Doctor.... Who? Spoilers! Really, don't read if ur not up to date.

[Edward]

Interesting. Do you have a sense of when it went wrong for Moffat? Was his appointment wrong to begin with or did he go wrong at some point?

As I said before, Dr Who has been wildly uneven since the re-boot began. There have been great moments and the odd almost perfect episode, but often the stories were rushed, with a focus on elements that didn't matter much and everything resolved improbably in the last 5 minutes.

The 45 minutes, complete in one episode format is definitely responsible for some of the dumbing down and over-reliance on deus ex machina fairydust type endings. Moffat's problem was control - as old Karlie said, absolute power corrupts absolutely. He was fine when he was a staff writer, but as show runner he became far too keen first on putting his own stamp on everything, then latterly, as he seemed to lose interest in Who when Sherlock became big (and as he would later do to Sherlock), he seemed to enjoy baiting the fanbase and ruining things. Also, right from the start he insisted that it was and should be a kids' show, and then - as almost all middle-class kids' tv writers - proceeded to dumb it down and write down to kids. Couple that with the paradoxical need he has displayed in all his recent writing to impress upon us all just how terribly clever he believes himself to be, and, even with a star of the quality of Capaldi, you end up with this terrible mess. That the show had a significant recovery during Moffat's final season (I liked Bill Potts a lot as an assistant, and what they did to her was one of precious few examples of Moffat being able to commit to finality; also, her sexuality was far too well handled for a misogynist like Moffat to have been writing it) would suggest to me that there was a lot of truth in the rumour that Auntie had demoted Moffat to showrunner in name alone and imposed an editor over his head.

The Clara thing.... problem there was that she was an empty character. Fine as a plot device for a season, but Moffat couldn't let go and kept bringing her back. When she jumped into the vortex and was split into the multiple Claras that helped out all the Doctors, that would have been absolutely fine with me, a great plot point. Supposedly she was meant to leave then, but Moffat persuaded her to stay and kept her in. She was supposed to leave again at another point (I think when the drippy boyfriend became a cyberman), and then she stayed.... and even when the character was actually killed, Moffat still had to write in that stupid her going off on an adventure thing with Isulda(?). The cameo she did in the last Christmas special with the doctor being given back his memories of Clara was, I have no doubt, inserted purely as Moffat's final 'f*** you' to the fans that hated what he had done with it so much.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Bill, Nardole and Twelve were a really fun Tardis team. I wish we'd have seen more of them.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Interesting take on Moffat, Edward. Deliberately baiting fans and wielding particular agendas are serious charges. My inital take on Moffat is that he is just a patchy talent addicted to cheap tricks for effect. Where was the misogyny in the series?

 

[Formeruser012523]

Interesting take on Moffat, Edward. Deliberately baiting fans and wielding particular agendas are serious charges. My inital take on Moffat is that he is just a patchy talent addicted to cheap tricks for effect. Where was the misogyny in the series?

There's many an analysis on YouTube that will definitely let you know about the misogyny. But, then, there are many the angry fans with their own channels. The funniest one I have seen was called "Sherlock is Garbage and Here's Why" that kid was very sweary but talked of many things that Edward has already said when it comes to Moffat. It was sad in that he had respect for him in the beginning (as I once did) but lost it when he found him degrading his own fans. Makes one wonder what happened to him to make him that way.

 

[LizzieMaine]

For me, the misogyne comes out most in his tendency to reduce his female characters to catchphrases: The Girl Who Waited, The Impossible Girl, The Girl Who Lived/Died, The Interspecies Victorian Time Traveling Married Lesbians, tc. I think Edward's right that somebody was looming over him last year so as to prevent Bill from being boiled down to The Girl Who Sleeps With Girls Except WHen THe Pope Shows Up.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Those examples could be called trivialising and sexist, but I would need more hateful examples for me to call him misogynistic. I'd be more likely to call Moffat a misanthrope - the condition of many a writer. He seems to turn all characters into cheap foils with a bunch of silly tics and gimmicks. Or perhaps he's an iconoclast - he has certainly taken the venerable character of the Doctor and shattered it to bits in recent years. Whatever he is, I feel fairly certain I'm against it.

 

[Edward]

Bill, Nardole and Twelve were a really fun Tardis team. I wish we'd have seen more of them.

Yes, they were great. I also found Bill an interesting comment (whether deliberate or no, I can't say) on the accessibility (or otherwise) of higher education to the less well off. The relationship between her and Twelve was really nice, that of the much younger person willing and eager to learn, and the experienced academic finding true joy in the teaching and intellectual nurturing of such a person, something I can identify with. Nardole was good fun, with quirks that seemed genuine as opposed to contrivances like fish fingers with custard.

Interesting take on Moffat, Edward. Deliberately baiting fans and wielding particular agendas are serious charges. My inital take on Moffat is that he is just a patchy talent addicted to cheap tricks for effect. Where was the misogyny in the series?

It's more subtle in Doctor Who, but still there - primarily in the way that all female characters under his control (Bill being an exception which helps to suggest he was no longer in charge) boil down into two broad types: Good but Dim, or Clever But Evil. Anything approaching a strong female character had to be broken in some way, made subservient somehow to the male Doctor (I wonder if this is, in part, what inspired Chibnall to go female with the Doctor, to smash that...). Then there were Jenny and Vrax, interesting female characters rapidly reduced to "Tee hee - lesbians! They're lesbians! tee hee!". It's much more pronounced in Sherlock, where there isn't a single female character who doesn't conform to one of these two tropes, and he even felt the need to invent a sister for Sherlock and Mycroft, who - of course - couldn't be in danger of being smarter than the brothers without it sending her evil and quite mad. Then there was also the abusrd, wholly self-indulgent special episode half set in Victorian London in which a society of women were the greatest enemy. It's not the only thing that ruined Sherlock - turning him into more of a wizard than a detective after two good series saw to that as much as anything - but it certainly didn't help.

There's many an analysis on YouTube that will definitely let you know about the misogyny. But, then, there are many the angry fans with their own channels. The funniest one I have seen was called "Sherlock is Garbage and Here's Why" that kid was very sweary but talked of many things that Edward has already said when it comes to Moffat. It was sad in that he had respect for him in the beginning (as I once did) but lost it when he found him degrading his own fans. Makes one wonder what happened to him to make him that way.

To think I once thought he was going to save Who from what RTD had done to it... In retrospect, while RTD did make some unforgivable errors - most prominently making rose Badwolf and casting Peter Kay in a guest role - but nothing on the scale of how consistently poor it became under Moffat, when an entertaining episode became a real rarity for a while.

For me, the misogyne comes out most in his tendency to reduce his female characters to catchphrases: The Girl Who Waited, The Impossible Girl, The Girl Who Lived/Died, The Interspecies Victorian Time Traveling Married Lesbians, tc. I think Edward's right that somebody was looming over him last year so as to prevent Bill from being boiled down to The Girl Who Sleeps With Girls Except WHen THe Pope Shows Up.

Indeed. Given free reign, rather than her sexuality being incidental, Bill would have been wholly defined by it.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Jeez, I still can't agree to Moffat being any more than lazy in his characterisations, playing for slapstick, camp and laughs too often, which to my taste demeaned both male and female characters.

Even if you feel M was laughing at lesbians (which is an interpretation) this doesn't constitute misogyny or homophobia, just inadequate writing. Incidentally, some of my gay friends adore those characters, so how we take such material is largely a matter of personal taste.

I think Missy and River Song, Amy and Sally Sparrow were pretty strong female characters. My teenage daughter found them delightful, capable and compelling.

But some of the male characters were dreadful clichés too - Rory was often a lame, bumbling comic foil, Danny Pink was borderline insipid and Nardole was a jolly fat dullard. And Moffat's First Doctor was a woeful cartoon stereotype of an old geezer frozen in the 1960's. There were many male characters that were poorly constructed, trading off nerd stereotypes and other inadequate depictions of masculinity.

 

[Edward]

Even if you feel M was laughing at lesbians (which is an interpretation) this doesn't constitute misogyny or homophobia, just inadequate writing. Incidentally, some of my gay friends adore those characters, so how we take such material is largely a matter of personal taste.

It wasn't the characters I had an issue with - I thought they were great too - more that when Moffat got bored of them quickly all he could do with them was make endless references to their sexuality. I don't recall him ever defining any of his heterosexual characters by their sexuality, which is why I cry foul on that.

I think Missy and River Song, Amy and Sally Sparrow were pretty strong female characters. My teenage daughter found them delightful, capable and compelling.

Sally Sparrow was a one-of, and before Moffat assumed editorial control.

Missy fits squarely within the 'strong/clever but evil' mould.

River Song he didn't fully ruin, granted (though I found the 'daughter of rory and amy' schtick a bit tedious, but wrote it off as part of the "this is a kid's show" jive). He atl east with her was reasonably faithful to the character as established in the RTD era.

Amy... eh. I didn't perceive her as strong at all; mostly tiresome. Her sexual obsession with the Doctor was bizarre; so obvious and over the top that the whole Rory relationship rang false. The stripper costumes (as that's blatantly what she was when they started out) were a bit tedious - I'm guessing Moffat enjoying himself a bit there, but all part of the 'tart with a heart' stereotype shoe-horned in.

But some of the male characters were dreadful clichés too - Rory was often a lame, bumbling comic foil, Danny Pink was borderline insipid and Nardole was a jolly fat dullard. And Moffat's First Doctor was a woeful cartoon stereotype of an old geezer frozen in the 1960's. There were many male characters that were poorly constructed, trading off nerd stereotypes and other inadequate depictions of masculinity.

Nardole I quite liked - fun enough, in the spirit of many Who companions past, and it was nice to actually have a companion in there who wasn't yet another present-day human (they did have those in the past, yes, but to have them be almost exclusively so as since the reboot has gotten formulaic very quickly). Rory I actually liked rather more than Amy - I always found the writing made her a very two dimensional character, but he at least made some interesting choices. (Not least sticking by her when she would blatantly rather have been with the doctor.) The worst for both of them were the writing decisions, not least keeping them around for a half season after Moffat had blatantly run out of ideas as to what to do with them. By the time they did go, the emotional punch intended was completely ineffectual for me as I just didn't care any more (granted, that was also probably the worst written episode of the reboot, next only to the anniversary specials). I was extremely disappointed that after much hinting that they might simply choose to walk away and have a normal life for themselves, Moffat seemed to change his mind about it - that would have been genuinely interesting (and a rarity in Who terms, for a companion to go of their own volition, rather than it being forced on them by some event or other.)

The first Doctor was really badly written by Moffat -"Old, crabby sexist is old crabby and sexist!" It was like a child who'd seen an early episode of Mad Men by accident trying to write a fan fiction story where Don Draper became the Doctor. Even so, with all the other stuff in there, I couldn't help but suspect that a chunk of it was Moffat baiting the fanbase as he is well aware that a large proportion believe him to be a dreadful sexist.

 

[LizzieMaine]

For someone who claimed to be immersed in the lore of classic Who, Moffatt certainly didn't seem to have much sense of who One was. Where was the sly sense of humor, where was the deviousness? The original Hartnell version used to deliberately play up the "arrogant old man" bit to throw his enemies off guard, but there was no sense of that here. It's like Moffatt based his whole concept of the character on dim memories of seeing "The Five Doctors," once, in 1983.

A "Don Draper" Doctor would make for an interesting future regeneration, I think.

Amy's character trajectory really bugged me. From mouthy little kid to "kissogram" to famous supermodel to travel writer to novelist. Huh? It was like he had no idea who she was other than "The Legs," as the Doctor himself once called her, and kept throwing out these random occupations just for the sake of filling in a blank in the script. I thought Karen Gillan did a good job with what she was given, but I wish there had been more substance to the character. "Young Amelia" was far better written, in the end, than grown-up Amy ever was.

Sure, not every character in a script has to be fully-rounded -- every writer knows that some characters exist only in service to the plot, and there's nothing wrong with that. But your co-lead should certainly have a bit more thought put into her motivations and her actions than just "she's flirty and want to jump the Doctor."

 

[Seb Lucas]

I agree Amy was given a number dubious story archs but she was strong and capable for the most part, and certainly more powerful or in control than many of the men she was around. Some of the episodes with Rory and Amy I found to be among the best in the reboot, despite the flaws. I agree they didn't know quite what to do with Amy, but the series has not known what to do with so many of the companions, they always seem to rattle around like a ball-bearing in an ashtray. Only Donna was manged with some level of class.

And yes, Missy would be clever and evil - she's the Master. I think she was a far better written Master, more nuanced and purposeful than the completely loony, random (and scenery chewing) John Simm version. Missy's Master is the first one I've seen that appears to have an inner life and be an actual 'person' rather than a camp pantomime bad guy in black.

So I come back to the idea that Moffat, when he goes wrong, reaches for camp and humour and giimmicks and he tends to go there via sexism and laziness. I think on this much at least we all agree.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Just watched the latest Doctor. I feel mean but I have to be honest.

While I think Jodie Whittaker did ok (it's too early to say), the writing was awkward and pedestrian. Way too much clunky, expository dialogue, a dull and almost completely pointless alien premise and a ridiculous sequence of the doctor making her new sonic screwdriver out of scrap. And did they really need to use the theme music when Jodie first appeared? Tacky.

Always a challenge for writers to do something new or clever with the premise of a genius alien taking adventures with earthly companions, but for me this episode had a stultifying reliance on questions of the - "What is that?" What's happening?" "What do we do now?" variety to provide Jodie with some synthetic wit and crafted responses to demonstrate her credentials.

When she finally introduces herself with the line, "I'm the Doctor, sorting out fair play throughout the universe" you can feel your hopes for the series dissolve into the kitschiness of that moment.

Overall it felt a lot like a kid's show, which nominally it is, I guess.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It feels like part one of a multi-part story, which is odd, since Chibnall was definite in saying there weren't going to be any of those this time around. I enjoyed Whittaker's performance as far as she was able to go with it, but I didn't get a lot of sense of who her Doctor is going to be other than the generic Two-Four-Ten-Eleven riffs that she went thru. It's evident that she'll be "nicer" and more empathetic than Twelve -- but who is she beyond that? Hopefully she'll end up more than just "Generic Quirky Nu-Who Doctor."

I get the feeling that I've seen these companions before. Yaz is going to be Amy when she isn't being Martha, Ryan is going to be an unfortunate combination of Rory and Mickey, and Graham is going to be Brian Williams. Just please don't let him be carrying a trowel.

The monster was a disappointment, although if you're seven years old I suppose it'd be kind of cool. I did, however, laugh out loud at the "Tim Shaw" gag.

 

[Edward]

It's unfair, I think, to compare Yaz to Martha; I distinctly saw a third expression on Yaz's face, one more than Martha ever managed.

Overall, I think it showed promise. I'm glad they didn't throw away a great villain on an introductory 'new doctor' story; these are always a bit plot-light and the main action is getting the audience used to a new face, and, here, a new set of companions also. Even if it was the only sensible thing to do plotwise, I liked that Chibnall had the nerve to introduce a great character - and then have her die. If this is to be taken at face value and he can commit to finality like that, then he's already a vast improvement on Moffat. Very promising that the Doctor's gender merited no more than a passing mention. Calmed al ot of my fears that it might be just about tokenism rather than what is right for the role. I had no problem with her doctor thus far - though TBH I did think she looked rather better in Capaldi's costume than her own. I'd have liked something much more dandified after a run of mostly quite dress-down Doctors. but hey ho - at least it's not poor Colin Baker's %^&*ing clownsuit. Overall, it felt to me that with this episode Chibnall was as much providing a jump-on point for people new to the Doctor entirely as introducing the new Doctor to the existing fanbase. Better 'first new doctor episode' than any of the reboot since Eccleston, I think (I remember Tennant's being especially weak, he was barely even in it). We'll see how it turns out. She does need to be distinct from Capaldi, though I hope not too much like Eleven (who was a fine Doctor - apart from the dreadful writing for much of his term - even if, for me, a bit too close to Tennant coming right on his heels). I think we need to give it an episode or two to bed in, really. So far, though, I have a sense that it could all work out well. I might even be able to forgive Chibnall for Cyberwoman one day. Well.... almost.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Episode two of the new Doctor.

Better than episode one, but still hampered by poor writing and clumsy visual storytelling, namely poor editing and unconvincing action sequences.

The dog's breakfast plot involves a life and death competition to win a great prize - a dull idea which is not developed into anything interesting.

Some improbable, badly told things happen and frankly, it's hard to care.

Anyway, there's a nice new Tardis (inside and out). Whittaker is ok so far but isn't really given much to do to elevate the character in any substantive way.

The BBC appears to have run out of ideas with this show which is in desperate need of some vitality, innovation and surprises.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I watched it Sunday, and now I can't remember a thing about it other than the fact that Thirteen still hasn't had her defining moment of "This Is The Kind of Doctor I Am." She still feels to me like she's playing "The Doctor" as opposed to "*Her* Doctor."

Not sure what I think of the new Tardis. I wasn't as instantly impressed by it as I was the last one, but hopefully it'll grow on me.

 

[Edward]

I could live with it being a bit less dark; seems rather a clash with her personality. Perhaps we'll see it develop as she does. Still very early days,and nothing so far is as horrific as 99% of the Moffat tenure.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I could live with it being a bit less dark; seems rather a clash with her personality. Perhaps we'll see it develop as she does. Still very early days,and nothing so far is as horrific as 99% of the Moffat tenure.

I have to disagree with you there, Edward. I hated the Capaldi Moffat era but so far Whittaker's epiodes are every bit as shonky as anything Moffat dreamed up.

It will be a lamentable sign going forward if the refrain "not as bad as a Moffat" is all fans can say about the show by way of its defense. It is surely sunk if that's the case.

I am just alarmed by how incompetent the storytelling has become. It's perfunctory and badly executed. So far it's as if the new writing team don't know what to do with the character or the companions and haven't mastered the basics of story construction. Additionally, the direction is loose and awkward, with amateurishly filmed scenes lacking dramatic purpose. The problem is both in the scripting and filming.

It's astonishing really. You've got to win over viewers from the start otherwise they will drift off.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I didn't dislike this latest episode -- although I'm still waiting for Thirteen to emerge as a distinct entity all her own. I laughed out loud at the "or *am I* Banksy" bit -- but it's also something that could have come straight out of Twelve's mouth.

Some aspects of "Rosa" were quite good -- the portrayal of Mrs. Parks herself wasn't as watered down as I feared it would be, although they could have done more to show what a two-fisted, long-standing activist she had been prior to 1955. The myth of the "tired seamstress" needs to die once and for all, and while the episode tried to do that, it could have been more emphatic in actually showing who she really was. But that said, there is a certain discomfort for me in postulating that a key moment in the Civil RIghts movement, which had been carefully planned for months by a dedicated group of African-American activists, actually depended for its ultimate success on the chance intervention of a group of bumbling time-travelers, half of whom were white. I don't know if this would have occured to British writers and producers, but to this American, it's a bit squicky.

Also, if there really are going to be dirtbag asshole WNs in the 79th Century, one can only pray for the complete immoliation of all human life well before that era.

 

[Seb Lucas]

But that said, there is a certain discomfort for me in postulating that a key moment in the Civil RIghts movement, which had been carefully planned for months by a dedicated group of African-American activists, actually depended for its ultimate success on the chance intervention of a group of bumbling time-travelers, half of whom were white. I don't know if this would have occured to British writers and producers, but to this American, it's a bit squicky.

It occurred to me and I am Australian. Disgraceful.