue of Liberty, and the "freedom" it represents) or, with enough power and the right connection, manifesting as flesh (as one nearly did with Amy in Flesh and Stone). Some of my friends wondered if I had some inside track with the show, to which I responded "Oh, god no! I just recognize the elements that are being drawn on in the narratives...").
Now, you want plotholes/missing elements? -- that's more Davies' line of things, which he freely admitted to in some interviews and in his book. (One example: the "missing" monks at the end of Tooth and Claw -- *that* was, in fact, a plot hole, as Davies directly admitted that he included them for a "coolness" factor and then simply narratively dropped them, literally forgot about them per Davies own words, by the end of the script. Similarly, relative to the Face of Boe reveal in The Last of the Timelords, he had forgotten that he had Martha and Jack within conversation range when she mentions Boe in Utopia; he related how upon review he literally beat feet to try to catch the director filming the scenes that day in the corridor, but it was already several hours too late and the set/crew had been struck, so a reshoot/remount would have been impractical and too costly. Result: the plot hole of Martha and Jack already relating "The Face of Boe" as a term two episodes before Jack's "reveal". That's a minor plothole as things go, but an *actual* one, vs. the use of layered narratives that Moffat often employs.)
To restate what I said further up: Moffat very often writes his characters as not always being correct in the exposition that they relate; he purposefully employs the Unreliable Narrator technique to both make said characters flawed but also to make them (ironically) more credible as "people" who don't always get things right. (An example of this, which others like yourself also mislabel as being a "plothole" is River's conversation with Rory in the tunnels beneath Florida wherein she states that her and the Doctor's timelines are working back-to-front. This is demonstrably not true as the viewers know that their interactions are, in fact, scatter-shot and not at all working back-to-front... but _River_, at the time of that story, believes it to be so. She is, however, incorrect. That's not a plot hole, but a case of the Unreliable Narrative-cum-Character Exposition.) He simultaneously couples that with The Assumptive Viewer, wherein you (ubiquitous you) are allowed to think "x", but in actuality a wide assortment of possibilities are present and indicated... the viewer just _assumes_ that things can only be one given way, and that allows for twists later on.
But in any case, thanks for giving me a reason to explain (but no doubt have ignored, which again is part-and-parcel of the joke that Moffat has been playing on you/others like you for so many years now) the situation. It may help someone else, at least, have a better understanding of what's going on... even if it is of no avail to someone like you... #TheJokesOnYouSweetie
Moffat is the person who thought that you didn't need to know how Sherlock Holmes solves mysteries or even give the viewer the pieces they need to work it out themselves.
That's pretty much all you need to know to realise he isn't going to deliver the goods on a season long arc. He will always try to imply something good is coming but cannot actually deliver.
The way Amy and Rory were written out is a huge gaping plot hole. Ok, so, he can't take the TARDIS back to 1933 New York (or whatever year it was) ... but what's stopping him from parking in Philadelphia and taking a cab? Or for that matter, to travel to 1934 New York, go "Sorry 'bout that. Anyone for some time travel?" Or, yet, Rory and Amy could just have moved to ... oh, I don't know, Anchorage or something, taken out a full page add in the local newspaper saying "We're here, raggedy man" and just sit back and wait 5 minutes. He'll eventually find that (remember that ancient artifact that told him to pick River up when she got blow out of an airlock), figure out when and where it was printed and be right along to pick up the Ponds.
Beggar42 it annoys me too 😥😬
Right, or just go back, rescue them, and then commission the headstone to keep the timeline intact. The point is that a gaping plot hole is created and then left there with the condescending insult that we're all too stupid to appreciate how great the steaming pile of manure is. Moffat could also simply have done as Russell Davies did and have the Companions just leave to live the rest of their lives having "grown up" enough not to need the Doctor in their lives (think Martha Jones, Tegan, Nyssa, Ace, etc.). They were already written out in 'The God Complex'. Moffat could have left it there and then finished Series 6 without Amy and Rory, and begin Series 7 introducing a new Companion. But Moffat doesn't know how to leave a character alone-he has to kill people off only to bring them back and do it all over again, until he's satisfied he's wrenched at our hearts enough. But that gets stale really fast.
The Wilk Report NO WAYYYY I THOUGHT THAT TOO 😂😂 I swear I would have calved that headstone myself if I needed to. With my fingernails if necessary. That's how much it annoyed me.
What about how they were supposedly converted into Cyberman in that horrible abortion of a Missy/Cybermen plot despite the fact that the graveyard was in England somewhere and they were buried in New York? Although, that one might have just been a fan thing as I don't recall anyone actually saying that in the episode.
I don't think it was ever actually implied or shown that Amy and Rory were converted into Cybermen. At no point were we shown or told that this was done to them, so we cannot make that assumption.
One of the strokes of genius that isn't immediately obvious in Blink is that it uses a subtle form of 4th wall breaking... there are a couple of points where the only thing locking the angels is the viewer looking at them. Such a pity the Moff vanished up his own arsehole.
I'm going to have to re-watch the episode to see what you mean. I hadn't noticed anything like that the two times I've seen it, but if that's how it was shot, it's actually a really cool concept...
Shadow Ya when Sally takes the key from the angel you see it’s arm going towards her from the shadow on her back. But when the camera shows the angel it freezes and can’t touch Sally
@E M M I E W. I mean, Moffat, as show runner, could have quite easily said "no, this is wrong, do it again, but do it right"
@@DisKorruptd he wasn’t show runner at the time it was rtd he just wrote the ep
plot hole eh then what about Orson Pink the descendant of Danny and Clara except both died never having children
Dark Kronis oh wow I completely forgot about him. but, like, I'll bring up comics, in comics there is either an alternate universe, or a possible future. I think orson pink may have been a possible future for clara and danny, but then they died, so that reality changed and orson stopped existing.. maybe
Omg right?? Like normally seeing the future cements it as a fixed point in time! But with Pink... Whoopsie doopsie 🤷♂️
Orson was danny's kid... it didn't say he was clara's too. Danny was a soldier, which means he probably had some seed in storage and it's possible he got some tour booty. and he is still a cyberman, so he'll live for a long time, he could be cloned or possibly have kids later, we don't know how converted he was.
the problem kinda comes from orson talking about how he was told stories about the doctor and that couldnt happen if he had kids before or after his death with clara also "dieing". There are a bunch of times the doctor has rewritten his own future such as when he got an unknown amount of regenerations for saving the time lords and they are several from the old who stuff.
Was he a descendent or a descendent of a cousin, some kind of time stream overlap, he did die and get resurrected after all.
Plot holes are everywhere, but other things aren't plot holes at all, they just have a lack of explanation.
A plothole I noticed was the Doctor and Martha mentioning the Face of Bo infront of Jack Harkness, and he had no reaction. a few episodes later, he said he WAS the Face of Bo.
doesn't matter. it's a fun idea
True, but that was Russell T. Davies not Steven Moffat.
well, he was not the face of bo. it has been stated dozens of times that the statement was not confirmation of the face's origin.
also, someone mentioning something that sounds like your home town while being chased by monsters... isn't exactly the time to reminisce about being a beauty pageant winner.
to be fair, moffat WAS a good writer
Jason Young That's not a plot hole... When Jack said he was the face of Bo he was saying it was a nickname. We can assume that later in his very long life he started going by his old nickname. (The aliens around him thought he was a different species because he was so old.) The Face of Bo that we see die is Jack centuries later, going by his nickname. When he mentioned his nickname to the doctor he didn't know his future and that he would encounter the doctor as the face of bo.
The weeping angels, the 'kind killers' turn to snapping people's necks for fun. Yeah. Also it's implied in Blink that a lot of public statues are actually angels, yet apparently any time someone takes a photo of it that photo becomes an angel. The whole episode was full of iffy logic and the stupid escalation that turned the cybermen and daleks into such boring villains in the new series. They can do literally anything and are completely unstoppable, so there's never a good plot resolution to them being defeated. It always has to be deus ex machina, because any weakness they do have (gold, anti-cyberman weapons, shooting the eyestalks, stairs) is eliminated in the first moments of the next episode they're in.
Gradius which means that at the end of Blink, Sally isn't safe. She still has a photo of an angel if you look very carefully at the end of the episode. Which means we could see her again and see them again. But I've just given up on the Angels at this point.😑
I know this isn't a Moffat plot but it is sort of a plot hole....The episode "Mummy on the Orient Express" Who in the hell was "Gus"???? Remember he had set the whole train up just to kill the doctor? I thought it was going to be some huge developing plot that we'd see unravel in future Capaldi episodes but that's a dead avenue now isn't it
Novaximus probably something planned by missy
Could be just some random dick AI.
minepose98 yup, most AI will turn out that way eventually
I’ve always believed it to be an experiment of the Rani (given the whole experimenting without compassion thing).
Gus is working for Missy. The technology in the foretold helps to create her dead Cybermen army.
Funny thing. The more episodes about the angles that come out. The more I become one.
My face just sort of freezes in sheer rage at how something scary but awesome is becoming lamer and lamer.
disagree with the sentiment, love the joke
You missed one in "The hungry Earth" Amy and Rory wave at their future selves in like 2020, but died before 2012 as seen in "the Angels take Manhattan", that should have become a fixed point in time.
As Amy says repeatedly. "Time can be rewritten."
I've long said that Moffat took too much inspiration from LOST (before it spiraled out of control into a convoluted mess) and kept piling on mystery after mystery building these arcs rather focusing on the story at hand. The second angel story the crack in time season arc conveniently shows up to swallow up the Weeping Angels then Rory who later reappears as an Auton disguised as a Roman legionnaire as part of a convoluted plot involving the construction or use of Stone Henge by the Doctor's enemies 3000 years earlier in order to trap him around 100 AD. Then somehow at the end of the two parter Amy wishes the Doctor back into existence? Was that ever explained?
Anyway, the old show had it's fantastical elements but it was a science fiction show and things were explained. With Moffat he kept luring people on with convoluted mysteries people hoped would be answered but like the show LOST ended up being rather unsatisfactory.
Moffat also makes the Doctor far more important to the Universe than he needs to be and he does with Clara as well. Having the whole universe and existence itself wiped out by one group wanting to keep Gallifrey from coming back while having the oldest question in the universe being the Doctor's name is more fan service than it is good storytelling. As is having the Doctor killed and the universe believing him dead - an absurd concept for a time traveler who's been encountered many times in the future. Also a lot of people in the universe don't know he's a time lord, only that he is a traveling doctor of some sort who shows up and helps people and that's who the Doctor is not the most important being in the universe.
Finally, someone who thinks like me - the Doctor has been put up on this galactic-sized pedestal in the New series. I mean the Rings of Akhaten speech - wth was that! The classic Doctor was this goodhearted, absentminded scientific tinkerer who travelled through space and time helping people. The new Doctor tries to be the center of the universe, pretty much.
That's why I wish the new series would be more like the old series and just tell stand-alone stories and stop having season-long arcs. The people who worked on the original series tried that with "Keys of Time" and "Trial of a Timelord" and decided, then, that it didn't work. In fact, I'm pretty sure Tom Baker has said he hated the "Key to Time" for that very reason.
They want to preach. The NewWho Doctor is basically Jesus. His companions are His apostles, going around preaching His Gospel. Exhibit A: (Doctor Who - The Human race Defeats the Master with Words.)
ua-cam.com/video/LmmMBWecIo8/v-deo.html
my thoughts has never been expressed more clearly... (except for the "lost" part, i've not seen it)
i used to love moffat's work when he was under russell t davies...
Moffat did that with Sherlock, too, so yeah, no original thinking with him. Moffat's always had a very limited bag of tricks and he used them all up a long time ago, so he keeps recycling them hoping we're all too stupid to notice.
Regarding the 'Impossible Girl arc'. If Clara didn't know who she was after being splintered, then The GI likely didn't either, yet still he managed to kill the Doctor every time. In the opening narration of 'Name of the Doctor' Clara says that all she knows is that 'She has to save the Doctor'. This suggests that the splinters goal in life are based on the motivation of the original for going in. So it is possible that the versions of the Great Intelligence who went in, weren't the same person, just people with a resemblance to Walter Simeon, with a subconscious desire to kill the Doctor, who are stopped by the Clara's desires to save the doctor... from him specifically.
But wouldn't he only have to kill the first Doctor to ensure that the others never existed and to turn all his victories into defeats (he wouldn't be there so his enemies would naturally win). Assuming he killed the first Doctor before he even left Gallifrey he would've undone everything with that one act.
That's a pretty big assumption, especially since Clara and GI seem to function differently in the first place
Yeah, it's really apples and oranges.
But that doesn't explain why both of them just so happened to be successful every single time.
But that wasn't what he was aiming for. he wanted to kill doctor and make him suffer EVERY single instant through the Doctor's timeline.
Moffat's obsession with the Doctor's name ruined the show for me, and the constant love affair with the Weeping Angels. The episode "Blink" is one of the best episodes written for New Who, but the way he kept on rattling at the same cage ruined them, especially with all these stupid abilities they got. Keep them plain and simple; they can only move when not being observed and they feed on potential energy. Genius. Perfect. They don't need anymore. Take out all the rest and 11th Doctor's encounters aren't actually that bad; just skip all the bits about looking into the eyes and the pictures.
Also, the Doctor's name is a mystery. Even the Time Lords call him The Doctor, you don't need it to be so flipping important. Didn't The Master choose his name first and look into the Untempered Schism before The Doctor? Why isn't his name so interesting? Even if he is younger, why does either of their names matter? What makes it so important apart from fan interest or conspiracy?
Like the 10th Doctor said: "...it's a psychologists field day." It does not make sense to have The Doctor so integral to the Universe, he's just a man in a box who tinkers, watches and fixes things, that's all. Moffat's obsession ruined the show for me early on in season 6 and, honestly, ruined the 12th Doctor's regeneration entirely. "Only children can hear it"?!?! Come on, that's bollocks, Moffat, absolute bollocks.
Also, The Name of the Doctor is, definitely, the worst episode in the history of Doctor Who. Absolutely atrocious writing with an awful, lackluster ending is an understatement of the highest order. I hated this episode and it is, without a doubt, skipabble in every sense, as it makes no sense and should never have been written in the first place. Genuinely, Moffat should be ashamed of himself for that episode. I don't even consider it canon.
Alekkay13791 Done?
James Broad just about XD
regards to the children thing, the doctor is very metaphorical,he lies and spins false statements and half truths every other sentence you can't take anything he says at face value
Moffat set the rule from the beginning:''the doctor lies''
or more technically speaking the doctor bulshits a whole lot
AeroDbladE This is true, but, in your dying breath and talking to your next incarnation, are you really going to lie about something like that?
Parth G because why would only children be able to hear a name? I know it's technically a kid's show, but why a name being able to only be heard by children? It's not like he only saves children, or represents children, he's a protector of the earth and of all races.
What about the fact he starts to regenerate when River kills him but he says he’s out of regenerations to Clara on Trensalore
Also, in my opinion, we do need to have a LITTLE bit of understanding, because Moffat didn't know what was going on with the 50th yet, although it did annoy me too😤
@@hi-viz how can the tesellecta regenerate?
The worst *Plot-Hole* ever.....was when Amy and Rory's baby is kidnapped, and at the ending of *"A Good Man Goes To War"* the Doctor acts like he knows just where to go and get the baby back. But then he never does and it is never mentioned again.
Because he doesn't know, he's running away from an argument.
The point of that scene was that the “baby” is actually River Song, so he doesn’t need to go find the baby for them because their daughter is already standing right there. That’s not a plot hole.
It's because he does sort of know, but also has made the connection that Rory and Amy haven't and realises that he has to stand back and allow it to play out.
Ok, that's not a plot hole, that's you misunderstanding.
The entire POINT is that he doesn't have to go find the baby. The baby is River. So he already knows that she's going to turn out fine, and he doesn't have to do anything. He DOESN'T leave to find the baby. You just got confused, and thought he did. He presumably leaves to give River some time alone with her parents. The show assumes we're smart enough to figure this out, and so doesn't explicitly SAY it.
There’s a pre-episode video of Amy calling the TARDIS and asking if the Doctor has found Melody and saying (almost in tears) that although she grows up to be River she doesn’t want to miss all of that.
Camera pans to the Doctor and it’s clear he has no idea how to tell her the truth - he can’t find her.
Confession: I fucking loved the Capaldi run. A LOT.
Great video. You're fair to Moffat. He is a good writer, but he did leave some pretty big holes nonetheless, and you caught some of the biggest ones.
Since Amy & Rory left I have pretty much disliked most of the stories. Quite liked Cold War & The Diana Rigg one and the series with Bill was quite good but I think I have consigned the rest to oblivion. Moffatt seems to run out of ideas very quickly and is forever destroying his own continuity none more so than awful Clara telling the first Doctor to "Take this Tardis it will be much more fun" completely going against the great Matt Smith story "The Doctor's Wife" where it was discovered the Tardis chose the Doctor. At least he was more original with the final Bill story in which Bill is seen going off to explore the universe with another female unlike Clara's departure where she was seen going off to explore the universe with another female........oh, bad example..sorry :)
YES! Clara is so horrible. She's a black hole Sue who became the catalyst for the entire show and usurped the Doctor's place as competent protagonist. She never suffered consequences or had to make difficult calls - not once. Instead, it's ass-pull after ass-pull, and everyone luuurves her! Ugh.
the biggest plothole is how a man who can't form a sentance let alone write can hold a writting job for 7 years.
This is one of those types of comments that is so basically moronic that it is legitimately too stupid to even reply properly too
+Unconventional Jack And yet, you replied.
Not properly though.
Just throwing this out there, speaking and writing are VERY different. Speaking requires thinking on your feet and responding quickly to a situation; writing is literally the exact opposite. MOST first drafts suck. It doesn't become a good story until at best the third or fourth edit, and at times the TENTH edit. It is by definition a slow process that involves a lot of thought. Most writers actually suggest that you leave your first draft to incubate for a few weeks, so you can come back to it with fresh eyes. This is actually part of the reason movie and tv scripts are so likely to suck; a lot of them are first drafts, because the writers aren't given enough time to polish and edit. The Hobbit, for example, was still being written WHILE it was being shot, due to the studio screwing everyone around. You can see the results of that for yourself.
The fact that they both involve words does NOT make them the same thing. They could not be more different. Therefore, someone's ability to speak clearly and concisely does NOT infer anything about their writing abilities. In fact, many writers are writers BECAUSE they're very socially awkward, and have trouble communicating with others.
Your comment makes me think you are not even self-published.
If you think moffat had plot holes, then wait until you count Russells.
One of the things that really bugs me about Moffett is his attitude toward companions. I saw an interview where he said they should never die because they're like the Doctor's children or something and it would reflect badly on him. Okay, whatever, but if you really feel that way then don't kill them off then contrive some stupid method of bringing them back, thus ruining any sense of drama you had.
Clara's story as the impossible girl would've been so much better if she had died when she jumped into the Doctor's timestream. Everyone said she would die and she should've. That way she would've given her life to save him and, as it was, she was just there for the rest of her run. As if that wasn't bad enough he lets her cheat death again and go running off in her own TARDIS. WTF. You're basically saying anyone can be Doctor. That is bull.
Oh, then he does the same thing with Bill Potts (ruining what was until then a great story). She gets turned into a Cyberman and could've had this wonderful, tragic death, sacrificing herself to save everyone from the other Cybermen but no, he has her water fairy girlfriend show up and save her.
On top of all that he actually said that if he had been in charge of "Doctor Who" back in the day he would've brought Adric back too. One of the most important and most noble sacrifises in the history of the show and he says he would've undone it if he had been there. The nerve.
@Chris McWilliams:
I didn't know that's how he felt about the companions. Holy crap, what about Sara Kingdom and Katarina (both First Doctor companions who died)? Would he have brought them back as well? Or Kamelion (a Fifth Doctor robotic companion)?
Some fans hated Adric and mocked him mercilessly, but the fact is that his death was tragic and was a pivotal part of Earth's history. Granted, the Doctor could have gone back to the freighter and rescued him (still allowing the freighter to crash into Earth), but it would have been split-second timing and would also have caused a hell of a paradox - which is why the Fifth Doctor refused and ordered Nyssa and Tegan to never ask him about it again.
Adric's death haunted the Fifth Doctor up to the very end, when he was regenerating; he felt profoundly guilty about it and angry that he couldn't save him.
His sacrifice would have been utterly cheapened if undone. And that's one reason why Clara's supposed death was cheapened. I'd loathed her for a long time before that episode, but I was actually tearing up a bit when she kept repeating "let me be brave"... and then "Oops, haha, GOTCHA! She's not totally dead after all, and look, she's got her own TARDIS and immortal companion!"
At that point I walked away from the show and never saw the last season. I was just too disgusted. And that's saying something, given that I've been a Whovian since 1982.
I don't understand your beef with the Clara plotline.
The doctor, in the 2000 series so far, has always been a man that repays his debts. Clara saved him twice, both by convincing the Timelords to help him, and by jumping into his time stream to remove GL. So he did the same, by saving her FROM HIS OWN TIMELINE thus endangering himself and threatening to rip a hole in reality to do it, then by threatening to rip a hole in time, betraying his own people, and forcing himself to leave Gallifrey again, by literally bringing her back from a death sentence that is so impossible to avoid she had to be frozen in time to do it.
And what? Seriously? Not anyone can be the Doctor? How naive are you?
He's a mad man in a box. The only thing that sets the doctor apart is his mindset to always put others before himself, in any situation. The only reason he gets away with it is because he can literally come back from the dead and alter time itself.
So say you have two immortal beings, Me and now Clara, and put them in that same box. Clara who has time and time again shown to sacrifice herself for others (See every single splinter in the timeline arc) and Me who is just as clever and omnipotent as the doctor. You're telling me they couldn't pull it off?
Clara is one of the most annoying companions. Actually, she's THE most annoying one, and considering I've sat through the likes of Mel and Peri, that's saying something. Clara is the only companion I wanted dead, because she's such an annoying Mary Sue and I couldn't stand the way the actress mumbled her lines so fast that she was really hard to understand at times.
So now she's "immortal"... and can't be killed unless she goes back to that alley? What good is a protagonist that's invulnerable? They might as well declare her God 2.0 and be done with it.
Moffat has turned Doctor Who into his own fanfiction, and he can't stand criticism. He just makes whatever _he_ wants to see happen, whether it makes sense or not...
To each their own, I think Jenna Coleman is a fabulous actor and a had a brilliant take on Clara as a character, and pulled off her different personalities perfectly from time line to time line.
And really Susan? Her being immortal makes the story worse?
Boy, somebody ought to tell Captain Jack Harkness...
I know its small but what always annoyed was that in the The Angels Take Manhattan it is shown that once history is written down and read then i can't be altered, but in the Waters Of Mars we see the Doctor change the place and date of the other characters deaths and the events that took place? Sorry if I didn't make sense or got the episodes wrong.
Narune No you got it right, Moffat just was never good at keeping a singular continuity. RTD had the same problem too, but to a lesser extent.
But a lot of those guys still died on Mars.
My point still stands because those that did survive still had their deaths written down/ recorded before the Doctor changed their timelines.
He's a Time Lord. He probably figured out how it can be done without a butterfly effect, despite the simple-minded humans who write his stories.
Will Endowed maybe but I don't thinks so, because the whole point of the Waters of Mars was to show that the Doctor couldn't make the laws of time bend to his will to save everyone. It showed that he couldn't do whatever he wanted without consequences.
I think both of the showrunners of Doctor Who since 2005 have had problems with setting up situations that they don't know how to resolve. In Steven Moffat's case, as you pointed out, this results in overly complex explanations and/or big plot holes. But RTD's approach seemed to often involve a deus ex-machina resolution. For example, in Boomtown (and episode I loved, by the way), RTD sets The Doctor up with a very difficult choice... and then had the TARDIS magically fix everything so that he didn't have to make the decision. And then when Martha travelled the world getting people to believe in The Doctor, which caused him to de-age, float, and have magical powers. Quite a few of RTD's big setups had a deus ex-machina endings.
I don't know which is worse: plot holes or deus ex-machina resolutions, but both RTD and Steven Moffat seem to have the same problem with painting themselves into a corner. They just each dealt with it a bit differently.
I don't disagree but I will say at least the second one kind of had an explination becasue of the whole angel network thing. It was a mind control device so they were able to feed their collective belif into it which empowered the Doctor. You're right in that it was a massive cheat, it just have a nice coat of an expliantion over it that helps sell it, to a point. :)
I agree. To be honest, I was okay with the basic concept of sending feedback through the network, but the way they did it, it came across more like the children "believing" Tinkerbell back to life in Peter Pan.
C. Scott Davis I like that the Master fell for the gun in Four parts plot xD
I know this wasn't really a question, but I have to say that I'd take deus ex machina any day. It's really the difference between a story being resolved perhaps poorly (depending on well how it's sold) and a story not being resolved at all. With RTD's method, you might disagree with how things tie together but at least there's a canon explanation for what happens. Things tie together, there's a reason the hero wins. The Angel network might have been a little over the top or unrealistic but you don't walk out of the episode saying "wait though... how did the Doctor de-age and beat the Master?" With Moffat, there's a lot of pretty words and big buildups that just lead to... nothing. He introduces plot points or builds mysteries because they sound cool, and even if they contradict former plot points, just don't make sense, or if the episode ends with a dozen plot points left hanging.
Anyway, sorry, this became more of a rant than I'd wanted, but I'll definitely take a potentially silly ending over a non-ending.
I think this is ALWAYS going to be a problem with Doctor Who, tbh, for two reasons:
-the very nature of the show lends itself to this exact kind of impossible, complicated writing
-the fans don't like change. They freaked out enough about the newest Doctor having a vagina. How would they react if there were ever ACTUAL consequences due to a plotline?
Oh wait, we actually have an example of the show TRYING to give real consequences. Clara dies as a result of her own actions and arrogance. What happened? They had to change it, because parents complained it was too dark.
Hell Bent wasn't garbage, and made a lot of sense for the Doctor's character.
Sure, it heavily revolves around Clara Oswin Oswald, but that made SENSE. The only character who's arc was never about herself, the character who was broken into a million pieces to correct the doctor's past corrupted, and who was only saved through sheer will of the doctor. Then, when the doctor was on his last limb, she AGAIN saved him, calling for help from the one place he never would to reset his regeneration cycle. The doctor has always, ALWAYS, saved his companions through sacrificing himself in some way. So having someone sacrifice themselves for him was something he couldn't handle, and would refuse to accept.
So when he finally saw the chance to repay Clara, when she was on the brink of death, he accepted Gallifrey because he knew it was the only way. He's the doctor, and he knew where Gallifrey was, if he really wanted to go there he would have already. It was only when he had reason that he gave in and went back to his home world.
He accepted returning to a place he never thought he would, and he saved her. Despite finally being back on Gallifrey, and finally getting rid of the high commission and the president, he couldn't stay. He knew breaking time like that was a violation of Gallifrey's laws, and he knew it meant exile for himself once again, and though he could have stayed and became president of his people, he couldn't do it at the expense of someone arguably dear to him that he owed a debt.
And that has always been the essence of the doctor, he's a traveling physician. A man who bounces from star to star, looking for things to heal and people to save who can't save themselves. He would have never settled on Gallifrey, and he would have never been happy there. This arc ended beautifully, and those of you who think Moffat used Gallifrey as a scapegoat need to take a step back and examine what the doctor really is.
Doctor who has taught me to process huge chunks of information really fast
5. This is not a plot hole. It is very obviously implied that an angel entering someone through their eyes takes time and it is only something that occurs when someone stares at them for an extended period.
4. Its a reasonable question but again not a plot hole. A plot hole is something that cannot be reasonably explained with the info provided. Clara can conceivably do that. Furthermore the footage we see suggests that the Great Intelligence is influencing the events of the Doctor's past adventures so that he dies at the hands of the enemy of the week. He is not directly attacking the Doctor therefore Clara is only countering the GI's influence not combating the Great Intelligence himself. Given that Clara has entered via the Doctor's timestream and thus each spliter is sent to serendipitously be on hand to combat exactly what the GI is going to do and presumably is unconsciously aware of her mission (because core Clara already knows precisely what that is) the various Claras can and indeed should be able to save the Doctor.
3. The existence of the 12th and 13th Doctors is not strictly speaking a plot hole -widespread knowledge of them (by people like UNIT) that could be inherited by later generations potentially is. However, I think you are underestimating the situation here. Your theory is based on the assumption that the Doctor always faked his death at Lake Silencio. That is not necessarily the case. If we are dealing with Time Tracks and the idea that the timeline can be changed (an established part of Doctor Who as long as a Fixed Point is not changed) then the Doctor may have really died in the original timeline and what we witness is the timeline in which he changed that. He changes the circumstances whilst preserving the perceived events of the Fixed Point. Indeed I would be inclined to assume that this is what we are supposed to infer from the way the storyline is presented.
Once the Doctor has changed the timeline the 12th and 13th Doctors can become known. The actual events of the Fixed Point have been preserved but the fact of the Doctor's death is not itself actually Fixed so in the new time track the later Doctors can become well known once more. So, not a plot hole.
2. As far as I'm aware this is a plot hole. I think there are things you can imagine that would explain this: that the confessor priests were able to devise technolgy or use their suggestive abilities to overcome the effect of the moon landing footage and that as a result the moon landing footage only causes humans to become aggressive towards confessor priests in the immediate aftermath of watching it, or, even better, that the footage only causes humans to attack confessor priests if they are present while they are watching the video and that the psychic suggestion wears off as soon as the humans forget the existence of the confessors. So, there are possible explanations but they require more extrapolation and construction on the part of the audience than I would deem reasonable and thus I agree this is a plot hole.
The idea that it is a massive oversight and problem seems like a huge overstatement. It would've been nice if Steven Moffat had thought this through more or presented an explanation for it but it is really a detail that only acts as a retrospective imperfection in the denouement of a single (double episode) storyline (EDIT: Now that I think about it that's actually two stories as it doesn't make sense that the Confessors would attack Madame Kovarian at the end of series 6 when she is the leader of the religious sect that they belong to). There are further issues with the Impossible Astronaut depiction of The Silence that The Time of The Doctor creates of course (the idea of them having been on earth since the dawn of time, influencing human tech, creating the Apollo space suit and indeed needing one) the most likely explanation for them being that many of the Doctor's deductions in the episode in question are simply wrong but that is pretty unsatisfying.
Ultimately all these things are questions of detail that affected the reading of a single one off story rather than affecting the series or the larger story arcs in any meaningful way. They are essentially nerdisms and not actually that significant in the broader picture.
1. The Silence destroying the universe being a plot hole is based on the assumption that they knew that blowing up the TARDIS would cause that. It is entirely an assumption and one with ill will on the viewer's part and thus not a reasonable approach. It should be far more natural to assume that they did not know that would happen and that their goal was merely exactly what they stated that it was: to kill the Doctor. This is not a plot hole.
So, in fact only one plot hole here and, while a bit annoying it's not really that big a deal.
Another reason 3 isn't a plot hole is that aside from the Time Lords and River, very few people would know which incarnation the doctor on, so they could easily assume he's from a point before he "died".
digifreak90 Also, in Asylum of the Daleks, Oswin deleted all info on the Doctor. Therefore, his date of death is no longer knowledge which can be accessed.
Justin Caviness True, however that only applies to the Daleks.
I've since looked into this. In "The Angels Take Manhattan," River says that she was let out of jail because the man she'd killed apparently didn't exist. Series seven reveals that the Eleventh Doctor has been deleting traces of himself from every database he can get to. The only one out of his reach was the Dalek's hive mind. Although River Song later comments that this has only partially worked, since in his over-eagerness to wipe all traces of himself from history, he's left a giant "Doctor-shaped hole" where he used to be, making his existence fairly obvious to anyone who bothered to look.
But, in "Blink" everyone was staring right at them for several minutes. Why weren't they turned into angels? The whole thing was to look right at them.
Steven Moffat is the textbook case of the importance of a good editor (or show runner). The man is a talented writer when he has a strong guiding hand reeling him in, and as you stated the weeping angels were generally interesting in blink, but every time they have been used since then it wasn't appropriate and new powers and rules had to come out of the blue to justify their use and somebody needed to step in and stop this for sake of the show. Also the idea of a companion from a future point in doctor who's timeline is intriguing but it had to be another carefully handled plot point which of course it wasn't. But I think Moffat's biggest crime was that the man's ego meant that he wanted to play outside the rules and destroyed the show in the process, his doctors had to live the longest and his companions had to be the smartest and everybody had to be super important, but he broke the rule about the doctor crossing his own timeline this rule was in place for a reason and now every episode in theory could be resolved in a couple of minutes with the doctor popping back to tell himself "this is whats happening" "this is who the bad guy is" "this is why" and here's the magical mcguffin to save the day.
What confused me most about the exploding Tardis destroying the entire universe was that, surely other Tardises have been destroyed before? Why did they not destroy the universe?
Moffat likes having the doctor being the centre of the universe. This means that his TARDIS has also been given that treatment. Tardises have been destroyed before, and its even known that gallifrey itself has a power source far superior to a TARDIS. If gallifrey exploded by all logic it would be a reality bomb that would end everything instantly. Time Lords are only called Time Lords/Ladies because of Rasillon and Omega. Without their research into the Eye of Harmony they wouldn't be what they are. The Eye of Harmony is a star held in a collapsing state and used as the Tardises source of power and time travel. By all accounts the TARDIS exploding at its peak would be solar system size. Not universe. Also there were old races such as the Exillons that could neutralize a TARDIS systems and force it to crash. Races you'd never see with Moffat as writer. He wouldn't dare give other species more power than the doctor. Takes away from his importance. Even the Time Lords have been downgraded below him. And they're his own species.
Are we going to ignore that the weeping angels stay in stone just because Amy PRETENDS she can see them?
Good video. Personally I thought Moffat was over rated as a writer/producer and his best stuff was while he wrote for Davies. I came to loathe Clara Oswald and it started with that finale where she single handedly saves every single incarnation of The Doctor. She almost solely ruined the show for me.
Not over rated , you just don’t notice 99% of the stuff and lines he writes , he’s wayyyyy better than Davies
You're right, I haven't seen all of Moffat's stuff as I quit a long time ago due to the lackluster season with Missy. From what I read later I didn't miss a damn thing. And we'll just have to agree to disagree where Davies is concerned.
Thomas Stockel exactly , “missy season “ , You don’t notice the clever writing from all his episodes prior such as lines from Martha and ten in blink “ we went to the moon landing 4 times !” (Silence !) I could go on all day and as far as not missing much , I feel sorry for you for not watching heaven sent and the doctor falls 😂 but it’s funny to see you commenting on a DW video in 2017 when you say you haven’t watched any episodes from past 3 years
No Bird. Tom is saying that AFTER series 8 or 9 (I personally think that 8's over-arching plot was interesting, save for a kind of weak ending, followed up by too many two-parters) is when he stopped watching, therefore he didn't miss anything from Martha's story. You can also continue to be a fan of something you used to like, even if you're only interest involves seeing where it goes in the future, and what many critics have to say about it. I love Power Rangers, and I saw and love the somewhat-darker remake, but I just couldn't keep up after RPM. The samurai, pirates, megaforce, and dino teams are all a mystery to me, and that's only four teams (the second half of every story is a new season that premieres the following year) since Saban re-acquired the property, while Japan's sentai is likely leagues ahead of America by now. I'm also bummed that the new Saban rangers are more like Disney's rangers, being that they're more catered to children than they used to be. On the other hand, the GI/Clara thing actually started early in the series, when the Doctor was still with his previous two companions, continued on with the following Christmas episode, and then as the plot of the second half of the series, so it really isn't a bad story arch. Two people obsessing over a leaf, now that's weird.
Will Endowed no . He’s missed so much references and clever writing because I know 99% of people won’t get because you have to look for them for eg . I bet you didn’t know in time of angels there is a vashta nerada helmet in the background when Amy is stuck in the cabin . Or little sick things like in god complex Amy’s door is 7 because she was 7 when she met the doctor , there is so many of these that I know even you don’t know and there’s more that I don’t know yet as well because you need to rewatch it to find out . Also , I love series 8 and every season , but he said he became disinterested after season 8 so if he’s not interested why is he watching a video about it 😂
"I'll explain later!"
I really appreciated how kind and non judgmental you were in this video. So many people only make these videos to yell at a camera for an hour, so it was nice to hear a friendly voice for a change :) great video overall!
Thank you so much.
I made a follow-up video in which I address some counterarguments to this video, and correct some minor mistakes I made. You're welcome to check it out. :)
Great points! but with your last point it makes sense to me. The Silence blew up the Tardis to stop the Doctor from ever being able to reach Trenzalore. They were unaware blowing up the Tardis would cause the universe to effectively end
I’m still wondering what was under the blanket on the bed.
Yeah. That could have been the BEST EPISODE in Capaldi era. And they screwed it up.
The whole point of the episode is that you’re not supposed to know.
Also wtf was the point of seeing the doctor as a kid???
A massive issue with Moffat's run was his need to have mysteries he doesn't yet know the answer for. Both in Doctor Who and Sherlock he does this and it is extremely infuriating to watch.
new york is literally called the city that never sleeps (for good reason, there is always something happening, night or day), so the idea that the statue of liberty is an angel and can move freely around at night still annoys me
Im not going to comment on these five, others have said it all. But you did miss one big thing with a couple clara episodes. In one she goes back and meets danny as a child. In another she meets an astronaut from the future where its implied that hes danny and claras child when he says "my parents were time travelers" and has an army man like the one child danny had. Since danny died and clara went off in time with me. It seams like a huge plot hole or at least an abandoned storyline. Its always annoyed me and kinda ruined clara as a companion for me.
Although it could be fixed by clara going back to the moment danny died and taking him through time before returning him for his death.
Well, that would also be impossible. Because Danny is clearly seen dead and transformed into a Cyberman. And then he sends a kid from 'the other side' at the end of the episode.
When would Clara do that? Between seasons? I guess that would explain why broadcast gaps are 9 months or longer since recently, huh... I don't think she can perform birth after her heart has stopped and she's a travelling zombie.
There's a million ways to fix this. It could even be a test tube child created by UNIT or whomever, by scraping the genetic material from whatever. But as it stands, there is no explanation in the show direct or implied, and long standing plot holes are generally not closed by the next showrunner, he'll be too busy making some tasty fresh ones of his own.
Regards Clara and the GI- you might consider it lazy but its not a plot hole- we are shown in the episode a series of shots of the GI in past Doctors lives- after Clara jumps in we see the exact same shots with Clara having replaced the GI in them right down to being in the exact point he was standing on- implying that's what mainly happened to the versions of her- she simply replaced where he had gone thus eradicating the GI from that place in time- she didn't have to fight him. The other cases where she did not do this appears to be those where she actually meets the Doctor and directly aids in helping him- such as in the Dalek Asylum or Victorian London. Exactly how that works mind you is a whole other matter!
That's a good point.
I was honestly unsure whether to include the Impossible Girl story arc in my countdown, as I felt it was kind of borderline as to whether it was a plot-hole or just lazy.
If Clara's entry into the Doctor's time-stream saved the Doctor by 'replacing' the Great Intelligence, then it doesn't really make any sense that Clara feels she exists 'to save the Doctor'. If the Great Intelligence isn't around anymore in the Doctor's past (except in past episodes where the Great Intelligence is directly involved), then there's no longer anything to save him from. Now THAT's a plot-hole.
What did you think of the rest of my points? Did my logic check out?
Yeah in most cases- in some I think the viewer is deliberately left to infer a thing from surrounding information rather than it being a traditional plot hole- the TARDIS exploding for example, we are never told how they do it- but all the surrounding evidence would point to River doing it, she was still unknowingly under Silence control "You never really escaped us" her job was to stop the Doctor getting somewhere- taking his wheels away was a good way and she is piloting the TARDIS when it happens right after the 'silence will fall' is spoken which seems to act as a trigger similar to a sleeper agent. But its only inferred not given. The Kovarian plan presumably was not to destroy the universe just the TARDIS- either they did not realise the implications of their actions (therefore not a plot hole, just ignorance on Kovarians part), or River subconsciously caused it to be so catastrophic she would force the Doctors hand into trying to undo it.
On Trenzalore I think you may have erred somewhat- the Papal Mainframe is like space UN- they are not there to start a war- the reason they dont blow up Trenzalore is they have the opposite job- they are there to hold the peace, prevent war, and protect the citizens on the planet- hence why they team up to fight with the Doctor against aggressors. And Lem knows the Doctors will not risk restarting the Time War- so as long as he is of that mind he will never speak his name- the only real threat is to the people of Trenzalore.
On the Statue of Liberty- its a stretch no argument there- but we are told that the Angels have taken over New York and possess every single statue in the city- presumably thats enough of them in a city wide network, and enough power with their battery factory of displaced people to generate a city wide perception filter when they need it. Again inferred only from small bits of information. The real reason of course was it was too good a visual image to miss (I blame ghostbusters 2 personally).
Thanks for the response, and the counter-points.
I think it's very likely that the Silence knew that the TARDIS's explosion would destroy the universe, and were planning on it. The coordinates for the TARDIS exploding are weirdly, extremely specific, and the silence and destruction coming from the cracks seems to be widely known among many alien societies, such as Prisoner Zero, its gaolers and those vampires at Venice. If the Silence had simply broken/disabled the TARDIS, they would have created a paradox in which the Doctor would have never been able to reach Trenzalore for their plan to kick off. But by destroying the universe, the necessity of causality would be broken - in this new, small universe, there's no longer the original continuity of time for any paradox to occur.
I dont believe the Silence plan was to destroy the universe, there we do disagree, rather it was merely to stop the Doctor ever reaching Trenzalore and being able to speak his name- that is the stated goal in the show and I dont think it needs much further exploration, I think we can take it at face value- I also think we have to take into consideration that the TARDIS is sentient. When River goes to the very specific time-Amy's time- she asks the TARDIS why she has brought her there. This implies to me, that the TARDIS does what she always does, she goes where she knows she will need to be at just the right time to be there -and in doing so after all the stars go out she provides the only substitute star still existing in the entire universe, keeping earth preserved (more or less bar some screwed history) long enough for the Doctor to save the day and her. Had the TARDIS not been where she was there would have been no earth and no Big Bang Two and the TARDIS would have died in the explosion.
I have a VERY strong disagreement with everyones assessment of the Great Intelligence. I can call myself the Doctor all day long, but that does NOT make me the Doctor, there is only one Doctor, and that's NOT me. How do we know that the Great Intelligence is all that smart after all? Also, there is nothing implied about Clara's intelligence, which may in fact be greater then that of the Great Intelligence. And finally, the reason why the Doctor may not recognize Clara is because of two very different reasons, one, rather then hire a whole bunch of actresses to play the numerous incarnations of Clara, they choose to have Jenna Coleman play every part. And secondly of all, while WE may see Clara, it is possible that the Doctor and other people around him may see someone else.
And let us not forget that it is implied that Clara's many incarnations throughout time lived full, complete lives (as an example, what about the first time we actually meet Clara [Soufflé Girl]), and didn't just step onto the stage for a couple of minutes. How do we know that when the (First) Doctor met Clara for the first time (when she told him not to take his first pick as Tardis but to take a different Tardis) that that was the first time that they met. Isn't it possible that Clara (in that incarnation) was a Tardis Repair Specialist, and that he might have casually mentioned the possibility of stealing a Tardis to her, and possibly gotten her assistance to gain access to the repair facility? Therefore, wouldn't it make sense for her to know what the condition of the various Tardis's were in? And to the Doctor (and remember, this was a VERY long time ago), she was just a technician who helped him escape Gallifrey. He would not most likely remember her during their second encounter. He might not have even known her name.
I feel people really need to be informed about how wrong Clara became essentially because they got cold feet and didn't follow through with her original concept; she was supposed to be that Victorian governess. From the Victorian era. Not a modern-day companion, which makes so much more sense when you think about it, but apparently someone, not sure if it was Moffat himself, decided we the audience wouldn't be able to engage or relate to a companion from another time-period - even though it has been done before to excellent effect.
The fact that in The Angels take Manhattan the Doctor uses regenerative energy to heal rivers wrist, despite being out of regenerations at that point, is a MASSIVE plot hole also and has always griped me.
2 different versions of the question? must have missed that...is there a video someplace?
Wondering the same.
For me, it's the impossible girl arc, because they didn't explain how that linked to the next episode (the 50th anniversary special) and then the episode after that in the next series. It just didn't link. If she dissappeared in trenzalore, how did she suddenly appear in some kind of present day and how did she remember the doctor?
A of the biggesr plot holes was how did the older doctors know to save Galifray? Which is a shame because they could have done this in twice Upon a Time but didn't for some reason 🤔
YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW LONG I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO RECOGNISE THE EXPLODING TARDIS PLOTHOLE
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!
I still don't understand how the doctor got his sonic screwdriver to Amy when he was trapped in the Pandorica. It was a paradox because at some point he would have had to have escaped it on his own without the screwdriver in order to give it to amy in the first place.
Yeah I just really started hating most of the moffat plots in general. They were confusing for the sake of being confusing. They just weren't enjoyable to watch because you can't make sense out of nonsense.
Novaximus: As I understand it, the Doctor (version 2) gave his screwdriver (version 2) to Rory shortly after he "killed" Amy. Rory then used the screwdriver (version 2) to free the Doctor (version 1) from the Pandorica, and he (the Doctor version 1) then placed the screwdriver (version 2) into Amy's jacket pocket. Looked at from the Doctor's point of view, he was in the Pandorica when Rory freed him using a screwdriver from the future. The Doctor then used River's Vortex Manipulator to travel to "the present" (roughly 2011, whenever the episode first aired), and not long afterward travelled back in time to shortly after Rory killed Amy, but before Rory freed the Doctor from the Pandorica. He then gave his screwdriver to Rory, which allowed Rory to free the Doctor (an earlier version of the Doctor) from the Pandorica, he also instructed Rory to place the screwdriver into Amy's pocket after he was done.
Another way to look at it is from the viewpoint of the screwdriver itself. It started out in the Doctors pocket, was freed from the Pandorica by another screwdriver, travelled to the future in the Doctors pocket, and then returned back to shortly after Rory killed Amy. It was then given to Rory, and used to open the Pandorica and free both ayounger (by maybe a couple of minutes, maybe a couple of hours) version of both the Doctor and the screwdriver. Once the Doctor was free from the Pandorica it was placed into Amy's pocket, and returned back to the present day inside Amy's pocket while she was in the Pandorica. It was then retrieved from Amy's pocket by the Doctor. Its confusing, I know, but I hope this helps.
You are correct, how did he first get out of the box.
It's a loop. That's the point. The Doctor gets out of the box because he's already gotten out of the box. time travel.
Who wrote Beethoven's Fifth?
Something i've wondered as well. There had to of been a very first time he escaped
No shit you could name over a dozen great Moffat episodes, but only 7 Russel T. episodes. Russel had 4 seasons. Moffat had over 6 if you consider the times that he wrote in Russel's seasons. Of course you will name over a dozen if Moffat wrote much more than Russel T. did.
Benjoys That and the fact that most of RTD’s offerings are complete dredge...
Benjoys He misses out some great RTD episodes. The series 2, 3 and 4 finales are all missing.
I do not consider the blowing up of the TARDIS to be a plothole at all. It makes perfect sense to me. It had been hinted a bit that it takes a lot of knowhow to safely destroy a TARDIS. The Daleks could do it, but even then they had to do it just right. The Silence branch that blew up the TARDIS had no way to know any of the consequences of this and just stupidly blew the thing up without understanding the consequences of doing so. In other words, they didn't intend to blow up the universe, they just didn't know what they were doing since they were messing with things they really didn't understand. That statement applies on severe levels, really.
Number 6) if the rooms in heaven sent reset every time then the Doctor would’ve never of been able to break through the wall.
Even if they didn't, he still wouldn't be able to get through the wall. That's not how it works, but I'm willing to suspend disbelief
My Moffat ‘plot holes’, in the Impossible Astronaut two parter: Why did The Silence supposedly only send man to the moon in order to get a NASA space suit to use as a life support machine cum automated mechanoid, when that isn’t what a NASA space suit is or does, couldn’t they just have used anything as the outside skin of their hi-tech alien child rearing device? The whole hunting down of Rory and Amy with Canton shooting them point blank as they beg him not to then two scenes later they’re fine and all friends, is dramatically cool but makes NO sense whatsoever no matter how you try and cut it. Too many of Amy’s cryptic musings about the man she truly loves refer more to the Doctor than Rory, if she’s really talking about Rory then why wouldn’t she just say his name? I know it’s a dramatic trope to play pronoun games, but I still say it feels more like she was sending a secret love letter to the Doctor in a fashion she could deny later if she survived, which makes her one cold hearted bitch!
I kind of hated how Amy was written overall. She often came off as cold, heartless and a bit of a bitch. Especially, where it came to Rory, who was written as a spineless, cowardly idiot. Here is a man who is a medical professional, who presumably deals with life and death situations all the time and he reduced to a bumbling idiot who dies and comes back all the time. He also clearly has no self-esteem or he would've cut Amy loose a long time ago for the way she treats him and that one episode that shows them as kids shows she's treated him that way since they were little. It's a toss up for who is the most pathetic, him or Micky.
Chris McWilliams - I agree with pretty much all of that, but then again, when they wrote Clara in a fleshed out way to the point that we learned about every tiny aspect of her life from her staff meetings to her love life, I was bored to tears by all of that, for me it became ‘oh god she’s crying again, can we just get back to the monster please!?’, but then, I am a kid at heart (urgh, kissing, I want more laser sword fights!).
You know the Angels' picture becoming an Angel is less of a plot hole and more of a call back to Blink. How did those 4 Angels end up at that mansion? Because the Doctor went there and he had a folder from Sally Sparrow that contained exactly 4 photos of the Angels that she took. So it is a bootstrap paradox.
The fact that many of Clara's splinters didn't really know the doctor but the GI's splinters knew who he was and remembered their mission always leaves me scratching my head. Why does one retain his memories while the other doesn't?
I'm not a huge fan of Moffat but I do have to defend him on two of the plot holes you spotted:
The angels having different powers can be easily explained since they were on different planets. Maybe there's more than one species of weeping angel. Similar to how theres dozens of different Cybermen and Daleks.
And secondly, we later find out that Smith was the last incarnation of the Doctor's first set of regenerations. So the universe thinking he was dead could have been because logically there was no way for him to regenerate again with the Timelords gone. He only gets more regenerations after they give him more.
Kovarian chapter are typical naive extremists who don't understand what the consequences of their actions will be. The time of the doctor alludes to that when the doctor says they didn't think of "the destiny trap" -- that in order for the doctor to reach trenzalore and give them a reason to go back in time he would have had to defeat them already. I actually very much liked the explanation for their story because it illustrates how even the scariest, most seemingly powerful people and monsters are still fallible.
I would sincerely doubt from that characterization that they actually meant for their actions to nearly destroy the universe twice.
They're clearly very good at what they're doing, but you don't need to know what the result of what you're doing will be to be good at doing it. If you did, the planet we're on now probably wouldn't be in the mess that it's in.
...
I think I can contest the doctor's date of death with only information that's given out in-universe as well. Even River Song is not sure of the order of the doctor's regenerations. To the lay-monster knowing only the date the doctor died and what face he had at the time is actually not very useful information, since the doctor is a time traveler and for all they know wherever and whenever s/he is encountered could be before that date from his/her point of view. The only characters apart from the doctor I recall mentioning events around that point in his timeline after the fact were with UNIT, and so would probably have known his date of death was false anyway.
Also, they might have thought Wiping out the universe in a single instant better than the horror of time forever...
the kovarian chapter arc sort of reminds to the day of the daleks plotline with the rebels making the timeline itself where the daleks ruled. ;) guess that moffat was actually trying to homage classic arcs/serials and you can see it all over his tenure with smith and capaldi.
One of my biggest gripes isn't so much a plot hole, but a plot left behind. After the 50th Anniversary episode it seemed like the 11th doctor would go on a quest to find Gallefrey after he realized it wasn't destroyed and he's no longer the last of it race (besides the Master)... but that never happened even after his regeneration to the 12th doctor.. nothing! It was entirely ignored if not forgotten... maybe the 13th incarnation will pick up this quest?
HUGSaLOT Valkyrie I KNOW, RIGHT???
He did. it was that billion plus year incarcaration in the Confession Disk which led him to Gallifrey.
Missy mentions Gallifrey at the end of series 8, but she lies about its location and the Doctor is unable to find it. In series 9, he finds Gallifrey at the end of _Heaven Sent_ and spends most of the following episode there. It's again mentioned by the Doctor and the Master/Missy in series 10.
Did you miss Hell Bent?
What on earth are you talking about? The Doctor spends a good chunk of season 9 trying to find Gallifrey, and he eventually succeeds. This plot wasn’t left behind at all.
10:12 *THAT'S MY CAR!!!* Same make and model and everything. Looks so weird seeing it like that :p
Great video by the way. As much as I love ripping on Moffat I appreciate your objective look at these plot holes
With the TARDIS exploding plot-hole, I don't believe the Doctor's enemies expected the TARDIS to explode, or, at least, for the damage to be quite that extensive.
danny pink story made me stop watching
It was kind of pointless wasn't it?
The entire Danny pink story is also a huge plot hole, Clara's and Danny's direct descendant is involved in the episode listen (in which Clara once again has a key influence on the doctor's life) and yet both danny and clara die without having children.
lil chris tuten youre so right I wondered that too Danny dies withouthaving children how weird is that
Sterre D'Agata
It comes from a show runner who doesn't know how to keep a story together
lil chris tuten Been a while since I watched Listen but doesn’t the Doctor say Orson Pink a descendant from a possible future?
Davies could do character, but not plot.
Moffat could do mystery, but not plot.
Chibnall can do drama, but not plot.
Anyone notice a pattern here?
They think Plot is the noise shit makes when it hits the water....
hence they keep writing shit, listening for Plot.
Moffat can't even be bothered to do mysteries because his massive ego gets in the way.
I concur that today's writers need training on how to write a coherent plot for their stories. Now, character-driven stories and drama can be good and well told, and the overall plot doesn't always have to factor in heavily. A good example is 'My Dinner with Andre', where the plot is so simple it practically disappears once it's introduced: two friends talking over dinner. That is much more a character-driven story, and the plot is secondary to the point of irrelevance. It still works, though.
Likewise, films such as 'The Company of Wolves' don't seem to have a plot, because the focus is on the characters and their development, not the plot itself, which can be rendered so subtle that you just might miss it. And indeed, I've seen the film several times now and am still having trouble determining what the plot is. Finally, the abysmal 'Eraserhead' doesn't even try to pretend there's a plot, and yet it's considered one of David Lynch's most brilliant masterpieces.
But yes, in a show about time travel and science fiction, and especially in serialized stories where there's an overarching narrative, plot must play an important role. And it's telling that the three head writers to run 'Doctor Who' since its resurrection in 2005 are all known for anything BUT being able to write a decent plot.
The biggest thing is the over-reliance on time travel as a major plot point. In the old series it was, generally, just an excuse to get the Doctor and the other characters to place the story happened. He didn't do time travel tricks to cheat an ending, most of the time. In fact, a lot of the time he couldn't even move the TARDIS a few feet because "short trips were tricky".
I say dump the season-long story arcs, stop with the time travel stunts and focus on a good sci-fi or historical plot. Oh and stop letting the effects drive the story.
Chris McWilliams lol I agree but I don't think they should drop season long arcs, some of the best classic who were the long arcs
Soooooo, can we have an example of a writer YOU think can write plot? You haven't provided a baseline of "good plot" here, given that Davies/Moffat are both considered by everyone to have written some BRILLIANT plots in the past - if only for single episodes. I mean you can't please everyone, but the majority of people consider Blink to be a well written episode - that was a Moffat episode. Moffat's problem is long story arcs, not plot in general. He's written some fantastic single episodes.
So please explain who you think is a good plot writer, because I'm speaking as a published writer - right now it just looks like your view of storytelling is simplistic and ignorant. If you can't provide a base standard for good writing, why should anyone take you seriously? It just looks like you like to complain.
the worst part of the statue of liberty being a weeping angel is that in the beginning of the episode they even call manhattan "the city that never sleeps".
I liked how you made clear that you CAN enjoy some episodes that would eventually make no sense. Fair play, sir!
One episode that bothers me is the one where, Clara? Goes inside a Dalek with Missy as a prisoner.
Clara seems unable to say words like "Clara" "Love" or "Compassion" but instead the Dalek translates them into words like "Dalek" "hate" and "Exterminate"
Later in this episode the Doctor releases the Dalek must be a fake because it asked for Mercy, which is a word Daleks don't comprehend.
Now. With all of this in a factor. Read these statements.
Dalek: "Have *Mercy!* "
9th D: "Why should I? You never did"
Dalek: "Help, meeeee!"
Interesting.
Later that same episode.
Dalek: "Open the bulkhead or Dalek Dies!"
Rose: "Don't do it!"
Dalek: "What use are emotions, if you will not save the woman you Hate?"
Dalek: "Dalek. You tortured me. Why?"
Van S: "I just wanted you to talk!"
Dalek: "Then hear me talk now. exterminate, Exterminate EXTERMINATE!"
Van S: "............."
Rose: ".............."
Dalek: "My gun is jammed!"
Rose: "How?"
Dalek: "Saying exterminate is how I reload! I think I over did it"
Van S: "That's lame"
Dalek: "YOU'RE LAME!"
Doctor Who is a very uneven TV show - it has superb episodes and truly inept ones - that are nonsensical and patronizing to the audience's intelligence! Moffat is a master at this; with an arrogance and lack of respect for his viewers, that for me made Who unwatchable from mid-Matt Smith onward!
Alan Moss it would help if the viewers werent so arrogant to him. if he does 1 thing wrong, everyone crashes down on him. he avoids fans and social media because of that, and then keeps making mistakes for the show
Sorry, but your English is so bad I don't get the point you are trying to make. I was a BBC script writer and I know too well how isolated showrunners can become! It has nothing to do with social media and everything to do with ego. I was always taught to respect your audience - but many in media ignore this. The new Star Wars movie is a perfect example of how ego can ruin the story for the people who count. The fans.
Alan Moss i honestly dont give a damn who you are. i just think that seven has been given such a hard time and the so-called "fans" feel the need to pounce whenever a mistake is made. It was his show and he could do whatever the hell he wanted
This video will explain all of those plot holes...
m.ua-cam.com/video/1SPk3NjYfmQ/v-deo.html
Well set out, I safely agree with the plotholes you presented, especially the last one about them destroying the entire universe just to stop a Time War.
another plot hole you didn`t mension is the so called fixed points in time, if i destroy the universe in say 2012 how can a fixed point in time exist in 2150, and if i corrected my mistake and rebooted the universe, surely every past fixed point would be gone as well.
The unmaking of the universe was also reversed, though. Isn't it said that the TARDIS is constantly exploding and repairing itself in that sequence, thus never truly destroying the universe? Therefore, the timeline without stars is likely only remembered by River, Rory, Amy, and the Doctor, while also having never truly existed. It could even be said that such an event is also a fixed point in time.
You don't completely destroy the operating system of a computer when you reboot it, so why would you expect that the pivotal points in history to change if you reboot the universe.
Fixed points in time are just a plot device anyway. They're just thrown about as an excuse for why they Doctor can't change one thing but he can change another and it's not always consistant.
Big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey...
Silly, the Doctor doesn't have those anymore. :)
Clara was on too long and I didn't care for at all.
Yeah, she should've died after the Impossible Girl thing was finished. That was her main plot, once it was done she had no purpose other than Moffet thinks Companions should be indestrucable and never die.
Loved Clara in series 7 & 9, but loathed her in series 8.
The show started revolving around her way too much; it was like she was the lead character and the Doctor was her companion.
So very true. Of course the new series has a habit of that weather it's the Doctor trying to impress Rose by letting her pick where they go next or if it's the Doctor taking on Donna because they randomly bumped into each other and she had heavily packed and just assumed he wanted her to go.
The new series, in general is overbalanced that way and it shoudl stop.
I really loved Clara. She was something we haven't seen with the Doctor before. She never really needed the Doctor to save her, but rather preferred his companionship mutually. Rather than him requiring a companion and choosing one at will. She was brilliant enough on her own. Which many episodes have proven I may add. She really impacted The Doctor's life (as evident in his finals words to her), "Run like hell. Run like hell because you always need to. Laugh at everything because it's always funny. Never be cruel. Never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends." And of course the infamous quote "...Fear makes companions of us all." Something Clara told him.
They were both equally brilliant which is why, in the end, she acquired her own "TARDIS" and lived the rest of her life until she felt it should end. Similar to the Doctor. They were very much alike, which many people hated but I LOVED. I loved that the Doctor could finally connect with someone like himself. Even after River. Who was so much more
You forgot the biggest plot hole with the weeping angels -- in their first appearance they were described as the loneliest beings in the universe because they couldn't even look at each other, and then the Doctor got them to look at each other so they'd be trapped forever. But in their second appearance (Time of Angels) we had lots in one place, and the vast majority of them were within eyeline of several others, yet they moved when the non-angel characters weren't looking. A horde like we saw in part 2 would have been impossible. (Unless it was all down to the flickering lights. Maybe it was.)
I can forgive the whole Tardis exploding hole by just assuming that the Silence had no idea destroying the Tardis would destroy the universe.
Asylum of the Daleks a great episode? It's one of if not the worst dalek shows in Dr Who and completely destroys the setup of Dalek society
Nah man, that series 9 opener was weird. That whole story happened anyway, despite the fact that Doctor was still nice to young Davros. In fact, throwing that in there, just to explain why the cries of a human, trapped in a Dalek shell, would translate to the word "mercy", as if they don't already have that knowledge, just seemed silly. Even more, why would Davros grow up to still battle the man who saved his life? Sure, he must not have realized it the next time they met in his own timeline, because the first Doctor to encounter the Daleks was the first or the second, but after he re-encounters the next Doctor, with the same blue box of a spaceship, why wouldn't Davros wonder why a different man, just as kind and helpful as the last, be doing these things, and driving the same box, whilst talking about the last time they met? Sure the earlier incarnations also have no clue that they are semi-responsible for the current Dalek race, but that doesn't really explain why a little boy would grow into a man who is so resentful of his then-confused hero.
Will Endowed When surrounded by a lifetime of endless war and suffering, people can either hold on to whatever memory of human decency and kindness or hide those memories away deep in the recesses of their minds. The Doctor didn't turn Davros into a person who would remember such kindness and probably couldn't have just from a single interaction, but by this action he gave the genocidal nihilist a small sliver of mercy that was barely able to be imprinted onto his creation.
I think that was the entire point of that episode. Those Daleks were so desperate and mixed up, that's why they behaved the way they did.
Heavily disagree. I think it was pretty good.
I think the asylum would would work better for the cybermen like if cybermen start to become more human again then they are put into the asylum
The end of hell bent was amazing!!!! ONE OF MY FAVOURITE EPISODES!!
The Blue Box but heaven sent was really bad
Dhara Barot I know this is probably a troll comment but in case it isn't you should know that Heaven Sent is actually one of the best (if not the best?) Doctor Who episodes of all time.
fistofan936 capaldi was great in it but writing as always with moffatt. But the main problem was that moffatt messed with the canon of doctor who like the hybrid... That's donna and the doctor. I also hated the fact that they didn't explain some of the things. Brushing off the main point to focus on clara. Also didn't like the way that they brought her back it defeated the whole poetic arch. It made her death seem pointless aside if they kept her dead the doctor would have fought harder as seen in hell bent... hell bent was a master piece written beautiful, present amazingly. Heaven Sent was a bit of a hodge podge.
So not a troll, just someone who appreciates good art who respects others opinions and doesn't call people troops because their opinions are different
I can't exactly decipher what you're trying to say in that jumbled mess of sentences, but I don't think you quite understood what he was going for.
fistofan936 I'm sure if you reread it again with that biased opinion clouding your judgement you will understand because it's in plain English.
But if you don't understand my opinion then that's your choice and no problem
Interesting. Honestly, Moffet's style has always reminded me of Toriyama, the guy who makes...well Dragon Ball and dozens of other smaller stories. He's a great creator...but he writes by the seat of his pants. He doesn't think through his plots, except at the basic level, and while this can lead to some fantastic stories, still remembered in the annuals of Anime history, reverberating even into western cinema, it can also result in utter non-sense, because he thinks 'I have a cool idea, I'm wondering how I'll justify it' rather than 'I have a story, let's see how it ends'
You forgot the fact that when moffit introduced the angels they were defeated because the doctor tricked them into looking at each other and now they have a friggin army of them when we next see them.
That doesn't mean that they are looking directly at them though does it?
Science fiction requires plot holes to move the story along. Its a given.
Really? I disagree, they can set up crazy imaginary worlds, butt hey need to make sense in thier own world.
Yes, if you're not going to have real world logic (and obviously mostly you can't) then at least have internal logic. If you say that the green aliens can turn invisible and teleport then they can and if something comes up where they can't then you need to explain WHY they can't.
Science fiction does not require plot holes. you have no idea what you're talking about about. The story establishes it's own rules and needs to adhere to those rules. When a story breaks its own rules without explanation, or just blatantly ignores the rules it wants to, those are plot holes. The plot holes pointed out in this video are legitimate arguments.
Steve Areno but if u create a world u have to have reasons for things or the reader/viewer won’t buy into the world
I think most writers would tell you that a story needs to have internally consistent rules which are respected by the author and not broken. This is needed for audience immersion into the story and suspension of disbelief.
Bad video. None of these are plot holes. Except the Statue of Liberty.
Also, Hellbent is great (although not as good as Heavensent). The Hybrid question still needs to be answered though.
i found heaven sent to be overrated, the confession dial was just an item shown once or twice which didnt make much sense in the first place so the whole episode inside it seemed a bit pushed in tbh, also i enjoy hell bent, just wished they had kept clara out of it.
I highly agree!!!!!👍❤️
They answered the Hybrid question. It's the Doctor and Clara together: they're the Hybrid.
I thought it was the girl called Me?
Handsome Banana Nope. Watch the episode again.
While Moffat had his flaws, I think he's still one of the best showrunners since Hinchcliffe.
Plot holes so big you could pilot a TARDIS through them.
It's not just that the plot-holes are so wide you could fly a TARDIS through them - you could fly the INSIDE of a TARDIS through them.
By the way, I recently uploaded a follow-up Plot-Holes video, in which I address some counterarguments and mistakes I made in this first video. You're welcome to check it out, and I hope you enjoy it.
How about we talk about the Russel T Davis Plot holes?? "Because his writing is so perfect!" How about we talk about in the Series 2 Finale; How did Pete Tyler know when to catch Rose? How did he manage to transport himself and Rose across to the parallel earth when the teleport devise could only carry 1 person? How did Pete catch rose then not get immediately sucked into the space between worlds?? What happened to the Cybermen that were humans from his world did they get sucked into the space between worlds, Well clearly not because of Torchwood's episode of Cyberwoman!!!?????
In addition: Looking at the T Davis Era most of the Series finales were world take over time rather than something DIFFERENT!!
Series 1 Daleks take over Earth
Series 2 Daleks and Cybermen take over Earth
Series 3 The Master takes over earth
Series 4 The Daleks steal & take over earth
Special finale: The Master Takes over Earth and the Time Lords then take control of Earth
Bit of a Pattern forming here.....
Where as
Series 5: The Universe is destroyed and the Doctor has to reset the universe
Series 6: (Btw I hated this series) River breaks a fixed point in time and everything is collapsing
Series 7 P1: The Angels takeover New York and Kill Amy & Rory
Series 7 P2: The Doctor reveals there has been a man who fought in the time war who was him but not called the Doctor!
Series 8: The Cybermen Take over the world...
Series 9: Clara is Dead and the Doctor goes back to Galifrey to save her
Series 10: The Cybermen are back and the Doctor is regenerating, this time theres
's two Masters and they are trying to escape the Cybermen and struggling.
WOW So Moff isn't bad actually he's done a pretty good job....RTD actually did more messing up than any of the other writers...!!!
you're just making a strawman and apparently don't understand the term "plot hole"
Mile End Park series 6 is my favorite, but otherwise I agree with a lot what you say
Yeah I just didn't get Series 6, so I don't really follow it up or give it praise - Although I might re-watch it to see if my thoughts are actually that poor of the series...I just remember watching most episodes and being upset by them...
"error is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline" Um yes I think I do - How did he manage to transport himself and Rose across to the parallel earth when the teleport devise could only carry 1 person? Ah yes Pete Said it could only carry 1 Person, so when the story reaches it's climax Pete comes in a saves Rose....So thank you very much I do understand what a plot hole is.... Another issue is the lack of continuity in Doomsday so it has a damaged reputation...there will be many people who agree with me on this!
Maybe you didn't pay much attention when he said he is a Moffat-apologist and can list more great Moffat episodes than RTD episodes, so now that you know, you can tune down this emotional response.
I absolutely agree with the spirit of your essay. But I do have a few thoughts on your plot holes:
3. You make an assumption that the rest of the galaxy knows how many regenerations the Dr. has and in what order he regenerates. You also assume that the galaxy thinks there's only one "The Doctor". The galaxy may just think the 11th doctor is the last in his timeline, or another time-lord took the name The Doctor. The Doctor could be the John Smith of time-lords.
4. Humanity would be compelled only as long as they retained footage of the moon landing. It's a false assumption that mankind would be compelled forever.
5. The silence had no way of knowing the outcome of their actions.
More episodes should be written by Niel Gaiman, "The Doctors Wife" was one of the all time best new-who episodes
I howled with laughter at..."the fucking garbage resolution of Hell Bent". It truly was and I love Moffat.
Might have missed some episodes but what was the voice in the tardis when it blew and cracked the screens/took control etc
dakariszulu And who made the giant footprints in Amy's yard? Waited years for that one to get explained
I really need to go back and watch that episode as I'm currently at a loss to what the episode is, to Netflix!!
minissa2009 Both explained. Sorry guys, watch again!
I've always thought the statue of liberty angel thing was explained as the fact that the hotel they were at was actually stuck in its own dimension, meaning that it's not actually the real statue of liberty.
Another minor point on the Angels: why should they start breaking everyone's neck when they need your potential time? The throwing back in time idea was a great thing in Blink.
My biggest problem with the return of the Angels was that they could move if they thought they might not be seen...
Love how most of these are from Matt Smith's tenure on the show, I found his story arcs to be way too complicated and too ambitious that they fell apart and were never ended in a satisfying way. Thank god Moffat went a lot simpler with Capaldi
I'm pretty certain the Covarian chapter of the Papal Mainframe didn't realize that killing the Doctor would destroy the universe. It was unintended.
What about in Day of the Doctor where Moffat tries to tell us that the Doctor has had the same sonic screwdriver for four hundred years when we saw it break and left behind in numerous Russell era stories and the Moffat-written Eleventh Hour?
I'll still never forget the ending in the episode where Moffat bought back the Ice Warrior (the name of which I can't remember.):
"Why did the Tardis disappear, then?"
"Mumblemumblemumblemumble"
"..."
*cut*
It's a minor one, but the one which dropped me off the edge (after Asylum of the Daleks parked me with a leg hanging over it). Moffat's writing to me was egregious to the point where I flat out stopped watching through a lot of 11 and 12's tenure.
Another problem with the Lady Liberty Angel is that the Statue of Liberty is made of metal, while all other angels or description of angels have been stone. The Doctor himself, as well as that tome of Ultimate Angel Knowledge from Time of the Angels 2-parter describe them as "turning into stone when observed", yet there you have the massive hulking chunk of metal being an angel.
Great video! In response to some issues people seem to be having with the Silence Moon Landing thing, whilst the fact that many humans may not have seen the moon landing footage (either because they just haven't watched it or are from other human-colonised worlds that don't feel the need to recount it), most post-hypnotic suggestions will wear off after a while. Although the "kill all Silents" command is a very powerful suggestion (as it can be assumed that it has lasted until at least 2011/12, with humans in the present day presumably still killing off the Silence on Earth), it has probably worn off by the 52nd century and that's why the Church of the Papal Mainframe's soldiers don't attack their Silent priests.
In addition to the fact that most suggestions will become ineffective after some time, it is similarly easy to remove such a suggestion with hypnosis to the reverse effect (as I understand it). And as mentioned before, we don't actually know where the Papal Mainframe originally comes from, so the soldiers it employs would probably not have seen the moon landing footage in the 52nd century. In Clara's case, she has either not seen it herself or has now forgotten about the suggestion as discussed.
There are also a million and one other reasons why she didn't try to kill the priests; it's established clearly that the Church does not permit the wearing of clothes, so maybe they scan their visitors for signs of hypnosis? If a member of their congregation had been priorly hypnotised, this would surely inhibit their ability to confess to the priests, at least truthfully.
Wow. Sorry for the novelistic comment, but needs must!
The biggest plot hole is: how did the Doctor escape the Pandorica. It's never explained.
In retrospect, the Doc weaseling out of a fixed point in time in S6 was where it went off the rails. Sucked all the tension out of the story as every loss became ultimately reversible. Retconning Gallifrey back into existence was the climax of the trend, and companions’ stubborn refusal to stay dead once killed has piled on even more-though by that point I’d stopped watching.
With plot holes in TV shows I tend to make up my own reasons in order to fix them. Can't do it all the time, but I try.