Comments | fauxkaren: Women and Their Stories in Doctor Who

fauxkaren

Women and Their Stories in Doctor Who

Oct 09, 2011 02:46

So, I ended up getting into a really great discussion with therealycats about RTD's Women in Doctor Who vs Moffat's Women in Doctor Who over in this post and while replying to her comments, I realized that I was basically writing the meta that I'd been toying around with writing, so I edited my comments together to create this post. If you want to see my ( Read more... )

meta, doctor who

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

alexandral October 9 2011, 15:53:09 UTC

Oh, I see the whole thing totally differently. I am sort of a neutral observer - although I have watched the majority of Dr.Who episodes (my daughter likes it), I never went further than "this is a light family entertainment" with it, and I am definitely not in a place where I can discuss the show seriously because this is my impression about it - good fun, not too much food for thought.

But overall, I would argue that the show is ABOUT Doctor, and always have been (all 700+ episodes), it never was about the companions, by default - it is DOCTOR WHO show after all. The companions are .. companions, seasonal accessories, and all the drama is about HIM.

PS: this all to say, Dr.number 10 was the least of my favourites ever. He just was ugly/shouting/bad acting. I would expect David Tennant to disappear into insignificance now that his Dr.Who days are over.

_thirty2flavors October 9 2011, 16:04:00 UTC

But there's a precedent in New Who that the show is about the companions, and is told through the companion's perspective. The first 4.5 seasons of New Who set this up. I don't think "he's the titular character so everything should be about him, always" is really a good excuse -- there's no reason the lead female can't be fully realized while also developing the Doctor as well.

alexandral October 9 2011, 16:15:43 UTC

You see, this is where I disagree - I don't think 4.5 seasons of New Doctor Who were about the companions, Dr. Who was still the main character. I am not discussing how "fully realised" the companions in these 4.5 seasons were, it is just was still the show about HIM, not about THEM for me. This is just my view of things, and the way I saw it. I also don't think it should be this way (I think you misunderstand me here), but for me this is how it was.

_thirty2flavors October 9 2011, 16:25:58 UTC

Well he was the main character, so he did have lots of development and was the constant whereas the companions changed. But the companions were hugely important, to the end that the specials were about how bad things get when there isn't a companion ( ... )

alexandral October 9 2011, 16:32:45 UTC

Well, for me not one of companions ever felt close in "importance" to Doctor, this is just how I felt/feel.

fauxkaren October 9 2011, 17:30:59 UTC

I don't think that the show being about the Doctor is mutually exclusive to the companions having their own stories. For me personally, I just about always connect more to female character and representation of women in media is incredibly important to me. So in Moffat's era as show runner, the fact that the women are somewhat subsumed by the Doctor rubs me the wrong way. They're not their own characters anymore. They are characters as they relate to the Doctor.

alexandral October 9 2011, 17:50:24 UTC

You see, for me it has always been this way (female characters are subsumed by Doctor, apart from Eccleston's Nine), and BTW, who is Moffat? I imagine this is one of the writers.. From which series he started writing? I just never noticed too much difference re: female characters characterisation, that is all, so I am giving you my "two cents". For me - there isn't too much difference at all.

Without knowing who wrote what (but I imagine from your posts that Moffat is the recent guy), my view on female characters in the NEw Series Dr. Who are:

Rose: I thought Rose was good at first (with The Nine), but became more "all about doctor" with Ten.

Donna was good ,

Martha was "unloved companion" (by the Doctor) and seemed to be too much in one-sided love with him (not my cuppa tea)

Amy is good because for once, she does not immediately fall in love with Doctor but has the adorable Rory who is all about HER.

River is confusing as I haven't finished the current season yet.

fauxkaren October 9 2011, 18:03:32 UTC

Moffat was the man running the show throughout series 5 and 6 (so Amy and River). RTD was the guy in charge through series 1-4 (Rose, Martha and Donna ( ... )

alexandral October 9 2011, 18:51:13 UTC

** sigh ** for me it is as if you are talking about a different show - I definitely don't see any of those deep conclusions, I think we better leave it at that.

I looked up Moffat alexandral October 9 2011, 19:10:48 UTC

I have looked up who Moffat is! he is the writer of my two all-time favourite episodes "Empty child" and "Doctor dances"! So, just for the record, I like Moffat. In fact, now that you made me think about it, the last two seasons were much more "thinky" than the previous seasons, more of a "switch you brain on" than "Dr. Who makes faces and shouts at Daleks, interspersed with annoying side-characters like Micky" we had for a while. ** sigh ** So, we'll have to agree to disagree. At least now I know what is what.

Re: I looked up Moffat fauxkaren October 9 2011, 20:53:14 UTC

I do enjoy The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances a lot. I don't think that Moffat is The Worst Ever, but he is definitely not the writer for me. What you see as Doctor Who being more "thinky", I would describe as being more "plotty". (Unfortunately I think that with his latest series, Moffat let his plots get a bit out of control as outlined in this amusing video.) Moffat tends to value plot over emotions and character development which some people prefer. More power to them, but it's not what I enjoy ( ... )

Re: I looked up Moffat alexandral October 10 2011, 08:24:00 UTC

No, I mean exactly what I mean - "thinky". There were quite few episodes in the previous season (I am still not through the current season) which were more than the usual brand of Dr.Who campy entertainment - The Bast below, the Stone Angels, etc. An opportunity to ponder about "bigger questions" when your kid is watching The Doctor and his sonic screwdriver, so to speak - our relationship with the nature, for example. I am sorry, I never could take any of Dr. Who too seriously before, so I am bit confused to what "character development" you mean.

Re: I looked up Moffat fauxkaren October 10 2011, 08:36:03 UTC

I'm still not quite sure what you mean by "thinky"? If you mean exploring deeper themes, look at "Gridlock" for an example of an episode that examines human nature and faith. Or "The Last of the Time Lords" which again has a lot of religious symbolism and ideas about belief and forgiveness. Or maybe look at "Midnight" which is a brilliant look at mob mentality. Or perhaps "Turn Left" whuch again deals with human nature and how we can turn on each other in bad times, but also shows moments of hope. Or perhaps go all the way back to series 1 and consider "Dalek" which asks what makes the Doctor better than the Dalek if he is so single minded about killing them. Or maybe look at "The Long Game" for some thoughts about how news and media dictate society. For a something a bit more lighthearted, "Bad Wolf" is an amusing spoof on our culture's obsession with reality TV ( ... )

Re: I looked up Moffat alexandral October 10 2011, 08:42:36 UTC

Re: I looked up Moffat kilodalton November 5 2011, 16:26:28 UTC

I think we will have to leave it at "I think I am watching a different show because all I can see in the majority of Dr. Who episodes is campiness, so I sort of wonder what on earth are people talking about and wonder if they are serious with long serious discussions or are just pulling my leg". It was especially bad during Ten times who was the Mister Campy Bad Acting for me , so I didn't see none of his character behind the shouting and silly face-making. Sorry.

We're not pulling your leg. The head writer for s1-s4 (Rose, Martha, Donna) in fact gave many video commentaries and in fact wrote a 700+ page book detailing how he thought out his stories and character arcs. It was never about "being campy" for him.

I am sorry you are not seeing in the scripts what he intended, and what we see.

Re: I looked up Moffat alexandral November 5 2011, 16:48:46 UTC

I could see the potential and some really serious stuff in the season 1 (so I am not really blaming the writer here), but David Tennant's bad acting was so BAD that any of the following seasons didn't do anything for me more than slapstick sense (and I tried to love it, I really did!). I think for me it was difficult to see any subtle or serious stuff when the face-making of Nine was so in your face and the first thing you notice.. I don't know what to compare it with.. variety show?

Back to all threads