Thoughts on the Moffat Era, Especially Series 6

It’s not that he took out all the emotion. I’m just thinking out loud here now, but I think it’s perhaps that he made the emotion…not mean that much. Everything comes and goes so quickly.

For example, in A Good Man Goes to War, Amy’s baby is snatched away. Very emotional, yes, but…then it just kind of goes away and the Doctor runs off giggling. Emotional moments don’t have consequences anymore. The characters feel something for a fleeting moment, and then they’re back to normal. It makes that emotion seem less genuine to me.

Now, there were a few episodes where the emotion felt genuine, but…they were never Moffat episodes.

It just seems to me like Moffat was clinging to some adolescent notion of showing everyone just how clever he is, and he forgot that he’s supposed to be telling a story, not writing a book of riddles. Cleverness is good, but I don’t watch TV to solve a book of riddles. I watch TV to be transported away by a story that moves and thrills me, with characters that are written to grab hold of me and make me care.

I think part of why it’s so frustrating to me is that he’s proven he can do it, but as I pointed out earlier, these moments are fleeting and they have little to no consequence. It’s sad for a moment, and then everyone forgets about it.

Another example… you remember another scene in A Good Man Goes to War, where Amy is talking to the baby, and what could have been a potentially beautiful, moving moment ended up being yet another smirking, “aren’t I clever?” moment where Moffat twists words to make us think she’s talking about the Doctor when she’s talking about Rory. Was that called for? WHY couldn’t she have said something that reflected the weight of the moment? This was a woman ripped from her husband and forced to give birth while in captivity, and then to give the baby away. What would have been wrong with writing that scene with the kind of dialogue that reflects that?

It’s like RTD said once in his book: “People don’t talk like that.” Amy’s monologue was Moffat shoving his own wit in her mouth, rather than writing her in a way that was real. I’m not talking hyper-realism here, mind you, but there needs to be some truthfulness to the moment. Instead, it just seemed like a line that was making a joke for an audience. People don’t talk like that.

I’m rambling, I know, but it’s something I feel passionate about. Emotional moments should be a part of the story, woven as part of the story, not just padding in between the “important” moments of explosions and witty banter.

When RTD passed on the torch, I was firmly in the "This is going to be great! In Moffat We Trust!" crowd.

It's almost like that philosophical argument, "Can God make a stone so heavy even he can't lift it?" This time it's, "Can Moffat make a plot so twisted that even he can't write his way out of it?" Yes, I made a slight comparison between Moffat and God. I was that impressed with him before he took on the role of head writer.

Unfortunately, for me, the answer is yes. He can write a plot so twisted even he can't write his way out of it. And as someone who was so stoked for his era...it makes me sad.