All New Who

{{{ }}}


{{{A few Moffat quotes touching on some of the subjects at hand-

I was called a misogynist because I was reducing women to mothers. 'Reducing women to mothers' - now there is possibly the most anti-women statement I've heard.

I know this is going to sound very self-serving, and I apologize for it, but if you can write comedy, you can pretty much write anything, because it's the hardest. It's the most technically demanding, the most precisely evaluated form of writing. People know if it works or not. There's a big button marked 'fail,' and that's when nobody laughs.

I think of myself as a writer with a sense of humour rather than a comedy writer. Happy to tell a story with lots of jokes in it - I wouldn't know how to do jokes without the story.



{{{And just for good measure was watching the Witches Familiar and this made me laugh.}}}

'I love killing clever people, they make the best faces'- Missy

Petty, no offense but why do you and Figgs always end up having this argument every few months?, you clearly both have very different opinions and are never going to agree on this subject, surely everything that can be said on the issue has been said by now?.

Minor S10 spoiler:

Spoiler:

Looks like Pearl Mackie and Peter Capaldi are getting along well:

surely everything that can be said on the issue has been said by now?.- Malick

{{But thats rather the nub of it- after al this time I still dont know what those who have said all along he is sexist mean by it. Where it occurs. With which characters? Why its sexist? The very basic information needed to get to the nub of the matter and have a proper debate on it.
And as someone who thrives on a good well fought debate thats rather infuriating- and as I cannot see this perceived sexism anywhere in his canon of work every so often I try again at finding out what the buggery they are on about. Generally to no avail as the years roll on
And of course being a drunken cantankerous crabbit stubborn Scotshobbit that won't stop me from trying occasionally }}}

They HAVE said things, but since they didn't convince you, you classed it as nothing being said, which is simply untrue. People talking past each other, unwilling to hear what the other is saying. Both directions, equally at fault.

{{That my dear Halfy, knowing my limitation in this area as a mere man, is precisely why I asked that they break it down nice and simple and treat me as an idiot- first which of the female characters are the issue then why they are the issue and in what specific ways- then we can debate the nature of those issues, and if it is typical of the female characters in his tenure or specific to those characters or story lines.
Theres a good interesting debate to be had here taken in the right spirit- which I admit has proved somewhat tricky, and a tad volatile in the past, but I believe in the folks of Forumshire!}}

I seem to remember both sides writing reams about Amy Pond, and both sides immediately dismissing the other's carefully written reams. It's 'opeless. Give up, all you do is annoy each other.

{{{On the topic of Moffats comedy writing background, some Who humour}}





I seem to remember both sides writing reams about Amy Pond- Halfy

{{{Yes but there are something like another 20 Moffat female characters in his tenure. I dot by that the issues proposed with Amy are symptomatic or speak to his writing in general unless we also balance those issues against his other female characters. Which we have never done- its always just Amy that tends to come up as you note and be the point of contention.
I have agreed long ago that there are issues with how its presented as an ark within the overall structure of series 6 and how it creates an odd juxtapose at times between the stand alones and the arc narrative, though I don't agree that the storyline itself is in any way sexist, its classic scifi time travel fare.
But there are so many other female characters to discuss in Moffats run than Amy.}}}

{{{The Mistress of Evil- Missy humour and also completely scary an unhinged at the same time! }}}

halfwise wrote:I seem to remember both sides writing reams about Amy Pond, and both sides immediately dismissing the other's carefully written reams.  It's 'opeless.  Give up, all you do is annoy each other.

wise words.  nothing I could say and no amount of 'evidence' I could give would make one bit of difference. I have given numerous examples in minute detail, its 'opeless' lets move on.
But if I was to give my opinion in a nutshell, it would be that the female characters of RTD are primarily 'people', whereas the female characters of Moffat are 'primarily 'women', read into that what you will.

{{{Now see Figg thats an interesting notion in itself- not one I entirely disagree with - though I would contest that Rose is 'people' as her personality, reactions, how she handles relationships, her defensive jealousy and her bitchiness towards some folk, more than anything else are to me reminiscent of some of RTD's gay male characters from Queer as Folk which proceeded his time on Who, and in that sense she is not a woman. Her template, in terms of RTD's writing style and characterisations fall in line with his previous work- which just happened to be all about gay men.}}}

Rose is defined by her class rather than her gender. Amy is defined by her gender not her class.

''how she handles relationships, her defensive jealousy and her bitchiness towards some folk''

you could be talking as easily about Amy but because she is defined as 'female' it doesn't count as 'females' are 'supposed' to be jealous and 'bitchy', whereas someone seen primarily as a working class 'person' makes it stand out in relief more. If Rose was less the working class stident type and more a 'normal' girlie, then it wouldn't be so irritating to you. But Rose defies expectations, she is a rebel, she refuses to be put back in her box, for that reason she is truly the Doctors equal. Amy is too caught up in her hormones to ever be his equal. Even RTD's Boss Ladies are not sexualised, unless you think Margaret Thatcher was sexy, on the other hand Moffats Boss Ladies are sexy. This is probably all due to one writer being a gay man and the other er...not. RTD can be objective about women, the only truly sexual character he wrote was Captain Jack. which figures.

{{I dont see Amy as btchy at all. She is never defensively hostile of the Doctor in the way Rose often is- see Rose reaction to Martha during the conference call, or to Sarah Jane, or her treatment and disdain for Mickey, despite all she put hm through when she ran away.

Amy is prickly, prone to lash out first before she gets hurt, her traits are largely defensive- the confident, brisk, persona is there to cover up for the mess she really is thanks to a combination of the Doctors interference in her life and the crack in time eating away her memories and people from her world.

Its true that Amy's class is not relevant- to any Scottish ear its clear enough from her accent that her character is upper working class/lower middle class in origin.
After they moved to England they seem to have been able to afford a decent sized house in what looks a reasonably expensive place (but they could only afford to live in the Lower part, not the Upper part of Ledworth) which may give some indication.
We only meet Amy's parents once and we dont know what they do for a living but they look, dress and sound middle class.

Rose on the otherhand as you say is unmistakably working class, painfully so at times I would say and observed by someone born middle class (Mickey spends his time at the pub with his mates watching football everyone eats chips). Rose is also fighting something, her main problem when we first meet her is that normal everyday life isn't good enough for her, not what she expected or wanted- working in a shop living with her mum and dating Mickey (who in the first few episodes especially is made out to be Mr dim but nice and a complete abject coward with no imagination) when she meets the Doctor and finds a 'better life' she becomes ferociously protective of it. Which is a perfectly valid and even interesting character arc- but not one which produces for me a character who is very  likeable or approachable.

I am poor and working class, doing a shitty job that goes nowhere for little pay, so are most of the people I know- it hasn't made them all bitchy and unpleasant to people (and before you say it has me I have been this way since birth- true story as a baby I spoke my first words- 'Maw, Paw, buckie' at about the usual sort of age to do so for a baby. But then I never spoke another word for the better part of two years, nothing. Had my parents very worried and trips to Doctors ect- then I started talking, in full complete sentences. You see I obviously had already found much to be crabbit about, and single words were just not going ot convey the concepts, so stubbornly, crabbitly, I waited until I could fully form sentences and paragraphs before embarking on all that was wrong with everything, and as my dear old Maw says now- I've never shut up since'}) anyway where was I?

Oh yes, Rose being working class not being an excuse for being a douche a lot of the time.

So back to Amy- who has to be seen in the context for which she was created. You say Moffat writes her primarily as a female, I don't agree, I think he writes her primarily as a concept.

That concept being the one he had devised in RTD's era for who River Song was- she was always supposed to be the daughter of a future companion.
When Moffat got the gig he had two ideas already lined up for Amy- one was his companion story with Doctor as imaginary childhood friend he thought he would never get to write (which is why we got a short version of the concept in The Girl in the Fireplace) and the other was that she was going to be the mother of River Song.
In that sense I do agree that her being female is relevant and highlighted- its why the first episode ends on a shot of her weeding dress hanging up, its why Rory is there, its why they get married, its why in the end Amy chooses to go with Rory and to leave the Doctor.

In that sense Amy is a more female character Rose. Rose's sexuality had no plot reference (outside of fall in love with the Doctor), Amy's sexuality is a part of the purpose she exists.
But that's not because Moffat is trying to write her 'female' but because he is a concept writer- its story ideas that appeal to him and narrative conundrums, the set up and pay off.
Amy's story gives loads built in- the slow revelations of her connection to River leading to the finale culmination of who she is, then the retro explaining where it all fits together and how- thats Moffats delight in writing. He loves how word and visuals can be presented in ways that changing the context alters the meaning and gives the viewer that 'oh my fuck!' revelation moment.
Amy's being female is relevant only in so much that its built into the plot concepts.

Amy is too caught up in her hormones to ever be his equal. - Figgg

I am for now going to disregard the hormones bit for now, as I dont see how its relevant, you'll have to explain that one I'm afraid, but Amy is not supposed to be his equal. He wrote Clara to be that.

Amy is damaged psychologically by the Doctors- the arc between them is Amy getting over her deification of the Doctor built up over her childhood and into discovering and accepting who she really is and what it is in life she really wants and needs. And she does so on her own terms in the end, but it a long journey form her childhood 'imaginary friend' to that point in her final episode. If Amy were to be the equal to the Doctor throughout her run her arc wouldn't make any sense.

And frankly nor should she be his equal nor should Rose, especially not Rose whose temperament previous Doctors would have put her out the TARDIS doors for, and certainly if either came onto the Doctor in any way the Doctor should act with horror and complete rejection of the very notion as 11 did with Amy, not as 10 did with Rose -start up a  relationship with her. Thats not making her his equal, its just weird.

'Even RTD's Boss Ladies are not sexualised, unless you think Margaret Thatcher was sexy, on the other hand Moffats Boss Ladies are sexy. '- Figg

Well lucky RTD never did anything like that then or he'd be a right sexist bigger presumably (cough, cough)

Exhibit A- Miss Cleavage head of Torchwood





Exhibit B (based on past criticisms of Moffat evil females, where tight black clothing + glasses = sexualised



Exhibit C- cast a hot young actress with big knockers and put her in tight spandex and make her jump, crawl and jiggle as a cat burglar!





And least we forget, my personal favourite, Exhibit D- write a gratuitous 'comedy'  scene where your lead actress gets to feel herself up, show off her cleavage and snog the lead man!







'RTD can be objective about women, the only truly sexual character he wrote was Captain Jack.'

We dont know he did. He has never said so as far as I am aware and Jack is usually credited as a Moffat character, as his first appearance was in a Moffat written episode with no co-writing credits. I would think though RTD had input, though perhaps not, Moffat and RTD have been life long friends so he may just have known what his friend would like.

My problem basically with the Moffat is a sexist writer thing is I think its a misjudgement of his writing style.

I think Fig what you actually dislike is the difference in style between Moffat and RTD in that Moffat is a concept writer whose characters come out of the concept, whereas RTD is a character writer where the concept comes out of the characters. And its why its probably no coincidence than some of the best Who episodes of both writers are from when they worked together- RTD can ground the characters when Moffat gets too high concept, and Moffat can remind RTD not to handwave the plot away once he has the character story finished with (they are the golden dual showrunners the BBC missed the boat on!).
And not liking Moffat writing on that basis would be a perfectly fair and reasonable position to take as its one of preference. Accusing him of sexism instead I dont think is a fair assessment of his work or characters or concepts.}}}

"And least we forget, my personal favourite, Exhibit D- write a gratuitous 'comedy' scene where your lead actress gets to feel herself up, show off her cleavage and snog the lead man!"

You do love to mention that as a dig at Rose, but you know very well it's not Rose doing any of that. It's Cassandra taking advantage of her new, stolen body. If the rape threat against Nefertiti is all fine and dandy cause it's to establish the villain as being a villain, then this must be super duper ok as well.

If Rose lashing out, and mistreating her boyfriend is bad, than naturally it has to be bad when Amy does the same thing. The only difference is whether you like Rose or Amy better. They are pretty much the same character.

you know very well it's not Rose doing any of that- Amarie

{{Which is why I called a gratuitous comedy scene- and I dont have an issue with it within its context, but its as blatantly a sexual laden context scene as you are going to see in Who featuring a main companion in body. And Rose the character does snog the Doctor, just not in this particular episode.
And besides is one exampleof female characters acting sexually, or of femlae 'boss' characters as Figg puts it, that look like the ones in Moffat era- in fact nowhere in Moffat era do you find female characters, good or bad with as much cleavage on show as Torchwood lady does, and Moffat had sexy fish vampires and even they didn't reveal as much!
The notion that slightly sexy sinister women in dark clothing with hair tightly pulled back is a Moffat invention is demonstrably not true.}}


'than naturally it has to be bad when Amy does the same thing.'

Not at all the reason for it and the personalities are utterly different. Rose treats Mickey like shit because she thinks he is not right for her or good enough for her, is enamoured of her 'new' man the Doctor but she doesn't have the fairness to actually tell hm this and instead strings him along for a good while. Her treatment is harsh and comes form a place of wanting rid of him but not being able to quite let him go as he is her safety net and backup plan.
Amy on the other hand uses terms like idiot ect for Rory as a means of showing affection as she cannot easily express directly her actual emotions and feelings towards him, as she keeps those things bottled up until the explode usually as a result of having to bottle up what she knew to be true but no one else would believe as a child- she has learned expressing herself leads to doctors and psychiatrists (4 in fact).
But her love and devotion and wish to be with Rory is not in question, and is why he takes being called the names because the understands and loves her and knows there is not malice in it. And when they make the big deciosns in their lives they do so as a couple on equal terms, 'together or not at all'.
I dont think Rose and Mickey as relationship or how Rose treats Mickey is at all comparable with the Amy/Rory relationship or how it evolves. They seem completely different to me involving completely different personality types.}}}

Ever get the feeling you have been Sucked Into The Charybdis of Petty/Moffat Lovin?

I have. and its best to just paddle as fast as you can go.

Petty wrote:I dont think Rose and Mickey as relationship or how Rose treats Mickey is at all comparable with the Amy/Rory relationship or how it evolves. They seem completely different to me involving completely different personality types.

I guess you've convinced me over the years that you really do see many things this black-and-white with no shades of grey. That's the interesting thing about different perspectives. As for me, I could sit down and write a list of similarities between the two relationships, then turn the paper over and write an equally long list of differences. Like constellations and clouds I suppose. We each see what we see.

On a different note, has anyone seen Arthur Darvill as Rip Hunter in 'Legends of tomorrow'? We've seen the first season.

I am very amused by it all. Partly I am thrilled about this because I really wanted to see more of Rory 'the last centurion' and the Doctor teaming up and touring the universe, and Rip is pretty much a mash up of those two.

The show itself is hilariously bad though. Arthur's doing well, I think. Him, Dominic Purcell as Rory (yes really) and Wentworth Miller as Snart gives you a lifeline to cling to.

Ever get the feeling you have been Sucked Into The Charybdis of Petty/Moffat Lovin?- Figg

{{Thats just cheap and easy Figg- and handily avoids having to address any of the points raised in response.}}}

that you really do see many things this black-and-white with no shades of grey.- David

{{In writing, largely yes because its the nature of the beast. Authors have to make clear choices and distinctions or you cannot have a character- a character is defined by having grey areas removed (as a general rule of thumb).
Take the four hobbits in Tolkien- their basic personalities and traits are pretty solidly defined early on, they are not full of grey areas because the author has to give definite answers to establish traits and personality. Its unavoidable. (Bombadil is a good example of the exception to the rule- but its precisely because we are so used to characters being black and white defined that he is ambiguous)

If we take Rose, and the very first episode of NuWho likewise called Rose, it end with this exchange between her and Mikey when the Doctor offers Rose the chance to go with him-

ROSE: Thanks.
MICKEY: Thanks for what?
ROSE: Exactly.
(Rose kisses Mickey on the cheek and runs into the Tardis.)

These are not random words, they ones which help to define Rose's personality and character.
The Mickey RTD has presented us with is cowardly and dull and looks for any excuse to bugger off down the pub with his mates to watch football (even right after Rose has been through a reasonably traumatic day at work), but he has also throughout been shown as loyal to Rose, concerned for her well being- the side of him Rose is completely dismissive of here and which is a trait which continues and even grows as she develops, extending eventually to anybody she thinks might have some closer, or greater connection with the Doctor than she does- such as Sarah Jane, or Martha.
As far as Rose is concerned here the problem with her relationship with Mickey is that he has not done anything for her. It's of course, over the course of time, juxtaposd with her relationship with the Doctor, of which she would eventually say "He taught me a better way to live, a better way to be." He gave her something, she got something out of it.
But she gets there via the fact she is as self-centered as a gyroscope and she treats Mickey appallingly because of this.
And its not isolated- its a through part of her narrative- her man storyline ends only when she gets what she wants- a replacement clone Doctor of her own, without which she cannot find happiness.

As I said characters are rarely grey, the nature of the beast is they have to make choices, do and say things which turn grey into black or white. Grey tends to reside in the narrative and structure, where its a technique.

Rose is not likeable at the start, I don't think she is meant to be by design- she is meant to be ordinary and working class, quite closed minded, head full of petty trivial things, and a nice but dim blokey football loving chip eating boyfriend, but with a sense of being unfulfilled and not knowing why and displaying when the opportunity occurs unexpected potential (he largely reused the same arc with Donna- thinks she is just plain and ordinary, 'just a temp' and end sup at Doctor Donna 'best temp in the universe')

Hell at the start of the second episode the Doctor basically calls Rose racist "Lucky I didn't take you to the deep south" after her first reaction to meeting aliens. Yes she gets over it quickly enough- but the point RTD is making is that Rose has her eyes and mind opened over the course of her time with the Doctor.
There is no journey if she doesn't start a bit closed up. And RTD to his writing credit doesn't shy away from the negative personality traits this meant he originally gave her - such as her selfcenteredness, and indeed its gets worse over time not better as her little hissy fit over Martha and not her being part of the conference call shows "I was there first!" is the cry of a foot stomping child.
It is not a grey area, it is a quite deliberate bit of writing which sets out one of her basic characteristics which RTD has been laying though out.

Its why i don't think and a have never said RTD was a bad writer- just that Rose is not a very nice person a lot of the time by design, and so for me and many others, hard to watch and enjoy. And as RTD's writing strength is in his character work if you don't like the main characters you cant fall back on enjoying the plot and structure as those are not RTD writing strong points and have a tendency to end in handwavium territory or with a solution which only appears in the last third of the story with no hint or precedent to it.}}}

The show itself is hilariously bad though. Arthur's doing well, I think. Him, Dominic Purcell as Rory (yes really) and Wentworth Miller as Snart gives you a lifeline to cling to. - Amarie

{{A friend, i think it might even have been Nagual in fact, said they had seen him in a show but I think it was a different one, but it was seemingly as appallingly bad. But I cant recall if they said the show was just bad or him too, probably the latter if it was Nagual!}}}

Hehe, it does sound like Legends for sure. I should have said he's doing well despite the circumstances, poor Arthur, bless.