anangryhamster answered to your post: Why should we respect sexism, ableism, plotholes, and a complete disregard for the 50-year history of the show he’s writing for?

You can have your opinions about Moffat, which I do not share, but I was talking about apreciating RTD’s era whithout having to start whining about how much Moffat sucks or whatever.

Honestly, I think that kind of attitude is what makes people assume that because you love RTD you must be a Moffat hater and that is just wrong. I love both writers, and  I’ll admit that there has been a downgrade in the quality of the show but the show is still good!

If you don’t like it don’t watch it, as simple as that.

P.S. I would like you to read this article about Steven Moffat’s “sexism”

Also when you say “ disregard for the 50-year history of the show he’s writing for" what do you mean? can you give an example? and don’t say something like "because Gallifrey is back and that was a vital point in the show" because let me tell you that Gallifrey was there in classic who, it wasn’t until new-who that we learnt that Gallifrey had disappeared.

Whoa, this is like an unholy trinity of Moffat defences.

People are welcome to say what they like on gifsets, and if you don’t like the commentary you’re allowed to just reblog from the source instead. No one is forcing you to read that commentary, so just stop.

Isn’t fun being told “don’t like, don’t read/watch/play/consume”?

Oh, and two things: kindly don’t cite that article as a defence against accusations of sexism. Firstly, it was written by a dude, which does dampen its credibility (men are capable of writing/speaking eloquently and fairly on issues of sexism, but it’s not as common as you’d think). Secondly, it takes a Watsonian approach to a Doylist argument, which makes the writer look either oblivious to the real issues or obfuscating the point. And he equates women being badass to being feminist, which is silly because it’s characters being fully fleshed out that make them “strong characters”. (He also ignores that Madge saves the day because she has an operating uterus, not because of any interesting traits she has, which is painful to the extreme from a feminist viewpoint.)

It’s defences of against claims of homophobia are equally ridiculous, because it’s assuming homophobia is about “no characters who aren’t straight allowed” instead of “shitty representation of characters who are queer”.

Also, the article uses the “but I have black friends” defence, so uh. Kindly don’t cite it. It’s a horrible piece of debate that doesn’t confront the issues people actually bring up.

As for disrespecting 50 years of canon, I would argue that writing a gag that turns the noise the TARDIS makes from the sound of time and space itself to the Doctor leaving the brakes on is a little disrespectful. Especially when in Classic canon all TARDISes made that noise. And because Moffat has said the joke was written to fill time, which makes the screenwriter in me yodel in agony.

Bringing back Gallifrey the way that he did (the Doctor never destroyed it in the first place, he claims!) completely undermines only the last eight years of canon, but it still bites. And since we’re talking about “The Day of the Doctor”, can we talk about how there was a bit of lipservice paid to Classic!Who (and Tom Baker made a frankly incomprehensible appearance that just frustrated me because conversations between characters shouldn’t lock people out like that one did), but Moffat couldn’t be arsed to write a story that actually celebrated that canon and allowed the classic actors to come back and play their roles? (Hell, the one non-Moffat companion who appeared didn’t get to play her role, that’s just mean to fans who came back for her.) Like, he invented a whole additional regeneration that locked Paul McGann out of the Time War and when he responded to the positivity around “Night of the Doctor” actually said “wow people must like the twist” instead of “whoa the fandom went apeshit for the Eighth Doctor” (which is what actually happened).

I’ve rambled on for long enough, though. I hope I didn’t come off too confrontational, because I respect your viewpoint on the relative virtues and vices of Moffat’s era. I just happen to disagree like whoa.







If you hate Moffat’s writing so much then why do you still watch the show?? If you don’t like it, stop watching it?? Instead of being an asshole about his hard work and everything he does why don’t you just not.

yeah why don’t we just stop pointing out that we’re genuinely offended by moffat’s writing CLEARLY his feelings are more important

No clearly most people just enjoy the show under his writing


Um it shouldn’t matter how many people enjoy the show under his writing?? If someone feels offended by his writing they have the right to call him out on his shit.

Offence should not be a criteria for criticism, because offence is subjective. Anyone can be offended by anything, Tumblr is a prime example of this. Doctor Who is not made to cater to your feelings respectively, neither is the entire world. Sure, you are allowed not to enjoy Moffat’s era. But when you give bullshit reasons like “Oh, this line offended me!" or "I can’t relate to the characters!" or "I can’t understand what’s going on!" think of the other individuals who did not get offended, who did relate to the characters and who did understand. Don’t delude yourself into thinking everyone that thinks like you is correct and everyone else is wrong and/or crazy.

Thank you and goodnight!


This just in, tumblr user somewhat-evil has just proven wrong the entire feminist film theory and proven all reviewers are hacks.

Y’know, feminist film theory looks at sexist bullshit in film and television and is generally used by theorists to say “pls stop” or, better yet, say “why are you objectifying this lady?” and then watching the man in charge trip all over himself to say “why do you keep seeing women being objectified?”.

Because while concepts key to feminist film theory (the male gaze being the most important) are technically neutral the way all concepts are, most people would agree the male gaze in film is a rather negative feature because it objectifies and dehumanises female characters for the sake of the presumed heterosexual male audience. I get the sneaking suspicion you’d be in agreement that objectifying and dehumanising ladies exclusively for the enjoyment of the “male gaze” (the assumption that the camera has the POV of a heterosexual man) is a Very Bad Thing.

So, uh, there’s a massive school of thought called feminist film theory which is all about calling out offensive bullshit in film and television. And while there’s always the asshole who likes to pretend that cameras are magical objects uncontrolled by the predominantly heterosexual male film and television industry, feminist film theory is a generally accepted and taught theory in, I dunno, film schools and film theory in general.

An entire school of thought, accepted by the academic community at large, based on seeing sexist bullshit and more or less saying “pls stop” and “why???” in withering two-thousand word reviews.

Anyways, quality is generally subjective, too. Consider the case of the reviewer who thought WALL-E was boring and preachy and too long by a third, or the two professionals on Rotten Tomatoes who think The Princess Bride was generally not very good (somehow more than one person has thought this???).

I mean, I personally find Wes Anderson films a little bit too gleefully quirky and hated Avatar (the blue people movie, that is). I could write a thousand word essay on all the plot failings of Avatar and hate it passionately, but my reaction is purely subjective. Because for me, the cliche nature of the plot overruled the astounding visuals, and for others they were watching for the visuals and the plot was just an excuse. My personal judgments about the quality of the work were based purely on my own standards of what is “good”, because any other yardstick of judgment would be silly. What objective standard exists for a film/television show’s quality? The number of plot holes, perhaps (which sounds like a good idea, except that plot holes and quality are often correlated, not necessarily causation), or maybe the money spent on effects.

So now that you’re finished undermining the very foundation of feminist film theory and the art of reviewing things, would you like to rethink that subjectivity claim?


"If you skipped the 9th Doctor, you’re not a true Doctor Who fan!" Says the 14 year old Whovian who hasn’t seen a single episode of the classic series.

Yo, I really like you and your critiques of Moffat Who are some of my favourite things on the anti-Moffat tag, but there’s a reason there’s a whole “don’t skip nine” thing going on in the fandom, even from people who admittedly have seen none or limited amounts of Classic Who.

Because skipping Nine is like skipping the first movie in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is entirely possible to skip to “The Two Towers” and avoid “Fellowship of the Ring” altogether with the help of a friend’s plot synopsis, but doing that robs you of character development and plot development that is significantly more rewarding when you watch it. Nine’s development is vital to Ten’s story, so people who skip to straight to Ten are missing Act One of the story already. (Skipping to Eleven is less terrible in that way, since it’s basically like watching “The Hobbit” instead of the LotR trilogy, which means that Elijah Wood’s appearance won’t garner any squee but it is basically its own movie and could be watched with LotR background info.)

Skipping Classic Who/not watching it because of about a gajillion extenuating circumstances (I have a lot of excuses) is more like skipping the first 30(?) minutes of Hitchcock’s Psycho. You really don’t want to do it for the full experience, but the movie basically turns into something completely different after the shower scene with an almost completely new set of characters and relationships and oh the movie is a murder mystery and not a heist movie anymore. You can skip the first 30 minutes of Psycho and still experience a mostly-complete plot, you just shouldn’t because screwing with Hitchcock films like that might get you haunted by his ghost.

I mean, the “true fan” argument on the whole is bullshit. Being a fan means liking the thing, and the nature of fandom doesn’t really allow for tiers based on knowledge/access/anything. Big Name Fans are still fans, and the healthiest mentalities for creators of a work when it comes to fandom is to interact not as a god, but an equal and I think I just started a meta on fandom life in general, whoops.

So, yeah, the hypothetical Whovian saying “you’re not a true fan” is being dumb. They should be on the “don’t skip Nine” train because it gives a more complete experience and is immensely entertaining in its own right. But the implication that this new!Whovian is wrong because they haven’t seen any Classic Who isn’t a rejection of the “true fan” argument, it’s just moving the goal posts further down the field.

I don’t like that the example you give is explicitly someone who is literally too young to have been alive for Classic Who to be readily available to them. I see this on forums and comments on articles (I should stop reading them, I should) a lot: fans (overwhelming old men trying to get the new Whovians off their lawn) wielding their age as a cudgel, trying to use having been on the planet longer as an assertion that they’re right. Because being alive for the Baker eras totally gives someone authority to say that whatever they’re complaining about is wrong for Doctor Who instead of, I don’t know, textual analysis.

And, y’know, I feel like there’s a reason your hypothetical new!Whovian isn’t as interested in the Classic era. I’ve taken in my share of the Classic era, and some of it was fab. But holy hell, I would’ve hated it when I was fourteen. And that’s because it is completely different to the pacing, rhythm, and content from modern television. I’m not talking about the production values, I’m talking about the way the story is written and how much story is compacted into the time frame.

I like it now, but it took me time to develop a taste for the other rhythms, the way it took time for me to develop a taste for denser books or different foods or, I don’t know, the way it took me time to start reading Harry Potter. Maybe your hypothetical fourteen-year-old simply hasn’t the palette to enjoy what Classic Who has to offer yet.

I repeat: the True Fan argument is bullshit because it enforces a hierarchy on fandom. We may have a star system (I’m a Z-lister for sure) but fandom cannot and should not have an enforced hierarchy. Your argument doesn’t stop the “True Fan” debate, it moves the goalposts for being a “True Fan” and simultaneous points out the hypocrisy of the new!Whovian while being hypocritical itself. Skipping Nine and not watching the Classic Era have very different contextual meanings, and not watching the Classic era has significantly more reasoning behind it than skipping Nine.

If you think I’m misspeaking, feel free to tell me! I love a healthy debate or two.


Tags: penguintim

Talking About the Positives

Sometimes, all I want to do is throw up my hands in the air and shout “fuck it I just want to talk about stuff I really like!” and then I spend a thousand words going on and on about how “The Impossible Planet” and “The Satan Pit” are the best episodes ever. I don’t post those things because they are incoherent rambles that’s useless as an argument.

But I’m not in the mood to talk about all the problems from “Day of the Doctor” and “Time of the Doctor”, so I’m just gonna sit down and talk about all the things I really enjoyed about Moffat’s era thus far. Or, rather, the episodes I dig because there are a reasonable number of episodes I really liked in the Moffat era thus far.

This post isn’t really directly anti-Moffat, but there’s still some of that in here, fair warning.

Read More


OH MY GOODNESS YES! I LOVE HAVING FRIENDS! And I’m always glad to have allies in the debate over the relative merits of the Moffat era.

In all seriousness, if the person I lost it on comes back and explains everything in a reasonable way and sweeps away the dangling plot threads and holes, I will happily concede they are correct and stop being pissed off. As much as I hate Moffat’s writing, some of it is purely subjective, and it’s important that my subjective opinions not be used to support an argument.

I guess what I’m saying is that I wanna have a debate like the adult I pretend to be, and so people who say that I’m wrong without explaining why are like my arch-nemesis. Maybe we’ll have a productive debate (I almost had one of them once, and it was lovely) and both sides of the fandom will benefit from mutual understanding of the other’s opinion and respect for subjective opinions and acknowledgement of objective fact will reign supreme over a very broken, very old fandom. Or maybe that last bit was a dream I had the other night. Whoops.

This post seems to have gotten away from me a little. Still, thank you very much. <3 Much love!


It really makes me wonder if some of you who watch Doctor Who are actually paying attention.

Honestly, if you calmed down a bit, and cleared your head of the Moffat-Rage you seem to have on retainer… You might have an easier time putting the pieces of plot line together.

Really folks, it isn’t that difficult. :/

Then summarise it for all of us blinded by impotent rage at the fucking mess the episode was, both in narrative and it trying and failing to ape the biggest hits of the RTD era. Prove you’re fucking brilliant and that everything is consistent and makes sense. Teach us, oh mighty teacher, and prove that Moffat is superior not only to the masses but people who study this stuff (literature and narative writing, that is) all the fucking time.

I wouldn’t be so pissed off at this post if there wasn’t a clear layer of condescension over it all. “Oh really the plot doesn’t make sense? When you’ve cooled your little emotional heads it’ll all fit together nicely.” Offer evidence to support your thesis and then come back to the anti-moffat tag.


More and more I just feel like Moffat is spending emotional currency he didn’t earn, banking on people’s reactions to characters and events less because drama he has built up and more because of how people feel about characters coming into things.

Holy shit, thank you so much for summarising this so tidily. This is exactly what’s been happening during the Moffat era and it’s wonderful to have it concisely put.

Why the Day of the Doctor Was Everything I Never Wanted


Okay, so it’s been a week and a half and I am still hopping mad about the Time War retcon. I know, I know. I know. I mean, it’s not keeping me up nights or anything, but every time I try to engage with fandom I just end up


So this is my attempt to just lay it all out, say my piece, make all of my totally correct and completely cogent arguments and hopefully just go back to “yeah that”ing in other people’s posts.

It’s rull long. You’ve been warned.

Read More

This is perfect. Literally, one of the most comprehensive-yet-concise looks at why the Big Retcon in the 50th is fucking awful.






All in favor reblog

(via the-untempered-prism)



 Let’s start with not mentioning RTD’s original storyline for Rose - she was going to be created by the Daleks to be the perfect companion for the Doctor. That story would have eventually given way to the person she became with the Doctor, not because of him.

is this week ‘let’s make up nonsense about rose tyler week’ or something

it was Paul Abbott (i think) who wrote a draft of an episode whereby it was revealed that nine had influenced rose throughout her life to become the perfect companion

which was rightly scrapped by RTD and replaced with Boom Town

these days do people just hear stuff completely twist it and spread it as gospel truth


Though it probably is worth discussing that RTD apparently considered that plot long enough for it to be referenced at the end of The Doctor Dances. That’s the only remaining part of this plot, but considering Steven Moffat wrote that episode, not RTD or Paul Abbott, it would point to the idea included for a pretty long time (or so it seems to me, though admittedly my knowledge of writing for TV is pretty limited).

But even in that discussion, Rose is not the problem. The writers and the Doctor are the problem with that scenario, not Rose. The Doctor is the creep in that plot, the Doctor is the character doing something pretty terrible, shaping someone’s life to make them ‘more suitable’ for him.

Rose would have done nothing wrong and while we would definitely need to discuss the choice to take away all her agency by making her so influenced by the Doctor, the problem would not be her character.

I repeat: The problem would not be the character. It would be the writing.

That aside, as it didn’t even happen, it’s not a valid argument against the character because it didn’t happen. That’s like saying I don’t like that Rory was the Master or something. (Yes, I realize that was a fan theory not an abandoned plot, but I’m making a point here.) IT DIDN’T HAPPEN, so therefore I can’t use it as a benchmark for the character and their development. That’s not how critical reading skills work. 

Considering Moffat’s repeated use of the “Doctor interfering with the companion’s lives when they were younger” thing (Reinette, Amy, River, and now Clara [sort of]) and his tendency to recycle his own writing, I almost think that the line at the end of “The Doctor Dances” came independently of the Paul Abbot idea.

I mean, a lot of the big grievances of Moffat’s era, at least that I’ve got,  have their roots in his RTD-era episodes. The Empty Child two-parter also employs a sort of magical treatment of motherhood — brought to its awful pinacle when Madge saves the day simply because she has an operating uterus instead of any of her other skills — if backed with technobabble instead of silly one-liners, and a much heavier reliance on sexual undertones than the rest of the series, something very visible in Moffat’s era. The fact Moffat doesn’t really reference the main plot-arc of each series doesn’t help. “Bad Wolf” was put on the set, not in the script, Torchwood and Mr. Saxon and all the arc words in series four didn’t show up (I think the whole “alternate universes happening around Donna” bit was retroactive, if I remember my anecdotes correctly).

Not defending the idea in the slightest, which is hugely squicky and wrong, but the way script-writng and television recording works means that if the line were meant to foreshadow the Paul Abbot plot they could be easily excised on set, if necessary. I honestly can’t imagine that idea lasting very long, and given Moffat’s patterns, I would assume it’s just a horrid coincidence.

(Watch as I am proven wrong somehow.)