[ SECRET POST #2333 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2333 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08. [posted twice]


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 019 secrets from Secret Submission Post #333.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - ships it ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

10. http://i.imgur.com/0k1yKad.jpg

[mekkio]

I want to know. When was the turning point that Moffat went from "can do no wrong" golden boy writer to "that horrible hack"?" Because for the longest he was considered brilliant and daring and blah, blah, blah but now, all I read on the internet is how much his writing is awful. Again, what happened and when exactly was the turning point?

[cassandraoftroy]

I suspect it was when he got put in charge of things. Because I think he's great when he's just a writer and somebody else has ultimate creative control. But he needs a leash. There are a lot of writers out there like that, actually; lots of good ideas, but need someone to tell them, "No."

[(Anonymous)]

Someone with too much time on their hands should take a sample over time of mentions of Moffat and graph the positivity.

[iggy]

I was wary of him even before his time as showrunner began. If you look at his RTD era episodes they have the same issues his episodes as showrunner do. It's just that they're a bit less noticeable since there aren't near as many of those episodes.

[othellia]

Started in the middle of Doctor Who season six - either around the time of AGMGtW or Let's Kill Hitler - steadily decreasing in faith until the Wedding of River Song, at which point people's opinions began to really solidify.

[fauxkaren]

lol. For me it started with TGITF and then my dislike was cemented after TSITL/TFOTD.

[(Anonymous)]

Doesn't the backlash always follow success? First you're the golden boy who can do no wrong. Then you can do no right. Then you leave and suddenly all people can remember is how wonderful you were.

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't watched DW since the first half-season with Eleven, so I can't talk there, but on Sherlock Scandal in Belgravia was where it hit. The first season was a bit dodgy in places but overall pretty cool and exciting. Then Scandal happened.

[deird1]

When he made River Song the Ponds' daughter.

[intrigueing]

I think it was somewhere around the third episode. When they realized he was capable of allowing the Mighty Morphin' Power Daleks on the show and was therefore fallible and was not, in fact, the Great Messiah of Whodom Come To Deliver Us From Rusty, everyone went bugfuck insane and had a big broken pedestal/fallen idol moment.

After that, everyone was much more clear-sighted about his flaws, and from there it became typical showrunner-scapegoating. Not that Moffat doesn't have plenty of awful legit flaws - I could write novels tearing apart his dreck if I had the time - but I think the tides of fandom, the part of fandom that doesn't actually look at or care about his actual legit flaws, and just wants to whine and blame someone for canon not adhering to their headcanon? Started around VotD.

[lex_antonia]

I want to know. When was the turning point that Moffat went from "can do no wrong" golden boy writer to "that horrible hack"?"

Let's Kill Hitler.

I used to be a big fangirl of his, and some of things he wrote are still among my favourite tv episodes ever. I still get excited about his work on Sherlock, but when it comes to Doctor Who, it's like he's not even trying anymore. The Angels Take Manhattan is practically a patchwork of his other episodes, every single scene of it has been done before. By him. Sometimes with exactly the same dialogue. It's one thing to not live up to the standards people hold you to, but it's quite another to blatantly not give a fuck. And repeating your own episodes word for word is most definitely not giving a fuck.

He need to form a club with Paul Auster, basically.

[(Anonymous)]

Only fandom seems to dislike him, most tv critics still praise him and adore his work.

[kaijinscendre]

August 31, 2011 I believe.

[writerserenyty]

This is honestly the theory my film professor had; we started talking Doctor Who after class one day (we actually watched Blink) and his theory was that Moffat was good in smaller doses, but he's spreading himself too thin with Doctor Who and Sherlock and it was doing a disservice to both shows. Which is pretty accurate.

[deird1]

I think he's an excellent writer, but kind of crap as a showrunner.

(Unlike RTD, who is a crap writer and an excellent showrunner.)

[fauxkaren]

You didn't lie.

[shukivengeance]

The flaws with his writing - inability to write characters rather than plot-devices-on-legs, his treatment of women, how the climax is never worth the build up, and the general flailing about in a desperate attempt to have plot twists that make him look like a clever writer - were less noticeable when someone else had ultimate creative control.

He's had some nice ideas, but likes to recycle them way too often.

edit: blargh this was meant to be in response to the first comment.

[fenm]

The thing he did that bugs me that not a lot of people mention (and which he doesn't have to do any more now that he runs the show) was sidelining regular characters so the main character can obsess over the new "hot, spunky" female character he's just created (or old character he's re-imagined for his own purposes).

[(Anonymous)]

"A Christmas Carol" was the first episode with Eleven that I saw and nearly from the beginning I kept thinking, "So he's Sherlock in a bow tie?" I eventually saw more differentiation in the characters after I saw more Eleven episodes when they started coming around to PBS, but they still feel sneakily similar.

[(Anonymous)]

I get what you mean, at least as of Sherlock s2 and DW s7 (DW s5, IMO, was still very Who-ish).

Hammy Who-esque supervillains running around in Sherlock and being a legit threat? Check. The Doctor being all about solving mysteries and keeping his mind occupied and staving off boredom rather than seeing the universe and meeting new people? Check. I could probably find more parallels as well.

It's funny -- the pre-Moffat Doctor was actually a lot more similar to ACD!Holmes than Moffat!Sherlock is to ACD!Holmes.

[(Anonymous)]

That's because in Moffat's most recent interviews in re: BBC!Sherlock, it turns out he and Gatiss are not ACD fans at all, and what they really wanted to do was remake the Basil Rathbone pastiches.

/soI'mstillalittlebitteryeah

[(Anonymous)]

I'm pretty sure the Doctor was partially based on Holmes originally. There are SO many similarities.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with the secret writer completely. It's actually one of the reasons I couldn't get into Sherlock, he felt less like a Sherlock (ACD) and more like an earth-bound human doctor. Some of the dialogue between in each of the shows could be taken and put in the other and still sound in character.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like for a while now, there's been an undercurrent that makes it feel like the Doctor is only interested in mysteries to solve, not people to help.

This isn't a criticism of the character at all, btw - he hasn't actually demonstrated disinterest in people's problems or anything. It's just a criticism of the writers' general trend of thinking that the only plots worth writing are the ones centered around a Holmes-esque "case". Even the companions - Amy and Clara both - are "cases" and "mysteries", as if the writers think the audience wouldn't care about them unless they were a plot point.

And there are no more stories depicting the Doctor and companion exploring some cool place for the hell of it, running into people who need help, and simply just stopping to help, maybe with some mystery thrown in for good measure. Well, there was The Rings of Akhaten, but that's all I can think of.