a goose
-
Posts
10,904 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
61
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Store
Raffles
Blog Comments posted by a goose
-
-
its quite obviously the rani
nah man
i'm 100% certain on this one
- Indigo Individual
-
feathered dinosaurs are way cooler than jurassic park dinosaurs and even though i'm not even a huge dinosaur fan it will take a lot to convince me otherwise
- Indigo Individuals
-
3
-
-
It's become quite a mess, hasn't it? I'm glad that we've managed to stay respectful in the debate, though, more often than not things devolve far faster than this.
Also, I'm gonna take the same format I did last time with this and simply go with bullet points, because frankly the quotes can be a little difficult to split up with how big these responses have gotten and I really disliking not having a name and time-stamp when I don't have to.
- Ah, okay, that seems clearer looking back at it. My bad.
- I think I'm being misunderstood a little here -- as I said, Courtney's reactions within the episode make sense, I make no excuses for the plot and I do think she could easily have been removed from it (it would've been better for it, too, since we'd lose that incredibly out of character 'not special' line). Her inaction once she was present makes sense, but it doesn't mean that she needed to or should have been present, or that the idea of 'let's go to the moon' was the best response to it. The appropriate response to realising you've insulted someone by saying they aren't special being to do what previous Doctors did after making slip-ups and acknowledge that they were wrong, rather than trying to make the person special (but i'm getting off-topic a little here and this has already become pretty big without unnecessary frills so i'll digress).
- I feel like separating that from what followed it did some major damage to what I was saying; that was not a standalone point. My point was that whether or not there's hard evidence that race is a factor, racism is racism whether it's intentional or not. Also, I can guarantee you that 'speculation' that Moffat is racist is not coming from me and me alone, and that I believe that Sherlock, although you don't watch it, is evidence that Moffat is definitely racist (note the entirely white primary cast [apart from Sally, who as previously mentioned is consistently villainised by the narrative] in a show set in London), and there are an awful lot of essays and blog posts on the internet agreeing with that assertion, although given some of the specifics I don't think it's appropriate to link them on BZP and all I can suggest is that you look them up for yourself.
- Again, I did provide the examples from Sherlock. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't see an issue with the various things I've mentioned here with that show (and the problems that I didn't even cover) has some racism motivating condoning it, and given Steven Moffat's position of power I'm pretty sure that if he didn't like it (or at least didn't take issue with it) it wouldn't be there.
- We appear to have slightly different definitions of what constitutes a character being killed off here, but the fact of the matter is that Doctor Who is a show with time travel. The show has been to many points when characters are technically dead, and it's been to the past where characters who are dead in the present are alive, so I think that two people dying of old age after living out the rest of their lives in a time that isn't the present doesn't really count as being killed off in the context, whereas a young man being hit by a car does, because that's the narrative actively taking away his life. Also, the Stuffed In The Fridge thing: what I meant is that I feel like that's going to be the continuation of it, with Danny's body being a Cyberman and Danny's death used for the sake of Clara's character development (also, afaik Stuffed In The Fridge does not need the death to take place off-screen, just for its purpose to be giving the protagonist character development through grieving over them after the villain has very deliberately displayed them). I realise that this is speculation, but as I've said before most of this blog entry is worrying about unfortunate directions that the plot could easily be taking. And I agree that Danny's character is being developed, and my only issue with that is that it's taken this long and if Clara's leaving, we're going to have very little more time with him. Those less trusting than I might accuse Moffat of trying to avoid his inability to show long-term emotional fallout by cutting characters from the picture before the emotional fallout has to be shown in the long-term.
- Ah, okay. No problem.
- The Sherlock characters were more to provide evidence that it's a thing that isn't specific to Doctor Who, and that Moffat is somewhat of a common denominator (although thankfully Doctor Who is a lot better than Sherlock about it, imo). The Sherlock examples were the only cases of very clear racism, which is why I included them, my analysis of Moffat's writing and showrunning being something that is affected by the context of his other decisions.
- Liz Ten isn't aware that the Star Whale volunteered, so I don't see how that factors in, and while she wasn't actively torturing it she repeatedly chose to do nothing to stop until (until our white protagonists came in and changed her mind). And also thank you for reminding me about her being the ruler of Starship UK: being the ruler of a totalitarian government where they regularly kill (or attempt to kill, in the case of the children) people who dissent or who just aren't smart enough is most definitely not a point in anyone's favour. I almost forgot that point.
- 'Common criminals' may not have been quite the right term (although frankly there was the deal with stealing parts of the TARDIS). My point was more that they are shown to have a business that thrives by means that are heavily implied not to be legal (as is mentioned by the Doctor when they bring in the TARDIS), and that despite their running an effective business they are actually portrayed as though they are unintelligent, ignoring various assertions made by the Doctor who within the context was pretty clearly more aware of what was going on than them and causing themselves and everyone else a great deal of trouble doing so (I don't think blindly following the Doctor is a good idea all of the time, but when you're in someone else's ship, a ship you don't understand, and they haven't given you any indication that they necessarily want you dead [after all, he made it clear that he needed them in order to find Clara], it's probably best to assume they know what they're doing). And there was also their convincing Tricky that he was an android, and if that doesn't strike you as morally bankrupt that's frankly a little bit worrying.
-
Mel was brainwashed into a murderous obsession very specifically with the Doctor. Her behaviour doesn't seem disinhibited, and she doesn't lack empathy, as shown by how she seems to actually care for and empathise with Amy and Rory and the fact that she was able to hold back from violent behaviour and mentioning her urge to murder Amy's imaginary friend in the entirety of the time they were best friends (yeah, that episode was weird. and the whole 'you named your daughter after your daughter' thing was just ridiculous). And while her murderous tendencies and lack of remorse do continue beyond it, the narrative frames them as heroic by the time Day of the Moon comes around, and as such within the story the intention appears to be that she was 'fixed' after regenerating into her current form and falling in love with the Doctor.
- As mentioned before, he has displayed racist behaviours in the production of Sherlock, which is the primary influence on me being particularly scathing of his treatment of non-white characters (although frankly, his white characters are awfully written too, they're just better represented and less often vilified). I like it when he takes steps forward, but given my knowledge of his past behaviour I reserve every right to fear that we could be going back in the wrong direction, a fear that's only exacerbated by the fact that I'm happy with the improvements he's begun to incorporate. It's one thing to be disappointed by someone you have no faith in, and another to be disappointed right when your opinion was beginning to change.
- My issue is that Clara, as a fictional character written by men (and solely by men, if you take a look at Doctor Who's writing staff), is not technically a woman making a choice. She is a woman whose choice is being decided by men (and by Steven Moffat in particular), and given that I don't think we can discount decisions that she makes that are more because of a man's influence than because of her own feelings as being feminist. And thank you, I'm glad I came across a bit clearer.
- Indigo Individual
-
First you complain about not liking Danny, then you complain when they kill him. Otherwise, the points of others who posted here make sense.
Yeah, I'm sorry but your argument here is kinda silly given the fact that my issue with Danny is and always has been the way he's written. I've always wanted to like him, and I feel he has a huge amount of potential as a character, but I dislike the way he's treated by the writers. That's not a dislike of the character, and making a point based on a fragmented and incorrect presentation of someone's argument isn't really a great way to go about things, although I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
For instance, here's a quote about this actually from my blog:
In the context of other stuff I've said about Danny, and in the context of the criticisms I was presenting there (issues with how Doctor Who is written), it makes much more sense to interpret this as an issue with how a character is written rather than who the character is -- 'why can't he be nicer' being an important thing to keep in mind here, as well as the questioning of his responses to events that I've presented in a few places, poorly worded as it may have been at times. Danny isn't the person in control of how nice he is; that would be the people writing Doctor Who, and Moffat, who is their boss and has control over what does and doesn't make it into final scripts. Again, I apologise if this wasn't clear, but even with that in mind complaining about the possibility that Danny will be killed off shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant because of that, because as I said, I do really try to like him, and character development is something that exists (regardless of what Moffat appears to believe).also, danny[/size]
i really want to like him, guys[/size]
i really do[/size]
can he just be a nice guy[/size]
why can't he be nicer[/size]
[snip]
I'm sorry, I had a really huge, really detailed point-by-point response to this but it got eaten by my computer and I'm gonna have to summarise, but please bear with me.
- Referring to Danny as the only PoC main character: Danny is the only main character under Moffat who isn't white, and that's something I felt should be taken into consideration, as I'm pretty sure I have referred to him as the only black main character elsewhere (although I do apologise if I haven't). It's not equating or grouping them together -- it's pointing out that he is literally the only main character who isn't white, although I understand the point you're making.
- Courtney: To be perfectly honest, I'm not huge on Courtney either, although a lot of her reactions in Kill The Moon were pretty reasonable for a kid who was completely unprepared for it, unlike almost everything else in Kill The Moon because seriously, that episode was awful (Jenna Coleman's acting in her confrontation with the Doctor and her confrontation with the Doctor were excellent, though, which only makes me more upset that it was completely glossed over in the next episode).
- Race as a factor: Okay, I have two points to make here. First of all, I don't have any hard evidence race is a factor, although I have very little faith in Moffat as regards race and I will be explaining why under the next bullet, but I think it should be taken into consideration that even if racism is unintentional, it is still racism. Killing off your only black main character (if Moffat does, and this whole post has been made around that and I did acknowledge that he would probably just be bringing him back even in the original post, the only reason for questioning it being the rumours of Clara's potential departure) does come across as racist, at least to me, especially in the context of Moffat's steadfast refusal to include meaningful deaths in the show. And there's a funny thing about technical death in this case -- Amy and Rory died, but they lived full lives and died of old age. That wasn't them being killed off, that was them being sent back in time and living. In this case, Danny was hit by a car while still a young man and may be turned into a Cyberman, which is completely different (and frankly reeks of the Stuffed Into The Fridge trope).
- Sympathetic black characters: Okay I'm not entirely sure why you've capitalised 'black' but whatever, I'll roll with it, it's entirely possible I'm unaware of something. Here are a few examples of black characters and other PoC in Doctor Who and Sherlock, the two shows of his I'm most familiar with, prior to the current season where we've had the resurgence (although little bits continue to seep through, like the kids skipping loitering by the house in The Caretaker and a black actress being chosen to play Courtney, the 'disruptive influence', just as was for Mel before her). If you have any more that you feel were played more sympathetically (although again, I do think that the most recent season has been better and that's why I haven't complained about anything specific to racism when it comes to Danny prior to now), feel free to add them. Anyways (and a reminder that as showrunner, even if Steven Moffat has not written these episodes they have had to go through him in order to be approved given his word is pretty much final):
Doctor Who
- Liz Ten: both complicit and the cause of the Star Whale's slavery. Not racist in and of itself, but for the first black character introduced in the show, it doesn't exactly set up a great precedent.
- Tricky, Bram and Gregor of Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS: Depicted as unscrupulous and unintelligent common criminals. I don't think I need to clarify why this one's a stereotype.
- Mel: Again, a case where the racism may not have been intentional, but alongside incorrectly being labelled a 'psycopath', Mel's character is not depicted as in any way good. In fact, like Courtney and the students in The Caretaker, she is shown to have been a disruptive influence in school, and to be downright murderous now. So when does she change her ways? Oh, yeah, after she regenerates into a white woman. Intentionally racist? Probably not. Containing some unfortunate implications, especially in the context of other PoC characters under Moffat (as few of them as there are)? I'd say so, at least, although you are free to disagree with me.
Sherlock
- Sally Donovan: Okay let me get this straight first off, I love Sally. It's very impressive that she seems to have a pretty high position in the police force despite the misogyny and racism that prospers in such institutions, and she's one of the few people who's willing to stand up to Sherlock. But when she stands up to Sherlock, it's treated differently than if Molly or Mrs Hudson complains about or stands up to Sherlock. Everything in the narrative seems to be framed to turn us against her for this -- in fact, we're expected to support Sherlock as he undermines her in her workplace by bringing in her personal life, criticising her for her affair with a married co-worker (to whom he doesn't address this, despite the fact that he's the one with an existing commitment) in front of her colleagues. When she points out that there is evidence suggesting Sherlock is a suspect in an investigation, we're expected to be against her, despite this being a reasonable conclusion given the information available to her. Thankfully, the last series has shown her a little more sympathetically, although we also saw very little of her.
- The Blind Banker: yeah i'm not gonna be able to cover everything here, and I'd recommend googling it if you're interested in the issues with it, but here is an excerpt from the script that should give you a decent idea of what I'm talking about right off the bat (underlining isn't mine, although is relevant): http://41.media.tumblr.com/94a4c5cfc0cfc03b4ea2395ccac5a0ae/tumblr_mvptacteLk1rx7w9ho2_1280.png
As mentioned before, there is so, so much wrong with The Blind Banker, I just don't have time to cover all of it when other people have done it before me and likely better than I could.
I do think that Moffat has been trying to improve the diversity in Doctor Who, and I think that's a good thing. I do, however, find it worrying that it's very possible right now that Danny could be permanently killed off and that this was the end purpose of his character, and that's what I'm talking about here. However, I hope this provides a bit more context so that it's more understandable that I would see Steven Moffat as a racist, although I will happily admit that he has improved his treatment of black characters in the show, and I applaud that. This is a response to what would be a step backwards, and again one that I don't think very likely, but one that we seem to be meant to believe as the narrative currently stands, and one that would make sense to the end purpose of removing Clara (although I really hope that she leaves due to the damage to those she loves and to her own attitudes, rather than making it more specific to Danny and it being because she didn't believe him and/or because he didn't want her to travel with the Doctor [EXCEPT IN KILL THE MOON, BECAUSE WHY NOT], because yeah I'd really like this to be Clara's own decision rather than one made by her relationship with a man, and that's the kind of thing that Moffat would do and has done before) -- that Danny is beyond rescue. Again, I hope that this helps to clarify things, and I hope that it does so better than my previous post. I apologise for any confusion it may have caused.
- Indigo Individual
-
Wow. I genuinely have no idea what leaps and bounds you had to make to reach that conclusion. So it has to be about race instead of the fact that he's a major character of series 8, whom Clara has grown incredibly attached to and is willing to travel to the afterlife just to rescue? Forget the several episodes of character development and relationship building that would supposedly bring them to such a point, this is only because Moffat is a racist?
I don't think Moffat is the greatest writer ever, in fact I can think of a few logical issues in that episode alone, but you're really looking for problems in the wrong places.
Yeah, sorry, I'm with Automaton; I don't think that this is a legitimate criticism. Moffat is actually a really terrible writer for his atrocious pacing and blatant plot holes, not for highly questionable racism.
Would this be solved if Danny were white? Yes, but then that would bring up questions of representation and Moffat gets labeled as a racist there too. There's no winning in this scenario.
If you're looking for legitimate Moffat criticisms, be my guest, because I'm behind you all the way—but saying that he's racist because he killed off a black character is depriving the episode and the series of its needed context.
You know this episode had a lot of leaps of logic at several points. Compared to what you're saying though those leaps in logic make more sense.
Look man moffat has a ton of problems with writing (cough* To kill the Moon *cough). But suggesting he is a racist because he killed a character who just so happened to be black is not so much pushing it as it is going full speed off a cliff of illogic.
There's a lot of stuff here is valid and I think I didn't convey my point particularly well here, but my point was more that Danny is the sole PoC main character at the moment (Courtney is a recurring character, although I'm not sure if she counts as a main character yet?), and also the only one since Moffat has taken over the show (which is pretty racist in itself tbh), and if Danny is permanently killed off this does mean that his sole PoC main character was also the first main character in his run of the show to properly be killed off (Amy and Rory being a case where they technically died but he went to ridiculous lengths to avoid actually killing them and gave them a full life through a plot point that I'm still not sure really makes any sense?). I realise that what I said was a little too short to get this across, but I hope that this clears things up. I don't think that Steven Moffat is racist because he killed a black character -- I think that he's already racist because this is the only black main character that has been on his run of the show, and I think that if this main character is the first one to be properly killed off then yeah, that's pretty racist too. If he either hits a reset button or brings Danny back, the second part of that point is irrelevant, because at that point it's just ordinary bad writing, and I will concede that Moffat is actually trying to fix how whitewashed Doctor Who is (and was before him).
I hope this makes what I was trying to say a bit clearer.
- Indigo Individual
-
1
-
-
late to the party but i just wanted to add my own thoughts, even though most stuff has been covered by now
No. No it doesn't. The idea is that the world, as it stands, is meaningless. That does not prevent anyone from making meaning.Yes, but if the world is meaningless and you are meaningless, your actions are as meaningless as everything else is. Meaninglessness sucks. That means you are worthless and have no hope.
You can't make meaning out of meaninglessness, Ballom. You can't make something out of something that is opposite of it, without introducing something else. You can't make truth out of lies.
Also, if there is no meaning, there is no truth. Now is that sentence true? Is any of this true?Okay, but existentialism does not entail a belief in a "spiritual world." Absolutely no existentialist believes that the physical world does not exist. Rather, they believe that it exists before it has "essence." Further, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about when you mention a "spiritual world." (The closest thing I can think of would be the world of forms, but Platonism is a metaphysical position and therefore completely unrelated to existentialism.)
So you're saying that existentialism says the world exists before it has meaning, which would be the opposite of what I was saying. It implies that people have absolute control over any metaphysical meaning, which would point to a different lie.
letters are shapes to which we assign meaning
words are collections of those shapes to which we assign meaning
sentences are collections of those collections of shapes to which we assign meaning
and yet none of these things are inherently meaningful
tl;dr yes humans can and do assign meaning to the meaningless, there is nothing fallacious in the idea that we create meaning out of what is meaningless, and unless i'm misunderstanding the points you're making here i'm pretty sure that's what you were saying? in which case the very form in which you present your argument goes against that idea
just a thought, and apologies if i've misunderstood your meaning
- Indigo Individual
-
1
-
-
When I saw your other blog entry, I was definitely expecting something like this to follow.
It's the reason for why it's one of my favourite Disney movies - and why I watch it only once or twice a year. Too much heartbreak. ;n;
you could have warned me ;__________;
- Indigo Individual
-
may as well put my name in for this
i want it because it looks really cool and my friends have recommended it to me but i am desperately low on funds at any given time
- Indigo Individual
-
i don't know what i just listened to but i know i love it
- Indigo Individual
-
I was talking like the social services, Stitch's struggles to overcome his programming and be nice (which could easily have been played for laughs without showing the consequences for Lilo and Nina, and I think it's great that it did).I forgot why it's sad? I mean, yeah, dead parents, but let's be honest, that's in almost every other Disney movie.I'm guessing you mean how Nani was trying to balance everything and all of the "whoa, this is heavy" scenes of the movie? Yeah, they did a good job with that, imo.... wait, how many scenes were like that? One, two... ... seven? At least seven. ... I love this movie...
Yeah, I think I'd agree that it's targeted at everyone (and the soundtrack was really great). I just love this movie so much right now.- Indigo IndividualLilo & Stitch is a wonderful gem of a Disney movie. It successfully balanced all of the emotional beats and did so to an incredibly rocking soundtrack. And it includes Stitch who is arguable one of the most adorable Disney character in their whole canon. And in response to your question, I wouldn't call it a kids' movie myself. It's made with the intent that kids can understand it, but primarily I think the target was all ages. -
Hm...I would say Walter (Blue / Amber version) is my favorite character from show. I always had a bit of soft spot for Walter, even though he technically is responsible for a lot of things that happen on the show. *shrugs* And well, I feel John Noble does a great job portraying Walter in general. - JMJ 2014John Noble was amazing and fantastic in the whole series. He nailed his duel Walter roles.
I could tell he was doing a great job, but it wasn't until the end of season 4 that I realised how great -- the two Walters, side-by-side, and everything about their tone and their body language was so different. Noble played two entirely different people.
I adore Red!Astrid, but Blue/Amber!Astrid is one of my favourite characters too. She came awfully far from the side-character position it looked like she would have at first.- Indigo IndividualAstrid. Always and forever my favorite character.-
2
-
-
This is partially why it is one of my favorite films.
it wasn't on my list before, but it really, really is now.
i was not expecting that level of realism from it, they do not let their jokes go unchecked
'don't turn left' ;-;
everything about it is just great
- Indigo Individual
-
Now that I think about it I may have imagined that episode
it was probably involuntary
i can't imagine anyone thinking that up intentionally
- Indigo Individual
-
1
-
-
Also I just remembered my issues with the "science" factor of the show. It's always been loosely science fiction (at times extremely loosely, such as wibbly wobbly timey wimey) but having a dinosaur that big is simply fantasy, and without any explanation except to say that they actually WERE that big but shhh nobody knows. Plus a sonic screwdriver doing what it does? it's like a universal remote now. It supposedly manipulates sound waves to vibrate objects. it should not be able to do 3/4s of the things it does in the show. I read an interview where moffat said it was becoming a crutch and he intended to use it less, but here's an idea - use it believably and you'll find it actually isn't all that useful in most situations!
and don't even get me started on them blowing up the sun in Akhaten. just don't. They've done ridiculous things (stealing the earth) but always with -some- sort of explanation. But leaving a bunch of inhabited asteroids with no heat source and nothing to orbit around and saying nothing about it? c'mon, my imagination only stretches so far.
there's more but I think my point is made... moffat is actively choosing to toss aside what little actual science was in the show for ~dramatic effect~ and ~shock value~ and it's actually the least of all problems right now
what's an akhaten
i don't know what you're talking about
are you absolutely certain that was an episode?
i'm not
<.<
>.>
<.<
- Indigo Individual
-
*raise hand* Yeah, I am fan of it.
- JMJ 2014
favourite character
go
- Indigo Individual
-
A. This season especially, but also the last and to some extent the one before, the actual plots are dwindling in favour of pseudo character development. You think characters are being elaborated upon but in actuality things are just popping out of nowhere to fill in the (huge) gaps. Like the doctor's new hatred of soldiers?
In fairness, whilst 11 showed no signs of despising soldiers, 10 had a pretty prominent disliking of weaponry and combat as well. It disappeared during Matt Smith's run but seems to be making a comeback now. If we want to interpret character motivations, then perhaps we could postulate that 10 grew to hate all things that involve killing and became "The man who never would" (a dumb term) because of his PTSD from the Time War. 11 would then completely do away with this character trait because The Doctor was regressing into a more naive and child-like form of himself to escape the pain of what he did. Then came the events of The Day of the Doctor and the Doctor's actions were mostly reverted. He was saved of his guilt and later became 12, who after his time on Trenzalore was sick of fighting and war and combat, and grew to hate all things soldiers. I'm not going to pretend that it does seem fairly out of left field but I can see where the writers are coming from on this one.
Points B, C, and D are completely legitimate. They're some of my biggest problems with the series right now. I won't even bother addressing those since you already did a pretty good job.
They're treating the doctor like he's a new character for some reason
Because he is. That happens when the Doctor regenerates. Not only his appearance, but also his entire personality and his outlook on life changes. When 8 was dying, he wanted to become a warrior and so he had that wish granted, completely doing away with his prior fears of guilt over combat. 10 was well versed in human culture and would even reference our media from a major movie such as The Lion King, to an evening-time soap opera such as Eastenders. Compare this with 11 who thought that football was "the one with the sticks" and had a strong disliking of the taste of alcohol. I'd say the Doctor changes because with each regeneration comes different priorities in his 2,000 year old mind. From 12's "planet of the pudding brains" comment it's obvious that he doesn't hold humanity in as high a regard as his predecessor 10, which is fairly acceptable given he's, as we've already said, 2,000 years old. He's busy adventuring and doing equations on his chalk board so it's obvious that his mind is elsewhere when it comes to social norms he was once aware of. Most of the time when he "insults" Clara, he never shows any intention of doing so. He seems his same old scatterbrained self that he's always been and I think that's fine.
My issue with it was more in the phrasing -- the way he held it over her as a threat rather than being like 'Look I'd really prefer if we were open and I'm not sure our relationship can continue if we're not' (and also an underlying sense that Clara can't protect herself if the Doctor pushes her too far so Danny has to swoop in and save her).
Again, consider the situation. He doesn't have to be nice to her. He's just had his entire reality shattered by the knowledge of other worlds teeming with life. He was nearly killed a few minutes prior, and now his girlfriend has revealed that she's living a double life in which she encounters that kind of situation on a daily basis. I find your desire for him to be calm, measured and practical to be a little unrealistic. Also that last comment was your interpretation so I probably won't say anything on that.
except, of course, for the explanation of writers who'd rather be doing Sherlock
The episode was mainly written by Gareth Roberts. No association with Sherlock.
'hate the war not the warrior'
literally every doctor's attitude apart from the ones moffat has been in charge of
i just have to point out that all the examples you just gave were examples from steven moffat being in charge, and the rest of the time all that's changed have been peripheral traits of the doctor's -- at his core, he has remained the same character, with a huge respect for life and a dislike of war, but never soldiers
i don't need him to be calm and collected, i feel like the show is using too many things to pressure her into being with him
one thing i've tried to avoid mentioning was the orson deal after their truly awful first date, which forced her to stay with him or mess up her own timeline. i do not think anyone would ever follow up on a date like that if they weren't forced to
the ultimatum is coming across as another thing forcing this already contrived relationship, and i'm trying not to hold it against danny but all of this stuff is turning me off to his character
also, Moffat is the showrunner. everything goes through Moffat. Moffat tells the writers how he wants the Doctor to be, the writers do that, and Moffat still had a co-writer credit on The Caretaker afaik, along with every episode so far but Sherwood.
Another thing I'd like to mention is the assumption that Clara will stop traveling with the Doctor because of Danny. That trope dates back to the classic series, so that's not some kind of sexism on Moffat's part. He subverted that with Amy and Rory.
I'm not trying to hold up Moffat as a paragon of excellent writing, because he's certainly not, but we shouldn't try and find problems that aren't there because there are enough of them already.
actually i'm... not sure he did? like, rory travelled with amy and the doctor, but everything was always depicted as amy choosing between them
also, dannyi really want to like him, guys
i really do
can he just be a nice guy
why can't he be nicer
why is he threatening clara with ending their very forced relationship if she won't tell him the intimacies of her travels with the doctor
That's so me, I was so upset at the end of the episode. They are adorable together, I felt so bad that he wasn't being a littler nicer to her. What a grump.
I also really don't like Moffat's writing. Like, he is really quite good on the creative side of things but there's some thing that are uniquely Moffat that I am so sick of, like the black clothes-lipstick-updo female villain thing you mentioned. They're just.. so tired. Do something new please.
Otherwise though, I'm fine. I'm glad they're at least trying to use more folks of color, and I really like the characters so far. Courtney is the bomb, the kids Clara babysat were adorable. I am really enjoying Twelve's jabs at Clara about her appearance, it's not like he's doing it to insult her, he just genuinely doesn't seem to understand anything like manners and what attractive humans look like anymore. The "built like a man" comment cracked me up 'cause I wasn't expecting it and Clara's face in reaction was incredible. If she had a problem with his comments, she'd tell him, 'cause she really isn't afraid to stand up to him about anything. I think she enjoys it 'cause it really is just playful and amusing. I understand how it could be giving kids the wrong idea or whatever but I don't think we're at that level yet, like it was said above, the Doctor is always made out to obviously be wrong.
Oi! And watch it with the spoilers, who says Clara's outtie at the end of the season?
I mean I heard about that, but still, I don't think it's common knowledge yet. I don't think Clara would ever leave 'because of a man', I feel like she'd go the same way Martha went. Danny would just be her consolation prize If he's not, you know, evil or something.As for Twelve's prejudice against soldiers... the Doctor's always had a history of not being a fan, but I think what contributed to Twelve's issue is that he was sitting on his butt for 900 years of war surrounded by soldiers killing soldiers and also civilians inevitably, 'cause, well, war. That's a reasonable explanation, to me. Maybe he really does hate violence now, despite all his anger. He seems a lot less trigger happy than Eleven, that's for sure. So far he's only actively intended to "kill" a bunch of robots, in Sherwood. Other than that... well, it all depends on whether or not he pushed the Half-Faced Man. He didn't want to kill/attack the Dalek like Nine and Eleven did in their first Dalek episodes, and he got really creative with his nonlethal solutions to Blitzer. He was willing to save Journey's life and cooperate with the Aristotle crew, and only rejected her 'cause she was a soldier despite being a solid candidate, which leads me to believe that maybe he's afraid that if he has that influence around him he might revert back to his soldiery ways. We had that hint about his feelings towards the army in Listen, and then again there's the 900 years of war at Christmas.
As for not understanding people, well, we had that with Eleven, didn't we? He was just more lovable so it never really stood out. Twelve certainly knows how to interact with 'em when he really wants to, he's just more critical and uninterested in a way.
I really do hate all the blatant plot devices and stuff though, in the writing, it's just getting out of hand. And the Moffat tropes are blinding. Does showrunner really mean he gets to mess with every little thing? He should let someone else execute his ideas, 'cause they really are so great, but he does not have the most delicate touch.
actually i don't really know if they're adorable together, i feel like their first date went really awkwardly
and the declaration of love seemed kinda rushed after four episodes
what i want is for him to be a nice character so that there's a cool recurring PoC and Clara has a decent boyfriend
he could handle one season, as evidenced by season five being his best
he should not have been given more
yeah but why would he just forget all of that
this is an issue i have with eleven as well, moffat doesn't seem to understand that -- as has been mentioned here a couple of times -- the doctor's personality isn't entirely rewritten with every regeneration, he remains the same person at his core and he retains the same memories
i agree, but what i'm saying is that i don't think moffat does
as i've mentioned before, eleven was also really out-of-character as the doctor
and i'd like to point out the parts in the caretaker where the doctor referred to danny as a 'P.E. teacher'
that's not being scared of soldiers, that's being insulting and intolerant
he is shown as being unable to accept that soldiers are worthwhile human beings when he and a good few of his friends have been or are soldiers.
technically being the showrunner does mean that he controls absolutely everything, but i really don't think moffat should have creative control
when he was writing an episode a season the tired old tropes were less noticeable, but now? ...not so much
also separate new point: MEETING PEOPLE AS CHILDREN AND HAVING THEM BECOME ROMANTIC INTERESTS
how about that one guys
that's another one
My problem is basically every episode is as follows: great set-up, poorly thought out twist ending for the sake of a twist. That and the Doctor can come off as annoying sometimes but it isn't really that big an issue. Why does Moffat remind me so much of George Lucas?
because he's unoriginal, a little plagiaristic and generally uninteresting but surrounded by yes men (i feel no need to change that to 'people' given his refusal to hire women writers)
and also because he loves messing with history that's already been established as canon
and also because let's be honest here, you could easily see either of them pointing at storyboards like 'jar jar is key to this'
- Indigo Individual
-
My issue with it was more in the phrasing -- the way he held it over her as a threat rather than being like 'Look I'd really prefer if we were open and I'm not sure our relationship can continue if we're not' (and also an underlying sense that Clara can't protect herself if the Doctor pushes her too far so Danny has to swoop in and save her).
As I said, my problem is more with the message it sends out, and I don't find it amusing. I don't see why the Doctor can't either not comment on her appearance or comment on it neutrally. And frankly, regularly insulting his companion doesn't seem like something the Doctor would do at this stage in his character development, although I guess he has been regressing a lot recently (not a good thing). It's not even about not understanding the nuances of flirting, it's basic niceties and common courtesy. The Doctor has been around for 2000 years and has spent an awful lot of that time with humans, I can't begin to understand why socialisation would come so difficult to him, especially when he's shown himself capable of it in the past (except, of course, for the explanation of writers who'd rather be doing Sherlock).
Sadly, so far it is probably is the best series since 5, although I think what that really says is more how truly awful 6 and 7 were.
- Indigo Individual
(phone post, colour and quotes tba)
EDIT: XINLO YAY
i agree with absolutely everything (heck, i even mentioned some of it before i got that reply)
i think the issue is that moffat doesn't understand emotions, people, or plots
he's a bad fanfic writer who somehow ended up in charge of the actual show and is trying to make the hero dark and brooding and fill it with romantic subplots and two-dimensional characters
also, the doctor faces HIS DARKEST HOUR
(again)
-
1
-
-
I'm not against characterization of Clara, and it agree that the whole "men fight over Clara..." thing wouldn't be good. The only reason I'm bothered is that they are overdoing it, causing a new doctor to have little development when he needs it most.
frankly i don't think i really want to see this new doctor have development because it's already pretty clear he's just scottish alien sherlock and i really hate that
also, 'wouldn't be good'?
*isn't good
it's happening, in the show, that was a huge theme of the last episode
it isn't good
sorry for being stubborn on this point but... yeah
- Indigo Individual
-
Oh yeah sure, that's what it's become. The 'Clara' show, not the 'men fight over Clara as though they're somehow entitled to her and emotionally abuse and manipulate her while they're at it' show.
Doctor Who is supposed to be about the companions. Right now all I'm seeing is a forced romantic subplot being used to teach the Doctor a lesson about the soldier prejudices he never had until now, and the use of Clara as a plot device to facilitate this unnecessary Doctor-centric character development.
but y'know what let's just name it clara, because even with all of these issues this is somehow still better treatment than she got last season
(as a side-note, if this is a comment on clara being forced into literally every moment in the doctor's timeline then yes, i agree)
- Indigo Individual-
3
-
-
i mostly talk without capitalization, but i always punctuate and everything.
i'm just too lazy to hit the ''shift'' key 9/10 times unless i'm being serious.
Or decide to randomly type with caps. That also happens. Like it did right now.
i have to admit i don't go there because i am really big into consistency
like, if i'm typing a phone post or an ipad post i will go to great lengths to ensure that nothing is capitalised so that my brand remains untarnished until we move into Real Talk (or i capitalise things for comedic/attention-drawing purposes)
but i get what you're saying
- Indigo Individual
-
oh yeah the s4 retcon was really weird, but yeah once the show had its feel down it was awesomeThe first season and half of two was actually what I was referring to (well, that and the weird season 4 retconning). But once it did find its niche it really embraced it, and the show ended up being much better for it.
Season 5 wasn't too problematic for me. Parts of it where rushed and I think a little more exposition was needed in the first episode, but overall I thought it was a nice conclusion, even if it was an anticlimactic one. And I might be the minority here, but Georgina Haig's performance is what really made it worthwhile.
(Also: blue lee fo' sure. He just looks better with the glasses.)
don't get me wrong, i really really liked season five (and georgina haig was wonderful in it). i loved season five. my only issue is how quickly we moved from season four to season five, and apart from that i think that the showrunners and writers did the best they could with what they had available and it turned out great.
noooooooooooooooooo altlee forever
blue lee is my second-favourite character, but altlee is just so much fun
and let's be frank here he was done a total disservice by the writers with his rather unceremonious death. HAVEN'T YOU GOT A NANITE BATH FOR THAT?? ;________;
i ship amber!olivia with amberlee, though (probs shouldn't have called him blue lee there seeing as he doesn't get much focus until s4), and bolivia with altlee, because i think oliviaxlincoln is the One True Ship regardless of that peter stuff they tried to hit everyone with
- Indigo Individual
-
*Raises hand*
I watched it from the beginning of its run to the end, and overall really enjoyed it. It had a lot of rocky moments for sure, but for the most part it I thought it was a solid show.
can i count the majority of the first season as a rocky moment? show took a long time to get into its groove
i really liked it, tbh, even if the jump to the fifth season seemed a little rushed. i felt like they built up a pretty awesome thing, and even if their science was really dodgy i could suspend disbelief because that was the whole premise (at least, in the beginning). not my favourite show, but certainly one of them.
important question though: blue lee or altlee
- Indigo Individual
-
I tend to fluctuate randomly between grammar and not grammar. It depends on what I want to say, I guess.
i can feel that
- Indigo Individual
-
no xinlo
you aren't ruined
you are become so much more
yeah, it's nice that people are actually taking me seriously here even when i type like this, and it's cool to see more varied typing styles around here
and i was the same way for a long time, like even during the early stages of my decline in "proper" grammar i was still a grammar freak which is, tbh, really hypocritical. fortunately ive calmed down on that since then, hehyeah, i like having variation present in written voices. it makes everyone that little bit more unique and distinguishable and i think that's cool
ouch
i'm glad you've calmed down, tho c:
- Indigo Individual
EDIT because i have to reply to ALL THE RESPONSES and one wasn't there yet when i started typing:Usually I use proper grammar, but if I'm making a joke or just venting about life (especially on Tumblr), that goes out the window.
tbh i'm not entirely sure how i feel about tumblr overall but one of the things that i do really like about it is how much lowercase, casual typing there is, it feels v. relaxed
-
2
-
Dr. Cynic
in blogs_blog_1793
A blog by fishers64 in General
Posted
yes but up until you decide to go and push me off that cliff it's a cliff, and once you're pushing me off it it becomes dangerous and a tool by which you remove me, which means that you are assigning a purpose to it
the cliff isn't dangerous on its own, with no one in the vicinity in order to be endangered, but once a person's (or an animal's) actions bring it to a dangerous point it becomes so, and as such the meaning that has been assigned to it as you said yourself is that it is dangerous, because living things can make it such, although there would be nothing inherently dangerous in that rock formation if it existed independently of life, just as it is taken to do here
and what you said wasn't 'we give meaning to communication tools, sure, but the rest is fair game'. what you said was, word for word, 'You can't make meaning out of meaninglessness'. that argument is undermined by the fact that yes, you can, as is actively demonstrated by your method of communication and in fact -all- methods of communication -- my point here is that whether or not there are grey areas, you are treating everything as the be all and end all, which is the problem here. you are stating something as hard fact in order to make your argument when it isn't, and you're discussing philosophy. that doesn't seem like a particularly good way to go about things.
- Indigo Individual