|
The lines in question:quote:“He’s a nurse.” / “A little improbably, because he’s a man.” Just, loving, urgh.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
That Better not be in the actual episode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
I was holding out hope, but if those lines are in it, there really will be nothing to excuse most of them. That last one in particular, Christ. Like, bad no matter what, but if it's Polly and Ben One, it's supposed to be him after he's already evolved a bunch. I hope none of those are in the episode. The dusting and spring cleaning ones are the only ones that even border on acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I was holding out hope, but if those lines are in it, there really will be nothing to excuse most of them. That last one in particular, Christ. Like, bad no matter what, but if it's Polly and Ben One, it's supposed to be him after he's already evolved a bunch. I hope none of those are in the episode. Even those read like something the First Doctor would say TO a sexist rear end in a top hat in a mocking way
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
I haven't watched too much First Doctor but it doesn't really seem in character for him to threaten to smack someone's bottom E: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
That's because it's not. That's a stupid person's idea of what a sexist 1960s man would say to an uppity child.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
The First Doctor had some background 60s sexism but even when they were trying to depict him as an old, out-of-touch fuddy duddy, he wouldn't have mocked a guy for being a nurse. Plus, gently caress, if you're going to recast the First Doctor, at least take the opportunity to have somebody imitate Hartnell's mannerisms and take the good parts from old show's writing and adjust it for what we've learned in the half a century since. Like, I get that the idea is probably "Even our hero must learn to adjust his worldview and open his mind to diversity over time, and to admit from his mistakes," but don't throw William Hartnell under the bus by putting words in his mouth by proxy. I really, really hope those are not lines in this special; I've already bought tickets to see it in the theater. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Burkion posted:That's because it's not. I mean, he did do exactly that to Susan, and while that's problematic in its own right at least the dynamic there was guardian/child. Which, again, not big on smacking kids, but it's an entirely different kettle of fish to just having him threaten to smack any mouthy girl he comes across. He never did it to Vicki or Polly so dragging it back out is a bit rubbish
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Again, the worst aspects of the Doctor was a reflection of his WRITERS, not his character. His character he would have no reason to be sexist or appalled at a bisexual/lesbian woman because why would he? This is just loving Christ I hope this isn't in there
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
No, you're right. I think the whole thing is absolutely gross. Reacting that way to Bill is particularly egregious when Big Finish have already shown us how this Doctor as a character views homosexuality. Just saying, while the smacking thing is garbage too, at least it has a modicum of basis in the show itself instead of just saying "well he was made in the 60s so let's make him sexist lol" like the rest of it
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
It smacks of Moffat arrogance. "Look how much more progressive MY doctor is." Hoping it's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Again, the worst aspects of the Doctor was a reflection of his WRITERS, not his character. Exactly! It'd be like "Hm, what'd contrast the 80s with today? We'll just have Colin Baker immediately strangle the Doctor's companion while yelling 'I loooooooove strangling women!'" and the current Doctor learns that he used be a bad person and evolves to not strangle women, or even hit them with his fists. If they wanted to do a redemption narrative in which the Doctor learned from some of his ugly mistakes, they probably should have made Twelve watch some of the things he said to Clara and Danny Pink, and reflect on some changes he could make to how he interacts with his wards. Moffat's bests are better than RTD's bests, in my opinion, but one thing I'll see about Russell Davies is that when he commented on Doctor Who (e.g. via Davros in the season 4 finale), he was actually criticizing himself. Setting up a strawman 1960s Doctor Who to argue against is obnoxious. "See, the Doctor has grown since literally half a century ago" is bad, "See, the Doctor has grown since a more overtly sexist of 1960s media I invented" is worse. The whole thing smacks of Whedony "give me a cookie" feminism. If you want to deconstruct Doctor Who, use the current issues with the show and toxic masculinity instead of arguing against a phantom you invented so that you scold the angry men who don't want to see Jodie Whittaker in the role. I guess at least I'll get to see a solid 45 seconds of Thirteen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Hemingway To Go! posted:It smacks of Moffat arrogance. "Look how much more progressive MY doctor is." The point is to set up the upcoming female Doctor, who he won't be writing
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:The point is to set up the upcoming female Doctor, who he won't be writing Again, though, instead of taking arms against a form of sexism constructed by one's own imagination and tarnishing the legacy of the actor who originated the part, why not deconstruct the show as it currently stands? Like, it's not unheard of: Rian Johnson just slaughtered a herd of Star Wars sacred cows in front of its fans while sticking closely to the characterization of the original characters. He had new characters all but dance on the grave of the Star Wars formula while making a film that was pretty drat Star Wars. I'm disappointed if those lines are true because there's a bunch about the high concept that appeals to Stephen Moffat's strengths (bookends, repetition in which in which the repeated scenes/lines take on new meaning, etc.), but propping the First Doctor up as some kind of Fallout sexist is bad. Meta-commentary is best when it doesn't shove its tongue so firmly into its cheek that it seems vulgar, and there are a lot of times when Moffat has done really well with that, and even poked fun at his own conventions. Waging a war with Twitter misogynists through a ventriloquist act with William Hartnell's corpse stinks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Doctor Who isn't a documentary about a progressive spaceman. It's a TV show that has always been the product of its time. Even if the Doctor himself didn't have obviously embarrassingly sexist lines, he was written by sexists and appeared in plenty of sexist stories. If they're dialing up the sexism of the character to comment on the era and how times have changed: good. Maybe Moffat's not the man for the job (or any job requiring nuance), but it's better to acknowledge and confront the demons in your past than wallowing in wistful hagiography. This isn't a condemnation of what the Doctor can be. Obviously he'll be on both sides of the issue here, and soon will really be on the other side of the issue. The episode still might suck and be bad in any number of ways, but making the first doctor an out of touch character from the 60s is, by itself, a good move, and more fundamentally honest than making his character conspicuously okay with modern sensibilities or evading the issue altogether.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
You're right, the only Doctor to have had a woman showrunner, whose first story was directed by a gay Indian man, is definitely the one to hit as an example of historical systemic issues regarding minorities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
especially from the showrunner who had his Doctor force himself on a married lesbian woman
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
/\ not arguing just cant recall -- when was that? Also - thanks for your earlier response. I always thought Troughton's consume was juts unkempt Hartnells. But I don't see much said abbot that. Box of Bunnies posted:The lines in question: Oh mother fucker. If those are real lines from the show it''l just be . . . sad. "And not a moment too soon" applies to Moffat. I've long thought he was misogynistic but that's just dross. Isn't there a picture of little fat Moff looking like Wednesday Addams reading a Target novelization of the earliest Docs? Isn't he an avowed fan of the show? Shouldn't he loving well know what the Doctors sounded like? He really is a good writer when he tries. Anyone else remember The Doctor Dances? I've seen actual fan fiction that did a better job of recreating the First Doctor's voice than that poo poo. Please, Moffat - after giving a new depth to my personal love of Christmas time with your "halfway out of the dark" line -- please don't gently caress up my Christmas 2017 by making GBS threads up Capaldi's last episode with that crap. King Plum the Nth fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
King Plum the Nth posted:/\ not arguing just cant recall -- when was that? "The Crimson Horror" by Mark Gatiss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
If Moffatt really wanted these themes to be present, it'd make far more sense for them to come from an episodic character like the soldier, not from the Doctor. If these lines are in it they have Moffat and Capaldi leaving on a terrible note after how solid last season was overall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Eiba posted:If they're dialing up the sexism of the character to comment on the era and how times have changed: good. Not really? If you're going to comment on an era's sexism, you don't dial it up. That's the way to pretend that progress has been made without actually making any. "Look how much better we can be than this imaginary sexist I invented" is functionally a way to avoid actual criticism of more subtle sexism. "Your heroes are flawed and it is time to confront that" is alright, but not when you're inventing the flaws yourself for an existing character with a history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Eiba posted:If they're dialing up the sexism of the character to comment on the era and how times have changed: good. No, not good. In fact very bad for three reasons. The first is that it does a disservice to the people making the programme in the sixties (as mentioned, it's the only time the programme has had a female producer for a start). The second is that it's terrible for the programme, as this is a story that a large number of non-regular viewers will watch. The third, and most important, reason is that it's straight out of the sexism-apologist playbook. The "the only sexism is the overt "Women should only be in the kitchen" sexism" playbook. The "sexism no longer exists" playbook. By equating historical sexism with only the big stuff it enables lower key, more subtle, sexists to get away with their poo poo. Then again, a lot of viewers praised the episode where the young woman of colour had medical experiments done on her to make the old white man feel bad. This audience may not be the best at judging tone. King Plum the Nth posted:reading a Target novelization of the earliest Docs? Isn't he an avowed fan of the show? He's also someone that said "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. Given that it’s a teatime show, a children’s show, I think most of the Peter Davison stuff is well-constructed, the directors are consistent." Then again he's always come across as someone who has very fragile masculinity. There's that story that Lawrence Miles told where Larry was discussion Bagpuss (an absolutely marvellous children's programme, like all of Oliver Postgate's stuff) and Moffat came over just to sneer at it and then left, a story which I doubt less and less as the years go by.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
So Moffat has re-written the First Doctor as a sexist granddad so he can self righteously combat a dictionary definition concept of misogyny in order to put his stamp of approval on the first woman Doctor. Well at least hes done after this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:The third, and most important, reason is that it's straight out of the sexism-apologist playbook. The "the only sexism is the overt "Women should only be in the kitchen" sexism" playbook. The "sexism no longer exists" playbook. By equating historical sexism with only the big stuff it enables lower key, more subtle, sexists to get away with their poo poo. I will say it could be a stepping point to examine current Doctor/modern day failings. "I was like this and thought it was okay, what am I like now?" is a question that a story like this could ask. I want to reiterate that I would not be surprised at all if Moffat fucks it up, I just don't think the concept of examining this kind of stuff this way is a bad one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
It should be examined, but there's also a benefit to having some things be pure escapism. Sexism and racism affects a lot of people every day, and in ways that's difficult to ignore; not everything has to remind them that it exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:It should be examined, but there's also a benefit to having some things be pure escapism. Sexism and racism affects a lot of people every day, and in ways that's difficult to ignore; not everything has to remind them that it exists. I don't really know what pure escapism would look like. Every conflict is going to be a commentary on a real conflict in some capacity, or else it's literally meaningless. An episode without "conflict" in the traditional sense would be really neat, but that's not really how Doctor Who has ever operated. This is a semantic issue though because I do understand that some things can be too raw and unpleasant for the affected people, and it's cool to let them enjoy stuff without making daily struggle a plot point. I'm not sure that's a good reason to make looking at sexism in Doctor Who stories taboo, but I'm sympathetic to that position. It's probably a compelling reason to make Moffat talking about sexism taboo, though. Eiba fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Well, it's certainly a reason to make the sexism of the central character an issue that perhaps should not be covered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
More like "Twice Upon a Jolly Good Smacked Bottom" am I right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Good Christ I’m glad Moffat is on the way out. I’ve been a fan of his stuff by and large, but if that’s real it’s just awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
I've kinda drifted away from Doctor Who over Series 10 and beyond, especially after Chibnall was named as Moffat's replacement (with a slight uptick in interest after Whitaker was announced). Big Finish has become increasingly dull and formulaic, and despite some very strong work in the last series I was getting sick of Moffat's Moffatisms. I see that I was right in doing so. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DrWhoOnline/status/943804070845992961 oh no
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Then again he's always come across as someone who has very fragile masculinity. There's that story that Lawrence Miles told where Larry was discussion Bagpuss (an absolutely marvellous children's programme, like all of Oliver Postgate's stuff) and Moffat came over just to sneer at it and then left, a story which I doubt less and less as the years go by. We should also remember that Moffat once told writers to "slut it up" when coming up with big concept ideas for a season of DW. Hell, there was an interview he did ages ago where he couldn't resist bragging about how much he (claimed) he got laid after moving into his first bachelor pad. King Plum the Nth posted:Isn't there a picture of little fat Moff looking like Wednesday Addams reading a Target novelization of the earliest Docs?  I've said it before, but my opinion of Moff's approach to modern DW is basically that little kid trying to impress all the cool kids at school, by taking his favorite show and making it super hip and popular. Unfortunately, in doing so he also threw out all the things that probably made him a fan of it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Goddamn it
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Steven Moffat To Smack The Bottom End Of Viewer Expectations With His Final Christmas Special
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Moffat's clearly "referencing" ideas from older Who again  :quote:Prison in Space began as an unproduced serial intended to be part of Season 6 by Dick Sharples. It would have featured a female-dominated planet, previously used in another unproduced serial The Hidden Planet. It would have featured Zoe Heriot starting a sexual revolution, before being brainwashed and then deprogrammed by the Second Doctor, who smacks her on the bottom. At this stage, I'll just be happy for a change in direction than it's been for under Moffat - I think he's better at writing one-off episodes than plotting a series direction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:Moffat's clearly "referencing" ideas from older Who again Yeesh. Like people weren't already unhealthily obsessed with Zoe's bottom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:Moffat's clearly "referencing" ideas from older Who again Sharples, like Moffat, was also a sitcom writer
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Maybe it's said to Twelve?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Maybe it's said to Twelve? This would redeem it completely if it ends up being the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I was holding out hope  WAAAUUUUAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUGHHH!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 06:27
|
|