fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2268 ]

[ SECRET POST #2268 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2268 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [nf]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #324.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

...I was about to say I don't get as much enjoyment out of it as you, because I don't enjoy bad stuff happening to things I like, but then I remembered the fifteen or so scathing bitchy critiques of "Asylum of the Daleks" in my bookmarks that I still re-read once in a while just for the fun and satisfaction of hearing unimpressed critics' righteous disdain.

Maybe it's because I know that if part of Doctor Who sucks, it doesn't really matter. As long as the ratings stay up, all the rubbish will just be absorbed into the endless canon and eventually be joked about with fond embarrassment. Like whatever season 24 was supposed to be.

because I don't enjoy bad stuff happening to things I like

Yeah, same here. But most of the criticism I see lately pretty much is about Moffat specifically, not just, "OMG, DW is such an awful show!" In fact, most of it is people who used to be fans of the show--heck, some of them still consider themselves fans of the show itself--who hate what Moffat is doing to it.

I'm wondering: do people who hate Moffat just hate the sexism and his female characters, or do they hate other aspects of his writing as well?

I hate that his lead characters seem to be used as his own mouthpiece :U

I find most of his plots pointlessly convoluted, and he mistakes one-liners and catch phrases for intelligent dialogue (I swear to God, every time River says "Spoilers!" I wanna punch her in the face, and I'm getting there with the Doctor and "_____ are cool!").

I agree re: the pointlessly convoluted plots. That's kind of what's driven me away from Doctor Who recently, really. @_@ I used to really love the show, but now I don't even know what the hell's going on, even after I watch it.

His lack of the most basic emotional continuity and logical progression of events and motives, and his sitcom-y preference for things that look/sound cool over things that make sense for a character to do (the way sitcom writers will go for what's funny over what's IC or logical), means it's almost completely impossible to understand the reasons for why anything that happens in his storyarcs happened in the first place, and this combined with the convoluted-ness of his plots (which are convoluted for the sake of being convoluted, they're not convoluted for any in-universe reason) makes it really hard to get immersed in the story or to feel any narrative "push".

His characters have little backstory, don't show the links and meaning of their development, and don't have much reason to act the way they do. Not exclusively of course -- some things about them flow and make sense very well indeed, I'd even go so far as to say that a few of character traits of his main characters, particularly the Doctor, are absolutely inspired bits of genius, but a lot of it doesn't, and the parts that do follow well don't mitigate the parts that don't.

Also, his plots aren't about anything. Meaning, his plots don't break the fourth wall in any way. His plots are solely about the events of the story, and the events of the story are solely to serve the plot. They're not about themes that regularly affect the human viewers of the show. They're not analogies, they're not lessons, they're not demonstrations. They don't tap into anything about the human condition (apart from primal fears and a few other children's issues -- that's one thing that Moffat actually IS really good at tapping into). They're not about love or loss or grief or war or family or friendship or madness or death or life experiences or hubris or regret or learning or failure or prejudice or rage or pain or joy or curiosity or guilt or compassion or hatred or tragedy or victory or dignity or courage or wonder. They're just about the events of the plot.

There are themes, quite well-written ones too, but they never actually go anywhere. They're just there for the sake of being there. Season 5 was about stories and memory, which was a small dose of wonderful, but it never taught the characters anything that applied after the finale. They don't examine ideas or issues or arguments that would apply to anything or even make sense outside of the context of the Doctor Who universe.

Thank you for summing up my thoughts and saving me the time to type, anon. All of this.

In short he's a great one-off episode writer, but as for overarching story/character arcs I think I'll pass.

In short he's a great one-off episode writer

I'll grant you he was; I liked "Blink" and "A Study in Pink". But "A Scandal in Belgravia" has all the convoluted, "clever" line spewing, sexist "'strong' female character who ends up needing a man" bullshit that his DW stuff is awash in.

True, though I can't help but feel that part of that stems from being giving almost complete control over a series. One of his traits is giving the main character a feisty love interest who's entrenched in whatever canon mythos is present, a woman who seems his equal but is always inferior at the day's end. And it's like the more creative control, the easier it is to shoehorn those elements into whatever he's writing.

Reinette is pretty much the test run of River Song, how far he could push in with only a one episode character (something he actually did repeat with River Song) and Doctor/Rose still happening in the forefront. As for Study in Pink vs Scandal in Belgravia, it's more like - because it was the first episode and he was primarily focused on introducing John and Sherlock - he didn't have time to include really any women, let alone his normal wondergirl fodder.

And I'm not even sure this is a defense of his earlier stuff, but rather my opinion that it is a level of creative control issue vs degrading quality over time issue. Like it has degraded, but I think it's the control thing that's help cause such the disparity between his earlier and more current work... if that makes any sense.

It does make complete sense. IMO it's because Moffat actually sucks at most things, and is very good at a few things, so when he has control over what he does, 80% of what he does sucks, whereas when he doesn't have control, the guy who is in control can make him do only the 20% that he's good at, and make it so that his results are very good. Two of the things Moffat is really good at is a) coming up with cool ideas and b) writing really entertaining dialogue and interaction (when he doesn't indulge himself too much), he's at his best when the scope of what he's doing is really, really severely restrained to that.

Like, look at The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances. He had to convince RTD and the audience he was a good writer, because he had no celebrated record to demand respect with. He had to devote a considerable portion of the episode developing Jack, who was a character created by RTD and who had a a story that RTD came up with that continued past Moffat's episode. The episode was in his first season and near the end of the season, so he couldn't put in any crazy new ideas, he had to build on the ideas that had already been outlined in the prior episodes. He had to make his script synchronize with the season's overall themes of war and loss (I have no idea how micromanaged or hands-off DW scripts are, but he very well could've been told he had to write a story set in the Blitz where x y z happened), and he had to advance the Nine/Rose relationship from Father's Day.

So he really just didn't have room to fuck around and introduce his own dumb plots and weird directions and characterizations. He only had the freedom to a) come up with cool ideas (the gasmask zombies, the zepplins, the children, who Moffat is always good at writing, and the mystery), and b) write entertaining dialogue and interaction (all the witty interplay between the Doctor, Rose, and Jack, the dancing, the Doctor being gloriously nutty, etc). Which of course, are the things he's good at.

River Song is Moffat's ideal Mary Sue best woman ever and echoes a lot of the themes of his era. Rose Tyler was RTD's ideal Mary Sue best woman ever and echoes a lot of the themes of his era. Take this as you will.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2268 ]

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on

Re: Writers/creators you can't stop hating on