Doctor Who [11]

Totally called it:



http://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/jago-litefoot-strax---the-haunting-1342

Seems to be just a one off for the time being, though I think its only a matter of time before Jenny and Vastra crop up in the audios as well, Moffat has already admitted the BBC would like him to do a spin off, but he doesn't have the time to work on it.

Although its good to know BF have the full backing of the BBC (and with more upcoming New Who releases it will hopefully lead to increased sales, and maybe even price cuts...) but
I probably won't listen to this, and I can't help but feel its a shame so many of the additional stories and potential spin offs are now audio only-the format gives the writers more freedom, but they are a relatively niche format unlikely to attract the audiences a TV show might (many fans seem to write off audios straight away), we've fallen along way from 5 years ago when the BBC was happy enough to fund Who, Who Confidential, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures...and I'm a little worried Big Finish may be going overboard with New Who too soon...

If it carries on like this Doctor Who will probably be able to stake a claim as the longest running sci fi audio franchise as well...

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No winning with you- if  he doesn't cast more women and transgender folk, or hire more female writers or directors he hates women- and when he hires transsexual actors, more women writers and directors he still hates women- your arguments make no sense at all.

it doesn't make sense because I didn't say he hates women. you did.

You've spent Moffats entire run accusing him of sexism and of being a misogynist, at various points you've accused him of regressing gay rights on the show and of having a deliberate policy not to hire women.

The evidence on the other hand shows he has always tried to hire women but finding the writers and then getting schedules to match has been difficult, and he has managed it this series, the show has consistently had female producers, and this series and last there was an increase in female directors, and for the big episodes.
In show he has introduced the first ever married lesbian couple, hired the first openly transgender actor, and laid all the ground work for a future female incarnation of the Doctor and changed the gender of one of the biggest characters in the show bar the Doctor.

....and still he cant write women characters without serious problems.. funny that..

I'd strongly disagree with that- I think he has written some excellent female characters. Clara was an excellent female character last series, and in my view so was Amy beforehand.
And there are other excellent female supporting roles from his era people choose to forget like Kate Stewart, Rosanna Calvierri, Nasreen Chaudhry, Alaya, Sophie, Abigail, Idris, Jennifer, Cleaves, Vastra, Jenny, Rita, Madge Arwell, Miss Kizlet, Merry Gejelh, Emma Grayling, Mrs Gilliflower, Ada, Journey Blue, Saibra, Courtney Woods, Lundvik, Maebh, Shona McCullough, Ashley Carter, Fiona Bellows....for example.


I like this quote from a critic-  "In the season finale, there was a conference call at which four of the five characters were women.* All were Moffat creations, and none were interchangeable or generic."


* and the fifth was a Sontaran, who are a clone race and have no concept of male and female.

er.. non were interchangeable?

all his women over the age of 35 are S&M dominatrix. its almost a uniform. I can name at least 5.

I bet you cant. And that particular critic the quote is from is a feminist writer. She also wrote an excellent piece about Amy.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No winning with you- if  he doesn't cast more women and transgender folk, or hire more female writers or directors he hates women- and when he hires transsexual actors, more women writers and directors he still hates women- your arguments make no sense at all.

You do make it seem like they are hired because they are transgender and/or women rather than being good actors and writers, a publicity campaign like politicians visiting old people and kissing babies.

I am glad that new people are arriving, it is sorely needed. I am trying to stay positive, I really do try.

And that's all anyone can ever ask.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I bet you cant. And that particular critic the quote is from is a feminist writer. She also wrote an excellent piece about Amy.

1. River
2. Madame kovarian
3. Missy
4. Tasha Lem
5. Ms Delphox

clones

1. A woman  fenced in by time, her life predestined, as is the Doctors concerning her. She is genetically altered and brain washed to assassinate the Doctor, but overcomes her programming but never her destiny. Bold, audacious, cheeky, flirtatious, but also with a strong core having lived the life she has and an impish joy in life and adventure. Never cruel or malicious, very intelligent but prone to action and directness. Very like her mother in fact.

2. Leader of a breakaway cult from the Church of the Papal-mainframe in the Doctors future, who believes they can prevent the Doctor from reaching Trenzlore and so prevent the war there and the possibility of a return to the Time War. Enjoys being in control, highly manipulative, delights in taunting her opponent and showing off her intelligence. Her faith in her God and in her own mission allows her to perform any act of cruelty and justify it. Never shows any sins of remorse, even when pleading for her life she does so through attempts to manipulate.

3. She is the Master, she has largely the same personality as she did when Simms played the part, only with more of Third Doctor era Delgado Master thrown in the mix with a twist of her own. The Masters personality is nothing like the others on this list. Nor is Missy's therefore.

4. Tasha Lem- Head of the Papal Mainframe and the Church, which is also the largest military force at that time in the galaxy. Had a past undisclosed relationship with the Doctor, trusts him but will not think twice about going against him i f she feels it is in the greater interest of the Church or politics. Has the inner strength to fight off Dalek hybridisation, as well as to maintain a peace for nearly a thousand years at Trenzalore. We see she is a negotiator, but that the modern church has embraced many things, like equality in marriage and sex and the human body- you go to church naked and her bed is an altar and her altar is a bed. Her overt sexuality is refection of the churches position on the matter in the future.

5. A classic style pantomime villain almost exactly in the mould of the Nanny in the adipose RTD episode or also form RTD era the women who runs Torchwood. This one runs the galaxies largest most prestigious bank. Vain, greedy, with no regard for the lives of others and no aims but to be rich and powerful, a classic bully but not in the end without the capacity for regret, remorse and compassion.

The only thing these characters have in common is that they are all played by older women.
And I note you have not addressed the list of other female characters in the Moffat era but continue to single out the few you think proves it is true of all. But that doesn't stack, to show Moffat's writing is sexist you have to explain all the female characters not just pick a few, misrepresent them, then claim it proves the rule for all.

so why then do they all conform to the following stereotypical attributes?

1. feisty
2. femme fatale
3. boss lady ball breaking
4. S&M uniform of red lipstick,leather, black tight clothes, and or plastic, high heels.
5. eyepatches, whips, guns, weapons.
6. comedy villain oneliners
7. flirts with the Doctor, basically got the hots for him.
8. stereotypical 'bitchy'

basically they are interchangeable clones no matter how much their story differs. we can also add Irene Adler to this list.

Becuase they dont really.

Feisty I will grant you, Moffat likes to write strong independent women. I dont think that's a bad thing- Rose could be called feisty, as could Marha and Donna was the epitome of it.
But not sure you can apply it here to Missy unless you are also saying Simms Master was feisty- and I suspect you would only use that adjective, oddly enough, to describe  a woman- when a man was playing the part, more or less exactly the same but even madder, he was just strong and determined- odd that.
Maybe RTD could only write feisty women!

The only one who arguably could be called a femme fatale is River, and she isn't really by the usual standards as her life is to a large degree predestined, she is trapped by time as is the Doctor regards her (this is emphasised in the show by the use of their diaries- the have to keep track of time to conform to it and not break it) and arguably the Doctor seduced her not the other way round- its hm after she is imprisoned takes her out on dates every night she is in prison. River also fights within her time constraints to break that mould- she breaks out of prison regularly after a while and contacts the Doctor rather than relying on him coming for her.
None of the others on that list even come close to being a femme fatale as there is no romantic or sexual link with the Doctor, save Tasha Lem, as she doesn't fulfill the femme fatale role as she doesn't seduce anyone, and she is on the Doctor's side.

Boss lady ball breaking- what an interesting term- is that not just a more severe way of saying feisty?
Madame Kovarian is not a ball breaker as far as we know- she is cruel, she is manipulative and she is controlling, but all in the name of her religious zealotry- we don't know what she is like outside of that as we only ever see her acting as head of her religious faction. But we never see her treating males in general poorly or with any less respect than she does female staff.
I certainly wouldn't describe River as such either, there is no evidence for it, or for the rest of them for that matter.

'S&M uniform of red lipstick,leather, black tight clothes, and or plastic, high heels.'

90% of the time River wears her prison uniform which is grey or pale blue and consists of a baggy shirt and beige trousers.
Madame Kovarian dresses in black but thats because within the narrative of Amy's fairytale she plays the part of the wicked witch- traditionally black attired.
Missy dressed as a Victorian nanny to rile up the Doctor and mock Clara, who the Doctor failed to save the life of in her Victorian nanny incarnation- also a Victorian nanny outfit is not S&M unless youre a Tory.
Tash Lem is the most overtly sexual of all of them, and thats reflective of the norms of the future church- a church you have to attend naked, but its hardly her defining aspect. That's ruling the Church and the galaxies largest military and being a key negotiator.
Ms Delphox  dresses almost exactly like the nanny in the adipoise episode and the head of Torchwood, so unless you feel RTD also only wrote women this way I don't see the issue. Its basically writting shorthand for letting the viewers know she is a bad un'. Its how Moffat uses that look, and its exactly how RTD did too.

5. eyepatches, whips, guns, weapons.

Well only one of them wears an eyepatch and thats for plot reasons- they act as hard drives allowing the storage of memory of the Silence- rather essential if they work for you.
Nobody has a whip where did that come from?!
Only River has a gun because she was raised and trained as a killer and assassin.
Ms Delcroix, Tasha Lem, Kovarian do not have any weapons and are never seen with one.
Missy has a weapon because she likes to indiscriminately kill people because she is insane- just as the Master took great delight in killing people for fun under RTD too- remember his entire cabinet staff, or the reporter he 'fed' to the future humans?

'comedy villain oneliners'

Well only three of them on the list are villains for a start- Ms Delcroix, Kovarian and Missy.
Missy has some good one liners- but then the Master always does and always has done- so no surprise or change there, and nothing down to Moffat- the Master has always been good with a one-liner or a quip.
I cant think of any oneliners form Ms Delcrox and Kovarian isn't big on them either- the only one I can think of is her dismissive "Oh look they are flirting. Do I have to watch this?"
Apart for that no one liners.


"flirts with the Doctor, basically got the hots for him."

Well Simms Master flirted way more with 10 than Missy does with 12. Most of what Missy does is to unnerve 12 and throw him off balance.
River is his wife to some flirting is to be expected during the courtship period if that relationship is to seem at all real.
Madame Kovarian hates him and want shim dead before he can reach Trenzolore- never even vaguely flirty with anybody.
Ms Delphox doesn't flirt with it him at all either.
Tasha Lem does as she is very sensual and sexual, and we are told they had some sort of prior undisclosed relationship in a previous regen of the Doctors.

stereotypical 'bitchy'

From a Rose fan thats hysterical.
River is never bitchy to anyone.
Ms Delcrox is but then she is supposed to be an out and out villian so she is bound to be.
Tasha Lem is not bitchy at all either to anyone.
Nor is Missy.

"basically they are interchangeable clones no matter how much their story differs."

Except taking each of your accusations one at a time shows how wrong that statement is, none of these characters are anything alike, and none of them are like Vastra, or Jenny, or Madge Arwell, or any of the other large list of female characters you keep ignoring because they are not convenient for your argument, that Moffat has given us in his run either.

In fact if you take each of those female characters on the list and write down their agendas, their motivations, their modus operandi, their personality, how they interact with others and even their patterns of speech, they are all completely different.
As I said before the only thing they all have in common is being played by older female actors.

Your accusations just don't hold up to any sort of actual scrutiny of the characters and scripts Moffat has presented.

I hear you Figgy. It's either sexy librarian/principal or Dominatrix, cause that's what women with power looks like.

Sorry Amarie but you cant away with a blanket statement like that without backing it up and citing some evidence- how his River a dominatrix, librarian or principial?
MS Delcrox is basically the same character as the Adipose nanny or the Torchwood leader in RTD- but you didn't accuse him of only writing dominatrix women. Its such a double standard on display here.
Perhaps you'd care to explain how say Madge fits into that mould, or any of the female characters in the last xmas episode? Any of them.
Or any of the other female characters form Moffat era you both conveniently ignore as it doesn't it your 'we hate Moffat because' agenda-

Kate Stewart, Rosanna Calvierri, Nasreen Chaudhry, Alaya, Sophie, Abigail, Idris, Jennifer, Cleaves, Vastra, Jenny, Rita, Madge Arwell, Miss Kizlet, Merry Gejelh, Emma Grayling, Mrs Gilliflower, Ada, Journey Blue, Saibra, Courtney Woods, Lundvik, Maebh, Shona McCullough, Ashley Carter, Fiona Bellows.

You cant because its bull with no evidence to back it up in.


RTD female baddies-

The Adipose nanny was supposed to make you feel like something was off. The Torchwood woman I can't recall atm, but unless she was RTD's fourth or so look-a-like then I don't recall seeing this being a repeated pattern.

There are only two in Moffat era as well- Ms Delacox and Kovarian.
And Ms Delcrox is supposed to make you feel something is off too- turns out she clones herself for employees then burns the clones when done- so there is something very off in fact about her.
And Kovarianis in black because she is the role of wicked witch, thats quite obvious. Her physical appearance is thematic and narrative driven.
River never wears black, or dresses sexually- as I said above she is usually in her prison fatigues or period clothing.
And Missy dresses like a Victorian Nanny, which has noting to do with Domintrix or anything of the sort.
Thats everyone on Figgs list.
Where are you getting 'fourth or so' from?
(and at least Moffat era female villians dont need to be 60% cleaveage)

And all of them have different personalities, interactions, relationships with the main characters, agendas and modus operandi. How are they all the same then?

Sadly I am up at 5 and have to go to bed, but if Moffat only rewrites the same female character over and over then this should be easy for you and Figg.

Write a short character description of the following female characters and their relationship with the Doctor-

River. Shona McCullough (Last Xmas). Madge Arwell (The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe). Madame Vastra.

All Moffat creations so this should be easy- I expect to find 4 character descriptions that unequivocally demonstrate these are all the same character.

they all want to hump his leg.

I don't see why I need to write a long essay about Magde's relationships because I think characters look a like.

It always impresses me Petty continues to argue relentlessly about Who with Figgs fully aware she neither cares about nor agrees with his opinions, that's dedication!

Interesting rumour about Series 9 (massive potential spoilers):

http://www.kasterborous.com/2015/08/big-doctor-series-9-spoiler-rumour/

they all want to hump his leg.- Figg

Yeah cause everyone remembers when Madge seduced the Doctor.

Amarie - because in a debate you need to cite evidence not just personal opinion- and you and Figg seem to struggle on this one providing any evidence to back up your claim- and evidence you do state- such as Moffat using the same female trope four or so times, or that all the female characters are clones of each other or all try to have sex with the Doctor, are demonstrably in error.

Heres another example you said Amarie you didn't need to give evidence that all the characters look alike, so who does Madge look like?



Its just another blanket , in error statement, that can be proved wrong in a second of googling the images.


Malick- it ain't dedication (bloody mindedness yes), I just get bugged when personal opinion tries to masquerade as constructive criticisms ini a debate and when evidence is asked to back up more spectacular and out there claims and the response is effectively- 'I am not giving you any evidence its just true because I say so.'
To use a scottish phrase, it nips ma heid.

I gave you visual evidence to back up my claim, I fail to see how that isn't valid. We all have personal opinion when debating so you fall into that category too. plus my criticisms aren't constructive, they are demolition balls heading for Moffats balls.