Everything changes? I doubt it.
May. 21st, 2008 04:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakOkay, regarding the Stephen Moffat news: what amuses me among is that both the majority of squeeful enthusiasts and the minority of mournful detractors responding to the annoucement seems to expect/hope/fear Mr. Moffat will start his tenure as Doctor Who headwriter/producer by making basic changes. Seriously, I doubt that. Some changes, certainly. For example, based on his own DW episodes so far, I think we might get mostly standalones and not arcs. Also, since he's an excellent plotter, there probably won't be a deus-ex-machina solution for the season finales. (Assuming he'll write said finales, which is common but not always the case with headwriters.) But, say, a turnaround from one to three alien planets per season max to mostly alien planets and just one or two earthbound stories? I don't think so. The only New Who Moffat episode that didn't take place on Earth so far was Girl in the Fireplace, and there you could say he cheated, because of course all the events surrounding Reinette did take place on Earth. The Empty Child/ The Doctor Dances and Blink all took place on Earth. Now given that Moffat basically was given carte blanche by RTD for all his episodes and thus could have placed them in outer space if he had wanted to, I'm assuming this says something about his own preferences.
(Sidenote: incidentally, while Old Who in its decades of tv history had eras where it was a different alien planet every week - the Tom Baker years come to mind - it also had eras which were far more earthbound than current Who. To wit, the Jon Pertwee years. So the argument that one is more typical than the other for DW in general never held much sway for me.)
Then we've got the Doctor/Companion relationship question. I've seen a lot of "yay! No more love stories between regulars!" and some "oh noes! our romance retconned out of existence!" Now based on his own episodes, I don't think Moffat ships the Doctor with any current companion, but this is the man who, in his pre-Rusty, pre-New Who sketch for Children in Need, The Curse of Fatal Death, had the Doctor being engaged to his companion. (But in the end leaving her for the Master. For reals. But hey, the Master is played by Jonathan Pryce and he finally proposes!) So I wouldn't be too sure that once he creates his very own companion, he won't end up at least playing with subtext.Especially if he wasn't kidding about his views on women. I mean, I personally hope for more of the type of relationship the Doctor currently enjoys with Donna, as I find it very appealing and think that Rose and Martha have both demonstrated that explicit romantic feelings between Doctor and companions on this particular show are dead-end roads and severely limit the companion; if it's presented as mutual and a love story, the companion in question is doomed to either leave or die because marriage or the sci fi equivalent thereof simply isn't in the cards, and if it's presented as one sided, then you split the audience into partisans, some of whom see the Doctor as a calleous bastard and some of whom see the companion as a clinging stalker. So yes, I'm all for no more romantic subtext between the Doctor and whichever companion Moffat will come up with; I'm just not sure that it's self-evident we'll get this just because he's not RTD. Unless ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
londonkds is right and Moffat lobbied for Jenny's survival in The Doctor's Daughter because he wants to use her as a companion in season 5, in which case he can play out a strong emotional relationship between Doctor and companion without romance being even a question. On the show, that is. I know fandom, and incest is the new black.
(In regards to past companions, I am fairly certain Moffat will manage to democratically annoy the more fervent shippers of all camps. There won't be any more Rose references. There won't be any more Martha references, either, unless she actually is in an episode, and if you think Stephen Moffat will make the Doctor suddenly declare his undying love for Martha and utter repentance for not having done so back in season 3, you're dreaming. And if a comment I saw at a DW community is true, he already potentially pissed off Two/Jamie 'shippers by declaring Fraser Hines can't act, or something like that, so one of Old Who's treasured romances is slighted as well. *veg* Apropos past companions, since RTD always said he wouldn't touch Jack's two missing years because he regards them as Stephen Moffats territory and only Moffat has the right to write about them, I'd appreciate him actually doing that, whether on Torchwood or on Doctor Who.)
Companion gender: yes, Moffat invented Jack Harkness. No, I don't think that means he'll give the Doctor a male companion. He might give him a female and a male companion, but we haven't had that since Five's day (where the combination was two female, one male companion at the same time until the last two episodes), and the current BBC clearly regards the Doctor/One Companion formula as the winning one. My money is on only one companion, female, for at least the first of Moffat's seasons. (Speaking of the Five era as the last example of reglar male companions for entire seasons, in the Moffat-written Time Crash, Ten asks after the two girls, Nyssa and Tegan. The two boys, Adric and Turlough, are strangely unmentioned.)
Let me see, what else is regarded as RTD-typical that I don't think Moffat will change? Well, there is the Time War and the whole last-of-the-Time Lords angst, but you know, my bet on that is that either Rusty himself will resurrect Gallifrey and the Time Lords at the end of his tenure (either at the end of this season or in the last of the three specials he'll write for next year), or they will remain gone during Moffat's regime as well. Why? Because if you do mostly standalones instead of arcs, you're not inclined to change the status quo, whether said status quo is last-of-the-timelords or the old rebel-among-many-timelords, on such a fundamental basis. So if there is a fundamental change, it will be one RTD makes before he leaves.
As for a regeneration: that probably depends on David Tennant. Who is thoroughly enjoying his current job and if the Confidential he did with Moffat for Blink, where they both geek out about their favourite Old Who monsters and most beloved scary scenes, is any indication, gets on famously with his fellow Scot, but sooner or later will want to move on. Personally, I hope he'll beat Tom Baker's record, as I love the Tenth Doctor, but ototh most of the other actors who played the Doctor went by Patrick Throughton's advice that three seasons is the ideal time span. Who knows? If I have to guess: he'll probably stay for at least the first of Moffat's seasons because a transition of headwriters rarely comes with a switch of leading men as well, especially if Moffat also brings in a new companion.
Lastly: so far, I've loved every single of Moffats New Who episodes, but he wouldn't have been my first choice for next show runner. Not because of interviews past (I think the only tv writer who hasn't managed to annoy me sooner or later in interviews is Joss Whedon; which isn't to say I'm not annoyed by other Whedonian things, nobody is perfect, but the man does have a talent for being unfailingly witty and engaging in conversation and hasn't gotten into silly flame wars with fans (Aaron Sorkin), into diatribes about historians (JMS) or into you-just-don't-get-it-people lectures (RTD). Mostly for the same reason why I'm rooting for Paul Cornell's Human Nature/Family of Blood over Stephen Moffat's Blink for Hugo this year, I'd have preferred Cornell as the next headwriter. He does in-depth character pieces, Moffat does brilliant scary standalones. The former attract me more than the later, but then, I favour Dickens over Thackeray, and Cornell & Moffat always struck me as the Dickens & Thackeray of New Who, respectively. But if we're to have Thackaray, then Thackaray it is.
One more prediction: because I've seen this happening in every fandom with every showrunner, I prophecy the following type of reactions in 2010:
"Yay! Hail Moffat! Finally!"
"This is soooo much better than any episode during RTD's time." *followed by long rant about Rusty instead of a review about the current episode*
"How dare he? The Doctor never used to do X or say Y. THIS IS NOT MY DOCTOR."
"Z is my favourite companion ever." "Z sucks. I hate Z! Z is such a Mary Sue!"
"Um, this episode is so not Blink/The Doctor Dances/ Girl in the Fireplace. Moffat has jumped the shark!"
"Wow, that was awesome. How dare anyone question his brilliance now?"
"OMG, I wish Moffat would just SHUT UP. I hate his interviews, his podcasts, and probably the shop who sells that ugly sweater he wears in the Confidentials."
"....that was so heterosexist." "Continuing gay agenda much?"
"...did you see that just happened in the last episode! This is so proof that Romana/Rose/Martha/Jack/The Master/The Rani/*insert other character of choice* will come back!!!!!"
"I'll never watch this show again! No, really! I hate every single bit about it, I post nothing but rants every week, and I will never watch it again. Except when a new rant is due, next week."
"...there was New Who before Moffat?"
"Rusty, all is forgiven. Come back now!"
(Sidenote: incidentally, while Old Who in its decades of tv history had eras where it was a different alien planet every week - the Tom Baker years come to mind - it also had eras which were far more earthbound than current Who. To wit, the Jon Pertwee years. So the argument that one is more typical than the other for DW in general never held much sway for me.)
Then we've got the Doctor/Companion relationship question. I've seen a lot of "yay! No more love stories between regulars!" and some "oh noes! our romance retconned out of existence!" Now based on his own episodes, I don't think Moffat ships the Doctor with any current companion, but this is the man who, in his pre-Rusty, pre-New Who sketch for Children in Need, The Curse of Fatal Death, had the Doctor being engaged to his companion. (But in the end leaving her for the Master. For reals. But hey, the Master is played by Jonathan Pryce and he finally proposes!) So I wouldn't be too sure that once he creates his very own companion, he won't end up at least playing with subtext.
londonkds is right and Moffat lobbied for Jenny's survival in The Doctor's Daughter because he wants to use her as a companion in season 5, in which case he can play out a strong emotional relationship between Doctor and companion without romance being even a question. On the show, that is. I know fandom, and incest is the new black. (In regards to past companions, I am fairly certain Moffat will manage to democratically annoy the more fervent shippers of all camps. There won't be any more Rose references. There won't be any more Martha references, either, unless she actually is in an episode, and if you think Stephen Moffat will make the Doctor suddenly declare his undying love for Martha and utter repentance for not having done so back in season 3, you're dreaming. And if a comment I saw at a DW community is true, he already potentially pissed off Two/Jamie 'shippers by declaring Fraser Hines can't act, or something like that, so one of Old Who's treasured romances is slighted as well. *veg* Apropos past companions, since RTD always said he wouldn't touch Jack's two missing years because he regards them as Stephen Moffats territory and only Moffat has the right to write about them, I'd appreciate him actually doing that, whether on Torchwood or on Doctor Who.)
Companion gender: yes, Moffat invented Jack Harkness. No, I don't think that means he'll give the Doctor a male companion. He might give him a female and a male companion, but we haven't had that since Five's day (where the combination was two female, one male companion at the same time until the last two episodes), and the current BBC clearly regards the Doctor/One Companion formula as the winning one. My money is on only one companion, female, for at least the first of Moffat's seasons. (Speaking of the Five era as the last example of reglar male companions for entire seasons, in the Moffat-written Time Crash, Ten asks after the two girls, Nyssa and Tegan. The two boys, Adric and Turlough, are strangely unmentioned.)
Let me see, what else is regarded as RTD-typical that I don't think Moffat will change? Well, there is the Time War and the whole last-of-the-Time Lords angst, but you know, my bet on that is that either Rusty himself will resurrect Gallifrey and the Time Lords at the end of his tenure (either at the end of this season or in the last of the three specials he'll write for next year), or they will remain gone during Moffat's regime as well. Why? Because if you do mostly standalones instead of arcs, you're not inclined to change the status quo, whether said status quo is last-of-the-timelords or the old rebel-among-many-timelords, on such a fundamental basis. So if there is a fundamental change, it will be one RTD makes before he leaves.
As for a regeneration: that probably depends on David Tennant. Who is thoroughly enjoying his current job and if the Confidential he did with Moffat for Blink, where they both geek out about their favourite Old Who monsters and most beloved scary scenes, is any indication, gets on famously with his fellow Scot, but sooner or later will want to move on. Personally, I hope he'll beat Tom Baker's record, as I love the Tenth Doctor, but ototh most of the other actors who played the Doctor went by Patrick Throughton's advice that three seasons is the ideal time span. Who knows? If I have to guess: he'll probably stay for at least the first of Moffat's seasons because a transition of headwriters rarely comes with a switch of leading men as well, especially if Moffat also brings in a new companion.
Lastly: so far, I've loved every single of Moffats New Who episodes, but he wouldn't have been my first choice for next show runner. Not because of interviews past (I think the only tv writer who hasn't managed to annoy me sooner or later in interviews is Joss Whedon; which isn't to say I'm not annoyed by other Whedonian things, nobody is perfect, but the man does have a talent for being unfailingly witty and engaging in conversation and hasn't gotten into silly flame wars with fans (Aaron Sorkin), into diatribes about historians (JMS) or into you-just-don't-get-it-people lectures (RTD). Mostly for the same reason why I'm rooting for Paul Cornell's Human Nature/Family of Blood over Stephen Moffat's Blink for Hugo this year, I'd have preferred Cornell as the next headwriter. He does in-depth character pieces, Moffat does brilliant scary standalones. The former attract me more than the later, but then, I favour Dickens over Thackeray, and Cornell & Moffat always struck me as the Dickens & Thackeray of New Who, respectively. But if we're to have Thackaray, then Thackaray it is.
One more prediction: because I've seen this happening in every fandom with every showrunner, I prophecy the following type of reactions in 2010:
"Yay! Hail Moffat! Finally!"
"This is soooo much better than any episode during RTD's time." *followed by long rant about Rusty instead of a review about the current episode*
"How dare he? The Doctor never used to do X or say Y. THIS IS NOT MY DOCTOR."
"Z is my favourite companion ever." "Z sucks. I hate Z! Z is such a Mary Sue!"
"Um, this episode is so not Blink/The Doctor Dances/ Girl in the Fireplace. Moffat has jumped the shark!"
"Wow, that was awesome. How dare anyone question his brilliance now?"
"OMG, I wish Moffat would just SHUT UP. I hate his interviews, his podcasts, and probably the shop who sells that ugly sweater he wears in the Confidentials."
"....that was so heterosexist." "Continuing gay agenda much?"
"...did you see that just happened in the last episode! This is so proof that Romana/Rose/Martha/Jack/The Master/The Rani/*insert other character of choice* will come back!!!!!"
"I'll never watch this show again! No, really! I hate every single bit about it, I post nothing but rants every week, and I will never watch it again. Except when a new rant is due, next week."
"...there was New Who before Moffat?"
"Rusty, all is forgiven. Come back now!"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 02:43 pm (UTC)I think you're right about reactions.
PS: not quite true on Five and companions. TARDIS teams during Five period:
Castrovalva - Earthshock: Five/Nyssa/Tegan/Adric: 6 stories
Time-Flight - Snakedance: Five/Nyssa/Tegan: 3 stories
Mawdryn Undead - Terminus: Five/Nyssa/Tegan/Turlough: 2 stories
Enlightenment - Resurrection of the Daleks: Five/Tegan/Turlough: 7 stories
Planet Of Fire: Five/Turlough/Peri
Caves of Androzani: Five/Peri
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 03:01 pm (UTC)I'm not sure how saying the dude can't act has anything to do with the ship. I think Hines can, yes, but I think Lalla Ward can be dodgy as anything at times and that doesn't affect my love of Four/Romana. Sophie Aldred is pretty much always atrocious, and I still love her as Ace.
I favour Dickens over Thackeray, and Cornell & Moffat always struck me as the Dickens & Thackeray of New Who, respectively. But if we're to have Thackaray, then Thackaray it is.
He! I like that. Thackeray is my dude, and now I shall not think about how marvellous it would be to have Becky Sharp as a companion.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 03:05 pm (UTC)I'm not expecting every episode to be a masterpiece, either - I confidently predict the Moffat Era will have ups and downs like any era of the show.
What I do look forward to: scary monsters, lots of historicals, more timey-wimey stuff, plenty of humour. (Not that RTD's Who is lacking in that, but Press Gang and Coupling would rate among my funniest shows of all time - can't wait to see what Moffat might do with this side of the series.) I would also lay money on the return of Jenny - he has to have saved her for a reason, surely?
As for the show's underlying ideology, I sincerely doubt that it will change for the better or the worse under Moffat. I think I may have to go ramble in my own lj about his views on and presentation of women. I would say that the Moffat shows I've seen have been pretty lily white - there was one supporting CoC in Press Gang, who didn't get much to do. That would definitely be a concern for me if it was reflected in his Doctor Who tenure.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 03:32 pm (UTC)Ah, I hadn't realized there were three stories between Adric's departure and Turlough's arrival, thanks for pointing that out!
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 03:34 pm (UTC)(I take it you're read Yahtzee's story "The Yankee's Loot", in which Scarlett O'Hara joins Martha and the Doctor on the TARDIS for a spin? As Scarlett is the closest thing to Becky we'll get on the TARDIS...)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 03:36 pm (UTC)Yes, exactly. I went "What?!?" in Ten style on both hopes/fears when reading these...
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 03:47 pm (UTC)Oh - I almost forgot:
But hey, the Master is played by Jonathan Pryce and he finally proposes!
For srs? The Master *proposed*???? Where can I find this sketch?
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 03:54 pm (UTC)...Yep, I think you've got it about all covered.
Although I really try to stick to the no producer/author interviews formula, I don't think I really had a headwriter/exec producer whose work I loved and whose personal views annoyed me ferociously at the same time for quite a while, so this is definitely going to be interesting. However, one good thing...
I don't know if it was you who mentioned this, but so far, I truly haven't noticed his views creeping into his female characters. I loved the lesbian detective couple on Jekyll and Sally, Reinette and Nancy(?) were all great characters on their own right, so I'm hoping he'll keep it up.
Also, not totally OT: have you read Neil Gaiman's newest blog entry on the very topic? I think I saw a certain hint there.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 04:01 pm (UTC)I'm not thinking much anything yet. I love his episodes, but I also think RTD did an okay job. I'll wait for 2010 and see.
I do hope he brings back Jenny, though. Because she is excellent and I love her.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 04:16 pm (UTC)First part is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkZhAtjT8U), second one here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDmQaZm_a3U).
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 04:24 pm (UTC)Same here; as EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR WHO ERA, the RTD period has flaws deserving criticism, but by and large I really love it. This being said, four years (plus specials) are a good time for any producer; I think with most shows that are longer than five seasons and don't change their headwriters/chief production team, you notice an amount of exhaustion in the later seasons. So this is a good point with a switchover.
Well, Ace is calm about exlosions. Or rather, positively giddy. They give her joy.*g*
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 04:27 pm (UTC)Me neither. I liked his female characters and the way he wrote the female regular, Rose, (since Martha is hardly in Blink) during both Empty Child/The Doctor Dances and Girl in the Fireplace was good, too. So here is hoping.
Neil Gaiman: I think so, too. *awaits further BBC announcements*
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 04:28 pm (UTC)And that right there is my problem with him. Like you, I don't think he's going to make any big changes, but without the story arcs I'm not going to love the show like I do now.
I love your list of fandom reactions! I think you covered everything.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 05:53 pm (UTC)The one thing that makes me sad is a quote by Moffat in which he says that DW is a format that needs no character development. On the surface he's not wrong. Given that DW is sort of long-term television, you can't do radical character development for the Doctor the way you could for a main character of a show that is expected to last for maybe seven seasons. But all Doctors did have some character development, and without it, the show wouldn't be the same.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 06:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 07:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 08:50 pm (UTC)I'm just glad that the new runner is just as big a nerd as RTD. Doctor who needs someone who's really passionate about Doctor Who running the ship, not someone who's running like it's just another show.
B-b-b-b-but!...
Date: 2008-05-21 09:40 pm (UTC)OTPrivalry whereof you speak? I can haz Trollope?no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 09:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 10:04 pm (UTC)By the way, given that the Moff posts on fandom boards, I'm willing to lay my money on an Aaron Sorkin message board style wank rather than any of the others. That + sexism = Sorkin redux time.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-21 11:33 pm (UTC)A few things:
* RTD didn't give Moffat a Carte Blanche as to the setting of his episodes. For example, for 'The Girl in the Fireplace' RTD said: Madame de Pompadour and The Clockwork Man. And, with that, Moffat was given free reign. I assume the something similar with "The Empty/Child/The Doctor Dances (RTD: The London Blitz) and Blink (RTD: Doctor-lite). So it can't be taken as proof that the Earth/Historical is Moffat's preferred setting. I think the number of alien planets we get will depend, just as before, on the show's budget.
*Aww, I'd love to see Jenny again. And Martha, come to that. Moffat hasn't had the chance to write much for her, really. As for his depiction of women, he did a good job with Sally Sparrow, and although I liked Reinette, she does fall into that 'women are needy' trap (so waited for five years for the clockwork droids to come and did nothing to fight back, save call the Doctor to save her?). Rose was very well depicted in that episode, but his depiction of Rose in the Blitz episodes was terrible, going all gooey over Captain Jack. Let's see what he does with Donna.
*I admire, above else, his ability to surprise. He knows how to keep you hooked, and has a great imagination. His dialogue can be good and very funny also often veers into clunky and unnatural, I think. RTD has given us some moving and realistic moments of character interaction which I hope Moffat will be able to keep up. I think he writes the Doctor well, though.
On the whole, I'm optimistic and all the fresh ideas that will come with the new proudction team in S5 will do the show good. And if we're lucky, we might get Neil Gaiman and David Tennant too.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-22 07:01 am (UTC)Also, re your list of probable comments, then I still remember the reactions after Capt Jack first showed up in 'The Empty Child' - my flist was all 'Who is this smarmy jerk with his hands all over The Doctor's Rose, and what is she doing flirting with him OMG! He needs to GO AWAY!'
It amused me then, and it's only become funnier with time! :)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-22 11:20 am (UTC)(But if Romana comes back under his...reign? I will be perfectly willing to forgive any and all future mistakes. Romana = WIN. ^.^)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-22 03:53 pm (UTC)I agree that DT will most likely stay on through the beginning of Moffat's tenure--especially if there's going to be a new companion, it would seem like too much to transition all of that at once. But I love Donna and would very much like her to stay. Forever.
In any case. I'm not entirely sure that we can expect fewer arcs. Moffat is brilliant at plotting, as you and others point out--so far we've only seen him with limited command over what he can plot out (one or two episodes)--so who's to say he won't put those skills to good use for some sort of a series-long arc? It's all up in the air, and we won't know till we know, but it could go either way.
I agree that Paul Cornell would have been the better choice, for the reasons you say. I watch this show more for the characters than anything else, and Cornell clearly has emotional depth higher on his priority list than Moffat. Still, I'm going to reserve judgement. Moffat is light on character development, as you say, but he hasn't neglected the emotional impact of his plots, either, at least not completely. I'll take it, anyway--Moffat's a fine writer, and will maintain the quality in the show that I've come to expect (regardless of RTD's failings, he's a fine writer as well).
So I guess we'll see. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 06:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 06:54 am (UTC)Re: that Moffat quote, well, as with the grrrls are needy part of the interview, I hope he has changed his mind in the intervening years, and/or it won't affect his work. He has been running shows before, and presumably there was some character development on Coupling? (Haven't seen it myself, so I couldn't say.)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 06:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 06:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 07:02 am (UTC)Absolutely, and Stephen Moffat is, like RTD, or Cornell, or Helen Raynor for that matter, smeone who didn't just grow up with DW but always was a passionate fan himself. Mind you, looking at the show's long history, I think it's impossible to like every producer/headwriter in the same way. But someone who passionately cares is bound to keep things interesting, and that's the first condition...
Re: B-b-b-b-but!...
Date: 2008-05-23 07:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 07:05 am (UTC)Joshthe Doctor gets into a flame war as well and tells his companion wearing Star Trek insignia is not on....no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 07:07 am (UTC)Me too. Damn it, what does it take to bribe Catherine Take to sign on for more than one season? I'm perfectly willing to make sacrifices!
no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 07:18 am (UTC)And anyway, technically didn't we already do this episode and it ended with a girl getting turned into a cement slab/sex object?no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 09:03 am (UTC)*ggg*
Fans are funny. That way, and in many others. & :-P
no subject
Date: 2008-05-26 10:29 am (UTC)(B) It's weird, Moffat writes these strong, fun, female characters and yet seems to have these... woman issues? that squick me. I loved Coupling to death, but at the same time, I felt like I was being told, "This is how women are, this is how men are," and I was very much like, "I must not be a woman by this definition, then. ...painful waxing after a breakup, Moff, *really*? Are you effin' kidding me?" There was even this little moment in "Blink" like that, I forget what it was exactly, one of the characters wanting to seem younger or thinner or something, with this feeling of, "Because that's what women do!" Hopefully I don't sound too insane when I say this.
Also, I like the arcs and actually wish they were a little more... arc-y, so... we'll see. But he is a fantastic writer. I guess we'll just see. The switching of creative teams weirds me out -- I'm not sure how you classic Who fans deal with it. I can barely deal with it in comics (it's why I prefer indies to superhero stuff). /rambling
no subject
Date: 2008-05-26 01:30 pm (UTC)Practice.*g* Seriously, of course with a 40 years plus canon there are eras I'm more fond of than others. But there isn't a sincle writer/production team which I regard as "the" definite one. If DW weren't open to a turnover every now and then, it would have finished in the mid-60s when the original producer, Verity Lambert (remember the mention of John Smith's mother Verity? That was a lovely homage RTD and Paul Cornell came up with in Human Nature) left. Doctors come and go, companions come and go, and so do headwriters. I regard it as a benefit. I mean, my personal period is probably the Third Doctor one (headed over by Barry Letts). And yet if I have to choose my favourite classic Who Doctor/Companion combo, which is really hard to, would be Seventh Doctor/Ace. Who are a product of Andrew Cartmel (headwriter) and John Nathan Turner (producer, and btw, if you think RTD or Moffat are controversial in fandom...), and those two couldn't be more different from their writing sensibilities to the Barry Letts era. Yet in this show, there is room for both.