I'd guess he's referring to the fact that the TARDIS blew up and the reason that happened has still not been explained...

Steven Moffat will, if he’s worth anything, have a BIg Fat Folder full of story lines, possibly for 3 or 5 years worth of Who. If it were me, I’d only have hired Smith if he were able and willing to commit to the full story. After that, he can walk or stay. Ditto for other principle cast, with the provisio that their characters may not make it to the end of the story.

When telling a story over a wide arc - and I mean a pan-season/series one (much like Babylon 5, BSG), it may be that things will be more clear as they develop. That all said, each season of B5, whilst part of a bigger story, held a narrative theme for that season alone. Each episode was generally self-cntained, but you really need to have been there from the start.

Also remember that this is the first time that a new Doctor Who series has kicked off with a two-parter. We also know that Moffat likes showing us the confusion of time travel. I guess that answers to some questions will come next Saturday.

This is science fiction, and it’s definitely NOT American science fiction. Some people may be spoiled by the simplicity of Star Trek and their rtaher facile plot resolutions

I've avoided all of the discussion here so far, but Paul, I know we've talked about it before and I have to say that temporal mechanics in TV is one of my favourite things and Moffat is one of it's best exponents at the moment IMO. Hopefully, I will get to see the ep in the next few days.

+1, I could have also said all of this. Hopefully I'll get to see it tomorrow night - was planning to watch it tonight until I remembered about the final part of Spartacus : Gods of the Arena.

Jon

tbh, "temporal mechanics" just annoy me when they become plot devices. At the very worst, it's only one step removed from Dallas when Pam woke up to Bobby in the shower.

Quick quote from my blog:



I'm liking it a lot.

The hallmark of cheap writing, Deus ex machina.

That and the fact that the Doctor was imprisoned by all of his enemies- unless I've forgotten exactly how it ended.

To me, it's almost as bad as the Saturday morning movie cliffhangers where one week- (and I remember this one) they would drive over the cliff- actually off it and into the void- and the next week come to a screeching halt just before falling to their deaths.

We had one heck of an ending to Doctor Who last time and yes, we know it will all work out in the end, but now that we have seen a new story without any regard to the last one...

Come to think of it- I had forgotten the Christmas special.

Oh, forget it. I'm just glad the Doctor's back.

I'm not talking about temporal mechanics in soaps, JJ! For me it started with Back to the Future, went through some patchy Star Trek over the years and then made appearances in various other shows. But for me, Lost was awesome in places, and now so is Moffat. Time travel, by it's nature, is non-linear. Therefore, storytelling in the context of time travel can be (or perhaps should be) non-linear. Writers who understand this tend to write better IMO.

<looks around nervously in case Mark is nearby>


Err, are we meant to take it that seriously? It is a kids sci fi prog. after all. (Kids of all ages)




Don't get me wrong I love it. Never miss an episode. It is just that I don't go on about the plot holes in other programmes. It is like worrying about why the castle in Merlin managed to get re-built a week after it was in a big battle. You just don't do it.


Why not just sit back and enjoy/celebrate the fact that the Brits make a dam fine Sci Fi prog.

CC


p.s.

I would like to see a bit more of character development in Ms Pond.

I thought this was explained fairly well within the episode.
The Doctor was released from the Pandorica by Auton Rory. Using River's vortex manipulator, the Doctor then worked out a way to fix the universe's destruction by using the Pandorica. The Doctor flew the Pandorica into the heart of the TARDIS' explosion.

Mark

p.p.s

I would like to see a bit more of ...................... Ms Pond

Just because it's for kids does not mean it should talk down to them.

Mark

However it is ok for kids to see women being violent towards men.

Absolutely - and kids know when they are being talked down to as well, and the tend to vote with their feet (or the off button). Wonder why kids' TV is on a general decline? My guess is that it's far too patronising.

Yep. There's enough violence the other way so a little redressing the balance is no harm at all, in my opinion.

Mark