Re: Doctor Who [11]

by David H Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:57 am

{{{I seem to have touched a button Twisted Evil

}}}

I don't feel I can give an informed opinion on misogyny, but over-sexualization seems fair for much of new Who (I'm thinking of such things as a naked Captain Jack pulling a blaster out of his asshole in the reality show episode Shocked

)

As for the Elizabeth I scene, I can speak for one viewer who is just becoming familiar with Dr Who. Her comment was "THAT was supposed to be Queen Elizabeth????" It looked like a cheap throwaway scene that was put in as a connector, which it probably was.

I go back to my "unfortunate choice" comment. It was a waste of a wonderful opportunity. I'd have loved to see some of the intrigue of the Royal household of the time, of the political implications of choosing a husband.

I can't remember, do they tell us if she's queen yet, or is Mary still on the thrown, and if so, how's that going for Elizabeth? Either way, that should have been a goldmine for a half-decent writer!

And of course I still want my Armada! Mad

Doctor Who [11] - Page 36 Battles-takes-place

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:14 am

ogling, pouting, snogging and groping?- Figg

I think there is a snog- but then its 10 and he snogs everything just about (including every single one of his companions- yet you dont refer to 10 as ogling, pouting, snogging and groping- only women do that apparently!)

'not to mention the marrying?'

Umn blame your precious RTD- he was the one wrote 10 saying he married her- Moffat was just showing how it came about.

'over-sexualization seems fair for much of new Who'- David

As a general line I'd agree wit that for both eras of NuWho so far.

'which it probably was. '

It was- people still greatly overestimate the Who budget- there is an expectation that if it makes a lot of money they get a lot more money to make more- BBC funding doesn't work that way, it gets a BBC drama production budget and that's it- ther extra money it brings in just goes into the big BBC pot of gold. And in fact last series and then again this series Who had its budget slashed in line with all other BBC drama budgets.

'I'd have loved to see some of the intrigue of the Royal household of the time, of the political implications of choosing a husband. '

I really dont see that as very interesting or useful material for a 50th anniversary romp. That's more Wolf Hall.

'I still want my Armada!'

Um you do know there wasn't actually a big sea battle? Just shit weather and most of the spanish fleet sunk of the Scottish coast haven been driven there by the weather.

by David H Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:14 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
'I still want my Armada!'

Um you do know there wasn't actually a big sea battle? Just shit weather and most of the spanish fleet sunk of the Scottish coast haven been driven there by the weather.

Nice try Petty, but what about Sir Francis Drake, the Fireships, and the Battle of Gravelines, hmm? :drum:

I still want my Armada. I wonder what Spanish Daleks would sound like? EXTERMINALO! ? scratch

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:39 am

what about Sir Francis Drake, the Fireships, and the Battle of Gravelines- David

Separate incidents not part of the attempted invasion by the Armada, it never made it.
But the main reason no Armada is that Elizabeth was in her 50's by the time that happened (and we've seen her as she was furious with the Doctor for running off on their marriage day and wanted his head- Shakespeare Code) and this all happened when she was much younger.

'I wonder what Spanish Daleks would sound like? EXTERMINALO! ?'

Probably. They speak whatever the local language is, we just get it all translated into English by the TARDIS- but when she is not around you hear them in whatever language they are speaking in, German was a good one, what with Daleks being based on Nazi's they sound particularity suitable, and chilling in German-

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:12 am

Hybrids, Prophecy and Clara's Fate

Spoiler:

So any speculation on where its all going, what might be important and what's red herrings?

by Mrs Figg Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:02 pm

Spoiler:

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:34 pm

Spoiler:

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:04 pm

by David H Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:44 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
But the main reason no Armada is that Elizabeth was in her 50's by the time that happened (and we've seen her as she was furious with the Doctor for running off on their marriage day and wanted his head- Shakespeare Code) and this all happened when she was much younger.

I don't think I've seen that one. Does it mention the Armada?

what about Sir Francis Drake, the Fireships, and the Battle of Gravelines- David

Separate incidents not part of the attempted invasion by the Armada, it never made it.

I'll double-check at lunchtime, but I'm pretty sure the storm that wrecked so many of the Spanish fleet came after Drake had singed and punched a few holes in them. Suspect

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:54 pm

I cant remember if the Shakespeare Code actually tells you a date. and I dont think there any references to the Armada in it- she just sort of pops up ina cameo at the end and demands the Doctors head (its the first set up of the running joke of what did he do to upset her, ending in RTD's time with the final revelation he married her, and completed in the 50th by Moffat when we see the events around how and why she was so mad at him afterwards)- but Liz is quite clearly getting on in years- the Armada was in 1588- Shakespeare seems fairly early in his career judging on some of the dialogue, early to mid-thirties- which would put it either just after the Armada (Shakespeare would have been 28 at the time of the Armada).

As to you not having seen it, as it has a reference to the Liz thing you may find its in the 10th Doctor folder- I honestly cant remember if I included it or not- its not otherwise a particularly great or memorable episode- entertaining enough but run of the mill Who really.

'Sir Francis Drake, the Fireships'- that was at Calais. The fleet chickened out a fight at Plymouth, tried to weigh anchor in the Solvent, eventually went back and laid anchor at Calais, then drake and the fire ships hit them, the Armada went up the east coast of England with the English fleet in pursuit then the weather got them- lost a third of their ships trying to get back. Well, roughly, its a lot of event for a paragraph!

edit add- in Amy's Choice the Dream Lord teases the Doctor about Liz- we find out that he left her in a glade. This fits nicely with the 50th as the time line crossover means 10 doesn't remember on a concious level the events of the 50th, so the last he would have seen of Liz as far as his memory goes is in the glade when 11 and then the War Doctor appear- clever ole Moffat!

by Forest Shepherd Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:05 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:what about Sir Francis Drake, the Fireships, and the Battle of Gravelines- David

Separate incidents not part of the attempted invasion by the Armada, it never made it.
But the main reason no Armada is that Elizabeth was in her 50's by the time that happened (and we've seen her as she was furious with the Doctor for running off on their marriage day and wanted his head- Shakespeare Code) and this all happened when she was much younger.

'I wonder what Spanish Daleks would sound like? EXTERMINALO! ?'

Probably. They speak whatever the local language is, we just get it all translated into English by the TARDIS- but when she is not around you hear them in whatever language they are speaking in, German was a good one, what with Daleks being based on Nazi's they sound particularity suitable, and chilling in German-

I don't know about chilling. Absolutely hilarious maybe. Very Happy

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:10 pm

Dunno, its funny in a 'Daleks not talking English sort of way'- but the words are so similar to years of nazi's in war films- its basically 'Exterminate! Exterminate! Halt! Otherwise we will exterminate you! You are now a prisoner of the Daleks ! Exterminate! Exterminate!' that it seems almost too comfortable a fit of aesthetic and sound.

by Forest Shepherd Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:37 pm

Well yeah, I agree that it is the perfect fit: Daleks coming full-circle, in a sense. I wasn't in a very serious mood when I was watching that episode last, however, and I've always thought it was quite amusing.

by Mrs Figg Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:41 pm

Spoiler:

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:44 pm

and I've always thought it was quite amusing.- Forest

I find that entire story amusing- well maybe that's not the word, laughable is better- from homunculus Doctor and the Thunderbirds airship to 10's Jesus resurrection in crucified pose on the amplified prayers of planet earth- laughable.
On the plus side I did laugh for the right reasons to the Master signing to the Scissor sisters.

(And Lord knows how anyone can accuse Michelle Gomez of playing the character crazier or wackier than Simm did!)

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:45 pm

Figg-

Spoiler:

by **Amarië** Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:36 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:any other thoughts to what I actually said?- Amarie

No, not really. What would be the point? The hysteria on the Moffat is sexist side, the exaggeration, the ignoring of facts, the selective memory of what actually happened and who wrote what all means its pointless.
Its impossible to engage seriously with.

That is proof you didn't bother to read anything I said. It's a pattern with you; ignoring what I is said, assuming I've said something and play the victim. It's nothing less than shit behaviour. If you can't seperate the voices in a debate then you have failed. I was trying to give some food for thought. You don't need to reply, Petty, your not even reading this. But I still find it to be a good way of getting to know yourself and your own thoughts and your own... what word am I looking for...lets go with... gender expectations. Replace any male character with a female and vice versa. James Bond, Star Wars, GoT, the news on TV. Would you, honestly, have the same reaction and feelings, and what makes you feel that way.

Elizabeth is a good example in fact- she is entirely proactive, makes her own decisions without recourse to anyone, physically handles herself in combat, infiltrates the enemy uncovering their plan, and saves all three Doctors and Clara.
Yet because she is shown to be in love with the Doctor al that is immediately ignored as if it doesn't happen and she instead just a degradation of all womankind.
It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid.

And if being in love with the Doctor is immediate proof that the writer is a misogynist who hates women then Rose is the worse offender of all.

Dave raised a good example, for the wrong reasons!, Churchill- another historical leader from Moffat era. Churchill does nothing- heis basically a catchphrase ('Keep Buggering On') and he tries to nick the TARDIS key whenever he can get a chance- thats it. He does nothing in the plot, he solves nothing, he defeats no one, he is useful zero amounts of time. Elizabeth gets more dialogue and far more to do and what she does is crucial to the plot and story.

But hey- look how big the actresses tits are- lets just slag her off for those instead and claim that's Moffat being sexist somehow.

See, you react to how Churchill is portrayed. Why can't I comment on a character? Why am I a Moffat hater while you can say what you want and be untouchable? Why can't I wonder about Moffats reasons to do something and wonder why he thought something was a good idea?

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:00 pm

First- I do owe you an apology that's overdue, I meant to make it yesterday but got distracted making up penis rhymes (well it is Forumshire).
But my language was not appropriate and whilst I would stand by my general point I would not stand by how I put it, which was unnecessarily rude and provocative.
I had been sick all day and I was not in a good mood and I should have known better than to enter into the debate in such a mood. Thats not an excuse however.
And I wholeheartedly apologise.

Now to substance!

'Replace any male character with a female and vice versa. James Bond, Star Wars, GoT, the news on TV. Would you, honestly, have the same reaction and feelings, and what makes you feel that way. '

I am not sure entirely what you are driving at here. I think a female James Bond would be odd, as they are adaptations- would be like making Gandalf female for no reason than because they can.
With the Doctor I have no issues with it at all. I would be interested to see how they dealt with it and how it affected the characters and stories, but if it were never to happen thjat would not bother me either.

'See, you react to how Churchill is portrayed. Why can't I comment on a character? Why am I a Moffat hater while you can say what you want and be untouchable? Why can't I wonder about Moffats reasons to do something and wonder why he thought something was a good idea? '

I am not reacting to Churchills portrayal, I just described it. And nor am I complaining about his portrayal- I enjoyed it. I was however pointing out that in a comparison of two historic characters from Moffat era, one male one female (arguably the two most famous of each in British history) only the female one does anything which directly drives and effects the plot, only the female one is proactive in the story.
Both however show in their own way a dedication and huge interest in the Doctor.
Yet in the case of female that is one used to accuse Moffat of sexism, solely for the reasons she is shown to be romantically interest in the Doctor and because she has large breasts.
And under circumstances in which what Moffat is writing a scene explaining how 10 ended up marrying Elizabeth as RTD had already written.
So obviously she must have been romantically interested in the Doctor. I don't see how else Moffat gets to the marriage without it. And Moffat sets the scene in such a way that the Doctor believes she is the Zygon and so only asks her to marry her as part of a ruse.
Yet none of this about the writing seems taken into consideration in the rush to declare every female character in Moffat era an example of his sexism and denigration of women.

I have no issues with commenting on a character or discussion the character. But when the 'reasons' and the 'wondering' so often seems to come down to misogyny and sexism it just doesn't seem credible to me. Not in Moffats writing nor in his appointments or casting in his job as showrunner.
And it doesn't seem credible to me for the sort of reasons I give about Elizabeth- to make her a sexist character you have to ignore almost everything she actually does in the script, both as a character and a function of the scripting, and focus solely on one or two minor features, such as her apparent falling in love with the Doctor and that she has a large bosom, and then you have to claim those things are somehow a fault of the writer who has only done so in order to make a strong women look feeble. And then also ignore comparisons with how male famous characters are presented too.

I dont mind discussing how Moffat deals with male and female character types, I would like to, but the debates need to be more nuanced than focusing down on individual traits at the expense of all else or they will remain simply meaningless shouting matches from each side of the fence.

by Forest Shepherd Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:48 pm

Entertaining meaningless shouting matches from each side of the fence.

Sofa

by Mrs Figg Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:23 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

Both however show in their own way a dedication and huge interest in the Doctor.
Yet in the case of female that is one used to accuse Moffat of sexism, solely for the reasons she is shown to be romantically interest in the Doctor and because she has large breasts.
And under circumstances in which what Moffat is writing a scene explaining how 10 ended up marrying Elizabeth as RTD had already written.
So obviously she must have been romantically interested in the Doctor. I don't see how else Moffat gets to the marriage without it. And Moffat sets the scene in such a way that the Doctor believes she is the Zygon and so only asks her to marry her as part of a ruse.
Yet none of this about the writing seems taken into consideration in the rush to declare every female character in Moffat era an example of his sexism and denigration of women.

I have no issues with commenting on a character or discussion the character. But when the 'reasons' and the 'wondering' so often seems to come down to misogyny and sexism it just doesn't seem credible to me. Not in Moffats writing nor in his appointments or casting in his job as showrunner.
And it doesn't seem credible to me for the sort of reasons I give about Elizabeth- to make her a sexist character you have to ignore almost everything she actually does in the script, both as a character and a function of the scripting, and focus solely on one or two minor features, such as her apparent falling in love with the Doctor and that she has a large bosom, and then you have to claim those things are somehow a fault of the writer who has only done so in order to make a strong women look feeble. And then also ignore comparisons with how male famous characters are presented too.

I dont mind discussing how Moffat deals with male and female character types, I would like to, but the debates need to be more nuanced than focusing down on individual traits at the expense of all else or they will remain simply meaningless shouting matches from each side of the fence.

Petty Petty Petty. You ignore the bleeding obvious. Elizabeth was SEXUALISED, Churchill was NOT. Nefertiti was SEXUALISED, that's just part of the Benny Hillesque stereotype that she was portrayed as. If you cant see that Moffat used Elizabeth in a sexed up way, you really need to take a step back and view things from another persons point of view and not from the 'making excuses for Moffat brigade'. As a character and function of the script, she is sexualised, whereas male historical figures ARE NOT. GETTIT?? please tell me you gettit or do I have to draw diagrams?

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:24 am

Explain to me how she is sexualised by Moffat. Maybe I will understand you better.
Just saying it over and over as if a fact will not help.

by Mrs Figg Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:34 am

GORDON FREAKING BENNETT!!!!!!!!!! Extremely Crabbit

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:44 am

I am trying to be serious here!!!! Mad

I dont think she is sexualised by Moffat. So it would be useful to know why you think she is.

by Mrs Figg Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:07 am

porca miseria!

by Forest Shepherd Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:05 am

Sad pork?
i don't actually speak Italian.

Personally I couldn't see an older Churchill being sexualized. It would probably just come across as comedy.