@@gamerboiiiiiii gamerboi. It looked like some of the same style shows he was writing for Capaldi. Moffet needs to not only write for the audience but also for what the actors are capable of handling. It seems a fair criticism.
Dr Who was strongest in its bottle neck(low budget ep) episodes, first thing to come to mind is Midnight and Silence in the Library, but this recent episode is not only an insult oh Dr Who but also on human intelligence, So much pain, Smart mines that don't blow up and guns that don't shoot(at the ambulance as starters) what kind of gun says no I am not going to shoot at the enemy that's trying to kill me, Great the episode is so bad I am forgetting language after seeing that
One created by a company that profits off of war trying to protect all of its assets and profits where all of their weapons and tech are controlled by a singular AI. Were you all not paying attention?
Wait I have been reassigned to the front lines wait I need to grab my kids(LITTLE KIDS) and get their shoes so they can "Rome around in No-MAN's-LAND for daily strolls" Just because
I'm a sucker for dark hair and brown eyes, so I fell in love with Clara immediately, lol. In all seriousness though, that device with the remains and the eyeball was a fleshlight. He already told a police officer that he'd "been snowmanned and wanted to go home" in the Xmas special. The continual sexualisation of the Doctor is really starting to ps me off...! He's an alien without a sexual identity and nothing is sacred to these horrible people. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and review. I always look forward to your videos. 👍🏻
I don't think that we talked about this before. I don't think Mollie has a dislike for her as much as I do. I'm not sure what exactly I don't like about Clara. I think it's that Doctor chasing after the only problem worth solving that put her in that problematic state. I found that creepy. And Souffle Girl and the condescending "Run, you clever boy". It's nothing against the actress but the quippy nature (Amy got on my nerves at times too but not as bad as Clara) Moffat wrote her Clara character into being. It's odd because there are episodes like "Hide" where Clara works for me. But the Impossible Girl just wired me to clench up whenever she's around -- Old Man
The episode was at least good for being a sci-fi story with that 'Hitchcock suspense' and also trying to be a bottle episode, where I will admit Ncuti did a decent job for a performance where he's standing still almost the whole time. But again, the Doctor sort of acted a bit odd and silly like last episode to me. This episode he was criticized by at least some viewers for being rude about the characters' faith/beliefs, which shows maybe this script was written initially for Doctor 12, the one deliberately written as an old and rude grump who is still lovable. Otherwise, yeah, this was kind of a rehash of Moffat's past stuff, with repeated phrases, ideas such as the ambulances, fake companion death and talking to dead characters thru their recordings or holograms. Even the editing and directing was a bit all over the place [sometimes I couldn't tell what was being said and by whom] for me like the themes were. Moffat taps into the anti-capitalism theme of Oxygen [a Capaldi script by Jamie Mathieson] yet throws other stuff in there. I was almost on the edge of my seat the whole time, so it was 'just good I guess' but again it's a low bar to set for this era. Just because Moffat's name is attached doesn't mean it's a 10/10 like his one-off scripts under RTD1.
@@Altmetalpunk I guess they have been. Which also brings up a recurring discussion I've seen/read while recent years of Who have gone on with taglines such as 'The Doctor would never do/say that, that upset me' yet they may have forgotten or not noticed the Doctor being like that since roughly the 60s.
A lot of our subscribers don't have access to the show and appreciate the recap as their only way of getting a good understanding of the story. But I also put in book marks to make it easy to skip to the review for those who've watched the episode. -Mollie 😉
@@mollieandtheoldman I appreciate the recap, not for your Doctor Who videos (because I do not actually watch or follow Doctor Who), but for your Star Trek videos. 🙂
Okay, several points here. First, this does sound like Stephen Moffat, however it also sounds like the worst aspects of Stephen Moffat and the very reason I largely stopped watching tv Dr. Who through seasons 9 and 10. Absolutely agree with the old man that Stephen Moffat’s style is completely hyper active, picking a bunch of ideas, often very good and interesting ones, but then just stringing them together one after another, before finishing with the big emotional: “feelings save the day!” ending to the episode. So that for me is actually something of a turn off. Also, several of these ideas struck me as ones which serve better as catalysts or adjuncts to a larger story, than attempts to carry the story itself. For example, the war with no enemy premise has occurred in a lot of scifi (I can think of several occasions it’s turned up in Doctor who), but usually, the revelation that there is no actual war comes halfway through the story, and props up some other aspect of world building. For example, in the great 8th doctor audio story timeworks, we find a society obsessed with the work ethic and being “on clock”, who are supposedly at war with a power called “languor”, given their obsession with work, it doesn’t take the doctor long to surmise that languor doesn’t exist, and wonder who is actually pulling the strings, (I don’t think they borrowed the idea from time works, I just like remembering good who stories while stuck in the mire of absolute crap that current who is). Here, the revelation is just simply incoherent, I mean, why would a weapons company invest in training troops, even transporting their children to the front (for some reason), if it was just about simply keeping demand going? That’s about as stupid as having a brightly coloured flashing landmine on a battlefield, much less having troops dumb enough to step on it anyway. This is doubly incoherent when you add the religious aspect, since why would a church actually encourage people to go and die for the cause, if there is no cause to die for. Again, simple bits of world building could’ve fixed this. Indeed, for me, the social commentary in this one was rather more egregious than several others, not because I am a big fan of the military complex or capitalism, or can’t bare religion being criticised, just because the episode basically just goes out of its way to say “thing bad!” very very loudly to the absolute detriment of the story. Speaking of the religious aspect. One thing you probably aren’t aware of, is how ubiquitous the Anglican church is in England. Yes, Britain has Catholics, methodists, unitarians, quakers etc, but the Anglican church is, if not the state religion, at least the one which is most visible. It’s the one that King Charles is the head of, and the tradition in which he was crowned. Indeed the arch bishop of Canterbury regularly speaks on political issues (though these days, the Archbishop, and the higher echelons have been talking a lot of woke bollocks!). So, by specifically having gun toting Anglicans, and directing all the heavy handed “religion bad!” criticisms at Anglicans in particular, Moffat is not just attacking religion in general, or Christianity in general, but the very specific denomination of Christianity most common in Britain, even down to the soldiers wearing clerical collars, and having ranks such as verger. For producers who are so quick to complain about “intolerance”, and issues such as “racism”, this is hypocritical to say the least. It’s also a bit jarring to anyone who has ever interacted with the Anglican church on a local level. I mean, my mum has just retired and is currently running a physio therapy group for old people at her local church, which also runs charity events and coffee mornings (my wife and I went over for their easter service last month). Yes, obviously in the past the church has encouraged crusades and wars, also the modern church has had its issues (there is a hole sad saga about my mum’s attempts to be ordained and the church not really liking disabled people), but it’s a little jarring to say the least when you know anything about the group that Moffat is criticising here, heck when he first introduced the “Anglican marines!” the idea was just absurd enough to be a fit for doctor who, what are they going to do, douse the enemies with a tea and sandwiches cannon, or use long winded sermons as torture? Another major problem with this episode generally, is that we have no actual idea what this “Anglican army” actually have faith in. Moffat seems to fall into the trap that many atheist writers do, where he wants to say: “Faith makes people do silly things! Faith has no proof! Faith bad!” Without any understanding of either what people have faith in, why people might adhere to that faith in the first place, or to be honest, what faith actually looks like. Indeed, to have a huge “faith bad!” mantra then end with his usual “family saves the day” deus ex ending is pretty sloppy, especially with the Doctor’s half hearted rant about love surviving, which strikes me more as an attempt to back away from being too critical, and a half-hearted apology. Again stories that examine the idea of faith as motivation, or deal with conflicts of scientific explanations vs faith based ones are fine, but if you’re going to tackle such a weighty subject, you need to do more than just go: “thing bad!”, which is what Moffat does here. One of my favourite comments on faith is in the story “the canabalists” (an absolutely amazing, and downright horrific audio story featuring the 8th doctor and his companion lucy miller, a companion clearly inspired by Rose tyler). The story features a group of robots in an abandoned colony, the maintenance robots have gone insane and are canabalising (hence the title), all the other robots for their parts; it’s actually one of the nastiest things I’ve ever heard set to audio. The last few overseer robots look forward to the day that protocol will come and save them. Towards the end of the story, the overseers take on the canabalists in an effort to draw them away from an entrance the Doctor and Lucy need to go through to reset the system, getting themselves literally torn apart in the process, saying they do it “in the name of protocol.” Lucy is appalled, telling the doctor they died for nothing and that all their beliefs in protocol were a lie. The doctor tells her rather sternly, that everyone has a right to their own beliefs no matter where they come from, and the overseers sacrificed their lives in the name of theirs so that the Doctor and Lucy could do what needed to be done. It was such a refreshing change to actually hear the doctor talk about real tolerance for once, especially with a belief system that we as people who know about robots can definitely poke holes in from a logical perspective, and most religious beliefs are a good bit more complex and nuanced than that. So, suffice to say, even more than the space babies and the snot monster, methinks this episode was just calculated to rub me up the wrong way, especially with the apparently (at least according to the synopses), one sided crush the guy has on the soldier woman who sounded quite unpleasant, and the way all the men die! So, while I can definitely see why this would have better aspects than the first two episodes, for me this is even more one to avoid!
My father is an Anglican minister and was all for the metaphor. I even messaged him asking why Moffat was always into Militant clergy and he sent me back a ton of examples
@@Altmetalpunk Yes, there are some bad Anglican priests out there, I've certainly run into a few. However, the same goes for any group, ethnic, religious or cultural. The problem here isn't saying that there are bad Anglicans or bad priests, the problem here is using a parodic version of Anglicans to say "faith bad!" Suppose someone wrote a story about an evil hip hop group, who used rap music to desensitise people to violence so they committed crimes. You could say something about types of music or art encouraging violence without picking on hip hop specifically, you could also contrast that with types of music, including rap music that inspire people, and make a much more nuanced story which would give your criticisms more weight. But if all you did is write a story that says: "hip hop make people bad!" Methinks there might be a tiny bit of controversy about that :D.
@@billkerns9258 No offense taken, and I can see from your remarks that no attack was intended (I’ve been online long enough to know the difference). In terms of background, I am well aware that religious fundamentalism is far more common in the Us than it is in England. My wife is from Pennsylvania, and was bought up very much in the charismatic tradition (which she herself did not like), and when visiting her family I definitely ran into some more extreme perspectives than those I’m used to. Not that there aren’t fundamentalists in Britain, but they’re certainly not as mainstream, or indeed as loud as they are in the Us. While there are definitely a few less pleasant Anglicans , the Anglican church is for the most part at the more moderate end of things. For example, Charlse Darwin’s father was an Anglican priest, and Darwin’s teachings on evolution were accepted by the church and became taught as standard. So going after Anglicans for a particular critique here seems more than a little off target. Also bear in mind “separation of church and state”, is far less a hot button issue In Britain than it is in America, mostly because the state religion is optional, indeed while King Charlse is still considered head of the Anglican church, the official title “defender of the faith” Was changed by Queen Elizabeth to “defender of faiths”, in 2012 during her diamond jubilee. As to the hip hop remark. The reason I chose hip hop, is that I’m afraid in the nurd culture space, we are seeing only specific views being aired due to Hollywood’s clear political bias, Star trek, Star wars, most of what comes out of Disney, adaptations of fantasy novels like Rings of power, Wheel of time and the witcher, and now doctor who. Radical identity and gender politics, social justice which frequently strays over into misandry and racism against white people. Indeed, if you look at the remarks of Russel T Davies and Nguti gatwa himself, you find some pretty extreme, and indeed rabid views often expressed towards the very fans of the show. Doctor who, probably more than others; and because obviously I am a hard core whovian myself, is one of the most egregious examples, partly because as a major fan for most of my life ever since the age of four it’s the universe I am most invested in along with Tolkien’s middle earth, and partly because being tied both to a very specifically English character and sensibility (echo chamberlain has a very good video on the subject, it feels majorly jarring when the very character and essence of both the Doctor’s character,), and the show itself changes. Also because Doctor who from its very premise is able to go anywhere, do anything and tell any kind of story, however in restricting to specific stories and specific messaging, the series is feeling stunted and narrow, and certainly not the boundless fountain of possibilities it used to be. In fairness one sided agender pushing is something I’ve not liked in at least some other Doctor who stories, for example the audio Blood tide, or the insertion of religious mania to the Daleks of bad wolf, one reason I mentioned the canabalists and the respect the doctor shows for a belief based on the actions of those who adhere to it, even if we know logically where the belief comes from. This isn’t to say the Doctor shouldn’t challenge beliefs that are causing trouble, as happened in the story face of evil, just that if the story is actually attempting commentary, rather than entertainment, a little nuance is a good thing, since otherwise it just looks as if the writer is spewing vitriol, which unfortunately seems standard operating procedure for the writers of the current series. While I have encountered some speculative fiction that pushes a heavily conservative viewpoint; something which I’m also not a fan of if it’s done so ham handedly, conservative shows are actually pretty rare in Britain, or for that matter in the nerd culture space, though as you said, I don’t doubt they exist in other genres. Though I’m no expert on the subject, I’ve nothing personally against hip hop. I picked hip hop however in the reply to the previous comment, precisely because criticisms of hip hop and American black culture are calculated to gage an emotional response; as in fact your response shows. There are some definitely less pleasant examples of hip hop), and the behaviour of some rappers, just as there are obviously unpleasant Christians. Therefore, in some way criticising hip hop, something which is important to many people’s self-image and community, mirrors the emotional response people might have to criticisms of Christianity, much less a more benign form of Christianity such as the Anglican church. There is something of a double standard of who is currently permitted to be criticised, at least in the liberal dominated nerd culture space, and a good way of breaking that double standard, or at least from those with some degree of empathy, is to turn that around and ask how the situation would be if directed at someone else, indeed it was this very kind of empathy which historically was behind a lot of movements towards equality in the first place. While I’ll admit I don’t take misandry well for personal reasons, I do know if I were in a heavily conservative space and someone were being similarly lacking in nuance and hurling vitriol at women, black people liberals etc, I’d probably like it no more. Indeed, when visiting my lady’s family, I did run into miner arguments on issues such as the fact that no, the British police are not afraid of extreme Islam, and yes, we do have armed response police units in Britan, IE special units of police who carry guns who get summoned to deal with armed criminals, or Harry Potter not actually having anything to do with Satan. but unfortunately one reason for this culture war we’re in at the moment, is that for the most part respect and equality have been replaced by notions of reparation and equity, with “live and let live”, no longer being sufficient, which in fairness has caused an over-compensatory backlash in some quarters, and others to adopt more extreme views. Indeed, I myself was all for “diversity”, when diversity meant diversity of cultures locations and perspectives (one reason I’ve been such a huge doctor who fan in the first place, but now “diversity”, just means no white people (especially straight white men), and anything traditionally European must be changed I’ve grown pretty opposed to the idea. This is particularly sad to see in Doctor who, just as it is in Startrek, since though Doctor who was not an exclusively moralistic show, the basic premise did tend to revolve around the Doctor treating violence as a last resort, solving problems with his brain, and generally just trying to right wrongs, have adventures and let people work things out for themselves.
I'm not sure what to say about the entire episode, but I do think it was comparable to a decent mid-season episode. I do have something to say about, how you put it, what Moffatt is trying to do to the Doctor. Two caveats. (1) If RTD just dusted off an old Clara episode without letting Moffatt edit it first, this would be wrong, and (2) it's post-modern. It's based around the idea that Moffatt is queer but not a raving old bitchy heterophobic queen like RTD. Moffatt nailed the Doctor's foot to the floor so Gatwa wouldn't flagrantly prance around the set like RTD's fantasy top, which we all know is exactly why he was hired in the first place even though nobody is willing to admit it. Then Moffatt turned him into a whiny bottom bitch with snot dripping out of his nose. To put a cap on it, he portrayed _breeders,_ a derogatory term for heterosexuals used by the likes of RTD and Gatwa, as actually _good_ and maybe with some magic despite not being trans 13-year-olds claimed to be 15 years old played by adults dolled up to look about 30 but still with stuffed animals, aww, what a cute little girl, called _gorgeous_ by someone with a history of only using that term to mean sexually hot (see those Library episodes), *just because there is a strength to family* with no rampant hebephilia. This is extremely subversive of him, and I approve.
If Mundy(?) is the next companion, next year Moffat didn’t do a good job at making her likeable. 🤷🏻♀️ This is no slight against the actress. I get it was a war type setting, but why did she just dismiss what they were trying to tell her about the mine? 🤔
a tv show about angry dust bins with light bulbulbs for eyes and another with a toaster for a head has gone woke how odd who knee the bbc are pushing woke crap on everyone would fail good bye dr fruty
Dr always used to check before he stepped out of the TARDUS, And he was always smart and quick, not in this
Moffet has been spoiled by the high quality acting of Peter Capaldi. Capaldi could carry an entire show standing on a landmine but not Gatwa.
Capaldi made punching a crystal wall for a billion years more interesting.😅
Tf are you talking about, Gatwa did an amazing job bringing such amazing emotion into this
@@Altmetalpunk Real men don't cry. Lol
@karlelshoff4720 not true. But the hate on gatwa is granted
@@gamerboiiiiiii gamerboi. It looked like some of the same style shows he was writing for Capaldi. Moffet needs to not only write for the audience but also for what the actors are capable of handling. It seems a fair criticism.
Your headline should have been "Disney Doctor stands on landmine as innocent killed trying to help him"
Dr Who was strongest in its bottle neck(low budget ep) episodes, first thing to come to mind is Midnight and Silence in the Library, but this recent episode is not only an insult oh Dr Who but also on human intelligence, So much pain, Smart mines that don't blow up and guns that don't shoot(at the ambulance as starters) what kind of gun says no I am not going to shoot at the enemy that's trying to kill me, Great the episode is so bad I am forgetting language after seeing that
One created by a company that profits off of war trying to protect all of its assets and profits where all of their weapons and tech are controlled by a singular AI. Were you all not paying attention?
Why is the sky blue? Capitalism
Why is the fire hot? Capitalism
Why is the snow white? Capitalism
Why is the Dr Who BAD?
I too was struck by how Ruby's lines were pure Clara.
Wait I have been reassigned to the front lines wait I need to grab my kids(LITTLE KIDS) and get their shoes so they can "Rome around in No-MAN's-LAND for daily strolls"
Just because
No one said the clergy was smart
I'm a sucker for dark hair and brown eyes, so I fell in love with Clara immediately, lol.
In all seriousness though, that device with the remains and the eyeball was a fleshlight.
He already told a police officer that he'd "been snowmanned and wanted to go home" in the Xmas special.
The continual sexualisation of the Doctor is really starting to ps me off...!
He's an alien without a sexual identity and nothing is sacred to these horrible people.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and review. I always look forward to your videos. 👍🏻
Definitely agree that this was just an old episode that was rejected- or was more of shirt story. That’s why Ruby is acting so weird. What hacks 😂
Moffatt's era always struck me as being no better than Chris Chibnall's.
Great review as always.
I’m curious why so many dislike Clara. Is that something you all ever discussed in another video?
I don't think that we talked about this before. I don't think Mollie has a dislike for her as much as I do.
I'm not sure what exactly I don't like about Clara. I think it's that Doctor chasing after the only problem worth solving that put her in that problematic state. I found that creepy. And Souffle Girl and the condescending "Run, you clever boy". It's nothing against the actress but the quippy nature (Amy got on my nerves at times too but not as bad as Clara) Moffat wrote her Clara character into being. It's odd because there are episodes like "Hide" where Clara works for me. But the Impossible Girl just wired me to clench up whenever she's around -- Old Man
@@mollieandtheoldman thanks for the reply!
The episode was at least good for being a sci-fi story with that 'Hitchcock suspense' and also trying to be a bottle episode, where I will admit Ncuti did a decent job for a performance where he's standing still almost the whole time. But again, the Doctor sort of acted a bit odd and silly like last episode to me. This episode he was criticized by at least some viewers for being rude about the characters' faith/beliefs, which shows maybe this script was written initially for Doctor 12, the one deliberately written as an old and rude grump who is still lovable.
Otherwise, yeah, this was kind of a rehash of Moffat's past stuff, with repeated phrases, ideas such as the ambulances, fake companion death and talking to dead characters thru their recordings or holograms. Even the editing and directing was a bit all over the place [sometimes I couldn't tell what was being said and by whom] for me like the themes were. Moffat taps into the anti-capitalism theme of Oxygen [a Capaldi script by Jamie Mathieson] yet throws other stuff in there.
I was almost on the edge of my seat the whole time, so it was 'just good I guess' but again it's a low bar to set for this era. Just because Moffat's name is attached doesn't mean it's a 10/10 like his one-off scripts under RTD1.
The Doctor has always been wary of extremely religious people.
@@Altmetalpunk I guess they have been. Which also brings up a recurring discussion I've seen/read while recent years of Who have gone on with taglines such as 'The Doctor would never do/say that, that upset me' yet they may have forgotten or not noticed the Doctor being like that since roughly the 60s.
Don't think you need a recap, just go straight to the review
A lot of our subscribers don't have access to the show and appreciate the recap as their only way of getting a good understanding of the story. But I also put in book marks to make it easy to skip to the review for those who've watched the episode. -Mollie 😉
@@mollieandtheoldman I appreciate the recap, not for your Doctor Who videos (because I do not actually watch or follow Doctor Who), but for your Star Trek videos. 🙂
Okay, several points here.
First, this does sound like Stephen Moffat, however it also sounds like the worst aspects of Stephen Moffat and the very reason I largely stopped watching tv Dr. Who through seasons 9 and 10.
Absolutely agree with the old man that Stephen Moffat’s style is completely hyper active, picking a bunch of ideas, often very good and interesting ones, but then just stringing them together one after another, before finishing with the big emotional: “feelings save the day!” ending to the episode.
So that for me is actually something of a turn off.
Also, several of these ideas struck me as ones which serve better as catalysts or adjuncts to a larger story, than attempts to carry the story itself.
For example, the war with no enemy premise has occurred in a lot of scifi (I can think of several occasions it’s turned up in Doctor who), but usually, the revelation that there is no actual war comes halfway through the story, and props up some other aspect of world building.
For example, in the great 8th doctor audio story timeworks, we find a society obsessed with the work ethic and being “on clock”, who are supposedly at war with a power called “languor”, given their obsession with work, it doesn’t take the doctor long to surmise that languor doesn’t exist, and wonder who is actually pulling the strings, (I don’t think they borrowed the idea from time works, I just like remembering good who stories while stuck in the mire of absolute crap that current who is).
Here, the revelation is just simply incoherent, I mean, why would a weapons company invest in training troops, even transporting their children to the front (for some reason), if it was just about simply keeping demand going? That’s about as stupid as having a brightly coloured flashing landmine on a battlefield, much less having troops dumb enough to step on it anyway. This is doubly incoherent when you add the religious aspect, since why would a church actually encourage people to go and die for the cause, if there is no cause to die for.
Again, simple bits of world building could’ve fixed this.
Indeed, for me, the social commentary in this one was rather more egregious than several others, not because I am a big fan of the military complex or capitalism, or can’t bare religion being criticised, just because the episode basically just goes out of its way to say “thing bad!” very very loudly to the absolute detriment of the story.
Speaking of the religious aspect.
One thing you probably aren’t aware of, is how ubiquitous the Anglican church is in England.
Yes, Britain has Catholics, methodists, unitarians, quakers etc, but the Anglican church is, if not the state religion, at least the one which is most visible.
It’s the one that King Charles is the head of, and the tradition in which he was crowned. Indeed the arch bishop of Canterbury regularly speaks on political issues (though these days, the Archbishop, and the higher echelons have been talking a lot of woke bollocks!).
So, by specifically having gun toting Anglicans, and directing all the heavy handed “religion bad!” criticisms at Anglicans in particular, Moffat is not just attacking religion in general, or Christianity in general, but the very specific denomination of Christianity most common in Britain, even down to the soldiers wearing clerical collars, and having ranks such as verger.
For producers who are so quick to complain about “intolerance”, and issues such as “racism”, this is hypocritical to say the least.
It’s also a bit jarring to anyone who has ever interacted with the Anglican church on a local level.
I mean, my mum has just retired and is currently running a physio therapy group for old people at her local church, which also runs charity events and coffee mornings (my wife and I went over for their easter service last month).
Yes, obviously in the past the church has encouraged crusades and wars, also the modern church has had its issues (there is a hole sad saga about my mum’s attempts to be ordained and the church not really liking disabled people), but it’s a little jarring to say the least when you know anything about the group that Moffat is criticising here, heck when he first introduced the “Anglican marines!” the idea was just absurd enough to be a fit for doctor who, what are they going to do, douse the enemies with a tea and sandwiches cannon, or use long winded sermons as torture?
Another major problem with this episode generally, is that we have no actual idea what this “Anglican army” actually have faith in.
Moffat seems to fall into the trap that many atheist writers do, where he wants to say:
“Faith makes people do silly things! Faith has no proof! Faith bad!”
Without any understanding of either what people have faith in, why people might adhere to that faith in the first place, or to be honest, what faith actually looks like.
Indeed, to have a huge “faith bad!” mantra then end with his usual “family saves the day” deus ex ending is pretty sloppy, especially with the Doctor’s half hearted rant about love surviving, which strikes me more as an attempt to back away from being too critical, and a half-hearted apology.
Again stories that examine the idea of faith as motivation, or deal with conflicts of scientific explanations vs faith based ones are fine, but if you’re going to tackle such a weighty subject, you need to do more than just go: “thing bad!”, which is what Moffat does here.
One of my favourite comments on faith is in the story “the canabalists” (an absolutely amazing, and downright horrific audio story featuring the 8th doctor and his companion lucy miller, a companion clearly inspired by Rose tyler).
The story features a group of robots in an abandoned colony, the maintenance robots have gone insane and are canabalising (hence the title), all the other robots for their parts; it’s actually one of the nastiest things I’ve ever heard set to audio.
The last few overseer robots look forward to the day that protocol will come and save them.
Towards the end of the story, the overseers take on the canabalists in an effort to draw them away from an entrance the Doctor and Lucy need to go through to reset the system, getting themselves literally torn apart in the process, saying they do it “in the name of protocol.”
Lucy is appalled, telling the doctor they died for nothing and that all their beliefs in protocol were a lie.
The doctor tells her rather sternly, that everyone has a right to their own beliefs no matter where they come from, and the overseers sacrificed their lives in the name of theirs so that the Doctor and Lucy could do what needed to be done.
It was such a refreshing change to actually hear the doctor talk about real tolerance for once, especially with a belief system that we as people who know about robots can definitely poke holes in from a logical perspective, and most religious beliefs are a good bit more complex and nuanced than that.
So, suffice to say, even more than the space babies and the snot monster, methinks this episode was just calculated to rub me up the wrong way, especially with the apparently (at least according to the synopses), one sided crush the guy has on the soldier woman who sounded quite unpleasant, and the way all the men die!
So, while I can definitely see why this would have better aspects than the first two episodes, for me this is even more one to avoid!
My father is an Anglican minister and was all for the metaphor. I even messaged him asking why Moffat was always into Militant clergy and he sent me back a ton of examples
@@Altmetalpunk Yes, there are some bad Anglican priests out there, I've certainly run into a few.
However, the same goes for any group, ethnic, religious or cultural.
The problem here isn't saying that there are bad Anglicans or bad priests, the problem here is using a parodic version of Anglicans to say "faith bad!"
Suppose someone wrote a story about an evil hip hop group, who used rap music to desensitise people to violence so they committed crimes.
You could say something about types of music or art encouraging violence without picking on hip hop specifically, you could also contrast that with types of music, including rap music that inspire people, and make a much more nuanced story which would give your criticisms more weight.
But if all you did is write a story that says: "hip hop make people bad!" Methinks there might be a tiny bit of controversy about that :D.
@@billkerns9258 No offense taken, and I can see from your remarks that no attack was intended (I’ve been online long enough to know the difference).
In terms of background, I am well aware that religious fundamentalism is far more common in the Us than it is in England. My wife is from Pennsylvania, and was bought up very much in the charismatic tradition (which she herself did not like), and when visiting her family I definitely ran into some more extreme perspectives than those I’m used to. Not that there aren’t fundamentalists in Britain, but they’re certainly not as mainstream, or indeed as loud as they are in the Us.
While there are definitely a few less pleasant Anglicans , the Anglican church is for the most part at the more moderate end of things. For example, Charlse Darwin’s father was an Anglican priest, and Darwin’s teachings on evolution were accepted by the church and became taught as standard.
So going after Anglicans for a particular critique here seems more than a little off target.
Also bear in mind “separation of church and state”, is far less a hot button issue In Britain than it is in America, mostly because the state religion is optional, indeed while King Charlse is still considered head of the Anglican church, the official title “defender of the faith”
Was changed by Queen Elizabeth to “defender of faiths”, in 2012 during her diamond jubilee.
As to the hip hop remark.
The reason I chose hip hop, is that I’m afraid in the nurd culture space, we are seeing only specific views being aired due to Hollywood’s clear political bias, Star trek, Star wars, most of what comes out of Disney, adaptations of fantasy novels like Rings of power, Wheel of time and the witcher, and now doctor who.
Radical identity and gender politics, social justice which frequently strays over into misandry and racism against white people.
Indeed, if you look at the remarks of Russel T Davies and Nguti gatwa himself, you find some pretty extreme, and indeed rabid views often expressed towards the very fans of the show.
Doctor who, probably more than others; and because obviously I am a hard core whovian myself, is one of the most egregious examples, partly because as a major fan for most of my life ever since the age of four it’s the universe I am most invested in along with Tolkien’s middle earth, and partly because being tied both to a very specifically English character and sensibility (echo chamberlain has a very good video on the subject, it feels majorly jarring when the very character and essence of both the Doctor’s character,), and the show itself changes.
Also because Doctor who from its very premise is able to go anywhere, do anything and tell any kind of story, however in restricting to specific stories and specific messaging, the series is feeling stunted and narrow, and certainly not the boundless fountain of possibilities it used to be.
In fairness one sided agender pushing is something I’ve not liked in at least some other Doctor who stories, for example the audio Blood tide, or the insertion of religious mania to the Daleks of bad wolf, one reason I mentioned the canabalists and the respect the doctor shows for a belief based on the actions of those who adhere to it, even if we know logically where the belief comes from.
This isn’t to say the Doctor shouldn’t challenge beliefs that are causing trouble, as happened in the story face of evil, just that if the story is actually attempting commentary, rather than entertainment, a little nuance is a good thing, since otherwise it just looks as if the writer is spewing vitriol, which unfortunately seems standard operating procedure for the writers of the current series.
While I have encountered some speculative fiction that pushes a heavily conservative viewpoint; something which I’m also not a fan of if it’s done so ham handedly, conservative shows are actually pretty rare in Britain, or for that matter in the nerd culture space, though as you said, I don’t doubt they exist in other genres.
Though I’m no expert on the subject, I’ve nothing personally against hip hop. I picked hip hop however in the reply to the previous comment, precisely because criticisms of hip hop and American black culture are calculated to gage an emotional response; as in fact your response shows. There are some definitely less pleasant examples of hip hop), and the behaviour of some rappers, just as there are obviously unpleasant Christians.
Therefore, in some way criticising hip hop, something which is important to many people’s self-image and community, mirrors the emotional response people might have to criticisms of Christianity, much less a more benign form of Christianity such as the Anglican church. There is something of a double standard of who is currently permitted to be criticised, at least in the liberal dominated nerd culture space, and a good way of breaking that double standard, or at least from those with some degree of empathy, is to turn that around and ask how the situation would be if directed at someone else, indeed it was this very kind of empathy which historically was behind a lot of movements towards equality in the first place.
While I’ll admit I don’t take misandry well for personal reasons, I do know if I were in a heavily conservative space and someone were being similarly lacking in nuance and hurling vitriol at women, black people liberals etc, I’d probably like it no more.
Indeed, when visiting my lady’s family, I did run into miner arguments on issues such as the fact that no, the British police are not afraid of extreme Islam, and yes, we do have armed response police units in Britan, IE special units of police who carry guns who get summoned to deal with armed criminals, or Harry Potter not actually having anything to do with Satan.
but unfortunately one reason for this culture war we’re in at the moment, is that for the most part respect and equality have been replaced by notions of reparation and equity, with “live and let live”, no longer being sufficient, which in fairness has caused an over-compensatory backlash in some quarters, and others to adopt more extreme views.
Indeed, I myself was all for “diversity”, when diversity meant diversity of cultures locations and perspectives (one reason I’ve been such a huge doctor who fan in the first place, but now “diversity”, just means no white people (especially straight white men), and anything traditionally European must be changed I’ve grown pretty opposed to the idea.
This is particularly sad to see in Doctor who, just as it is in Startrek, since though Doctor who was not an exclusively moralistic show, the basic premise did tend to revolve around the Doctor treating violence as a last resort, solving problems with his brain, and generally just trying to right wrongs, have adventures and let people work things out for themselves.
A father character named "Vater" (German word for father). This is so creative!!!! 🥱
His first name should be something like "Dark" or "Dart" or maybe "Darch."
It must be even more exasperating when there are bits of a good story and then watch it go really off the rails.
I'm not sure what to say about the entire episode, but I do think it was comparable to a decent mid-season episode. I do have something to say about, how you put it, what Moffatt is trying to do to the Doctor. Two caveats. (1) If RTD just dusted off an old Clara episode without letting Moffatt edit it first, this would be wrong, and (2) it's post-modern. It's based around the idea that Moffatt is queer but not a raving old bitchy heterophobic queen like RTD.
Moffatt nailed the Doctor's foot to the floor so Gatwa wouldn't flagrantly prance around the set like RTD's fantasy top, which we all know is exactly why he was hired in the first place even though nobody is willing to admit it. Then Moffatt turned him into a whiny bottom bitch with snot dripping out of his nose. To put a cap on it, he portrayed _breeders,_ a derogatory term for heterosexuals used by the likes of RTD and Gatwa, as actually _good_ and maybe with some magic despite not being trans 13-year-olds claimed to be 15 years old played by adults dolled up to look about 30 but still with stuffed animals, aww, what a cute little girl, called _gorgeous_ by someone with a history of only using that term to mean sexually hot (see those Library episodes), *just because there is a strength to family* with no rampant hebephilia. This is extremely subversive of him, and I approve.
Ugh.RIP Doctor..
Thoughts and prayers.
If Mundy(?) is the next companion, next year Moffat didn’t do a good job at making her likeable. 🤷🏻♀️ This is no slight against the actress. I get it was a war type setting, but why did she just dismiss what they were trying to tell her about the mine? 🤔
I think that was supposed to be an indictment of Mundy's faith leaving no room for entities like the Disney Doctor. -Mollie
Stupid soldiers who never noticed the absence of an enemy. The phoney war idea was more convincingly handled in Classic Who's "The Armageddon Factor".
There is also Star Trek TOS's "A Taste of Armageddon", with its take on a fake war perpetuated by corrupt leaders.
"The musings of an old man"
I can relate to that. It almost makes me want to subscribe to Disney!
I have a feeling that it's probably a one-off Disney won't be repeating again any time soon. -Mollie
very scientific about the gravity and acceleration. maybe he's a flat earther.
Slightly muddled is probably better than actively antagonizing the audience as racists and transphobes.
a tv show about angry dust bins with light bulbulbs for eyes and another with a toaster for a head has gone woke how odd who knee the bbc are pushing woke crap on everyone would fail good bye dr fruty
Haven't watched this, but getting Canto Bight vibes from the Capitalism/War story.