I guess they can't all be written by Neil Gaiman

[tardis_stowaway]

I don't know if I'd call that a bad episode, but it wasn't as good as it could (and probably should) have been.   Color me mildly disappointed.  (What color is disappointed anyway?) 

Comments

[fishface44]

I have mixed feelings about it too, but I hope it grows on me. That said, for me even a weaker DW episode beats most other shows.

(BTW, I LOVE your use of the phrase "Pond Death Quota")

[tardis_stowaway]

for me even a weaker DW episode beats most other shows.

Very true! I believe in holding the show to the high standard it's shown itself capable of, but perspective is important. It's like chocolate: even the lower quality versions are still tasty.

[timemachineyeah]

I am really not keen on the fact that one of the themes of this whole two-parter was admitting the personhood of the people made of Flesh, but the Doctor turned around and melted Ganger Amy. What?! I hope next episode has a very clear explanation of how the life of original!Amy or their ability to find her absolutely depended on getting rid of the Ganger, because otherwise that was really horrifying and hypocritical. I assumed the Amy on the TARDIS wasn't a full human ganger, but rather like remote control Flesh being controlling by pregnant!Amy (in virtual reality or a dream) elsewhere, and so it was more like killing off an avatar, or destroying a remote control car, than like killing the other gangers, who were full people. Otherwise why would ganger!Amy have been seeing the things and feeling the things from the other Amy's life? The eyepatch woman and the contractions? The other gangers and their respective humans didn't share any senses or anything. So I took the doctor melting her to simply be his way of sending her back to

[sahiya]

Especially if it turns out that the people who are holding her are the ones to have impregnated her, against her will (I really, really hope this doesn't wind up being the case!), which is straight up a form of rape and sexual assault, and I'm sure will not be treated as such.

I don't think this is going to end up being the case. It's too dark for DW, and anyway, Amy tells the Doctor she's pregnant in "The Impossible Astronaut," which is presumably before she's been taken (I'm with tardis_stowaway in thinking it must've happened between TIA and DotM). So she was already pregnant when she was taken.

[timemachineyeah]

Which will be a lot better than a completely forced pregnancy, but still pretty bad (IMO, YMMV). I think I probably consider pregnancy as an ongoing consent type thing, and similar to Dollhouse where it's a problem to take away a person's ability to take away their consent to sex (or anything else), I feel like it's a problem to take away a person's ability to take away their consent to pregnancy, by making them think they aren't pregnant when they are

[sahiya]

It makes me uncomfortable too, but it also isn't as though the show the endorsing it in any way. I think it's important to look at not only what is portrayed, but also how it's portrayed. The horror of this is exactly what you've said, that Amy has had no say and no knowledge of anything that is going on with her body, and we are meant to be horrified by it. I remember speaking with a much older professor once, about a story in which a woman wakes up pregnant and doesn't remember how it happened, about how this was the nightmare in the days before abortion was legal. It is meant to be a nightmare.

So yes, I do see where you're coming from, but the jury is still out on this, in my opinion. I don't expect Moffat to take it where Whedon would, which would like be an explicit (albeit perhaps ham-handed) commentary on the female body and its agency, but I also trust him to have given it some thought.

[sahiya]

I actually rewatched "The Rebel Flesh" yesterday before watching "The Almost People" and didn't find any characterization inconsistencies. I really quite liked Cleaves and the way she and her ganger interacted with each other. She reminded me of Adelaide Brooke in "Waters of Mars."

I'm actually quite fond of these episodes. I've rewatched both them now, and I think they will end up ranking among my favorite not-written-by-Moffat episodes. I've become very wary about two parters not written by Moff recently (Silurians FTL), but this actually delivered on just about everything I wanted it to (except, as many people have pointed out, on Rory actually acknowledging why he had such empathy for the flesh).

I agree with timemachineyeah that Amy's ganger is not a ganger-turned-human the way the gangers on the island were, but rather a remote controlled avatar; Amy's mind was in her avatar, while her body is lying back wherever. When the Doctor dissolved the avatar, her mind snapped back. The jury remains out on this storyline, though it is weird, I will

[timemachineyeah]

I have never quite understood where people's gender issues come from with him, to be honest.

"There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands."

- Steven Moffat

He's said similar things in DW Confidentials and such. He just tends to be really gender essentialist in interviews to me (saying "Like all boys do" "That's how little girls are") and when he does write a relatively well-rounded or interesting female character, in interviews about that character I start to get the feeling that that was a happy accident that resulted from him trying to write the perfect girlfriend for himself, a sort of fantasy woman that he doesn't believe could really exist, but damn wouldn't she be hot?

I don't make apologies for Joss Whedon (ugh, Dollhouse, ugh ugh ugh), but at least you get the feeling Whedon is

[sahiya]

Yeah, the man's a jackass on occasion. Don't even get me started on his behavior at cons (which is really between him and his wife, I suppose). This is why I don't read interviews with him. But I really am a Wastsonian at heart, so in the end I go mostly off of what he has written, and that tends to be some of the most BAMF female characters on television. Or even when they aren't BAMF, they are, like Sally Sparrow, well-rounded individuals who don't go about making the Doctor the be-all and end-all of their existence. < /poorly disguised critique of RTD >

I dunno. Is it better to try hard and get it wrong or stumble onto the right thing by accident? I'm really not sure. But I would guess that there are a lot more people watching the show than reading the interviews. (Which is not to say that either is particularly good. I would love to have someone with Whedon's intentions and Moffat's skill at execution, I'm just not sure that writer exists.)

[tardis_stowaway]

I really quite liked Cleaves and the way she and her ganger interacted with each other.I liked her in "The Almost People," which was what puzzled me. My memory of her from Rebel Flesh was the way she destroyed the attempts at compromise by charging in with the shock device and insisting that the gangers were monsters who needed to die. Probably my memory is skipping over nuances in both eps, but it's not bothering me quite enough to bother rewatching any time soon. TBH I found these eps a little dull in terms of pacing, visuals, and largely non-memorable characters, but that's just me. Clearly your mileage varied, and I'm glad you enjoyed

[timemachineyeah]

OMG, I just realised I'vve hijacked your journal with long personal ramblings about gender politics.

SORRY.

I WILL SHUT UP IF YOU LIKE.

Also, I gave the impression that I don't like Moffat, when actually I think he's a really good writer.

So.

Yeah.

SORRY.