I agree with that. It is sad that a certain group of people think it's impossible for a straight male to write for females.
Usually certain pseudo feminist blogs on Tumblr and Twitter accounts like DWR.
I'll admit that Moffat's writing isn't perfect but those groups tend to go too far with the sexism/misogyny accusations at times that it becomes hard to take them seriously.
I also liked that Amy was a flawed character. It made her more interesting to watch as well.
There are some problematic elements to Moffat's writing (notably how he wrote the River and Eleven relationship to me which diminished her character imo due to the poor writing), but there's absolutely nothing wrong with Amy and Clara as female characters. I tend to in fact have more issues with Rory who became the ultimate nice guy trope at times and that was fairly yawn worthy.
I agree with that. It is sad that a certain group of people think it's impossible for a straight male to write for females.
This isn't true; not in the case of literature anyway. Thomas Hardy and DH Lawrence wrote excellent female characters, with a mix of boldness and vulnerability.
I suppose casting also comes into it. If an unattractive girl had been cast as Amy, would we see the role as being sexist? Many people go into the creation of a role; a casting director, wardrobe person,director and actor could turn even the most staunchly feminist character into a bit of fluff.
Moffat's sexist writing needs to be filed in the same draw as RTD's gay agenda. ie. the draw of ridiculous notions.
Exactly. He's not perfect and he does have a tendency to repeat certain tropes (as do many writers) but the accusations of sexism and misogyny have gotten ridiculous at this point.
Brave, brave girl. Karen, I salute your courage. However, shaving your head won't be enough. Only surgery can now save you from the Tumblr hate mob. Good luck! ;-)
When I think of Amy, river and Clara, the one thing they have in common is that they are all strong female character's who all delight in being bossy with the doctor and putting him in his place. If anything his women are a bit too in charge. Have no idea how anyone could look at those character's and say their creator was sexist. I would say it's strong males he can't write like rory. in fact the whole Amy - Rory dynamic is the ultimate non sexist relationship, unless we were talking about sexism against men. She's blantantly in charge, while he's sort of a 'yes dear, I'll hold your purse' type husband
Brave, brave girl. Karen, I salute your courage. However, shaving your head won't be enough. Only surgery can now save you from the Tumblr hate mob. Good luck! ;-)
Louise Brealey (Molly in Sherlock) got some heat from that crowd when she admitted that she thought a female version of Watson was 'gimmicky'.
Some oversensitive dears accused her of sexism and racism.
Not sexist exactly but he does have some weird ideas of "marriage" and "family". Amy and Rorys role as parents to their daughter was reduced to nothing more the biology. 11 and Rivers marriage was reduced to a casual part time arangement. If there had just been a bit more depth.Like when he went to the house at the end of TDTWTW.Instead of just briefly mentioning River if she had actually been there for christmas dinner too. He lost the final part of Ponds when he lost her.Maybe thats why he took so long to let her go. Still we don't know who sent Amy to 11 as he died do we?.Look forward to 12 and Claras new adventures in S8.
Not sexist exactly but he does have some weird ideas of "marriage" and "family". Amy and Rorys role as parents to their daughter was reduced to nothing more the biology. 11 and Rivers marriage was reduced to a casual part time arangement. If there had just been a bit more depth.Like when he went to the house at the end of TDTWTW.Instead of just briefly mentioning River if she had actually been there for christmas dinner too. He lost the final part of Ponds when he lost her.Maybe thats why he took so long to let her go. Still we don't know who sent Amy to 11 as he died do we?.Look forward to 12 and Claras new adventures in S8.
I kind of see this as writing this as more proof of them being written as in charge, independent women, it's like marriage or having kid's dosen't stop them living their lives, and it makes sense that river's more like a casual friend than like their daughter, as they never got to bring her up
What you've said about 'who sent amy to 11 as he died', I thought that was shown pretty clearly that he was just hallucinating, in fact they even showed for a second that there was no one actually there.
Here's an interesting idea: some people write characters, not idealized role models. The former are called writers, the latter are called politicians and sociologists.
Here's another idea: there are no perfect women or men in the world and to write one is BS.
Guess what: sometimes women can be weak, foolish or of poor character. So can men.
Information: good drama portrays people as they are, not as we wish they would be.
Summary: shut up with this stupid sexism thing. You're making a fool of yourself.
Amy and Rorys role as parents to their daughter was reduced to nothing more the biology.
That ties in more to me with Moffat's biggest flaw as a writer - terrible at emotional consequences. A lot of the time he will just jump over or skip big things and it's unsatisfying. The lack of fall out over Amy losing her daughter (which should have been deeply traumatising) and the fact that when she was dealing with the idea she couldn't have children it was all about Rory. Similarly Clara living hundreds of different lives which she has various memories of - that has got to do something to you and the concept is an interesting one but he said he's taken some lines out about that in episode 1 of series 8 because people aren't interested in that sort of thing. Why he feels that people aren't interested in character depth I don't know!
11 and Rivers marriage was reduced to a casual part time arangement.
Well if did happen in an alternate universe that never existed and it was kind of written as though he did it under duress to shut her up and make her put things back right. I'm rather glad her appearances were limited after the wedding episode because I enjoyed the character far more prior to that. I never saw it as a proper marriage (thank goodness because it was horribly problematic and diminished River), but they obviously cared for each other and had a lot of respect. That was enough. It seems that after Manhattan he didn't go and see River again and didn't come off his cloud until he met Clara. That makes a lot of sense.
Moffat's female character do sometimes seem to all draw from the same well - but I don't think that's sexism rather than either a lack of imagination, or always needing a character to fill the same position in a story, and happening to be female.
Here's an interesting idea: some people write characters, not idealized role models. The former are called writers, the latter are called politicians and sociologists.
Here's another idea: there are no perfect women or men in the world and to write one is BS.
Guess what: sometimes women can be weak, foolish or of poor character. So can men.
Information: good drama portrays people as they are, not as we wish they would be.
Summary: shut up with this stupid sexism thing. You're making a fool of yourself.
Moffat's female character do sometimes seem to all draw from the same well - but I don't think that's sexism rather than either a lack of imagination, or always needing a character to fill the same position in a story, and happening to be female.
Have to agree. Clara, Amy and River Songare all very similair female characters. The new one they brought in during Matt Smiths last episode was a carbon copy of River Song, just without the 'travelling backwards in time' baggage.
Have to agree. Clara, Amy and River Songare all very similair female characters. The new one they brought in during Matt Smiths last episode was a carbon copy of River Song, just without the 'travelling backwards in time' baggage.
My guess is that perhaps the episode might have originally been written with River in mind (after all, who else would get a kick out of being the head of a religion where everyone turns up naked?), it would have been nice to see the two of them at loggerheads about the danger posed to the galaxy, as well as a reveal that she was in fact the head of the church whose splinter cult created her.
But that might be one predestination paradox too far, even for Moffat.
I got as far as the part where the writer accuses the Doctor of committing sexual assault and had to give up. I hate this sort of rubbish. They bang on and on about trivialising serious issues, but their incessant bleating that these incidents are actual sexual assault is the ultimate trivialisation of the subject.
No matter what these people say, this isn't feminism they're practising. Its bonkers extremist nonsense, that's what it is.
Don't these people have better things to do with their time? Y'know, like protesting against actual mistreatment of women, instead of getting their panties in a bunch because a woman is feisty and powerful AND a man dares to find her attractive because of it - ALL IN A FICTIONAL TV SHOW ABOUT A 1000-YEAR-OLD ALIEN TIME-TRAVELLER!!!
To be honest I agree with quite a lot of that blog, especially cookie cutter characters. I do think Steven Moffat has been rewriting the same characters and scenarios since Blink and earlier. Dr. meets girl at a young age..comes back when she has grown up. (Girl in the Fireplace) Beauty and the Geek (Blink/Amy Rory)
As one persons review of Time Of The Doctor I thought it was fair enough.
I do think Steven Moffat has been rewriting the same characters and scenarios since Blink and earlier. Dr. meets girl at a young age..comes back when she has grown up. (Girl in the Fireplace) Beauty and the Geek (Blink/Amy Rory)
The flip side of that being that it's something that's never really been explored with the Doctor before - a glaring omission for a time traveller, really.
The flip side of that being that it's something that's never really been explored with the Doctor before - a glaring omission for a time traveller, really.
I agree about those themes and ideas not having been explored before Johnny, for me it is what makes those early Moffat episodes great, and I mean GREAT, they sat perfectly within the RTD era because they were different yet complimented that era perfectly. But now for this viewer it's been explored to death, especially over the last 3 series as either a main arc or within individual episodes, nothing new is being added to it, it no longer wows like it used, in fact to it bores me to tears now. I would be happy if I never heard the words Timey Wimey ever again, I would be happy if I never saw another Timey Wimey episode again. It's been done, far better in Girl in the Fireplace, far better in Blink. There is only so many times something can be recycled, hence the reason why I agree with a lot in the blog that was linked.
Much like the end of the RTD era, the joins were beginning to show, the tricks up the sleeve so to speak,but for this viewer Moffat's joins and tricks had been done before his own turn as showrunner,
Comments
Usually certain pseudo feminist blogs on Tumblr and Twitter accounts like DWR.
I'll admit that Moffat's writing isn't perfect but those groups tend to go too far with the sexism/misogyny accusations at times that it becomes hard to take them seriously.
I also liked that Amy was a flawed character. It made her more interesting to watch as well.
This isn't true; not in the case of literature anyway. Thomas Hardy and DH Lawrence wrote excellent female characters, with a mix of boldness and vulnerability.
I suppose casting also comes into it. If an unattractive girl had been cast as Amy, would we see the role as being sexist? Many people go into the creation of a role; a casting director, wardrobe person,director and actor could turn even the most staunchly feminist character into a bit of fluff.
Exactly. He's not perfect and he does have a tendency to repeat certain tropes (as do many writers) but the accusations of sexism and misogyny have gotten ridiculous at this point.
Louise Brealey (Molly in Sherlock) got some heat from that crowd when she admitted that she thought a female version of Watson was 'gimmicky'.
Some oversensitive dears accused her of sexism and racism.
I don't know but that lot do seem to dislike the idea of Sherlock actors not being receptive to Elementary.
To be honest, I wasn't particularly taken with Elementary but having watched some episodes, I actually quite like it though.
Read this Tumblr if you dare ...
http://stfu-moffat.tumblr.com/
I kind of see this as writing this as more proof of them being written as in charge, independent women, it's like marriage or having kid's dosen't stop them living their lives, and it makes sense that river's more like a casual friend than like their daughter, as they never got to bring her up
What you've said about 'who sent amy to 11 as he died', I thought that was shown pretty clearly that he was just hallucinating, in fact they even showed for a second that there was no one actually there.
Here's another idea: there are no perfect women or men in the world and to write one is BS.
Guess what: sometimes women can be weak, foolish or of poor character. So can men.
Information: good drama portrays people as they are, not as we wish they would be.
Summary: shut up with this stupid sexism thing. You're making a fool of yourself.
That ties in more to me with Moffat's biggest flaw as a writer - terrible at emotional consequences. A lot of the time he will just jump over or skip big things and it's unsatisfying. The lack of fall out over Amy losing her daughter (which should have been deeply traumatising) and the fact that when she was dealing with the idea she couldn't have children it was all about Rory. Similarly Clara living hundreds of different lives which she has various memories of - that has got to do something to you and the concept is an interesting one but he said he's taken some lines out about that in episode 1 of series 8 because people aren't interested in that sort of thing. Why he feels that people aren't interested in character depth I don't know!
Well if did happen in an alternate universe that never existed and it was kind of written as though he did it under duress to shut her up and make her put things back right. I'm rather glad her appearances were limited after the wedding episode because I enjoyed the character far more prior to that. I never saw it as a proper marriage (thank goodness because it was horribly problematic and diminished River), but they obviously cared for each other and had a lot of respect. That was enough. It seems that after Manhattan he didn't go and see River again and didn't come off his cloud until he met Clara. That makes a lot of sense.
Nicely put:)
Have to agree. Clara, Amy and River Songare all very similair female characters. The new one they brought in during Matt Smiths last episode was a carbon copy of River Song, just without the 'travelling backwards in time' baggage.
My guess is that perhaps the episode might have originally been written with River in mind (after all, who else would get a kick out of being the head of a religion where everyone turns up naked?), it would have been nice to see the two of them at loggerheads about the danger posed to the galaxy, as well as a reveal that she was in fact the head of the church whose splinter cult created her.
But that might be one predestination paradox too far, even for Moffat.
I got as far as the part where the writer accuses the Doctor of committing sexual assault and had to give up. I hate this sort of rubbish. They bang on and on about trivialising serious issues, but their incessant bleating that these incidents are actual sexual assault is the ultimate trivialisation of the subject.
No matter what these people say, this isn't feminism they're practising. Its bonkers extremist nonsense, that's what it is.
Don't these people have better things to do with their time? Y'know, like protesting against actual mistreatment of women, instead of getting their panties in a bunch because a woman is feisty and powerful AND a man dares to find her attractive because of it - ALL IN A FICTIONAL TV SHOW ABOUT A 1000-YEAR-OLD ALIEN TIME-TRAVELLER!!!
Rant over.
As one persons review of Time Of The Doctor I thought it was fair enough.
It is after all ONE blog on the world wide Web.
But hey ho, each to their own and all that jazz.
The flip side of that being that it's something that's never really been explored with the Doctor before - a glaring omission for a time traveller, really.
I agree about those themes and ideas not having been explored before Johnny, for me it is what makes those early Moffat episodes great, and I mean GREAT, they sat perfectly within the RTD era because they were different yet complimented that era perfectly. But now for this viewer it's been explored to death, especially over the last 3 series as either a main arc or within individual episodes, nothing new is being added to it, it no longer wows like it used, in fact to it bores me to tears now. I would be happy if I never heard the words Timey Wimey ever again, I would be happy if I never saw another Timey Wimey episode again. It's been done, far better in Girl in the Fireplace, far better in Blink. There is only so many times something can be recycled, hence the reason why I agree with a lot in the blog that was linked.
Much like the end of the RTD era, the joins were beginning to show, the tricks up the sleeve so to speak,but for this viewer Moffat's joins and tricks had been done before his own turn as showrunner,
Time for a back to basics.:)