The End of Time, pt. 1

[rm]

OMGWTFBBQ!!!!



Well, hrrrrr.

1. I think it's too ambitious. This already feels like a three-parter, but it only has two parts. This really needed to ramp up into what it is, the intensity got too high too fast.

2. The quiet emo moments were really the best. Man, Ten crying is HOT. And all that Ood shit was creepy.

3. John Simm is a really good actor. And it looks like filming this vacillated between really fun and completely sucktacular. All that food stuff. Food scenes SUCK.

4. OMG, the porn. THE PORN. That little smile on the Master's face when he was being buckled into the straight jacket. Hello, hello, hello. HELLO.

5. No Jack yet. This is good. This means he may be there for the regeneration, this is my hope.

6. This really is pretty damn audacious. And the rebirth of Gallifrey/Timelords is a really smart plot line since the Doctor is getting close to the limit unless the council or whatever it is grants him some more. Er, yeah, this is the first time I've really felt stymied by my lack of old who knowledge.

7. So that first shit with the regeneration of the Master? What a waste of Lucy Saxon. What was with all the women basically being witches with potions? And "The Book of Saxon"? What now? The prison was named Broadfell? Seriously? I've never found RTD to be more misogynistic than he is fucked up (i.e., his issues as a writer tend to be more interesting to me than offensive), and this happened. Dude, REALLY?

8. OBAMA, WTF? Actually, could a Brit living in Britain currently help me out here? How is Obama perceived? Was this satire that made sense to you all in an eye-rolling at the believe he can fix everything thing or what? I was like confused. A lot confused. Also I hate when they do scenes that are supposed to be White House press conferences and of course everything looks wrong.

9. Naismith = ne Smith? Also, woah, incesty with the daughter there.

10. OMG, Whoniverse wardrobe department, I love you. But "The Master Race"? Seriously? You went there? Man. Really?

11. I'm glad Ianto got to miss this one, such as it is.

Woah.

Comments

Re: tl; dr, I know

[moljn.livejournal.com]

The keyword in this context is 'loving' not 'grandfather'. He could be 20 or 40 years younger and my second point would still stand, so no, I don't think it's ageist. As for unfair, well, maybe. I probably shouldn't have used the word 'noteworthy', but aside from that, the unexpected is always going to generate more interest from the viewers.

We also shouldn't forget that the Doctor is the main character, and one on his last legs even. Wilf's a well-liked supporting character and has had some nice and moving scenes in the episodes he's been in, but the focus is naturally going to be on the Doctor, and that is not unfair to Wilf.

I'm not sure if statements like "OMG Tennant crying was so hot" carry that distinction

They don't, but they're not what I was talking about anyway, though I did try to tie it back to them. I was responding to your first paragraph in your reply to rm's comment, and that paragraph is a fairly generalized take of one possible reason why people might have said what they did. My point was that reacting positively to someone breaking gender norms is not necessarily a bad thing.

And yet we're meant to steer away from any misogyny or norms in narrative or characterization that do not show women on an equal and interchangeable footing with men? That does not seem consistent.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here or how it relates to what I wrote. How is it inconsistent?

Re: tl; dr, I know

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

How is it inconsistent?

Because you seem to imply that people going "OMG Tennant crying = hot" is partially excused because we can't get away from our societies' gender gender norms, but the criticism/ accusations below of RTD being misogynist could be explained by reference to the same gender norms. I'm asking why one is excused/acceptable and the other not?

Re: tl; dr, I know

[moljn.livejournal.com]

Okay.

First off, we're not a hive mind. I don't know the people below and we haven't exchanged notes on the topic, and even if I did and we had, still not a hive mind.

Second, I repeat, I wasn't addressing the sentiment directly, and I certainly wasn't excusing sexism. I was saying that a positive response to the breaking of a stereotype wasn't necessarily sexist.

Third, you keep saying, or at least implying, that it's misandrist of people to think Ten crying is hot, but from what I've seen, you haven't actually explained why. It has the potential to be, I've already acknowledged that, but it's not inherently so.

Fourth, well, your entire premise is false, since again, I didn't actually excuse sexism, but for the record, there's a pretty big difference between someone having a gut reaction that may or may not be sexist, and RTD writing a script in which Elizabeth I and her virginity is reduced to a cheap joke and a trophy for the Doctor to brag about (the only redeeming point is that the Doctor IS prone to name-dropping, but even so, reducing her to a notch on his bedpost is not the same).

Furthermore, RTD has a history of questionable writing when it comes to female characters. The Queen Bess bit would be problematic no matter what, but considering who wrote it, it just cinches it. As for the people who found Ten crying hot, I don't know anything about most of them, so I can't judge based on that. And, even if you found one or two with general misandrist attitudes, it still wouldn't implicate the rest, because what they said isn't inherently sexist (well, you seem to think it is, but I don't and you haven't given me reason to).

And fifth: Of course RTD is affected by gender norms; we all are. It doesn't excuse sexism, though depending on circumstance, I might cut a person some slack. I'm not inclined to do that with RTD, however, because he's not subject to any special circumstances and should know better.

Re: tl; dr, I know

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

Despite all that mitigation I'm afraid I still don't see why one set of actions (writing a throw away line in a script) should be subject to rigorous policing for sexist motivation and one not (posting gut reactions online). If it's okay to say a man is hot while crying, but it wouldn't be to say a woman is hot while crying then that's sexist. Not necessarily misandrist, but still sexist. If people had said "Tennant/RTD's writing is hot for breaking societal expectations of the male hero" (in however many words) then I would be behind that, although I'd want to point out that sexist expectations should be defeated whether it's hot to do so or not. I am not, of course, asking you to speak for other people, but to explain the principles you seem to be applying.

You seem to see the two actions as qualitatively different and I see them as more contiguous. So I think we can respectfully disagree on this matter, since we are both starting from the assumption that sexist behavior should be prevented.

Re: tl; dr, I know

[moljn.livejournal.com]

The difference is, roughly, that one is directly sexist, while the other is only so after you add all these imaginary criteria to it.

And that's all she wrote, because your reasoning is a bit of a strawman. rm specifically told you she'd be okay with finding a woman hot in the same context, and I haven't addressed it at all, because I thought we were past that. No one has been saying what you seem to think we're saying. It's like, thinking long hair is only okay on women is a sexist double standard, but a woman wearing her hair long is not sexist. Apart from your original comment, you've been going on about the woman with the long hair, while I guess I'm supposed to just know that your real problem was the double standard that no one here is even supporting.

Okay, so I wrote some more. Done now.