You are not connected. Please login or register

Who's looking forward to the Christmas Special then? :D

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 5 of 10]

Lot of good points there.

View user profile
@burrunjor wrote:There can never be any story justification for a female Doctor in my opinion. It won't flow naturally like the other changes, will always stick out like a sore thumb, and always feel like a gimmick.

Well, it's happening, and I think there are better ways of presenting ideas than relying upon the received social justice wisdom that's so malignantly pervasive in so many public institutions. Even if you consider it to be an unforgivably poor idea, the laziness of Moffat's storycrafting could/should be illuminated as a compounding factor in demonstrating the trite nature of his entire project.

@burrunjor wrote:There are only 3 ways to have a character change gender and it make sense.

1/ Change the gender in a remake.

2/ Write the character as being like a real transexual, IE wants to change gender.

3/ Write the character as being generally gender neutral.

I'd warrant there's a lot more than 3 ways of doing this. I can think of at least 3 more ways. I think you should avoid making such limited, absolute statements as it undermines your argument somewhat.


@burrunjor wrote: trying to crowbar a woman in after 13 men is always going to seem out of place and silly PS the exact same applies for any Time Lady character like Susan, and Romana. Trying to crowbar in Brian Blessed or Vinnie Jones after Lalla Ward, Mary Tamm and Juliet Landau would utterly destroy Romana as a character.

I'll be kind and assume your latter examples contain a soupçon of comic exaggeration in order to hammer home your analogy. The Doctor (in spite of his new-found Lothario status) has been atypical in terms of the type of masculinity he's portrayed to the audience over the years. Indeed, he's been the antithesis of 'toxic masculinity' i.e. non-reactionary, very little interest in sex, peaceable and using force (only) as a last resort, so the jump to a mildly androgynous female incarnation doesn't strike me as extreme a leap as , say, Lalla Ward to Jason Statham or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I your lineage argument is reasonably strong given the Doctor endured an entire cycle without changing gender. But who's to say that the Time Lords weren't being a little mischievous with the second set bestowed upon him during the denouement of The Time of the Doctor.

I don't really know anything about Smallville, so I can't really speak to that. But it's an interesting logical assertion that you're happy for another Timelord to change gender with a justifiable narrative explanation, yet an absolutist when it comes to the Doctor. Indeed it's possible to extrapolate your logic to any Time Lord in the show given the right narrative justification. After all, there aren't 'just' 3 ways for a Time Lord to change gender, as your argument for the Master's gender change amply demonstrates in spite of yourself.

I honestly think you need to rethink your line of reasoning on this one. You're letting your (justifiable) contempt for Moffat get in the way of your thinking.

View user profile
It's just so fucked.
I just don't see any way back for it. It's a laughing stock now.

View user profile
I'd warrant there's a lot more than 3 ways of doing this. I can think of at least 3 more ways. I think you should avoid making such limited, absolute statements as it undermines your argument somewhat.

I don't really think there are any more ways to change a characters gender. You can have a woman occupy the role of a character that used to be a man.

For instance Captain Janeway occupies the same role as men like Picard and Kirk, and similarly there have been female descendants of characters like Robin Hood, who may call themselves Robin Hood, as its become a title by this point.

That however is not the same thing, and neither are female distaff counterparts like say, Supergirl, She Hulk, and Batgirl.

In terms of actually changing a characters gender, the only other way I can conceive is if its a body snatcher thing like Brainiac or the Demons in Supernatural, but again that doesn't work for the Doctor as he obviously is not a body snatcher. Also its hard to have a hero steal someones b body.

You could maybe do a Freaky Friday type body swap between the Doctor and his companion. I wouldn't mind that for one story. Might even be good fun, but I don't see that working long term.

If you had the Doctor body swap with a human female, then it obviously couldn't last as she would be a human. If you body swapped him with a female Time Lord however, the same problems still arise in that now the character is permanently female, in which case you've kind of changed him too much. Added to that now that he has been changed into a woman against his will, then he will never be as comfortable as he was as a man.

Also to be honest body swapping people between genders can lead to gender politics taking over stories which is always shit. And yes I feel that goes both ways. Look at the Blake's 7 episode Power that's utter shit, the worst episode of the series by far. War between the sexes or a writer moaning about how one sex has it harder should be kept out of sci fi IMO at all costs.

I'll be kind and assume your latter examples contain a soupçon of comic exaggeration in order to hammer home your analogy. The Doctor (in spite of his new-found Lothario status) has been atypical in terms of the type of masculinity he's portrayed to the audience over the years. Indeed, he's been the antithesis of 'toxic masculinity' i.e. non-reactionary, very little interest in sex, peaceable and using force (only) as a last resort, so the jump to a mildly androgynous female incarnation doesn't strike me as extreme a leap as , say, Lalla Ward to Jason Statham or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Actually my comments whilst meant to be funny are not that big an exaggeration.

You see the thing that fecks me off about all this is the way people say "the Doctor can be anyone, so why not a woman?" That's the thing though, he can't be anyone!

The Doctors core personality always remains the same. He always enjoys travelling, he always prefers non violent solutions, but will kill if need be, he hates being told what to do, and he is always mysterious too. Even physically there is a template to his character. They all tend to dress in Edwardian/Victorian era clothing, tend to wear hats, and tend to have big, long, or messy hair.

Its just the outer personality that changes. Tom Baker said this in the Docu "Whose Doctor Who" that the role was the most limited he had ever played as there were so many things he couldn't do as then he wouldn't be the Doctor anymore, whilst Terrance Dicks said the most important thing to do was not change his personality too much. JNT even made all 3 of his actors grow their hair out to resemble the first 4.

So many people however refuse to acknowledge that there is any similarity between the Doctors, so I bring up Brian Blessed as Susan, and Vinnie Jones as Romana to show that actually the Doctor, and therefore the Time Lords don't just completely, 100 percent change when they regenerate with no similarity to their predecessor.

If there are absolutely no similarities between incarnations of any Time Lord character, and all change is good (which is the crap the female Doctor advocates push) and Time Lords have no concept of gender at all, then yes. Brian Blessed is as legitimate a choice for Susan as say Morven Christie (who I think would have been an amazing choice for Susan.)

The second you say "oh no Brian Blessed is too silly to be taken seriously as Susan", then you've admitted that I am right that there is a template to Susan's character, as Brian obviously doesn't fit within it. So does this not apply to the Doctor?

So now that we have established that there IS a template to Time Lord characters why is it so outrageous to assume gender is a part of that? Gender is a huge part of everybody's personality. And yes that applies to trans people, hence why they change!

Now okay the Doctor is an alien, but even then his gender has still become a part of his overall template. Really the only way it couldn't be would be if they had deliberately written the Doctor as gender neutral for years, but they never did.

All of his relationships have been written from a male perspective. He's been a grandfather, a father, a husband, a boyfriend, he and Jamie were very much like two brothers, he and the Brig clashed as two alpha males etc. Also all of the actors who played him brought aspects of their male personalities to the role, he always dressed in male clothes etc.

To say that the Doctor wasn't a masculine character just because he wasn't macho or obsessed with sex IMO is short sighted. Sherlock Holmes for instance is very much a masculine character, but he's not interested in sex, and he's not macho.

Meanwhile there are plenty of female characters who ARE macho and obsessed with sex. Look at Xena. Compare her to Sherlock Holmes. She fucks anything that moves, and is the ultimate badass. You couldn't get a more feminine hero than Xena.

The Doctor was also inspired and created in the mould of the eccentric, Victorian, Edwardian, British gentlemanly hero. The somewhat pompous, patriarchal, yet loving grandfatherly figure. He's a mix mash of Sherlock Holmes, Bernard Quatermass, H. G Wells and Jules Verne. Even physically you can see this in the character with his bohemian hair, frock coats, penchant for funny hats and wild dress sense.

A woman therefore sticks out like a sore thumb. No matter what woman you cast. Obviously yes some women are better choices than other women, same way some men would be better choices than other men for Susan. A young, skinny, nerdy guy for instance would obviously be better for Susan than Brian Blessed.

However that's the point, said man isn't going to be as good as Morven Christie or another Susan type woman, because gender is a part of Susan's character too. So why not just go for Morven Christie, or another woman who will flow better? Same applies to the Doctor.

Changing the Doctors sex, especially after 50 plus years, completely shatters the illusion that the Doctors are all the same man. I look at the image of all the Doctors with a woman tacked on and I think "why is that woman standing there after all those guys" It looks out of place.

But it's an interesting logical assertion that you're happy for another Timelord to change gender with a justifiable narrative explanation, yet an absolutist when it comes to the Doctor. Indeed it's possible to extrapolate your logic to any Time Lord in the show given the right narrative justification. After all, there aren't 'just' 3 ways for a Time Lord to change gender, as your argument for the Master's gender change amply demonstrates in spite of yourself.


The Master is not just another Time Lord however. The reason it works for the Master is that he is established as being a body snatcher. Even then however you couldn't just write him as having stolen a woman's body and not care, as he is still a male character, and still a misogynist.

However with a proper story justification then yes the Master could work (though even then its a relatively pointless endeavour as we still have the Rani, who is a great villain, screaming out for a rematch.)  

Again with the Doctor there is no proper story reason to change gender. Retconning that he was always gender neutral makes 0 sense, and changes the character too much. Having him suddenly become transexual because he hates being a man is stupid too and in danger of trivialising gender dysphoria.

So all we are left with is a Freaky Friday style swap, which as I have said is really only good for short term. Maybe you could stretch it out for a couple of episodes at the most, but even then it would come across as a gimmick. So the question is why go down this minefield?



Last edited by burrunjor on Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
It's just so fucked.
I just don't see any way back for it. It's a laughing stock now.

Yes it is, it just baffles me though that Moffat is going on to other things. He must have pictures of someone at the BBC.

"Hey remember that guy who completely descrated a British icon that had endured for 50 years before he got his grubby little mits on it? Lets give him another cultural icon!"

View user profile
Steven Moffat says that Brexit voters delayed a female lead LOL.

[url=Brexit Voters Delayed Female Doctor]https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi28cHC4vLXAhVOOMAKHazkDxsQu4gBCCooAzAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-politics-42226828&usg=AOvVaw2-nkyaafEJdqlKEE1v2bSK[/url]

Hey Mott1 turns out you're a Brexiteer after all! (PS I didn't vote for Brexit either. I kept out of the whole voting process that time as I genuinely didn't know what way to vote. On the one the EU is a good idea in practice, but it has become corrupt and needs a bloody nose. Added to that the mainstream media needed a bloody nose too. However we could ironically be leaving the EU at the worst time, as Brexit might inspire some kind of reformation. Still I kept out of the whole thing yet apparently not wanting a female Doctor means that I am Brexiteer!)

Moff just keeps putting his foot in his mouth. I'd have felt sorry for him if he hadn't wrecked a long lasting icon.

It really does annoy me this arrogance of "nobody minded the master becoming Missy".

Also Moffat if the show isn't for SJWs then why have you bent over backwards and let them shove everything they want up there for the past 3 years?

View user profile
I'm kind of in an awkward place, being anti Brexit and anti Nu Who. I don't like the idea that having progressive views means endorsing the tidal wave of crap the BBC and c4 have been inflicting on us.

There are still the odd quality programs (such as the Howard's End remake) tho it's offset by the news now being used as free plugs for the Blue Planet series! Sometimes two shout-outs in one bulletin item...

View user profile
Mofftwat just gets dumber by the week.
Completely and utterly detached from reality, like the rest of them.

View user profile
@iank wrote:Mofftwat just gets dumber by the week.
Completely and utterly detached from reality, like the rest of them.

Here's his latest. People will notice Jodie's accent more than her gender.

By eck Jodie to keep her accent

Yeah Moffat a Scots actor like say Ian Richardson can play an English man, such as in House of Cards by changing his voice. However, do you think Ian Richardson could have played Xena quite so easily? That alone should tell you gender's a bigger thing to change than accent.

What is it with these cunts who keep trying to make out that changing gender isn't a big change, and that there are no differences between men and women? That's all we ever here about Jodie and its insane! "No one will even notice the fact that she is a she." or the classic "who cares what's in his pants."

There is more to gender differences than fucking genitals. Most trans people keep their old genitals.

See here.



These twats think that acknowledging differences between men and women means you are saying that men are better. How the fuck does it mean that? If there were no differences there wouldn't be two genders! They compliment each other because they are different. That doesn't mean that one is better. Ironically however by making out that femininity doesn't exist as its all apparently a social construct designed to keep women down, these cunts are saying that men are better, as apparently masculinity is how everyone should be, but its just "the patriarchy" that makes women act they way the do.



Also by making out that gender differences are nothing they are actually trivialising what trans people go through. Ask a trans person like Blaire White what's easier. Pulling a Yorkshire accent or changing your gender!

Of course Mofftwat isn't anything out of the ordinary in holding these opinions, but since he brought them into DW, then I hate him more than most.

View user profile
(I like it here how nobody's dogpiling on Burrunjor for expressing his/her opinion. Bu this point at Another Forum, the SJW groupthing would probably already have lit the torches and started belligerently demeaning the poster.)

I think I've been pretty clear here and at Other Places. Changing the Doctor's gender changes the basic DNA of the show; the Doctor has been established as a male playing against type since @1965 and the last few episodes of the Ian/Barbara era. Peter Davison was spot on point; several generations of children have had an almost singular role model in the Doctor's relative pacificism. A female Doctor similarly playing against type (i.e. presuming the best way to solve problems is to hit people, break things and blow things up) is a type that has become almost shopworn in the last few decades. It's hard to see what there would be to attract people to DW with the Doctor as a female action hero. I know I wouldn't watch as that holds no interest for me.

View user profile
I don't know whether I'm more incensed by Mofftwat rewriting the 1st Doctor as a sexist or some "fans" claiming he's riffing on Hartnell rather than 1. While there's some dubious rumours about old Bill's racial politics, the idea that Hartnell was sexist is fucking ridiculous BULLSHIT. He was cast by a woman for fucks sake, and was never as happy again when she left! Add to that his great respect for Jacqueline Hill, Carole Ann Ford and Maureen O'Brien, his great disappointment when the first two left and him being furious at the latter's axing.... yeah, he was a real old misogynist.

Fuck me.

View user profile
@iank wrote:I don't know whether I'm more incensed by Mofftwat rewriting the 1st Doctor as a sexist or some "fans" claiming he's riffing on Hartnell rather than 1. While there's some dubious rumours about old Bill's racial politics, the idea that Hartnell was sexist is fucking ridiculous BULLSHIT. He was cast by a woman for fucks sake, and was never as happy again when she left! Add to that his great respect for Jacqueline Hill, Carole Ann Ford and Maureen O'Brien, his great disappointment when the first two left and him being furious at the latter's axing.... yeah, he was a real old misogynist.

Fuck me.

Yes and it gets worse. He mentioned in his recent interview about how he was inspired to bring Pearl Mackie back so that Peter's Doctor could be embarrassed at having been Hartnell's Doctor.

Bill figures out that this daft old brush is the Doctor is humiliating for the current Doctor.

How fucking dare this talentless cunt trash the legacy of William Hartnell. Hey Mofftwat, without William Hartnell no one would know who the fuck you are, you parasitic bastard.

View user profile
Is this anything but a surprise?

Moffat 1985 wrote:Even for the 60’s, it was slow. If you look at the first episode of Doctor Who, that betrays the lie that it’s just the 60’s, because that first episode’s really good. The rest of it’s shit...

...When I look back at Doctor Who now, I laugh at it fondly. As a television professional, I think ‘How did these guys get a paycheque every week?’. Nothing from the black and white days, with the exception of the pilot episode, should have got out of the building. They should have been clubbing those guys to death. You’ve got an old guy in the lead who can’t remember his lines. You’ve got Patrick Troughton, who was a good actor, but his companions – how did they get their Equity card? They’re unimaginably bad. Once you get to the colour stuff, some of it’s watchable, but it’s laughable. Mostly now, looking back, I’m startled by it.


View user profile

View user profile

You left out the bombastic incidental music to accompany!

View user profile
This twat should never have been allowed near this show.

View user profile
@Boofer wrote:Is this anything but a surprise?

Moffat 1985 wrote:Even for the 60’s, it was slow. If you look at the first episode of Doctor Who, that betrays the lie that it’s just the 60’s, because that first episode’s really good. The rest of it’s shit...

...When I look back at Doctor Who now, I laugh at it fondly. As a television professional, I think ‘How did these guys get a paycheque every week?’. Nothing from the black and white days, with the exception of the pilot episode, should have got out of the building. They should have been clubbing those guys to death. You’ve got an old guy in the lead who can’t remember his lines. You’ve got Patrick Troughton, who was a good actor, but his companions – how did they get their Equity card? They’re unimaginably bad. Once you get to the colour stuff, some of it’s watchable, but it’s laughable. Mostly now, looking back, I’m startled by it.



Not to be pedantic but wasn't that interview from the 90s? It certainly wasn't 85 as he trashes McCoy.

This article is just as obnoxious. His cunty comments about Tom Baker are particularly vile (I wish Tom had read this. No way would he have done that stupid cameo in the 50th if he had.)

Back when I was in my early twenties, I thought Doctor Who was the scariest programme on television. I had one particular Who-inspired nightmare which haunts me to this day — except it wasn't a nightmare at all, it was something that happened to me on a regular basis. I'd be sitting watching Doctor Who on a Saturday, absolutely as normal... but I'd be in the company of my friends!!

Being a fan is an odd thing, isn't it? I was in little doubt — though I never admitted it, even to myself — that Doctor Who was nowhere near as good as it should have been, but for whatever reason I'd made that mysterious and deadly emotional connection with the show that transforms you into a fan and like a psychotically devoted supporter of a floundering football club, I turned out every Saturday in my scarf, grimly hoping the production team would finally score.

Of course my friends all knew my devotion to the Doctor had unaccountably survived puberty and had long since ceased to deride me for it. I think (I hope) they generally considered me someone of reasonable taste and intelligence and decided to indulge me in this one, stunningly eccentric lapse. And sometimes, on those distant Saturday afternoons before domestic video my nightmare would begin. I'd be stuck out somewhere with those friends and I'd realise in a moment of sweaty panic that I wasn't going to make it home in time for the programme—or worse, they' d be round at my house not taking the hint to leave — so on my infantile insistence we'd all troop to the nearest television and settle down to watch, me clammy with embarrassment at what was to come, my friends tolerant, amused and even open-minded.

And the music would start. And I'd grip the arms of my chair. And I'd pray! Just this once, I begged, make it good. Not great, not fantastic —just good. Don't, I was really saying, show me up.

And sometimes it would start really quite well. There might even be a passable effects shot (there were more of those than you might imagine) and possibly a decent establishing scene where this week's expendable guest actors popped outside to investigate that mysterious clanking/groaning/beeping/slurping sound before being found horribly killed/gibbering mad an episode later.

At this point I might actually relax a little. I might even start breathing and let my hair unclench. And then it would be happen. The star of the show would come rocketing through the door, hit a shuddering halt slap in the middle of the set and stare at the camera like (and let's be honest here) a complete moron.

I'd hear my friends shifting in their chairs. I could hear sniggers tactfully suppressed. Once one of them remarked (with touching gentleness, mindful of my feelings) that this really wasn't terribly good acting.

Of course, as even they would concede, Tom Baker (for it was he) had been good once — even terrific — but he had long since disappeared up his own art in a seven-year-long act of self-destruction that took him from being a dangerous young actor with a future to a sad, mad old ham safely locked away in a voice-over booth.

Which brings us, of course, to Peter Davison (for it was about to be him). I was appalled when he was cast. I announced to my bored and blank-faced friends that Davison was far too young, far too pretty, and far, far too wet to play television's most popular character (as, I deeply regret to say, I described the Doctor). Little did I realise, back in 1982, that after years of anxious waiting on the terraces in my front room, my home team were about to score — or that Davison was about to do something almost never before seen in the role of the Doctor. He was going to act.

Let's get something straight, because if you don't know now it's time you did. Davison was the best of the lot. Number One! It's not a big coincidence or some kind of evil plot, that he's played more above-the-title lead roles on the telly than the rest of the Doctors put together. It's because-get this!-he's the best actor.

You don't believe me? Okay, let's check out the opposition, Doctor-wise (relax, I'll be gentle).

1. William Hartnell. Look, he didn't know his lines! (okay, fairly gentle. It wasn't his fault) and it's sort of a minimum requirement of the lead actor dial he knows marginally more about what's going to happen next than the audience. In truth, being replaceable was his greatest gift to the series. Had the first Doctor delivered a wonderful performance they almost certainly would not have considered a recast and the show would have died back in the sixties.

2. Patrick Troughton. Marvellous! Troughton, far more than the dispensable, misremembered Hartnell, was the template for the Doctors to come and indeed his performance is the most often cited as precedent for his successors. Trouble is, the show in those days was strictly for indulgent ten-year-olds (and therefore hard to judge as an adult). Damn good, though, and Davison's sole competitor.

3. Jon Pertwee. The idea of a sort of Jason King with a sillier frock isn't that seductive, really, is it? In fairness he carried a certain pompous gravitas and was charismatic enough to dominate the proceedings as the Doctor should. Had his notion of the character been less straightforwardly heroic he might have pulled off something a little more interesting. His Worzel Gummidge, after all,is inspired and wonderful.

4. Tom Baker. Thunderingly effective at the start, even if his interpretation did seem to alter entirely to fit this week's script. (Compare, say, THE SEEDS OF DOOM and THE CITY OF DEATH. Is this supposed to be the same person?) I think I've said quite enough already about his sad decline so let's just say that it's nice to see him back on top form in Medics. Well, is was while it lasted.

5. Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy. Miscast and floundering. Neither made much impression on the role and none at all on the audience. Or at least on me.

So what makes Davison — for me — the best, and his episodes the ones I wouldn't mind watching in the company of my most cynical and sarcastic friends? I'm certainly not claiming the show was suddenly high art or great drama — it was after all, the adventures of space man in a frock coat who lives in a flying telephone box — but for a brief three years it seemed to take the job of being an entertaining, adventure-romp for kids of all
ages with just the right mix of seriousness and vivacity, the way Lois And Clark does so adroitly now and the leading man, bless him. was really delivering.'

You can see how the feminists and SJWs were able to bully the cunt so easily from this article. Leaving aside his obvious lack of respect for the Doctor, he really is a self loathing fanboy that's desperate to run with what he feels are the cool kids.

If it wasn't SJWs it would be some other fad he'd be whoring it out to. Its just that that one was the most destructive.

View user profile
1995. Just a late-night typing error.

And correct, the point I was making is that he hated 60s Who before the whole postmodern social justice movement emerged. The BBC's diversity obsession was a convenient vehicle for him to endlessly run over the original show in big fat tyres with 'misogynist', 'racist', etc etched into the tread. Not because it's necessarily true, but because he doesn't really like the show all that much. He always wanted to - superciliously - re-create it in his own image - self-loathing and all.

View user profile
And correct, the point I was making is that he hated 60s Who before the whole postmodern social justice movement emerged. The BBC's diversity obsession was a convenient vehicle for him to endlessly run over the original show in big fat tyres with 'misogynist', 'racist', etc etched into the tread. Not because it's necessarily true, but because he doesn't really like the show all that much. He always wanted to - superciliously - re-create it in his own image - self-loathing and all.

I don't know if I'd say he wanted to re create the show in his own image per say. To be fair to him for the first 3 years he didn't really do that with Smith and Karen Gillan. Other than the War Doctor, I can't honestly think of any major retcons, or buggering about with characters histories?

I think it was more Moff likes DW, but he is so desperate for it to be successful that he will whore it out to any fad, because then his snobby, pretentious friends won't laugh at him for liking a silly sci fi show.

Now in all fairness taking inspiration from what's popular is not uncommon. The Tom Baker era drew from Hammer films, the Pertwee era drew from Bond. In both cases however they didn't completely change the character. IE we didn't get Pertwee suddenly wanting to fuck Jo Grant and make cringey remarks about "licking his companions into shape". The Doctor was still the same Edwardian/Victorian, sexless gentlemanly hero he had always been. He just went on more Bondesque adventures.

Moffat however is happy to completely throw away everything that made the Doctor, the Doctor if he thinks it will be popular with the same type of people who laughed at him for liking it in the 80s. Look at his first ever interview for the new series where he goes on about

So when the SJWs started slandering him, for Moff it was like in the 80s when his friends laughed at him for liking DW, so he was desperate to make it something that they would like.

Of course that doesn't let the SJWs off the hook, as they are still fanatical bullies who didn't give two shits about what's good for the show, and once they have sunk it they will move on to the next property to take over.

Added to that as much as I dislike him, it WAS terrible how they completely ruined Moffat's reputation over nothing.

Still at the end of the day Moffat was the self loathing fanboy who decided to do everything they wanted. Funny thing is they still hate him. Here take a look at this latest video by Claudia Boleyn (PS I don't hate Claudia. She's really nice personally. I just think she is misguided. She's not like Owen Jones who is a malicious little shit that gets people fired, or shut down. Still just because she's a decent person, doesn't mean she isn't representative of that opinion.)

View user profile
Eh, Ace was LGBT? What is she talking about? I must have missed something

View user profile
@burrunjor wrote:
And correct, the point I was making is that he hated 60s Who before the whole postmodern social justice movement emerged. The BBC's diversity obsession was a convenient vehicle for him to endlessly run over the original show in big fat tyres with 'misogynist', 'racist', etc etched into the tread. Not because it's necessarily true, but because he doesn't really like the show all that much. He always wanted to - superciliously - re-create it in his own image - self-loathing and all.

I don't know if I'd say he wanted to re create the show in his own image per say. To be fair to him for the first 3 years he didn't really do that with Smith and Karen Gillan. Other than the War Doctor, I can't honestly think of any major retcons, or buggering about with characters histories?


It's the same pattern with Sherlock. One good series, maybe two, and then he goes full-on Moffat. Either he runs out of ideas or thinks he has established himself enough and then just goes for it Sad

Was Blink worth it for this? Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil

View user profile
@Mr. Happy wrote:Eh, Ace was LGBT? What is she talking about? I must have missed something

I think a lot of people deny it with Ace. TBF it is a bit weird, because for the most part Kara is a cheetah woman. Is Ace into bestiality?

I agree with Rona Munro that the Cheetah people should have just been wild looking people with fangs.

Everything would have been more effective that way. When they ate people it would have been really horrific. Like a Zombie movie. Also the romance with Karra would have made more sense obviously as Ace would have been attracted to beautiful, yet savage woman.

Turning Karra into a Cheetah felt like a bit of a boring, safe option.

View user profile
It's the same pattern with Sherlock. One good series, maybe two, and then he goes full-on Moffat. Either he runs out of ideas or thinks he has established himself enough and then just goes for it Sad

Was Blink worth it for this? Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil

No even Matt Smith and Karen Gillan (the best Doctor companion duo since Tom and Lalla Ward IMO) weren't worth it for what he's done.

In all honesty I think Moff's biggest problem is just his self loathing fanboyism. He doesn't want to be seen as a sad git who only writes silly, stupid sci fi series.

He's fine if the show's just popular, or a cult hit, but as soon as a particular audience comes along that he thinks are the "cool crowd" so to speak, then he will put them above everyone else, and do all he can to win favour with them.

View user profile
@Mr. Happy wrote:Eh, Ace was LGBT? What is she talking about? I must have missed something

I think Mike Smith and Captain Sorin would disagree. But never mind what's in the actual show.... LOL

View user profile
Indeed, the character outline which Briggs had drawn up in 1987 acknowledged that she had had sex with the space rogue Sabalom Glitz.

http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/serials/7m.html

pirat

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 10]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum