Re: Alternative Doctor Who/Sherlock thread

[Mrs Figg]

this is classic sci-fi bullshit dressed up as something meaningful.- Figg

You were right up till the end of- this is classic sci-fi

sorry I was a bit blunt, but Mancunians dont pussy foot about when they can stick the boot in

No because she just thinks them into being, easy peasy- Figg

Well if you choose to just ignore the small mountain of evidence that consists of the entire story arc for all of series 5 and everything that happens in it- if you do that then yes.

yes please, I would really like to ignore it

I get it. You hate Moffat, you hate everything he does, thinks, says, he hates and loathes all women and has an evil agenda to brainwash all boys into misogynists and all girls into being sluts, you hate that he breaths at all and he is the devils spawn. And Karen Gillan is a betrayer of all women everywhere for colluding with him, or else to dim to see his evil plans (and Jenna Coleman too and Alex Kingston).

gosh! you really do understand my pov   


I have to make this assumption as you will take the most basic obvious answers- which are in the show and shown in the show and given as the answers in the show- and then make statements like the above one.
Maybe take  a break from Who then till you get a showrunner you do like?

I seem to remember someone at TORn said exactly the same thing when I complained about The Hobbit, something like, if you hate it why do you watch it, odd that..


(I did that when I didnt like the 6th Doctor years, its not hard, you just dont watch it till it changes again then see if you like that version- didnt like 7 either at the time- his first series is still mainly poor but I wish I'd hung on for his second series at the time- but I stayed away from him too for years, then came back for 8 ).
Thats the good thing about Who, someone else will eventually come along and do it differently.


I watch Who because generally I like it. Even Moffat stuff. I got to like Matt Smith, and I even got to like Amy. But some great ideas and episodes were ruined by a continual nagging feeling that I was having the piss taken, and thats what irked me, the undercurrents, which many people also feel its not just me crying in the Wilderness, so I will continue to watch and hope that they tackle a lot of fans concerns.

'It's very hard to not know what you know'- Amarie

Is that sentence timey-whimey!  

[Pettytyrant101]

same thing when I complained about The Hobbit, something like, if you hate it why do you watch it, odd that..- Figg

Difference there is lack of choice, you cant just wait a year or two till someone else comes along and does it all in totally different style with different writers. You can with Who which is why not watching a showrunner you dont like is a viable option- there are only about 3 or 4 stories from the entire Pertwee era I can watch- dont like the writing much, dont like the portrayal of the Doctor much ( not the performance, its fine, and even great at times, but the way the character is done, working for the government ect and stuck permanently on earth with an army unit- thats not Who for me).

[Mrs Figg]

but if I dont watch it I wont be able to get your goat, and that would take the fun out of life.   

[Pettytyrant101]

Oops meant to say- at least you are getting some enjoyment out of Mofffats era   - but then its got to be hard not to like Smiths performance, it is very good by any standards.

I think its a shame that he doesnt seem to be getting the big parts, its Karen who seems to be getting fetted since their departure, with three big films, a role in a big Sky 1 drama, and her own US sitcom. And good luck to her, but Ive liked to see Matt get some more attention since just because I think he was superb in his performances.


but if I dont watch it I wont be able to get your goat, and that would take the fun out of life- Figg

And I couldnt get riled up to a full peak of crabbit. Good point!  

[Mrs Figg]

yep Matt grew on me, and contrary to popular belief I do like Amy as well. I like the idea of her character, I like they way Karen played Amy, but the poor girl was tortured far too much for my conscience to bear, or tolerate.

[Pettytyrant101]

Maybe Clara will be less tortured, but not so sure about that. Although right now I'd settle for her just having a settled, defined personality that seems consistent episode to episode.

Actually I wish they had left Rose more tortured- by which I mean, I wish they had left her stuck in an other dimension without a knock off Doctor clone, but even with the clone they should have left her there.

Then I'd have been spared her return as some sort of dimensional hopping super soldier with a giant gun which just ruined the entire poignancy of her departure- I mean really, where did that one come from? And I might have liked her more.

[David H]

I liked young Amelia right from the start.  Amy grew on me over time.

I think looking back on it that Karen had some challenges playing younger than her age, which would occasionally strike a false note for me. it's hard to play innocent without sometimes walking too close to the stupid line.  

If they'd been able to cast a 3rd actress a few years younger than Karen to fill the gap, somebody who was naturally bright, charming, and a little big-eyed with wonder, I think I would have warmed to her earlier, but practically speaking that would have been very hard to pull off.

[Pettytyrant101]

I think also with Karen she grew into it- she had never had a major role in a drama before, she had done very little stage work unlike Matt who was in rep for years, and her tv experience was as a third wheel in a sketch show on bbc2.

I know she wasn't happy with her own performances in the early days from interviews since, and that she and Matt got together midway through series 5 to thrash out just how their two characters should relate and interact to one another acting wise- and I think that effort shows a lot by the end of series 5 and onwards.
And Karen, generous as she is, gives a lot of credit to Matt for helping her improve in leaps and bounds.

That and stepping into Who for your first major role must be frankly terrifying given its vocal and not shy about saying what they think fanbase and the scrutiny of the UK tabloids who love a failure more than a triumph.

[Mrs Figg]

I would like to see Clara be less of the sassy pixie and be more angry, and a bit resentful, maybe more wary. if the new Doctor is more alien and doesnt treat her with the same friendship as Smith did, or if he forgets about her and treats her like a piece of baggage, she may need to remind him she gave up her lives for him.

[Pettytyrant101]

Yeah that would be good,she just needs to be more grounded.

One of Moffats weaknesses is he doesnt like to let a good idea go, but as with most things nothing is quite as good second time round.
Amy as being a different way to do a companion, as being predestined was interesting. Doing it again with the Impossible Girl wasn't as good.
Although I suspect a part of that was a means to get to the plot for the 50th.

Hopefully with that part done and dusted we might get more character less mystery about her.
I liked Rings of Akanaten Clara, and I liked Cold War Clara, but she left me a bit cold in most of the rest as a character even when i was enjoying the storyline.

[Amarië]

'It's very hard to not know what you know'- Amarie

Is that sentence timey-whimey!  

I am special! *nods*

[Pettytyrant101]

 

[Mrs Figg]

 

[Norc]

[Pettytyrant101]

Ha! Nice try, but-

"The Eleventh Hour", "The Time of Angels" - "Flesh and Stone", "The Hungry Earth" - "Cold Blood", "The Lodger" - "The Big Bang"- script editor- Lindsey Alford

"The Impossible Astronaut" - "Day of the Moon", "The Curse of the Black Spot", "The Rebel Flesh" - "The Almost People", "Let's Kill Hitler", "The Girl Who Waited", "The Wedding of River Song"- script editor- Caroline Henry

[Forest Shepherd]

The point is that Helen Raynor was the script editor for these major episodes from series 1-4, not that she was a woman. At least that is an actual rational way of looking at the "argument" of this image.
Nowhere does it say that the newer Dr. Who stuff does not have a female script editor.

Of course, I can see how one would infer that this picture was arguing that it was thanks to the presence of a woman that the early stuff is "watchable" considering how much certain people tend to harp on about it for ages.
I understand that the world is different if you're a woman, and naturally women aren't OK with how it's often a worse world. So they point out the individuals they think are perpetuating unfair sexism and hurtful stereotypes and so forth, and apparently lots of people see Steven Moffat as that kind of perpetuator.
However, I wish certain people would find a different Who-related thing to talk about than just the "My goodness this run of Doctor Who was sooooo much different than the other one and is soooo much better too" argument. It's tiresome and bickery.
Perhaps if these same people would stop identifying themselves as Moffat or Davies fans they could move on in life and stop talking about Dr. Who as if it were simply a canvas for the whims of the show-runners when it is clearly a large collaborative project with plenty of complexity.

[Pettytyrant101]

It does say the 'reasons' why they were better and then finishes on 'the thing he fears the most a woman'- I think its pretty the implication is the episodes were better because they had a woman script editor.
They just didn't bother doing their research and realising Moffat seems to like having a female script editor on Who has he always has had.

[Forest Shepherd]

Well, no, it says "The Reason...Series 1-4 was watchable and the ones in [Moffat's] era are not!"
And then, in small text: "And it's the thing he fears the most, a Woman!"
The smaller text is presented as an afterthought. The argument is mainly that the causation lies in who the Script Editor is, while the small text is an ironic addition.

Here I've gotten myself squabbling over Moffat's sexism-related details.
And I don't even have any problem with his views on women, whatever they are!

[David H]

Here I've gotten myself squabbling over Moffat's sexism-related details.
And I don't even have any problem with his views on women, whatever they are!

Not your fault Forest. Petty draws us all into it sooner or later.  

[Mrs Figg]

The point is that Helen Raynor was the script editor for these major episodes from series 1-4, not that she was a woman. At least that is an actual rational way of looking at the "argument" of this image.
Nowhere does it say that the newer Dr. Who stuff does not have a female script editor.

Of course, I can see how one would infer that this picture was arguing that it was thanks to the presence of a woman that the early stuff is "watchable" considering how much certain people tend to harp on about it for ages.
I understand that the world is different if you're a woman, and naturally women aren't OK with how it's often a worse world. So they point out the individuals they think are perpetuating unfair sexism and hurtful stereotypes and so forth, and apparently lots of people see Steven Moffat as that kind of perpetuator.
However, I wish certain people would find a different Who-related thing to talk about than just the "My goodness this run of Doctor Who was sooooo much different than the other one and is soooo much better too" argument. It's tiresome and bickery.
Perhaps if these same people would stop identifying themselves as Moffat or Davies fans they could move on in life and stop talking about Dr. Who as if it were simply a canvas for the whims of the show-runners when it is clearly a large collaborative project with plenty of complexity.

Maybe 'some people' wanted very much to enjoy BOTH RTD and Moffat's run of Dr Who but were prevented from doing so, not because of some inbuit sexist radar that is always on the lookout for poor guys to 'harp' at, but because during one Writers/show runners episodes the female characters were really boringly reductive cardboard cut outs instead of the brilliant fully rounded characters of yore. I identify myself as a Who fan and I dont believe that I have to shut up and put up if I feel strongly about the way things are going.

[Pettytyrant101]

Welcome to the fray Forest! (even if you didn't know you were in it, you do now!)

[Forest Shepherd]

Oh come on Mrs. Figg, the difference is not nearly so stark as you and Petty seem to think.
"Brilliant fully rounded characters of yore" as opposed to "boringly reductive cardboard cut outs"?

Have you and Petty really wandered so far from reality in your back-and-forth squabbles that you actually see the rebooted Dr. Who in this way?

I dislike the presumptive "we are so epic"-ness of this last two seasons of Doctor Who. But I recognize that the Tennant and Eccleston seasons had much of the same thing. It's just that I could forgive Tennant his self-praise because of how much I enjoyed seeing him on-screen.
I do not have the same love for Clara and Amy, and so do not relate as well to them.

As much as it is an obvious result of looking deeper behind the scenes of Dr. Who, is it really such a good thing to reduce the argument down to who the current show-runner is?

And yes Petty thanks for the welcome.

[Pettytyrant101]

Arguing about showrunners is a well worn and accepted Whovian activity- anyone fancy an argument over the Hinchiffe era?   

[Mrs Figg]

Have you and Petty really wandered so far from reality in your back-and-forth squabbles that you actually see the rebooted Dr. Who in this way?

Its not really about Moffat vs RTD. I think both have contributed great stories and both have strengths. Its not about trying to pull one down at the expense of the other tit for tat. But the gulf between them as regards their portrayal of women is Enormous, its just too huge to ignore, and seeing as I am female and take this feminism stuff to heart, then I feel the need to vent now and again, my interest is in digging deeper into the gender roles, I find it interesting but you obviously just see it as unecessary nit picking, I want to uncover the subtext and the hidden agendas, and question why a certain writer seemsto be unresponsive to a vast amount of fans who feel let down and jokes about their concerns.

[Pettytyrant101]

I find female responses to female characters in Who enlightening (as well as often crabbit inducing!)
Firstly not being female its interesting, and secondly the views can vary so wildly.

For example earlier I was watching a Q and A with the Chique Chicks- who review episodes of Who, Sherlock and GoT on youtube.
And they were asked which companion they would be- in the end they both decided they would want to be Amy because out of all NuWho companions she was the only one they felt was happy (even though one of them is a huge Rose fan- but felt they screwed her leaving by continuously shoehorning her back in whenever they could, and the other felt that she was really like Donna, but wanted to be Amy. But neither of them has Amy as their favourite character, and one of them is very critical of her, yet they both would choose to be her- I found that choice fascinating).

And yet I dont have to go far, well no further than Mrs Figg really, but there are no shortage of others who find Amy unpalatable as a female character, to find the opposite view, and Figg among others probably would not have hit upon 'happy' as a description of Amy's character, all considered. And I find that difference interesting too.

So I find the views interesting, and I like arguing, and Im a crabbit bastard- so pretty much Im destined to argue over this sort of thing until I die.