s. moffat

beach-city-mystery-girl replied to your post: I swear I was barely able to tell in the comments…

Also a lot of ‘oh shit this was in Moffat’s era’ and ‘time to start watching Doctor Who again … I mean, this isn’t news if you’ve kept up with the show which was always never as bad as people like to pretend it is but okay…….

the era they like to complain about, especially the last couple of years, has involved:

  • more background POC rep than any of the previous seasons
  • FIVE significant (main or recurring) LGBT characters, six if you count Missy which I would say one should
  • an episode that failed the reverse Bechdel Test because two men didn’t speak to each other
  • the proper of UNIT (though I will say RTD did this properly in SJA too), and turning a previously male military into a science organisation run by women, specifically the daughter of one of the most important characters in Doctor Who history, who is also her own fab character in her own right
  • black companion with natural hair
  • the most iconic series villain turned into a woman
  • making it inarguably canon that the Doctor could be a woman or not white
  • literally the most feminist companion ending ever

so like. uh. what’s the issue here??

anonymous asked:

1. Can you explain how River is a feminist icon when her ENTIRE character is COMPLETELY caught up in the fact that she's destined to be the Doctor's wife and then just dying for that? From Let's Kill Hitler all the way to Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead, her whole arc was about her being the Doctor's wife and then dying to save him. So how does that make her feminist when she's literally stripped of every ounce of agency she has? Because she "kicks ass"? That doesn't make her feminist.

2. I’m not trying to be a dick, just curious why you think that. I’ve always taken her to be another example of Moffat’s horrible track record with women being slavishly devoted to the Doctor (if you respond to this, you can copy & paste this into the above one, there was just a letter limit here :P

River’s character isn’t about being stripped of agency and just conforming to fate. River is a character who begins life forced to be something and who overcomes any confinement, expresses her will against it all. She’s empowering because she is handed a life full of people trying to control her and she throws it all off every time, never living on anything less than her own terms.

Trapped as a kid in a suit as a weapon? Breaks her way out, crosses continents to be with her loved ones on her own terms. Told to kill a man? Winds up choosing not to, asking her parents and trusting their judgement to guide her in that choice. She falls in love with him and that’s something she clings, to not just because she loves him but because it’s something totally hers, her own choice and her own emotions and her own life. Dumped in prison? She breaks out regularly to do whatever she wants, and that’s not just hang with the Doctor, as we’ve seen before in the show. She’s got an archaeology career which she does put to use in her own adventures. She even steals the TARDIS regularly to go off without the Doctor, she’s not just some weeping damsel throwing herself at him. She dies to save him, yeah. He’s planning to do the manpainy heroic sacrifice thing and she refuses to have any of it because it would erase that life she spent so much time building and fought so many battles to make utterly hers. So she takes the place of the Doctor to save the day. And in return, he sticks her in an afterlife, one she refuses to be contained to. She hops around still in dreams and as a ghost, still hanging with the Paternosters, still roaming the universe even as a data ghost, still calling the Doctor out and yeah, still loving him.

There’s nothing unfeminist about loving someone (and it’s certainly not a slavish devotion, nor is it for Clara, Amy, etc, and I think that’s rather uncomfortable to suggest; if any new series character exhibits slavish devotion it’s Rose, and her mum calls her out on that, and Rose is still heroic and her own person). Love’s just a thing many people do. It in no way defines all she is. River is surrounded by many complex machinations and forces trying to hold her in, sure, but the point is that she never once is defined by any of it. She is her own person who owns her own life, her own desires, her own everything. This is the woman who, to quote Moffat, “got married about 428 times. Once for each gender.” Who takes on dictators and oppressors and steals precious artifacts from genocidal villains. Who was a pawn who became a queen. Who always comes out on top.

River is so, so, so much more than just kicking ass, though I love that she does that, too. A bisexual action heroine who asserts her agency every time and is allowed to be so so complex and compelling and wonderful. I adore her, and her continual fight to be herself no matter who tries to hold her back inspires me.

You know, if I could change ONE thing about Moffat’s Doctor Who run, just one thing that I think would honestly make it more watchable (though certainly not save it completely) 

-Do not make River Song and Melody Pond the same person. 

Like, I know Moffat thinks that this twist was really clever. But it’s not.

River Song: Badass time traveler who meets the Doctor out of order and they have a flirty, whirlwind romance? Really fun idea.

Melody Pond: The child of his companions, stolen in infancy, raised to be an assassin? Maybe a little harder to sell, but has potential to be a real sympathetic antagonist. 

But meshing them into the same person? Totally defangs Melody’s potential as an antagonist AND makes River’s romance weird and gross. 

But I guess having more than 2 recurring female characters in the cast wouldn’t have been wibbly wobbly enough for DipShit McGee. 

Do you ever miss those days when people just enjoyed things and didn’t try to appear cooler by hating on Doctor Who, Peter Capaldi and Moffat’s era even if they haven’t even watched the last few series

“I was in a hotel room with Mark Gatiss actually - oh that’s how rumours start- and I started writing the audition scene for her and I started writing about her talking about a boy and it just felt wrong. I couldn’t say why exactly I didn’t like it but then I changed it to a girl and then it was just right - she’s gay.”

- Steven Moffat explaining how they decided to make Bill gay

they didn’t decide they needed an LGBT character, they simply wrote a character and discovered that being gay was part of her in the process


Let's talk about that episode of Doctor Who

Firstly, the robots and human cohabitation. I think it’s interesting Moffat addressed this issue. The idea of a “human empire” has been built into the Dr Who mythology for a while. Rtd criticised it with the ood (this “glory” was propped up by slavery). Personally, I think the respective writers use this idea to criticise Britain’s dodgy past with its history. (Honestly the UK consensus airbrushes most things and empire fervour is alive and well.) The first reaction for violence from the humans is understandable; they’ve learnt of their species’ genocide. But Moffat hammers home the point - violence only begets violence. The doctor blowing up the city would have always been a mistake cos the robots reach sentience. They need patience and understanding, because we have more in common than divisions.
Now, let’s talk about Bill’s role in all this. She acts as a crux between rtd and Moffat’s previous companion roles. Her sassy humour and genuine heart gave her delicious complexity in this episode. Now, the scene with the book. Bill has been established as a curious character. This episode actually criticised the dr for hiding secrets from her! (I loved the change!) The book scene made my English student sensors tingle. It’s a common trope for female characters to be denied knowledge for “their own good” (the eve complex is a fantastic example of mythical ridiculousness). Last episode we saw the dr try this again and be overturned. Again in this episode he needed Bill to understand the situation so she could help make it better. He needed her humanity when she helped that child. It was very rtd and I loved it.
And finally, let’s talk about the emoji robots. It’s typical of moffat to stress a human function (DON’T BLINK) but this was clever. The emoji is so ingrained in our culture it was played upon greatly to propose this totalitarian state. Don’t dissent, you will be killed. It appears the robots mirror the humans; the images implied the planet was evacuated because of conflict. Thus, the emoji represent imposing uniformity, which Bill and the doctor have to break in order to make people truly happy.

“If Missy is actually the Rani I will forgive all of Moffat’s bad writing”

…You do realize that deceiving us for 3 years, having Missy say she’s the Master, having all the evidence point to that and not a lot of evidence pointing to her being the Rani, and then saying she’s the Rani, you do realize that THAT is bad writing? You do don’t you?

RTD fans....you might want to watch “Doctor Who“ again

I know a lot of people have kind of fallen off the Doctor Who boat since Moffat has been showrunner. We all have our reasons—we don’t connect with his characters; we miss the warm, emotional aspects of Russell T Davies’s stories; we’re tired of timey-wimey nonsense. I get all of that, totally, because I’ve had a lot of problems with Moffat’s showrunning style as well. It’s felt like a struggle to keep watching, sometimes.

But if you’ve given up on Who, I would strongly encourage you to give it another chance right now. The new companion, Bill, has just been introduced, but I already adore her. She has all the real-world grounding I’ve missed, she’s smart, she’s as well-rounded and alive and beautiful as Donna or Martha or Rose. She is a tender character, with weakness and flaws and great strengths. And the show is clearly centered on her, more than any plot madness or the Doctor’s enigmatic reputation. The show feels totally new—watching “The Pilot” felt like the show had reinvented itself before my eyes. There are still a few issues, but overall, I want to watch Doctor Who again. No, in fact, I’m delighted to.

So, if you’re an RTD fan—or just a fan who abandoned the show—please give the show another shot. Bill is worth it. She really is.

Things that could happen April 16th/Easter

  1. Nothing
  2. Official announcement of season 5 
  3. Official announcement of season 5 filming 2018
  4. Official announcement of season 5 filming 2017 (i like this one)
  5. Official announcement of The Lost Special airing Jan 1st, 2018 (imo most likely if anything)
  6. Nothing
  7. Something fucky happens in Moffat’s Doctor Who ep that is Very Telling
  8. Some blatant johnlock subtext in Doctor Who (disappointing if this is all, but I’ll take it)
  9. Nothing
  10. A coming Doctor Who/Sherlock crossover revealed after Doctor Who sat night (lolz)
  11. An actual Sherlock trailer for TLS after Doctor Who saturday night (weeheeeee!!!)
  12. Doctor Who airs as usual, nothing happens, the melt-your-brains countdown-to-a-spoiler is totally Doctor Who related, I cry.
  13. Nothing
  14. Nothing

arlenejp  asked:

I watched the exchange between Norbury and Sherlock and everytime Mary told Sherlock not to say something harsh to norbury or to stop...I immediately said" thats John talking" Thats the way he would tell Sherlock that he was being obnoxious. What do you think about that?

Yeah, same here, Lovely. I don’t know, maybe it’s personal bias, but the words didn’t feel like something Mary would say… The whole aquarium scene is such a clusterfuck of fucky that I just have a really hard time believing it’s real. Unreliable narrator, I do not doubt, is at play. I just… have a really hard time that we’re supposed to take anything in S4 at face value. But given the bullshit Moffat’s been saying lately… I think that they genuinely believe they created something sensical. :/

anonymous asked:

rtd or moffat companions & why?

RTD, no question!
And why? Well, I just don’t think Moffat is that great at writing female characters, and since the main full-time companion usually is a woman, that’s…a bit not good. Don’t get me wrong, I do like Amy and Clara, but that’s mostly due to how they were portrayed by their respective actors. Especially Jenna Coleman’s performance kept me from giving up on Clara because I really didn’t like her character a whole lot in S7.
When you look at them, they’re pretty much the same character…the one kind of woman Moffat can write because he’s Moffat and apparently (and obviously, judging by the problematic things he has said over the years) has a very weird concept of women. They’re both feisty and sassy and on a surface level he wants them to appear super independent and kickass, but their lives revolve around the Doctor. Amy met him when she was just a young girl and had been obsessing over him ever since, up to the point where it actually affected her life quality (all those therapists she had to see), and Clara was literally ‘born to save the Doctor’. Yes, they both made some choices that didn’t include the Doctor at some points further down the line, but still, it’s really irritating to me. Same with River…’I live for the days I see him’. Like, no. Stop writing women whose sole purpose in life is some guy, what kind of message is that? But for Moffat, that’s literally all there is to them…being a companion to and being with the Doctor, a man. They don’t really get their own story, no family, no past that isn’t intertwined with him, which also results in them being kinda two-dimensional.

Now, RTD’s companions were fleshed out and also relatable. Rose had a job in a shop (before the Doctor blew it up), a working-class background, lived on a council estate, was close to her mum because Jackie raised her by herself after Pete died, she had Mickey who she was sort-of dating at the beginning and who was pretty much part of her family after his grandma died. She was also really unhappy with her life because she had no idea what she was doing with it and it seemed to just be the same day after day - I can relate. And then the Doctor showed her that the whole universe was out there, so much for her to see, so much she was able to do and achieve.
Martha was ambigious and training to be a doctor, she had parents that had currently split up which caused tensions within the family, a sister she was close to and who was just as ambigious as herself, and a brother she seemed to love a whole lot. She also didn’t really know her worth and fell in love with a guy who couldn’t love her back because he was still hung up on someone else and because…he just didn’t - I can relate. And then her time with that guy made her realise just how amazing she was - she saved the whole damn world pretty much all by herself! - and that she deserved respect, so she made the decision to get out and away from someone who couldn’t treat her better and the way she deserved to be treated.
Donna was a temp and unemployed a lot, she had just lost her dad, she had a mum who emotionally abused her on a regular basis and made her feel small because Sylvia was also hurting after losing her husband, and a gramps who lived with them and helped them out and who treated Donna the complete opposite and loved her somewhat fiercely and wanted her to be happy. She also felt like she was worthless and nothing special because she hadn’t really achieved anything ‘important’ in other people’s eyes - I can relate. And then the Doctor showed her the universe and she did all those amazing things, she nudged HIM towards doing the right thing more than once and kept him grounded, and he treated her like an equal and like she was simply fantastic because she WAS. Even though all of that was taken away from her again (against her will, which is the one thing I will never forgive RTD), she got to see just how special she was.
Those three are, really, ‘ordinary’ women with all kinds of different lives and backgrounds and problems (and we got to see all of it!), but they’re so special and can do brave and great things nonetheless. No matter who you are, what you are, where you come from, you’re important and have so much worth…that was such a beautiful message to me back when I started watching Doctor Who when I was wee 14 year old, and it still is all these years later.

Amy and Clara, on the other hand, don’t really have any of that. Also, Amy was only interesting to the Doctor because there was a crack in her wall which was a rip in time/space and because she was ‘the girl who waited’, and Clara was ‘a mystery wrapped in an enigma squeezed in a skirt’ (ugh) to him because he kept meeting her since her whole life was apparently destined to be spent with the Doctor and she threw herself into his timeline, splitting herself into pieces and killing herself. Not really everyday relatable people…but maybe that’s just me lmao. The way Moffat writes and imagines his Doctor also comes into play here, obviously, I’m not really a big fan of that either because apparently it’s not enough anymore to just be a ‘normal’ person to be worth his time, but that’s maybe a topic for another day and doesn’t belong here.

I’m gonna stop babbling now, I didn’t even plan for this to get so long, sorry - I started out with one thing and then threw in all kinds of different thoughts, lol. But yeah, RTD, definitely.

(P.S. I don’t really know anything about Bill yet, I didn’t wanna expose myself to spoilers in regards to her, maybe he wrote her differently than all his other female characters. All I know is she’s gay, which is a whole different sea of possible fuck ups for Moffat considering how he handled most of his lgbtq+ characters in the past. I’m open to be pleasantly surprised though.)

Moffat - A Feminist Writer

(Or Why I Find It Hard To Deal With Moffat Hate)

People are usually quick to criticise Moffat for his female characters: Too bossy, too insecure, too weak, too bad-ass, how dare she have a sex drive, etc., etc. And frankly, for a fandom that is so quick to use words like “sexism” and “misogyny”, I find it pretty rich to dissect and criticise every single female character that comes their way. 

In the past I would have brushed this off as a mere difference of opinion. But the more think about it, the more I start to question the motifs of said criticism. Because Moffat is actually doing an incredible job at female representation and he should get all the praise we can give him. 

(In case of broken read-more link, click here)

Keep reading

Thin Ice predictions (wholock)

I’m not going to finish writing about Smile before this weekend, but here are a couple of teensy predictions about the next one, Thin Icethe one with the Elephant.

(written by Sarah Dollard. I’m reading all this season as Moffat’s grand plans and subtext as per usual while he is still showrunner and presumably is involved with every aspect of the production).

  • There’s an elephant. In Sherlock, the elephants started out small and gradually got bigger. This is a large, actual elephant. They’re also talking about it in the trailer. I suspect that this is the final elephant, because honestly…. where do you go after that? (maybe if it was in a literal room..)
  • Some fun facts: River Thames frost fairs were held some years when the river froze over between the 17th and 19th centuries, the ice once reaching 11 inches thick. The last frost fair of 1814 started on Feb 1st and lasted 4 days. In the preview, the Doctor says it’s February 4th. So the episode is set on the 4th day of a 4-day festival. Hmm, interesting. Why would the 4th part of a 4-part thing be relevant? No idea.
  • During this final frost fair in 1814, an elephant was led across the river below Blackfriars Bridge. (x) (!)
  • There’s an icy frozen world above, and a mysterious watery world beneath.
  • There is some sort of monster under the ice. And lights.

Ice and snow above and water beneath. The lights tell us there’s something trapped down there, but the monster makes us afraid to look any further.

I’m telling you right now, that the monster in the water will turn out to be harmless. Just misunderstood, or lost, or lonely, or suffering at the hands of people above. The world is divided into 1) the hoards above the ice who go about their lives trying to forget and never speak of the danger underneath them and 2) The Underground - the mysterious, dangerous, unknown underneath full of secrets and monsters. The Underground is subtextually the queer community (here’s a meta on that, it’s an idea I’ve had for a while but have never written down or seen written anywhere else, but it’s a fairly self-explanatory metaphor). The unknown beneath them is feared by those above and misunderstood to be dangerous and predatory, but once the Doctor and his companion retreat below to find out what’s really there, it turns out to be harmless (also kind? and selfless?). When the monster is revealed to be harmless, it represents the idea that what those “above” considered a threat to them is in actual fact harmless and misunderstood. This is simply an extension of the idea spelled out HERE (in “Ghost stories are gay stories” by @heimishtheidealhusband) that…

“In BBC’s Hound, there’s “the hound” – the monster that everyone is afraid of which is actually imaginary, and “the dog” – the real thing that actually exists. In other words, in this version, the “queer creature” in the horror story has been de-monstered. Homospectrality is being flipped on his head – rather than separating the man from the queer, they’re separating the queer from the monster. Because the dog isn’t inherently evil, it’s just the poison in the air that everyone is breathing that makes them fear it, and see a monster instead of an innocent dog.” 

The Hound was an innocent dog. The terror in The Beast Below was an innocent star whale, and I hereby predict that homospectrality is being used again in the same flipped-on-it’s-head way, and the beast under the ice will be harmless.

I also talked about this subtext of looking at queerness from the outside-in (from above the ice) versus the inside-out (from beneath the ice), in my write-up on The Pilot.

So we’ve got some serious The Beast Below parallels. I’ve written 5K about that ep and it’s hanging out in my drafts. 

Compare this line from the Thin Ice trailer ..

Doctor: “There’s something frozen under the Thames and it’s eating people. Let’s get eaten!

And from The Beast Below..

DOCTOR: It’s a tongue.
AMY: A tongue?
DOCTOR: A tongue. A great big tongue.
AMY: This is a mouth. This whole place is a mouth? We’re in a mouth?DOCTOR: Yes, yes, yes. But on the plus side, roomy. 

[Shameless promotion: I related this idea of being swallowed by a creature to the Belly of the Whale from the Hero’s Journey in this meta here.]

[Bonus: More evidence that the “below” in both eps are also the “Underground” - in The Beast Below there’s a fleeting shot of the lifts which propel you down to the unknown depths, and above the the lifts it says “Mind the Gap” :))]

And just another thought about the ice, what it represents, and why it’s thin

The fact that the ice is a barrier means that what’s down there is trapped and cannot come up. Sort of sounds like Sherlock s4 burying the love story. The name of the episode (Thin Ice) also suggests that the barrier that separates the above from the below is fragile, and it also sort of plants the idea of it breaking. Once that barrier breaks down the above and the below will come together, which will possibly happen at a climactic moment when the monster is freed or rendered harmless somehow. Seeing as these frost fairs lasted only days while the ice was at it’s thickest, I think that by the end of day four, the ice will be melting and there’ll be a happy ending :)

Will Mary/Moriarty be in there somewhere?

If so, she’ll be the real villain. Not the monster, but someone above who’s been keeping it trapped down there and hiding the truth. 

Or maybe none of that will happen :))  @jenna221b @waitedforgarridebs @isitandwonder @longsnowsmoon5 @221bloodnun @goodmythicalmail @princess-of-fireflies