Alternative Doctor Who/Sherlock thread

[Mrs Figg]

this is a thread for anyone who wishes to discuss Dr Who freely and critisize or question Moffats reign without being told that RTD did it worse.   
feel free to discuss openly without fear of Moffatization (even if you like him). The old Dr Who thread only accepts people who love Moffat. this thread is for those who have a variety of opinions .
cheers

I am kinda joking and kinda not.   

[Amarië]

Mmmm, sounds like a nice place. I just might hang around.

[Pettytyrant101]

No the old thread likes to deal in facts- not prejudices without any founding, explanation, examples, or evidence.

[Orwell]

Should that be 'Free and balanced' or 'Free or balanced'?    

{{{Mrs Figg I think you have a rat here --- possibly two..    }}}

[Mrs Figg]

very interesting article from blogger Long-Steeped Book Snark

“Joss Whedon, Steven Moffat and George R.R. Martin walk into a bar and everyone you’ve ever loved dies.”

Here’s the problem, though: George R. R. Martin and Joss Whedon are, of course, infamous for killing off the characters that they know are almost universally beloved by fans for precisely the reason that they are beloved and Martin and Whedon know it’ll have huge emotional impact. They pick the harmless bunny of the group and then give them some brutal offing — Tara on Buffy, Wash on Serenity, Ned Stark in A Game of Thrones being an easy handful of examples. But who has Steven Moffat actually killed off?

The two-parter that he wrote during the Christopher Eccleston/Russell T. Davies era literally ends with the Doctor blissfully proclaiming that “Just this once — everybody lives!” In fact, a woman who lost her leg years earlier is restored to bipedalism by space magic. It was an amazing, heartwarming scene specifically because of the first part of that sentence — “just this once.”

But apart from that two-part episode, the Davies era was plenty bloody. While Doctor Who is ostensibly a kid’s show, Davies made it clear that plenty of innocent people have been killed — often en masse — during especially high-stakes alien attacks despite the Doctor’s heroic intervention. And let’s not forget that Davies kicks off the entire reboot of the show by announcing that (nearly) all of the Time Lords and (nearly) all of the Daleks were wiped out by our genocidal and deeply guilt-ridden hero.

That was a hell of a way to re-introduce a popular kid’s show back to the airwaves, but it was perfect. It made the Doctor a new and mysterious character for people who’d never seen the show before, and it changed the way older fans looked at him. You couldn’t just continue down the same old lines and pick things up after all that time without some real change and expect it to work. And the change Davies employed worked beautifully. Until last week, of course — but we’ll touch on that later.

So let’s get back to the central question: who has Steven Moffat killed?

Well, on the last season of Sherlock, fans were reeling when Moffat had the show’s eponymous lead jump to his death, although with the promise that we’d find out how he faked it when the show resumed. So that doesn’t count.

Well, what about Moffat’s next Who episode in Series 2, The Girl in the Fireplace? Reinette (Madame de Pompadour) dies, but she dies of old age because — and don’t even get me started on how annoying this concept is — the Doctor ditches her to go back in the fireplace one last time, apparently forgetting that it always results in a huge time jump. So that doesn’t quite count, as Moffat was fulfilling history.

Next up is Blink, Moffat’s first chilling installment of the once brilliant and now sadly tiresome Weeping Angels. Who dies? Well, the nice DI that Sally chats with dies of old age after being displaced in time. The same fate is afforded to Sally’s best friend, but she does manage to write a letter letting us know everything’s pretty much cool, because who wouldn’t want to be taken away from their family and friends to churn butter for 60 years?

But other than that? Nobody. A theme seems to be emerging.

The Silence in the Library and Forest of the Dead? Well, Moffat does kill off River Song and her whole crew, but then has their souls uploaded onto the library server so that they’ll never “truly” die. Again, it’s an extremely softened death, similar to the “old age/time displacement,” in that it’s sad but any real cause for grief has been removed.

Then Moffat, of course, took over the show as show runner. And once again, people just seem to keep… not dying. Part of the problem is that Moffat’s a big fan of the Giant Reset Button — so much so that he literally wrote in a Giant Reset Button into the episode Journey to the Center of the TARDIS. One step above the “It was all a dream” plot, the Giant Reset Button absolves the characters and the writers of any repercussions and they can carry on as they were, even though we, the audience, saw a “major event” that is evidently no longer relevant. You can have your fun and adventure, but you need not learn or grow or change from it.

Other notable not-deaths include any time Rory “died” in the series, the almost-people clones, the Doctor himself during the impossibly confusing 6th series finale, Vincent Van Gogh and, finally, The Ponds who were killed off exactly the way Sally’s security guard almost-lover in Blink was — by being displaced in time in such a way that the Doctor, for hand-wavey reasons, couldn’t just go pick them back up again and they seem to do just fine living in the past because they have each other, I guess.

All of this is leading up to my biggest problem of all: the recent 50th Anniversary Special in which Moffat, not merely content to sap any trace of blood or death or grief or loss from his own era, removed the basis of the show’s reboot plot:

The mass genocide that the Doctor committed — all the people he killed and all of the times he wrestled with that decision and was forced to come to the conclusion that it was for the best — simply never happened now. All of the amazing episodes in which the Doctor, overcome with grief, spoke about the tragic necessity of his decision are rendered meaningless by this newly-invented War Doctor who allegedly “didn’t count” until now. Now he counts. Maybe. Because of the magic of love and Bad Wolf.

Now of course you can argue that the show plays with time constantly, and that it’s possible that this is a new time stream in which it didn’t happen, and that’s all well and good. But the fact of the matter is that from this point on, the Doctor is no longer complicated by this event. Moffat, who has never had the best track record with character development as it is, has actively written a plot which removes an enormous amount of change and progression from the show’s lead character.

But more importantly than that, when you have no death, when nothing truly has weight or scale, when decisions don’t stick and nobody feels the consequences… it’s hard to care about anything. The stakes on the show feel so low at this point that a once addictive program is unengaging, dull and hollow. Even the 50th special had no real gravitas because we were basically watching a plot be un-done, rather than made. We were watching a character be un-banished, rather than created. For a celebration of 50 years of a television show, it felt awfully like a celebration of a writer who’s only been running it for 4 years. And, perhaps most irritatingly for a Davies fan, the complete erasure of everything that was developed during that previous era.

I don’t think it’s an insult against Davies, though — Moffat does it constantly to himself. Amelia Pond grows up without parents because they were erased by a crack in space and time. When they are restored to her by virtue of yet another giant re-set button, we never see them again. Amy rarely talks about them. You cannot have a character whose parents were taken from her at a young age, who then gets them back — and remembers that she had lost them in the first place — and not see a perceivable change in said character. Similarly, you cannot rob that character of her baby, remove her ability to have children, and have the biggest consequence be that she becomes a model who’s moody with her husband for his own good

Or take the latest companion: Clara cannot live and die hundreds of times for her good buddy the Doctor (who she’d known for, what, a month?) and then basically brush it off like it’s nothing.

We can talk for days about Moffat’s other problems as a writer — the sexism, the homophobia — and those are all valid complaints, but what will always be my biggest gripe is his fear of consequences. When you cannot deal properly with grief or loss or change, you cannot write believable characters or interesting stories. And as long as this show lacks believable, real, characters and engaging stories, it will continue to suffer. So please, for the good of Doctor Who, shed a little blood and actually deal with it. Revel in consequences. Let your human characters behave like humans. In short: restore the heart to a dying show.

[Pettytyrant101]

Which part of that is supposed to fall under the 'free and balanced' bit of the thread title?

They even gets some facts simply wrong in it- such as Rivers 'soft death'- no she is dead- as shown in Night of the Doctor, dead and gone for a couple of hundred years by that point- "You are an echo River...you should have faded by now."

They also seem to have missed the point and the prevailing theme of death and change that permeates all of 11's run and is perfectly summed up in 11's last 'everything changes but thats all right' speech.

[Amarië]

I was nodding through the whole read there, Figgy.

[Mrs Figg]

from the man himself:

“If you look at other stuff from the Sixties they weren’t crap – it was just Doctor Who. The first episode of Doctor Who betrays the lie that it’s just the Sixties, because the first episode is really good – the rest of it’s shit.” Steven Moffat.

well I beg to differ Steven

[Pettytyrant101]

Nice- you brought a quote Moffat made when he was a teenager in a Doctor Who fanzine- and that he has long since retracted and said was just the cockiness and self assuredness of youth.

And if that piece is so fair and worth nodding through how do you explain the line about Moffat being homophobic?- he created Captain Jack, he created Canton, he created Vastra and Jenny, a same sex, different species, married couple and put them front and centre.

Yeah I can see the rampant homophobic streak clear as day there.   

[Mrs Figg]

How Moffat Killed Doctor Who

Posted in Bitchery on June 20, 2013

I actually liked Moffat-written episodes when RTD was running the show. The idea of Moffat taking over didn’t seem so bad at first (I got hooked on earlier seasons of Who when Season 5 was in full swing already, and it took me a while to catch up, but I already knew Moffat has taken over when watching his episodes in earlier series). All my Whovian friends were telling me how awful the show has become under Moffat, but I found it hard to believe.

And then I got to Season 5 and I was like, I see. I don’t want to see it, but I see. Season 6 made me seriously want to stop watching it, but it was the Doctor, and how could I quit on the Doctor? Maybe it will get better, I thought. I must wait and be patient. This is a test. I will prove a true fan. I will endure.

And then Season 7 happened, which I have unfortunately watched. It was weak, it left plot holes larger than Moffat’s ego, and it was no longer Doctor Who. Moffat’s signature move of relying on cheap scare gimmicks and grand melodrama to move the plot along killed the whole point of the show.

I think the reason Moffat’s episodes worked before he took over was precisely this – the cheap gimmicks. RTD tended to over-moralise at times. We saw how wrong it was to be selfish and want to live forever, because it required relying on a slave to always moisturize you; we saw that despite the Ood being meek like helpless puppies and not very pretty, it was wrong to make slaves of them; it was wrong of Harriet Jones to order the destruction of the Sycorax; it was wrong of Adam to get the head thing which opens when you snap fingers; it was wrong of Rose to be human and want to save her dad. I could go on, but my point is: there was a lot of guilt and morals. In this context, it was refreshing to have episodes which had no morals, only fun. Moffat’s episodes did that. The Girl in the Fireplace - those ticking French aristocrat thingies were scary as fuck, and it was fun! But before we even get to the aristocrats, there is the whole question of where’s my mummy? to settle. And then of course we have the Weeping Angels. The Silence. The Whisper Men. Do you notice a pattern? I notice a pattern.

As I said, in the context of RTD morals these gimmicks were refreshing and welcome. Too much moral in the story, and it’s a very dull viscous porridge you trod through against your will. Mix it with Moffat gimmicks – and both the morals and the gimmicks make sense.

However, leave only gimmicks and you’re in shallow waters. Watching the show now feels like eating sickly sweet candy wrapped in sparkling glittery paper. I’m sick of it. I want the dull porridge. Some actual food for my brain. And I want a Doctor who is not a blabbering fool.

But Moffat’s biggest sin in my eyes is killing River Song. Not actually killing her – a character like hers just asks to die heroically, and I think it made a lot of sense when she sacrificed herself – but killing her potential as an important, interesting character, and making her only goal in life to be with the Doctor. When she entered the Library in her space suit and took her helmet off, I was like, fuck yeah River Song. Finally, a character to match the Doctor’s. Someone who is his equal. I knew instantly she must be his wife from the future or something. Tennant and Kingston acted out this weird you’re not my Doctor yet and who the fuck are you attraction brilliantly. I was excited. I wanted to see River in another episode soon. Tomorrow. Now.

The only thing that bothered me was that the Doctor didn’t let River just die peacefully, but had to save her mind into the computer. To me, that seemed more like damnation than deliverance. But I attributed it to the darker side of the Doctor. How generous of me. Later on I re-assigned this rather to Moffat’s stupidity.

And then we got River who lived in jail for not killing the Doctor, and only ever escaped to have an adventure with the Doctor, after which she returned to her cell like a good girl. What a convenient woman! Comes when needed and returns to a cell to wait patiently when she is next needed. Thank you Moffat. Thank you for ruining so much potential.

But it wasn’t enough with River. It’s like he’s living out his own fantasies or something. Because now we have Clara, another beautiful woman who was born to save the Doctor! I like Jenna-Louise Coleman, she is pretty and does her best to save Clara from sucking completely, but there is nothing Moffat cannot ruin. Clara is shallow. Like River, she is nothing without the Doctor. It makes her boring to watch. And the ending of Season 7 left another large plot hole. If Clara jumped into the Doctor’s timeline and fixed it… and it already happened… when, how and why did she jump in there for the first time?

And by the way, have we learned by now why did the TARDIS explode? No? That’s because Moffat doesn’t know himself. But I guess it was a cool gimmick at the time.

I would give up on Who now, except David Tennant is coming back for the 50th. And then I will give Twelve a try, whoever he might be. If it does not get better, I will have to go in hibernation to wait for when Moffat finally regenerates.

[Pettytyrant101]

Do you have any of your own thoughts or do you just plan to troll the internet for everyone who doesnt like Who and copy and paste their rant instead of your own?

I suggest if you hate Who so much stop watching it until Moffat leaves, and stop commenting on it if it bothers you and winds you up so much.  (especially if you only post other peoples comments on it and not even your own, not much point trying to discuss something with a poster who isnt even a member of this forum)

[Amarië]

Thought you didn't like captain Jack?

It says there is sexism and homophobia in the show, not that Moff is a homophobic. I have no idea what discussion they have had before this and what conclusions they came to.

Anyhow though, many of his homosexual characters feel like they are shoe horned in to appear PC. As I have said before, the treatment of 'the thin one and the fat one' (or... something like that) was a bit disturbing. With the dominant lizard woman (Madam Sherlock?) and servant ninja wife it seems to me that Moff is trying too hard to make his women so very, very interesting. And damn, ninja wife (who's name escapes me) now reminds me of Watson. Yikes...

But I adore the agent. He felt real.

[Bluebottle]

I have my issues both with Moffat and RTD.  

Though for anyone to claim Moffats writing was a big step down from the "quality" of RTD, that is a big stretch for me. RTDs method for Doctor Who involved hitting the British people right were it mattered, and much in the same way shows like Britains Got Talent does.

And for anyone to characterize the writing that left Ecclestone exclaiming "Who writes this shit?!" as a paragon of quality. That has me wondering. RTD never even let the guy who wrote the best episode of his first series, Dalek, return to write for the show. (Ego anyone.)

So let's not pretend that there is a black/white dividing line betwen those two.

Or to sum it up, you're both wrong to a degree.

Here to help.   

[Pettytyrant101]

many of his homosexual characters feel like they are shoe horned in to appear PC- Amarie

I think Canton is the best written homosexual character to ever appear in Who. And there is nothing forced, or pc about him or his arc.

[Mrs Figg]

Day of the Doctor some thoughtsby whovian feminism

Elizabeth 1

Let’s jump right into what was quite possibly the worst aspect of “The Day of the Doctor”: Queen Elizabeth I. No insult to Joanna Page, who did the best with the script she was given, but that was an utterly horrible characterization. Elizabeth I spent most of the episode as a lovesick girl, desperately happy that the Doctor had proposed marriage to her and determined to make him follow through on that. And rarely was an opportunity missed to joke about the Doctor taking her virginity.

This was not Queen Elizabeth I. There were many reasons, personal and political, that Elizabeth I remained the virgin queen and avoided marriage and (most likely) sex.

Elizabeth I was sexually abused as a young girl by her guardians, Thomas Seymour and Catherine Parr, and quite likely raped by Thomas Seymour. Her father was also King Henry VIII, who killed her mother and was terrible to all of his wives. This has led many to believe that there were deeply personal reasons that Elizabeth I rejected marriage and sex. But there were also powerful political reasons that she never married and glorified her virginity. An ill-matched marriage could provoke rebellion or otherwise trigger instability in England. Elizabeth I also used the potential of marriage as a tool in international negotiations. Furthermore, Elizabeth stood to lose quite a great deal of power by marrying, since her husband would become King and would have power over her and the country. So instead, Elizabeth I elevated and glorified her virginity, using it as a political tool to strengthen her power and inspire an almost cult-like adoration.

Elizabeth I was an extremely intelligent, cunning women who used her unmarried state and virginity as powerful political tools. She was not a woman who was so desperate to be married that she would’ve thrown herself all over the Doctor, and all of the jokes about taking her virginity trivialize the very terrible personal reasons that probably influenced her to avoid sex entirely.

There was a moment, a brief, shining moment, where I thought that the mischaracterization of Elizabeth I was actually a relevant plot point. But when the Doctor pointed out Elizabeth I was acting in a way that was very historically inaccurate and accused her of being a Zygon, it turned out that she had been the real Queen all along. So the history book was sent to the shredder, as were my hopes and dreams that we might see an interesting, accurate representation of Elizabeth I.

We only saw this cunning, intelligent woman once when Elizabeth I tracked down the Zygon, somehow forced it to give up its entire plan, killed it, and then took its place in order to free the Doctors and help them stop the Zygons. I’ve seen a lot of people very angry that Elizabeth I says: “I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but at the time, so did the Zygon!” and ascribing this to Moffat being a misogynist. This isn’t entirely fair, since the phrase is lifted almost exactly from Elizabeth I’s speech to the troops at Tilbury, which reads: “I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king.” It’s sad, though, that the only moment in the episode which was true to Queen Elizabeth I is one which displayed a moment of her internalized misogyny.

Finally, I’m sick of this ongoing trend of Moffat taking smart, cunning women from history and turning them into romantic/sexual interests for the Doctor. It happened first with Madame de Pompadour, again with Mata Hari, and for a third time with Queen Elizabeth I. I want the show to stop trying to reinforce the Doctor’s status as a straight male fantasy at the expense of the narratives of these historical women.

The implications of the Doctors’ decision to spare Gallifrey.

There were some aspects of this portrayal of the Time War that I liked l. I found that it added depth to the life and society of Gallifrey during the Time War. It pointed out that along with the evil Time Lords, who in the course of fighting the Daleks had become a reflection of the Daleks, there were also innocent victims. Children who were not responsible for the actions of their parents. Adult Time Lords who rejected the madness of the High Council.

My concern is that this shift does tremendous damage to the previous Series of Doctor Who. That guilt, grief, and suffering of committing genocide drove the Doctor through many of those earlier episodes. He was the man who kept on running, who couldn’t look back out of shame for what he had done. This emotional depth has been stripped from earlier episodes, the Doctor’s pain retconned into a clever lie. And I can’t help but wonder if this was why Christopher Eccleston refused to participate in the special. He put so much effort into defining the early, war scarred Doctor. He convinced the audience that he had suffered unspeakable horrors and carried a horrible burden as a result of the actions he was forced to take. And now all of that has been turned into a farce.

This episode was supposed to celebrate and commemorate 50 years of one of the most beloved and long-lived drama television shows in history. With almost impossibly high expectations, it was inevitable some fans would be let down. Yet I found this episode let me down in ways that were entirely avoidable. I wasn’t disappointed because my favorite companion/doctor/villain wasn’t featured in the episode, I’m disappointed because I found some characters to be horribly mischaracterized, because there were gaps in the plot big enough to hide Gallifrey in, and because the episode’s major plot point involved undermining one of the key driving forces of the earlier Series.

Sure, it was fun and engaging for the 76 minutes I was watching it. The dialogue was fun, there were great in-jokes, and the lovely moment with the Curator at the end was so wonderful. The problem is, I’m not certian how much re-watch value this episode has. The cringe factor during some of these moments, particularly any involving Queen Elizabeth I, is so high I’ll skip right through them once the episode is on Netflix. And now whenever I re-watch earlier episodes, such as “Dalek,” there will be a sinking sensation when I realize the Doctor’s pain is not real, that it’s a farce, and that all of the tremendous acting has been for nothing.

[Amarië]

You're going to be a great and very annoying lawyer.

One of the best things with the anniversary episode was to see Tennant act without a big explosion or dramatic pose. PTD did plenty wrong, but that doesn't make Moffat perfect.

[Amarië]

many of his homosexual characters feel like they are shoe horned in to appear PC- Amarie

I think Canton is the best written homosexual character to ever appear in Who. And there is nothing forced, or pc about him or his arc.

Yes, don't read my whole post. It's a free country... um... web? Edit: Or perhaps I mis-ready you just now.   Important thing is: We both agree about Canton.  

[Mrs Figg]

Do you have any of your own thoughts or do you just plan to troll the internet for everyone who doesnt like Who and copy and paste their rant instead of your own?

I suggest if you hate Who so much stop watching it until Moffat leaves, and stop commenting on it if it bothers you and winds you up so much.   (especially if you only post other peoples comments on it and not even your own, not much point trying to discuss something with a poster who isnt even a member of this forum)

I suggest you stick to your thread if mine winds you up so much.    whats your problem. why do you need to control this thread as well???

this is the place where I am allowed to say what I like without getting shut down. DEAL WITH IT:

[Pettytyrant101]

Still no original thoughts Mrs Figg?

It would be all to easy for me to just counter every one of these with a random blog in praise of Moffat- but what would be the point in using others words when they are not here to respond?

We could just go round and round with one random blog against followed by a random blog for- utterly pointless.

Its like you are shouting into an empty room where the person whose words you are shouting is not even there.

"why do you need to control this thread as well???"

Why did you need to set up a rival thread just to post other peoples blogs against Moffat?- if you hate him and all that he writes that much, if you find every word to be offensive, sexist and homophobic then my mind boggles why you would want do that?

Anyone can trawl the net for anti-Moffat blogs as easily as one can trawl it for pro- Moffat- it means nothing and serves little point in posting them here (presumably without the original authors permission too) when anyone who wants could just google for them themselves.

Is it just to get at me because you dont actually have any of your own counter arguments to the valid points I raised about RTD messianic Doctor on the actual Who thread? Is it just to rant at Moffat?

[Bluebottle]

You're going to be a great and very annoying lawyer.

That's where the money is, I guess.   And thank you. (If it was a compliment.  )

PTD did plenty wrong, but that doesn't make Moffat perfect.

That's kind of my feeling too. Though I do feel Moffat at least is trying to move the series in a direction I would appreciate more. He far from always succeds. Series 6 I really struggled with. Still not sure what he was trying to accomplish there.   

[Amarië]

I quite like reading the blogs, Petty. I see why she posts them.

You post videos you haven't made yourself, post statistics you haven't made yourself and you quote people who aren't yourself to prove a point or to share an interesting comment.

[Mrs Figg]

Still no original thoughts Mrs Figg?

It would be all to easy for me to just counter every one of these with a random blog in praise of Moffat- but what would be the point in using others words when they are not here to respond?

We could just go round and round with one random blog against followed by a random blog for- utterly pointless.

Its like you are shouting into an empty room where the person whose words you are shouting is not even there.

"why do you need to control this thread as well???"

Why did you need to set up a rival thread just to post other peoples blogs against Moffat?- if you hate him and all that he writes that much, if you find every word to be offensive, sexist and homophobic then my mind boggles why you would want do that?

Anyone can trawl the net for anti-Moffat blogs as easily as one can trawl it for pro- Moffat- it means nothing and serves little point in posting them here (presumably without the original authors permission too) when anyone who wants could just google for them themselves.

Is it just to get at me because you dont actually have any of your own counter arguments to the valid points I raised about RTD messianic Doctor on the actual Who thread? Is it just to rant at Moffat?

not really fussed what you think or if it annoys you that I dare to post anything negative against the almighty Moffat. I am posting things that I find interesting if you dont like it its tough. why do you feel the need to insult and attack??

[Mrs Figg]

Doctor Who: Is Peter Capaldi a good choice?
By Tim Masters

Entertainment and arts correspondent, BBC News

So what qualities did he think Capaldi would bring to the role?

"Throughout the Matt Smith era there has been the idea of an old man in a young body, so I assume we'll see less of the jumping around the screen that we've had from both Smith and David Tennant.
"Perhaps Peter Capaldi will be a more contemplative, slightly sterner Doctor. But he can also do comedy so well."

Writing in The Guardian, Mark Lawson suggested that "danger" was Capaldi's primary quality as an actor.

"During his most vicious riffs as the sewer-mouthed Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It, there frequently seemed a threat that his pulsing facial veins might burst. He was also memorably menacing as the new boss in the second series of the TV newsroom drama The Hour.

"In that sense, Capaldi might have seemed more natural casting for the Time Lord's nemesis, the Master.

"So the main interest in his portrayal of the Doctor will be whether show-runner Steven Moffat... encourages him to maintain his signature screen-bursting energy or explore a gentler part of his range."
Lawson also points out that Capaldi, who also writes and directs, is giving up a significant amount to fulfil the show's "brutal shooting schedules" in Cardiff.

William Hartnell and Peter Capaldi BothBoth William Hartnell and Peter Capaldi were cast as the Doctor at the age of 55   
"His casting confirms that, like James Bond, the Doctor has become a role serious actors are happy to take on."

In the Daily Mail, Jim Shelley described Capaldi as "the perfect choice" for the new Doctor, but he also saw his selection as a missed opportunity.

"Capaldi is such a safe choice I can imagine him doing the Doctor, being the Doctor, already. In fact, he and the scriptwriters will have to come up with something seriously special to make me feel I actually need to see it," he said.
When he strode out he did that lovely lapel tugging thing which is a hint back to William Hartnell.''

"At least Capaldi should put an end to the sentimental, romantic, guff that has marred Doctor Who for the last few years when David Tennant and Matt Smith have spent too long drooling over Billie Piper, Alex Kingston and Karen Gillan rather than fighting creatures from other galaxies."

Dr Johnston said he thought the 50th anniversary episode coming in November would "set up as many questions as it answers".

He added: "Now that the whole mystery of [companion] Clara is solved I'm hoping we get back to fun adventures."
Mr Campbell agreed that he would like to see a return to traditional values.

"The Doctor has to defeat monsters by fighting or blowing them up. We've had too many touchy-feely stories where you have the power of love conquering evil.
"I think [Steven Moffat] needs to go back to basics a bit more and emphasise the horror and clear storytelling. Capaldi's signing indicates that we're going in the right direction

[Pettytyrant101]

You post videos you haven't made yourself, post statistics you haven't made yourself and you quote people who aren't yourself to prove a point or to share an interesting comment. - Amarie

There is a world of difference as you well know Amarie between quoting as an addition to a point, or sharing a fan vid and just wholesale posting other peoples words when you have none of your own.
These aren ot in support of an argument they are just wholesale posting other peoples work.

I find the setting up of this thread a childish and petulant act, and the content on it so far- Figg finds people who dont like Moffat and posts their thoughts- seems utterly pointless.

I could respond in just as childish a fashion and spam the thread with random gleaned pro Moffat blogs- but that would be just as utterly pointless as posting randomly gleaned anti-Moffat blogs.

The only reason I can see for Figg to set up a rival Who thread to the long established on here is so she can make unchallenged assertions with no fear of counter argument and wind me up- even the thread title seems designed to have a go at me -if thats how you get your kicks these days Figg good luck to you.

[Bluebottle]

Well, the people who don't like Moffat should probably get to have voice too.   

I don't think his career is much under threath, for some reason.