This makes even more sense when you take certain comments he's made in regards to "fan-ish" explanations and what you can do on BBC1. From this interview
about "The Angels Take Manhattan":
“New York would still burn. The point being, he can’t interfere. Here’s the ‘fan answer’ – this is not what you’d ever put out on BBC1, because most people watch the show and just think, ‘well there’s a gravestone so obviously he can’t visit them again’. But the ‘fan answer’ is, in normal circumstances he might have gone back and said, ‘look we’ll just put a headstone up and we’ll just write the book’. But there is so much scar tissue, and the number of paradoxes that have already been inflicted on that nexus of timelines, that it will rip apart if you try to do one more thing. He has to leave it alone. Normally he could perform some surgery, this time too much surgery has already been performed. But imagine saying that on BBC1!”
I'm trying to figure out what in that mass of technobabble couldn't
be said on BBC1.
Yeah, I'm not coming up with anything. Nope, all of that would have flown. The non-sci-fi audience would have gone, "Oh, okay," even if they didn't understand it, because it would sound like the Doctor knew what he was talking about. The fan audience would have gone, "Yeah, that makes sense," for exactly the same reason.
What I love about that article, by the way, is the final paragraph: "If your head hurts now, wait until someone asks Moffat what happened to the whole 'an image of an Angel becoming an Angel' thing. That's a lot of dangerous New York postcards, right there..." Is it just me, or is Radio Times
snarking at Moffat there?