Bio not provided
@Yawn Without meaning to be rude can you please explain what it is that you are trying to imply with these frequent comments about the 'declining ratings' of Doctor Who? Are you trying to claim the quality of the show is dropping because even if all your comments about the viewing figures were true declining viewing numbers is no sure fire gauge of quality. Firefly was watched by barely anyone and Two Pints of Lager and A Packet of Crisps was watched by loads of people despite widely being regarded as terrible. What is your point?
2 weeks, 3 days ago on 2014 iPlayer Xmas Top 10, BBCA Ratings
@ilyootha, agent of C.L.A.R.A. My memory of TDTWW was that it was a terrible sentimental mess but on rewatching it this Christmas I must admit I actually quite enjoyed it. Matt Smith is great, the 'monsters' are...okish, the child actors are actually quite good, it was cheesy but I quite liked the story of a widow concealing her husbands death from her children at Christmas. It wasn't Doctor Who at it's best by any stretch but I do think it gets a bit of an unfair rep.
2 weeks, 6 days ago on Festive Face-Off 2014 Winner
@YaelMoise @Gustaff Out of interest how could you ever rate 'entertainment level'? Surely that's a completely subjective measure?
@TheOncomingHurricane I'm sorry but how is what he's doing misgendering? The Doctor speaks horse and therefore is told by the horse he does not want to be referred to as Joshua but as Susan - We can make of this what we will. The joke is not at the expense of the horse but the pompous owner and our presumption as humans and horse riders in naming animals that have identities and personalities themselves. If it also makes a comment about the flexibility of gender norms from where I'm standing that is positive not offensive.. Please honestly explain to me if I'm being dim what is offensive there?
3 weeks, 1 day ago on Being Human Director for Series 9
@TheOncomingHurricane I'm sorry, but how is that line offensive?
@TonySimmons When you compare Doctor Who's rating with those of other flagship shows on Christmas Day they are actually pretty similar. Ratings on most TV shows including accumulated Iplayer viewings are all down this year. I think if you are going to look at these results and assume they show some developing flaw in Doctor Who you must assume there is also a problem with all the Top 10 most viewed shows of Christmas Day. That Queen's Speech eh! She would never have got ratings as low as this when RTD was writing!
3 weeks, 1 day ago on Doctor Who Series 8 (2014) UK Ratings Accumulator
@Yawn True, but then all Christmas TV viewing figures have been down this year. For example the Number 1 programme viewed on Christmas Day was Mrs Brown's Boys with 7.6 million viewers on overnights and 9.7 million viewers accumulative a viewership not considerably higher than Doctor Who and lower than the Time of the Doctor last year. So we can't assume that this low figure means anything significant.
@YaelMoise @tealeaves @The Watchful Guardian @JamesStroud "It's all about, 'Do you have a story that's worth it?' Unless you've got a story that is absolutely informed and invigorated by their presence, just bringing a character back in an ordinary story won't do." He said that the return of River or Jack would have to be 'seismic' but I would argue that those are specific cases where returns would have to be 'cataclysmic' as he has given River a logical end to her story there would need to be something big. He didn't describe that the return of ANY character would have to be 'seismic'. Remember it was Moffat who signed off on the return of Craig as well as the Paternoster Gang in episodes which were hardly 'seismic' e.g. 'Closing Time' and 'The Crimson Horror'.
3 weeks, 3 days ago on 7 Things I’d Like to See in Series 9
@YaelMoise @The Watchful Guardian @JamesStroud I thought the point wasn't that you should wait for big occasions to bring back characters but that there should be a good story to justify them returning. e.g. Moffat has openly admitted that he wanted to bring Jack back for 'A Good Man Goes to War' (a reasonably big story but not a special or anniversary) but couldn't because of scheduling. I personally feel that, although I love Jack's return in Utopia and the chemistry between him and Tennant is so good, in story terms he didn't really have much to do and felt a bit shoehorned in.
3 weeks, 4 days ago on 7 Things I’d Like to See in Series 9
@the666thdoctor I personally think the divorce subplot could have been interesting but with only 5 episodes left they didn't really have time to give it any particular meaning. I also quite liked the Pond's return in Series 7 for me it addressed some of the problems of how Moffat had written them during their tenure e.g. the absence of reference to their home lives and families and it gave them an ending which felt, to me at least, like a very natural conclusion to their story. ie. Amy, who had always had an almost unhealthy dependence on and faith in the Doctor, learned how to live without him.
3 weeks, 5 days ago on Last Christmas Review (Part 2): Questions, Questions
I get that you don't
like Clara and, although I like Clara, in some ways I can see why. But can I
just clarify what Steven Moffat could do to his 'general attitude to fans who
have a problem with anything he's doing'?
I mean beyond everybody
lives fans were complaining that the show had become too fixated on fairytale
tropes during Smith's era - which he has consciously moved away from even
acknowledging these as tropes. He's acknowledged that the flirting in Doctor
Who had also become a cliche and has (bar Missy's psychotic advances) toned
down this aspect of the show and given fans the darker and older Doctor which
many on this website alone had longed for. He has acknowledged fan criticism
for the heavy story arcs of Series 6 and 7 which got in the way of character
development and had a lighter 'heaven story arc'. He has acknowledged that in
Series 7 Clara was often more of a plot point than a character in her own right
and focused Series 8 on developing her character.
I agree that as a
showrunner Moffat has his shortcomings and sometimes his dry sense of humour and
big gob gets him into trouble. But Moffat has been far more responsive to fan
criticism and feedback than many other Doctor Who showrunners (certainly than
RTD) and although I don’t want to come across as some blind Moffat apologist I
find it hard to hear people declaring he is essentially ignoring or trolling
the fans when I really don’t think he is.
Ultimately he is the
showrunner of Doctor Who and there will always be parts of the fandom that don’t
agree with decisions he has made. Ultimately as showrunner his job is not to
answer to and respond to every corner of the Doctor Who fandom, his job is to
keep the show successful, talked about and hopefully well written (though I understand
this is subjective).He can’t think of all the fans all the time because he
would never pick up a pen. The feedback from many fans this series has been
that Clara has become more popular, this was also reflected in reviews which
have won more critical acclaim for the series this series than in series 6 or 7
and focused on Clara’s development – Therefore Moffat has acted on this by
keeping her in the show.
1 month ago on Rate & Discuss Last Christmas
@Huknar @Lady Fantomette I don't know if this is just because of Doctor Who being a show about constant renewal but what is there to suggest there is nowhere else the character of Clara can be taken? I mean no one watching Sherlock for example would say "Well I think they have taken the relationship between John and Sherlock as far as they can it's time for him to get a new companion" Most TV series keep the same ensemble of characters for 3-4 series. I personally don't see any reason Clara's character should 'stagnate'.
I'd love someone to write a Doctor Who TV article on 'What If...Matt Smith had stayed for Series 8' It was my feeling that if he had stayed many of the elements crammed into the hour of the Time of the Doctor would have been less rushed and better handled to give Smith a better paced send off.
1 month ago on Why I Love… The Time of the Doctor
@LaraHarris Firstly can you clarify what you mean by 'disregard gender'? The interesting thing is that I would say that the way Joss Whedon writes does not disregard gender - Both gender norms and sexual diversity are things he has openly addressed repeatedly in his work. Secondly arguing that there are no writers beyond Joss Whedon and Guillmero Del Toro who can write women well seems a bit unfair (are you just thinking about Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers).
1 month ago on Female Doctor Poll Results & A Case For
@Beasts_a_Snarling is a Christmas KANDY Because no one asked him about that!
1 month ago on Moffat Defends In the Forest of the Night Science Criticisms
@Beasts_a_Snarling is a Christmas KANDY He was answering the question as a fan of the show, not as the showrunner of the show. He said that he was disappointed it wasn't better received because he really enjoyed it in the same way I am disappointed the episode A Town Called Mercy is not more popular because I really enjoy it. At no point is he suggesting that people who dislike the episode are wrong. He is merely expressing personal opinion. He followed this up with a dryly witty joke about its scientific inaccuracies. He's not actually calling anyone wrong. Secondly it is the job of the showrunner to hype up the show - That is why Steven Moffat gets sent to interviews and press events and Q & As in the first place he has to spout a little hyperbole the same was true, perhaps even more so, during RTDs tenure. Thirdly the only time I have heard him say "This will be the biggest shake up since 2005" was the casting of Capaldi and in all honesty it was, wasn't it?
@The Dreamer wants her Who Christmas NOW! I was answering LaraHarris I completely agree with you The Dreamer wants her Who Christmas NOW! both on your initial comment and that the comment system gets a bit confusing....although who knows where this comment might end up!
@LaraHarris @supermoff @TheOncomingHurricane @Notsosmartguy He didn't 'feel the need to say anything' He was asked a question and gave an answer! Would it have been better if he had pretended he couldn't hear the question and sat humming Bah Bah Biker until the questioner gave up?
@LaraHarris @supermoff @Notsosmartguy No it's not. Saying you are disappointed something was not well received is not the same as saying the people who disliked it are wrong. It's normal when you like something to want other people to share your enjoyment and to feel sad when they don't, but it's not invalidating other people's opinions. The whole point he has repeatedly made is that the nature of the show's variety means that some episodes will be divisive and that's ok.
@Beasts_a_Snarling is a Christmas KANDY 1. Tastes are subjective you have as much right to hate the episode as Moffat does to love it. The nature of Doctor Who is variety e.g. Fear Her is often derided as a terrible episode but is loved by many young viewers. The nature of Doctor Who is that some episodes will be divisive. 2. Steven Moffat is the showrunner of Doctor Who and Series 8 has just finished and the boxset is just out it would be stupid because it would put people off watching the show at Christmas and buying the DVD. Not addressing it makes him a sensible showrunner.
@LaraHarris @Notsosmartguy He's not 'making announcements'. I think people have to understand that Moffat doesn't arrange press conferences or call up interviewers to make these comments. What happens is that interviewers and people in Q & As ask him these questions, he responds and then writers on fan sites take from these sessions what they think are the most controversial or general interest bits and sometimes as a side effect of this the tone of comments doesn't come across. The reason Moffat has defended this episode is because people have commented to him in interviews and Q & As about this episode and he gave his personal opinion. Can you explain to me what is petulant about answering a question someone has asked of you?
@Beasts_a_Snarling is a Christmas KANDY I've asked you this before, I will ask it again. Where is the evidence of Moffat being arrogant or egotistical?
@NumberNine Can you explain how his argument is lacking logic?
1 month, 1 week ago on Moffat on Criticisms that Doctor Who Is Too Dark
@Beasts_a_Snarling is a Christmas KANDY Yes he did, he has plugged every Series since he became showrunner. You have to remember he doesn't just come to an interview and start reeling off about how great his writing is he just responds to the questions asked. Interviews during Series 7 focused on the 50th Anniversary and the end of the Ponds. Naturally now he's been working on NuWho for almost 10 years questions will naturally be about his writing and when he will leave. It has nothing to do with overconfidence - Which you have still provided no evidence for. Where is his OVERCONFIDENCE in this interview? What other examples have there been for him being overconfident in other Series 8 interviews which are not for series plugging purposes. The only one I can think of is his comments on taking dual credits which was hardly OVERCONFIDENT.
1 month, 2 weeks ago on Moffat Says He’s Not Running Out of Ideas Yet
@Beasts_a_Snarling is a Christmas KANDY I don't mean to be rude, I really really don't. But have you read anything I have just written? You wouldn't berate a mathematician for saying that they can add up two numbers very quickly or a plasterer of 10 years for saying they can fill a hole in a wall very quickly and easily. Why should this be 'overconfident'? Secondly in an interview only recently he reemphasised that writing for Doctor Who never gets any easier and that he still doesn't know when writing an episode how it will be received. Even in this interview he acknowledges that he doesn't know if his ideas are good or not. Is that not humble enough? Thirdly he HAS TO SELL THE SHOW. The Series 8 DVD boxset is out now and it's Christmas time a great time for sales. He can't go around talking about the problems with the series because it will affect how many people buy series and watch the Christmas special. It's not about being overconfident - It's about being a sensible promoter of the show.
@Beasts_a_Snarling is a Christmas KANDY With all due respect where is the evidence of this ? What has he actually said to 'confidently rebuke criticism' which suggests overconfidence. Also 'confidently rebuking criticism' of itself doesn't automatically make a writer overconfident. Steven Moffat is responsible for writing, showrunning and promoting Doctor Who. The Series 8 DVD boxset is coming out just in time for Christmas it would be frankly a bit stupid for him to respond to criticism of the series by saying "Well we dropped the ball on some episodes and the plotting wasn't always consistent but there were some good bits" Sometimes he has to sell the show because if he doesn't people won't buy or watch it and there will be no show.
@Beasts_a_Snarling is a Christmas KANDY I'm sorry but can you please tell me where this idea of Moffat's overconfidence in this article has actually come from? If someone who was a baker for 10 years said "Actually I can make a sponge cake quite quickly and easily now" you wouldn't respond with "What an arrogant statement" you would just assume that after doing something for a while you can do some things more quickly and easily. All he's saying is that on an episode level he is quite fast at finding solutions to narrative problems e.g. How do I separate and reunite Amy and the Doctor? what do I do with Rory this episode? Why can't he just fix this problem using the sonic screwdriver? etc. All he is saying here is that he still has plenty of ideas - He's not even saying for sure that they are good ideas. What about this suggests overconfidence? If you actually read interviews with Moffat the consistent theme is his self consciousness and awareness of the flaws of his own writing. I'm not saying all Moffat's episodes are great - But I do thing people read interviews with him with this pre-conception that he is arrogant and egotistical and tend to read whatever he says in this way. Granted Moffat sometimes plays up to this. But I honestly can't find anything 'overconfident' in this article.
@The Lazy Cat Has Stowed Away on the TARDIS Her boyfriend was converted into a Cyberman and then gave his one shot at a life with Clara to a young boy, surely she's allowed to be a little bit angsty?
2 months ago on Last Christmas: Short Synopsis
I understand why some people have disliked this episode and I do have some qualms myself. But can we at least acknowledge. Fans asked for a darker Doctor and we now have a darker Doctor, fans asked for Clara to become a more complete character rather than a plot point - Series 8 delivered this, Fans asked for permanent deaths which meant something which we got, Fans asked for a menacing villain who the Doctor can stand off against which we got, Fans asked for less timey-wimey resolutions to stories which we got. Can we at least admit that Doctor Who delivered on some of its promises and fans desires this series?
2 months, 2 weeks ago on Rate & Discuss Death in Heaven
@DrWhoisevery1 'unexplained post it notes' they were a way for Clara to remember all the things she had not told Danny/lied to him about. Sometimes things shouldn't be spelled out for the viewer!
@Bored of Clara Who The truth is that 'twist' reveals are not designed to be 'unguessable' because 'unguessable' often actually equals uninteresting. Why would it annoy Classic fans to make the Master female? Did it annoy fans of the James Bond franchise when M suddenly turned into Judi Dench?
2 months, 3 weeks ago on Poll: The Missy Reveal
@The Gray Box Half of your issues are really too soon to call issues - e.g. 1. 'There was no explanation for the Master's presence' It's part of a two-parter dear, that's what Part 2 is for. 2. 'Instead of the Master in a new form at the end of the universe, we now have the Master in a new form at the end of life' well firstly those are actually two very different things and secondly - how do you know that is the story as we haven't found out yet what is happening with the Master/Missy. 'Predictable' I think the idea that twists are supposed to be unguessable is perhaps an unfair one - twists are supposed to pull the rug from underneath characters which the Missy reveal did, it put the plot in an interesting place for Part 2. Unclear purpose - Did you complain the same way in Stolen Earth because Davros' plan wasn't revealed any more than Missy's. 'A "cool" twist, if one wants to see one, but no substitute for good dramatic writing' Are you telling me you found no good dramatic writing in the volcano scene? Or the scenes of Danny's death? Or the horrible 3 words reveal?
@RieruM I am confused how was the reveal lazy?
2 months, 3 weeks ago on Rate & Discuss Dark Water
@captainjohnnyreb I'm sorry but this argument makes no sense because the majority of the writers on Doctor Who since 2005 have NOT been experienced science fiction writers. Steven Moffat is known primarily as a sitcom writer, Russell T Davies had written practically no on screen science fiction before his role as showrunner, even Mark Gatiss and Neil Gaiman can hardly be described as experienced in writing 'sci fi' specifically. Of the very successful new entries to Doctor Who writers this series only one has ever written sci fi. What these writers have in common is that they are fans of Doctor Who and are keen to write in that world. I am certain there are plenty of female writers out there who are fans of Doctor Who and keen to write for the show.
3 months ago on Neil Gaiman on Hopes for Capaldi Episode
@PCAriza @tealeaves @kainanite Essentially what I'm saying is that we accept that it is possible for lightsabres to exist because they come from a galaxy far far away in a long distant future. Why should we not accept that in the galaxy this creature is from it is possible for the mass of a creature to change? What reason is there for an alien from a far away galaxy to adhere to our conceptions of mass? To use a different example during The Beast Below no one complained that the Star Whale was able to exist in space when there would be no oxygen to sustain it apparently because they accepted it was an alien creature which could function in a way different to earth creatures.
3 months, 2 weeks ago on Kill The Moon Review
@PCAriza @tealeaves @kainanite Only it doesn't, in any way. Nobody watches Star Wars and complains that there is no explanation of how lightsabres work, they just accept that it is a story set in the future where people have space swords. The idea that the viewers should make some connections or explanations for themselves is perfectly acceptable from a plot point of view. The need to explain everything often leads to far less satisfying writing e.g. The epilogue of Harry Potter.
@kainanite 1. It is well known that paleontology can never tell us
exactly what creatures existed in the past because bones of every creature in
the past have not survived to present day. It doesn't seem that implausible
that a dinosaur the size of Big Ben COULD have existed.
2. Myth and reality
often get blurred through time - for example many people believed Richard III
had been demonised by subsequent rulers depicting him as being hunchbacked and
murderous, studies of his recently discovered bones have shown portraits of him
were actually VERY accurate. Again we don’t exactly have loads of historical
records from this period.
3. The monster under the bed is never explained because in
life often things are not explained, I'm sure everyone has had an experience
where they saw or heard something which scared them and never found out what it
really was. It's more artificial for us to be given all the answers all the
4. I’m not going to lie I have no explanation for this,
although I’m sure there is one.
5. My understanding was that he felt that removing Skovak
Blitzer would be easy to do after dark when the school was empty using his plan
and had no real need initially for Clara’s help. I also honestly think he just
liked messing with Clara by turning up at her place of work and trolling her.
As for Danny deactivating the devices all the device was, was essentially a
trail of breadcrumbs to lure a rat. If you remove the breadcrumbs the rat will
lose the trail. He didn’t have to do anything sciencey.
6. The truth is that no one in the episode ever said that
nuking the Moon was a good plan or that it would work, it was the last resort
of a desperate planet. They had a choice between nuking the moon and the
possibility it would fall from its orbit or at least reduce the damage to Earth
OR letting a potentially vicious space creature ravage the Earth. As for the
science of the moon being an egg or the shell of that egg harming the earth or
the possibility of a newly born space creature laying another egg. IT’S A GIANT
SPACE CREATURE! It’s from another galaxy at least, why should it adhere to our
laws of physics or biology?
It just feels to me less like Doctor Who ‘jumping the shark’
and more like it just….BEING a science FICTION show. Personally having the
Doctor rattle out some explanation for every extraordinary thing which happens
in the show feels stranger and less realistic to me.
I understand you not warming to the Twelfth Doctor but I
really do think that by the end of this series they will really warm him up. I
also wonder, does a character need to be likeable for you to enjoy a show.
Personally House MD, one of my favourite shows, has a character at the centre
who is rude, narcissistic and callous – but I still watch it.
@Typo42 @tealeaves Yes I agree that understanding why something happens or exists can make something even more beautiful. I mean the Doctor's comments in the Rings of Akhaten about the beauty of the science of creation being as great as that of the Akhaten creation story is testament to this. But I also sometimes thing ambiguity and uncertainty can be good things because the truth is that in real life rarely do we ever get all the answers given to us. I also feel that sometimes there is value in the viewer being allowed to fill the gaps with their own ideas.
'When he states blatantly wrong science “facts” because the writer couldn’t be bothered to think rationally, or consult a scientist, well, that makes the Doctor look like an idiot, and it hurts his character because, ironically, it ruins part of the believability of the show.' Did we really NEED 6 whole paragraphs on why the episode was scientifically accurate? Can we not just accept that sometimes character moments, beauty, and art should trump scientific accuracy? Can we not agree that watching the Doctor stand watching in ecstasy up at the sky as a giant beast above hatches from the moon and flies away is more beautiful than watching the Doctor stand on the beach explaining to his companions that sound doesn't travel through the vacuum of space?
If it is shown in the programme that the roar of a space insect can be heard from space then it can be within the reality of that television programme, the Doctor is therefore not an idiot for suggesting this because it IS possible.
@Ottoman14 As I was watching Into The Dalek and Ross' death I imagined the really defining scene for 11 when the Angel Bob spoke to the Doctor and said that the Doctor had been responsible for Bob dying alone, scared and in pain and it made me fascinated to see how 12 would react in the same situation.
4 months, 1 week ago on DWM: Things will never be the same again after Kill the Moon
I honestly don't understand the criticism 'Clara on the other hand has a moment that is incredibly stupid and totally out of character' or that it is 'jarring' even the cleverest people forget people's names or say the wrong thing sometimes. Clara calling Danny, Rupert isn't 'jarring' it's human.
4 months, 1 week ago on 12 Great Moments From Listen
@Gustaff @Rani Nose Actually the Doctor's mistakes and fallibility have been explored by Moffat long before Clara's appearance. See: The Beast Below, The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone, The Hungry Earth, The Pandorica Opens etc.
4 months, 2 weeks ago on 2nd Opinion: Robot of Sherwood
' therefore I begin to question the point in having the ‘fun’ episode so early in the series.' I think the argument that somehow there is a 'right place' in a series for a 'fun' episode which Robot of Sherwood did not fit is a tad odd seeing as 'fun' episodes have regularly come at the beginning of series since Doctor Who's return e.g. Aliens of London (Episode 4), Shakespeare Code (Episode 2), Partner's in Crime (Episode 1), Dinosaurs on a Spaceship (Episode 2) if we stretch the definition of 'fun' to more general romp style adventure episodes then Beast Below was also at the beginning of Series 5 (Episode 2).
As to what was is the point of having these episodes at the beginning of the series? Well you answered your own question, to examine a facet of the Doctor's personality which a darker episode cannot.
I must admit I find it frustrating that people write off certain forms of writing as being 'aimed at children' because they take on a lighter, more comedic, romp-style tone. For one it perpetuates this idea that somehow there is something deeper and more complicated in programmes targeted at adults which is simply not true. Secondly there's something oddly patronising in phrases such as 'childish humour'. Making a funny episode is every bit as difficult as making a dark episode, or an action packed episode - What Gatiss did here was actually very clever the episode was packed with references, in jokes, out jokes, and some nice dark moments. I am not saying the episode was perfect, far from it, but the idea of saying "I didn't really like this episode because it was aimed at eight year olds" just doesn't really feel right to me. Doctor Who is supposed to be a show which can transverse genres and appeal across generations and that was what I felt Robot of Sherwood did rather than shamelessly targeting the shows youngest demographic because lets face in our childhood we've ALL been that eight year old pretending to be Robin Hood or a knight or a king or queen haven't we?
Also didn't the Doctor say in the episode that the radiation leaking from the ship was improving not only the greeness and weather of the area but creating an atmosphere of benevolence. My understanding was that Robin Hood was a product of this radiation leak creating a man so benevolent he would risk his own life to feed the impoverished. As such the robots unintentionally created the very man who would destroy them. Is that not right?
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Robot of Sherwood Review
@JacobHaggerty In fairness flesh Amy, the War Doctor, the 8th Doctor minisode. Is it really such a disingenuous claim for Moffat of all people to keep making?
4 months, 3 weeks ago on Horowitz on Showrunner Rumours
I mean this in no way maliciously and I know he is a valued member of this community....but I am not really a fan of Clint Halsall's reviews. It's a running theme that I noticed in his review of Time of the Doctor that he tends to focus a large amount of his reviews on supposed 'plot holes' or how he believes the writers could (or should) have written the story differently. But neglects to really talk about anything beyond plotting e.g. The fantastic visuals of the episode which nailed the 'blockbuster' feel Moffat has been trying to achieve for two series, Murray Gold being truly back on form with a new score and twelfth doctor's theme, Ben Wheatley's directing, the tone of the episode, the underuse of key actors. I understand that there is only so much you can fit in a review and you can't cover everything but when you are devoting whole paragraphs to how implausible it is that a teacher who sheds a tear in a lesson would get through a job interview (incidentally I work as a teacher and staff crying during the day whether through stress, anxiety or home life problems is NOT that uncommon or a sign of inability to do their job) I do wonder why other aspects of the show are missed out.
4 months, 3 weeks ago on Into the Dalek Review
@JamieJones723 You might be right, if you watch the Daleks' first appearance on the show what is scary is that all you can see is a terrified woman and a Dalek 'sucker' and something about that lack of visibility is very scary. I do wonder if another problem is that we know too much about the Daleks. Something Steven Moffat has emphasised when making his own creatures is that he only gives small amounts of information on them because something is scarier when you don't know where it came from or what it's capable of e.g. we know nothing about the origins of the Weeping Angels, until TotD we knew very little about The Silence (the creatures - not the religious order)
4 months, 4 weeks ago on Into the Dalek Spoiler-Free Review
@JamesStroud Captain Jack lives in the 51st century and the modern period where homosexuality is generally accepted (or indeed pansexuality in the 51st century). Jenny and Vastra live in Victorian London where their sexuality is looked upon as wrong so it has become a larger part of the way they define themselves e.g. Fighting against Dr Simeon and his Victorian values.
But I would also say chalk up the number of times in episodes they actually honestly mention their marriage. In A Good Man Goes to War they mention it once in way of introducing themselves. In The Snowmen they mention it once when fighting a close minded psychopath who clearly disapproves of their sexual identity. Crimson Horror it is not mentioned once. Name of the Doctor their marriage is not mentioned once bar the expression of love for one another (understandable when a Whisperman has just stopped your loved ones heart!). Deep Breath their marriage is mentioned in the context of the society they live in and we hear how it affects their lives + there are a few flirty jokes. It's really mentioned far less than people seem to think.
5 months ago on Addressing the Deep Breath Kiss
@AztecsDaleksAndCavemen @TheOncomingHurricane Their marriage was mentioned once in A
Good Man Goes to War in establishing the characters, then briefly (as far as I
can tell) in The Snowmen as a symbolic opposition to Dr Simeon a man who openly
celebrated 'Victorian values' ie. the appearance of propriety, privilege and
purity which often was a façade hiding darkness and corruption. By emphasising
their status as lesbians in a Victorian world they were not only showing their
bravery and power in openly admitting something which could have caused them to
be arrested or imprisoned. They were also showing that they stood for the
opposite of Simeon’s values, for modern values of acceptance, openness and
In The Crimson Horror their marriage is
not referenced at all bar a passing remark from Vastra on Jenny’s
attractiveness. In the Name of the Doctor their marriage is not mentioned but Vastra
shows her fiery passion for Jenny by demanding that Strax bring her back to
life “Get her back for me. Get her back for me now or I will cut you into
pieces” which I would argue is very similar to Amy’s line to the Doctor
when Rory dies in Amy’s Choice “Save him. You save everyone. You always do.
It's what you do…Well what is the point of you!”
The next time they appear is Deep Breath where they discuss
their sexuality in the context of the Victorian society they live in where it
is not accepted which is used as a counter for Clara’s potential prejudices
about the Doctor. Bar this the only reference to their being married were a
flirty jokes around the house which, if you were staying at most heterosexual
or homosexual couples houses I’m sure it would be quite normal to encounter.
I really don’t think their marriage has been mentioned ‘over
and over’ again or is not necessarily ‘normalised’ except that they live in
Victorian London where homosexuality was not considered normal and Vastra is a
@microbat98 I've heard this
complaint several times but from a character perspective their tendency to
emphasise their marriage makes sense. Jack Harkness was born into the 51st
Century where humans go out into the universe and...well 'dance' with every
alien species they meet. Jenny and Vastra live in a time when homosexuality is
a criminal offence in such an environment you would regard your sexuality in a
different way and perhaps cling more tightly to it.
I am also interested you
say 'Vastra and Jenny rely too heavily on innuendos' but beyond the Moffat-style
verbal table tennis Jenny and Vastra have expressed their feelings more
romantically than Jack was ever able to (on Doctor Who) before Jenny was resuscitated
in The Name of the Doctor you could feel Vastra's pain for her lost wife and
when Jenny said, in Deep Breath, ‘I don’t like her mam, I love her’ there was a
real moment of tenderness. Whereas I find on Doctor Who Jack tends to only get
'I met a guy in a bar' style innuendo.
I understand of course
that whether or not their relationship feels forced is really dependent on
personal opinion. But it is factually wrong to say their relationship is ‘bestiality’.
Bestiality is defined as humans having intercourse with animals (Animals in the
sense of creatures of subhuman intelligence). Vastra has been shown several
times to be of human intelligence or greater. As another commenter cleverly put
it if Vastra and Jenny is bestiality so is the Doctor and anyone not Timelord.