All New Who

{{I would say my experience of nosing forums and youtube vids and the like is that this series has its ardent fans, and had appeal to some casual viewers. But that in general most feel it was okish, not terrible not great. And a vocal section think it was terrible (I am somewhere in-between- I think small parts were ok and other parts simply terrible), and then you've the very loud, but also fortunately very minor section that think having a female Doctor is enough in itself to ruin the show.

The viewing figures are fine in comparison to previous, up on previous by a bit iin fact, but there is an obvious decline in both viewing figures (bar a one episode minor spike of a few thousand) and dropping AI's from start to finish, and its rotten tomatoes audience score is only getting worse (currently sitting at a shocking 33%- even given for trolls there are a lot of full reviews in there from unhappy people explaining the problems they had with this series in detail- I am hoping all this has not gone unnoticed at the BBC and by Chibnall.}}

I've only really talked to my cousin and his fiancée about it (they enjoyed it, like I said). My sister's only seen the first two episodes and was holding judgement until she saw more of it.
I did read through the post-discussion on a subreddit for the finale. Overall people "disliked it" to "found it disappointing". It definitely wasn't very positive over there.

{{I think, more than anything, there are some obvious issues with Chibnals firstseries which are particualrly worrying.
Chief among them is that the showrunner wrote over half the episodes in the series- and they were the worst episodes and the two poorest reviewed. And the two standout not good episodes of the bunch- Tsundgra Conundrum and the finale were also him.
Chibnall was appointed more than two years before he actually started- longer than either RT or Moffat had for prep time- yet the end result watches like a series that was rushed and largely unplanned with no overall theme or coherence to the series and scripts that often seem like early drafts, full of redundant lines and characters.
And unless Jodie proves pretty soon (ie the New Years episode) that she can pull off the role and give some gravitas and grit to her performance, rather than always upbeat Butlins holiday rep vibe, she is going to look miscast. In fact I'd say the New Years episode really needs to raise the bar- as if it turns out as weak and limp as the finale was and with no more Who till 2020, then it will leave a bad taste lingering over the show for a year. }}

{{{ If you are stuck for Who in 2019 do consider classic- some trailers to help you decide which Doctor to start with-

1st Doctor




2nd Doctor




3rd Doctor




4th Doctor




5th Doctor




6th Doctor




7th Doctor




8th Doctor (outside BF just the TV movie and the 50th short sadly)



and if your not caught up on your NuWho then there is always


War Doctor (50th Anniversary and BF)





9th Doctor




10th Doctor




11th Doctor




12th Doctor






Now that should see you through 2019   }}

I want the Doctor to be a bloke. its as simple as that.
Women want to travel with a quirky cheeky chappie, and men want to travel with an alien and like all the gadgets and stuff.

I'm not convinced that argument holds up.  Missy Gomez makes a great Time Lord and would have been a great Doctor, but she's already used so we lost that chance.  But I think she demonstrates that the Doctor could very well be female with the right casting and writing.  Other options were out there: going young I might cast Krystin Ritter.



But the best choice would be Helen Mirren.

I disliked Missy a lot. far too arch and camp for my liking.

Oooo, she played Jessica Jones!

Which made me think of Tatiana Maslany, in Orphan Black. Amazing.

It would be a bit odd to regenerate again so soon, nothing has really happened yet! But it's all just so... flat.

Mrs Figg wrote:I disliked Missy a lot.  far too arch and camp for my liking.

Well, Missy is more of a foil than a normal character. I can see how she'd be annoying as the doctor, but if she filled out the character with depth and took some edges off I think she'd be a fit.

Mrs Figg wrote:I disliked Missy a lot.  far too arch and camp for my liking.

That is not strange at all. Missy falls straight into Moffat's woman trope. He reuses this continualy in his writing. The woman that is at once, close, but unattainable, dismissive, but alluring, kickass/violent/powerful, but with no moral or emotional connection with it, the centre of the story, (universe) but always written from the point of view of the main character. What I would call fauxempowerment.

To steal a quote from Bree:

"Incoming Petty in three, two, one...."

{{Hello!    

far too arch and camp for my liking.- Figg

Not sure how that can be levelled at a character at the Master as a bad thing! The Master has always been an over the top camp, moustache twirling, scenery chewing pantomime villain.
If anything I thought Gomez brought some sense of reality to the character not seen since Delgados original version. It was certainly a hell of a lot less camp and OTT than RTD era Master, though no one probably matches up in the  OTT camp stakes to the 8th Doctor TV Movie version of the Master.

The woman that is at once, close, but unattainable, dismissive, but alluring, kickass/violent/powerful, but with no moral or emotional connection with it, the centre of the story, (universe) but always written from the point of view of the main character. What I would call fauxempowerment- Blue

There's a lot to unpack there Blue! A lot of nonsense, but still a lot!  

Missy is not close, not sure how you'd read that, she is the Doctors friend, always has been and there is the closeness of friendship and of shared experiences, but that was as true of 10 and the Master and 3 and the Master especially (and in both those instances the character was played by a man).

As to unobtainable- um who is trying to obtain her in the first place? She is a Time Lady, she is as unobtainable as the Doctor is no more no less. And as I say, no one is trying. And may I suggest this only comes up because the character is played by a woman- the question of Delgados Master being obtainable would never occur, and you would never bring up- even though there is nothing in how either version is written that is different in this regard.

Dismissive is a weird one to level at the Master. Nor is Missy dismissive for the Master, in fact the exact opposite given her character arc is one of attempting personal redemption for her sins through recognition of them.

Alluring- seriously? Missy? To who? In what way is she presented as alluring?

Kickass/violent powerful- well she is powerful, she is a Time Lady, she is violent but not so much as earlier versions, she is the Master and the Master has always indulged in violence. Kick ass though? Like all previous versions of the Master she prefers manipulation and disguises to dirtying her hands. Unlike her male predecessors however Missy almost never resorts to physical violence. She prefers to use her brain.

'no moral or emotional connection with it'- this reads like you are unaware of Missy's character arc which is entirely about morality and connecting her deeds and actions to consequences. Her ending being the best example of how this works out for her.

'the centre of the story, (universe)'- Missy's entire role throughout her time is as a reflection of 12, as the Master is supposed to be. She is never therefore the centre of the story, the story is most definitely and clearly that of 12, with Missy acting as both reflection and contrast to him and his actions and beliefs. That is what the whole kindness speech is about in the Doctor Falls.

'always written from the point of view of the main character'- I have, and never will understand this point of view as a writer. Of course it bloody is! Its like saying Buffy is sexist against men because its written form the point of view of Buffy! Its bonkers. Everything is written from the point of view of the lead character, they are the lead character, especially in a show named after the lead character- be like saying I have something against Halfy because I wrote his part in Halfy in Boots from Petty's perspective. I don't know what its supposed to mean or prove as a criticism. It makes no sense to me.  
Missy's agency however is her own, as more than demonstrated by her ending which is a result of her own flawed morality leading to a flawed choice- which she takes entirely on her own.

'What I would call fauxempowerment - what I would call a faux argument- sounds good but has almost no bearing or relationship on the character under discussion.

And I agree with Halfy, if she hadn't already played the Master Gomez would make a great Doctor- got the eccentricity, the natural flow, the gravitas and steel at need and the ability to turn on a pinhead from comic to tragic, essential for the role. }}

Details might be different, but the nuclea of the relationships are the same: illustrated by the fact that they all flirt outrageously with the doctor, and feel entitled to his affection. To me there is something utterly distrubing by the way these characters are written as the "important" women of the story.

Blue is right.

I am not saying it is a failure of Moffat's writing alone. You can clearly see paralells with the character of Rose, but certain things, like Moffat's scene of Amy throwing herself at Matt Smith's doctor, still sticks out. Moffat's comments on it, to me, says it all: He's a boy, she's a girl, they are alone in a bed room, it is what naturally would happen.

The universialisation of this reductionist view of male/female relationships is all Moffat, all troubling, and it goes throughout his work.

Bluebottle wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:I disliked Missy a lot.  far too arch and camp for my liking.

That is not strange at all. Missy falls straight into Moffat's woman trope. He reuses this continualy in his writing. The woman that is at once, close, but unattainable, dismissive, but alluring, kickass/violent/powerful, but with no moral or emotional connection with it, the centre of the story, (universe) but always written from the point of view of the main character. What I would call fauxempowerment.

I Agree with that assessment. 100% Moffat seems to have a dominatrix fetish.

I think Missy is alluring in the sense that she uses that feminine charm to get what she wants & also to sow seeds of doubt. Twisted words from a woman whispered in the ears of a man leads to......whatever you like, if the man in question is compliant.... She is cunning & has no worries of what damage she causes, or to who.
I heard Whittaker's contract was for 2 years ? If we get nothing until 2020 does this mean there has to be a regen when the Dr finally turns up ?  ( please, please, please )………( make it a man, make it a man ! PLEASE ! )

BBC is in a bind. If they cast out Whittaker for a man it's tantamount to admitting they made a mistake casting a woman. They can't risk that. If they cast her out and fill her in with another woman, they will be accused of going daft with the PC template of casting a woman. More likely there will be a reshuffle of writers if not show-runner. My prediction is Who is stuck with Whittaker.

Details might be different, but the nuclea of the relationships are the same: illustrated by the fact that they all flirt outrageously with the doctor, and feel entitled to his affection.- Blue

{{Not different, wrong, every single one of them- none of your original statement is applicable to the character or narrative arc of Missy- its not a detail out here and there, its every single one of them.

As to flirting with the Doctor, I dont think Missy does, the closest scene to that is the scene where she meets him and kisses him whilst pretending to be a Welcome Droid, and its not sexual, its largely played for laughs at the expense of the 12's reaction to it happening, and from Missy's point of view she is throughout the whole pretending to be a droid thing throwing the Doctor off and confusing him. And it has been established that nothing throws 12 off faster than having his personal space invaded. He is not a hugger.
Also the most flirty the Master has ever been with the Doctor was 10 and that era's Master. Moffats story arc concerning the Master is all about friendship, not desire or lust or any of that.

'like Moffat's scene of Amy throwing herself at Matt Smith's doctor, still sticks out. Moffat's comments on it, to me, says it all: He's a boy, she's a girl, they are alone in a bed room, it is what naturally would happen.'


Thats not exactly what he said, he thought he took it to far and he regretted it for that reason- if you watch the scene its more his sitcom hat on than anything else, its basically a series of one-liners. Also doubt its just Scottish women, but I think you haven't been accosted by enough strange women in your life yet Blue- this same scenario played out worrying close for me many years ago in Glasgow with a girl on her hen night. Worrying as some might find it turns out some women like sex, casual sex ,no strings attached, we just had a scary/good time together, adrenalin pumping, lets have sex to round it off. Amy is a character we have been shown to this point is troubled, unsettled, unfocused and trading to get by on her appearance. I agree with Moffat he took it too far, let his love of a good one liner override is better judgement- but in premise I find nothing either offensive about Amy's portrayal in that scene, or given my own previous experience, anything that might not actually happen.

'The universialisation of this reductionist view of male/female relationships is all Moffat'

I think its your generalisation of his work, and lumping all characters together into a preconceived mould is the issue. And I say its a generalisation because there are essentially 4 female characters of big import and screen time in Moffat era, Amy, Clara, River and Missy, and your generalisation, not a single word of it, applies to Missy or her narrative arc- so that's 1 out of 4 its inapplicable to (unless you can give me actual examples from episodes of them).

Blue is right. - Amarie
I Agree with that assessment.- Figg

I'd guessed that already!

She is cunning & has no worries of what damage she causes, or to who. - Azriel

That I would agree with, bit not hat Missy uses her feminine charms, I cant think of a single scene where it occurs.

'BBC is in a bind.'- Halfy

This is very true- they have painted themselves into a corner- back scene changes seem more likely- the BBC insisting on a change of writers, that Chibnal write less episodes in a series, maybe even force a change of script editor- those sort of thing seem more possible than any major upfront changes, as that would as you say look like a loss of face.

Problem is you take Blues view of writing and characters and you make everything safe, and inoffensive and pc, never take a risk, never push the boat out, never take a chance and pander to demographies that are offended by everything, and what you get is series 11. Bland, boring, unremarkable, unmemorable, safe and pc and dull as ditch water- 10 wasted episodes of nothing at all but virtue signalling. But absolutely no substance. }}}

Petty, even I who have watched Who so sparingly in the past years because the writing jars me (Honestly, after Moffat's abject failure to write a coherent story arc in season 6, I was done.) have observed these qualities in Missy. And no, it is not about narrative arc, it is about character presentation and relationships. By that I mean that whatever Missy's storyline, narrative arc was in the series, the way she relates to, interacts with, her relationship to the character of the Doctor is still the same. It didn't have to be that way, but that was the way Moffat decided to write it.

Look, I am quite prepared to accept that there is a middle ground here, and I have even made some admitments to that effect above, that you as someone who watches Who and pays close attention could probably make some interesting illustrations and comments on. But this, I am to prove that you are totally utterly! completely!! wrong, is a bit of a blind ally as far as discussion is concerned. There is a potentially interesting discussion on the problems I have outlines, both as to their cause and scope, but for that to be possible, you need to admit that I actually have a point. I have what I feel is a clear point with regard to Missy, her character and its irelationship and interactions with the main character. It is not something that I alone have observed, which you can see by the reactions of our very limited group of discussion here alone. I have a point with regard to Amy and River. (I would say: obviously.) These both fall into every description I outlined above. Clara is somewhat different, in that Moffat obviously set out to write her as distinct from his Amy character, but he still played around with these tropes also here.

{{Series 6 has a pretty straightforward story- Doctor is seemingly shot and killed on the beach by River who is being controlled by the suit created by Kovarian and co- with the aim of creating a fix point in time around the Doctor's death, giving him a no way out and thus preventing him ever reaching Trenzalore- they do so by weaving myth and legend around the event. The Doctor gets out of it by using the Tesselctor, he turns up in a 'Doctor suit' the Tesselcetor is shot, then put in the boat and burned- and the Doctor escapes in the TARDIS. History, myth and legend still record him as dead, which was al that was needed to fulfil the fixed point Kovarian had created- not his actual death but the appearance of it. It is coherent.

The issue with series 6 is that the non-arc stories suffer because the main arc is so overpowering.

'it is about character presentation and relationships. By that I mean that whatever Missy's storyline, narrative arc was in the series, the way she relates to, interacts with, her relationship to the character of the Doctor is still the same.'

As I disagree entirely that your original statement even applies to Missy character or arc or her relationship to the Doctor you will have to give some examples from episodes here- as I dont see any.

'I have a point with regard to Amy and River. (I would say: obviously.)'

It is no surprise these two characters share similarities- they are mother and daughter and written to be that way before the viewer is made aware of the fact. This is a choice to draw the viewers attention to the similarities so that when the reveal comes it feels earned and right, you can see the family similarities in personality and actions.

'Clara is somewhat different,'

Indeed she is, which along with Missy makes 2 out of the 4 main female characters I would say not fit your generalisation, which is why I call it a generalisation.

All writers have tropes, it is how they are deployed and in what service that counts. Amy and River share tropes because they are related characters. Moffat used tropes for them he has deployed since he wrote Linda Day for Press Gang in his debut hit show, but they are used quite deliberately to create that family bond. Missy and Clara do not because they are not related and serve entirely different narrative functions (and one of the reasons they work so well off each other when teamed up together in The Magicians Apprentice are those differences).  }}}

{{I just don't see what you are Blue in this character, narrative, or relationship- }}

Three people have seen the same thing. Obviously we have seen something, and come to the same conclusion, independently. Either three people independently hallucinated, independently made the same error in interpretation or we must be lying, I suppose. None of those options are remotely credible. Obviously there is something here, and I have stated myself open to discuss what it is. Dismissing that there is something to discuss out of hand negates any basis for discussion.

* And to clarify, Clara is somewhat different, she was an attempt to do something different, but the same tropes appear. Missy is River, pretty much. So that is 0 out of 4 ruled out for me.

{{If you had been here for the PJ LotR's discussions Blue you would know how many people share an opinion is not particularly relevant in my view for a debate, you cant debate opinions- providing evidence from the source material which backs up your position is something which can be debated. You have given assertions and opinion thus far, but as yet no actual examples of where Missy acts as your initial statement claims. Now you have added that the same things are shared between River and Missy- again without offering any actual source evidence for this.

As I said above I don't see what you do in the presentation of Missy as a character, so you will have to give me concrete examples of it happening to discuss, otherwise its punching mist with opinions. }}