The Whovian Files: hmmm

[delta_mai]

This episode was...  On the whole disappointing.  Not from a plot point of view, or an excitement point of view, or even, to some extent, a writing point of view.  No.  I have my reasons and shall state them in a minute.

Comments

[mfirefly10]

Moffat is a misogynist, no doubt but I don't really see it creeping into his writing that often. Much as I wish Amy had more to do this season, I think it was more storyline-dictated than anything else. And I was bothered by Amy + Rory's non-reactions to most of what happened in this episode but I chalked it up to both of them being so completely overwhelmed and the writers not wanting to make them too angry (which is a bit ridiculous since they should both be furious at the UNIVERSE by now but it is a kids' show.)

While I was bothered by the inclusion of Hitler simply because I'm always bothered by his inclusion in anything, I was kinda glad they hit him and shoved him in the cupboard for the whole episode so that the episode wasn't ABOUT Hitler at all. Granted, he really didn't need to be in it in the first place but at least they got rid of him quickly and made it all about Melody/River, instead. Who was FLAWLESS, btw :)

(Posting seem to work just fine if you do it in html format instead of rich text...or maybe that's just on my end.)

On another note, I'm sorry about your stomach pains. As someone who suffers from daily chronic migraines, I know what it's like to live with pain no one can explain or do anything to ease. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, least of all you and I'd be happy to talk to you about it, if you need to vent or anything.

[delta_mai]

Doctor Who is NOT, nor has EVER BEEN, a kids' show.

It's a family show, one whichwas written so that the whole family could sit and watch, but it is not written exclusively for kids and its rare that you'll come across something in the plot that was editted out for kids.

Sorry, but that's just not true. And it certainly doesn't apply in this case - the writers have never spared the viewers from seeing true anguish before (see: just about any David Tennant scene in his last season) and I doubt that was happening now.

Argh i'mma have to reply to your other wonderful comments later but I think my laptop has a virus and dad;s nagging me to let him take a look :LS

[mfirefly10]

Sorry, I meant family show, not kids show.

But I still think Moffat has tried to keep his verison of the show...idk...emotionally lighter?...than the earlier seasons. Like...Rory keeps dying over and over again but we never really get to see how that impacts either Rory or Amy. And we've only had one conversation, between Rory + the Doctor instead of Rory + Amy, abuot Rory spending 2,000 years as a plastic soldier waiting for Amy to return. We've seen none of the effects of Amy missing out on her entire pregnancy. And now, we're not seeing how the Ponds are dealing with losing their daughter. IDK...I feel like Moffat's doing this on purpose to try and keep the show as light as possible in those areas so he can go darker with the Doctor's 'death' and the monsters of the week. I feel like RTD spent more time on the emotional impact the storylines had on the characters than Moff has and I think that's intentional.

[delta_mai]

Omg how did I not reply to this?

I actually agree with you there. I think that's exactly what he did and yeah, I think the show has suffered in some ways because of that. Like, take the most recent episode. There was all this stuff about Amy waiting and getting old and NOTHING WAS MENTIONED ABOUT RORY DOING THAT. I hate hate HATE when this happens in shows - when a character goes through something life changing and huge and then it barely impacts how the writers write their character and it's never mentioned again. Obviously this isn't exactly the case this time, but it certainly felt that way.

Although I do love how Moffat's writing the show (mostly), I think he's really fallen down here. We've got used to Doctor Who being really good at examining the effect of incidences on the characters. For me, it's become a pinnacle of character development and IMO Moffat's kinda failed that legacy. Oh well.

RE: other comments lol

See, with Hitler, I feel if they were going to do an episode about him they should have been WAY MORE historically concious and actually, you know, made it about him. My friend went to Aushwitz recently (spelling fail omg) and we had this awesome conversation yesterday. She said the people who ran the tour were making it clear that the guards were people too. They showed the visitors pictures of them laughing on holiday, pictures of them with their families. The guides said one of the most dangerous things about looking back at this is to assume they were all just monsters. because that way it makes it ok cos it was just that once and they were evil. When actually no, they were people, and they could have been us.

It's similar with Hitler. If you make him into a comic character you diminish his status, which diminishes what he did, which, to me, is insulting to all the people he hurt/destroyed etc. If he's a silly, pathetic little man it leads you to question how he ever got away with what he did. It's just wrong and I hate it. Anythig involving Hitler should be handled really carefully. Maybe it's ok to portray him as a monster in that way. Because yeah, he was just awful. That being said I guess there was no point saying what I said about the guards. I guess that didn't have anything to do with the point I wanted to make, apart from the fact that when we look back at this, we have to try and see it as clearly as possible.

Rambly comment is rambly.

You see I've been starved for in-depth LJ conversation!!

RE: health stuff

Thanks hun!! That means a lot :) Also *hugs* for your migraines. I know people who get them and they are truly horrible. Hope they get better! *hugs again for good measure*