Re: Doctor Who [10]

by Mrs Figg Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:31 am

Moffat is style over substance. its meaningless gloss. Its an excuse for him to show off but dig deeper and you find the soulless mumbo jumbo underneath. The whole point of having a tv progamme of an alien with human friends is to be able to identify with the humans. Moffat makes this impossible because his assistants are just a series of clichés strung together, they wise crack and make pithy soundbites but they are as empty as androids. I would say the sci-fi element has never been the most important point of Who, as was Star Trek, the most important point was the crew as family learning and developing relationships. the most important aspect was Kirk and Spock and their relationship, alien and human, learning about each other. Normally humanity was seen as being a plus rather than a negative, and its like that in Who. The sci-fi is just windowdressing, but Moffat forgot that and made the over complicated timey wimey stuff the star of the show. that wears thin after a bit because its not based on reality, and they change things to suit the plot. At least Star Trek was possible science and sometimes prefigured reality, as in mobile phones etc. Who has scifi that is made up nonsense, changes for convenience and is so convoluted that most people get turned off because you shouldn't have to be a Who nerd to 'get it'. So Moffat fails dismally. He is a lazy writer, and a demonstrably unreconstructed sexist one. He has put assistants right back into the 60s, where a woman is just there as a girlfriend, wife, or mother, Martha was a doctor, Donna never let him get away with bad choices, Rose was his equal, they may have had families, but these women were lightyears in advance of the psychologically weak Amy and the bland non person that is Clara, and as for River she only became an archaeologist 'to meet a man', which is pathetic. It made me laugh when she told Amy all his assistants just have to shut up and put up. Since when? oh yeah since Moffat took over, that's when women were written as drooling oversexed fangirls not real people. All of those women live only for the Doctor, they are defined by him, they are nothing without him, they cant let go because they have nothing outside him, its all second best when they lose him. So yeah you can criticise RTD for having 'feelings' in the show, and that's what made it greater and better than the empty shallow tedious Moffat years.

by Mrs Figg Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:56 pm

I hope this sofa is Petty resistant.

by **Amarië** Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:32 pm

Hear hear! Thumbs Up

by **Orwell** Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:43 pm

I must admit, the timey wimey stuff - other than going back and forward in time (or sidewise) each new adventure, in or outside our Universe - is probably my least favorite part of Dr Who. Give me the Doctor defeating the Sable Crowakkas on Puddifoot Prime (or an invasion of Cucumber Men and Muffin Women in Barnsley circa 1601CE) every time. Too clever is too hard to follow. Nod

by **Orwell** Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:45 pm

Mrs Figg wrote: I hope this sofa is Petty resistant.

Petty can stain any surface (apparently).

by Bluebottle Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:49 pm

This is just my observations, but to me the parts people call too clever dives straight into incoherence at times. Shrugging

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:50 am

Where to start!! Mad

Right Figg first-

'The whole point of having a tv progamme of an alien with human friends is to be able to identify with the humans.'

So what to all the years of Who when the companions were not even human? This notion Who is about the Doctors human friends is utterly misplaced.
It would be true to say that RTD Who was about the Doctors human friends- but he is the exception to the rule not the norm of it.
So your basic premise is completely flawed- its not what Who is about at all taken as a whole- its just what 1 showrunner choose to do out of 50 years worth.

'I would say the sci-fi element has never been the most important point of Who, as was Star Trek, the most important point was the crew as family learning and developing relationships. '

Who has never been about this sort of touchy feely Star Trek hippy stuff. Never. Who comes from a long line of darker, dystopian style sci fi which is in the classic British tradition of Scifi- works like War of the Worlds, Day of the Triffids, Quatermass and the Pit ect,it a part of that lineage.
This is why Who always has a dark edge- its why it often doesn't have a happy ending, its why the Doctor is not a hero.

'Normally humanity was seen as being a plus rather than a negative, and its like that in Who.'

I have no idea how someone who is a Rose fan can say that. The whole point about Rose is her life is shit, normal life is shit- she hates her boyfriend, her mother is dysfunctional, she hates her shop job- none of it is good enough for her.
RTD goes out of his way to compare 'normal life' and life with the Doctor and he concludes real life is shit and not worth having.

Compare to Moffat era and the same message is reversed- the Doctor is a hindrance to real life and its real, mundane, normal life his companions in the end choose.
I prefer Moffats message that there is real worth in the mundane, in the small ("It's just far away. Everything looks too small. I prefer it down there. Everything is huge. Everything is so important. Every detail, every moment, every life clung to.") to RTD's message that there is nothing worthwhile in the lives of the working class but emptiness.

'The sci-fi is just windowdressing, but Moffat forgot that and made the over complicated timey wimey stuff the star of the show'.....'Who has scifi that is made up nonsense, changes for convenience and is so convoluted that most people get turned off because you shouldn't have to be a Who nerd to 'get it'.

I don't agree, its not just window dressing its directly interlinked with the development of the characters.
Sometimes it can go to far, but overall the balance is spot on.
Give me plots which intertwine with the characters any day over plots that are so irrelevant even their solutions come as an after thought.
Often in RTD the solution to a series arc or a major plot point has no set up in the script- no clues, no hints, no means at all of the viewer working it out until the final revelation is given. And most times the final resolution comes out of nowhere in the last scenes of the story and just solves the entire problem.
Think the Master turning everyone into copies of himself- an entire episode to set up, left as a huge cliffhanger- resolved with a literal hand wave by Rassilon two minutes into the next part, using a device last seen in a 7th Doctor story, and doing something it shouldn't even be able to do (the Hand of Rassilon is a stellar manipulator used to turn stars into energy sources, how it undid the Masters plan is unknown as we get no explanation for it, its made no prior appearance or even had a mention in the rest of the story- it just turns up, saves the day).
Also given Who has a larger international audience now than at any other time in its 50 year history Id love to know who these 'most people' are that have turned off. If most people had turned off almost no one would be watching, rather than overall audiences being up.

So in RTD at a major plot point you did have to be a Who nerd to understand what that was, why Rassilon has it, and that it was a powerful relic. You need knowledge of the 7th Dcotor era in fact to even understand whats going on.
Moffat has never done something like that and brought back something from classic to resolve a plot, give it no explanation and utterly change what it does.

'He is a lazy writer'

Yeah because being showrunner on the two largest UK dramas in the country is clear evince of just what a lazy bastard he is.

'and a demonstrably unreconstructed sexist one.'

It still amazes me all the actresses, directors, the shows producers who are female and who seem unable to see this blatant obvious sexism but instead help him out making this terrible sexist show- no doubt you believe ever woman involved at the show in acting, production and directing are just enabling a sexist bully and should be condemned for their part in it!

Sorry but I dont see the sexism you keep going on about, the people who work closest with him don't seem to see it and I cant believe all these important woman in influential positions in the show are all so meek and mild that they just go along with it,if it existed, which it doesn't.

'Rose was his equal,'

How exactly? A narrow minded ('Lucky I didn't take you to the deep south'), jealous, spiteful, bitchy, needy, clingy beyond all belief and she is only happy when she gets her man.
Great message that- Rose cant be at piece even when she gets her father back alive and gets to live out her life with all of her family she is still not happy and she is still putting lives at risk because she wants the man more
Its a terrible message.

Again compare with Amy who in the end decides that what is more important are the people she loves and being with them. She gives up the adventure,the excitement and the danger for family- Rose cant until she gets her Doctor and even then she keeps turning back up like a bad penny.

'River she only became an archaeologist 'to meet a man', which is pathetic.'

River may have become an archeologists to help find the Doctor but its clear she also has a passion for it- there was no need for it to continue her studies after she found the Doctor- but she does, first becoming a Doctor of Archeology and eventually a Professor. She is also working as an archeologist when we first meet her in the Library episode, long after she has found the Doctor.
Her inspiration for it may have been to find him, her continuation of it is a career choice she makes alone, and she continues alone. I see nothing pathetic in a woman educating herself to the standard of a Professor in her field and doing so entirely off her own back without help.

'that's when women were written as drooling oversexed fangirls not real people.'

RTD era is much more sexualised than Moffat. There is one scene in Moffat where Amy attempts, and fails to seduce the Doctor- every companion bar Donna does so in RTD, they all have a crush on him, they fall in love with him, they orbit round him like lost puppies- its what made Donna such a breath of fresh air.

Rose also flirts continually with almost everyone yet throws a wobbler when she finds out Mickey has a new girlfriend.
And then you have Captain Jack, a series of walking innuendos and sexual content.

By comparison Moffat Who is rather risk free in the sex department,the only snogging we see in it is between wife and husband (mainly Amy and Rory, but also -twice- River and the Doctor).

'All of those women live only for the Doctor'

Again you keep saying things which gobsmack me in their double standards-

Rose obsessed with the Doctor, only finally leaves when she gets a human Doctor to live with- thats how obsessed she is.
Martha- obsessed with the Doctor, loves him but its unrequited and so she has to leave.
Donna- his best mate but becomes Doctor/Donna where there is a physical merging of the two.

All the women in RTD era revolve around the Doctor- either with love or a 'timey-wimey' reason like Doctor/Donna- you know those timey whimey reason you claim Moffat invented and that you hate.

Amy on the otherhand is obsessed with him because he screwed up her life, and her story is about coming to terms with who she really is apart from him and losing that obsession. There are loads of scenes directly relating to this, probably the most obvious being in her room in God Complex which takes this theme head on.

In Moffat Who the Doctor is a disruptive influence on his companions. And with Amy and Rory it's largely about them finding ways to deal with that.

'Too clever is too hard to follow.' - Orwell

'the parts people call too clever dives straight into incoherence at times. '- Blue

Its really not hard to follow. Children follow it- with ease (just watch any of Lindellee's reviews- a 7 year old who can explain Who no problem at all in her episode reviews).
Its a show aimed at children upwards, and it seems to have had no problem at all keeping hold of that audience.

And its entirely coherent and it all fits together. The very fact I can make a River vid showing her life from her point of view, using scenes originally shown in completely the opposite order and with clues scattered through them from across four series, and it all works perfectly shows just how well planned out it was in the writing and that it is entirely coherent.

Moffats style is to lay the plots out in a puzzle fashion because he likes the viewer to do some work and not just be passive and let it wash over them, you have to pay attention yes, but its really not complicated.

by Mrs Figg Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:19 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Where to start!!

Right Figg first-

'The whole point of having a tv progamme of an alien with human friends is to be able to identify with the humans.'

So what to all the years of Who when the companions were not even human? This notion Who is about the Doctors human friends is utterly misplaced.
It would be true to say that RTD Who was about the Doctors human friends- but he is the exception to the rule not the norm of it.
So your basic premise is completely flawed- its not what Who is about at all taken as a whole- its just what 1 showrunner choose to do out of 50 years worth.

hmm No. its not utterly misplaced at all, from memory it was mainly the 4th Doctor who had aliens as main companions, not just secondary characters like K9 and suchlike. RTD is certainly not the exeption. so your premise is entirely flawed.

'I would say the sci-fi element has never been the most important point of Who, as was Star Trek, the most important point was the crew as family learning and developing relationships. '

Who has never been about this sort of touchy feely Star Trek hippy stuff. Never. Who comes from a long line of darker, dystopian style sci fi which is in the classic British tradition of Scifi- works like War of the Worlds, Day of the Triffids, Quatermass and the Pit ect,it a part of that lineage.
This is why Who always has a dark edge- its why it often doesn't have a happy ending, its why the Doctor is not a hero.

Never said it has to be clappy happy with a positive ending, you are putting words into my mouth, I know Who has a darker edge, but it does have a message of non violence, as in not using weapons to win wars, well this positive message was there in Who until River Song came strutting in with a gun in her hand and the Doctor tittering about how sexy it is. think back to 'The Doctors Daughter episode where he stops two races from killing each other and he says that (paraphrase) 'he is the man who wouldnt' use weapons. what a pity. Thanks Moffat for turning the Doctor into a dweeb

'Normally humanity was seen as being a plus rather than a negative, and its like that in Who.'

I have no idea how someone who is a Rose fan can say that. The whole point about Rose is her life is shit, normal life is shit- she hates her boyfriend, her mother is dysfunctional, she hates her shop job- none of it is good enough for her.
RTD goes out of his way to compare 'normal life' and life with the Doctor and he concludes real life is shit and not worth having.

Selective memory again. We are not talking about modern life but human values. ie loyalty bravery etc. yes Rose has a dead end job and a dead end boyfriend, she certainly doesn't hate Mickey, she feels sorry for him that's why she sticks with him, you seem to want to attack her for having aspirations beyond the humdrum life she has. Of course non of it is good enough for her once she meets the Doctor and has her mind opened. who would be satisfied with normality after that. and just for the record, Jackie and Rose are a tight nit family, she loves both her mum and Mickey in her own way, no matter she has had a hard life. RTD does NOT say real life is shit. He says theres more out there than people can imagine, he is saying Rose can be a better person, achieve her potential, not put up with second best. Martha comes from a comfortable middle class family, she is a doctor, life certainly isn't shit for her. she wants to back to it quite happily.

Compare to Moffat era and the same message is reversed- the Doctor is a hindrance to real life and its real, mundane, normal life his companions in the end choose.
I prefer Moffats message that there is real worth in the mundane, in the small ("It's just far away. Everything looks too small. I prefer it down there. Everything is huge. Everything is so important. Every detail, every moment, every life clung to.") to RTD's message that there is nothing worthwhile in the lives of the working class but emptiness.

Real worth in the mundane? pity Moffat doent ever show this wonderful mundane life. like ever.

'The sci-fi is just windowdressing, but Moffat forgot that and made the over complicated timey wimey stuff the star of the show'.....'Who has scifi that is made up nonsense, changes for convenience and is so convoluted that most people get turned off because you shouldn't have to be a Who nerd to 'get it'.

I don't agree, its not just window dressing its directly interlinked with the development of the characters.
Sometimes it can go to far, but overall the balance is spot on.
Give me plots which intertwine with the characters any day over plots that are so irrelevant even their solutions come as an after thought.
Often in RTD the solution to a series arc or a major plot point has no set up in the script- no clues, no hints, no means at all of the viewer working it out until the final revelation is given. And most times the final resolution comes out of nowhere in the last scenes of the story and just solves the entire problem.

RTD doesnt indulge in useless red herrings, like pretending Clara is the new Doctor only for it to be a piss take, RTD has a slow build up of hints with a big payoff, like Badwolf. there were always hints, clues to unravel. the drum beat. its got tension and mystery. unlike the meandering self indulgent totally incomprehensible Moffat stuff. People understand Badwolf, who understands Smiths episodes really? its laughable.

Think the Master turning everyone into copies of himself- an entire episode to set up, left as a huge cliffhanger- resolved with a literal hand wave by Rassilon two minutes into the next part, using a device last seen in a 7th Doctor story, and doing something it shouldn't even be able to do (the Hand of Rassilon is a stellar manipulator used to turn stars into energy sources, how it undid the Masters plan is unknown as we get no explanation for it, its made no prior appearance or even had a mention in the rest of the story- it just turns up, saves the day).
Also given Who has a larger international audience now than at any other time in its 50 year history Id love to know who these 'most people' are that have turned off. If most people had turned off almost no one would be watching, rather than overall audiences being up.

So in RTD at a major plot point you did have to be a Who nerd to understand what that was, why Rassilon has it, and that it was a powerful relic. You need knowledge of the 7th Dcotor era in fact to even understand whats going on.
Moffat has never done something like that and brought back something from classic to resolve a plot, give it no explanation and utterly change what it does.

'He is a lazy writer'

Yeah because being showrunner on the two largest UK dramas in the country is clear evince of just what a lazy bastard he is.

quantity and quality. quantity is no guarantee of quality, just look at Sherlock season 3, most of Moffats stuff is derivatory.

'and a demonstrably unreconstructed sexist one.'

It still amazes me all the actresses, directors, the shows producers who are female and who seem unable to see this blatant obvious sexism but instead help him out making this terrible sexist show- no doubt you believe ever woman involved at the show in acting, production and directing are just enabling a sexist bully and should be condemned for their part in it!

Sorry but I dont see the sexism you keep going on about, the people who work closest with him don't seem to see it and I cant believe all these important woman in influential positions in the show are all so meek and mild that they just go along with it,if it existed, which it doesn't.

I know you cant and that is worrying

'Rose was his equal,'

How exactly? A narrow minded ('Lucky I didn't take you to the deep south'), jealous, spiteful, bitchy, needy, clingy beyond all belief and she is only happy when she gets her man.
Great message that- Rose cant be at piece even when she gets her father back alive and gets to live out her life with all of her family she is still not happy and she is still putting lives at risk because she wants the man more
Its a terrible message.

Rose. brave. loyal. positive in the face of danger. resourceful. independent minded. strong. taking no shit from the Doctor. loves an alien who gives her the world, and she saves him literally and psychologically. fantastic message for any young kid.

Again compare with Amy who in the end decides that what is more important are the people she loves and being with them. She gives up the adventure,the excitement and the danger for family- Rose cant until she gets her Doctor and even then she keeps turning back up like a bad penny.

What Amy decides is a choice which is impossible for any human to make in a few seconds, maybe she regrets it maybe not, but she was in no position to chose anything else seeing as she was weak and conditioned from childhood to need a man to cling to for support. when has she ever been as independent as Rose, or as self reliant as Martha? never, because Amy lives to service her men. divorces one because she is incapable of breeding for him. pathetic in a sad way, and right out the 50s sitcoms. Doris Day would be proud.

'River she only became an archaeologist 'to meet a man', which is pathetic.'

River may have become an archeologists to help find the Doctor but its clear she also has a passion for it- there was no need for it to continue her studies after she found the Doctor- but she does, first becoming a Doctor of Archeology and eventually a Professor. She is also working as an archeologist when we first meet her in the Library episode, long after she has found the Doctor.

just LOL.

Her inspiration for it may have been to find him, her continuation of it is a career choice she makes alone, and she continues alone. I see nothing pathetic in a woman educating herself to the standard of a Professor in her field and doing so entirely off her own back without help.

'that's when women were written as drooling oversexed fangirls not real people.'

RTD era is much more sexualised than Moffat. There is one scene in Moffat where Amy attempts, and fails to seduce the Doctor- every companion bar Donna does so in RTD, they all have a crush on him, they fall in love with him, they orbit round him like lost puppies- its what made Donna such a breath of fresh air.

How many times do we find the Doctor looking up Marthas skirt ? how many times does Rose have to suffer men saying her skirt is too short? how many times does Tennant or Eccy force himself physically on a woman. yes that right. NEVER.

Rose also flirts continually with almost everyone yet throws a wobbler when she finds out Mickey has a new girlfriend.
And then you have Captain Jack, a series of walking innuendos and sexual content.

By comparison Moffat Who is rather risk free in the sex department,the only snogging we see in it is between wife and husband (mainly Amy and Rory, but also -twice- River and the Doctor).

'All of those women live only for the Doctor'

Again you keep saying things which gobsmack me in their double standards-

Rose obsessed with the Doctor, only finally leaves when she gets a human Doctor to live with- thats how obsessed she is.
Martha- obsessed with the Doctor, loves him but its unrequited and so she has to leave.
Donna- his best mate but becomes Doctor/Donna where there is a physical merging of the two.

Nope. River is obsessed by the Doctor, her whole being is wrapped up in him, she cant function without him, she stalkes him through time and space. its quite different from the relationship of trust and equality between Tennant and Rose.

All the women in RTD era revolve around the Doctor- either with love or a 'timey-wimey' reason like Doctor/Donna- you know those timey whimey reason you claim Moffat invented and that you hate.

Amy on the otherhand is obsessed with him because he screwed up her life, and her story is about coming to terms with who she really is apart from him and losing that obsession. There are loads of scenes directly relating to this, probably the most obvious being in her room in God Complex which takes this theme head on.

In Moffat Who the Doctor is a disruptive influence on his companions. And with Amy and Rory it's largely about them finding ways to deal with that.

'Too clever is too hard to follow.' - Orwell

'the parts people call too clever dives straight into incoherence at times. '- Blue

Its really not hard to follow. Children follow it- with ease (just watch any of Lindellee's reviews- a 7 year old who can explain Who no problem at all in her episode reviews).
Its a show aimed at children upwards, and it seems to have had no problem at all keeping hold of that audience.

And its entirely coherent and it all fits together. The very fact I can make a River vid showing her life from her point of view, using scenes originally shown in completely the opposite order and with clues scattered through them from across four series, and it all works perfectly shows just how well planned out it was in the writing and that it is entirely coherent.

Moffats style is to lay the plots out in a puzzle fashion because he likes the viewer to do some work and not just be passive and let it wash over them, you have to pay attention yes, but its really not complicated.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:31 am

from memory it was mainly the 4th Doctor- Figgs

No, Susan in the first Doctor era was a Time Lord.
Vicky was from the 25th Century.
Steven is from the 23rd Century.
Katarina was from 1bc.
Sarah Kingdom was from the year 4000.
(Its not until Dodo, Polly and Ben that you get three 1st Doctor companions that are contemporary everyday relatable humans).

Jamie from 1746.
Victoria is from 1866.
Zoe is from the then future of the 21st Century (you can tell from her sparkly spandex costume!)

The 3rd Doctor did have contemporary companions as he was stranded in one time period on earth and couldn't travel anywhere.

The 4th Doctor had -

K9- a robot dog.
Leele, an alien from a primitive tribal culture.
Romana- a time lord.
Adric- an Alzarian from time unknown.
Nyssa- from 1989 but a different planet (Traken)

The 5th Doctor added in Turlough- another alien.
And Kameleon, an android from the planet Xeriphas.

6 and 7 both had very short runs and only had 1 companion each.

8 had only 1 companion too but f you include BF he had companions that were either alien, or from a different time period.

So no my premise is not utterly flawed, its utterly true.

'it does have a message of non violence, as in not using weapons to win wars'- Figg

And still does have that. 11 spent a thousand years defending Trenzalore without resorting to using weapons- we are shown this when he outsmarts the cyberman for example. And then there are episodes like Listen in which the theme of the soldier so brave he doesn't need a gun is present.
It was RTD called the Doctor the Oncoming Storm, it was RTD era we saw him carry out vengeful revenge punishments against the Family. It was RTD era that the Doctor was described as having only one companion, death.

Compare that vsion of the Doctor- the oncoming storm,the bengeful god to how 11 describes himself "I am not a hero. I really am just a madman in a box." Or to 12's summing up of himself, "I am not a good man! I am not a bad man. I am not a hero. And I'm definitely not a president. And no, I'm not an officer. Do you know what I am? I am an idiot, with a box and a screwdriver. Just passing through, helping out, learning."
Now thats the Doctor.

'she feels sorry for him that's why she sticks with him'

She treats him like shit. She doesn't stick with him out of any noble or moral reason, she sticks with him because she regards him so little she cant even be bothered telling him its over,instead she runs off, flirts with Jack, take son Dalek boy as a boyfriend and falls in love withe Doctor- and then still doesn't tell him. Not even after he been getting arrested and harassed for her abduction. And when he finally does move on by himself and get a girlfriend Rose is raging and jealous. Deeply unpleasant person in my view.

'Of course non of it is good enough for her once she meets the Doctor and has her mind opened.'- Figg

And thats the difference right there for me. In Moffat era Amy and Rory come to realise that despite how exciting life with the Doctor is there is goodness and friendships and making a family that are ideals worth having in the everyday normal sort of life, just as much, if not more than life with the Doctor.
In RTD era nothing is good enough, real life becomes something to be avoided at all costs, to run away from.
Rose only leaves by force, its not a choice and she cant handle it- even when she gets all her family back including her otherwise long dead father. But no, thats still not enough for Rose. Because she doesn't have the man. She needs the man, isn't complete without a man and cant survive on her own without him- what sort of a message is that to little girls?

'he is saying Rose can be a better person'- Figg

Only Rose doesn't become a better person, she gets worse and worse, more needy, more clingy, more bitchy. By the end with Rose she is breaking dimensional barriers down to get to her Doctor and then has a hissy fit on the phone call about Martha having replaced her. And she still cant do anything without having a man.
When does she become a better person and how? She gets worse and worse as time goes on.

"she wants to back to it quite happily."- Figg

No she doesn't leave happily or as a choice to be with her family, she leaves because the Doctor is still obsessed with bloody Rose- she leaves not by choice but because she can see she is unwanted and intruding on him. She leaves because of unrequited love.

'RTD doesnt indulge in useless red herrings, like pretending Clara is the new Doctor only for it to be a piss take'

Um the theme of Clara becoming more like the Doctor is part of the series long character study of the two of them, of the nature of lying and the influence of the Doctor on his companions often for the negative.
I therefore fail to see how a series long thematic narrative can be called a red herring.
Not there is anything wrong with red herrings in writing, many great authors make use of the device. As well as misdirection (something Moffat is a master of).

'RTD has a slow build up of hints with a big payoff, like Badwolf. there were always hints, clues to unravel.'

No, there arent. Just dropping the two words Bad Wolf randomly into episodes is not setting up clues- if they were clues it would be possible for the viewer to work out what is going on before it revealed- but thats impossible, you cant unravel it, as there are not the clues or information necessary to do so- there is just those two words randomly popping up often in the background. Its the same with 'he will knock four times' its just something that gets dropped into episodes with random psychics and the like pronouncing it- but its not clues, there is no way to work out what its about, all you get is that one phrase repeated for a series.

'totally incomprehensible Moffat stuff'

I comprehended it without a problem, my nieces loved the 11era (they are still in denial he is gone, bless them) and they are 6 and 8 years old. Its not hard to follow at all, thats a complaint I really don't get. Children all over the world seem to be able to follow the plots.

'Moffats stuff is derivatory'

I think Moffat can be accused of some things in his writing but derivative is not one of them, he is a very unique voice which is why is stuff gets attention in a crowded marketplace of drama.
If it is derivative in your view- what is it derivative of?

'I know you cant and that is worrying'

What is worrying is how selective you are in choosing what you base your argument son. As I pointed out in an earlier post you focus on two or three characters you believe makes your case and conveniently ignore the 20 odd other female characters from Moffat era that don't.

'Rose. brave. loyal. positive in the face of danger. resourceful. independent minded. strong. taking no shit from the Doctor. loves an alien who gives her the world, and she saves him literally and psychologically. fantastic message for any young kid.'

She is brave,in defense of the Doctor or what she has- its selfish bravery,it rarely extends to anyone else but her and the Doctor. She is independent in the sense she is utterly selfish and self centered. She doesnt have to take any shit from the Doctor, he is like a pathetic lost puppy in her era. And she cant exist without a man, she cant live without a man, and she cant be happy without a man. Terrible message for any young kid.

'What Amy decides is a choice which is impossible for any human to make in a few seconds'

Quite true- which is why the themes of the entire preceding series is about the choice between real life and Doctor life and the realisation they are coming to prefer and see the importance of having real life. Its not a decision she make sin the moment, its a decision that has been building up towards for over a series. Since at least the God Complex and arguably the Girl Who Waited and Rory and the Doctor's altercation.

'How many times do we find the Doctor looking up Marthas skirt ? '

None I would think, not sure why this is relevant however, 11 or 12 have never looked up anyone skirt either.
The one time such a thing did occur it was played as a joke and it was Rory, her husband who was standing under the glass floor, and that was not in an episode but a comedy sketch made for Comic Relief.

'how many times does Rose have to suffer men saying her skirt is too short? '

You are conveniently ignoring all the sexually laden comments made about her by Jack. Or when she gets taken over by Cassandra and its just an excuse for Billy Piper to undo several buttons on her shirt and stand about feeling herself up commenting on her body. In fact that performance is so sexualised its what brought her to the attention of and got her the role in Diary of a Call Girl. Nothing should happen in Who that inspires a casting director to think of an actress playing the companion- 'she would be perfect to play a prostitute.'
And 10 grabs and kisses a few people without permission. In fact 10 kisses more people than any other Doctor, and quite possibly all other Doctors combined.
And that before we get onto all the homosexual references thrown in our face- I am all for equality and equal representation, but there is a hell of a lot of it in RTD Who and it often seems shoehorned in.

'River is obsessed by the Doctor, her whole being is wrapped up in him, she cant function without him'

Most of Rivers life is spent independently of the Doctor. She escapes the Silence as a child and does so on her own. She becomes a Professor of Archeology, on her own, She goes off and has adventurers all the time, on her own (just as she was doing in the library episode).
In Time of Angels she is working with the military,independent of the Doctor- she calls him in on that one, as she does when she thinks whatever she happens ot be investigating needs his expertise. In Pandorica it is River who who again call sin the Doctor when she discovers the paining of Vincents. Its her investigation, she brings them into it.
In Angels Take Manhattan she is independently investigating the Weeping Angels in 30's New York- the Doctor and co stumble it into without even knowing anything about it, but its her gig, she is independently off investigating stuff, which is what we are told she spends most of her time doing. Acting independently without reference to the Doctor.
At the end of Angels Take Manhattan the Doctor asks her to travel with him, and she says she will but not all the time- she doesn't want full time life with the Doctor, she wants to still do her own thing.
So the idea she cant function without him is ludicrous, she has functioned most of her life without him. And when presented with the choice to be with him all the time, unlike Rose, she immediately says no.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:08 am

New info on the opening episodes of series 9- although officially announced by the BBC it is still a big spoiler if you dont want to know anything (obviously)-

Spoiler:

by chris63 Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:34 am

Doctor Who’ Season 9’s two-part opener guest stars revealed

http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headlines/kelly-hunter-joins-doctor-who-season-9s-two-part-opener

by **Orwell** Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:43 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Where to start!! .... .. ..... [Blah! Blah! Blah! etc. Blah!] ...

'Too clever is too hard to follow.' - Orwell

'the parts people call too clever dives straight into incoherence at times. '- Blue

Its really not hard to follow. Children follow it- with ease (just watch any of Lindellee's reviews- a 7 year old who can explain Who no problem at all in her episode reviews).
Its a show aimed at children upwards, and it seems to have had no problem at all keeping hold of that audience.

Aha! But I'm not a child! Nod

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:00 am

Are you sure? Suspect

But if so then you should take Moffats advice "If you don't understand the plot go find a child and ask them to explain it to you."

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:28 am

Load of quotes from people concerned in Who about new series, put in spoilers just in case-

Spoiler:

by Mrs Figg Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:59 am

blah blah. it takes me two hours to read those replies, only to realise I am right. Nod

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:02 pm

I think Figg if you are going to make the sort of claims and accusations you have it is, at the least, only fair to read the reply.

by Mrs Figg Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:07 pm

just joking, I do read the reply, but you actually make my points for me most of the time. Very Happy

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:13 pm

Then perhaps you would like to address some of the points raised- such if Moffat is derivative what is he derivative of?
And why is the length of Amy's skirt sexualisaion of the character when Billy Piper feeling herself up is not or Jacks innuendos about sex? Where in Moffat era are there jokes about having threesomes for example?
Or if River revolves solely round the Doctor why every time we meet her is she is already independently investigating stuff without him and why does she refuse to travel with him full time? Just for starters.

by Mrs Figg Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:24 pm

Moffat is derivative of himself mostly. He has one or two good ideas, then uses them ad nauseum. take stone angels, once is good, three times looks like carelessness.

if you want me to list the inappropriate sexual messages coming out the Moffat era I would fill a couple of pages. but rule of thumb, all Moffat made females are objectified gender stereotypes, obsessed by the doctor and obsessed by sexual innuendo and in the case of Amy an offer of sex-while writhing on a bed- on a childrens programme, not to mention the strip-o-gram connotations, Nefertiti who has a rape threat, Elizabeth the first who is plaily gagging for it, and that's the tip of the iceberg. Theres the Doctor manhandling women, laughing about it, sonic screwdriver jokes, Rory staring up Amys skirt, not to mention an older man stalking female children, two girls, since they were kids. Amy strapped down to objects at least three times, so she can be tortured, the list is literally endless.

River. Its all about the Doctor, from birth to death and everything in between, her whole existence revolves round him, how great he is, how she loves him, she is nothing without him. she investigates things connected to him, she pops up and drools over him in a sickening way, she has no independent life outside either trying to kill him or smooch him. its appalling stuff.

by Bluebottle Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:37 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:Moffat is derivative of himself mostly. He has one or two good ideas, then uses them ad nauseum. take stone angels, once is good, three times looks like carelessness.

Don't blink, don't think, don't breathe, don't feed, don't sleep, don't.. err.. Nod

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:37 pm

Are you sure you read my post Figg? Suspect

As you are repeating false claims again.

'take stone angels, once is good, three times looks like carelessness.'

So would you say the same about the Daleks in classic? Cybermen? The Master?
How can any showrunner create new reoccurring monsters for the show if using them more than once is going to just be accused of being derivative?

All showrunners have their own style and things they repeat. RTD does too, his ideas come up again and again series after series. Sadly he never managed to create a monster that caught the imagination of the viewer the way the Angels or the Silence did- Slitheen anyone? Thought not. Nevertheless RTD still brought the slitheen back- was that him being derivative of himself too?

'all Moffat made females are objectified gender stereotypes'

Again you say "all" yet out of the list of female characters I put up in the Moffat era, over 20 of them, you only ever focus on 3 or 4 and make that claim. To make that claim you would have to demonstrate that all the other female characters also fall into this category- and they blatantly don't. You are just being selective and seeing only what you want and ignoring anything that doesn't conform to your view.

'to mention an older man stalking female children, two girls, since they were kids. '

Thats low and desperate. There is nothing even hinted at in that which is in any way suspicious. He is trying to work out if she is just a normal human or not and where she came from, nothing more and that is absolutely clear in the context.

As to River everything you say is wrong according to the evidence of the actual episodes. Her whole existence doesnt revolve around him at all- its a hugely important part of her life as it would be,but she is clearly independent of him.
She is of having adventures on her own all the time and every time we meet her in series 5 and 6 she is already investigating stuff and calls in the Doctor for help,or they happen to stumble into something she is already investigating.
And we know she does this all the time. She is not investigating things connected to him, she is investigating things related to her job.
And you still haven't explained why if she is totally consumed with being with the Doctor why she turns down point blank the offer of traveling with him full time.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:41 pm

Not quite Blue- we have had dont blink, dont breath and dont think. But then in RTD era we had a repetition of ideas too. Companions who love the Doctor romantically? Check. Homosexual references in every other episode? Check. How often do we get the Doctor presented as a god- Oncoming Storm? The Fury of the Time Lord? The Lonely God. His Jesus turn rising up on the prayers of the world? The universe singing him to his death? Check.
They are all the same idea repeated in slightly different ways.
Moffat likes to play on basic primordial fears- the thing you cant quite see out the corner of your eye, the footstep behind you when no-one is there ect. Like RTD they are one idea utilised in different ways.

by Mrs Figg Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:06 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Are you sure you read my post Figg? As you are repeating false claims again.

'take stone angels, once is good, three times looks like carelessness.'

So would you say the same about the Daleks in classic? Cybermen? The Master?
How can any showrunner create new reoccurring monsters for the show if using them more than once is going to just be accused of being derivative?

The Daleks and the Cybermen are as eternal as the Doctor its yin and yang. they don't count he has to have villains to fight, and they were there 50 years ago. they are classic, but the stone angels are less and less scary each time you see them. the first time was scary , but each time it gets watered down, lessens in impact, until we get the silly statue of Liberty, therefore apart from Blink, which was great, they cant be brought back for a very long time without boredom setting in.

All showrunners have their own style and things they repeat. RTD does too, his ideas come up again and again series after series. Sadly he never managed to create a monster that caught the imagination of the viewer the way the Angels or the Silence did- Slitheen anyone? Thought not. Nevertheless RTD still brought the slitheen back- was that him being derivative of himself too?

He brought Davros back and that was fantastic. RTD used classic monsters and made them relevant to the new show, Moffat has so many new monsters that they all blend into each other after a bit, and it all gets confusing who does what.

'all Moffat made females are objectified gender stereotypes'

Again you say "all" yet out of the list of female characters I put up in the Moffat era, over 20 of them, you only ever focus on 3 or 4 and make that claim. To make that claim you would have to demonstrate that all the other female characters also fall into this category- and they blatantly don't. You are just being selective and seeing only what you want and ignoring anything that doesn't conform to your view.

I am talking about the main female companions mainly, which is the important bit as they are the ones influencing young minds.

'to mention an older man stalking female children, two girls, since they were kids. '

Thats low and desperate. There is nothing even hinted at in that which is in any way suspicious. He is trying to work out if she is just a normal human or not and where she came from, nothing more and that is absolutely clear in the context.

not really, its a pretty creepy new trait of Smiths Doctor. Why on earth would he be fascinated by two young girls, of course we and he knows they are normal humans, he has a sonic screwdriver to scan them. He also lies to them a lot, which is unhealthy, he even lies to Amy about being pregnant, how fucking creepoid is that.

As to River everything you say is wrong according to the evidence of the actual episodes. Her whole existence doesnt revolve around him at all- its a hugely important part of her life as it would be,but she is clearly independent of him.

that's funny. her obsession knows no bounds, she even breaks her bones or lets him do it, which is shocking.

She is of having adventures on her own all the time and every time we meet her in series 5 and 6 she is already investigating stuff and calls in the Doctor for help,or they happen to stumble into something she is already investigating.
And we know she does this all the time. She is not investigating things connected to him, she is investigating things related to her job.

her job. Doctor stalker.
And you still haven't explained why if she is totally consumed with being with the Doctor why she turns down point blank the offer of traveling with him full time.

probably knows that the Doctor prefers younger women by now. and discards older versions of themselves as not being 'real' enough.

.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:23 pm

So its ok for the original showrunners to create reoccuring monsters- but its banned for new showrunners. Thats silly. Just because it was a long time ago doesnt change anything- how do daleks and cybermen get to become iconic if you limit every monster to a single appearance? That doesnt make any sense.

'He brought Davros back and that was fantastic.'

The scene with Davros and the Doctor was excellent- the rest of that two parter- rather not thanks.

'Moffat has so many new monsters that they all blend into each other after a bit'

Even non Who fans are aware of the Weeping Angels, they caught the imagination and they caught on big style- I would say that was the mark of a successful monster. Which new monsters did RTD create that had a similar impact? None.

'I am talking about the main female companions mainly'

No you are talking only about the ones you want to talk about and conveniently ignoring everyone else.
Why would a sexist writer write the female characters he just did in Last Christmas- why would he put the woman in charge? Why would he only kill off the male character and none of the women? Why would he write an episode with more female characters than male?
Why would he be so keen to try to get female writers,directors on board. Why would he have a female producer?
Your assertion about his sexism doesn't stand up to the actual facts- they just don't gel with the reality.

'he knows they are normal humans'

No he doesn't thats the whole point- Clara he has met twice before in different time zones and she died both times- not much normal about that. He suspects she is a trap -

CLARA: If you don't have a plan, we're dead.
DOCTOR: Yes, we are. So just tell me.
CLARA: Tell you what?
DOCTOR: Well, there's no point now. We're about to die. Just tell me who you are.
CLARA: You know who I am.
DOCTOR: No, I don't. I look at you every single day and I don't understand a thing about you. Why do I keep running into you?
CLARA: Doctor, you invited me. You said
DOCTOR: Before that. I met you in the Dalek Asylum. There was a girl in a shipwreck and she died saving my life, and she was you.
CLARA: She really wasn't.
DOCTOR: Victorian London. There was a governess who was really a barmaid, and we fought the Great Intelligence together. She died and it was my fault, and she was you.
CLARA: You're scaring me.
DOCTOR: What are you, eh? Are you a trick, a trap?

So no, there is nothing creepy in him using his timemachine to go back in her life to make sure she is who she claims to be.

'she even breaks her bones or lets him do it, which is shocking.'

Her doing that has nothing to do with the Doctor- it sets up the importance of the rule that once you know an event from the future it cant be altered. The reason for her having to break her own wrist to escape is because Amy read ahead in the book and read thats what happened, for it not to now occur would cause a paradox- and causing a paradox is the main plot point of the episode- its there to set up the ending.
It has nothing to do with the Doctor at all. Its Amy's fault. He in fact is very annoyed at Amy for causing the situation.

RIVER: Well, I need a hand back, so which is it going to be? Are you going to break my wrist or hers? Oh, no. Really? Why do you have to break mine?
DOCTOR: Because Amy read it in a book, and now I have no choice.
(Amy is standing in the doorway.)
DOCTOR: You see?

'He also lies to them a lot'

The Doctor has always lied, always. He nearly always knows more than he lets on, right back to the first Doctor when he lied in the very second episode about caving in someones head, or when he lies about needing mercury for the fluid link just so he can investigate the Dalek city- he has always been a liar. In fact the very first time we meet the Doctor in an Unearthly Child he is lying through is teeth about Susan.

'her job. Doctor stalker.'

Her job is an archeologist. Its what she is doing when we meet her on most occasions- and she does it all the time- yet she only calls in the Doctor four times in her entire career that we have seen so far.

'probably knows that the Doctor prefers younger women by now. and discards older versions of themselves as not being 'real' enough.'

That simply flies in the face of all the evidence- his marriage to River, how much he clearly cares for her, what she means to him and the time they do spend together.

RIVER: How are you even doing that? I'm not really here.
DOCTOR: You are always here to me. And I always listen, and I can always see you.
RIVER: Then why didn't you speak to me?
DOCTOR: Because I thought it would hurt too much.
RIVER: I believe I could have coped.
DOCTOR: No, I thought it would hurt me. And I was right.
(The Doctor kisses River.)

Yup sound slike he hates older woman to me! Rolling Eyes

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:05 pm

The iplayer vid I couldn't embed before is now on you tube- official announcement but spoilery if you want to know nothing-

Spoiler: