Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

[factotum]

All told, a hideously disappointing episode of what has so far been a goddamn disappointing season. I hope things start picking up soon, I really do, because this has just been... lame.

Well, there isn't any chance of it picking up *soon* because we're into the mid-season hiatus now--there won't be another episode until the Christmas special, and then the second half of this season broadcasts sometime next year.

[Tergon]

Well, poot. All I can do is hope that the new season of Supernatural is good, then, because sadly Doctor Who has failed me this season.

[CelestialStick]

Hang on, how is that a point of stupidity?

Rory became human after 'The Big Bang', he's been human for the last season and a half and River was probably conceived on his and Amy's honeymoon night (which they spent in the TARDIS).

Just to reiterate, Rory is no longer an Auton.



All right, how do you kill something that doesn't exist when you're looking at it?

Fear of sudden violent death is one of the biggest affectors of morale (see the effect of snipers and artillery in warfare) and now you have something which is virtually unkillable right in front of you, which will kill you as soon as you take your eyes off it, or even blink.

If you still think that's not potentially scary at all, then there's very little point in carrying on this discussion.

If Rory had really been reset, he wouldn't remember the other time line. While Matt Smith sounds charmingly flighty when he says, "Timey-wimey" the writers shouldn't use it as a substitute for good writing. In any case, I said that it was irrelevant to this particular episode, and you're the one who brought it up.

Something too blatantly stupid to exist isn't scary. If they'd just stopped at creatures that disguise themselves as statues and then pounce when you're not looking, that would have been someone scary, at least until they figured out that the statues were really creatures. Making them cease to exist when you look at them is blatantly stupid, and the stupidity complete removes anything scary about them.

Seriously, man. Vampires. They can't chase you across a river. You're perfectly safe in your home unless you do something monumentally foolish, you can ward them off just by remembering to have a cross handy, and they're helpless for half the day. How can anybody be scared of them?

Personally, I like my monsters with flaws that can be used against them. They allow for intelligent mundane solutions as opposed to always needing some handy technobabble at the last minute.



Before I start on this, I want to put something out there. Rather than pay for a cable package that includes BBC, I get my Who streaming off of Amazon. I pay per episode, and I'm not in the habit of paying for things I don't like.

Having said that, there are two major things I disliked about the episode. First, it was a very weak sendoff for characters with a strong fan following. Either gracefully let them retire back to their normal lives (I can think of several ways to allow for this while making them unsuitable as companions), or make their leaving appropriately epic. Rory getting zapped back felt hollow, and Amy's farewell speech lacked any real punch. Many of the flaws in the episode could be overlooked if it weren't such a big deal, but episodes like this are Important and deserve that much more attention.

Second, much like how River criticisms last season boiled down to how they were trying too hard to make her cool, you get the same feeling with angels. (River, BTW, was excellent in this episode. When she's part of the ensemble rather than the Chosen One, Kingston plays her very well.) It's a general weakness of Moffat's - he'd rather pack every moment with as much awesome as possible rather than pacing himself - but meshes rather poorly with villains better designed for suspense stories. Too much whiz-bang action is the antithesis of suspense.

Vampires are supernatural, not scientific creatures, and so run by the rules of a different genre. They're based on real-world superstition, not science. Doctor Who is supposed to be science fiction; indeed, the vampire of the Who universe were merely long-lived space aliens, who followed physical rather than supernatural rules. Making a creature that either has to freeze in place or ceases to exist isn't giving the creature a weakness, it's a stupid departure from physical science--and I was going to write "into superstition," although I don't even see a superstitious justification for creatures that have to freeze or ceases to exist when being observed. (In European superstition, vampires couldn't cross water because medieval Europeans believed that water swept away evil--thus the important of the baptism ritual.)

I've always liked River Song, and find Alex Kingston's portrayal of her quite appealing, regardless of how much an episode focuses on her. That's all the more remarkable because I hated her as the shrill and brittle Dr. Elizabeth Corday. Having seen her as River, and giving my Anglophile preferences, it's probably more surprising that I disliked her as Corday, but I REALLY did. The moment she showed up at River, however, I found her outstanding, even though I'm not a big fan of roguish characters generally. She just managed to make the character smart, warm and charming.

Spoiler

Show

Even though we disagree about the angels weeping because they're so inexorably stupidI agree that the episode gave the "Ponds" a poor sendoff. The writers gave us the glaring and stupid plot hole of making the whole episode show that they couldn't change the past if they read it in a book first, and then had Amy change the past after all at the end, only to still have the ending eliminate Amy and Rory, felt like a complete and utter contrivance to get rid of them. I would have found more dramatic integrity if, like Adric, they'd died tragically, or if, like Leela I (or Donna), they'd been abandoned by the Doctor for their own good. I really liked Amy, yet felt nothing when she left except anger that the writers did such a consistently bad job with the plot. I mean, they're clearly talented with character development, as I love the Doctor, River and Amy (and rather like Rory and especially his father), but can't seem to write a plot that can get them out of a paper bag. The producer really needs to hire someone who can write decent, intelligent, self-consistent plots. I wonder if Phillip Hinchcliffe and Derrick Sherwin (the only two original Doctor Who producers still alive) are available? Sherwin is 76, but Hinchcliffe is only 67.

Well, poot. All I can do is hope that the new season of Supernatural is good, then, because sadly Doctor Who has failed me this season.

I think, ironically, that while we share a dislike of the episode, we dislike it for entirely opposite reasons. I'm just watching Season 7 of Supernatural myself, and looking forward to the start of Season 8 (having just watched Seasons 1-6 for the first time in the past month or so), but it wouldn't surprise me if we like totally opposite things about that show too.

[dehro]

yeah.. Rory did deserve a more..centurion-worthy sendoff

[Xondoure]

Rory remembers because he was so involved with the events of the universal reset just like Amy remembers. That doesn't change the fact that the universe was reset and as such Rory never actually was wiped from existence and brought back as an automaton. Therefore Rory is human. This has been consistent for two seasons I don't see why it would stop now.

[dehro]

Rory remembers because he was so involved with the events of the universal reset just like Amy remembers. That doesn't change the fact that the universe was reset and as such Rory never actually was wiped from existence and brought back as an automaton. Therefore Rory is human. This has been consistent for two seasons I don't see why it would stop now.

agreed fillerfiller

[Brother Oni]

Something too blatantly stupid to exist isn't scary.

Mutually Assured Destruction is one of the most idiotic concepts I've ever heard of.
Its sheer stupidity didn't stop the hysteria during the height of the Cold War (look at contemporary news reels during the Cuban Missile Crisis for example).

Just because you don't find it scary, doesn't mean it isn't scary for others. I don't find spiders remotely scary, yet all the arachnophobes would vehemently disagree with me.

[That Chick]

Minor spoilers from the Angels Take Manhattan.

Spoiler

Show

Personally, the main thing that bothers me about the Weeping Angels would be the inconsistency. First of all the speed with which they can move varies greatly depending on whether they're hunting an expendable character or a main character such as the Doctor. But that's something that can be handwaved - what always annoyed me is that they break their own rules. The angels that have taken on the appearance of normal statues seldom cover their eyes and would thus quantum-lock each other, particularly when attacking in groups (there was at least one moment in the Angels Take Manhattan where they surrounded the Doctor and River and thus perceived each other).

Also, "that which holds the image of an angel becomes itself an angel", while a cool concept, would mean that all holiday pictures would result in angels jumping out of photographs. As far as I remember there was even a picture of the Statue Of Liberty in the elevator at the shady house in the Angels Take Manhattan.

That said, the Angels are one of my favourite antagonists, though I much preferred them when they were just scavengers who had the ability to do X instead of mafia bosses that can do X, Y, Z and manage to infiltrate New York and convert the Statue of Liberty. Seriously, doesn't those people ever notice that their most famous monument disappears?

THUMP THUMP THUMP
"Wooah, what's that?"
"Oh that's just Miss Liberty taking a stroll. She does that."

[Thufir]

If Rory had really been reset, he wouldn't remember the other time line. While Matt Smith sounds charmingly flighty when he says, "Timey-wimey" the writers shouldn't use it as a substitute for good writing.

Why shouldn't he remember the other timeline? This is about the mechanics of time travel and how it interacts with memories etc, a subject about which we as a species know nothing. Accept the timey-wimey, because you can't contradict it.
There's a bit more of an explanation in the mini-episode Good Night (Series 6 DVDs, I think the main four of them were on the third disc, with The Doctor's Wife and the Flesh episodes), but in the end it boils down to timey-wimey.

Vampires are supernatural, not scientific creatures, and so run by the rules of a different genre. They're based on real-world superstition, not science. Doctor Who is supposed to be science fiction; indeed, the vampire of the Who universe were merely long-lived space aliens, who followed physical rather than supernatural rules. Making a creature that either has to freeze in place or ceases to exist isn't giving the creature a weakness, it's a stupid departure from physical science--and I was going to write "into superstition," although I don't even see a superstitious justification for creatures that have to freeze or ceases to exist when being observed.

Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. This is hardly the first time Doctor Who has strayed into areas which appear to be supernatural. And again, the Doctor travels through time and space in what appears to be a wooden box, which is bigger on the inside - and in fact has variable interior volume since he can destroy and create TARDIS rooms. As far as our current science is concerned, that is just as impossible as the Angels. The Doctor is a man who can do six impossible things before breakfast each day if he so chooses.

[Friv]

Spoiler

Show

The angels that have taken on the appearance of normal statues seldom cover their eyes and would thus quantum-lock each other, particularly when attacking in groups (there was at least one moment in the Angels Take Manhattan where they surrounded the Doctor and River and thus perceived each other).

Spoiler

Show

Presumably, having enough of them around could actually work for that. One angel can step between two others, breaking the quantum lock, and then step away once the others both move. It would be chaotic, and I presume would slow them down, but... hey, I'm going to pretend that's what's going on there.

Spoiler

Show

Also, "that which holds the image of an angel becomes itself an angel", while a cool concept, would mean that all holiday pictures would result in angels jumping out of photographs. As far as I remember there was even a picture of the Statue Of Liberty in the elevator at the shady house in the Angels Take Manhattan.

Spoiler

Show

I could argue that it's possible they hadn't developed that ability yet, since this is earlier in the timeline, but it's more likely that it's just been quietly dropped from their repetoire as being kind of dumb.

Spoiler

Show

That said, the Angels are one of my favourite antagonists, though I much preferred them when they were just scavengers who had the ability to do X instead of mafia bosses that can do X, Y, Z and manage to infiltrate New York and convert the Statue of Liberty. Seriously, doesn't those people ever notice that their most famous monument disappears?

THUMP THUMP THUMP
"Wooah, what's that?"
"Oh that's just Miss Liberty taking a stroll. She does that."

Yeah, that was the only thing about the episode that I really thought was ridiculous. Overall, I really liked it.

[CelestialStick]

Why shouldn't he remember the other timeline? This is about the mechanics of time travel and how it interacts with memories etc, a subject about which we as a species know nothing. Accept the timey-wimey, because you can't contradict it.
There's a bit more of an explanation in the mini-episode Good Night (Series 6 DVDs, I think the main four of them were on the third disc, with Te Doctor's Wife and the Flesh episodes), but in the end it boils down to timey-wimey.



Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. This is hardly the first time Doctor Who has strayed into areas which appear to be supernatural. And again, the Doctor travels through time and space in what appears to be a wooden box, which is bigger on the inside - and in fact has variable interior volume since he can destroy and create TARDIS rooms. As far as our current science is concerned, that is just as impossible as the Angels. The Doctor is a man who can do six impossible things before breakfast each day if he so chooses.

It's clear that people should not have memories of time lines which cease to exit--because those events never happened. This is part of what makes time-travel stories dangerous for writers, like the current batch on Dr. Who, who have trouble writing solid stories, however talented they might be at writing characters. That's why they desperately need to hire someone who can write solid, logical, self-consistent story lines. The TV series Supernatural, ironically, handles time travel better than Doctor Who does. The poor science on Doctor Who is the reason why science fiction author Terry Pratchet consistently says that Doctor Who isn't very good science fiction, and even pointed out that the science in the science fiction comedy satire Red Dwarf it actually better than the science in Doctor Who.

Oh, and don't misuse Clarke. Just because sufficiently primitive cultures can't distinguish superstition from science doesn't mean that superstition is science--or that flightly phrases substitute for good writing.

[dps]

While Matt Smith sounds charmingly flighty when he says, "Timey-wimey" the writers shouldn't use it as a substitute for good writing.

The thing is, that's exactly how it's used--to handwave the plot points that don't really make sense.

As for the weeping angels, they probably should have been left a one-off villian. "Blink" worked because you didn't really have time to think about some of the logical problems with the angels (and the angels in that one were basically limited to one trick, which minimized the problems), but that was 5 years ago, so we've had a long time to think about the problems since then; and even "The Time of Angels"/"Flesh and Stone", which added a lot of problems, was over 2 years ago.

The first problem: the angels become quantum locked according to Ten, when observed by "any living creature". Well, unless you're in the operating room of a hospital or the like, there's always a bunch of insects and the like around, even in the cleanest homes. So the angels should almost always be quantum locked and thus harmless. Now, I'll grant that this particular problem can be easily solved by saying that Ten really meant "any sentient creature", but already, with just the most basic information given about the angels, we've had to explain things differently than was done within the story in order for it to all add up.

[Philistine]

-stuff-

Well, you've certainly found an original complaint!

Doctor Who has never been any good at the "science" part of science fiction. On the Moh's Scale of SF Hardness, it's not even mica (more like a crumbly bleu cheese) and always has been. This is a show that makes Star Wars and Star Trek look like rigorously researched hard SF, for crying out loud! And this is not a fault of New Writers Who Don't Get It, this has been one of the show's defining characteristics since 1963. So it seems like a strange thing to take the show's current writers to task over.

[CelestialStick]

The thing is, that's exactly how it's used--to handwave the plot points that don't really make sense.

Yes, but while it sounded cute when Matt Smith said it, it just sounds sad when someone else says it to justify the bad writing.

As for the weeping angels, they probably should have been left a one-off villian. "Blink" worked because you didn't really have time to think about some of the logical problems with the angels (and the angels in that one were basically limited to one trick, which minimized the problems), but that was 5 years ago, so we've had a long time to think about the problems since then; and even "The Time of Angels"/"Flesh and Stone", which added a lot of problems, was over 2 years ago.

The first problem: the angels become quantum locked according to Ten, when observed by "any living creature". Well, unless you're in the operating room of a hospital or the like, there's always a bunch of insects and the like around, even in the cleanest homes. So the angels should almost always be quantum locked and thus harmless. Now, I'll grant that this particular problem can be easily solved by saying that Ten really meant "any sentient creature", but already, with just the most basic information given about the angels, we've had to explain things differently than was done within the story in order for it to all add up.

I saw the concept as stupid as soon as he explained that they couldn't move when anyone observed them.

Well, you've certainly found an original complaint!

Doctor Who has never been any good at the "science" part of science fiction. On the Moh's Scale of SF Hardness, it's not even mica (more like a crumbly bleu cheese) and always has been. This is a show that makes Star Wars and Star Trek look like rigorously researched hard SF, for crying out loud! And this is not a fault of New Writers Who Don't Get It, this has been one of the show's defining characteristics since 1963. So it seems like a strange thing to take the show's current writers to task over.

In the Golden Age of science fiction written literature, much science fiction came from scientists, and most of it strove to be as scientifically accurate as possible. Not so in movies and films. When Doctor Who started in 1963, filmed science fiction had very slow standards, and indeed the science fiction in Doctor Who originally served mostly as a convenient vehicle for teaching children about history under the guise of entertainment. In America at roughly the same time, we had "science fiction" that looked like Lost In Space. Not until Star Trek came around did anyone make a series effort to put the science into science fiction on film (and Roddenberry was an engineer rather than a scientist). Star Trek started raising the bar, and in the 1970s and 1980s Dr. Who had some good science fictional stories. Also in the 21st century we've been treated to many good science fiction series, so that not only has Dr. Who declined in science from some of its earlier incarnations, but so too does its weak science or lack of science stand out as worse by comparison with the higher standards of many recent series.

[random11]

As for the weeping angels, they probably should have been left a one-off villian. "Blink" worked because you didn't really have time to think about some of the logical problems with the angels (and the angels in that one were basically limited to one trick, which minimized the problems), but that was 5 years ago, so we've had a long time to think about the problems since then; and even "The Time of Angels"/"Flesh and Stone", which added a lot of problems, was over 2 years ago.

"Blink" had a great pacing and atmosphere, but the one thing that really added tension is that the Doctor wasn't the main character there.
Because there was no permanent main character in the story, we couldn't expect who will be captured and who wouldn't, especially after a couple of people disappeared.
When the Doctor did show up, it was either in the video tapes or through messages like the one behind the wallpapers in the house - Both were equally creepy.

[Xondoure]

I think the Weeping Angels need to go back to being well, angels that can't move when seen and are "fast, faster than you can believe."

[Brother Oni]

Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. This is hardly the first time Doctor Who has strayed into areas which appear to be supernatural.

True - I think The Daemons serial had an argument between the Doctor and a local medicine woman about magic and 'psionic forces', which the villains of the arc used as a basis for their science.

In more recent series, I think the Carrionites used words instead of numbers for their science, giving the impression of magic again.

I saw the concept as stupid as soon as he explained that they couldn't move when anyone observed them.

I wonder what your opinion is on the uncertainty principle or the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment is then...

[Dienekes]

I wonder what your opinion is on the uncertainty principle or the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment is then...

Ehh, wasn't Schrodinger's Cat meant as a joke about how idiotic the concept of applying quantum mechanics to life is in the first place? The bloody cat isn't alive and dead, you just don't know if it's one or the other at the time.

[Weezer]

Ehh, wasn't Schrodinger's Cat meant as a joke about how idiotic the concept of applying quantum mechanics to life is in the first place? The bloody cat isn't alive and dead, you just don't know if it's one or the other at the time.

It wasn't pa jone, it was Schrodinger attempting to show how ridiculous (and thus obviously wrong) the Copenhagen interpretation of QM was by using as absurd of a macroscale example as he could think of. Schrodinger, despite being one of the founders of QM hated it and really wanted to prove it wrong (Einstein was also in this boat). Obviously he failed, the Copenhagen interpretation is still the basis of our understanding of QM, and yes Schrodinger's cat would be both alive and dead. It's described as a superposition of states, that then collapse into one when observed. Read Schrodinger's original paper, it's actually pretty devoid of complex mathematics and understandable for the layperson as well as being a great paper.

[Thufir]

It's clear that people should not have memories of time lines which cease to exit--because those events never happened.

It's not clear, because again, we do not know how time travel works. In Doctor Who people can sometimes have vague memories of how things used to be before someone changed the past - that is what is clear, because we've been told as much and have nothing to indicate to the contrary.

Oh, and don't misuse Clarke. Just because sufficiently primitive cultures can't distinguish superstition from science doesn't mean that superstition is science--or that flightly phrases substitute for good writing.

I wasn't misusing it. What, you think it ceases to apply when one reaches the level of advancement we're at? What could be superstition or implausible stories as far as we're concerned can be science on Doctor Who because as far as the Time Lords and numerous other races are concerned, we are a sufficiently primitive culture.

[Dienekes]

It wasn't pa jone, it was Schrodinger attempting to show how ridiculous (and thus obviously wrong) the Copenhagen interpretation of QM was by using as absurd of a macroscale example as he could think of. Schrodinger, despite being one of the founders of QM hated it and really wanted to prove it wrong (Einstein was also in this boat). Obviously he failed, the Copenhagen interpretation is still the basis of our understanding of QM, and yes Schrodinger's cat would be both alive and dead. It's described as a superposition of states, that then collapse into one when observed. Read Schrodinger's original paper, it's actually pretty devoid of complex mathematics and understandable for the layperson as well as being a great paper.

I have read it, admittedly years ago. I mostly am going off my memory and verifying it off of the wiki page.

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.[2] The thought experiment illustrates quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states.

[Kato]

Okay guys, whether it was a joke or a reductio ad absurdum explanation really isn't much of a difference... Schrödinger disliked the thing and yet it sadly became what most people associate with him... Quite ironic, indeed...


That said... in another thread here the discussion shifted towards how much Fantasy is in Who and the obvious answer is... a lot. Who just doesn't follow any scientific reasoning and hasn't done so for a looong time. So I really stopped thinking "time travel/physics/biology/whatever doesn't work that way" or I couldn't enjoy the show at all... If you don't like fantasy and need a scientifically correct explanation for everything, stop watching Who.

[Tono]

I really don't see how anyone can say The Weeping Angels are bad villains and bring up OldWho as an example. 4's era brought us rocks who were vampires who were rocks. Rocks that suck blood. With no mouth or teeth. I mean, I just imagine that they pummeled the person and absorbed the blood, but the point remains.

As for the statue of liberty, well I head-cannon'd that right right away. In my mind, Winter Quay was made because of it. Angels travel around and one of them is old enough/big enough to need a constant massive supply of food. So they did away with the statue of liberty, replaces it with that, and fed it via Winter Quay. When it was out in about they used it for 'fishing' expeditions. A small group circles it, and when it stops (Because you are gunna stare) the other creeps up and snatch ya. win-win. And if they take a picture of it? More Angels. Past this point it just becomes an issue of making sure you don't over eat.

Is it really cannon? Does it make perfect since? No. But it works for me, and it worked on TV. Thats good enough for my mind, becuase in the end it is a fun TV show that is built on the principal of Dues ex Machina. It always has, and it always will. That is just the fact of the ride.

[Weezer]

Is it really cannon? Does it make perfect since? No. But it works for me, and it worked on TV. Thats good enough for my mind, becuase in the end it is a fun TV show that is built on the principal of Dues ex Machina. It always has, and it always will. That is just the fact of the ride.

Don't you mean Deus Ex Tempe Machina? I'm sorry I could't help myself.

[Androgeus]

Don't you mean Deus Ex Tempe Machina? I'm sorry I could't help myself.

Surely it should be Insanire Hominem Ex Tempe Machina totally didn't use google translate, and then corrupt so it looks better to the untrained eye

[Sunken Valley]

Moffat has problems

Real Problems

Severe Problems

In other news, Angels take Manhattan gets demoted to 7.5/10. Meaning that it is an 8 as a standalone but a 7 as the Pond's swansong.

Tune in soon, as although I do not have time to do it today, tomorrow I will tell you this really cool alternate version of ATM I thought up. It's not perfect but in my head it sounds rockin' so I'll put it down and show it to you guys.

[Kato]

Moffat has problems

Real Problems

Severe Problems

Okay, I'm probably not the best person to address feminist issues but... I don't think Moffat has any kind of major problems because of... any of that.
In the first link... well, a few things were poorly phrased but many things are either basically made up (how does the second interview even concern whatever they criticize?) or just... his free choice to make his female characters in the way he does? It's not like they are all weak and helpless...

Admittedly, the second link... well, that's not a friendly response. But for one part I have no idea what this person wrote earlier and how that might have caused him to react in this way. And for the other part... lots of people react badly to criticism.

And for the third... for heaven's sake, there are things called archetypes! If you try hard enough you can fit anyone into one. Okay, so he doesn't make asexual, unattractive female characters. (Heck, where are unattractive females in TV nowadays anyway?) But for example where does Madame Kovarian fall for example?

I'd better stop here... I neither feel like arguing about Moffat as a person which I know way too little about nor about feminism which I feel would violate forum guidelines.

[LokeyITP]

Promoting Angels in Manhatten score on having a more careful viewing. As with most Moffat scripts, the callouts and justifications are easily missed, and at least they're made if a bit more feeble this time.

So season 7A: all watchable, none horrible. Acting, dialog and production were great throughout. Plots could have been more interesting with fewer holes, and there might be production reasons for that, but they're all well-paid pros and shouldn't be having these problems.

My favorite was probably Cubed (needed a better ending, a bit less goofy and more time--and of course you can't do that kind of story all the time much as I would like it lol). Daleks was most problematic for me. Dinosaurs most likely to go horribly wrong and didn't.

There's lots more to talk about, but we have a few months to get to that :)

[dps]

Okay, I'm probably not the best person to address feminist issues but... I don't think Moffat has any kind of major problems because of... any of that.
In the first link... well, a few things were poorly phrased but many things are either basically made up (how does the second interview even concern whatever they criticize?) or just... his free choice to make his female characters in the way he does? It's not like they are all weak and helpless...

Admittedly, the second link... well, that's not a friendly response. But for one part I have no idea what this person wrote earlier and how that might have caused him to react in this way. And for the other part... lots of people react badly to criticism.

And for the third... for heaven's sake, there are things called archetypes! If you try hard enough you can fit anyone into one. Okay, so he doesn't make asexual, unattractive female characters. (Heck, where are unattractive females in TV nowadays anyway?) But for example where does Madame Kovarian fall for example?

Moffat may or may not be sexist, but when it comes to his writing, it doesn't seem to me that he doesn't really write male characters all that well either. Basically, he writes interesting situations (I say situations, not plots, because his plots tend to be heavy on set-up and light on pay-off) and witty dialogue. There's generally not much characterization outside of the witticisms.

[Dienekes]

Moffat has problems

Real Problems

Severe Problems

And Quentin Tarantino is an arrogant narcissist, Marlon Brando was an utter ****, and Stanley Kubrick was an abusive control freak. What does it matter? You either like the stories, and shows or you don't.