People complaining that Danny Pink has no character development when he hasn’t been in any episodes yet.
Or, to be fair, they’re actually saying that he’s not going to have any character development.
1. How can you know?
2. You are going to miss any character devlopment he does have because of confirmation bias.
3. I know this is a show about time-travel, but can we please refrain from timey-wimily hating things that don’t exist yet?
I think the argument that Amy, River, and Clara are the same sexist character is, in itself, at least a bit of a sexist argument.
People skip over the fact that Amy Pond is a stubborn willful outsider (keeping her accent and never giving in to her therapists). Even as she builds a real life for herself, she’s still waiting for the man who promised to take her away from it. So she runs away the night before her wedding because as much as she loves her fiance, the only thing scaring Amy Pond is facing reality when she’s not sure she’s ready. But the more she sees of the universe, the more secure she becomes in her choices and as she ages, she realizes she’s still running off with the doctor to avoid living a real life. Finally, after over 20 years and nearly being destroyed by it, she stops waiting for The Doctor and she stops running from reality. But.. all that is overshadowed because shes likes sex, worked as a kissogram, wears short skirts, and likes hot roman soldiers.
People skip over the fact that Clara Oswald only travels with the Doctor on Wednesdays because her loyalty to her current life and responsibilities comes before her own selfish interests. Her mother died and she won’t walk out on her responsibilities to two children who lost their own mother. Still, her mother left her with a book of places to see and she won’t give up on that either. So, she doesn’t compromise. She lives both lives. But… all that is overshadowed because she called the Tardis a snog box and wears short dresses. Even though her sexuality is almost entirely unexplored in her first series with the show, people still define her by it.
People skip over the fact that River Song went from believing she held no purpose in life but murder to become a woman who is both happily married and happily following her own way in life (choosing twice on screen not to travel full time). But despite all the progress, she’s still a self admittedly damaged woman who tries to hide just about everything because she has to and because she doesn’t want to hurt her family or herself… except she wears her heart on her sleeve. She never really successfully buries her feelings of love or the damage it does to her even when she tries. But… all that is overshadowed by the fact that she carries a gun, flirts whenever she cares to, and likes sex with her husband.
It seems that if you make a woman sexual, that’s all some people see, but that’s far from the reality of the characters. Can’t a woman be secure in her sexuality and even display it proudly without it being the only thing people take her for?
The idea that Clara and Amy are the same character is as accurate as saying Donna and Rose are the same character. It isn’t… unless you boil them down to single traits and pick one that matches.
I wouldn’t even define their sexuality in the same terms. Amy is overtly sexual, River is a true flirt, and Clara is your normal intelligent girl with enough wit to make a few flirtatious remarks when the situation calls for it.
I’m not arguing that these are all perfectly written characters at every step, but you can only argue that they are the same basic character by willfully ignoring the facts about them and just focusing on their sexuality and some one liners they’ve made.
If you don’t, it’s this one ,you know, the one that’s rallying for a successful and award winning writer to lose his job over a couple of problematic things he’s said in interviews. It makes me feel…well…a little angry I suppose. Moffat’s a man who inspired me, who catered for me and who saved me with his writing, and the way people treat him is grossly undeserving.
I wanna say first of all that Moffat never does great interviews. He has shit self esteem (partly from being disgustingly bullied as a child, partly from being disgustingly bullied as an adult via the internet) and he often words things awkwardly. He has said a few problematic things (his comment about the female Sherlock fandom, while obviously down to ignorance rather than misogyny, really should have been left in his head) but this article is so full of gross misinterpretartions, out of context quotations and in some cases, a lack of understanding of Moffat and his shows that its frustrating…this is gonna be a long one…
lol that article on the Daily Dot.
Interesting news guys. Steven Moffat is now responsible for everything that happens on Doctor Who including things written by Russell T Davies. He is also responsible for quotes that have been repeatedly shown to be made up by sensationalist tabloid journalists.
There are a few legitimately problematic things in that little diatribe—not particularly worse than if you were to note down all the most poorly-worded comments that anybody made over a period of years—but any legitimate point is thoroughly undermined by the fact that the author shows they are willing to grab on to any piece of evidence they can get hold of that Steven Moffat is the devil, even if it’s nonsense.
Apparently people can now get paid actual money to reword the contents of stfum for some internet tabloid.
Anonymous asked: What's your opinion on stfu-moffathaters?
I think it’s a slightly different beast, but. When they aim to defend Moffat’s characters or scenes, they suffer from many of the same problems. However, I feel like that’s not really their point a lot of the time.
Like, when they’re defending “Is X a strong woman or a weak woman,” “X is a bad scene or a good scene,” etc. their arguments tend to be rather pointless. Equally pointless, mind you, to the people saying that X is the opposite. I mean, I appreciate there’s someone creating an echo chamber for the minority - but that’s about it. It’s too personalised to really have an impact. People who agree will agree, people who disagree will disagree. It might be useful for them to pick up a book on writing and brush up on some mechanical theory so they could argue more objectively and hopefully actually convert some people.
But that’s besides the point because a lot of their posts are basically just saying “Moffat isn’t the devil. Stop treating him like that. Stop ignoring Russell T Davies’s problems and treating him like a god. It isn’t a crime to hate Moffat.” We’re in a situation where a large chunk of the fandom attacks and demonises the fans of the current head writer. That’s problematic. As piss-poor a writer as Russell T Davies is (okay, mostly wildly inconsistent. The Waters of Mars was sporadic at times, but generally really quite well written), I don’t think his fans are stupid or evil or bad. Maybe they just like his characters a lot and are willing to overlook some rather major mechanical writing flaws because of it. I don’t think it’s a crime to like Russell T Davies. I think what he did to the show was dishonest, monstrous, and damaging (and the source of much of the current in-fighting), but I don’t think you shouldn’t be allowed to like him. People seem to have the opposite opinion about Moffat - like it’s some crime to enjoy his version of Doctor Who. Like it isn’t right. Like he’s evil. I appreciate the fact that this blog is a loud voice that addresses this and complicates the dominant narrative within the fandom.
That’s about it, really.
I’ve been debating on posting a response to this but here goes.
Please be aware that the vast majority of the stuff posted on STFU Moffat Haters (and STFU Moffat from what I know) are submissions, asks, and reblogs from people all over Tumblr. These posts do not 100% reflect the opinions of me or the other staff members running the blog. In fact less than one percent of the posts here are direct contributions made by us mods.
The aim of STFU-MH is to provide a place for fans to voice their frustration with the fanbase and to provide counter arguments to a lot of the (mostly) unjust criticism of Moffat. Our goal isn’t to convince people to love Moffat or condemn RTD (even if we do get vocal about him.)
I hope this clears things up.
Wow. So that’s why Doctor Who has become what it is now. He didn’t go off and he didn’t do his own thing. He decided that his version of the show was better than the actual version. When he became showrunner, he got the opportunity to make the show into what should’ve stayed fanfiction.
That’s why it’s barely recognisable.
What is any of New Who except fans of the show, people who loved it and grew up with it and wrote stories about it, turning their fanfic into canon? There is no “actual” Doctor Who. Every era has its own tone and focus and emphasis, and everybody likes some versions better than others. If you don’t like it, well, this is one of the few shows in which you can be sure change will come.
(Except that change might be Gatiss. Just sayin’.)
- 1973: The Doctor Who 10th Anniversary story "The Three Doctors" is released, and reveals time travel was invented by some guy named Omega who got himself trapped in a parallel universe made of antimatter. Bob Baker and Dave Martin massively retcon the series' history.
- 1983: The Doctor Who 20th Anniversary story "The Five Doctors" is released, and reveals the Doctor's mentor Borusa has been a bad guy this whole time and that Rassilon, one of the founders of Time Lord society, is actually immortal. Terrance Dicks massively retcons the series' history.
- 1988: The Doctor Who 25th Anniversary story "Remembrance of the Daleks" is released, and reveals that ever since the first serial the Doctor has been hiding in ancient super weapon on earth to use against the Daleks, and may or may not be one of the founders of Time Lord society. Ben Aaronivich massively retcons the series' history.
- 1993: The Doctor Who 30th Anniversary story "Dimensions in Time" is released, and reveals the Doctor Who universe and the EastEnders universe are one and the same. John Nathan-Turner massively retcons the series' history.
- 2003: The Doctor Who 40th Anniversary audio "Zagreus" is released and reveals all the novels actually happened in an alternate universe. Gary Russel and Alan Barnes massively retcon the series' history.
- 2013: The Doctor Who 50th Anniversary story "Day of the Doctor" is released and reveals that Gallifrey was not destroyed by the Doctor but in fact tucked away into an alternate dimension. Steven Moffat somehow becomes the first writer in Doctor Who history to massively retcon the series' history on an anniversary.
Anonymous asked: The thing about Crimson Horror is that the major male characters are the Doctor and Strax. The major female characters are Jenny, Vastra, Clara, Ada and Mrs Gillyflower. The plot is dominated by women more than any other episode of Doctor Who, the emotional arc of a blind woman is central to the episode, many forms of female strength and relationships are showcased, and lesbians. It's a tremendously feminist episode in so many ways, and people ignore that.
I did think the forced kiss was immoral, but the bad things don’t necessarily spoil the good things or make them unimportant.