worthyourweightinfanfiction:
“What’s Wrong With Stephen Moffat?”
Rebloggable by request
This bothered me. Most of these are dumb reasons why there is no continuity. Then, strung together, they give the appearance of a sound argument, when, individually, very few are decent reasons, making this a textbook example of a “proof by example”/”stacking the deck” fallacies. I’m not saying Moffat is perfect, but “why can’t you hit a weeping angel with a sledgehammer?” is about as dumb of an issue as you can have with someone’s writing of a sci-fi show. It’s a show about a time traveling alien who has a British accent. Have some perspective.
Because I’m tired of every nitpicky child with a computer tearing apart a show I like because they blame writers for their own lack of attention to detail, I will respond to some of these “plot holes.” I won’t address the personal preference/opinion stuff because everyone is allowed opinions, especially when they give no backing and can just say things like, “There is no meaning behind Moffat’s sci-fi,” which is non-sensical and unfalsifiable.
I will also avoid the “Moffat is sexist” quagmire because I don’t need that in my life right now. I will just address these “plot holes,” which, hilariously, all seem to be about the Weeping Angels. Here we go:
1. Weeping Angels are quantum-locked. “Turning to stone” is a simple explanation. It’s not exactly physics, but the idea, I believe is that they are not just turning to stone, they are freezing themselves in time, and at all points in time in that position. Attacking the weeping angel when its frozen at that one single moment is pointless because they exist at infinite points in time with equal strength. You are not just sledgehammering one statue, you are sledgehammering infinite statues at once. The angels being solid is really an illusion produced by observing them. It’s definitely plot science, but if you accept that being “quantum locked” is different than just being regular ol’ stone (which it is) then you can accept why you can’t just take an ice pick to them. Doctor Who is basically all plot science. I mean, there is a spaceship that is bigger on the inside because one dimension is basically placed over another. Come on.
Also, have you hit a stone statute with a sledgehammer? It would hurt like the dickens.
2. The asylum blew up?…?
3. The TARDIS has changed over the years for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes to repair, sometimes when The Doctor regenerated, sometimes by choice. The TARDIS is a living being and can re-arrange herself as she pleases. Also, The Doctor can choose to change the TARDIS as well. I don’t get why this has anything to do with the plot or continuity?
4. Again, this has nothing to do with plot, writing, or continuity. There are SO MANY MONSTERS in the DW universe that we don’t know inane details about because they aren’t important to plots. What do the Slitheen eat for breakfast? What is the Great Intelligence’s favorite color? Plot holes, the lot of them!
5. Yeah, The Statute of Liberty thing was silly, and doesn’t make sense. Of course, all the children who watch the show probably thought it was awesome. But, again, not literally stone, “quantum locked.” I think if the worst thing Moffat has done is bent the rules so he could turn the Statute of Liberty into a monster, he’s coming out ahead.
6. Yes, 1,000 visitors a year in the Library would be a smaller than expected for such a large library. That’s because The Library had 4,022 visitors on the day the vashta nerada arrived. Jesus, pay attention.
7. You just said above that Moffat dumbs down his plots too much. Now, he doesn’t explain anything. Unappeasable.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Moffat, I’m sure. Some are much more valid than others. I just wish people would stop blaming him for plot holes because of their own lack of creativity, inability to suspend disbelief, or inattention to detail. There are plot holes and continuity issues, to be sure, we just don’t need to be making them up willy nilly.
(via thebenwyattproject)
