and moffat really is that cruel

I always here to defend Moffat but then he literally had the courage to say doctor who is all about hope and isn’t meant to be bleak after killing off Missy in the most cruel and depressing way.
Imho it was neither poetic nor a ‘perfect ending’ to me.
Not after the entire story arc of her and The Doctor trying to become friends again.
I don’t even care if the Master never really dies because I fucking know okay?
Sorry for being angry because my fav character had one of the saddest deaths in doctor who history.

You know what kinda sucks and doesn’t really make much sense? Moffat and Gatiss know exactly why 1895 is significant:

Being huge Sherlock Holmes fanboys… They definitely know what all this means and why Watson wrote what he did in the very beginning of Three Students, they know why 1895 is mentioned in Vincent Starrett’s poem…

And yet, they made kind of a huge deal out of the year on their, apparently 100% straight show.

So… why? What was the point? Why would anyone do all THIS, JUST to queerbait a very very small portion of their audience? Idk, maybe but in that case, they really are cruel people and it really doesn’t make any sense at all

Never cruel and never cowardly.

A really, really late entry for Twelve Days of Twelve:
Day 4: Favourite Episode

[It really shouldn’t be this easy to pick favourites.]

Hell Bent, the story which set out to rewrite Whostory and, instead, broke a fandom’s heart. The magical masterpiece which will always be my most favourite Doctor Who episode, no matter what the future might hold in store for this ever-changing show. It just won’t get better than this. It can’t.

Because this time the Doctor doesn’t endure gazillion years of torture in the confession dial to find Gallifrey, he doesn’t cross time (and space) the old fashioned way because his home planet is in danger, or because he wants to take revenge on Rassilion for all his crimes (and there are many). This time there are no lives to save - just one he’s already failed.

Demons run when a good man goes to war - only the Doctor has stopped asking if he’s still good, if he’s finally lived long enough to become the villain of his own story. Any other day, he’d have been there in the desert trying to stop that daft idiot risking all of time and space, the fool who throws all the favours he’s done for the universe onto the scale, all the times he’s saved it, only to ask for one small favour in return not caring about the consequences of what might happen if the universe refuses.

Show me a villain and I’ll write you a tragedy - indeed.

When Clara takes a look at the monster of the week, she doesn’t see the hybrid standing in the ruins of Gallifrey about to unravel the web of time, but his pain which justifies destroying a billion hearts to heal his own. She sees just how much he is in need of a Doctor. So, she becomes one. The one. And is kind.

[Now. Look out of your window. Watch some news, and tell me that isn’t the most beautiful message of any story ever written in a world where society is trying to make us afraid of each other, hoping it would drive us apart.]


Steven Moffat and Romance. My rambles about how Jekyll reinforces my belief of TJLC.

          ~Spoilers for Jekyll and Sherlock and Doctor Who (11th) bellow~

I watched BBC’s Jekyll expecting to add to my understanding of Moffat’s writing style. I got more interesting comparisons than I was expecting. I would love to start a discussion about comparing Sherlock and Jekyll, because I have only begun to delve into the complexities.

One episode into Jekyll, I was unsurprised to see a lesbian couple casually mentioned. Coupling reveals that Moffat has a bit of a thing for lesbians, and he likes to casually slip lesbians or mentions of lesbians into his other shows. That was a bit of an aside, but I often hear people saying that Johnlock won’t happen because of Steven Moffat, and that just seems way off the mark to me.

Moffat’s writing of Hyde had some distinct similarities to his writing of mind palace Moriarty in His Last Vow. This post shows the direct comparison: (x) Bonus recycling dialogue Doctor Who and Jekyll edition with Claire and River Song: (x)

And then there was episode 6…WHAM BAM plot twists. I have not read “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” but from the summaries I have read, the original text seems like a straightforward split personality case. In the original story, Hyde kills someone and Jekyll writes a letter acknowledging that he will become Hyde permanently. So what happens in Moffat’s version of Jekyll? Everything is revealed to be about love through complicated plot twists.

Watch this scene: (x) I am going to add the text bellow too.

Tom’s mother: People think Hyde is rage or hate or greed or lust. But Hyde is far worse.

Claire: What is he?

Tom’s mother: What was the first day you knew you could kill anyone? Anyone at all if you had to?

Claire: The day I first held my children.

Tom’s mother: It’s our oldest deadliest impulse, the need to protect our own at the expense of any other living thing. And we give that impulse such a nice name, don’t we? Hyde is love. And love is a psychopath.

Cue my brain connecting to Sherlock: “Bitterness is a paralytic. Love is a much more vicious motivator.”
Moffat paints love in such a dark light in both Jekyll and Sherlock.

Essentially, Moffat took a piece of classic literature and turned it into this odd grand romance. A character played by Mark Gatiss revealed one of these romantic plot twists (and with that I need to pause for a moment and laugh). The note handed to Jekyll said that there was no medicine that caused Jekyll to turn into Hyde that it was the girl (Claire) all along.

Cue my brain connecting to Sherlock: “It’s always you. John Watson, you keep me right.”

I don’t really understand the logistics of the change happening because of Claire. It honestly seems like a huge gapping plot hole. Am I supposed to believe that the original Doctor Jekyll loved Claire so much that he developed a split personality to store the vicious side of love? The transition from a purely cruel and child-like Hyde to a Hyde who is willing to sacrifice himself for his cloned wife and their children is sudden and frankly ridiculous. The show was cut short, so Moffat had to figure out a way to end it with less episodes than he was expecting, but he chose the romantic direction.

Moffat does love twists like that ending with Dr. Jekyll’s mother. One thing that I am certain of is that we have not seen anywhere near the end of plot twists in Sherlock. The successful nature of Sherlock allows for more time to slowly build in foreshadowing for twists and cliff hangers.

Let’s go back to the scene where Moriarty lines mirror Hyde’s dialogue. Was this unintentional or was Moffat trying to tell us something? This comparison makes me think of LSIT’s M-theory, in which Moriarty is viewed as obsessed with Sherlock in a romantic/sexual way. The character types don’t translate exactly between the shows, but I see Moriarty as similar to Hyde, Sherlock as similar to Jekyll, and John as similar to Claire. Moriarty’s behavior can fit into the obsessive side of love, but unlike Hyde I don’t see Moriarty making any grand romantic gestures. I also think that Hyde only made the gesture that he did because at that point he was connected to Jekyll, and so the good side of love was blending in with the bad side. Moriarty and Hyde both enjoy toying with people and their emotional reactions. Even though Jekyll’s mother says that love is a psychopath, I see Hyde as more of a child than a psychopath, and I don’t see Moriarty as a psychopath either. Sherlock/Moriarty have many similarities though they are not quite as similar as Jekyll/Hyde, but Sherlock/Moriarty display the opposite sides of the same coin (consulting detective/consulting criminal). Jekyll and Claire’s relationship ends up being the most important part of the show, and Sherlock and John’s friendship is already the most important part of Sherlock.

The above River Song and Claire dialogue seems more likely to be an unintentional repetition, but there are also some similarities between River and Claire. Both women have complicated backstories involving evil organizations creating or controlling them in order to manipulate the main character of the respective shows. Both women cause the main character of their show to be viewed in a more romantic way than the character was classically viewed. I saw the Doctor as more asexual until Moffat started writing him. The Doctor had feelings for Rose Tyler, but I didn’t see those as sexual. Whereas River Song makes comments that are undeniably sexual. In Jekyll, even if Jekyll was married in the original story, Moffat took that relationship and expanded its importance. Jekyll only loved one woman all those years across generations. Bringing Sherlock back into the discussion, I read the Sherlock Holmes stories as separate from anything romantic or sexual until BBC Sherlock’s writers set the seeds for that direction. All of this makes me think that Steven Moffat really is a big romantic.

Jekyll begins like a typical Jekyll and Hyde adaptation, but then a romantic plot twist changes the entire meaning of the split personalities. This modern adaptation could have followed a more typical Jekyll and Hyde plotline, but that is just not what Moffat does. Sherlock and Jekyll initially seem like shows about a detective and a scientist with a split personality respectively, but they are both ultimately about the relationships between the characters. I believe Sherlock will follow a similar twist reveal pattern as Jekyll, but will not fall into the plot hole territory that comes along with the romance in Jekyll.

My appreciation posts [1] [2]

It’s hard to include POC/LGBTQIA+ characters from a lot of my fandoms (except Elementary), but Sherlock is particularly hard, and it makes me sad, since I actually realised I was asexual because of the Sherlock fandom. I didn’t know there was a word for it before. And I think it would have done wonders for visibility if Sherlock were canonically acknowledged - or even just the writers saying so! - to be asexual. But evidently, that’s too boring.

It’s so frustrating that Sherlock has resonated with so many asexual people yet Moffat just insults them! He’s heavily implying characters are asexual but is being so cruel about actual asexual people when he could really help them by making a character who is canonically asexual (which is particularly important because so many people don’t know about asexuality - Sherlock could make a huge difference!).

- C