River had a few gadgets instead.
Doctor Who... Page 648
And I like the fact that they've seemed to use Time travel itself a bit more during Matt Smiths tenure.
The future Doctor stuff is great.
To be fair Blink did use the Time travel idea quite well.
And it also tried the idea of not having Martha much in it which was also good.
Sorry Martha, I did like you but you were a bit rubbish
Blink was another Moffat story, he does like playing with the time travel aspect, and shooting around different times.
I don't think they even used time travel much in the original series did they?
It was just a vehicle to give the story a setting most of the time
It does seem a bit odd that more stories didn't utilise the time travel aspect. Certainly as the classic run ran on and the idea that he couldn't control the Tardis was sidelined.
Yes I don't like it overused, or as a simple fixit.
But done well, the Time travel aspect can be very clever & make a good story.
Surely one of the problems of liberal use of time travel and parallel universes etc... as part of the narrative and story arcs, is that you lose any sense of danger and consequence to the characters and their actions?
The Who of my generation may have been naff, but (as Steve said) time travel was used mostly as a vehicle to expand the range of plot scenarios - not as an crucial element of the plot.
Quote: Griff @ April 24 2011, 12:24 AM BSTOh for the days when Jon Pertwee could defeat a Sontaran invasion by correctly connecting up the resistors in a Wheatstone Bridge.
Don't follow it thesedays, but as a kid my favourite episode was the one where Tom Baker had the chance to destroy the Daleks once and for all, but - after an incredible monologue about the philosophical, ethical and moral dilemmas surrounding the act of wiping out a complete species - chose not to.
That was class. 
The new series has made the Doctor a bit of a Hero who knows that he is.
Quote: Griff @ April 23 2011, 11:40 PM BSTI see that to celebrate the show's return, the splendidly bonkers Lawrence Miles has produced another lengthy diatribe about New Who, comparing The Doctor and Amy to "Jar Jar Binks and a blow-up doll":
(I do think this bit has some truth to it though:
In the Moffat Era universe, however, curiosity isn't a criterion. The Doctor never explores; he just changes the timeline until the universe suits him. The Doctor never discovers; he knows all the answers, so that he can make flip comments without having to think about what he's actually saying. The Doctor never investigates; he disposes of monsters because he's the Doctor, and therefore wins by default.
and I hope we see a lot less of it this series.)
I just about got to the point where he dissed Neil Gaiman for ripping off Alan Moore. Then dissed Alan Moore.
Who is this unbelievable twat?
Also his books had about 10 Amazon reviews between them one of which was about the return of the Kroutons or something.
The obsession of old skool Whovians is as boring and irrational as any religion.
I just hope I've done enough to get included in Chips league table.
I'll be back when Godot arrives.
Ok was fairly dismissive and patronising.
Patronising Moore when you're writing is naught but masturbating over B&W Dr Who.
Pretty sad.
Well yes.
Because most people can get a friend or relative to give them a good review or two.
It's also a great way of measuring influence.
Mind you it could be he also won the World Fantasy Award?
Quote: Griff @ April 24 2011, 12:48 AM BSTHave you not read the Critique forum?
Griff I wrote the critique forum.
Besides I'm only related to about half a dozen regular posters.