Doctor Who - Discussion Thread III (no untagged future spoilers)

The Bechdel test proves nothing. There can be TV shows/films that contain strong independent women which don't pass the test. It's criteria is limited.

On occasion the criteria can be limited (eg multiple groups of characters with women who never meet each other, for example). But I don't think the 'have two women' requirement is a particularly taxing one, yet many shows and movies seem to fail at the first hurdle. The world is 50% women, it would be great if television would reflect that.

Also I would argue that Moffat's problem is that he can only create 'strong independent women' ie women who are exactly the same, talk the same way, make the same choices, are 'feisty' or whatever. That is the problem. The women are cookie-cutter moulds of each other, whereas all the men have a variety of characteristics and motivations. It'd be great to see a range of women, even damsels in distress. Multifaceted, distinct characters are what is needed.

The Bechdel test is a great starting point for discussing the female content in TV though, and I think the statistics do show that Moffat's record is nowhere near as good as RTD's.

The Bechdel test proves nothing. There can be TV shows/films that contain strong independent women which don't pass the test. It's criteria is limited.

I didn't claim that it was a perfect test, but it doesn't 'prove nothing'. Those figures show, for example, that female characters are getting much less screen time than was the case under Russell T Davies.

Personally, I think the reason for the number of Moffatt episodes failing the Bechdel Test is symptomatic of Moffatt's writing - it's all about the Doctor.

So it's natural that, under those circumstances, there would be fewer conversations between female characters about something other than a man - because they are always talking about the Doctor.

On occasion the criteria can be limited (eg multiple groups of characters with women who never meet each other, for example). But I don't think the 'have two women' requirement is a particularly taxing one, yet many shows and movies seem to fail at the first hurdle. The world is 50% women, it would be great if television would reflect that.

Also I would argue that Moffat's problem is that he can only create 'strong independent women' ie women who are exactly the same, talk the same way, make the same choices, are 'feisty' or whatever. That is the problem. The women are cookie-cutter moulds of each other, whereas all the men have a variety of characteristics and motivations. It'd be great to see a range of women, even damsels in distress. Multifaceted, distinct characters are what is needed.

The Bechdel test is a great starting point for discussing the female content in TV though, and I think the statistics do show that Moffat's record is nowhere near as good as RTD's.

Yet the first thing that would happen if there was a timid female companion people would cry sexism by saying that women are portrayed as weak.

You can't win in these situations because someone will find a problem with anything.

Paternoster gang - No need for so much development of them on what is Capaldi's first episode. I want him and Clara not unecessary scenes of Strax (who still is just a walking joke) giving Clara a medical. Also the d/s undertones didn't really sit well with me as a kids show and having the kiss be another kiss of necessity made it feel rather forced. We get that Jenny and Vastra are a thing, and that's brilliant and I believe them but I would hope we were slightly past that point.

I feel these people are so shoehorned into the series. I don't even remember their origins, probably thanks to Moffatt's weird, overly complex 6th and 7th serieses. It's almost like they're saying to the audience "hey kids, whoa what is going on? Whoa they used to be villains! Whooo whoa [insert random quip about something contemporary which seems irrelevant to the time frame here]". There's no development and I think what annoys me most is how they're set up to be a generic rag tag group of detectives.

It's like they want to do a spin off when all the spin offs suck, even Torchwood was basically a Doctor Who episode except with shoehorned swearing, nudity and violence, it never felt like a show for adults.

Also, what was annoying me is how the makers constantly shoehorn homosexuality into the show but they don't have the balls to write a gay male companion's relationship with the Doctor. It's kind of like showing off some nonsense liberalism like a quota rather than actually meaning it. It's always 'hey there's another random gay extra in this episode showing off that they can show gay things on telly'. There's often no reason for any sexuality to be shown off, it's like they're trying to spite someone incredibly cheaply.

The brief glimpse we saw for the next episode looks promising. Darleks (and not your stupid red, blue and white power ranger darleks) killing and the doctor trying to stop them. It looks potentially a darker episode which is good. I swear if there is any *bongs* *thumps* or any other stupid noises am going to just face palm and go watch something else.

The only time back in the day was when tenant was smacking the tardis with a mallet! Not when someone gets knock unconscious.

Everything I've read about Into The Dalek suggests it is quite a action-packed episode. Sounds like a series 7 part 1-esque episode to me. Sounds like Phil Ford was inspired by Die Hard, as he describes it as 'Doctor Who meets Die Hard' in the latest DWM.