All posts by ERBFan101

13. 12

12. 11

11. 7

10. 13

9. 9

8. 6

7. 8

6. 10

5. 5

4. 2

3. 3

2. 1

1. 4

I love this episode for it’s themes and atmosphere, but I think it’s only clever by half. How did the angels get the TARDIS out of the parking garage in broad daylight? Why does Sally return to the house to watch the Easter egg? Like @LauraBatham mentioned, how is the ending a permanent solution? Good episode, but a tad overrated and Moffat’s weakest RTD era episode imo

The MrTardis hate is so weird.

*cracks knuckles* Here we go again...

Paragraphs 2-4: *inhales* As much as I think 'The Timeless Child' is an extremely boring and senseless idea that was mainly written because Chibnall wanted to make an impact on the larger Doctor Who history and because he's adopted, RTD suddenly retconning it would be just as bad. Even if he talked about it with Chibnall beforehand, it's still massively disrespectful to him as a showrunner and there's nothing 'good friend' about it. On top of it, if the author wants Doctor Who not to be controversial (which I think is a bit dumb, but regardless), retconning The Timeless Child is the last thing he should do. The Chibnall era had fans, you know? Fans who are already a bit upset as they feel their era is being completely and totally forgotten about (which lets be honest it kinda is) would be to put it mildly, upset. It'd be bound to start more controversy.

Paragraphs 5-6: The writer of the article said nothing substantial here, so I'm not going to either. Wait until the content comes out. Honestly, the marketing has been a massive improvement over the Chibnall era marketing on top of it,

Paragraphs 7-10: Surprisingly this section didn't enrage me like I thought it would. That being said, their complaints about the representation being overdone in 'The Star Beast' are so weird? Like they reference the Meep pronouns scene and the scene where Bingham can't join the soldiers due to stairs, but literally totally ignores the plot resolution. There's tons of """"""""""""""""""""""""""woke""""""""""""""""""""""""" people who have complained about that being overdone, but this article never mentions it when trying to say that the representation is being over done. Weird. Also totally lost me at trying to compare this to Bill Pott's sexuality. At least the author claims they generally support political correctness. Also, to throw my hat in the ring in regards to Davros, I believe it's a perfectly unnecessary but totally harmless idea. I don't believe there's anything wrong with keeping him in the wheelchair or changing it.

Paragraphs 11-12: I mean, this is the first time the article makes a decent point, even if it's a minor one. From the beginning of New Who it's been a bit of a plot problem, though I'd say noticeably less in RTD's first era. However, "No longer does the Doctor need to use intelligence to get out of a problem, the Sonic will do it instead" is a pretty poor statement. The Doctor still figures out how to get out of the situation, he just uses the sonic to do it. The problem is the sonic can do increasingly OP things. But even in 'The Star Beast', a pretty good example of sonic op-ness, the Doctor gets them out of situations in intelligent ways. Using the sonic barriers in the way he did was pretty smart, even if it used the sonic in an OP way.

Last three paragraphs: "We are still at the very beginning of Russell T Davies’ new tenure as showrunner, and the concerns I’ve raised in this article may be unwarranted." Yep, that's about it. This article isn't particularly egregious in any way much to my surprise, but it's pretty pointless nonetheless. I'd encourage people to actually read more interesting articles, because imo this one fails to address the real problems with 'The Star Beast' and the way the new era is being handled.

Not super fond of any of these, but Phantasmagoria is solid, if a bit dull.

@Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba I mean, I’m pretty sure he’s just saying he thought it was a deus ex machina and didn’t like it, comparing it to something he believes Moffat does

@Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba No need to argue about Moffat on this post. Stay on topic

@FH2104 I think there are three main things people take issue with.

1. She’s trans because of alien intervention. Like you, I’m not convinced this is true, but I’d have to rewatch the episode to know for sure.

2. She’s trans for plot reasons only and pandering.

3. Deadnaming. I have no doubt that RTD’s motives were sound and he was simply trying to showcase certain struggles of trans people. That being said, I can see the argument that it may do more harm than good because now bigots can weaponize it. It’s up for debate.

@Lord Darkseid Is Not Pleased This is more of a question on the representation issue, sorry if it wasn’t clear.

@FH2104

These are from people’s reviews of the episode on Letterboxd. I’d pull up some Twitter (X?) examples but I’m not in the mood.

This is just something I’ve seen to be a point of contention, within the trans community and outside of it. Personally, I thought it was a really lazy plot resolution but I’m not sure about the representation. I’m not part of the trans community so I don’t think my opinion matters as much. However, I’ve seen many fans from this community strongly dislike it. So how most people feel?

1. Night of the Doctor/Day of the Doctor (9/10)

2. Remembrance of the Daleks (9/10)

3. Screams of the Shalka (8/10)

4. The Star Beast (7/10)

5. The Three Doctors (6.5/10)

6. Silver Nemesis (6/10)

7. The Five Doctors (5/10)

8. Dimensions in Time (1/10)

@Najawin So someone says something and your have one indirect reference against the argument, and you think your reference is enough to call them a liar? Whatever you say.

Let’s just get a couple things out of the way:

1. You are being extraordinarily disingenuous towards the video and the creator’s motives, going far enough to call it a ‘hatchet job’. You’ve made a few good points, but you seem to be coming at it from a clear bias because you are a fan of Moffat and he has gotten tons of backlash over the years. I get it. But a hatchet job? Lmao

2. She does not attack Moffat’s character once. She says that some of his writing comes across as misogynistic. He’s not even the main point of the video. Disagree with her all you want, but you can’t dismiss her as being a ‘hater’.

3. I don’t personally believe Moffat’s writing is sexist, however I can see how it could be interpreted that way, which is a problem imo. Execution > intent.

4. The video’s main subject in the inherently sexist relationship between Doctor and companion and how the modern series has gone about doing that. Imo it does a good job exploring that, hence why I recommended it. I foresaw people jumping to conclusions about it, hence I made a disclaimer. The video is not Moffat libel lmao

5. Moffat can take criticism as much as any other writer. Disagree with the criticism all you want, he’s not immune to it.

@CaptainKaibyo Critical of Moffat’s work is not equal to ‘anti-Moffat’. The video isn’t even solely about Moffat. There’s no cancer. Calm down.

@FH2104 Valid point, but that doesn't change the contents of the video. A controversial example of this would be Jay Exci's 'The Fall of Doctor Who'. I get why the title made people mad and assume the worst, but it's actually a very well written video that draws on tons of evidence and examples to back up its claims.

@Najawin

'See, for instance, 14:54, which Moffat has talked about at length for what his intent was there and how it didn't quite work'

Are we seriously going to argue something can't be criticised because there was good intent? Come on now.

' "In the Russell T Davies era of the show when the Doctor and Rose fell in love, there was no indication that the Doctor was ever interested in Rose sexually" Literally just lying. Just lying to her audience.'

Please elaborate.

'As is the accusation that Sherlock's Irene Adler is a lesbian.'

This could definitely be read as disingenuous, I'll give you that. But her overall point still stands, that Irene Adler is written largely to be sexy and her bisexuality is written for that reason specifically.

'It's also bizarre to see someone deny that the first Doctor was misogynistic.'

I'd say sexist rather than misogynistic, because I believe there's a difference.

'It's filled to the brim, the same old tired claims that have been debunked time and again. ("Moffat thinks of himself as the Doctor", etc)'

The video is arguing that his version of the show comes from the perspective of the Doctor more so than the companions and that the way the women are written reflect that. It argues that Moffat sees himself as Steve from 'Coupling' and that the relationships from that show carry over to Doctor Who.

'And, of course, the most telling thing, if you want to talk about Moffat's view of gender, is that it doesn't even mention Press Gang.'

Haven't seen it, but I'm not convinced that one show would instantly debunk the entire pattern/argument.

Also I don't think she's saying Moffat can't write women or clearly views them as the lesser sex (she literally mentions Series 9 and Clara's arc). She's arguing that Moffat's view of feminism and female empowerment are very limited and that he has a few ticks for writing the 'badass' women that come across as sexist. This video isn't on an attack on his character, it's a criticism of his writing.

@SonicTsils Not even close to what the video’s about lmao

@FH2104 It also doesn’t have TARDIS murder, which is nice.