Doctor Who [11]

I was very concerned about the truly awful knob gags in that episode. it was deeply cringeworthy unfunny and not the sort of thing that should be heard in a kids tv show. I highly doubt that a female writer would have included them. this looks like Moffat interference to me.

When people start labeling people with opposing opinions like that, it normally means they are loosing the argument on merit - Blue

Trust me Blue, I have no feeling of losing this particular argument. And what impressions you choose to take are your own, not mine. And 'anti-Moffat brigade' seems quite appropriate for those who make attacks on Moffat whith no evidence presented to back it up.
The gist of my post was that your argument was silly, well ok thats me being polite for stupid in this case.
The idea that you can pick and choose, without any evidence at all, based solely on how much you personally like an episode who the writer of what is, is stupid.
By your argument when Jamie Mathieson made his writing debut with the much liked Mummy on the Orient express people on here should have been posting about how bloody awful Maithieson was and it was just as well Moffat was on-hand to rewrite everything and make it really good.
Conversely an episode written entirely by someone else you cannot suddenly claim because you happened not to like it that Moffat must have rewritten it and thats why you didn't like it.
All I can repeat is just how stupid this argument is. (In case you need a clue its 'very')

'I was very concerned about the truly awful knob gags in that episode.'- Figg

I only counted one knob gag. And I don't think it was a Moffat addition as it seemed clear to me that the character of Swift was based on literary characters of the period- risable and innuendo laden as they were. Characters like Tristam Shandy.
He is too consistently a portrayed character throughout in this vein for the knob gag at the end just to be an addition.

er nope. you cant hide behind English literature to justify cheap knob gags.

and there were two knob gags. none of them funny.

Then blame the writer of the episode, as it seems to me she definitely wrote that character in the 'Tristam Shandy' 1790's literary style throughout the episode- maybe she is just a Sterne fan.

However it was you cant blame Moffat with no evidence at all just because you didn't like the tone of those jokes. His name is not on the writing credits.

Press round up-

The Telegraph- 'Capaldi excelled in this surprisingly deep study of human morality..it was, at times, a beautifully written episode – and less clunky than some of Steven Moffat’s offerings. With an aged, well-read, worldly wise pair to play with, scriptwriter Catherine Tregenna was able to give the dialogue a literary feel..Capaldi has been a great Doctor right from his first episode. Now, he excels. He has grown into the role utterly and completely. He embodies the weight of the Doctor’s responsibility; his face wears every nuanced expression with a flickering ease, whether he’s tersely denouncing banter (quite right, too) or reacting to Ashildr’s heartbreaking isolation. The lengthy, back and forth dialogue between this well-matched pair, showcased Capaldi’s abilities beautifully.'

Metro- 'Throughout both her episodes, Maisie Williams has been a delight to watch..Her scenes with Peter Capaldi crackled with a combination of tension and deep melancholy...The two of them elevated a pair of episodes which contained too much slapstick and banter for my liking – Sam and the Doctor exchanging jokes at the gallows was excruciating – but gave us the opportunity to hold a mirror to the darker side of what it means to be a Time Lord.'

The Guardian- 'Just like its titular guest star, The Woman Who Lived should not work. On one hand, writer Catherine Tregenna delivers a bawdy historical romp, all housebreaking and comedic highwaymen. At exactly the same time, it’s an unutterably bleak, sometimes stagey, meditation on the nature of (im)mortality, the consequences of his “saving” of Viking woman Ashildr last week coming home to roost. And perhaps it wouldn’t work if it were not for guest star Maisie Williams’s remarkable ability to do what’s demanded in the script, to turn on a pin between those two genres, a style which, in other hands, might jar horribly. She inhabits the contradiction with considerable poise...Capaldi once again proves that he’s a lot better as “Funny Doctor” than he was as “Dark Doctor” last year; overcoming his aversion to punning in order to buy valuable time. And as his verbal sparring partner Sam Swift the Quick, Rufus Hound brings the same infectious glow of an actor clearly having the time of his life that Frank Skinner did last year. And since he may or not now be Me’s immortal companion, there’s plenty of scope for a return.'

Radio Times- 'a dark and beautiful study of immortality and short lives...What this episode does very neatly is make us realise the consequences of “an infinite life and a normal-sized memory”....Catherine Tregenna – much vaunted as the first woman writing for Who in eight years – gets all of this spot on. She cites as a source The Wicked Lady (the saucy 1945 movie in which an aristocratic Margaret Lockwood turns to highway robbery). Last week I likened Ashildr to Virginia Woolf’s Orlando; now I spy an antecedent in Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire. When Ashildr tells the Doctor, “You didn’t save my life. You trapped me inside it,” I’m picturing the ancient mind locked inside a child’s body that is Claudia in that wonderful novel...Oddly, I enjoyed this episode far more on second viewing. I’m not saying it’s perfect. Its madcap escapades leave me cold and the pacing is uneven....The philosophical interludes between the Time Lord and Ashildr are what make this sing....On the surface, this is Maisie Williams’s episode. And she is superb.'

The Independent- 'Hound makes another welcome additional to the increasingly long list of sterling guest performances in Who as the rum and risqué Sam Swift. He wasn’t the only one with decent lines to play with either – it was great to see Maisie Williams given a bit more scope to perform thanks to the evolution of Ashildr’s character....here was plenty of scope for electric confrontations between Capaldi and Williams, with the Doctor often coming off worse. But it wasn’t just a hard heart and a flintlock pistol that gave depths to Ashildr’s ongoing story – a trio of empty cribs at the height of the Black Death gave it a poignancy that was only bolstered by Williams subtle approach to the role...And if this was an episode that revolved around characters, it was at the expense of the sci-fi subplot...That’s not to say the episode was bad – the good bits (chiefly Williams and her character) simply stood far stronger and made the under-developed sci-fi gubbins weaker by comparison.'

Den of Geek- 'Writer Catherine Tregenna is an ideal author of this week's script. She's already written for the near-immortal (in, surely, every sense) Captain Jack Harkness in Torchwood several times. Here, she's given the time and space to put at the heart of her episode a dissection of what that immortality means.

She makes several haunting points, none more potent than when Ashildr says that her body may be immortal, but her mind is not. Her copious notes, then, are her struggling to keep on top of what's happened to her, and in some cases, trying to erase the many tragedies she's loved through. This is not always a cheery episode....Catherine Tregenna’s dialogue is strong, and her patience with the two main characters of this episode really shines through. There’s something almost Shakespearian about the fact that the Doctor and Ashildr are foils for one another...What’s more, I love that Doctor Who series 9 refuses to be pinned down, and that we’ve now had three extended stories, that have, in different ways, made different uses of the space that a double episode affords the show...I don’t think The Woman Who Died is 100% successful, but I did enjoy it. For the first two thirds in particular, I thought it involving, interesting and intelligent. Capaldi and Maisie Williams play off each other superbly well, and it’s not afraid to end on quite a downbeat finale either. And heck, the banter isn’t bad either.'

IGN- 'as with last week’s episode, “The Woman Who Lived” balances the lightweight and humorous with some more heavy moments....The Maisie Williams/Ashildr story, which started off well last week, reached an even more satisfying conclusion (for now) here.'

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Trust me Blue, I have no feeling of losing this particular argument.

Well, if that is the case, and you are really so assured in your opinion, I really don't see the need to stooping to these kind of debating techniques. So, please, no more "anti-Moffat brigade", no more calling people who disagree with you hysterical or anything else derogatory. It is honestly beneath you.

As for everything else, I recognize that fair enough as opinion. And I don't expect you to change yours. I just have a different one.

You mistake where my grievance lies here Blue- its not with others having opinons- its with making derogatory remarks without backing, evidence or foundation.

You are  a lawyer, you should know better than to do so. Saying 'I didnt like this episode because of x, y, and z' is fair comment, saying I didn't like this episode because Moffat rewrote it and made it rubbish- when you have nothing upon which to base that, can present no evidence for it- is  not an opinion- its abusing someone who is not present to answer or defend, it denigrating their work and person without evidence. And I don't care if thats Moffat, me or you that happens to- I will be crabbit and strong and not too polite in response in defence of the person every time.
I hate people who attack, accuse and name call others with no grounds to do so but their own sense that they are right.
Providing evidence and reasoning for not liking a piece of writing is one thing, simply concocting piss poor excuses, even ludicrous ones, just to put blame and or scorn on someone is not on for me.

I'm sorry. I do not see the difference between opinions and their nature. It is far too easy for one side in an argument to label the other as derogatory, or "without backing, evidence or foundation". When you have a stake in the argument, I'd advise prudence on labeling others opinions as either.

And I'm sorry, I've seen plenty merit to back peoples negative opinion of Moffat up. Whether you agree with that merit is something different from their opinions being "without backing, evidence or foundation".

But, alright. You say you use these terms as a quid pro quo measure because they use similar terms about Moffat, in your opinion "without backing, evidence or foundation". I still don't find it helpful. Rather I find it pointless. And, if you were to be correct, dragging your own argument down to their level. But if you feel you must persist, that is obviously your completely up to you.

Just so you know, it means I struggle to take your opinion on these issues seriously. Which I am sure is not the effect you wanted to cause.

I was simply trying to introduce some self-awareness. It was not meant to label you or your opinion. Both of which I hope you know I respect. Just not this part.

I don't need more self awareness on this matter Blue, sorry, as I am not the one in this debate making any extraordinary claims- it is those on the other side who do so.
I am secure in my arguments as I am arguing on the basis of information and facts- those on the other side are not.

I am not opposing any argument which says some people don't like Moffats writing. I have never opposed such an argument.
I am opposing recent arguments however that anything bad in the show, even in episodes where Moffat is not the writer he is still responsible as he has rewritten the episode- when there is no evidence of this- or when claims are made that 'most people' don't enjoy current Who, when the evidence available says the opposite.

My arguments are basically, the main writer of the episode is responsible for its content- there is no evidence at all Moffat does any heavy rewriting, or much at all from the little evidence we have from writers such as Mathieson and when he does its mainly providing ideas not dialogue. And that the bulk of the audience is enjoying watching the show. Those are the current sum of my arguments about series 9.
There is nothing extraordinary in my claims, they are backed by the available evidence and they require no extraordinary evidence.

Those of you saying the opposite stuff howsoever are making extra ordinary claims- as the evidence does not seem to back it up. And so far, beyond the anecdotal and personal opinion no evidence has been forthcoming.
How would that do even in Fjordian Court of Law?

And when the main thrust of argument from the opposition is now basically, anything we don't like regardless of who writes it, is because evil Moffat snuck in at night and rewrote all the scripts- well there's a reason I'm confident in my argument!

Well, I've made my case. I told which impression it made on me. And you must make your own choices.

I always do, or haven't you noticed (And I am not responsible for whatever impression you choose to make- thats your own doing and for you do worry about) And I do hope if this is you making your case that you are slightly better in a legal court- where they may require you provide something like actual evidence and proof of your claims.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Then blame the writer of the episode, as it seems to me she definitely wrote that character in the 'Tristam Shandy' 1790's literary style throughout the episode- maybe she is just a  Sterne fan.

However it was you cant blame Moffat with no evidence at all just because you didn't like the tone of those jokes. His name is not on the writing credits.

why then does the writing veer from flowery and poetic one minute to crude pub humour the next? the two styles are jarring. The writer did a relatively good job until at the end seemingly for no reason, it suddenly goes like listening to a ten year old trying to be the crudest stand up comedian in the playground. it sticks out like a sore thumb. and its obviously Moffat going 'boring...enough of the girlie flim flam, lets have a knob joke or three'. and don't tell me about Tristram Shandy, it not suitable for children.

Remember that rumour about Tennant Audios I posted a few weeks ago?...Big finish just posted this on their Facebook page:



...I'm 99% certain that's Eccleston/Tennant's Tardis Exterior

...Frankly I think its only a matter of time before Tennant comes back, but Eccleston would have me much more excited...

Pettytyrant101 wrote:At heart that episode was rather beautiful.

Spoiler:

I'm not quite sure what I thought of that episode, I thought it  was better written and directed than than last weeks episode, with some fantastic dialogue and character work for Capaldi and Ashildr, Rufus Hound was very amusing as Sam Swift, I was more impressed with Maisie Williams than in last weeks episode and Capaldi killed it in holding my attention throughout *Seven Series please Mr Capaldi*.


If the whole episode was the Doctor and Ashildr sitting around in dimly lit rooms talking I would still have enjoyed it immensely...but the sci-fi elements and the macguffin felt very shoehorned in, I don't have an issue with character interaction driving stories, but in this case the actual storyline they were working around didn't really amount to much...consequently the episode just felt a bit all over the place for me.

very enjoyable, but not very memorable.

6/10

why then does the writing veer from flowery and poetic one minute to crude pub humour the next?- Figg

Well according to I think The guardian review above the writer has said she was partly inspired by the bawdy tale The Wicked Lady. So it seems entirely likely to me that the bawdy side of this episode came from her and nowhere else. It seems to fall squarely into the sort of 1700's tales she was drawing from.
I find it more surprising that you find it so surprising or unreasonable that a woman might write a knob gag.
That seems oddly old fashioned to me.

'the sci-fi elements and the macguffin felt very shoehorned in'- Malick

I agree, they were entirely secondary- I rate the episode a bit higher than you just for the sheer pleasure the scenes between the Doctor and Ishildir gave me.
Oddly enough I think it will look better as part of a whole, as I feel this is not so much a concluding part as a middle episode.
I don't disagree that the character stuff doesn't serve the story, more that I suspect it was serving a bigger story we cant quite yet see.


Agree about that looking more like 9/10's

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

I am not opposing any argument which says some people don't like Moffats writing. I have never opposed such an argument.
I am opposing recent arguments however that anything bad in the show, even in episodes where Moffat is not the writer he is still responsible as he has rewritten the episode- when there is no evidence of this- or when claims are made that 'most people' don't enjoy current Who, when the evidence available says the opposite.

My arguments are basically, the main writer of the episode is responsible for its content- there is no evidence at all Moffat does any heavy rewriting, or much at all from the little evidence we have from writers such as Mathieson and when he does its mainly providing ideas not dialogue. And that the bulk of the audience is enjoying watching the show. Those are the current sum of my arguments about series 9.
There is nothing extraordinary in my claims, they are backed by the available evidence and they require no extraordinary evidence.

!

actually you are 100% wrong, and there is evidence to back us up. Firstly Moffat is sometimes credited by being a co-writer. secondly changes to scripts are demanded all the time due to budgets/filming problems/scheduling/ the weather - in fact there are a million and one reasons why a script will need changing, often at the last minute. If changes need doing at the last minute and the writer is not available then someone else will do the necessary changes - usually the script editor, sometimes the producer - basically whoever has time. This is standard accepted practice - happens all the time.
When working for TV writers know and accept that any or all of their work may be rewritten for a whole variety of reasons - a final polish, an unsatisfactory script or element, the original writer being unavailable, to fit in with a series arc, the need for last minute changes etc.
Doctor Who follows the American model - with Moffat acting as a showrunner with all scripts collaborative, to some degree. every writer asked to submit a script knows and accepts that the showrunner can and will do anything they want with it - whether it be asking for more drafts and/or simply rewriting it. Any jobbing TV writer that didn't accept that reality just wouldn't get employed.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

'the sci-fi elements and the macguffin felt very shoehorned in'- Malick

I agree, they were entirely secondary- I rate the episode a bit higher than you just for the sheer pleasure the scenes between the Doctor and Ishildir gave me.
Oddly enough I think it will look better as part of a whole, as I feel this is not so much a concluding part as a middle episode.
I don't disagree that the character stuff doesn't serve the story, more that I suspect it was serving a bigger story we cant quite yet see.


Agree about that looking more like 9/10's

Am I alone in thinking Ashildr might be the Minister for War and/or the Hybrid thingy mentioned in the opening episode?

Catherine Tregenna talks about writing her episode-

Figg- we have the process outlined at least once in Jamie Maitheson's blog- it appears to go like this- Moffat gives you the title and a rough premise as with Mummy- the writer goers away and fleshes that out into a script- they come back and discuss the script and have a round table meeting where they throw about ideas, any production  forced changes, such as Flatline having to become Doctor lite is brought up, and again ideas are thrown about, in the case of Flatline we know Moffat contributed the idea of Clara carrying the shrunk TARDIS about in her bag, whereas it was Maithson who came up with continuing the shrinking down to trap the Doctor inside so Capaldi could shoot all his scenes on set in one block and go home for a bit to see his family. We also know Flatrline was a story Maithson pitched to Moffat not the other way round.
Not once does he mention Moffat writing a single line of dialogue- ideas yes, in discussion with other folk like the script editor, but we have nothing anywhere to say that Moffat does rewrites, let alone extensive ones.
We also have Gaimans example talking about writing his first episode the Doctors Wife, originally meant for the series before his submitted script had no Rory in it. But Moffat didnt rewrite it to incvlude Rory, he sent it back to Gaiman to do it. And when they had lose some scenes because of production costs Gaiman had to rewrite again to include the important dialogue information elsewhere in budget. Again Moffat did not do these rewrites, Gaiman did.
Certainly Moffat contributes the main arc, and may occasionally insert an arc scene in there- but the character of Swift does not seem to be an arc, just a character for this tale, who serves a function in this tale and whose style is the same as the other literary influences the author seems to have for this. I see nothing to suggest anything other than she wrote the character.

Oh and Moffat is not the script editor, thats currently one David P Davis.

And being credited as co-writer only strengthens my case, in instances where he does have a strong hand in the script- he puts it in the credits! If his name aint there then he didnt have a strong hand in the script. Simple.

'Am I alone in thinking Ashildr might be the Minister for War and/or the Hybrid thingy mentioned in the opening episode?'- Malick

Nope I speculated the same earlier somewhere.

Sources are reporting that Capaldi has signed on for another year with an option of another one after that.

'Peter Capaldi has reportedly signed on the dotted line for another series of the hit sci-fi show, with the option for a further year after that, seemingly ending speculation that he was about to leave the role of the Timelord.
‘Peter is keen to complete three years playing the Doctor to round off his storylines. That will take us until the end of next year. After that, who knows?’- Metro

Who knows? I hope that's just a Who pun. I want more than three!

Also interesting when set against the unconfirmed rumours of there not being a series next year.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Sources are reporting that Capaldi has signed on for another year with an option of another one after that.        

'Peter Capaldi has reportedly signed on the dotted line for another series of the hit sci-fi show, with the option for a further year after that, seemingly ending speculation that he was about to leave the role of the Timelord.
‘Peter is keen to complete three years playing the Doctor to round off his storylines. That will take us until the end of next year. After that, who knows?’- Metro

Who knows? I hope that's just a Who pun. I want more than three!

Also interesting when set against the unconfirmed rumours of there not being a series next year.

Yes i read that earlier (it's the Daily Mirror though so I wouldn't put too much faith in it...on the other hand they did report the plot of the Series Opener very accurately months ago...) confused though does this mean the rumored (but very likely i.m.o) specials count as his 3rd Series, or are they in addition to it?





(Personally I'm hoping he equals Tom Baker's 7 Year (not necessarily 7 series) Tenure)

Pettytyrant101 wrote:why then does the writing veer from flowery and poetic one minute to crude pub humour the next?- Figg

Well according to I think The guardian review above the writer has said she was partly inspired by the bawdy tale The Wicked Lady. So it seems entirely likely to me that the bawdy side of this episode came from her and nowhere else. It seems to fall squarely into the sort of 1700's tales she was drawing from.
I find it more surprising that you find it so surprising or unreasonable that a woman might write a knob gag.
That seems oddly old fashioned to me.

its not bawdy, its crude. big difference.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Figg- we have the process outlined at least once in Jamie Maitheson's blog- it appears to go like this- Moffat gives you the title and a rough premise as with Mummy- the writer goers away and fleshes that out into a script- they come back and discuss the script and have a round table meeting where they throw about ideas, any production  forced changes, such as Flatline having to become Doctor lite is brought up, and again ideas are thrown about, in the case of Flatline we know Moffat contributed the idea of Clara carrying the shrunk TARDIS about in her bag, whereas it was Maithson who came up with continuing the shrinking down to trap the Doctor inside so Capaldi could shoot all his scenes on set in one block and go home for a bit to see his family. We also know Flatrline was a story Maithson pitched to Moffat not the other way round.
Not once does he mention Moffat writing a single line of dialogue- ideas yes, in discussion with other folk like the script editor, but we have nothing anywhere to say that Moffat does rewrites, let alone extensive ones.
We also have Gaimans example talking about writing his first episode the Doctors Wife, originally meant for the series before his submitted script had no Rory in it. But Moffat didnt rewrite it to incvlude Rory, he sent it back to Gaiman to do it. And when they had lose some scenes because of production costs Gaiman had to rewrite again to include the important dialogue information elsewhere in budget. Again Moffat did not do these rewrites, Gaiman did.
Certainly Moffat contributes the main arc, and may occasionally insert an arc scene in there- but the character of Swift does not seem to be an arc, just a character for this tale, who serves a function in this tale and whose style is the same as the other literary influences the author seems to have for this. I see nothing to suggest anything other than she wrote the character.

you have no case, and it certainly has not been strengthened.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Sources are reporting that Capaldi has signed on for another year with an option of another one after that.        
.

oh dear more sub-par Doctor Who. do we know if Moffat is slinging his hook yet?

you have no case- Figg

You mean like where I can quote actual writers from the show discussing the process, and you just make something up and then claim its true with no evidence at all just because you don't like something and it fits your Moffat is BAD agenda?

'oh dear more sub-par Doctor Who. do we know if Moffat is slinging his hook yet?'

Nothing subpar about Capaldi, I think the Telgraphs description of him is about where I'd rate him - 'Capaldi has been a great Doctor right from his first episode. Now, he excels. He has grown into the role utterly and completely. He embodies the weight of the Doctor’s responsibility; his face wears every nuanced expression with a flickering ease.'

Reading between the lines of the unofficial statement in the Mirror the two hints to Moffats future seem to be Capaldi talking about a third series to complete storylines- that makes sense if Moffat has a plan to his own exit, which given the way he has planned ahead all across his tenure seems likely. And the option for Capaldi to stay another year afterwards- presumably if there was a new team taking over this would be to allow him to decide if he liked them and where they were planning on taking the show and the character.