Kate Stewart in Day of the Doctor (SPOILERS!)

[StCoop]

Anything that has lasted as long as Doctor Who, has had as many show runners and writers, won't fit together neatly like a puzzle.

We're not talking about stories from multiple showrunners decades apart though, are we? We're talking about a story from the same person only a year and a bit later. No one forced him to have Amy and Rory's last stories take place over the span of a decade but since he chose to do that he shouldn't then ignore it because "most people won't notice". If that was the only reason for ever doing anything the world would be in an even worse state than it already is.

But as we see, people will pile on RTD for any tiny inconsistency while jumping through hoops to forgive any of Moffat's blunders.

 

[Lance]

^ Funny you should say that. I was only watching one of the DWConfidentials from that period the other day, and it reminded me of two things:

1) RTD was as mad as a bag full of spanners. Bonkers. He could talk about nothing for hours and still be entertaining. In fact the man could probably talk for England! (Or Wales, for that matter.)

2) He was a much better showrunner than Moffat.

Seriously, I've forgiven Davies for a lot. In hindsight, some of his output was often questionable, but the man was consistent and always seemed to have a sunny disposition that worked in this favor. Moffat's Who has not only been wildly inconsistent, the man has often made a point of selling that inconsistency as if it's a good thing.

Not saying the Davies era was great. Not even saying it was 'good'. But it was better than the last three years of MoffatWho have been, IMO.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm hardly the type to apologize for Moffat or make RTD a scapegoat. But at the same time, dates have always been all over the place in Doctor Who. Even RTD was inconsistent at times during his run. After all, most modern-day episodes in the RTD run are supposed to take place in the year after they air, yet occasionally they mention the same year. Not to mention Torchwood and SJA seemed to have trouble remembering the whole "one year later" thing. And before anyone says "but RTD wasn't directly involved with those shows" the mistakes were made in RTD-written episodes of both shows (for Torchwood it was the Miracle Day premiere and SJA it was The Death of the Doctor).

Although, I agree, Moffat was just setting himself up for blunder every time he had Amy or Rory talk about it being a year or two later, when there wasn't really much of a need for it.

 

[Rowan Sjet]

There was a need for it, as the whole of season 7a specifically (and seasons 5-7 in general) was about showing the Doctor and the Ponds having this long running relationship.

 

[Starkers]

The RTD/Moffat wars will only end when their fans can team up against Team Chibnal!

 

[Professor Zoom]

Anything that has lasted as long as Doctor Who, has had as many show runners and writers, won't fit together neatly like a puzzle.

We're not talking about stories from multiple showrunners decades apart though, are we? We're talking about a story from the same person only a year and a bit later. No one forced him to have Amy and Rory's last stories take place over the span of a decade but since he chose to do that he shouldn't then ignore it because "most people won't notice". If that was the only reason for ever doing anything the world would be in an even worse state than it already is.

I didn't say that most won't notice. I said most won't CARE. There's a difference.

 

[StCoop]

I didn't say that most won't notice. I said most won't CARE. There's a difference.

Are you suggesting that the only reason for doing something is if a majority of people will care about it?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I didn't say that most won't notice. I said most won't CARE. There's a difference.

Are you suggesting that the only reason for doing something is if a majority of people will care about it?

Telling stories always requires a bit of legerdemain and obfuscation. It has nothing to do with real life. It's a trick, an entertaining lie designed to entertain. The writer always has to focus on some elements and abandon others, and more often than not, some degree of verisimilitude or consistency is sacrificed so that the plot or the characters may shine. That's what's happening here and I honestly can't see what's so problematic about it.

 

[JoeZhang]

I didn't say that most won't notice. I said most won't CARE. There's a difference.

Are you suggesting that the only reason for doing something is if a majority of people will care about it?

Telling stories always requires a bit of legerdemain and obfuscation. It has nothing to do with real life. It's a trick, an entertaining lie designed to entertain. The writer always has to focus on some elements and abandon others, and more often than not, some degree of verisimilitude or consistency is sacrificed so that the plot or the characters may shine. That's what's happening here and I honestly can't see what's so problematic about it.

Plus it's Doctor Who a show that has never really given a shit about such matters - it's not an american superhero comic.

 

[StCoop]

Plus it's Doctor Who a show that has never really given a shit about such matters - it's not an american superhero comic.

So consistancy in storytelling is something that you only find in " american superhero comics"? No other forms of fiction at all, then?

The lengths Moffat Fans go to to excuse his failings will never stop proving amusement.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

So consistency in storytelling is something that you only find in " american superhero comics"? No other forms of fiction at all, then?

... or you can address my point if you want.

 

[Starkers]

So consistency in storytelling is something that you only find in " american superhero comics"? No other forms of fiction at all, then?

... or you can address my point if you want.

Why would anyone address a point that was logical and well made?

The timing thing is a bit annoying, but I recall Sci putting a lot of work into laying down a timeline for New Who and as far as I recall he noted gaps in RTD’s timings as well. It is possible to be critical of both RTD and Moffat, and also possible to forgive them as well for some things. Frankly I don’t know how anyone can call RTD a consistent writer when he had the Earth invaded every other Friday, had the Earth towed out of its orbit (and back again) yet still had the general populace not seeming to notice.

I do wonder where people will turn their ire when Moffat leaves (and trust me they will turn their ire onto someone else)

 

[Noddy]

I didn't say that most won't notice. I said most won't CARE. There's a difference.

Are you suggesting that the only reason for doing something is if a majority of people will care about it?

Telling stories always requires a bit of legerdemain and obfuscation. It has nothing to do with real life. It's a trick, an entertaining lie designed to entertain. The writer always has to focus on some elements and abandon others, and more often than not, some degree of verisimilitude or consistency is sacrificed so that the plot or the characters may shine. That's what's happening here and I honestly can't see what's so problematic about it.

I don't think it's as simple as that. The dates that Moffat provided for things like Amy and Rory's wedding, and the Doctor being shot at Lake Silencio, weren't just throwaway lines that could easily be discarded/adjusted. They were crucial to the overarching plots of two whole seasons. They were definitive. For Moffat to constantly tout their huge significance, and then to seemingly forget what he himself had established, shows a worrying lack of attention to one's own detail.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I don't think it's as simple as that. The dates that Moffat provided for things like Amy and Rory's wedding, and the Doctor being shot at Lake Silencio, weren't just throwaway lines that could easily be discarded/adjusted. They were crucial to the overarching plots of two whole seasons. They were definitive. For Moffat to constantly tout their huge significance, and then to seemingly forget what he himself had established, shows a worrying lack of attention to one's own detail.

They were instrumental to these stories, not crucial, in my opinion, because they were completely arbitrary. But now these stories have been told and these dates are no longer very important. Besides, I'd say that it may be "a worrying lack of attention to one's own detail", but that's an assessment of Moffat's character, not of the quality of his writing, and the former is something I find completely lacking in interest.

 

[The Wormhole]

I do wonder where people will turn their ire when Moffat leaves (and trust me they will turn their ire onto someone else)

To his successor, obviously. In fact, this thread from 2008, a few months after it was announced Moffat would take over when RTD stepped down predicted fandom would turn on Moffat when he took over.

 

[Starkers]

I do wonder where people will turn their ire when Moffat leaves (and trust me they will turn their ire onto someone else)

To his successor, obviously In fact, this thread from 2008, a few months after it was announced Moffat would take over when RTD stepped down predicted fandom would turn on Moffat when he took over.

It's...it's like you have a Tardis or something!

man, blast from the past or what!

 

[Professor Zoom]

I didn't say that most won't notice. I said most won't CARE. There's a difference.

Are you suggesting that the only reason for doing something is if a majority of people will care about it?

I get it. You loathe Moffat. He can do no right in your eyes.

I'm suggesting that sometimes there are bigger, better concerns than making sure the dates line up, when only a small fraction of the viewing audience is paying attention from their parents basement while wearing their homemade Tom Baker scarves.

 

[Noddy]

I don't think it's as simple as that. The dates that Moffat provided for things like Amy and Rory's wedding, and the Doctor being shot at Lake Silencio, weren't just throwaway lines that could easily be discarded/adjusted. They were crucial to the overarching plots of two whole seasons. They were definitive. For Moffat to constantly tout their huge significance, and then to seemingly forget what he himself had established, shows a worrying lack of attention to one's own detail.

They were instrumental to these stories, not crucial, in my opinion, because they were completely arbitrary. But now these stories have been told and these dates are no longer very important. Besides, I'd say that it may be "a worrying lack of attention to one's own detail", but that's an assessment of Moffat's character, not of the quality of his writing, and the former is something I find completely lacking in interest.

So if DOTD comes round and Kate knows of Eleven (and maybe Amy and Rory too) in 2013, what do we do with those earlier stories? Where would they stand?

 

[Professor Zoom]

I don't think it's as simple as that. The dates that Moffat provided for things like Amy and Rory's wedding, and the Doctor being shot at Lake Silencio, weren't just throwaway lines that could easily be discarded/adjusted. They were crucial to the overarching plots of two whole seasons. They were definitive. For Moffat to constantly tout their huge significance, and then to seemingly forget what he himself had established, shows a worrying lack of attention to one's own detail.

They were instrumental to these stories, not crucial, in my opinion, because they were completely arbitrary. But now these stories have been told and these dates are no longer very important. Besides, I'd say that it may be "a worrying lack of attention to one's own detail", but that's an assessment of Moffat's character, not of the quality of his writing, and the former is something I find completely lacking in interest.

So if DOTD comes round and Kate knows of Eleven (and maybe Amy and Rory too) in 2013, what do we do with those earlier stories? Where would they stand?

What do you mean, what do we do, where do they stand? I probably won't do much. Power of Three was ok to be honest, and much of the last part of Amy and Rory wasn't all that great for me. So, I'm not likely to rewatch them anytime soon.

They don't really stand in my house. I have a netflix subscription.

 

[JoeZhang]

Plus it's Doctor Who a show that has never really given a shit about such matters - it's not an american superhero comic.

So consistancy in storytelling is something that you only find in " american superhero comics"? No other forms of fiction at all, then?

The lengths Moffat Fans go to to excuse his failings will never stop proving amusement.

Leaving aside, I'm indifferent to Moffat, Doctor Who has consistency and a degree of continuity - in the same ways the simpsons has consistency, we don't get episodes where the Doctor smokes crack or is suddenly the bad guy. The level of nit-picking you are talking about is something the show has never give a shit about and never should - for the audience this is intended for, the key thing is - is the episode they presented with on a saturday night an enjoyable one?

Everything else is secondary.