Doctor Who [10]

Doubt these will last long, but someone has uploaded some episodes for the last series to youtube starting with Mummy on the Orient Express, so here it is (and Flatline)

Flatline is pretty interesting and imaginative, it feels fresher than the others in season 8.

I like both of those episodes a lot. Both by new writer to Who Jamie Mathieson, not a bad debut in my opinion.

Flatline and Mummy worth both really good, hope Mathieson is returning for series 9...

Only confirmed 100% writers so far are Moffat and Whitehouse.
However its very strongly rumoured, bordering on a certainty that this season will aslo see a female writer joining, Catherine Tregenna.
She previously wrote four episodes of Torchwood, as well as episodes of Casuality, Law and Order UK and Eastenders.

On the subject of female writers for Who in general Gaiman said, "“In the six years I’ve been working with the 'Doctor Who' team, the producers and script editors I’ve directly worked with [four out of six of whom have been women] have had a lot of attention on getting women writers onto the team. They’ve reached out to a lot of women writers -- I know that Steven Moffat has personally been in touch with a lot of female writers and been defeated over and over by scheduling problems, and people saying no, and been as frustrated as anybody [probably much more frustrated as he’s the one reaching out]. It’s a priority for them, too.”

and producer Marcus Wilson also blamed the issue on scheduling conflicts. "Due to schedules and other projects, both male and female writers whom we have wanted to join the team simply haven't been able to," Wilson told the Guardian. "For us it's about who can write good 'Doctor Who' stories, regardless of gender."

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Only confirmed 100% writers so far are Moffat and Whitehouse.
However its very strongly rumoured, bordering on a certainty that this season will aslo see a female writer joining, Catherine Tregenna.
She previously wrote four episodes of Torchwood, as well as episodes of Casuality, Law and Order UK and Eastenders.

On the subject of female writers for Who in general  Gaiman said, "“In the six years I’ve been working with the 'Doctor Who' team, the producers and script editors I’ve directly worked with [four out of six of whom have been women] have had a lot of attention on getting women writers onto the team. They’ve reached out to a lot of women writers -- I know that Steven Moffat has personally been in touch with a lot of female writers and been defeated over and over by scheduling problems, and people saying no, and been as frustrated as anybody [probably much more frustrated as he’s the one reaching out]. It’s a priority for them, too.”

and producer Marcus Wilson also blamed the issue on scheduling conflicts. "Due to schedules and other projects, both male and female writers whom we have wanted to join the team simply haven't been able to," Wilson told the Guardian. "For us it's about who can write good 'Doctor Who' stories, regardless of gender."

It is good to know they are looking to employ more female writers (or indeed, just new writers in general, as much as I hated Kill The Moon and Forest of the Night, new blood is always a good thing, let's face it, noone really wants to see Gatiss churning out scripts for the next decade do they?) I don't think it's for lack of trying, simply as they imply, scheduling conflicts or budgetary concerns, Mathieson mentioned he pitched several ideas to Moffat before his series 8 eps were excepted, there must be a huge amount of work that goes into writing scripts, and not everyone is cut out for sci fi.

Proportionally there probably aren't that many female writers working in the UK anyway.

I seem to recall reading Rob Shearman had been possible discussing ideas with Moffat, although he is primarily a writer of Audioplays (It was recently announced he is going to be writing for Big Finish again at some point-I listened to The Holy Terror the other night-excellent!) Dalek was brilliant...

I've said it before, but I'll say it again, when Moffat steps down I'd quite like to see an entirely new production team take over (preferebly with Capaldi staying on).

I think the issue of female writers is actually a simple thing at source. The bulk of those involved in writing for NuWho since 2005 are my generation- they grew up on Who, they loved Who, they wanted to see it back.
And I can tell you from experience back when I was a kid and a teenager women did not watch Doctor Who, and if they did they were an exception. It just didn't happen. Saying you were into Who was a ticket to never having a date back then.

So whilst there was a whole generation of male writers chomping at the bit to bring Who back and write for it, there just wasn't the same numbers of female writers with that interest or burning desire.

Thats changed since NuWHo came back, but it will take time for those inspired female writers to get to the point where they have the skills and experience necessary to write for Who.

 again don't know where to start. but its bullshit.

I’ll just leave you with the implication that there are no adult female fans of Doctor Who, a fifty year old, internationally successful television show.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think the issue of female writers is actually a simple thing at source. The bulk of those involved in writing for NuWho since 2005 are my generation- they grew up on Who, they loved Who, they wanted to see it backThat does raise an interesting point, Moffat is nearer to the end of his tneure than the beginning, several of the main writers of New Who (Gattis, Whithouse, Roberts etc) who mostly had prior experience in DW books comics etc have been linked with succeeding him, but would the BBC need to bother putting a fan in charge? The show is sucessful now, RTD mostly aimed at the masses, at it worked out fine,  we may end up with someone who didn't grow up with the show in charge....
And I can tell you from experience back when I was a kid and a teenager women did not watch Doctor Who, and if they did they were an exception. It just didn't happen. Saying you were into Who was a ticket to never having a date back thenAt the risk of sounding sexist, I do think Classic Who appeals more to men than women, the only people I know who have seen Classic Who are geeky blokes to be honest,myself included   .

So whilst there was a whole generation of male writers chomping at the bit to bring Who back and write for it, there just wasn't the same numbers of female writers with that interest or burning desire.

Thats changed since NuWHo came back, but it will take time for those inspired female writers to get to the point where they have the skills and experience necessary to write for WhoFair point.

Looking at Wiki the only female writer for Classic Who co-wrote Time and The Rani...

Simple numbers game Figg- look at the list of Nu-writers and its two showrunners- both died in the blood Whovians, same goes for the writers.

There just isn't that number of female UK writers who grew up on Who.

In my entire youth right up till I left school I never once met a girl who watched Who or had the slightest interest in it.
Take a look back through Who fanzines off the time- its all males.

that's like saying there are more male scientists because girls don't like science. bollox.

would the BBC need to bother putting a fan in charge?- Malick

I think it was necessary to get it embedded, I dont think its so necessary now.

'I do think Classic Who appeals more to men than women'

It certainly did at the time.

'the only female writer for Classic Who co-wrote Time and The Rani...'


Oh dear

An the only female writer on NUWHo, wrote two, two-parters-

"Daleks in Manhattan"/"Evolution of the Daleks" and ""The Sontaran Stratagem"/"The Poison Sky" both of which are questionable as to quality- Daleks in Manhattan in particular is, well average fif you are being generous, rubbish if your being truthful. The Sontaran one isnt much better.
Luckily she seems much better at script editing- she edited Midnight and Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead- three excellent episodes of the era.

that's like saying there are more male scientists because girls don't like science. bollox.- Figg

There is some truth in that but Id change "dont like" to "not expected of them".
There are fewer female scientists because in the past society did not deem it a suitable thing for women to do. It wasn't encouraged and often it was frowned on if thats the choice a women made.
By the same token when I was growing up women were not expected to like sci-fi, and tended to get unpleasant nicknames if they did, and so most didn't. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Fortunately its changed now but they is no point denying that if you go to a Who convention now there are loads of women if you went to one in 1980 it was all guys in anoraks (I know, I was there in mine!).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:w
"Daleks in Manhattan"/"Evolution of the Daleks" and ""The Sontaran Stratagem"/"The Poison Sky" both of which are questionable as to quality- Daleks in Manhattan in particular is, well average fif you are being generous, rubbish if your being truthful. The Sontaran one isnt much better.
Luckily she seems much better at script editing- she edited Midnight and Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead- three excellent episodes of the era.

I'm not sure if I've watched either of those since they aired, Daleks in Manhattan was rather boring, but The Sontaran Strategem was great fun.

Daleks in Manhattan wasn't helped by not having any location shooting. Wales doesn't double very well for Manhattan!
A lot of very dodgy 'American' accents too. And the really dodgy looking and concept dalek/human hybrid doesn't help matters.
The Sontaran one is just a bit, forgettable. Its a really obvious plot, very straight forward and so not that interesting. Its also a bit stretched over two parts, there doesn't seem to be two parts worth of story.
And child geniuses are nearly always just annoying (to me anyway), this one was no exception.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:that's like saying there are more male scientists because girls don't like science. bollox.- Figg

There is some truth in that but Id change "dont like" to "not expected of them".
There are fewer female scientists because in the past society did not deem it a suitable thing for women to do. It wasn't encouraged and often it was frowned on if thats the choice a women made.
By the same token when I was growing up women were not expected to like sci-fi, and tended to get unpleasant nicknames if they did, and so most didn't. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Fortunately its changed now but they is no point denying that if you go to a Who convention now there are loads of women if you went to one in 1980 it was all guys in anoraks (I know, I was there in mine!).

well let me assure you that claiming Dr Who as a 'guy thing' will not wash. Its not a guy thing. females love it and have always loved it just as much as males, probably more so actually, because the Doctor represents a male who doesn't punch or shoot his way out of problems, and that's attractive to females him not being a conventional cliché. So no. you cant justify there being no female writers because they don't like sci-fi or Who. there are no female writers for Who because the head honcho refused to emply them. simps.

Thats plainly rubbish- unless you are claiming that Moffat has people like Gaiman lying for him, or that Gaiman was lying when saying that, and so too are the script editors and producers (4 of 6 Gaimen worked with were woman I might add) are also lying- all of them aiding and abetting Moffat in his despicable plan to keep women writers out of Who.
Its preposterous.

And its absolutely true that back in the 70's and into the 80's you would be very hard pushed to find female Who fans- I got the fanzines of the time- all by males- I went to the conventions- only women you saw there were peoples mums.

Now its totally different but no point rewriting the past. Thats just how it was- Who, and indeed scifi in general was seen as far more a male pursuit than a female one.

erm just because they may or may not have gone to conventions doesn't mean that female fans didn't exist. It may have been seen as a more male pursuit only because they didn't want females in their clubhouse.

Or writing into the fanzines, or ever admitting watching it.

Things were just different. I am not saying there were no female fans, just not enough that there would be good odds that when that generation grew up a lot of them would be writers who want to do sci-fi.
Who was dominated by males. Ergo when it came back it was males trying to bring it back. I don't find that at all surprising.

But the notion Moffat has everyone from producers, to script editors and guest writers like Gaiman lying for him about his evil plan to keep women out of Who is like listening to a nutty conspiracy addict who has no evidence (and in fact the evidence contradicts the claim) just unbending conviction thats how it is.

there are no female writers for Who because the head honcho refused to emply them. simps.- Figgs

I am curious- was RTD also a rampant sexist? As he only employed one women writer in five years as head of the show, and she only got to do two stories in one series in all that time. What was so different then?- if Moffat has a female writer in this year he is on par with RTD.

the difference is that 1. RTD had a female writer without being forced by media pressure to employ one. 2. his writing wasn't criticised as sexist therefore it wasn't an issue and nobody really noticed. 3. Moffat has been roundly criticised from all quarters for being sexist therefore its suddenly an issue generally. 4. Moffat has bowed to said criticism by reluctantly employing his first female writer after laughable excuses like they were all having their period or something.

Well,
1. So will Moffat have after this series- so 1 apiece. Media pressure is ridiculous- as that means everyone has being lying for him for years- which is the realm of conspiracy nuts.
2. criticised by some, not by all. There are many strong voices oppose the view- including the actresses in the show. A shrill and loud internet minority (and they are a minority of the total audience) is proof of nothing
3. See 2 'all quarters' is a generalisation and untrue, some quarters is true.
4. Again conspiracy nut territory as it involves all the women employed in the show at BBC Cardiff having a part in this conspiracy to keep out female writers.

The period remark is beneath even you.

It makes it very hard to take anything you say about Moffat seriously when you are coming at it from such a mad start point of assuming he has an agenda, and has enlisted BBC Cardiff, his female producers, his female script editors and all the other women who work or have worked for him, not to mention all the writers, including guest writers like Gaiman (who is putting his own name and reputation on the line if he is just lying for Moffat- why would he?) to go along with his supposed agenda for the past five years. It beggars belief that you really believe this stuff. And I find it hard to convince myself you actually do. Its completely bonkers.


I find it much more likely the reason RTD only managed to get 1 female writer in five years is for exactly there same reasons Moffat has struggled- a mix of lack of available UK female writers in sci-fi and scheduling clashes. That seems perfectly sane to me in comparison to some sort of huge BBC Cardiff wide conspiracy headed by Moffat to keep woman off the show as writers when woman fill just about every other major job on the show.

your description of 'shrill' internet minority says it all really. Its not a minority and its certainly not 'shrill'. what a gendered criticism. As for the 'mad' 'bonkers' stuff. its water off a ducks back.

Shrill-
1. (of a voice or sound) high-pitched and piercing.
"a shrill laugh"
synonyms: high-pitched, piercing, high, sharp, ear-piercing, ear-splitting, air-rending, penetrating, shattering, strident, loud, strong, intrusive, screeching, shrieking, screechy, squawky
"a shrill scream rent the air"

1.
high-pitched and piercing in sound quality:
a shrill cry.
2.
producing such a sound.
3.
full of or characterized by such a sound:
shrill music.
4.
betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness.
5.
marked by great intensity; keen:

Two different definitions randomly gleaned from the net- fits perfectly with what I was describing.


Nice to see your own narrow definition however trumps all those, and my use of the word, in favour of your own predetermined agenda. Ive handily highlighted the definition I was aiming for.
And of course its a minority- on a good day Who gets 10 million viewers, and if you include overseas god knows what the total is- unless you can find me more than 5 million people claiming he is sexist and keeping woman off the show then its a minority.



Your description of a completely hatstand, makes no sense at all, cant be explained, mad as a march hair conspiracy theory says it all about your views on Moffat.
They come form a place of utter madness that contrary to all the evidence. I am still waiting on an explanation for why a writer and strong backer of women like Gaiman would be lying his arse off to help Moffat keep women out of writing Who. But you cant answer that because the whole idea is plain crazy.
It might be water of a ducks back but that doesn't make it any less crazy.

Capaldi goodness-