Doctor Who [8]

Happy 4th of July.     

I dont think all of it works well- I personally hate the whole Amy/Rory divorce thing that marks the start of Asylum, and mars another highly enjoyable romp of an episode- the performances are good but the story writing isn't.

I dont think I have ever seen a perfect series of Who- as I said before part of that is down to how it is made, and part of it is down I think to it being a show whose story telling is on the edge.
It takes chances other mainstream shows never would- divisive episodes like Rings wouldn't happen in other series- I happen to think its a brilliant episode, but there is no denying its a brave one on all sorts of story telling levels.

The price we pay for that is sometimes it doesn't quite work.
The hit ratio though is a lot higher now than it was for most of classic Who era.

Overall I hugely enjoyed the time of the 11th Doctor, far more than the occasions I felt it missed the mark.
And unlike many RTD era episode I still find the Mofffat era has more rewatch value because of the added complexity in characters.

I would agree however that the issues which do arise do so from the story telling, not from some attitude of sexism.

{{{{{What does it mean that, upon finding myself drunk on a National Holiday, I for some reason decided I needed to go to the computer and debate Rose vs. Amy with Petty?  

This isn't good......  }}}}}

{{{Well thats only natural Dave- you were drunk so obviously drawn towards the crabbit, and there is nothing in the US quite as crabbit as me, so naturally you came here. And of course without you realising you have been getting turned into a Whovian! What impresses me is you managed to get through the long post I wrote despite your drunkenness.- Is it not about time you sent off the me stick again? You have series 7 and all the 50th stuff to watch dont you?)

reposting the latest teaser trailer- as it got a bit buried in the Amy debate-



So the big question- is that the voice of Davros?

'Some of the plot twists I'm convinced are just in there because they're clever and shocking. ' -David

Its impossible to know what Moffat had in mind from the start, what was effected by circumstances or changes of mind ect.

It seems to me like he writes with broad strokes- he knew from the off Amy would be the mother of River or at least from the first Angel two parter, and he knew it was all a trap for the Doctor for something that he does in the future.
I doubt, but cant be certain, that he had Trenzalore in mind at the start- but he didnt need to have- he just needed the basic idea. That people in his future of 11's run are effecting the present to get at the Doctor and stop him doing something in the future.

People often accuse Moffat of making it up as he goes along- which tends to puzzle me, as making it up as you go along is called creative writing- where do people think original material comes from? Its made up by someone as they go along.
And in a long running tv show you simply cant plan to far ahead, you need to be more flexible than that to deal with all the things that can change.

I think Moffat sometimes goes for an idea because its clever, but I dont think he goes for ideas for their shock value. Moffat writing has always struck me as been driven by the ideas.

sorry couldnt be bothered reading that ginormous post Petty.

what Dave said.   

Oh well thank you, best part of two hours researching and composing that - even Dave managed to read it and he was drunk and celebrating a national holiday at the time!

And whilst its fine to just agree with David, I dont disagree with him either, his points do not in any way support the contention Moffat is sexist.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: even Dave managed to read it and he was drunk and celebrating a national holiday at the time!

I'm convinced it's actually the best way to read Petty's more insightful writings.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And whilst its fine to just agree with David,

Indeed it is! I wish more people understood that!  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont disagree with him either, his points do not in any way support the contention Moffat is sexist.

Nor do they refute it.  Even drunk, I had more sense than to go there.   

Moffat has some strong sexual and gender agendas that seem to become more and more blatant as the series progresses.  It's not the agendas I mind, it's the blatancy. It's injected almost in lieu of plot, like all the personal crap in Watson's wedding.  It's writing to pander to a certain subset of the fans, and that's bad writing.

Is it sexist? Who knows! Like all "****ist" labeling it's a matter of opinion, and it  tends to end discussions rather than further them.

It's injected almost in lieu of plot- David

Could you give some examples of where this happens?

For me Moffats ideas are plot driven, he might not always get them right or spot on, but the motivation always seems to me to keep the plot moving and the audience guessing not to promote an agenda, at least not in the way RTD promoted the homosexual agenda say.

I can't come up with specific examples, but anything with Madam Vastra, Jenny and Strax is a likely candidate. What they do with Stax is rather like what PJ does with Gimli. Maybe worse.

Oh and the two soldiers who only define themselves a gay. Is that in Good Man Goes to War?

But all the men and women characters who not only cross gender rolls, but are blatantly flagged as they do it.... it just gets a bit much.

anything with Madam Vastra, Jenny and Strax......What they do with Stax is rather like what PJ does with Gimli.- David

I disagree about Strax in comparison to Gimli- Pj took an existing character and made him into the jokey character- Strax was written from the start to be the jokey one and to appeal to the lower age end of Who's regular audience 6-10- to whom he has been a big hit, kids love him.

Regards gay characters there is only Jenny/Vastra, Canton and the gay couple in a Good Man Goes to War.

With Jenny/Vastra its not actually openly mentioned they are gay until the xmas episode with Clara where Vastra introduces Jenny as her wife. Its not hard to pick up on before that, but probably not so obvious if you are 9.

Canton is in my view the best gay character in NuWho, in that it informs his character without ever being the most important thing about him.

The two gay marines is less subtle granted, but then why should there not be two gay marines?

And its still a lot more subtle than the gay agenda in RTD era where for a while almost everyone the Doctor met seemed to be not only be gay but to just  tell you they are within two seconds of meeting them.

But I am still uncertain what you mean by these characters being in lieu of plot- as they all serve important plot functions.

what Dave said    ((( (again   )))))

What about all the shoehorned in homosexual characters in the RTD era Mrs Figg?
Off the top of my head there is Jack of course, the guy on the titanic, the women on the tour on Midnight he sits beside, the soldier in WW2, the officer in WW2, the old guy on the pensioner bus and plenty more - and all of them their sexuality is over emphasised and made to be the most important and striking feature of them- and all of them are introduced as gay characters before they do or say anything else of import.

Ironically Moffat was getting stick up till Vastra/Jenny/Canton ect from the gay lobby who felt he had moved the show back towards being too heterosexual and not enough gay characters, specifically because the RTD era had so many in comparison, almost every episode at one point.

1. Jack is achingly cool
2. Those two gay marines are corny and dreary.

What about all the other gay characters in RTD era Who Figg?

All the ones who introduce themselves as gay before they have any other personality traits, such as those I listed above?

In any comparison between the two eras it blatantly obvious who shoehorned in more gay characters, and who had their sexuality define a large part of the characters the more- and its RTD every time. He has stacks more gay characters just put in there for the sake of it.

I dont mind there being gay characters in it of course, but like David I see no reason to shove the concept down the viewers throat the way RTD did.

And on balance I think Moffat has done a far better job of giving his gay characters more about them than just being gay.

In fact knowing Moffats sly humour I am tempted to think the exchange between the gay marines in Good Man Goes to War is in fact a bit of a take the piss of this very fact-

"I'm the fat one and he's the thin one."

"Don't you have names?"

"We're the fat/thin gay marines, why would we need names?"


Jack is achingly cool- mrs Figg

Yes he is, but then of course he is a omni-sexual character created and originally written by Moffat!  

I cringed when I watched the marines, they were truly grotesque. Jack on the other hand is always a pleasure.    RTD wrote a memorable gay character. Moffat did not.

No Moffat wrote and created Jack for the two part episode The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances, not RTD, the episode just happened to be in the RTD in charge era when Moffat was just an episode writer.

same thing.

How on earth is Moffat creating and writing Jack the same as RTD creating and writing Jack?
He is a Moffat character, written by Moffat just as surely as River Song is a Moffat character written by Moffat in the RTD era.

The obvious gay inclusions in those episodes are all the extra shoehorned in gay characters, the soldier, the officer, the fat guy that's sleeping with the butcher.

But those sort of gay characters are normal in the RTD run, we meet loads of them.
The fact I can pick out three incidental gay characters in that one story, whose only contribution to the plot is they are gay, should exemplify what I am saying about the amount and quality of gay character writing in that period of Who.

I think you are a bit confused. try reading wiki   

In naming the character, executive producer and head writer Russell T Davies drew inspiration from the Marvel Comics character Agatha Harkness, a character whose surname Davies had previously used in naming lead characters in Century Falls and The Grand. Davies states that reusing names (such as Tyler, Smith, Harper, Harkness and Jones) allows him to get a grip of the character on the blank page. Jack's original appearances in Doctor Who were conceived with the intention of forming a character arc in which Jack is transformed from a coward to a hero, and John Barrowman consciously minded this in his portrayal of the character. Following on that arc, the character's debut episode would leave his morality as ambiguous, publicity materials asking, "Is he a force for good or ill?"

Actor John Barrowman himself was a key factor in the conception of Captain Jack. Barrowman says that at the time of his initial casting, Davies and co-executive producer, Julie Gardner had explained to him that they "basically wrote the character around John". Davies had singled out Barrowman for the part. On meeting him, Barrowman tried out the character using his native Scottish accent, his normal American accent, and an English accent; Davies decided it "made it bigger if it was an American accent". Barrowman recounts Davies as having been searching for an actor with a "matinée idol quality", telling him that "the only one in the whole of Britain who could do it was you". A number of television critics have compared Barrowman's performances as Captain Jack to those of Hollywood actor Tom Cruise.

Obviously RTD invented Jack Harkness, Moffat just wrote the script like the hack writer he is.

All that says is RTD came up with the name and character premise- which didn't quite make it to the screen as described there, and that Barrowman had input into his character.
Nothing surprising for the shows script editor and the actor in the role.

Moffat scripted it, writing all the words the character has to say and how they interact with the other characters is not the easy bit!   

And for a hack writer its not bad he came up with what is generally all round considered to be the best episode in that series- and then he did it again in the next series- with The Girl in the Fireplace- a well received fan hailed episode that tends to make top ten best episode lists regularly.
After that he gave us the Library two parter- also considered a classic episode.

Moffat didn't get to be head Writer of Who, or co creator and writer on Sherlock because he is a hack- name calling Moffat, thats just cheap and nasty and has no bearing on the matters under discussion.

I know but I like getting your kilt in a twist.   

 

For me I am not a huge fan of RTD's story telling style, I prefer Moffats.

Others prefer RTD's- I get that.

What I dont get is the desire to tear down Moffat at every turn whilst ignoring glaring issues that crop up from time to time in the RTD era- both have their own style of story telling, with their own interests and agendas.

I think RTD's agenda was more blatant than Moffats, but then I think Moffat is more complex structural writer than RTD, but RTD is a better 'kitchen-sink drama' writer than Moffat.

I dont think either of them is sexist, I find the charges of that laid against either to be frankly silly and without substance, and its a view I feel can only be maintained if you take a very shallow look at the characters, plotting and writing, in either case.

Nor do I think either of them is a bad writer- you dont get to be show runner on Who if you dont have a proven track record in drama- RTD had award wining drama like Queer as Folk to his name, Moffat had an award wining children's drama, Press Gang and an award wining sitcom to his name.

In comparing the two I would say Moffat has a better overall hit rate- RTD had the unhappy series 3/4 period where we had a string of very weak episodes- Love and Monsters, Fear Her towards the end of series 2- two of the most derided episodes of NuWho, and then in series 3 we got a bad run- Smith and Jones, Shakespeare Code, Gridlock, Daleks in Manhatten, Lazarus Experiment, 42, all one after the other and then in series 4 we got the Sontaran Stragem, the Doctor's Daughter, the Unicorn and the wasp, - none of which were very well received by fans or are fondly recalled by many and are at the best, run of the mill (and where they are enjoyable is almost always done solely to enjoying the character of Donna and how she interacts with everyone- its a huge shame one of the best, if not the best Nuwho companion got such short shrift in the stories she was in for such a long period- as when she got a good one like Fires of Pompei or Turn Left they were up there with the best Who has to offer).

Whilst I dont rate very Moffat episode as classic Who, he has never had a run of episodes under his stewardship with as many clunkers as that period of NuWho.

not convinced. sorry.

Maybe, but you no longer sound as convinced either that Moffat is just a sexist and that RTD can do no wrong.