The idea of ‘the Impossible Girl’ is because that name in no way applies to her properly. The Doctor thinks she’s impossible and then discovers she’s a perfectly real person, a perfectly ordinary person. His disposition is to treat people like puzzles to be deconstructed and what he learns in dealing with Clara is he was dealing with a real human being and if he’d picked up on that earlier they would have been better friends quicker. So that’s what ‘the Impossible girl’ is, it doesn’t exist, she’s just Clara Oswald.
Fan: Is there a possibility in the future of the Doctor regenerating as a woman?
Moffat: [Succinctly] Yes.
Audience: [Long applause]
Moffat: But there is no vacancy. I’m being really explicit in my answer here because I gave this answer once in San Diego. I was asked if the Doctor could ever be a woman and I said ‘I think there’s a subtext in the show, maybe you should read it.’ And I turned and gestured to Michelle Gomez sitting next to me as Missy, and everyone laughed.
This was reported, widely, as me saying the Doctor would never be a woman. So let me just make this very, very clear: there is no vacancy, and it may never happen. However artistically it could work. Commercially, the audience would go with it, we’ve proven that with Missy. And that’s why we did it, frankly.
Yes, it can happen. It doesn’t need to happen, but it can, absolutely.
[Asking the audience directly]
Just in case: is anyone confused, from the major blog sites, about what I said? Do you know what ‘can happen’ means? Anyone confused?
If someone reports that as me being against it, could you go and beat the [inaudible] out of them?
I shudder to think what Clara’s life would have been like if she’d married/had a child by him.
bye
I’m sorry but what in the actual fuck? Danny never was controlling, he only ever asked Clara to be honest with him. As much as I love her as a character, she was the one who constantly lied and led him on. Neither of them were perfect, but this actually makes me angry because it really lays a lot of the blame for how their relationship was at his feet,when it had more to do with Clara’s need to control everything in her life (including her relationships) and her rather constant lying to him.
What world have we come to when demanding honesty from someone you’re romantically involved with equates to “controlling” and abusive behavior? What the actual fuck?
ZOMG! Just because we’re in a serious relationship that could one day mean us becoming financially and familially entwined doesn’t mean you can take away my right to constantly lie to your face!!1!
For over fifty years Doctor Who’s leading man has been, well, a
man. Despite the fact that during the course of the show the Doctor’s
‘regenerated’ into thirteen different bodies, that body’s always been a
male one. But perhaps that’s finally about to change.
There is no vacancy [at the moment]. It’s worth pointing out that you just met Peter Capaldi. I think my opinion [on a female Doctor] is fairly obvious from the show. … If you’re reading the subtext [gestures at Gomez]
I’d forever hold that Steven Moffat isn’t bad at writing women, at all. Amy, Clara, River – they’re all different and differently fascinating.
What he was absolutely bloody awful at, though, was writing them into situations where their consent and bodily autonomy didn’t matter to the story.
I figured something out the other day. I honestly don’t care if you like Donna/Martha/Rose more than Amy/Clara/River (though a lot of the reasons for that come off p sexist), what do I hate is “they’re just issues to be solved” because I, you and plenty of other neuroatypical (sorta)girls can really relate to them and saying “they’re not human-sounding and just problems for dudes” taps into what I at least have been told for a lot of my life.
Yeah, completely agreed. (This is the same reason I hate the whole ‘manic pixie dream girl’ label now too, and I hope it goes the same way as ‘mary sue’ as a term that’s just plain toxic for women.)
Ooooh, and although it’s not quite as personal I also hate it when people bring out the ‘No-one dresses like Amy and Clara, they’re costumed entirely for the male gaze!’ argument, because I dress almost exactly like Clara with a hint of Amy sometimes and it’s certainly not for anyone but me…
Okay, I don’t know where this came from- if it’s a creation of the OP, or one of those virtually untraceable images that people repost every now and again. So I’m not 100% sure whom I’m even directing my ire at here, but:
What is wrong with the statement ‘His writing saved my life’? I want an explanation as to why it’s emotionally manipulative. Ideally one that doesn’t mention Moffat at all, actually, this argument has little to do with him – you’d be hard pressed to find a work of popular fiction that hadn’t saved someone’s life. Harry Potter, John Green’s stuff, Twilight – god, I could reel off a whole list of problematic things I’ve heard people say ‘it saved my life’ in relation to. No reason why Moffat’s stuff should be any different. (Hell, I’m reliably informed that people can love a work of fiction, love what it did for them, and still feel disdain for the author’s opinions / hate the author as a person.)
So your complaint is…what? If this mysterious hypothetical Moffat-loving strawman is saying ‘his writing saved my life’, how is that any more emotionally manipulative than, well, the regular old emotional manipulation used when people are arguing? (And this is a discussion that includes sexual assault. I think it’s safe to say that emotions, very high ones, will be involved.) No, I think the crux of that snide little remark is that – as usual – any discussion involving depression or suicide is bundled away into a little box labled ‘romanticising’ ‘glorifying’ ‘glamourising’ and naturally ‘emotional manipulation’ so that people don’t have to actually think about it, and can neatly cast the victim as the villain for bringing it up in the first place.
I’d be very interested to see the discussion that inspired that particular piece of bingo card, and I’d also like to say to anyone of a similar buy-your-sanity-from-the-television disposition: fuck that shit. If Moffat’s Doctor Who, or RTD’s Doctor Who, or Teen Wolf or South Park or some terrible old TV show no-one’s ever seen saved your life, you be proud of that, you be very proud, and don’t stop clinging to it. Obviously you need to bear in mind other people’s triggers and fears (please do), but ‘talking about openly’ is very very rarely the same thing as ‘emotional manipulation’.
Jesus Christ, did this really go for over a thousand notes without anyone questioning this? Something mocking the suicidal? Well…I suppose it’s alright if it’s done in the name of ‘Moffat hate’. Comic sans and cruelty! That’ll show him!
Statements against Moffat’s DoctorWho that are VERY MUCH valid:
“The Eleventh Doctor kissing people without their consent is uncomfortable and deeply problematic. Even if he faces consequences afterwards (like being slapped) it’s still not the way a sympathetic character should act, played for laughs or not.”
“The sexist jokes sometimes made by the Eleventh Doctor aren’t funny and are misogynistic.”
“Amy’s pregnancy arc deprived her of a lot of agency: even if that was the point, it was poorly executed. It had really disturbing implications and no place whatsoever on a show like this.”
“Moffat’s comments about relationships/gender roles/etc vary in range from ignorant to downright obnoxious.”
“There still hasn’t been a female or POC Doctor, and Moffat is more or less in a position to change that, and he hasn’t done.”
“There aren’t enough named LGBT characters – even River only really has a few lines to imply her bisexuality – and there should be more.”
“Moffat appears to be terrible at taking criticism, and this is a very bad trait for a writer/showrunner to have.”
Statements against Moffat’s Doctor Who that make me either think you haven’t thought about it, or doubt your motives:
“I don’t like this [behind-the-scenes thing on the show done by a woman, such as much of the costume design]. Moffat’s responsible for [this thing done by a woman]; he’s got to go!”
“There are no women working on Moffat’s Doctor Who!” [There aren’t enough – or any – women writers, no. This need to change. However, there are women working behind the scenes who’ve had their contributions erased all too often. This post, to give just one example, conveniently leaves out that out of all the Moffat-penned episodes of his era so far, half of them did, in fact, continue to be edited by women.]
“[Any other statement that devalues a woman’s contribution to the show, including any statement that reduces talented actresses Karen Gillan and Jenna Coleman to ‘just pretty faces/sex appeal’]”
“Amy/Clara/River is such a bitch/slut/Mary Sue! Fuck Moffat for writing them that way!”
“I object to the saving of the billions of children on Gallifrey, because…I didn’t want to see the Doctor’s manpain over causing their deaths erased?”
“Remember when the companions were NORMAL? Amy, who has canonical mental health issues her predecessors did not have, is not NORMAL or relatable.”
What do you think the role of the companion is in Doctor Who?
I’m very glad he added that “It’s never been true” in there, because there used to be SO MUCH knocking the old companions to uphold the new ones (lookin’ at you, Eccles) and I’m very glad that’s not happening any more.
