Edit
Steven Moffat Poster

Biography

Jump to: Overview (3) | Mini Bio (1) | Spouse (2) | Trade Mark (2) | Trivia (7) | Personal Quotes (29)

Overview (3)

Date of Birth 18 November 1961Paisley, Scotland, UK
Birth NameSteven William Moffat
Height 5' 8" (1.73 m)

Mini Bio (1)

Steven Moffat was born on November 18, 1961 in Paisley, Scotland as Steven William Moffat. He is a writer and producer, known for Sherlock (2010), Doctor Who (2005) and The Adventures of Tintin (2011). He has been married to Sue Vertue since 1999. They have two children. He was previously married to Maggie.

Spouse (2)

Sue Vertue (1999 - present) (2 children)
Maggie (? - 1990) (divorced)

Trade Mark (2)

Doctor Who references
His main characters often hold a lengthy, humorous and sometimes emotional speech to emphasize their personal opinion or to cause a change of heart to others.

Trivia (7)

Scottish born school teacher
Son of Bill Moffat.
Son-in-law of Beryl Vertue, executive producer of Coupling (2003) and Coupling (2000).
The original Doctor Who series inspired Moffat to write.
Has children - Louis, Joshua.
A huge fan of Peter Davison's Fifth Doctor, Moffat was one of the principal interviewees for the Davison-era Doctor Who (1963) documentary Come in Number Five (2011). He also stated in an interview in 1995 that he thought Davison was the best actor to have played the Doctor.
He was awarded the OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) in the 2015 Queen's Birthday Honours List for his services to Drama. He is a television writer in London, England.

Personal Quotes (29)

You're guaranteed to be lucky several times in your life-it's what you do with it. Young writers spend all their time worrying, in a way that David Gerrold did not and I did not. How do they get to meet the right people? How do they get to the right parties? If only someone would read my script... Forget all that. All these things are easy and will happen. The way you get your script to the right people is that you put it in an envelope. It's fucking easy. The difficult bit is writing something that is so good people will take a punt on a brand new writer. That's it-you have to write an absolutely terrific script.
I've been dreaming of writing for Dr Who (Doctor Who (2005)) since I was seven.
There are no bad feelings between Spielberg (Steven Spielberg) and me, but Doctor Who (2005) has to come before Hollywood. I am working on scripts to be filmed next year. Russell T. Davies is doing four specials next, then my shows will begin. I talked to Steven and he completely understood. Steven is a fan and he understood my passion for the series completely.
I really enjoyed Peter's (Peter Davison) Doctor. I said sometimes, he's underrated as the Doctor - although not after "Time Crash" (Doctor Who: Time Crash (2007)), that's for sure. I think he's a brilliant Doctor... He paved the way for the younger, more reckless Doctors... He is the first modern Doctor... Before Davison, he was always the father figure, and suddenly the Doctor became your reckless mate... The Doctor always doesn't know what he's doing, he just hopes he can get away with it.
It's aimed at kids and adults. And why should anyone care about this? If you watch it, then it's for you. It shouldn't matter. I mean the specific thing about it being a children's program, is that it follows the imperatives and narrative rules and the joy of children's fiction. If you watch Doctor Who (2005) at 9 pm at night (as you do in the United States) it's going to seem a bit odd. It's energetic. The Doctor walks straight out of the TARDIS and into trouble, and you accept it. The Master becomes Prime Minister of Britain, and you accept it. It's got all the brio and vigour of Harry Potter, Narnia and Star Wars. That doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to adults. Star Wars, the most successful film franchise ever, is explicitly for children, but adults love it. Doctor Who (2005) is my favorite thing in the world. If you're in Britain, we'll show you the sticker books and the lunchboxes. In the schoolyard on Monday, they're all talking about Doctor Who (2005). That doesn't mean it's childish. It's very sophisticated.
Literally, the whole family sits down to watch Doctor Who (2005): mum and dad, granddad, the two kids... Mum's fancying David Tennant, dad's thinking the spaceships are really cool, the granddad is saying it was better when it was William Hartnell.... and they're all thinking it's aimed at them.
The misconception about children's fiction is that it's lightweight or fluffy. It's about really big and important things. It's adults who like light and fluffy. Everything is big and important to a child, so their stories are about big and important events.
It felt right that the James Bond of the future would bed anyone. He's far too busy saving the universe to worry about which brand of genitals is best. (On the character of Captain Jack in Doctor Who (2005) and Torchwood (2006))
You come across the occasional nutter who will talk about Russell's (Russell T. Davies) gay agenda - I imagine he keeps it in a pink folder in a special leopardskin safe - but this is possibly the most heterosexual Doctor we've ever had. Clearly, Russell's gay agenda is to turn everyone straight.
The show is really tough for a super fit David Tennant so you might kill somebody who takes on the role in their 60s. For Doctor Who (2005) to turn into an old man you'd be pissed off. Even William Hartnell had trouble back then, he was often ill and he forgot his lines. I think the Doctor will always be about 40.
Most fans are delighted with just about all of Doctor Who (2005); really, they are. But mixed in with that are some insanely vocal ones who go on about how they hated it every single week. Which raises the question, 'Why are you fucking watching it then?' Many of those guys used to support my episodes, but they already think I'll fuck it up completely now. It makes no sense, especially when you look at what I was praised for by those vocal fans. They'd say, 'It will be great when Moffat takes over, because then there won't be so much romance, there won't be all that soapy stuff, there won't be all this comedy, and there won't be overuse of the sonic screwdriver'. But I do all those things, even more than Russell (Russell T. Davies) does! And I've got the record for gay jokes. I've got the gayest joke of all time in Doctor Who (2005) - I've got the 'beard' joke about the Master. I'm worse than he is for most of that!
I'm all for whingeing, of course - we're writers, it's our golf.
People love talking about the past, because they know they survived it. People hate the future cos they know they won't. I like the past too, but I don't think living there's an option.
I feel creatively stifled by the BBC every single day - but I'm a writer and 'creatively stifled' counts as anything short of an instant series commission, a guaranteed second series, a cuddle, a guaranteed third series, and a whispered invitation back to 'my place' (where I'll explain that really I've got a five-series arc in mind, and a spin-off.)
I can answer it with three letters: N-B-C. Very, very good writing team. Very, very good cast. The network fucked it up because they intervened endlessly. If you really want a job to work, don't get Jeff Zucker's team to come help you because they're not funny ... I think I'm entitled to say that because I think the way in which NBC slagged off the creative team on American "Coupling" after its failure was disgraceful and traitorous. So I enjoy slagging them off. That's the end of my career in L.A. I'll be leaving shortly.
[on his updated personification of Sherlock Holmes] A modern young man who wore a deerstalker would look a right dickhead, wouldn't he?
Sherlock Holmes is a human that longs to be a god, The Doctor is a god that longs to be a human.
Murray Gold is a genius. The number of melodies that man has come up with that are utterly haunting, utterly memorable.
I like that Helen Mirren has been saying the next Doctor should be a woman. I would like to go on record and say that the Queen should be played by a man!
Peter Davison is a better actor than all the other ones. That's the simple reason why it works better. There's no complicated reason why Peter Davison carried on working and all the others disappeared into a retirement home.
Don't you think it's fair to say that Doctor Who (1963) was a great idea that happened to the wrong people? I think the actual structure, the actual format is as good as anything that's ever been done. The character of the Doctor, the TARDIS, all that stuff is so good, it can actually stand not being done terribly well. There was some very good stuff spread over the twenty-five years, but that wasn't enough.
When I look back at Doctor Who (1963) now, I laugh at it fondly. As a television professional, I think 'How did these guys get a paycheque every week?'. Nothing from the black and white days, with the exception of the pilot episode, should have got out of the building. They should have been clubbing those guys to death. You've got an old guy in the lead [William Hartnell] who can't remember his lines. You've got Patrick Troughton, who was a good actor, but his companions - how did they get their Equity card? They're unimaginably bad. Once you get to the colour stuff, some of it's watchable, but it's laughable. Mostly now, looking back, I'm startled by it. Given that it's a teatime show, a children's show, I think most of the Peter Davison stuff is well-constructed, the directors are consistent.
I dearly love Doctor Who (1963), but I don't think my love of it translated into it's being a tremendously good series. It was a bit crap at times, wasn't it?
[on the Colin Baker era of Doctor Who (1963)] Being a Doctor Who (1963) fan is a bit like being a football fan, I imagine, because you're sitting there desperate every Saturday for it to be good. And it had been pretty good I think when Peter [Peter Davison] was in it and then suddenly, suddenly it really wasn't. And you were going 'Ugh, it's a bit charmless, it's a bit losing its way', and so when the axe fell that terrible day, it didn't feel like a surprise, it felt 'Oh no!' But I thought 'Don't get rid of it! That's like cancelling James Bond because there's been a bad one!'
[on the Doctor Who (1963) hiatus in 1985] I was sort of distraught. Proper, proper Doctor Who (1963) fan, not unaware that it was crashing and burning at that moment.
Doctor Who (1963) wasn't limited by the times or the style that were prevalent then. It was limited by the relatively meagre talent of the people who were working on it. Mostly they were middle of the range hacks who were not going to go on to do much else. Over 26 years, the hit rate is not high enough. There are people who have worked on Doctor Who (1963) and gone on to great things, like Douglas Adams. I just think most people thought this was going to be the big moment of their lives, which is a shame. As a television format, Doctor Who (1963) equals anything. Unless I chose my episodes very carefully, I couldn't sit anyone I work with in television down in front of Doctor Who (1963) and say 'Watch this'.
My memory of Doctor Who (1963) is based on bad television that I enjoyed at the time.
[on Doctor Who: The Talons of Weng-Chiang: Part One (1977)] How could a good hack think that the BBC could make a giant rat? If he'd come to my house, when I was fourteen, and said 'Can BBC Special Effects do a giant rat?', I'd have said no. I'd rather see them do something limited than something crap. What I resented was going to school two days later, and my friends knew I watched this show, and they'd say 'Did you see the giant rat?', and I'd have to say I thought there was dramatic integrity elsewhere.
[on Doctor Who] Rebirth is at the core. There's an ending, yes, but there's a reassurance that the moment of sadness will be followed by a sunrise. That's the fundamental message of all kids' stories: as dark as it gets, the dawn will come. No show has so many endings and so many beginnings as Doctor Who.

See also

Other Works | Publicity Listings | Official Sites | Contact Info

Contribute to This Page