moffaterawho | Popular misconceptions

Moffat era Who lacks the emotional depth of RTD era.

ETA: Eleven icon for effect.

Edited Date: 2011-05-22 01:48 am (UTC)

The one that irritates me the most is the claim that Moffat's 'Who is all plot and no character/not emotional like RTD. Matt Smith's portrayal of the Doctor as perhaps more reluctant or guarded in his feeling of loneliness and sadness have moved me far more deeply than Ten's freer emoting (and I liked Ten). A look can cross Eleven's face so suddenly, then be covered away/pushed aside just as quickly, so that it's like a stab of pain.

I think this really comes across in Amy and River, who folks like to criticize the most. Amy is such a complex companion, whose flaws enrich my understanding of her emotional journey (the loneliness, the childhood fear of abandonment, and her initial reluctance to be vulnerable with Rory) . And River is normally fun, fierce, and bragging but can break my heart with the depth of her feelings for the Doctor.

And Rory is an excellent example of a fleshed out character who was really forced into the background. It would be easy for Rory to be one-note or just there but he is consistently enjoyable and not always predictable. Plus I missed him so much in the early parts of the fifth season--that is a mark of a character, not a plot device.

In reference to your third point, adults deliberately like to forgot/ignore the fact that a lot of children enjoy being scared. It's a knee-jerk response for an adult to protect a vulnerable child, but adults forget that most children who have been protected/been sheltered don't have any life experiences that would make scary-entertainment less entertainment and more emotional scarring. It is entertaining. It's titillating and exciting like a roller-coaster.

I response to your feelings on Amy, Karen Gillan herself has even stated in interviews that she purposely kept her character guarded in S5 but that in S6 with her growing up with parents & etc., she is more open to her emotions.

With respect to 1, while it didn't feel like it was making light of our oppression, it did feel like a pretty hardcore case straight liberal 'ally' Not Getting It. Like, it wasn't about getting married and having a white picket fence back then, it was about rioting against police harassment and building an accepting subculture/family, about finding a place to live both physically and emotionally. The mass social recognition and respectability associated with marriage just wasn't part of the worldview, it wasn't plausible.

As much as good anachronism is part of what makes this show work, it was the bad kind of anachronism, painfully so. There were some good gay moments in those two episodes, and the 'what is that a crime?' bit with Amy wasn't as bad as the bit with Nixon, but...

I think though, if one were to take great liberties with history (*cough* as this show is wont to do), if a gay person in the 60s, in the midst of police riots, and Harvey Milk, and Stonewall and all of that... if they could give one shot to petition the President of the United States to make all of that stop... I think they would. I think anyone would, for any given situation. Look how many little kids write to the President asking him (...hopefully "or her" in the future) to give their mom or dad a job, or fix a problem in their neighborhood. And Doctor Who is ultimately a family show, something for kids, and speaking directly to a high authority figure would get the message across to them that it's okay to ask for help from someone they know can help fix it.

And I think they did that in a way that wasn't "Mr President I would like you to let me marry my boyfriend", but just a nudge at "There's a problem. We're on opposing sides of it. I'm presenting my side of it subtly. We can behave like adults on this and not war on it. Your move."

At least that's what I get from it, as an "ally" as you put it in quotes.

The thing that bothers me about the criticism I referred to is that it assumes there is one universal experience of gay oppression. We know a lot about the kind of oppression gay people experienced as a group, but that isn't to say every single member of that group shares the same experience. As an FBI agent, it's likely that Canton probably didn't have to face the same amount of police harrassment, alienation, etc. Money and status have always afforded some people protection from the kind of discrimination that others of the same race, gender or sexuality face.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable that someone like Canton could have got as far as he has without his sexuality becoming an issue - it's only because he's chosen to confront prejudice that he's lost his job (which is part of why I think he's awesome). It stands to reason that there must have been SOME gay people in the 1960s that talked about gay marriage - unrecognised commitment ceremonies took place long before that. And in the end, even though Canton has more or less helped save the world, that still isn't enough for Nixon to overlook his own opinions or his self-preservation instincts. So I don't really feel as if the issue has been glossed over or anything.

Right, but the idea of marriage as *the* metaphor for gay equality is pretty much specific to the past 10-15 years, and is completely dependent on the stability in everyday reality for a large fraction of cis LGB people. Having sex with another dude was a felony, and at that time actually prosecuted. What the hell kind of sense does that make, making it about marriage? He wouldn't just be unemployed for making that declaration, he'd be in prison. Sure, maybe he wants to get married, and maybe he wants to tell the president that, but that's not how any sane person would frame the issues facing LGBT people in the year of Stonewall.

The issue is framed in 2011 terms. Sure, there've been gay marriages back into the 1800s, but it's only since Goodridge vs. Dept of Public Health that that's been *the* paradigm in which the whole movement was framed, and only since the mid 90s that it was even really on the radar as large scale policy activism in the US (in the fight against the DOMAs).

The first ever attempt to get a legalized same-sex marriage in the US *started* in 1970 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)--and it was so not on the radar that opposite-sex wasn't even explicitly required in the law. Not long after the events of the show, but again, that was the first run, not a primary frame or focus.

Yes, but which is more relevant to viewers in 2011, the gay marriage question or the situation in the 1960s? Remember many of the audience watching this are children - to reach them the message needs to be put in simple terms and that's why it's essentially reduced to "hey kids, do you realise gay people can't get married? Isn't that just STUPID?"

And I think that's a pretty brave message to put in a kids show, even in 2011. If the message had been a historical one of "hey kids, do you realise that in the 1960s, being gay was a felony?" then the audience response may well have been "oh well, at least that doesn't happen now."

I love the fact that Doctor Who is one of the few TV shows aimed largely at children and families which features gay characters in prominent roles and openly states that they are gay - I don't think it's necessary to explore the history of gay oppression in these episodes for it to be effective.

Is it *really* a kids show? It seems like they're not really the primary demographic, at least judging from LJ.

I mean, I do get your point, and I think you're right about "isn't that stupid" being better than "it used to be so bad," but at the end of the day I'm still gonna say that it felt anachronistic in the bad, you-clearly-don't-get-it way. This is definitely influenced by my position as a relatively disenfranchised member of the LGBT community, for whom making the movement about marriage feels like an erasure of the way my trans sisters, brothers, and other siblings live, how we relate to each other and to the broader society, how any and every space feels like a war zone only cis people can't see it--but I don't think it's *just* that.

"Is it *really* a kids show? It seems like they're not really the primary demographic, at least judging from LJ."

With respect, Livejournal users don't tend to be representative of the audience of any show. They may be relatively representative of fandom, but fandom is a tiny section of Doctor Who viewers. Of the 8 million UK viewers (not including iPlayer, DVDs, etc) who watch it most weeks (remember this is about 13% of our population), I'd estimate at LEAST 90% of those would not include themselves in "fandom." And the majority of those 90% are children and families and have been since the 1960s. When you look at the UK promotion of the show, a lot of that promotion is concentrated on a children's audience (Blue Peter, a magazine aimed at younger viewers, etc).

Doctor Who really is a kids show! It's on Saturday BBC 1 between 6 and 7pm. That is the prime time slot for family viewing here. And all the merchandise is aimed at kids. It's always been a kids show. I used to watch it with my mum when I was a tiny child up until it was cancelled when I was about 13.

I agree with this. Further, I feel the issue was framed in the manner in which it was because a) Doctor Who is not a show where we have the time or platform in which to explore all of gay rights history and b) the marriage fight is the one that most people of all orientations in THIS current climate are going to relate to.

I have not heard that complaint about Canton Everett Delaware III, but pft. I loved him, loved the character, hope he comes back. He's wonderful.

I agree w/the Moffat-is-sexist being a constant refrain that I really don't find relevant. His female characters are always wonderful so even if he did mean every word of it exactly as it sounds he's contradicting himself.

I think my biggest complaint is the "River Song is a Mary Sue" argument. What the hell, really. And everyone who makes that argument seems to not understand what a Mary Sue actually is.

There also seems to be a sort of contradiction... "Moffat doesn't give us any strong women, the Jerk! And also River Song (and Amy) are absurd Mary Sues!" Do you want strong women who can stand toe to toe with the Doctor, or don't you?

That it has no heart. I can't see it! I wonder if we are watching the same show!

"MOFFAT'S A SEXIST ASSHOLE LOOK AT HIS FEMALE CHARACTERS HOW DARE HE PUT AMY IN A SLUT SKIRT AND MAKE HER WORK IN A SLUTTY JOB" from the extreme side (sorry for invoking both of the s-words). Because apparently they don't believe that Karen picks out her own wardrobe, and you know, no woman can be respectable and work in a sex industry-like position.

"MOFFAT WRITES THE SAME DAMN STORY OVER AND OVER AGAIN". Then why are you watching? Some of RTD's stuff felt like bad fanfiction to me, but I watched and enjoyed it anyway.

Also the "River is a Mary Sue" argument. I dislike that any character who is disliked is labeled a Mary Sue. Sure, at first she hit some of the points, but she wasn't a fully-fleshed out character yet. We've gotten to know her better now, and yet people are still screaming it. Please learn the definition.

I also REALLY HATE that people are complaining that they're getting no answers. I'm sorry that RTD gave us all the answers in a package with a neat little bow on top right away, but I also really enjoy speculation and wondering and being completely surprised when I'm wrong (or satisfied when I'm partially or all right). I hate it when I'm given the answer right away and then they laugh about it all the next few episodes. Why bother watching then? Why are people so angry that Moffat's giving few to no hints on future episodes, or wrote so many different endings and locked away the real one so no one knows what happens next? What's the POINT if you know what's going to happen?
(that's mostly for the "Eye Patch Lady" and Schroedinger's Uterus complainers. SIT BACK AND ENJOY THE RIDE, or wait until it's all online or on DVD and watch it all then)

That everything Moffat does is a retreat of RTD. Um, hello? Who invented Jack Harkness? Moffat. Weeping Angels? Moffat. River Song? Moffat. Who wrote the best, creepiest, edgiest eps of RTD's era? Moffat.

I've heard variants on the lack of heart thing too but I get a lot of that from the Tennant fans who are STILL whining about him being gone. Oh David was just the best! Yeah? Have you ever watched anything other than new Who? No. I'm not surprised. IMO we've seen more emotional depth from Matt than from anyone else playing the Doctor before, going all the way back to Hartnell, and I think we see it because 1) he is a brilliant actor and 2) Moffat lets him put his own spin on things, lets him deliver the lines the way he wants and get inventive on-set, etc. He trusts his star and the results have been nothing short of fantastic.

As for the sexist complaint - I wouldn't just point to Amy. This is also the man who gave us River Song and Liz 10, two very strong, sexy women.

Also, emotion does not equal crying all the time... One reason Tennant got SO ANNOYING (and I genuinely wanted him gone by the end, even though at first I thought he was brilliant--I blame the writers, though, not him) was that EVERY SINGLE THING was a reason to get emo and weep. Basically, RTD who was gratuitious emotionalism, far too much of the time that made me start to get barfy. Whereas, in this season for example, I've already teared up several times. And it's always reasonably subtle stuff. Like Rory being on the phone (well, that blinkly light thingy) with Amy, and we all know he's wondering if she's talking about the Doctor or about him... There were no over the top hysterics or tears. Rory just kept going and tried to save her!

There are very few Tennant eps I can watch without, at some point, cringing in embarrassment. He is VERY theatrical but the main emotion I remember him giving us was glaring. To me he felt like a Pertwee retread (without the dandy clothing or the cool car). I tried to tell myself at first it was just my disappointment at only getting one season of Eccelston but by series 3 I had to give that up and admit it - I just didn't like his performance. I had much the same reaction to him in Hamlet. Perhaps all that scenery chewing works on stage but it didn't work for me in Doctor Who.
Matt Smith is able to tell us more with a single look than DT could with three lines of dialogue. He acts with his eyes. Last season you could see pain and doubt and fear and anguish even when his face was still and he wasn't saying anything. He's done it again this season and I've cried for him several times. I couldn't see any other actor pulling off the part in "The Doctor's Wife." I know Gaiman started writing it before Matt was cast but he made it his own. Moffat says hiring him was the best decision he made and he is correct.

You know, I really didn't like Matt Smith last season, he just seemed too zany-for-the-sake-of-zany and indulged in self-aggrandizement a *lot* (the 'never ever put in a trap' line was just *awful* and people were quoting it all over the place)--but he's really grown on me, and I don't know how much of that is him changing and how much is me getting used to him / DT being gone. I never got much emotional depth from his performance until this season, last year felt really surface-level-only, but I definitely see it now. IDK if it changed or I did (prolly both) but it's nice.

Now I loved the trap line. Of course, I also love "I'm the Doctor. You're in the biggest library in the universe. Look me up." Both Moffat lines, both enjoyable (for me at least).
I think people got used to DT's over-the-top acting, which made it seem like Matt wasn't doing anything. It's like the difference between RTD story-telling (hitting us over the head with it) and Moffat (you must use your brain to figure out things). DT over-emoted. Matt makes you watch for it. And I'm a sucker for actors who can use their eyes to tell you more of what's going on in the character's head - Hugh Laurie is another who does it well.
I thought the zanyness was very much the Doctor covering for what he was really thinking and feeling, as well as the fact his brain is at least three thoughts ahead of his mouth at any given time (something else I think Matt does very well). I kind of miss it this year, but we seem to be moving in darker directions with everyone in the TARDIS keeping secrets.

That's not what I meant at all--I meant the complete opposite, where everything was on the surface with Matt and with Tennant there was more depth.

That line! It just felt so arrogant and full of himself. Ugh. It seemed like a lot of telling-not-showing and beating you over the head with how cool and awesome he is, and no subtlety or letting you just see it for yourself. (to turn some of your own words against you :P) And that line felt like only the worst of something he seemed to do every other episode. (I'm not remembering the line you're mentioning, though. Was that a 'silence in the library' line?)

(I also am a very, very emotionally expressive, heart-on-my-sleeve person, so it doesn't seem like overacting to me in the same way because, well, I'm like that, or more so.)

I kind of miss it this year, but we seem to be moving in darker directions with everyone in the TARDIS keeping secrets.

Perhaps that's part of what I like more about this season. (appropriate TVD icon is appropriate)

It was from Silence in the Library. I guess it was the circumstances when the lines were delivered which made them both work for me. In Silence the shadows were threatening and it was not time for subtlety. In Time of Angels he had just been taunted very cruelly for failing to save Bob and he lashed out. In that circumstance it was also an effective distraction as the Angels were trying to figure out what their mistake was (and it was a confidence booster for the remaining clerics). It was bravado, not real boasting.
As for depth, I felt DT's over-emoting was all surface with no depth beneath it. It felt showy and fake. I'm not saying there aren't sincerely expressive people but he didn't feel that way to me. I was too aware of the fact he was acting at all times. I never felt that way with CE and I don't with Matt either.

As for depth, I felt DT's over-emoting was all surface with no depth beneath it. It felt showy and fake. I'm not saying there aren't sincerely expressive people but he didn't feel that way to me. I was too aware of the fact he was acting at all times. I never felt that way with CE and I don't with Matt either.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, I loved Tennant's acting. Luckily it's one of those things where that's not a horrifically insulting proposition (is it? :P).

What about the gloating/"look at me I'm so badass" at the end of 5x01?

Also I *loved* the library episodes. I didn't go to sleep till dawn that night when I first saw them though. :-/

Well, again, that was bravado with a purpose. He wanted the Atraxi to leave and never come back.
Frankly, the Doctor has plenty to brag about. If I was a baddie and he showed up, I think I'd back off pretty quick. :)

"The Impossible Astronaut [and the sequel] doesn't make any sense! I'm confused!!!!"

Certainly you have to THINK, but really, not only is it making perfect sense to me, my friend and I were able to call half of the plot twists while we watched it. AND ALSO IT IS A SERIES AND THERE IS MORE TO COME!

It seems to me, that people started to have to think, and then just said "I'M CONFUSED" and turned off their brains, instead of just taking in the info and seeing where it went. Especially since the show was condemned pretty much right after the first of the two eps...

[This is my biggest annoying criticism. I've heard lots of specific detail-y ones, but since a lot of them were prefaced by "I have no idea what just happened!" I thought they were sort of lame.]

Actually, one more specific criticism that I heard: "The pirate one was so lame--I mean, anyone could have told you that the Mermaid girl would turn out to be just trying to help, like the things in the "Are you my mummy" episode." First off, not only did this come from people who complained that the first two were TOO HARD, so I thought the criticizers really should make up their minds, but also, well, I have only seen Doctor Who from 2005 on, and the "tbe monster isn't really bad, just misunderstood" seems to be a Who standard...

Re: the it's too scary--not only has no child ever died from watching a scary TV programme, but also no child has ever died from being told by hi parents "you get freaked out by this, you won't be watching it." *sigh*

Well, thanks for the opportunity to get slightly ranty. That's been bothering me for a long time!

(okay... for five weeks... IT FEELS LIKE A LONG TIME, THOUGH. :-P)

Oh, God I know. If you get easily confused, why are you watching science fiction? You don't have to have a PhD in physics to get it, but you can't turn your brain off. It's not Girls Next Door! (...or any other mindless television, that's just my choice when I want bright colors and noise and nothing else ^^;;;)

I mean, really. I read one of the DW novels last night and I had to put it down occasionally just to sort it out before getting back in and going. It's complicated stuff sometimes.

In fact, you don't actually have to know anything about science! You just have to patiently take in the information, and either start putting it together yourself, or wait until the end of the two episodes where the writer puts it together for you!

I thought that about the pirate one, but thought the first two this season were brilliant, so at least I'm consistent?

(Really it was more that they just dragged out that reveal too long, two to five minutes earlier and no one would've complained.)

I do remember watching an ep of old who as a kid and being so horribly scared I couldn't finish the episode and it's bugged me ever since (b/c I have no idea which episode it was and there's kind of a lot I'd have to sift through to find it), but yeah mostly I agree. (It was about some kind of circus or something? It was so scary.)

The only one I'd heard before was the one about the episodes being too scary. Scary, yes, but too scary? Come on!

I totally enjoyed the episodes before Moffat, but when I rewatch them now, I realize the most memorable, the ones that hold up after two and three and six watchings, are the ones he wrote.

Mum

All I have to say to that is...

BLINK!

That was a totally brilliant episode.

I think I'm going to rewatch it right now.

I think I liked RTD Moffat best, then RTD RTD, but then some Moffat Moffat stuff was great and others were as bad as the worst episodes of the new reboot... and, despite the fact that the weeping angels were Moffat's creation, "Blink" was *amazing* while the two last season were only pretty decent. So, basically, I think they worked best together, though this year's Christmas special and the first two episodes this season make me much happier with Moffat than I was previously. (Obvs also loved 4 but Moffat didn't write it, it reeked of Gaiman in the good ways and the bad ways)

So, this is a slightly more general complain about complaints... but this seems like the place. :-) If it is too far off topic, mod, please feel free to delete.

I've noticed this both in Doctor Who fandom and in Sherlock fandom. There's nothing wrong with being critical at all. There are TV shows that I've seen that I hate utterly and entirely. If you wanted to ask me about them, I could explain why I think they're lame. But here's what happened. 1. TV Show came on. 2. I watched several episodes. 3. I decided the show was lame. 4. I stopped watching. The end!

It's weird to me that people are saying 1. I LOVE this show, I'm such a fan and I will not write fanfiction and obsess and make icons and join fanclubs. 2. The show writers are doing it wrong! I am going to spend all my time between wrting fanfiction and obsessing, and making icons and joining fanclubs complaining about how horrible it is!

I mean, to each his own. If watching something faithfully and then wanking it floats your boat, fine! But I don't really see the point. I watch Doctor Who and Sherlock, because I think that Moffat is a good writer. Does this mean I can't be critical? No! But if I am going to say "I think Moffat is a brilliant writer" but then complain about 75% of the choices he makes... [sometimes before he actually makes them based on scraps of spoiler evidence...] I think I need to re-think my statement that he is a brilliant writer.

You could object that Doctor Who has been around for ages, and people are complaining because Moffat is ruining it, but a lot of complaints seem to be coming from newbies. Besides, one of my favorite shows used to be Criminal Minds. After two years it was changed drastically. I stopped watching. I could explain why I stopped watching. I even complained when it started changing. But I don't watch it faithfully just to complain why I don't like it anymore.

That I really don't understand.

oops... I can't edit comments, but I meant "I will NOW write fanfiction and obsess..." I wrote "not" and that is rather confusing... :-)

I was thinking about it today, and I think the difference is in how drastically the characters and story change while maintaining a basis that people feel attached to. And unlike other shows, there's a sense of "this show will be around, acted and directed and show-run by *someone* if you don't do it" as opposed to most TV shows where the writers/directors/showrunner are all the show, without them the show doesn't exist. By creating a setup in which any individual piece can be taken out and swapped with a different piece, the show doesn't 'belong' to its current caretakers in the same way that, say, Buffy 'belongs' to Joss Whedon (and SMG/alyson hannigan/et al), and so the fans take ownership of it in a psychological sense.

If you don't like Joss Whedon, you don't watch Firefly, because Firefly is Joss Whedon is Firefly--but if you don't like a particular incarnation of the doctor or of SH, well, they could always be replaced with someone else--and should be!

(As a further example, fans of the original Battlestar Galactica get VERY touchy about the now-more-famous version, Starbuck in particular (despite her being arguably the show's most famous/memorable/beloved character, 70s BSG fans will complain AT LENGTH about how they RUINED IT by casting Starbuck as a woman.))

Hmm, that first sentence is completely not right. I mean more about the personnel of the show, as the rest of the comment addresses.

It is sexist
I didn't even realise people thought this until the Comic Relief mini ep. I don't understand where they are getting it either! There was no moment that I even thought might slightly been taken as sexist. And regarding the length of Amy's skirts, go and walk down a high street and you'll see loads of girls wearing much less than Amy does!

It's too scary
Hasn't the whole appeal of Doctor Who been based around hiding behind the sofa?

It lacks emotion
I think Moffat haters just like to skip over things that don't agree with their ideas. Did they completly miss Amy's Choice, Rory's Death in Cold Blood and Vincent and the Doctor?

It's too complicated for children
People need to give children more credit! They pick up on things alot better than some adults do!

Oh wow. I don't have anything to add! Everyone here has said pretty much everything I've been thinking and what's been bugging me about some of the fandom. It's good to know we're not alone.

People who don't like Amy

I never really figured out why people don't like her? Seriously, she is my favorite companion, she was the reason I tuned into season 5, she is totally badass.

I don't get the not liking Amy thing either, but with the exception of Adric and Susan for the classic series, I've found something to like in all the Doctor's companions.

"I don't get the not liking Amy thing either, but ... I've found something to like in all the Doctor's companions."

Me too. Of the ones I can remember, anyway; the only old who ones I remember are the brigadier, SJS, and Romana (I & II).

"with the exception of Adric and Susan for the classic series"

LOLLLLLLLL

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Popular misconceptions

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags