Comments | kattahj: Ramble on Moffat and characterization and a heap of other things that made it in there somehow

kattahj

Ramble on Moffat and characterization and a heap of other things that made it in there somehow

Jan 06, 2011 15:15

I really am quite stupid sometimes. I've obviously known for quite a while that I'm a dedicated Moffat fangirl, and more-or-less why that is, and I've also known that I prefer minor characters to main ones, and why. Yet it wasn't until I started my reply to this post that I realized it's the same reason: I like being allowed to figure characters ( Read more... )

meta, milos forman, hunger games, vampire diaries, tv talk, harry potter, press gang, doctor who, west wing

Comments 4

therru January 6 2011, 15:56:47 UTC

I read that post too, and contemplated writing an answer, but decided not to ( ... )

kattahj January 6 2011, 16:16:25 UTC

Harry Potter never made me cry, but I cried several times during the Hunger Games.

I probably did cry at some point during HP, I can't remember, but it was a huge disconnect for me to read the reviews' wailings over the death of various people when all I'd felt upon reading it was "huh". (Ianto's death in Torchwood was the same, even though I did like large portions of CoE.)

it's just that Moffat manages to tie his plots together in a more satisfying way

Yeah, it's a very typical example of not holding up to Fridge Logic. Although it is nice to finally be able to make it to the fridge before going "...whaaaat?"

Sometimes I feel Rusty sabotages things for himself, such as when he creates something as generally good as SJA and then keeps crapping Slitheens all over it.

I also fail to see the misogyny that everyone keeps saying is in his writing. I think that female characters were much more sterotypical and summarily (even unfairly) treated in the RTD era. I think RTD did create several awesome characters, though they were ( ... )

therru January 6 2011, 18:05:42 UTC

I think it's also telling in his choice of actors/actresses. A lot of the women Moffat tends to cast are people that are capable of portraying really strong, believable and powerful female characters. Cf Gina Bellman, Meera Syal and Alex Kingston (and, yes, Karen Gillan) with Billie Piper and Freema Agyeman. Moffat doesn't have to repeat to us that Mrs. Jackman and River Song are strong and kick-ass; the actors show it, right up there on the screen. While we were constantly being told how awesome Rose was, but not really ever shown it. And don't even get me started on Martha Jones ( ... )

kattahj January 7 2011, 21:08:28 UTC

While we were constantly being told how awesome Rose was, but not really ever shown it.

I was really surprised at the people who went "We're told that Amy is awesome, but we're not shown why," because when are we told that? We're told that the previous companions are wonderful, but I can't remember ever being told that about Amy. I've come to the conclusion that they think putting someone in the companion role automatically means claiming that she's awesome, because that's the only way that statement makes sense to me. (And even then I disagree, because Amy is awesome. *g*)

Sure, they're all sexy and good-looking women, but that's not really something that Moffat invented or is alone in.

Not all of them. Okay, in terms of Who only, and main characters, and not counting children, then they're all pretty... though Florence Hoath is more average-pretty than moviestar pretty. (Of course, I don't know if he was the one to cast her.) The Coupling girls are pretty by BBC standards but not exceptionally so, and Jekyll and Press Gang have ( ... )