Bio not provided
What's this Missy Who tv show? Sounds rather interesting.
2 days, 5 hours ago on Dark Water Clip
The moon is an egg, Earth is a spaceship and mother nature is real.
4 days, 16 hours ago on Rate & Discuss In the Forest of the Night
So many scenes relating to The Name of the Doctor. Clara and the Doctor in a desolate, firey land. The Doctor caught in some kind of cosmic wind. Clara dressed as she seemed to be in The Name of the Doctor. Missy claiming to know who the Doctor is and Missy referring to the Doctor as her boyfriend. I get the feeling that everything from The Name of the Doctor existed entirely within the imaginary world within the Doctor's timestream and they never escaped it and we're only just facing it now. And tbh, if that's right, it's one of the few times I might truly accept a timey-wimey Moffat plotline.
5 days, 2 hours ago on Next Time: Dark Water
2 weeks, 1 day ago on Flatline Clip
Lights on. The Doctor's logic about not destroying the moon is reasonable and well within human capacity to come up with. But then I'm not sure I can shake the bias from knowing the outcome of not blowing up the moon.
2 weeks, 6 days ago on Poll: Lights On or Lights Off?
I'm actually really glad that the debate about ending the babies' life happened. Not only was it dealt with appropriately (between 3 people in a position to bear children of differing ages and backgrounds to provide debate), by not actually delivering an answer, it serves to get discussion going within the wider community without the show announcing a political stance. Doctor Who isn't a show that's never included some element of wider politics (the later 80s episodes have been noted as being critical of Thatcherite politics and the social attitudes during her time in office). It'd be irresponsible to explicitly state a view but at the same time it'd be irresponsible to not broach the subject, particularly considering this is a family show and has a background in being educational.
3 weeks, 1 day ago on 2nd Opinion: Kill the Moon
@Administrator on the Orient Express Totally agree. Courtney posting pics on tumblr is literally me. I'm basically plugged into facebook (albeit for more official reasons than for social ones) and I have no idea about what I'm doing without some sort of online calendar or easy access to my e-mails. Then again, I'm 19, does this mean I'm a young adult now? :(
That was the most incredible episode of the series. I'm in shock at how good it was and just how far it went in discussing deep stuff. The Doctor/Peter Capaldi was incredible, Jenna Coleman was heart-breaking, everything was just so on point. I'm really excited to see Clint Hassell's review and the 2nd opinion articles.
3 weeks, 4 days ago on Rate & Discuss Kill the Moon
I went with the Unicorn and the Wasp. For me it's a great example of how a silly episode can still sustain itself. It has historical character(s), minor character development of supporting characters and comedy. Also the 20s but that's a very personal preference.
4 weeks ago on Face-Off: Gareth Roberts’ Episodes
This page has been UDPATED
4 weeks ago on Kill The Moon Clip
For the sake of this, I'll assume that Thompson wrote the
entirety of Time Heist. Moffat's influence I'll try to address towards the end.
Also I’m doing this largely from memory so I may make a few inaccuracies.
Thompson seems to follow a method very similar to Moffat
regarding character development, only providing it if they have the screen-time
or if it is part of the plot, but to a seemingly greater extent and a Thompson
story really doesn’t give that much opportunity. Characters that aren’t the
Doctor and the companion(s) tend to have a really inconsistent, contradictory
or just plain weird back story or motivation. The conflict between the brothers
in JTTCOTT could’ve been really insightful and cathartic for the characters,
yet it’s anything but. Any sympathy we’re meant to feel for Tricky is
completely subsumed by just how horrific the other brother has been,
deliberately lying so he could become the captain and erasing Tricky’s original
identity. If Thompson wanted us to dislike him, he overshot completely. And to
make it worse, the plot is resolved by a literal reset, which means that the
brothers go back to being alive yet in the same horrific situation. The pirate
captain bloke in Curse of the Black Spot is also given a back story that ends
up contradicting with the apparent personality of the captain. If he’s meant to
soften up after his son finds him, then it doesn’t seem to work because the
captain is already pretty soft. Unless I’ve missed something which is possible.
In Time Heist, we see a significant improvement in Thompson
regarding secondary character development. Just a small amount of background
information is given to Psi and Saibra but it’s enough to make the audience
feel like they can engage with them or not, rather than not giving that
opportunity at all. We can feel sympathy and it’s not overridden by anything
else within the story. But then I have to wonder if maybe this is Moffat’s
influence taking place in the script. Did Psi and Saibra initially have the
backstories that were shown on-screen? Did they have any at all? I expect we
won’t ever know.
Thompson seems to be very much a plot man. He has some good
ideas and the execution is usually somewhat successful but his downfall always
seems to be guest cast.
1 month ago on Time Heist Review
Bloody hell I wrote a lot more than I thought I did. Apologies for not using paragraph breaks. If anyone responds I won't be able to reply immediately and probably not until tomorrow evening so don't think I'm deliberately ignoring anyone because I disagree with them, I'm just unavailable.
1 month, 1 week ago on Time Heist Review
(I've been out of the loop for this debate so I apologise now if I've said something that's already been mentioned) I think the issue is that Moffat deals with character development in a different manner than another writer (I'm hinting at RTD but I'm trying to avoid a headwriter conflict and also to consider other headwriters) would. Moffat characters only get development/become characters worth investing in if they appear more than once/in something longer than 45 minutes. So one-time characters tend to be unmemorable and not very three-dimensional because they only have one event to deal with. The DWTV review addresses this to an extent with Ms Delphox/Keeley Hawes, she gives a great performance but she isn't actually given enough to play with for an actor of her pedigree. Her performance is solid but that's it because the character, due to her being a one-time occurrence, doesn't get any extra development as there isn't any opportunity to. Other writers tend to add just that little bit extra to one-time characters, such as some backstory to provide motivation or a line about preferring chocolate to vanilla. It doesn't say much but it just adds that little bit extra to make the character more distinct. Symbolism (audio, visual etc.) can also help to develop a character and this is where Moffat fails/allows the costume department to fail. Wardrobe is crucial to symbolism and provides an insight into the psyche of the character. Why does Ms. Delphox wear glasses? Presumably she has poor eyesight. Why does she wear a black suit? She's head of security and very professional. But then Madame Kovarian is a character with very different origins and motivations and is also in a black suit. She's professional but she's also the head of a religious sect, which is also running renegade. She could easily be dressed as some sort of Bishop-Pirate. I think Hassell does have some essence of a valid point when such characters who are given prominence because of their importance to a storyline (e.g. Kovarian, Tasha Lem) or because of the actor playing them (e.g. Ms Delphox/Director Karabraxos), if they're written as following tropes without any development to extend them beyond that, they are going to get pigeon-holed as a "sexy librarian". Does Moffat do this or allow this to happen all the time? Definitely not, and River Song is the most prominent example I can think of. Even in her initial appearances we can see she's not just a mystery woman and because of her importance to the plot, we get to see her in different situations and outfits, her motivations and mindset is explained and thus she becomes more than just the basics of a trope. The thing is, is that Moffat does favour the "strong woman" fairly frequently as both protagonists and antagonists but because of his writing style regarding development, some are more open to being perceived as Moffat/the writers/the production team as being sexist. Moffat does vary his female characters but usually from the same axis e.g. Amy and Clara are both different characters but they also have their origins in being somewhat middle class, white, confident, sassy, whatever else people have ascribed both characters as sharing. But they are different. RTD on the other hand (again, just a comparison, not a flame war starter) would drastically vary his character origin points e.g. Rose is white, a very young adult, selfish, working class, while Martha is black, in her mid20s and from a background that would suggest in 2007 at least, living with middle class appearance of wealth. Donna again is different because she's argumentative, brash, rude, extremely empathetic and from a background that would suggest maybe lower-middle class or upper working class. What these companions explicitly shared was their time with the Doctor. I think Moffat's main fault with writing his characters is allowing his variations to be more subtle and to be built over time rather than being explicit. There is definitely increasing demand for characters, particularly female characters, to be 3Dimensional. 'Orange is the new Black' is monumentally successful at this as the main cast is predominantly female. Moffat seems to limit himself to his detriment and I think it's why there are those that are more openly frustrated in recent years than in the past (although the prominence of social media also has a definite influence). But that isn't to say Moffat is stuck in his ways, he has shown he is capable but doesn't seem to afford himself the opportunity to prove that explicitly. Are his ways explicitly sexist? That's debatable (as we all know), but I think it definitely contributes or makes the show complicit in sexism when there is a definite desire from many who want all their characters to be interesting.
@Scootersfood is the new Caretaker I think what Hassell is trying to suggest is that she did little more than be the human aspect within the show. Showing remorse and emotions etc. is perfectly reasonable but in terms of her actual contribution as the companion, she did little more than any other guest character could/would be given. This episode did have so many opportunities for Clara to put her technological skills gifted to her in Bells of St John to the test yet, this was not utilised and I think it's massive error on the part of the show to have completely forgotten this aspect of Clara.
@Benvenfold @Beasts_a_Snarling If they had died I think it would've been okay. The Doctor wasn't at all callous when faced with prospect of their deaths, he was genuine in his initial distress, unlike Ross who was in an identical situation but the Doctor practically pushed him into that situation. I much prefer a Doctor who compartmentalises his emotions rather than is genuinely uncaring as there's still tension but a Doctor we can relate or identify with. He's already developed since Deep Breath and I think that's quite important.
1 month, 1 week ago on Rate & Discuss Time Heist
@YaelMoise I agree actually. Deep Breath should've clearly established that neither one or the other is interested in each other in that way, yet pretty much every episode since has had something to force the idea that they're REALLY NOT INTO EACH OTHER and then this and it's just, why. A lot of it hasn't been funny either which really doesn't help.
That really hit the spot. After the investigative episode since Deep Breath, that was exactly what we needed, a simplistic, well told story.
@Kathrin Lily Franke The Time Lock is weird because it seems almost every Time Lord is a victim of it. The High Council don't just turn the Time Lock off and the Doctor isn't in control and doesn't seem to know who activated it either otherwise he would've eventually found a way to save Gallifrey from the Daleks. Yet they all behave like it's common, even expected. It's a small but significant chapter of the story that RTD and Moffat haven't explicitly acknowledged is there.
1 month, 1 week ago on Listen: Breaking the Time Lock?
The only issue with theory #2 is that it doesn't explain why other time travellers couldn't enter the war either i.e. Dalek Caan/Davros in The Stolen Earth/Journey's End explaining how the war was blocked even for them. If it weren't for that I think #2 is the theory that makes sense the most, that the Time Lock was an inbuilt piece of software into Time Lord tech.
@DWTV Would "detail-free" be more accurate? As far as I can tell there isn't anything in here that doesn't reference anything that hasn't been made publically available from the BBC or the DW team.
1 month, 1 week ago on Time Heist Spoiler-Free Review
I'd argue it's hard to compare the two, one is a psychological study and the other is a more typical monster-of-the-week episode. Listen was deeply satisfying in its exploration and/but Blink had that scare factor of also having a tangible creature to contend with.
1 month, 1 week ago on Face-Off: Blink vs Listen
@Planet of the Deaf @whovian101 Could be a some sort of rebound from the Doctor? Her crush turns into someone very alien and I think she loses her grounding in reality a little bit and she sees Danny as an anchor. I think we see it with Amy and Rory. Once both are travelling with the Doctor, their "real life" becomes a bit meaningless because they have each other in the TARDIS. Clara being someone who really needs control is desperately trying to find some way to maintain an almost very real grip on what she considers reality or normality and she sees that with Danny.
1 month, 1 week ago on Open Discussion: Is There More to Clara Than We Think?
@The Finn @ilyootha @Planet of the Deaf @Dalekium Announcing the all new burlesque dance group, the Paternoster Gang and Friends. Featuring classic hits such as "Deep Breath, boys", "Nightmare in Silver" and "Space Oodity"
1 month, 1 week ago on DWM: Things will never be the same again after Kill the Moon
It's the Doctor's darkest day ... all hangs in the balance ... for this day ... the Doctor ... starts a burlesque group.
@DoctorWut @The Finn That's a little confusing because in TEOT the council refer to the Doctor already having the moment, while in TDOTD we witness him stealing it. Shouldn't it be the other way round? Or more precisely, TEOT takes place in the middle of TDOTD?
1 month, 2 weeks ago on Making Sense of Listen’s Gallifreyan Gallivant
@Amy says Peter Davison is the Thirteenth Doctor! Oh the joy of the ontological paradox :P Bit bored of them now tbh...
1 month, 2 weeks ago on Listen Review
@StephenAHayes This is what essayists do for a living :P A lot of it is about drawing out what the author intended but also examining other elements that the author didn't intend to convey new meaning, not only from the literature but how the authors mind works. It's why we have feminist theory, queer theory, post-colonialism, post-structuralist etc. as different lenses to examine literature and it's also why such essayists can shore up drastically contrasting conclusions and if the author feels the need to defend their work, then they can do so. Shakespeare has been analysed beyond belief yet for all we know he, as you said, just wrote stuff cos he needed money and liked to entertain. I love it.
This is a fantastic review although I wouldn't make the assumption that Clara and Danny are destined to be together and that Orson is their descendant. While there were some very deliberate visual and textual hints at this, there's still room for that to not be the case. We know that Danny eventually travels with the Doctor because of various episode descriptions that have been made public but Danny and Clara could very easily breakup or become separated and I could easily see Danny telling his future children about the time he and an ex went time travelling.
@Scootersfood can sense your guilt @stargazer0118 Not necessarily although it's definitely about a character who has all the "perfect" attributes. Batman can be seen as a Mary Sue because he's rich, an expert fighter and has a habit of having anything you could want but has some very obvious character flaws. In some ways the Doctor is also a bit of Mary Sue. I think Mary Sue characters only become a real problem if they become the deus ex machina of the plot, it's true of any protagonist and because of the fantastical line Doctor Who sometimes treads, the show runs the risk of the Doctor becoming the perfect saviour. I definitely like Clara more than I did previously but the interaction she has with the Doctor's life is a little much. While Hassel suggests here that it's reconception of an old idea, I'd argue that it is a slight retcon because the Clara imprints on the young Doctor the foundation of his character, removing some of his agency.
1 month, 2 weeks ago on Why The Decline in Overnight Ratings Doesn’t Matter
@YaelMoise @Dalekium All the different views are really interesting. I was really hoping for a creature of some sort because it would've been really compelling and definitely something new for Moffat to be proud of. By the last few minutes of the episode I was half expecting an explanation to resemble something like "the being that everyone dreams about and has been not-quite-seen in the episode is a sentient manifestation of the young Doctor's fear translated across time and space through the schism. This is why the dream is identical for everyone as it's just replaying Clara (the unknown entity) grabbing the Doctor's leg and inducing fear". You can see how convoluted I've basically come to except a Moffat episode and he actually managed to do the complete opposite or go even further by not giving a conventional resolution at all.
1 month, 2 weeks ago on Poll: Listen – Was there a Monster or not?
I don't think there can be, otherwise the foundation for Clara's reassurance speech to the young Doctor is at fault and I can't help but feel that a monster actually undermines the message that Clara was trying to get across.
There have been a few instances where I've thought "did he say something or just make a noise" and I passed it off as a noise and it didn't really detract from the events at hand.
1 month, 2 weeks ago on Is Capaldi’s Accent Causing Issues?
@The_Eternal_Dalek They're experts in their field? If you read the article it's people on twitter who are voicing their complaint so of course people trained in the profession are going to offer an explanation.
@The Finn @Dalekium Nothing to do with starting filming in January, my comment was to do with them talking about some sort of surprise and Jenna's ambiguity about whether she'll be around for said filming
1 month, 3 weeks ago on A Surprise Ending for Clara?
The information about Series 9 filming in January ... unless something really odd is happening ...
I think of the two, Dalek is the superior episode but Into the Dalek has a lot of strong points and can easily stand on its and I'm really happy to see this turn out in the results :)
1 month, 3 weeks ago on Your Verdict on Into the Dalek
@AztecsDaleksAndCavemen What are the average ratings for 7A and 7B? Both of those were almost new series starts because of introducing Clara properly for 7B.
1 month, 3 weeks ago on Doctor Who Series 8 UK Ratings Accumulator
@luckemasse @Dalekium :O
1 month, 3 weeks ago on Robin Whood: Meet the Legend
Robin Whood? :P
I fell in love with it because I felt like such an homage to Classic Who, particularly Resurrection of the Daleks. There were so many references (both visual and in the dialogue) and the music was so reminiscent of the 80s Doctor Who soundtrack. But most importantly, I felt scared by the Daleks. Dalek horror is very different to conventional horror that Moffat is particularly good at creating.
1 month, 4 weeks ago on Rate & Discuss Into the Dalek
@jsx Because you are prioritising and defending the momentarily hurt feelings of a few individuals over genuine violence that occurs. You say that it's not right to make people suffer but by not making that your priority you are being complicit in those who do suffer.
2 months ago on Addressing the Deep Breath Kiss
@AztecsDaleksAndCavemen @Dalekium @TheOncomingHurricane No.
@AztecsDaleksAndCavemen @Dalekium @TheOncomingHurricane Why does Moffat do anything that applies to all of his characters? I wouldn't know.
@AztecsDaleksAndCavemen @Dalekium @TheOncomingHurricane It isn't damaging. If Jenny and Vastra quite literally only said "we bone" and the content of their characters was defined by that, then yes. But that is not what happens. I've written about it in the article, their sexuality is part of them but not the only part.
@AztecsDaleksAndCavemen @Dalekium @TheOncomingHurricane In real life no, but media isn't real life. And identifying your sexuality doesn't always manifest as "Hello, I am <sexuality", it comes in physical actions as well. No-one bats much of an eyelid to any content that features flirting, discussing crushes, kisses etc. between heterosexual characters but when non-heterosexuals do it there's a fuss. It's something that's happened in our media for years and we still need to work on that. But the responsibility of LGBT+ media representation in a TV show should not fall entirely on the shoulders of one or two characters who don't appear that much. If Jenny and Vastra were companions or highly regularly featured, then the signposting wouldn't be as needed. That's why more characters is good as they can deal with more issues while lightening the responsibility of dealing with the basic representative stuff i.e. the kind of stuff that needs LGBT+ characters to say "actually I'm not straight, please don't forget that".
@AztecsDaleksAndCavemen @Dalekium @TheOncomingHurricane THAT'S WHAT LGBT+ MEDIA REPRESENTATION IS TRYING TO DO
@Deus_Ex_Machina Homophobia literally means "against LGBT". It doesn't have to be aggressive, it doesn't have to be physical. If you don't actually have any issues with LGBT people then you're not homophobic. Being against homosexuality in all its forms has led to disproportionate levels of physical, verbal and sexual violence, social exclusion etc. Simple version: being against homosexuality has led to a long history of sadness and death for a significant portion of the population. How could anyone support that?
@AztecsDaleksAndCavemen @Dalekium @TheOncomingHurricane Because heterosexuality is already considered the norm! Everywhere we go, we assume everyone is straight until proven otherwise.
@Oodkind @Seaborn W Deadman Because our representation is currently not stable or consistent. And the numbers of people being open about their sexuality is steadily increasing as people becoming more open to the idea that there are many varied sexualities out there.