Bio not provided
@gunslinger19 Misinformation of any kind when it comes to marginalised groups leads to further marginalisation. A lot of behaviour like racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. doesn't always have to be explicit hatred of that group and does happen accidentally. Deliberate behaviour is horrendous but accidental marginalisation can be rectified and addressed far more easily.
1 month ago on Little Boxes Will Make You Angry: Doctor Who and Transphobia
Ultimately yes I'm glad she's staying, but I'm a little worried that she could potentially overstay her welcome and/or be given an ending that actually does her Series 8 performance a disservice. It'd be pretty cool to see the next companion work their way into the show towards the end of Series 9, maybe an associate of UNIT or someone they pick up on the way.
2 months, 1 week ago on Clara’s Fate & Series 9 (Spoilers)
@Padaster Okay so apparently you can't include links but if you YouTube "Take a Deep Breath, then Save the Day" you'll find what I poorly attempted to link :)
3 months, 1 week ago on The Day / Time of the Doctor Soundtrack Review (Disc 2)
@Padaster While it's not the actual music (and not trying to plug myself either but hey), I did come up with this that I hope fills the void. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U87H_8Hyoik
@The 4th Doctor HELL YEAH WHERE MY THEMES AT
@ahunter8056 @Dalekium @ilyootha WHAT IS THIS CRETINOUS BEASTLINESS
@ilyootha @Dalekium Did they ... did they include the 50th one at least?
Bit of a daft question but did they include the 7B Doctor Who theme?
@The Genie 3W hide inside St Pauls because Missy uses Time Lord tech and the Doctor theorises that she may even be using a TARDIS. Of course, this just leaves even more questions. Is there now another TARDIS just casually lying about, or even more Time Lord tech for UNIT or less respectable organisations to get their hands on? How did Missy get her hands on all this stuff? Is she actually directly responsible for inventing "the afterlife"?
3 months, 3 weeks ago on 2nd Opinion: Death in Heaven
@The Finn @Dalekium Potentially yeah. It'd be interesting to see a Doctor who does the reverse of that: starts of okay but gets progressively worse (mentally and/or physically) due to some sort of failure in the regeneration process.
3 months, 3 weeks ago on Poll: Capaldi’s Doctor – Hit or Miss?
A definite hit. Personally I'd wish him to be slightly warmer and friendly but that's small fry in comparison to just how solid he is.
@Clara Laurinda @The Lazy Cat Needs Her Inhaler Anyone thinking how euphemistic that phrase is.
3 months, 3 weeks ago on Death in Heaven – Hints & Teasers (Set #2)
Pronouns should always be used by the person who wants them
used. The current incarnation of the Master goes currently by she, therefore we
use ‘she’ and other female pronouns when referring to this incarnation of the
Master. This current incarnation also wants to be referred to as Missy or
Mistress, so we respect that as well, so Michelle Gomez’ incarnation of this
character is well and truly “the Mistress/Missy” and a Time Lady. But they will
always be the same person as they were before.
There are a multitude of reasons why the “biological sex”
argument for why Missy has made a massive alteration in gender is quite frankly
a bit of crock. A female actor could be cast as Missy or the Doctor but they
could still be a male character, because they, the character, identify
themselves as being male. I can genuinely imagine an actor of any gender
playing a character of another gender for the Doctor or the Master. This is in
some part why I object to Moffat’s depiction of Missy, because even though
there has been a change in gender (and pronouns), the actor playing could
easily play or present the part in a very masculine or feminine way or used
male, female or other pronouns and titles. Michelle Gomez could’ve quite easily
played “the Master”, because why does a change in gender necessarily mean a
change in title? Missy could’ve easily identified as a woman in this incarnation
but still been identified as the Master if she’d chosen to keep that title. A
Time Lord is still a Time Lord if they choose to identify as a Time Lord
regardless of their gender. And if a Gallifreyan chooses to change the appellation,
then that needs to be respected and we go by the new title that they want to
Whether the shifting genders of a Gallifreyans as a common occurrence
is actually common is still unclear, the canon delves so little into the
fluidity or staticness of gender within Gallifreyans that still makes it
totally unclear. But the fact is that gender has been explicitly shown now,
amongst some, to be fluid (but not necessarily always). And because genitalia
is so commonly (and falsely) linked with gender and sex, any one of the incarnations
of the Doctor or the Master (or any Time Lord) could’ve had any types of
anatomy but still chosen to identify with the gender and pronouns of men. Which
is completely true of modern humans as well.
Gender does not equal sex and sex quite frankly does not
equal anything except societal expectations of what ‘sex’ is. It bothers me so much that people genuinely think that identifying as a woman effects an individuals personality. This isn’t about “appeasing
a sect of fandom” that wants predominantly male characters to become female,
this is about showing that our [current and mainstream] understanding of sex
and gender is not rigid and/or static. It’s not a “PR stunt” or “political
correctness gone mad”, it’s the truth about human existence, current human
understanding of existence and actually acknowledging that there has always
been more to life than static modes of culture and thinking. Despite the flaws
I find with Missy’s introduction, I will defend the changing and fluidity of
genders and our misunderstandings of sex any living being (and not just humans),
particularly in the media we consume. Moffat has explicitly broken some level
of ground by doing this and I hope in the near future there is more exploration
4 months ago on A Study of Regeneration: Lord or Lady?
@Iris Wildthyme I think I'm in love with this post.
@Feeling the BURN @Dalekium This is true, I just find it odd that this is still being treated as the genuine article when it seems that death only truly occurs upon Cyber-conversion.
4 months ago on 2nd Opinion: Dark Water
As for the Master being a woman now, I think it’s great.
Michelle Gomez nails the role perfectly and I hope she sticks around for a very long while. And the fact that we’ve got an
on-screen, literal confirmation that Time Lords actually do have the ability to
regenerate into a different gender just gives me hope for the future of Doctor
Who, particularly for such an iconic character as the Master.
And if anything else, this probably legitimises some of the
slashfics between the Doctor and the Master (although I do have some minor
issues with the sudden romance occurring for Missy but I think many would
disagree cos it's a bit subjective).
What I think has gone under the radar is that this series hasn't
necessarily given a definitive version of what the afterlife actually is,
across the universe. From what we've seen throughout Series 8 so far is that
Missy is interceding in place of death. She says that the minds of the dying
get downloaded into the Matrix archive and we're left to assume that these
minds are then put in the place of a Cyberman, devoid of emotion but as a
central processor. Dr. Skarosa's discovery could easily be a fabrication (as
the Doctor deduced) on the part of Missy to convince people that the
institutions need to be set up. We don't even know who Dr. Skarosa is. He’s
this invisible person that just happens to be able to develop software to
"translate" white noise? I'd go as far as to suggest that Skarosa
himself is a fabrication and Missy has been behind 3W since the beginning.
And as a time traveller, she could’ve easily set up the
matrix drive eons ago, meaning she could’ve collected thousands of dying minds.
This would explain the robots trying to find “The Promised Land” during the 12th
century and the crew of the SS Marie Antoinette from the 51stC to millennia
ago and into the 19thC. It would also mean she wouldn’t even have to be around
at any particular point, so she could avoid meeting her past selves by just
skipping that century she was present in, all the while the matrix drive keeps
on collecting (and time lord tech has proven to be fairly robust).
The Nethersphere is vital to this theory. The dead are going
specifically to this floaty orb thing in St. Pauls and I really doubt that the
dead have always been going there (unless of course Missy got in there
literally ages ago)
I think the afterlife we’ve been shown is not genuine at
all. It’s Missy interrupting the actual process and it’s a get-out clause for
Moffat. It’s how the PR under Moffat has worked so far, he says one thing, he
delivers it but the final product is slightly different to what was originally
being marketed. This way he doesn’t actually give what happens after death,
freeing the DW team from any accountability. However 'Death in Heaven' could blow that out of the [dark] water so :P
I get the feeling that what's bogged down the Cybermen in recent years is an unclear continuity. From Series 5, it's never been all that clear if the Cybermen were Cybusmen or Mondas Cybermen. It's never been formally acknowledged whether the two groups merged or if the Cybusmen remained stuck in the Void after 'The Next Doctor'. But from Classic Who, we're led to believe that for the most part, they went extinct. Gaiman's Cybermen episode attempts to redress that but still doesn't acknowledge any involvement of the Cybusmen, despite the fact that in Series 5 - 6 the Cybermen exhibit the Cybusmen form, until they remove the Cybus logo from their chest, which suggests Mondas Cybermen but again, it's never explicitly made clear, leaving us to guess at which faction the Cybermen we're being presented with actually belong to. I bet that if they settle this, Cybermen stories will be that more captivating because we know to some extent who they are.
4 months ago on The Portrayal of the Cybermen in New Who
If Doctor Who had no storytelling arc I would be unbelievably bored. It keeps people watching. Even if an episode is awful, they will struggle through to find out the result of the arc. If the arc is awful, that's a serious problem and causes a show to lose fans. Without an arc, I get the feeling that every or the majority of episodes of Doctor Who would have to be of stellar quality which I don't think would be sustainable.
4 months ago on The Trouble with Story Arcs
What's this Missy Who tv show? Sounds rather interesting.
4 months, 1 week ago on Dark Water Clip
The moon is an egg, Earth is a spaceship and mother nature is real.
4 months, 1 week 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.
4 months, 1 week ago on Next Time: Dark Water
4 months, 2 weeks 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.
4 months, 3 weeks 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.
4 months, 3 weeks 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.
5 months 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.
5 months ago on Face-Off: Gareth Roberts’ Episodes
This page has been UDPATED
5 months 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.
5 months, 1 week 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.
(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.
5 months, 2 weeks 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.
5 months, 2 weeks 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.
5 months, 2 weeks 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.
5 months, 2 weeks 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.
5 months, 2 weeks 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"
5 months, 2 weeks 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?
5 months, 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...
5 months, 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.
5 months, 2 weeks ago on Why The Decline in Overnight Ratings Doesn’t Matter