Series 6 of the Doc

Previous series and that skirt:

Anyway, about Series 6 of the Doc – mixed feelings.

The characterizations weren’t too bad, e.g. the Silence and Winston Churchill was OK but with the main cast, well , not sure.   Matt Smith got better but there was definitely something not right about Amy Pond.   And our Rory was a bit drippy, did you not think?

Warmed a bit more to Melody as she went on.

Karen Gillan would have been better with a Tom Baker, during the lighter, K9, Roger Moorish days.    Possibly Sarah-Jane would have been better with these convoluted plots now where things suddenly came at them – SJ did the howling better than anyone.

Some of the monsters were criticized and I think rightly so, not because they’d frighten the children but because Moffat started getting into very dark themes, even satanic – it was mentioned a few times and calling an episode the god complex – one wonders what Moffatt was driving at.

The living eyes in the wall and the flesh still sentient – that is not for children to have to come to terms with.   Give the kids a scary monster, OK, but not something gross like the flesh.    Predictably, Moffatt either doesn’t see it or doesn’t want to to see it.   Or else he’s on someone else’s agenda.

The death of the Doctor scene was good, in the region of the Rose farewell but Karen Gillan cannot do devastated – she doesn’t care enough to be able to find it in herself.   Again, sorry to say it but Sarah Jane could.   Billy could.

I was asleep during the Amy denial scene but I’ve seen the clip before and have no desire to find it now and watch it.   Don’t know why the Amy Pond thing didn’t work but it didn’t.   I looked around to see what others were saying.   One girl wrote:

You are right – in some ways she’s sort of a slacker. She excited to go on the adventures, but doesn’t have enough education or other life experience to do much. Her most active assignment was off screen during the incident in “The Silence” episodes. I think she’s meant to be a point of view character for the audience. Earlier episodes show her having personality traits, later episodes not so much.

And of course that’s the writers to blame again.  Another girl:

But I think her character is inconsistent. Sometimes she has a crush and sometimes she’s cold, to both the Doctor and Rory. I suppose that’s my main issue with her character: inconsistency.

And another, in reply to her:

Good point. However, that may be due to a male-lead creative team.

Have to agree.    I’ve seen pics of that lot and writing good women does not appear to be their main concern.   This person seems to agree:

Doesn’t matter whether the genders were switched, Amy was awful. She was written and developed by people with low opinions of women and no idea how to just, frankly, treat them as people.

She was not believable as a person, nor was Rory and the plot was way too clever-dicky.    I’m about to embark on the Clara Oswin era so here’s hoping she’s a bit better – I’ve seen the shorts:

Looks promising.   At least it would if she didn’t keep dying.    Well, each to his or her own but methinks she looks good, best since Billy and there’s chemistry again:

People do love it, don’t they?

Advertisements

2 responses to “Series 6 of the Doc

  1. I cannot say I am impressed by Clara as yet. Early days. She is a very pretty girl and has nice eyes, and to date her role has been aided by late 19C dress propping up her wobbly antecedents, but the comments about Moffat’s ‘understanding’ of women are moot. He is more a middling-muddling feminist-cum-gay misandrist writer than anything, as far as I can tell. He seems ambivalent to ‘Character’ in most respects.

    This is a concern to me. The ages-old theme of good vs evil is what Dr Who illustrates and yet all too often in Dr Who the ‘good’ side are morally questionable. It is not so much the difficulty that ‘all good men’ confront in themselves (and shown quite well in ‘When a good man goes to war’), but the easy acceptance of the modern ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ bizzo, with homosexual themes interfering and even being lauded.

    Throughout the last few years we have also seen a distinct misandric theme emerge. The treatment of Rose’ boyfriend and Pond’s boyfriend cast them as ‘disposable’ and inferior. That they subsequently became ‘heroic’ in later episodes is more down to audience outrage than writer’s initial design.

  2. I’ve just read through this and agree here. Clara first – yes, a bit bouncy and full of herself but she is late 20s, something which can be forgotten.

    To me, she’s a relief after the Pond/Williams/Riversong arc and all importantly, there is chemistry with those two. That’s all I ask of a Doc and companion. Capaldi should be interesting.

    The misandry – yes, it’s a right royal pain in the butt and it always comes in. At that point with the flesh at the start, it was a man who got up and balanced on the edge and her knocking him made him fall in. Then she was accused of causing it, she said it was him and that was the accepted wisdom as it was left.

    It’s just a film but multiply that by thousands of just-a-films and it’s as Minette Marrin wrote in 2002 – it’s a constant diet of men can do no good. I think Cameron’s current cabinet reflects the relative abilities to cut it – even though the bar is low to start with.