In the fourth episode of the second series of Doctor Who, Steven Moffat invades our nightmares. Again. Intrigued? Then it’s time for Mark to watch Doctor Who.
Steven Moffat is a genius. Easily. When I watched “School Reunion,” I forgot to stop the episode on Netflix before the next week’s episode was previewed. (NOTE: WHY DO THEY DO THIS. IT’S SO SPOILERY) When I saw those weird, masked things walking around, I’ll admit I wasn’t that excited to see the execution of this at all. Of course, once the title screen appeared and said, “by Steven Moffat,” I knew I should approach this episode with an open mind.
And what a doozy of an episode. Moffat’s writing is poetic, heartbreaking, and one of the more interesting monster-of-the-week plots I’ve seen yet. The set-up is also fascinating as well: The Doctor, Rose, and Mickey experience this episode in the span of just a few hours, while Reinette (Madame de Pompadour) experiences the events over the course of fifteen years.
It’s a context that allows this tragedy to unfold in an almost whimsical way, gradually building to the final, depressing moments of “The Girl in the Fireplace.” I like that Moffat chooses to start the episode near the “end” of the timeline; by giving us a context in which we see Reinette telling King Louis XV that the Doctor has been watching over her for her entire life, I expected this episode to operate almost entirely in flashbacks to various points in time, but this is the Doctor we’re talking about. Time isn’t relative to anyone but him.
Ending up in the 51st century, aboard an abandoned space ship, the Doctor, Rose, and Mickey end up doing some exploring, which reveals the “magic door,” as the Doctor so lovingly calls it. Well, it’s a “spatio-temporal hyperlink” at first, but “magic door” is so silly, isn’t it? This door, incidentally, is a portal to a very, very specific time 1727. Not only is it a portal to a specific time, but, as they discover, every magical door/window seems to follow one person: Reinette, more famously known as the Madame de Pompadour, the mistress of King Louis XV.
Unsure why this ship is essentially stalking this woman, the Doctor visits her the first time when she is just a child. (She looked older than six years old, despite that he first visits her in 1727. Weird.) In one of the most awfully creepy scenes ever, Moffat addresses the monster-under-the-bed trope when the Doctor realizes the pervasive ticking in the room is not coming from the clock, which is actually broken. Ugh, seriously guys, when he peers under the bed and there’s something there and all you can see are feet? NO. JUST NO THANK YOU. How on earth does Moffat take things as simply as white socks and make them so utterly terrifying?
The thing is, the preview for this episode seemed so silly, and yet the androids in this episode, with their unwavering dedication to their mission, their constant ticking, and their stilted movement, somehow aren’t silly in the slightest. They are just GODDAMN CREEPY.
You were right. This shit is nightmare fuel.
Aside from this (which actually doesn’t distract from the story!), I feel like Moffat’s “The Girl in the Fireplace” is my first chance to see the Doctor in love. I feel like he loves Rose, but he’s not necessarily in love with her. There may have been a time when he was in love with Sarah Jane Smith, but we don’t ever see that. Here, though, there’s something about the way that Doctor looks out for Reinette and even (temporarily) sacrifices himself for her that’s touching. Unfortunately, that means as the episode progresses, we get closer and closer to the inevitable heartbreak. The Doctor figures out that the androids have been using humans to rebuild their ship, unable to be moral about their decisions (they are robots, after all), and that they’ve fixated on one special girl to rebuild their computer system. On the surface, the idea that Reinette’s brain will be the same as as the computer and therefore compatible is, of course, completely absurd, but this episode seems to acknowledge that outright. In fact, it’s that absurdity that is used against them in the end, as the androids realize that without their ship, they have no purpose in life.
It’s never quite explained why the androids chose Reinette, of all people, but it might have been possible that there was only one magic door at the time the ship died, and the androids simply latched onto this concept and built more. Maybe it’s all a big coincidence. Either way, it really doesn’t matter. This episode was about two lives colliding, the Doctor’s love and Reinette’s “lonely angel.” Is it possible that the Doctor’s name means something so significant that he has to hide it? Is Reinette now the only human in all of history to learn exactly what the Doctor is?
All of these things contribute to the absolutely crushing finale of “The Girl in the Fireplace.” Using the fireplace that Reinette moved from her home to Versailles, the Doctor is able to get back to Rose and Mickey, telling Reinette to pack a bag and pick a constellation that they can visit. In just the span of thirty seconds, the Doctor returns to Reinette’s room at Versailles, only to discover that six years have passed in that time. He stares out the window with Louis XV as Louis tells the Doctor that Reinette is leaving Versailles for the last timeรขโฌยฆin a coffin.
Did I tear up? Absolutely. It’s a testament to Moffat’s script, which got me to believe that over the course of 45 minutes, the Doctor fell in love. And I certainly believed it and my heart ached to watch him internalize his heartbreak as he continued on without her.
Gutted, dudes. Steven Moffat, you win again.
THOUGHTS
- It was neat to see Rose have to deal with yet another woman in the Doctor’s life and it was even better to see her react in a much more mature manner than, say, when Sarah Jane was around. I think having Mickey around helped with that.
- I love Mickey as a companion, but you all know that already. I hope he’s around for a few more episodes too.
- “What have you been doing? Where have you been???” “Well, among other things, I think I may have just invented the banana daiquiri a few centuries early.”
- “No! You’re not keeping the horse!” “Why not? I let you keep Mickey!”
- “You’re my favorite, you are, you are the best, you know why? Cause you’re so thick! You’re Mr. Thick Thick Thickety Thick-face from Thick-twon, Thickania. And so’s your dad!
- “One may tolerate a world of demons for the sake of an angel.” UNF.
- “What’s a horse doing on a spaceship?” “Mickey, what’s Pre-Revolutionary France doing on a spaceship? Get a little perspective!”
- Sophia Myles, YOU ARE SO PRETTY. Good lord.
- Steven Moffat, seriously, your brain is amazing.
Heh told you you might mot have long to wait for a non-plothole episode!
Oh and just for the record… You are STILL not prepared for the Moff ๐
You can never be prepared for The Moff.
Moffat, stop reading this blog and go back to working on s6.
If anyone ever learns how to be prepared for the Moff, please do share.
Moffat Survival Guide.
Sit in the middle of a well lit room at midday. Ensure there is natural daylight, electric lights AND backup lights but no windows you may accidentaly look out of (skylights are fine, just don't look up). Ensure that the room is in perfect condition without so much as a mis-aligned strip of wallpaper or slight drip of paint. Watch with friends. Ideally watch with a suitably fluffy and cute animal to distract from the primal fears gripping your soul. Afterwards move, as a group, to a suitable location with LOTS of alcohol and heavy food and consume both until the food coma and drunken haze dominates all else. Move, probably slowly and slightly less steadily, as a group back to somewhere with very comfortable beds and nightlights. Do not sleep alone. Upon waking the next day look out of the windows VERY carefully for anything that might be able to kill you.
The above does not guarantee Moffat Survival but DOES guarantee you'll at least get laid.
And NEVER, under any circumstances, look away. I could phrase this differently but that would be veering into spoiler territory.
Or blink. Whatever you do, don't blink! I said, don't – Oh hell. I told you not to blink, and see what you did? You blinked. And now Moffat has written a tale of such unending horror that it will haunt your every nightmare until the day you die.
I hope you're happy.
(As a side note, I've found that thinking of The Moff as Steven Muppet makes the thought of the things in his head a little less terrifying. But then I have happy memories of the Muppet Show.)
oh man. I watched the episode you're referring to, and woke myself (and my husband) up screaming. No more Moffat episodes just before bedtime.
I've found that a lot of eye-rolling works.
They've gone into some detail about problems you can find with this episode (if you're so minded) in the next post. Honestly, I think that Moffat's scripts are probably the most absurd in all of Who, they're marvellous confections of absurdity, he just puts a lots of effort into handwaving past the stuff the doesn't really make sense if you stop and think about it. Also, and this goes for most, Who it makes a kind of dramatic sense, if you go along with it then things pretty much follow on.
RTD is a tougher proposition for a lot of people since he doesn't tend to handwave, there's often enough there to construct a plausible explanation for what's going on, but it'll be mentioned elliptically, in passing, and probably nobody will take any time to explain it.
I still think that's a sylistic difference more than anything else, although if you're counting up flaws then Russell has 24 or so stories (depending how you count them) to Steven's 9.
They're both very big fans of each other's work though.
Woo woo! Here comes the Unpopular Opinion Train!
I am not a fan of this episode. This is an episode that would have fit much better in series 5 because then the characters might have actually made sense. Instead it is here in series 2 and Rose isn’t Rose and Ten isn’t Ten and Mickey, well Mickey is still pretty much Mickey, but he doesn’t do much in this episode.
This is an ok episode by Moffat standards. Well it used to be. After seeing Moffat’s Christmas special “A Christmas Carol” the episode is riddled with plotholes, but no mind- that is the least of my problems with this episode. I can’t explain exactly the plot points that Moffat reuses without getting into the realm of spoilers, but Moffat definitely tends to reuse concepts over and over again, so let’s just leave it there for now. It definitely makes the episode less appealing upon rewatch. Let us move on to how completely out of character everyone is in this episode and why this episode is a good example of the problem I have with the way that Moffat writes his female characters.
Let’s examine this sparkling quote from Moffat with regards to this episode. From Doctor Who Magazine #385: And anyway, who says the Doctor would have a problem with having two girlfriends? When people ask “How could the Doctor love Reinette when he already loved Rose?”, I just say “Have you ever met a man?” No problem.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME RIGHT NOW, MOFFAT? ~Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus~. What wonderful insight into gender difference and relations? All men are dogs etc etc. UGH. Yes, let’s cater to the supposed straight male fantasy of having two girlfriends and having them both be totally ok with it!
Speaking of which, another thing I don’t get is that Moffat says in the DVD commentary for this episode that “the Doctor doesn’t understand jealousy” which is why he doesn’t think that Rose would have a problem with Reinette coming along. Um. What? Does Moffat not remember writing a two parter in which the Doctor spent a fair chunk of time being jealous of Jack? Did he not see the episodes where the Doctor was being petty and immature about Adam and Mickey because he was jealous? In what universe does the Doctor not understand jealousy?
The characters in this episode are all over the place. It bothers me a bit that Moff kind of just shoves Rose and Mickey off to the side, so he could focus on the story he wanted to tell with the Doctor and Reinette, and not worry about pesky things like character continuity. I love Mickey. I wanted him to shine on his first outing in the Tardis. But instead he was kind of just pushed aside.
On paper, Reinette seems like a pretty awesome female character. She was a strong woman who fought for what she wanted and was politically influential. Awesome! On this show, all we see of her (outside of that brief scene where she tells everyone to calm the fuck down) is in her role as the King’s mistress or as the Doctor’s love interest which is a major disappointment for me. Moffat tells us how awesome she was, but he doesn’t bother to show us, instead reducing her to merely an object of desire.
Rose just feels very out of character throughout this episode. First of all, it’s kind of annoying that in a series where Rose is becoming more of a hero in her own right, that Moffat writes her back into the damsel in distress mode. She really doesn’t do anything in this episode other than get captured by robots and then talk to Reinette.
Outside of the context of the episodes, many of Rose’s lines don’t sound all that bad. But inside of the context of the episode, where the relationships between Reinette and the Doctor and Rose and the Doctor are framed like Rose is the wife who has to stay behind while the Doctor goes out and has adventures with his new girlfriend, these lines really bug me.
Rose Tyler: Oh look at what the cat dragged in, the oncoming storm.
The Doctor: You sound just like your mother.
Rose Tyler: What have you been doing? Where have you been?
Rose Tyler: No you can't keep the horse.
The Doctor: Why not? I let you keep Mickey! Now go!
Yep. Painting Rose as the no-fun girlfriend who keeps the Doctor from having fun. Ugh, women. Am I right?
Moffat does not just stop at setting up Rose as the nagging wife type character, he also sets up the relationship with Reinette as a having sexual undertones. Whether or not they actually have sex isn’t important. What’s important is the fact that this relationship is set up as a potentially sexual one.
Well, yeah, but he also set up the relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose as a potentially sexual one with all the dancing metaphors…
I never said he didn't? It just adds another layer to who inconsistent Moffat's writing and characterization is.
Sorry, I should have elaborated there. Basically I think that Moffat has the same idea of the Doctor's sexuality as I do – he's not asexual, but nor is he entirely sexual. He's willing to flirt with and make strong attachments to and possibly even have sex with all kinds of people, but I don't think he falls in love like humans do and in the same way that Rose does with him. (Not saying that he doesn't have an enormous emotional attachment to her, because that is obviously undeniable.) So what I meant to say there really was that the Doctor hinting at a sexual relationship with Reinette was similar to his hinting of a sexual relationship with Rose, or at least that's the way I viewed it. So for me it wasn't inconsistent at all.
But I think we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this so we should probably just agree to disagree
As Jackie said on learning the Doctor has two hearts, "What else does he have two of?"
I think that there are some aspects of human emotion that he understands only at an intellectual level, but not at a gut emotional level. I also think that he doesn't always make connections between what he feels, and what a person feels. As Rose said, she forgets that he's not human. Well, so do we all sometimes.
I've also learned in life that it is possible to love more than one person, but it is only possible to commit to more than one person. The Doctor, like all of us, can only learn this the hard way.
OK, I should register so I can edit. "only possible to commit to one person".
Sorry.
I think he isn't as hormonally driven as humans, but that he is fairly sexual.
I agree with this completely, thank you.
I posted this already but ten minutes later it hasn't shown up so I'm trying again and if you get it twice then I'm sorry! ๐
Sorry, I should have elaborated there. Basically I think that Moffat has the same idea of the Doctor's sexuality as I do – he's not asexual, but nor is he entirely sexual. He's willing to flirt with and make strong attachments to and possibly even have sex with all kinds of people, but I don't think he falls in love like humans do and in the same way that Rose does with him. (Not saying that he doesn't have an enormous emotional attachment to her, because that is obviously undeniable.) So what I meant to say there really was that the Doctor hinting at a sexual relationship with Reinette was similar to his hinting of a sexual relationship with Rose, or at least that's the way I viewed it. So for me it wasn't inconsistent at all.
But we clearly don't see eye-to-eye on this, so it is probably best to just agree to disagree?
Isn't that something he has a bit of a reputation for, Moffat? Offhand, casual sexism?
Ugh. Yes. It pisses me off. lol. I'd enjoy his episodes a lot more if I didn't know he was such an ass. These are my two favorite quotes of his:
"There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married – we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands."
and
"Well, the world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level – except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of respect for anything male."
THE POOR EDUCATED MIDDLE CLASS MAN. WHY DOES NO ONE THINK OF HIM?
Uh.. cripes. I thought it was just "lol EVRYGUY LIKES 3SUMS" type stuff, but those are pretty particular, huh?
That's really annoying, actually. I like Eleven far, far more than Nine or Ten; I don't want a thoughtless cock-flailer to be in charge of the stuff I like more. Boo!
note to self: don't read Moffat's interviews.
I read one, and after it pissed me off, I just stopped. As much as I do enjoy the episodes, and generally enjoy reading interviews with writers (or anything Who related), I would rather not ruin the fun I do find in them by building up anger where it isn't going to help me in my life in any way.
Oh- wow.
I had heard that Moffat had some- er, twisted opinions on males and females, but I'd been avoiding reading the interviews. From what I saw in DW it mostly seemed like over-analysis, and while I knew that Sherlock Holmes doesn't have many female characters, I thought that was mostly in keeping with the originals. But yeah. That's painful.
:/ That's interesting generalization considering how over-the-top they wrote Mickey's neediness and whinyness in the first season (I like Mickey btw.)
Moffat never wrote for Mickey in season 1 though.
I never said he did, but up till this point he was the archetypal needy character on the show, I'm just saying.
I never said that he did, but Mickey was kind of the template for a clingy dude by that point in the show. I'm just saying.
I wasn't saying he did, just that he was by far the whiniest/clingiest dude around at that point.
Oh. My. God. I think I just vomited in my mouth a little bit.
So glad someone put these quotes up. Mostly I see huge love for Moffat everywhere but I can't get these quotes out of my head, especially when thinking about his female characters.
On the other hand, maybe that's why he can write so much brilliant stuff for nightmares. With a mind like his, he ought to be living in a nightmare; his imaginary mysoginistic world must per force clash with the reality of everyday life in THIS real world. That's gotta be freaking terrifying.
Umm, y'all know that a) there is actually some psychological truth behind the first one, b) there's actually quite a bit of factual evidence to support the second one (just as a quick example, Sex and the City. Couldn't do that show with men in the lead roles without getting roasted for it.) and c) he might not have been being entirely serious right?
Not saying I agree or disagree with these statements or not but good lord some of you are reading a LOT into this.
I didn't know any of this until this thread, but I've always been annoyed at him when he talks to the camera. He seemed very ass-ish. And look! He is. I'm glad he doesn't write every episode of s5. I can't deny I love his episodes, he is a very clever writer and seems to have been made to write time-traveling nightmares. I hope he doesn't have too much influence on the Neil episode next season. I'm looking more forward to seeing that than anything else and I don't think Neil could be called casually sexist. At least, not his stories or comics I don't think.
I can't not like Moffat's episodes because of this, in the same way that I can't not like Tom Cruise's acting. They're both brilliant. And they're both people I never want to meet.
This explains a lot of the flaws in Coupling.
In a way I love Moffat because he is a fabulous writer that spreads nightmare fuel like it was candy.
Then I read some of the quotes he gives and I want to beat him physically about the head.
I've decided to respect the writing (or at least his monsters) and dislike the man himself. 'Cause I've got to say, as a whole, I do like the episodes that Moffat writes more than the other writers for this show.
That's how I feel: love the writing, not so much a fan of the person. His episodes are consistently my favorites, but his interviews are awful, so I tend to not read his interviews anymore.
Yeaaaah. He's said himself he's terrible at blacking out during interviews and letting his mouth run the show, which doesn't really excuse what he says- but freudian slips or nervous babble, we can only speculate.
So he says all that and then he's a "crippled* apologist" about saying it, too? Pffff respectfail.
*Dear Mr Moffat, it's not nice to say 'crippled'
What? Why are you taking the instance of that wording above and applying it into something I paraphrased? I'm not saying what he says is okay. I'm not defending what he says. I am trying to cope with interview!Moffat while liking writer!Moffat like many people here. But I think that's a little unfair to be putting words into his mouth, even if they were his own words in a different context.
Because.. it is reasonable to do so? He says things, and then he says "oh I let my mouth get away with me" which is basically backing away from what one's put on record in order to avoid fallout.. Which is the kind of behaviour he complains about being the bane of manliness?
There's not any stuffing of words into mouths there, is there?
I didn't say he apologized for it, and you took him to task for the "crippled" comment by applying it to him in a completely different context. Someone reading your comment without reading Karen's would be lead to believe he labeled himself a "crippled apologist" in respect to what he's said, which isn't really the case at all. That, imo, is putting words in his mouth.
I don't know about you, but it's entirely feasible to me that someone who's nervous in interviews could say a lot of stupid things they really didn't mean. That there is a bigger pattern of it doesn't really help his case, but I thought it was worth putting out there if we're all speculating on his views of women.
Awww c'mon, I didn't take him to task. Perhaps I'm just not aware that it's stil a viable word to use in any context? I was of the impression that it was not.
And yes, it's feasible that people may say things they don't mean. However, if they're shitty things like that, it's appropriate to a) apologise, b) clarify one's true opinion and c) not keep doing interviews (you used a plural, I understood these things to have come out on multiple occasions) if they make you that nervous.
We're not all speculating on his views on women – we're discussing things he has actually said about women and how similar themes appear in his work.
I'm sorry, I think I might have come on a little strong here. I was surprised by your initial reply, as I replied to your comment about "Offhanded, casual sexism" and had no idea where the "crippled apologist" thing came in until I read upthread. I come from a place where I was once quite frothy myself over Moffat's sexism, and maybe in coming to love his newer work I have resigned myself too much to it. I just feel like everyone gets so worked up about it, and sometimes it's better to make a measured look at it. I may have, trying to be measured, been a bit overzealous in playing devil's advocate. I think we probably have a lot more in common in our views than someone would think looking at this thread.
You have every right to criticize his ableist use of "crippled," I did not mean to have any negative connotation in saying you took him to task for it. I would agree that Moffat could and would be looked on a lot more favorably if he did A & B, but I have a feeling C is not an option due to contracts. What is even more sad is that saying things like that are okay enough within this society that someone can go about saying them without media criticism or even a slap on the hand from their managers/employers. I actually think some of the things he's said in interviews have been in direct conflict with other things he's written. Unfortunately, those are spoilers at this point so I can't discuss them now. Mark's naivete: a gift and a curse to us all.
Let’s end this on a handshake, then!
Thank you so much for this comment, as it saves me writing one that's almost exactly the same. Moffat is not at all good about writing self-sufficient women, and a chunk of characterisation flies out the window in this episode to make room for another character who depends on the Doctor. And, while I may have my problems with Rose, she's very rarely this clingy and unreasonable, which is another Moffat problem: sidelining the main companion(s) to make room for his characters, erasing character development as he goes.
Then there's the fact that, yes, the androids are spooky, and omg ticking, but that's IT. It's just such a base-level fear, which is Moffat's specialty, and that's not a compliment. "Ooh, look, something's hiding under your bed, you were right to be afraid!" It's pandering to the lowest possible reaction, which is fun sometimes, but it's *all he does*. Episode after episode of "You were right to fear this thing from your childhood!" It gets old, and it gets stupid, both of those very quickly.
Umm, while I totally disagree about writing self-sufficient women (his female characters are, IMO, the best the series has seen since it's come back with ALL of them being capable of managing themselves without any help from the Doctor under anything a normal person could reasonably be expected to deal with) I have to say something about pinning character consistency issues on Moffat in Series 2.
Quite simply he's writing one script early in the run. He doesn't have access to the previous three scripts and doesn't necessarily know where RTD is taking the characters. He doesn't know that Rose has been changed quite so far from the Series 1 character to the wuv-struck annoyance / Doctor's true love (delete as appropriate) that Series 2 quickly portrayed her as. If the characterisation isn't consistent then it's RTD's job to flag it as an issue as he's the only one that has all the jigsaw pieces in his head.
Actually, it was in Moffat's contract that no-one (read: RTD) could edit his scripts, so you can't blame him for Moffat's poor characterisation staying in.
He really didn't have access to the previous scripts, though – one thing in particular to notice is that Rose has seemed to adjust rather well to Mickey being aboard after being so pissy about it at the end of School Reunion. That's because Moffat hadn't gotten to read that script and didn't know about her reaction.
He will have had notes on what had gone before, though. I'm not saying that's enough to get the characterisation spot-on within the context of the whole series but he could still have done a hell of a lot better than this.
Umm, not saying that I doubt you but have you got a link for that? Because every comment I've seen from RTD is there's four writers he WON'T re-write, not that he wasn't allowed to (and that includes his own very candid e-mails in the writers tale). I also struggle to believe they'd sign that contract as I don't see how they could guarantee that what Moffat did would tie in with the series arc.
He could definitely give them notes, he just wanted them to re-write based on the notes rather than doing it himself. In relation to The Girl in the Fireplace, though, Moffat says that Russell preferred that he was coming at the story in isolation as much as possible, so that it was a fresh take and improved the variety of the series.
Moffat definitely had no idea how "School Renunion" ended, he remarks on it in the online commentary. Still, as he says, I think she's got over it to an extent in the meantime – she is a teenager and basically fond of Mickey.
I'm also not convinced that the Doctor loves Rose exclusively at this point and I like the tension that this episode and the previous one inject into the relationship.
The biggest problem, I think, is that they cut the line about the TARDIS taking Rose and Mickey home. The Doctor's behaviour makes sense, I think, if he knows that from Rose's pont of view she just needs to get into the TARDIS and there'll be an older Doctor waiting for he when she gets back.
Also, it isn't necessarily about how much the Doctor loves Renette or Rose, the pressing need is to stop Renette having her head chopped off, both for her and for history.
Still with all the plot maneuvering going on, we only get Madame Pompadour in shorthand and Moffat doesn't quite have Davies' skill in that area. So we get a brief description of how wonderful she is and attraction via mind-meld and not a lot else, as there's no room.
A lot then depends on how much you take that on trust and are inclined to fill in the blanks yourself, which generally I am. David acts the hell out of it as well, which helps.
I can't remember, it was in an article I read it was linked in a larger discussion of Moffat's work. I just had a quick look, but couldn't find it, sorry. RTD could still tell Moffat what he wanted, where rewrites would be beneficial, etc., but he could not actually rewrite any of Moffat's scripts himself, so anything OOC left in is Moffat's call.
It was as a mark of respect. He considered that people who wrote their own shows could do their own re-writes. But as the executive producer he would have given notes (as would Julie Gardner) most likely through the script editor and there would have been a re-writing process.
The distinction was between writers he trusted to do their own re-writes and writers where he felt he would be best doing a final polish.
With Moffat in particular, at least this time, he was particularly keen to keep Moffat's take as particular as possible and so kept him out of the loop about the rest of the series as much as he could.
Would not, not could not. RTD made the decision himself not to rewrite Moffat's scripts, according to The Writer's Tale.
I just think that Moffat and I have very different ideas about what makes a good female character. It's not all about being strong or self-sufficient for me. I just want to see women who are fully developed and fully formed characters, flaws and all. I want to see women as people with their own emotional inner life and Moffat just never gives that to me.
RTD is normally an obsessive rewriter, but for some writers like Moffat it was in their contracts that he couldn't do his normal rewrites, so unfortunately, it is all on Moff.
When it comes to female characters, I take a different route. It's agreed – we exist in a sexist, patriarchal society.
Given that premise, I'll take my female characters strong and self-sufficient, and capable of greatness on their own.
People have been commenting along the lines of how Reinette isn't fully-fleshed out and that she's two-dimensional. I disagree, but even if I were to concede that point, I'd rather had such female characters like that who at least get to be awesome, over female characters with stereotypical flaws, like being needy, and a shrew, and incapable of self-sufficiency, and jealous, and overbearing, and on and on and on.
I like Jackie. But I don't think we're supposed to like her very much. When characters like her exist for audiences to point and laugh at, then I find that problematic.
So I'll take Nancy, and Reinette, and all of Moffat's female characters that frequently do pretty well on their own in a show where a dude picks up pretty women and shows them the universe and makes their lives become defined by their relationship to him.
I think the Doctor is petty and selfish and I like him for that. But he's an iconic figure, and I guess is allowed to have such flaws, where women generally don't have that same luxury.
It's not an even playing field, so yeah, I'm gonna look up to the female characters who maybe aren't so realistic, but who get to be sassy and beautiful and maybe even save the day.
Maybe If I thought that Moffat had an actual awareness of the concept of patriarchy, I'd be willing to buy your version of events, but when this is how he sees the world I'm a bit dubious:
"Well, the world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level – except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of respect for anything male." (http://news.scotsman.com/doctorwho/Time-Lad-scores-with-sex.2535185.jp)
I think that Moffat writes all women who are sassy and beautiful because that's all he knows how to write. He doesn't understand how to give female characters any real depth. RTD's female characters are also all incredibly strong, smart and capable women. But they're not perfect. They have these wonderful strong qualities to them, but they also have flaws that make them feel real. They are just a list of character traits. They have stories and emotional journeys. I can't say the same for any of Moffat's female characters.
"all of Moffat's female characters that frequently do pretty well on their own in a show where a dude picks up pretty women and shows them the universe and makes their lives become defined by their relationship to him. "
I'd actually argue that Moffat's characters are way more defined by their relationships to men, whether as mothers, wives or objects of male sexual desire than any of RTD's characters are.
I'll use Jackie as a case example.
I really like Jackie. I also think she's realistic. But the Doctor's treatment towards her is pretty shitty. He seems to have no respect for her at all.
This show is aimed at families, and it's being written with say 12-year-olds in mind. I doubt a 12 year old boy is going to see what's cool about Jackie. I'm going to guess that boy looks up to the Doctor, and takes cues accordingly. When the Doctor treats Jackie the way he does, that boy has to either take the big step and notice the flaws in the Doctor that are not expressly depicted, or he's just going to go along with the narrative and root for the Doctor and not see why Jackie's treatment is problematic.
Jackie provides comedy relief, and it's mostly her flaws that allow that comedy to happen. When the narrative lets the flaws of female characters be the joke, whereas comedy from the Doctor is simply that he's "wacky and fun" without it really being a flaw, then I start getting angry.
My argument about female characters being defined by their relationships to men comes more from later seasons, so that will have to wait.
When Rose saves the day in the season 1 finale, Nine has to sacrifice himself to save her. It goes from a crowning moment of awesome for Rose, to a place where her actions have hurt the Doctor and have to be cleaned up by someone else. So I don't find RTD's female characters to be particularly strong, smart, or capable.
Basically, I'll take agency over supposed depth and emotion, when the depth and emotion only seems to be available for damsels in distress.
I disagree that Moffat doesn't do depth and emotional journeys, but I suppose that'll have to wait.
EDIT: So I don't find RTD's female characters to be particularly strong, smart, or capable.
Let me amend this. I don't find Rose or Jackie to be particularly strong, smart, or capable. I see RTD as rewarding Rose for sometimes being a damsel in distress, while not giving the nearly the same respect to some of his female characters from later seasons who are strong, smart, and capable.
Hopefully without further fueling stuff going on here, I'd just like to thank you for writing this up. I don't think people acknowledge the sexism in RTD's characters very much- which is there, just in a different way. You've expressed how I feel about it better than I could've, and without using spoilers, which I would've sorely been tempted to do. If I could I would give you ALL THE THUMBS UP VOTES, but sadly I can only give you one and leave this reply here.
Just want to second this.
<3
Thanks.
Aw, thanks. It's weird 'cause I don't want to start wank or anything, and I legitimately like Rose and Jackie, I just hate how they're portrayed on the show, and I question what their portrayals say about RTD.
Moffat's said seriously stupid shit in interviews, but I really don't see sexism in his DW episodes, to the point his interview comments honestly confuse me – how are they even from the same person?
But yeah, season 3? Imma have words for RTD.
YOU AND ME BOTH. On every count, but especially that last one.
It's really hard to argue towards Rose's capability etc when a lot of the episodes I want to use are spoilers (sidenote: "s1 Rose is more capable/better/etc than s2 Rose" baffles me for this reason) but I will say that I disagree with Rose being a damsel in distress any more than the general role of companion occasionally calls for "save me, Doctor!" scenes, and I think it is sort of a disservice to the character to paint her as such.
I will also say that IMO the problem with strong female characters of the brand Moffat tends to favour is that often their strength is drawn from what are considered classically-male/masculine traits, characteristics, etc. On its own, there is nothing wrong with that. But where I think it becomes a problem is when that becomes the only possible conception of Strong Female Character, which by extension means that female characters who behave in more classically-female/feminine ways are "weak" — and therefore that anything feminine is weak, and anything masculine is stronger, etc. (Of course there are issues in and of itself with associating certain traits with masculinity and others with femininity, but the fact that this happens can't be denied.)
Yes, the independent kickass fiesty~ version of a Strong Female Character is great. But you don't have to be an Action Girl to be a strong woman, and when an author consistently only uses that model, I begin to worry that he doesn't believe female characters can be strong any other way. And that bothers me. I'm not saying Moffat does this exclusively, per se, and I don't think his women are weak, exactly. But I do think that is the model of Strong Female Character he defaults towards, and this is why I find that model to be sometimes problematic. No, RTD is not perfect either, but I find his writing provides a wider variety of women who are strong in different ways, and I find that refreshing/preferable to the same stock Action Girl over and over.
Eh, a lot of the female characters we've seen in stereotypical "male" roles are also foils for the doctor and are seen to fuck up (Harriet Jones as PM as well as spoilers) …but I think that's an eventuality when you have the doctor being the hero and the moral of the story half the time is that the human race does some really stupid shit if you're also going to have women in positions of power as well. But I think the female characters of the Moffat era, overall are actually an improvement despite the shit that comes out of his mouth offscript.
I don't mean male roles as in male positions of power — and anyway Harriet Jones is RTD's, so that wouldn't really support my argument, lol. I mean male characteristics, like… where being compassionate is seem as feminine, being calculating/less emotional is seen as masculine. Again, the associations of those traits with a particular gender is problematic in its own right, but it's still there.) And I'm not saying a female character can't have more "masculine" traits, I'm just saying that the implication that masculine traits > feminine traits is really problematic.
But I think the female characters of the Moffat era, overall are actually an improvement despite the shit that comes out of his mouth offscript.
I disagree. I don't dislike them, but I don't think they're vastly superior and I do actually prefer RTD's. Different strokes, though. That's just down to personal preference.
Yeah hence me using the quotes. But yeah I'm not going to support your arguments because I disagree, I knew you disagreed but it's all good. Even with all I said I think both eras have their good and bad, and overall I really appreciate that this show alone has prolly more interesting roles for women over 30 than probably all of Hollywood combined.
It's not just a matter of gender roles but also how the people in certain roles are treated. I think when people are talking about "feminine" traits they're not saying that someone can't ever be a mum, but it's the fact that that character is only in the story BECAUSE they're the mum or wife or whatever of a more important male character and everything they do revolves around that (hypothetically speaking, I'm NOT saying this is the case.)
Or their role is to constantly be the one getting in the way of Important Hero Shit.
Or likewise you can have female Prime Minister/Army General/whatever but she still has to have all her problems solved.
I'm talking totally in the abstract now so I should prolly just stop.
I definitely don't hate Moffat's Who by any stretch of the imagination; usually in my circles I'm the one defending it as still awesome. I do have my preference though, and it's reeeeeally hard for me to stay out of the good ol' RTD-vs-Moffat's Women Debate, lol.
I actually think Harriet Jones is one of my favorite characters, but I think she got shafted by Ten in the Christmas episode. It sort of goes to what I've been saying, that portrayal matters – I figure we're supposed to take the Doctor's side, but I couldn't root for him in that scene. Harriet Jones is/was awesome, and I don't like her being depicted otherwise.
Okay, I think this is a crux of our disagreement here. Do you feel like the show always wants us to agree with the Doctor's decisions/actions? Because I really don't get that from the narrative at all, but I also see people argue a lot that "the Doctor did x and it was wrong but the author wanted me to think it was right", so it does seem to be some kind of major interpretative difference between people.
Shit, it's hard to do this without being spoilery.
I think we're generally supposed to think the doctor is right, whatever his incarnation. I don't really see him depicted as an anti-hero, but as a straight up hero.
There are certain episodes where I do think we're not supposed to agree with him, but in those instances he's usually called on his bullshit. For instance, Rose basically stops the Doctor from killing the Dalek in Dalek, and there are similar situations later where it seems obvious we're not "supposed" to take the Doctor's side.
He wasn't called out on his action against Harriet Jones, so it sort of sets up this situation where if the narrative doesn't call him out, I tend to think we're supposed to side with the doctor.
I guess I feel that like most shows, DW doesn't give its audience too much credit.
RIGHT? SO MANY SPOILERS I WANT TO USE AND CANNOT.
Hmmm that's fair I suppose. I tend to think Doctor Who is more nuanced than maybe you view it as, though. I also think that in RTD's Who (at least — haven't really thought about Moffat's in terms of this, so idk) consequences are sometimes a long time coming, so it may seem that on the surface the narrative lets characters "get away" with things. Satellite 5, for instance, in s1, we don't see the ramifications of the Doctor's actions in The Long Game until we reach the finale.
I think that kind of thing happens a lot, even if it happens less explicitly, and overall I get the sense from RTD's Who that the Doctor is a very flawed character and he absolutely isn't right all of the time, which I suppose is why I have an easier time accepting/watching those instances where I do think he is in the wrong.
Anyway lol I think this:
I guess I feel that like most shows, DW doesn't give its audience too much credit.
is a key point on which we disagree and that's trickling down to most of our views. I don't expect I've managed to sway you on anything, but it's usually hard for me to stay out of these sorts of debates when I feel like my "side" hasn't had its opinion voiced, so… now I've voiced it. I'm off to bed, but thanks for being civil and making your arguments clear.
Yeah, that probably is a fundamental point of disagreement regarding nuance and assumed intelligence of the audience.
it's usually hard for me to stay out of these sorts of debates when I feel like my "side" hasn't had its opinion voiced, so… now I've voiced it
Totally my sentiments as well. I didn't mind all the comments about not liking Moffat's writing, but I thought there were major criticisms of RTD that were going unacknowledged when people were arguing against Moffat.
It's been fun, though. Thanks.
Oh I love her and I totally felt for her when she got usurped by 10, I kind of love that there was a huge debate on here about what the doctor did to her in the Christmas invasion, even though at the same time I love the show's pacifist message. She was just one of the few examples I could use that isn't a spoiler at this point, though as I said when you have a hero that happens to be male it's an eventuality that a lot of females will either be undermined by him or have their problems solved by him, no matter what their status is in the world.
I disagree with Rose being a damsel in distress any more than the general role of companion occasionally calls for "save me, Doctor!" scenes, and I think it is sort of a disservice to the character to paint her as such.
I mostly agree, but given the conceit of this show is basically 'Amazing Man who travels with pretty female assistants/companions and saves the world,' there's a lot of damsel-in-distress moments, so as a whole, there's more damsels in distress in this show than many other modern shows. NOT RTD's fault, but he doesn't really deviate much from this premise. Moffat, I think, does, more-so than any other specific DW writer.
And I do agree that making female characters "strong" by given them traits associated with masculinity can itself be problematic, but I also tend to see it as a rebellion against traditional gender roles. Even if that rebellion needs to be handled with care, I at least appreciate seeing female characters that are breaking conventional stereotypes and helping question gender roles, which as you acknowledged is an issue.
And I'd rather female characters get strengths that are coded as masculine, than weaknesses that are coded as feminine (eg Rose's jealousy, Jackie's, I dunno, vapidness?).
As for Action Girl, I'm perhaps being nitpicky but that term is used to refer to literal fighters, which no DW characters tend to be unless they're antagonists or UNIT.
And I do think Nancy and Reinette and other Moffat characters are strong, female characters without being recycled versions of each other. I simply disagree with the notion that Moffat only does one type of female character.
Does RTD do diverse, well rounded female characters? I think he does diverse and realistically flawed female characters well, but I don't think that means he does well-rounded female characters.
Thinking about it, maybe some people take realistic as similar to well-rounded, when I don't.
Either way, I am glad these conversations are taking place. They're important, and I wish they happened more often.
Thanks for engaging with me.
I'm not sure I agree that Moffat deviates from "women in danger" more often than RTD, but okay, I can concede that we see that differently.
And I do agree that making female characters "strong" by given them traits associated with masculinity can itself be problematic, but I also tend to see it as a rebellion against traditional gender roles.
Yes…. but to a point, IMO. I mean, I'm all for reversing gender roles, but not when the point of reversing those gender roles is to say "look, isn't it so much better when women act like men?" And sometimes that is the impression I get from these attempts. Are you familiar with Philip Pullman's stuff? I read His Dark Materials and the Sally Lockhart books this past fall for the first time, and while I liked both Sally and Lyra, when I picked up the first Sally book after reading Lyra, it was sort of like "…oh." I can appreciate them both as female characters who defy the standards of heroines by, in Lyra's instance, being good at lying, being unsentimental, being disinterested in looks/etc/"feminine things" — as I said, that's all well and good. But seeing Sally being, again, very "masculine", made me begin to worry that Pullman didn't think feminine characters could be strong.
I don't think Nancy or Reinette are weak. I don't think they're particularly developed, either, but I concede the point that they're in one story each, so there wasn't a lot of time. I see a lot of similar traits in his two main female characters, I'm sure you know who you mean, and as I've said, I don't think those characters are weak because of it, but they also do not resonate with me as much as RTD's, and given Moffat's tendency to put his foot firmly in his mouth when he gives interviews, I do worry that the patterns I notice are a result of his notion that the masculine is superior to the feminine. I'll be honest and say that if I had never read an interview with Moffat in my life, I probably wouldn't pick up on a lot of the things I pick up on. But the unfortunate truth is that those interviews exist, and he has expressed those ideas, and I'm going to be aware of them when I watch his writing.
IMO RTD's female characters are well-rounded in that they have both strengths and flaws which are honestly and realistically depicted. That, to me, makes them well-rounded. I suppose YMMV on what "well-rounded" entails.
Action Girl wasn't meant to particularly refer to any DW character, just act as an archetype for what I'm trying to express.
Oh and I meant to say:
And I'd rather female characters get strengths that are coded as masculine, than weaknesses that are coded as feminine (eg Rose's jealousy, Jackie's, I dunno, vapidness?).
I… sort of disagree? I mean, I don't hate female characters with strengths coded as masculine; but I think by saying you favour that over weaknesses coded as feminine, you're still saying masculine > feminine, and I think you're also reducing both Rose and Jackie to one single trait while ignoring their strengths and other aspects of their character. Rose isn't only jealous, and Jackie isn't only vapid, and I think centering on those flaws while disregarding the other aspects of their character is an issue in itself. If those were the only functions of those characters, I would agree, but in this case they're not.
Not read Pullman, sorry.
But what are the masculine traits, really? The most overt masculine traits, I would think, are fighting type traits, which DW characters don't really have. The next sort of masculine trait, I guess, would be an expression of sexuality. There's no way I'm ever going to dislike a female character for expressing a desire to have sex, so that's not going to make me dislike a character, but possibly may make me dislike the portrayal of such a character.
Honestly, I'm having trouble coming up with "masculine" traits. Being assertive?
Basically, none of this is inherently male, it just gets coded as such, so I'm more inclined to approach it as questioning gender roles than celebrating masculinity/denying femininity.
As for say a female character disliking female things, as in your Pullman example, I don't think female DW characters from RTD or Moffat really do that much. So simply given characterization, I just don't have a problem with Moffat's female characters, and honestly don't get other people's problems with the characters themselves. Don't like them? Sure. But I don't see the sexism in his characters.
I've heard of the things Moffat's said, and they're repulsive, but I honestly don't see that perspective in his work. I can totally see how given the quotes one would be on the defensive, and there are many similarities to many of Moffat's female characters, but I don't see them as masculine, and I think his portrayal of female characters is more positive than RTD's.
So I object more strongly to RTD's writing of female characters, even though Moffat's certainly expressed skeevier views than RTD. I'm not giving Moffat the benefit of the doubt – given what he's said, I figure he's probably more sexist than RTD, but interestingly enough I think Moffat writes better female characters/treats them with more respect. Who knows, maybe he's got a Pygmalion/Galatea thing going on.
I think there's sort of miscommunication going on here. I have never suggested that you should dislike a female character for expressing sexuality. I do not think that a female character behaving in a "male" way, be it fighting or being very sexual, etc, is bad in and of itself. What I think is bad is if the writer and/or the audience sees that and interprets it as the only way of being strong. Does that make sense?
Basically, none of this is inherently male, it just gets coded as such, so I'm more inclined to approach it as questioning gender roles than celebrating masculinity/denying femininity.
I agree, and I don't mind questioning gender roles. The issue for me, what I'm trying to say, is that if questioning gender roles really just boils down to "women are so much better when they fulfill male gender roles", that's still preferencing the idea of things "male" over the idea of things "female". You can have both strong women who defy gender roles by filling "male" roles, and strong women who are strong without defying gender roles. That is what I like to see: both.
I don't object that strongly to Moffat's female characters. I think they are strong in their own right. It's just that I don't, personally, believe that they are stronger than characters like Rose or RTD's other women, and I think oftentimes the rationale people use to explain why they think Amy/whoever is stronger is rooted in what I'm getting at here — "X is stronger because she does such-and-such masculine thing, unlike Y who does such-and-such feminine thing". Then again, my least favourite aspect of Doctor Who fandom is that usually people can't talk about why they love one companion without in the same breath explaining why all the other companions suck.
A lot of it though is just personal preference — I, personally, enjoy RTD's writing a lot more than I enjoy Moffat's on essentially every level. I still like Moffat's stuff, usually, but it doesn't resonate with me the way RTD's does. But your taste obviously leads you to prefer Moffat and that's fine, we're not going to change each other's taste with reasoned argument.
I think there's sort of miscommunication going on here. I have never suggested that you should dislike a female character for expressing sexuality. I do not think that a female character behaving in a "male" way, be it fighting or being very sexual, etc, is bad in and of itself. What I think is bad is if the writer and/or the audience sees that and interprets it as the only way of being strong
I never meant to imply you were suggesting that. Sorry, I definitely could have made that clearer. But other than fighting/sex, I can't really think of traits that are still conventionally left to men in stories. As in, it's not really unusual to see an assertive female, whereas it definitely comes across as a trope to see an Action Girl.
You can have both strong women who defy gender roles by filling "male" roles, and strong women who are strong without defying gender roles. That is what I like to see: both.
So Rose's role in "Dalek" is really important, and is probably the best example of her saving the day via filling "female" roles. And sorry, but I'm sick of female characters saving the day via their mystical female compassion. I would be happy never seeing that story written again. And I can't think of any other stories where "female" strengths save the day. Basically, I guess I'm way more tired of stereotypes in female characters than you are. I still honestly don't consider this to be a masculine > feminine thing.
Definitely a YMMV disagreement overall, though.
Regarding stereotypical female weaknesses, it was more that I'm tired of stereotypical shallow/vapid/jealous female characters. I don't need to be told over and over by the shows I love that this is how females act, and that these main flaws in their character are totally common to women. For instance, I'd like for male characters to have some of these stereotypical female flaws, just because I'm tired of the same sterotypes over and over. It's not that masculine > feminine, it's that all gender roles suck and I'm sick of them.
Totally agree, Rose and Jackie are not simply those traits – I like them both (I actually really, really love Jackie, and her treatment is partly why I get riled so up about RTD and gender), so it's more a matter of wishing the show didn't do what it does with these good characters. Trying not to be spoilery, but I don't like how the relationship with Rose and Ten ends up, for instance. I feel like it demeans Rose's character.
The Doctor does act jealously, though — look at how Nine treats Mickey and Adam and Jack, and how Ten treats Mickey as well.
I mean, I see where you're coming from, and I absolutely agree that stereotypical vapid/jealous/shallow female characters are problematic. But I don't think any female character that has one of those traits is automatically a bad female character because of it, provided she has other strengths, motivations, depth, etc, and is not reduced to that one single negative trait.
Honestly, I didn't read too much jealousy from Nine, I mostly thought it was just that he thought those people listed were below him – stupid apes, and all that. Frankly, I'd prefer if it were intended as jealousy to be more overt – let the flaws shine. Let the Doctor be as petty and selfish as the humans.
But say his insecurity over the sonic screwdriver? That I did like, and is, I think, a recurring flaw, which I appreciate.
But I don't think any female character that has one of those traits is automatically a bad female character because of it
Agreed – again, I really like Jackie, but I don't think she's a strong female character, at least in depiction, and it's partly because she is commonly reduced to those negative traits in order to be the butt of a joke.
Rose, I think, is a strong character, but I don't like where her story went by the end of the season.
Basically, I think RTD reduces his female characters to tell certain stories/fill certain roles, and I don't appreciate that.
I just wanted to pop in to say, while I don't agree with your opinions, it's SO refreshing to see them put forth in such an intelligent and organized manner. There's really nothing better than a well thought out, INTELLIGENT debate. So thanks!
I will also say that IMO the problem with strong female characters of the brand Moffat tends to favour is that often their strength is drawn from what are considered classically-male/masculine traits, characteristics, etc. On its own, there is nothing wrong with that. But where I think it becomes a problem is when that becomes the only possible conception of Strong Female Character, which by extension means that female characters who behave in more classically-female/feminine ways are "weak" — and therefore that anything feminine is weak, and anything masculine is stronger, etc.
YES YES YES. I realise I type this after like, every comment you leave, but. YOU CAN STAY FOREVER.
I agree that RTD isn't perfect, but at the same time – Rose and Ten work so well together because she DOES have traditionally 'feminine' characteristics; she's more socially adept ('you're being rude again'), she shows empathy, concern, insight and so on ('New Earth' – the Doctor realises Cassandra is in Rose's body because 'Rose would care'). Yet these are not only depicted as positive things, but as NECESSARY things – the Doctor lacks these, and it IS shown to be a lack. Maybe it's not all consistent, but that's how it should be done.
Compare with a certain later Moffat-written character who I will absolutely not name for Mark's benefit, whose apparently 'strong' traits are frequently at emotional expense.
…So much random capitalisation in this comment, haha.
I just want to comment on the "I don't find Rose and Jackie particularly strong smart or capable" bit. Admittedly I've never put too much thought towards Jackie but Rose in season two has always annoyed me for one main reason: she doesn't feel like her own character anymore to me. This is just my opinion but from roughly around the point of tooth and claw, I started feeling as though there was a weird case of character osmosis going on, like Rose was doing her utmost to mimic the doctor's wacky mannerisms. I suppose that to me, the more she was presented as the doctors one true love, the more she became – to quote the Nostalgia Chick – a 'vagina version of him', only without the near infinite knowledge on how to do improbable things with science.
It doesn't really help when you consider that Rose doesn't really seem to have any particular talent apart from being slightly better suited towards the "domestic" bits than the Doctor, which is something stereotypically attributed to women anyway so RTD is hardly breaking the mold with Rose.
Then there is the treatment of future companions but I can't talk about them because of spoilers.
So really I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion on RTD's girls. I find it hard to believe that Rose would ever have asserted herself enough to change her life if a very special man hadn't come along and it particularly irks me that so many people out on the web seems to think that she was the benchmark companion despite there being nothing really to her. It's kinda sad really, but again that's my opinion.
Oh, the arguments I would make if they weren't so spoiler heavy. XD
I agree, ultimately the one responsible is RTD. If he can't rewrite Moffat's scripts (not even for characterization? how stupid is that contract!) he should have rewritten last's week's episode ending so that Rose wouldn't change her mind in 5 minutes. And we would have been happier, that ending was awful.
It may actually have helped Rose's characterisation if he'd done that. She really doesn't come off well in that final scene with her attitude to Mickey.
All of this. Also, I wanted to throw this quote from Moffat re: what Doctor Who is to him out there: "There’s no need for character development, or chat, it’s straight into: ‘There’s something wrong here, let’s look into this deep, dark hole.’” That attitude can just barely work when you're a guest writer, but as a showrunner? GTFO.
While I agree in the main, I would say that this is one instance when the 'it's a family show!' defence is necessary. What Moffat does incredibly well is to appeal to exactly that chord of base, childlike fear, but in a way that is appropriate for a family show. It's something that is chilling to children – who still live with these very real fears and confusion about the world – but also to adults, WITHOUT being OTT.
Pennywise the clown, for example, plays brilliantly on the almost instinctive fear of clowns that so many children and adults have, but is wholly too scary for family entertainment. That could never be found in Who because it subverts childhood fear too drastically. Likewise, many things kids find scary don't affect adults in the least.
Moffat achieves that balance between kids and adults, yes by hitting a low common denominator but by doing so in a way that is scary and appropriate for both. The Empty Child, for example, is absolutely chilling for everyone but without boring the adults or damaging the children. That is his skill, and few people can use childlike fears so skillfully.
I've got to disagree with this. I actually feel many of his female characters to be very strong. (I'll need to be careful about this comment, because, spoilers.) Many people seem to interpret many of his female characters as showing male dominance or classical women values, but I don't think that's completely true. Characters such as Nancy, Sally and 'Spoiler Lady' and strong both physically and emotionally.
I know Amy's character is some times criticised because people look at her and see a girl dependent on romance, being 'sent back to the kitchen'. I really don't think that she's a 'get back to the kitchen' type of character; in fact, more often than not, she risks herself in dangerous situations. As for the romantic situation, I saw it as two things. Partly to beak the train of some previous companions, by making her less 'pining', and also because, well, in real life there are girls somewhat like this.
Of course, I won't deny; reading Moffat's interviews, I don't agree with most of his opinions, but I don't think they show up nearly as strong in his script than in his interviews. Yes, I think some of his one-shot female characters are a bit flat (Reinette and Abigail), but mostly what I see is minor compared to some other shows/media. Its like a strange reversal of 'Show Don't Tell'; Moffat doesn't seem to be showing his opinions in the script.
And as far as emotions go- yes, Moffat feeds on nightmare fuel. But that does not mean he does not to emotions. Many conversations from his episodes stick out as some as the most emotional pieces in the show; I can't tell you much more, to keep this spoiler free, but I did think the latest season finale was particularly good with this.
I agree so much – I love most of Moffat's female characters, and don't think his unfortunate opinions expressed in the interviews don't really come through that much in the scripts.
I've also always boggled at the charge that his episodes lack emotion; I wonder if people are watching the same episodes I am, since they always touch my emotions very strongly. And I couldn't agree more on the latest season finale.
I don't want to trigger a ton of spoilery replies but I seriously can't figure out when Amy was ever in a metaphorical kitchen.
I have no idea if this is what MowerofLorn was referring to, but I have seen complaints about this scene
http://doctorwho.sonicbiro.co.uk/gallery/displayi…
MARK DON'T CLICK
I wasn't expecting that scene at all to be honest. There's another one which I was coming here expecting to defend and … wow. This one hadn't even flitted past my consciousness but, yeah. I can see how people could find that problematic.
I wasn't really specifying any one particular 'kitchen', but I have seem other people criticise her as such, although I don't see how. I /think/ they mean…but, ugh, I can't say. Spoilers. But I thought it was more referring to her relationship with male characters rather than a place.
As for that particular scene: I really don't think that was sexist. I did, however, think it was comical genius. XD
Yeah, I love that scene. XD
I don't know if it's appropriate in a discussion on Mark's page to be talking about characters who haven't appeared yet :/ Although I realise your comments aren't really spoilery and are a part of a bigger discussion about the Moff.
I tried to keep it as unspoilery as possible; I was really afraid of giving stuff away, and I think I kept it vauge enough that it should be nonsense to anyone who hasn't seen the episodes yet. But if you think I gave too much away, I'll try to edit/delete anything that's particularly bad.
Another thing that puts the Doctor out of character is that the Doctor suddenly goes from being "I could save the world and lose you." To ditching her on a spaceship with no way of getting back to her, and without a way for her to get out. He could have taken the TARDIS to save Reinette, and then he could have taken it back to save Rose. That just really irked me. It seemed really out of place in their relationship for him to do this. I like this episode a lot, but not with Rose. It would have fit better later. I don't want to say when, because of spoilers and such
He could have taken the TARDIS to save Reinette, and then he could have taken it back to save Rose
LOL. EXACTLY. This is a huge plothole. So, sorry to the commenter "Stephen_M", but this episode is NOT plot hole free. And if you say "well the Tardis was already established in events! he ouldn't use it!" Um. Moffat apparently doesn't have that same theory of time travel, just look at "A Christmas Carol".
I like this episode a lot, but not with Rose. It would have fit better later. I don't want to say when, because of spoilers and such
It would have fit perfectly into series 5. Then the characters would actually have been… in character.
I don't know if I would have liked it with Eleven, though. I've always imagined him as a bit asexual, but I don't want to say any more, because we are treading the edge of spoiler territory here.
No, he can't use the TARDIS, because he is already part of the events. He even says so in the episode.
But that clearly isn't a restriction that Moffat places on time travel, as evident in another episode that he has written.
Without getting into that discussion, because obviously, SPOILERS- I have to say I was bothered by the whole "can't go back in the TARDIS because we're already part of the events" thing this time around too. The only thing I can think of, and I might be totally fanwanking this into plausibility, is that multiple windows were open to multiple times throughout the ship (how the Doctor kept finding them in order is a whole other can of worms), so using the TARDIS to go back to one of those times could end up being in essentially the same place as it's past self, if not very close proximity. And Moffat hasn't quite done that yet, I don't think.
Same reason why the Doctor can't just pop back and get Reinette anyway at the end- at first I thought it was because he popped back through the door, and why oh why did he do that- but even if he hadn't, that doorway into her time puts them at a point where she's already dead.
Still, that's a stretch, and I will agree with you on this: Girl in the Fireplace, most definitely NOT plot-hole free.
The real reason he doesn't use the TARDIS to solve problems is because that would be really damn lame in terms of story so they provide a token explanation and hope you don't ask too many questions.
I just watched the commentary for this episode last night, and this is exactly the explanation that the producer gave. And in all actuality, it sounds like Moffat didn't even include that until RTD asked him to. There's another point, where the reason that the fireplace works and nothing else does is explained, that was only added in later because of RTD's insistence.
I do wish they could have said something like 'the power of the ship is interfering with how specific the TARDIS can be and so she'll never get there in time' instead of what they do say, which is almost completely meaningless.
I wouldn't call it a plot hole. It's just a change of rules to suit the story, which is absolutely fine with me. Don't let continuity get in the way of storytelling.
Besides, you can easily pass off the Doctor's `the TARDIS is part of events` as just one of his stock glib answers to save him from a longer and more accurate but more boring real explanation for why he can use the TARDIS in some situations and not others. Just like he can change things in some times and places but not others.
I adore The Girl in the Fireplace every time I watch it. I think it's wonderfully moving and beautiful. A distinct Series 2 highlight.
For some reason, I thought the Doctor couldn't mess about with his own timeline – not so much others, but that if he was involved with a certain series of events then he couldn't go back and dick around with it. So when he arrives too late to have funtiems with Reinette, he can't then pop into the TARDIS after that to "fix" it.
Or did I make that up entirely from my own bizarre thoughts about Who?
On an interesting note, I read a fanfic about Five Ways the Doctor Could Have Escaped France, but Didn't. Ways included; nicking the TARDIS from himself, having a future self come along, pick Rose and Mickey up and drop them off in France in our Doctor's ship, having Time-Agency Jack give him a lift and getting picked up by the Heart of Gold, courtesy of Douglas Adams.
Yeah, it does bug me a bit, but I do think the Doctor was innovative enough to get out; he's been stranded on Earth before. Besides, there were a good number of people at risk from the robots.
I learned pretty quickly that I couldn't read any interviews with Moffat, lest I descend into a seething mass of ~womanly feelings~. Some of the things he says… well, the kindest reaction I've been able to muster has been "LOL STOP".
But yeah IA totally, Moffat's episodes are less thrilling on the rewatch. I do enjoy his plots, but as he keeps writing he seems to retroactively create plot holes and… yeah. Not sure a huge fan of that. At least RTD (and I'm not trying to fan the stan war here), whose plots can basically be summarized by "lol wut", stays consistent within his own canon.
There isn't really a "canon" to stick hard and fast to, though, RTD has said himself that canon "is a word which has never been used in the production office, not once, not ever".
Wow! You and i are kindred spirits! Every problem you have with the Moff i also have. His female characters make me want to scream, they're all the same no matter what century they're from. Funny, witty, cheeky, sexy, flirty, extremely sexual (i can't take one of his characters seriously because of how overly sexual he's made her, she is now just a stereotype to me, and not a very nice one!), brave, confident, modern (not matter what era she's from), sassy, they are all the same. He can't write real women. The female characters make up a massive part of Doctor Who, given the fact that we see the Doctor's world through the companion's eyes, so that means i'm seeing the Doctor's world through the eyes of women i don't believe would ever exist. I like my female characters a little more 3D thank you very much Mr Moff!
And the plot holes, MY GOD THE PLOT HOLES! I've given up trying to make sense of his episodes because there is literally no sense to them. I think he trys to blind the audience with big concepts and bonkers ideas, but doesn't bother about the smaller details (details are for lesser mortals) that are very much needed to fully explain an all ready complicated episode. The Moff hero worship that most fans seem to exhibit drives me mad, so i can't tell you how glad i am to hear that i'm not the only one that has issues with him.
If i could high-five you through my laptop screen, i would!
I think my opinion on the matter is best expressed thusly:
Not everyone is Jesus in purgatory.
I'll be over here, standing with you.
Can I join your club?
Moffat and RTD both have a major tendency to say unbelievably stupid (to put it kindly) things, so…I'm just not going to step into that smelly quagmire.
But your take on Rose-the-wife vs. Reinette-the-girlfriend is a really persuasive one, and one I didn't really consider before. I liked the lack of jealousy in the episode because watching jealousy drives me nuts, but you're right, it's also a male fantasy. Moffat does Stu the Doctor something awful with the "lonely angel" bollocks, too.
And yes, for all the dialogue about how awesome Reinette is and how accomplished she was IRL, the only time I got a hint of her being an exceptional woman in this episode was in her brief conversation with Rose, when she caught on to the idea of the time windows right away. This was an amazingly ahistorical history episode – Madame de Pompadour could just have easily have been any number of other historical women. Just change the name of the ship and voila.
I still love the episode mechanically – the conceit of the time windows is such a cool way of showing how the Doctor relates to his human companions and their limited life spans – but it never moved me, and you've put your finger on a good chunk of why that's true.
I was just never under the impression that he seriously was going to pursue an actual relationship with either of them, and I thought the assumption was that Mlle de Pompadour would always be coming back to Versailles and the King.
I mean personally I thought the way that the Rose/Sarah Jane cattiness was written-literally as if they were two jealous exes-was totally overthetop stereotypical and sexist as hell, but that's just me. The dynamic between the three of Pompadour/Rose/Doctor didn't bother me in the least.
I think there are a few things that they did include that were historical:
The masquerade. The whole idea of a masquerade. Madame de Pompadour meets with and dances with the king at a masquerade ball, for the first time, historically.
The early death/the coffin leaving in the rain scene. It was raining at Versailles when Madame de Pompadour's coffin left, as the king historically remarked about the weather.
You know, you're right in many things. When I watched the episode I felt a difference with the rest but couldn't place it. Thanks to you, now I know that this is what bothered me from it, the whole out of character thing.
Thank you for your insights. They're very helpful.
I didn't see Rose as being the nagging, no-fun girlfriend in that first example, I saw her as being rightfully pissed that he'd been off partying while she and Mickey nearly got sliced and diced. I was completely on her side, haha, and would've cursed the Doctor out in her position (but since this is a TV show, no character could be allowed to do that).
"You frakkin' frellin' fraktastic frakker!" ๐
/joke
"It’s never quite explained why the androids chose Reinette, of all people"
The very last shot of the episode kind of explains this. The ship is the SS Madame Du Pompadour. That's why they think Reinette is "the same" as the ship.
In a shallow note: I love all of Reinette's gowns. I'm a complete sucker for period costumes and hers are absolutely gorgeous (especially the butterfly hairpiece in the scene where the Doctor reads her mind and the gold dress from the climax). Also, I have to agree with the Doctor, while the droids are creepy the actual clockwork underneath is beautifully made.
If there's one thing the BBC knows how to do, it's period drama. So many fabulous dresses.
Shallow note: The Doctor's tie in this episode is my favorite of his. He only wears it in a couple of other episodes, and I love it.
You beat me to it. ๐
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I didn't get that!
It's okay, it took me two watches to see that. I think the first time I turned it off too soon, maybe you did too, in the effort to avoid the massive spoilers that are the next-episode trailers.
Does anyone know if those dresses were made new for the episode or re-purposed from somewhere else? Just 'cause I know what dresses like that typically cost to make, and it would be… surprising, on Who's budget. ๐
I think most of them were borrowed from other productions. Sophia Myles mentions on the DVD commentary where one of them (I think it was the gold one) came from.
There's also this page: http://www.costumersguide.com/reused_18.shtml Which shows that gold one and the one she wears when the Doctor sees the adult Reinette for the first time in other productions.
Actually, if I recall correctly, I think the fixation of the ship with Reinette is explained by a shot of the ship at the end, from the outside.
There's a portrait inside and a name outside. I'm assuming the previous occupants named the ship that for whatever reason anyone names a ship. I think it's a classic, great, and subtle ending. But I actually didn't understand it (like Mark) until I just rewatched it again. OH. THAT'S why they did that! Oooooooh! ๐ It's a tad too subtle for Doctor Who, but I like it.
I thought it was a sledgehammer ridiculous ending, myself. But then, I suppose for a family show/kid's show, I'm expecting a bit much on subtlety.
I would rather have had it remain unexplained than have the explanation they give, myself. And I *hate* the unexplained plot element.
If it makes you feel better, it was unexplained for the Doctor. I like it myself, it means it wasn't a random thing from the robots, just a really misguided understanding of how their ship worked.
Hmm I think this episode is somewhat overrated. Either that or it's just not my cup of tea. One thing that's outstanding in this episode however is Murray Gold's music. The man never gets enough credit but if he deserves it for any one episode it's this one.
The Madame de Pompadour theme is one of my favourite pieces of music he's done. Just beautiful.
Murray Gold is a genius. I got the soundtrack for the first 3 seasons for Christmas. It's SO GOOD!!
I just bought the soundtracks for… everything. Except s5 because it's not out yet in the US (WHY NOT.) I love it so much. I've made ringtones.
I have all his soundtrack albums. Just a shame Series 1 and 2 were squeezed onto one disk. So many great tracks were missed out, such as the opening music for this episode. Now we get a double album for 1 series, which is basically 4 times the space. Long may that continue!
The latest christmas special gets a soundtrack release all of its own. Yeah that's right AN ENTIRE SOUNDTRACK FOR ONE EPISODE.
I was a little disappointed when I opened it and realized there were 2 seasons on 1 disk. Honestly, though, the little commentary Murray Gold put in about each track made up for it.
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here. Steven Moffat is a GENIUS.
Only one thing I'd like to point out:
"(…) while Reinette (Madame de Pompadour) experiences the events over the course of fifteen years."
It's actually more like 30 years, as she meets the Doctor for the first time when she's 7, and the last when she's 37.
Also, the reason why the androids target Reinette is pointed out at the end of the episode, I think.
Ahh I am SO TORN over this episode. First time? LOVED IT. Next few times? Loved it still.
Then I watched it again with my thinky hat on. And now whilst I still love the set-up and plot and everything, I cannot help but think OMG DOCTOR YOU ARE SUCH A MASSIVE JERK-FACE. Like, I know he has to save Reinette and the way to do that is to break the time portals so the androids can't get back to the spaceship, but did you have to do it in a way that LEAVES ROSE AND MICKEY TO STAY FOREVER ON SAID SPACESHIP?! Ahhh I know it all works out ok but he seriously did not think he'd be able to get back and what was he planning on them doing. 'Always wait five hours' (or however long it was) – well what else could they have done? I doubt he gave them instructions as to how to fly the TARDIS before he decided to jump back in time on a horse…
/rant over
But generally I do love this episode. It is just the right level of creepy and funny and Sophia Myles is amazing. Fun Fact – after meeting during the filming of this episode, she and David Tennant dated for something like two years.
I always wondered about what Rose & Mickey were supposed to do on that spaceship, and why the Doctor would just leave them there. I couldn't believe that he would choose to save Reinette if it meant leaving Rose & Mickey stranded in space forever. I eventually decided that had they chosen to leave, the TARDIS would have used an Emergency Program like in "The Parting of the Ways". That makes the Doctor seem like less of a massive jerk face.
That’s what I think too. He could have taken the “long way” to get back to them, but I don’t think this Doctor especially ha the patience to do that.
I suppose that's a possibility. Would have been nice to have mentioned it to them though!
That was what you're supposed to think. There was a line in the episode specifically mentioning that, but they cut it because they thought everyone would remember it from "Parting of the Ways" (Moffat mentioned this on the Outpost Gallifrey forum, back in the day). That was a big mistake, I think.
Amusingly, Emergency Programme One gets a quick mention in a later Moffat episode which I'm sure is partly him trying to make up for the oversight in this one.
Eh, there are any number of places the Doctor could have intercepted the TARDIS throughout history and then gone back to get Rose and Mickey. It's the advantage of being a quasi-immortal with a time machine.
He'd have just needed to get himself to a wood outside Paris in 1794 (45 years later), wait for his first self, Susan, Barbara and Ian to head off to a nearby farmhouse, nip into the TARDIS, take her to near the Powell estate and then programme her to fly herself back to where she came from.
This is the Doctor we're talking about… long term planning isn't exactly high on his priority list. He was faced with a crisis and NO time to work it out (he breaks the windows, what, ten seconds before MdP bites the dust?) so took his typical Indy Ploy option of "right, break the window, save the innocent, possibly show off a bit in the process, work out a way to get back to the future (mental note, look up DeLorean dealerships) once the immediate crisis is over and the next one presents itself". Totally in character for the Doctor and, let's face it here, the last 6,245 times he's tried that approach it's worked out pretty well in the end ๐
He could have just waited until then. I think that's actually what his plan was, or what I got of it. That he was going to try to go find them after he traveled 'the slow path'.
There's an Emergency Programme that would take them back. But they cut the line because they thought everyone would remember that from Parting of the Ways. Turns out fandom's got a short memory.
I don't think fandom's short memory is the problem here. In Parting of the Ways, we actually *see* the Doctor start this programme with his sonic screwdriver, and the TARDIS immediately takes Rose home. We don't see him doing anything like that in this episode. I mean, of course we can speculate that the programme starts automatically after a set amount of time, but that's all it is: speculation.
But there was a line about the Emergency Programme. It was edited out (by who? we don't know).
Yes, and my point is that this was a very poor editing decision, because the episodes we actually saw don't give us any information about this. Someone who doesn't know about the cut line can legitimately assume that Rose and Mickey are stuck with no way back.
"Someone who doesn't know about the cut line can legitimately assume that Rose and Mickey are stuck with no way back."
Until reading this comment thread i had no idea about the emergency programme line and assumed Rose and Mickey would have to live (and possibly die) on a big spaceship stuck in space.
Mark, the ship is called Madame de Pompadour, so they literally thought that’s who they needed and went off to get her.
That’s how I see it, anyway:D
Aaaaand people beat me to it as I was typing, *l*
The chemistry between 10 and Reinette is especially wonderful because Sophia Myles & David Tennent were dating at the time this was made.
I thought they met on the show and then started dating afterwards. Like Tennant and Georgia. I'm happy for those two, but at the same time my inner fangirl says NOOOOOOOOO!
My inner fangirl is so jealous. Daughter of a Doctor and married to another one? Jealous!!
If they have kids, they're going to have information about the Whoniverse encoded into their DNA.
No, they started dating after they met on set. ๐
Which of course might partly explain feelings for each other- this is a bit of a generalisation of course, but when you're acting like two characters in love, you can often find those feelings drifting in off the stage.
Fantastic episode and so sad. After this I always got excited for the next Moff episode because you knew you were in for a treat.
When you see the spaceship at the end, it says S.S Madame De Pompadour on the side. That's why they chose her, because that's who their ship is named after. Also, I've always wanted to name a horse, if I get one, Winston, after Churchill, but now I might go with Arthur. I mean, it is a good name for a horse.
I agree that Sophia Myles Is absolutely gorgeous and apparently so does DT because they dated for awhile!
I really like this episode and I think the Doctor probably had an emergency protocol set up that would have saved Rose and Mickey if he didn’t return.
The robots were fixated on Reinette because the ship was called the SS. Madame de Pompadour, which is revealed at the very end. Which just adds to the poetry for me.
This is one of my favorite episodes of this series, ever. Everyone in it, even the characters I don't normally like, is likeable in it, and acting for the greater good, and that's lovely to see. And yes, Rose reacted so much more maturely to Reinette than she did Sarah Jane, and that is perhaps one of the reasons why I enjoy this episode so much. (See, I can say nice things about Rose, when I feel like they are deserved.)
And I loved the throwback to the bananas from The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances in S1.
If Moffat wrote every episode of this show ever, I would be very pleased.
The saddest thing about the episode for me is that we finally get to see what the Doctor was talking about with Rose in the previous episode… "I don't age, I regenerate. Humans- you grow old and you die, imagine watching that happen to someone you-" (totally paraphrasing but it's something like that)… he is always on the fast path, never having another day show on his face while he watches the people he loves die ๐ Oh Renette (sp?)
Reinette. ๐
This was the first episode I ever watched. I'm pretty torn on whether I like it or not, because I think Moffat's tendency to use 2D women as plot devices shines through very clearly here.
Reinette only exists for the Doctor, and they reduce her from a successful and talented historical woman to a shell who spent her entire life pining after a man she had only met for a few minutes.
This tendency of Moffat's is what bugs me about Sherlock. So much potential, but I'd like to see that shared with some of the women, plzkthx. *sigh*
Srsly. He just took all the Victorian social structures without criticizing them, and added some iPhones.
Srsly. He took the Victorian social structures without criticizing them, and added some iPhones.
I'd never watched any of Moffat's work before seeing Sherlock, and I was left hanging on to the distant hope that maybe Molly Hooper will eventually be revealed to have a larger hand in the events of the last episode/series as a whole.
But then I read more about Moffat. And then I found the official tie-in blog run by "Molly Hooper" (complete with pictures of cute kittens, ultra-girly layout, talking about nothing but being a spinster who's obsessed with Sherlock and later Jim, having to be told multiple times by her boyfriend about how to turn on spell check, and COMIC SANS font).
I mean, I know that these sites aren't something they spend a lot of time creating, but yikes.
*whimper* Yeah, I strongly suspect all off the Molly-is-Moriarty folks are going to be very, very disappointed. But I am suddenly extremely glad that I never went looking for the tie-in blogs.
Well, he did promise us Irene next season, so maybe we’ll get to see a strong, three-dimensional female?
A girl can hope, anyway.
Hope, yes, but…
My prediction that will hopefully turn out to be wrong:
Sherlock will have to hold the Idiot Ball the entire time Irene is doing stuff. Oh, and she'll be a love interest like every other adaptation everywhere even though I'm digging ace!Sherlock.
Reinnette only exists for the Doctor? What? Reinnette, mistress to the King of France, one of the most accomplished women of her age, only exists for the Doctor? I'm sorry, but I don't see that at all.
In real life she was succesfull and accomplished, but in the show we never actually see her do anything but wait for the Doctor.
We actually don't see her WAIT for the Doctor as much as MEETING the Doctor, and only in the later meetings does she say that she expected he'd return. That doesn't even equate to constant pining. It isn't like she's sitting on her ass until he shows up, but the episode is from the Doctor's point of view mostly, so it makes sense that we're not going to see her living her life in between. For one episode, it's really not very relevant, and would probably be trimmed fat even if it had been written.
We don't see a lot of things about the historical Madame de Pompadour. She was quite sickly and spent much of her life an invalid (which makes how accomplished and educated she was even more of an achievement in some ways). We don’t see that either, except for her servant saying she died too young, of an illness (both true). There are definitely some valid criticisms to be made about this episode, but I don’t think that’s one of them. We’re only seeing from the Doctor’s perspective, so of course it seems that she’s only interacting with him. We only see her when he does.
Agreed. Just one thing, that wasn't a servant, it was the King.
You're right! The ghost of Louis XV is going to come back from the grave and have me decapitated, isn't it?
This, nothing in the episode suggests her life focused solely on the Doctor. It's obvious she was still the King's mistress and still the accomplished woman the Doctor describes her as at the beginning. She carried a torch for the Doctor for her entire life but she was able to continue with her life, she didn't just sit and wait for him to come back to her.
She may have actually been one of the most successful women of her age, but we never SAW that. We were told about it, but never shown. There was no "Can't talk, I have to go attend a salon–Rousseau is supposed to be there and I need to continue our conversation about the link between art and the fall of empires." (idk if they ever met, but they're roughly contemporaneous.) All we really saw was Reinnette waiting around for the Doctor.
We see Reinette first in her bed, scared of what's underneath; the next time, she's going out (she takes a quick moment to snog the Doctor before leaving); the next time, she's strolling in Versailles, talking with someone about the possibility of the King seeking a new mistress… she's not portrayed as sitting around going 'Where is the Doctor? Why isn't he here?' She gets on with her life.
We never hear or see a thing about her getting on with her life. We hear that she spoke of the Doctor often and wished he'd visit (because "you know how women are", amirite?), and in her dying days wrote a letter hoping her "love"/"lonely angel" will come to her on time. Moffat had multiple opportunities to show just the sort of "move on with life" attitude you describe, and he didn't take them. Instead he shows a historically accomplished woman subsumed into the Doctor's love interest, because Ten is just that awe-inspiringly sexy. Yuck.
Where? He had 45 minutes, he had to make sure that Rose and Mickey were given some screen time, and even as it is, they cut an important line where Ten told them that the TARDIS would take them back home if they waited. I feel like the scene with her strolling in the garden shows that she is getting on with her life. She's seen from the Doctor's POV so we tend to see her only when she needs him, when the monsters turn up.
Reading over a bunch of these comments, it's possible I was misremembering the episode. Most of what I remembered were the scenes where Reinette talks to Rose, "I just snogged Madame du Pompadour!", the dramatic rescue scene, and the very end, which never really sat well with me.
I'm sorry I exaggerated about Reinnette's life seemingly being about the Doctor. I still feel disappointed about her characterization. It just felt really 'flat' to me, and that's a letdown in a series that regularly gives us great minor characters.
We only get exposition to say how accomplished she is. We see not even a hint of it, and the only time she seems at all exceptional is when she quickly catches on to the time windows idea and states it in a beautiful metaphor in her conversation with Rose. Otherwise she's…pretty much just a love interest, and not a very individual one at that.
Well to be fair to Moffat. How many male writers are actually good at writing women? Some artists can draw the most beautiful things but are self-admittedly terrible at drawing women. Creatively man are easier to do then woman. At least as far as male creators are concerned. It might be the other way around with female creators.
Oh come on. That's rubbish, and only indicative of a lack of trying.
Then they're idiots: they focus on the external and incidental, instead of writing *people* who happen to be women or men they sit and say: "wants children? woman. likes football? man". Idiots.
And well, I don't know about drawing, but you can barely visit a classical museum without seeing paintings of women; naked most of the time.
No. Just. Augh. First off, as an artist your analogy doesn't hold up either. Like REALLY doesn't hold up. If you have learned how to draw properly and are good at drawing figures and general physical objects you know your form and there is absolutely no reason you cannot draw a woman except for lack of study and lack of effort. I'm going to switch that around on you and say the same can be said for writers. Maybe many male writers are the victims of their own privilege and a world which generally views things through their POV, never challenging them to think otherwise, but that doesn't mean they aren't at fault for not being able to capture the female mind (which for all it's differences is not SO dissimilar from a male's, seriously. Seriously).In a show where you are challenged to write alien races believably, writing a believable female character is the least you can do.
Actually the thing about the artists is they can often only draw one type of women. They all end up looking the same. The same is true of writers. They have trouble writing different sorts of woman.
Please stop talking about what artists often can and can't do in broad sweeps. Just because they DON'T doesn't mean they CAN'T. Diversity of form can be achieved through study of different references and practice. Sure, they might be filtered through a style, but variation within that style is entirely achievable with effort.
There are some that can and some that can't but it's clear to me that there are artists and writers who're really good at what they do but just can't do their women justice, some will even admit to it. and I don't think it's because they're not trying. It's because it's genuinely really difficult to get female characters right more difficult than doing male characters anyway.
I'm not saying they haven't given it any effort, I'm saying if they're not there, they're not giving it ENOUGH effort. It's really easy to keep doing things you are a good at and keep getting better at them and staying in your comfort zone. It is a lot harder to work at something that's difficult for you and that doesn't seem to be yielding positive results, but with enough work you can do it.
I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree, as this discussion is pushing me into SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET territory, which is always a dangerous place to be. I would just advise you to remember you're speaking from a limited perspective and what I gather to be informal experience.
Women, much like men, are people. It's this androcentric idea that females are somehow an alien species that leads to shitty female character writing.
I'm not going to dismiss this as some sort of disability suffered by those poor male writers. Moffat doesn't know what it's like to be an alien or a war vet or a detective either but he seeks to get into the heads of those (male) characters anyway, because that's what writing is about. If he can't do the same with women, it's his own "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" attitude – his utterly blinkered male privilege – standing in his way. If a writer can't write half the human population, he's got a significant defect as an artist. Period.
I adore this episode. I knew I loved it but I'd forgotten just how much until this weekend. Seriously, all my notes say I love this, I love that.
‘What do monsters have nightmares about?’ ‘Me!’
That cooking smell is people being used as ship parts, there’s an actual monster under the bed, the clock work men ticking away. So pretty with all their gears and glass but they will cut you up for ship parts. Moffat how are you so good at the quietly horrifying.
I love Mickey's excitement that on his first trip in the TARDIS he ends up on a space ship. I also love Rose and Mickey exploring the ship with huge guns. ‘There could be anything on this ship’ turn corner to reveal horse. I love it. I love Rose trying to be dramatic with the 'Oncoming Storm' and the Doctor literally waltzes in drunk.
Reinette and the Doctor, I just love them together. I mean they flirted through mind walking and she then asked him to dance despite this being her first time with the King of France. (I also love how the whole mistress thing was no big deal.) I don't know why but they just work so well for me. I think I agree with you that it just feels like we're seeing the Doctor in love. I also love how to the point and no nonsense Reinette is. She takes everything that happens in this episode in her stride, stays positive just gets on with her life despite the threat hanging over her.
<img src="http://i51.tinypic.com/ws49rc.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic">
‘This is my lover, the King of France.’ ‘Oh yeah, I’m the Lord of Time.’
I also love the fact that Reinette shows the Doctor a way back. She didn’t try and keep him with her but let him still have his life. Her no and the look on their faces breaks my heart a little but I was so happy they were going to travel together. (Someone tell me that au exists somewhere.)
As soon as the Doctor steps back through you can instantly tell that something’s wrong with the change of warm to cold colours in her room, the letter, the reveal of the hearse. And then the Doctor turns the fireplace out. I actually found myself tearing up a little on rewatch.
I love that reveal at the end showing why they wanted Reinette. The ship, presumably 37 years old, was named after her.
Also because someone was asking about discussing the music more: I love Reinette’s theme ‘Madame de Pompadour’. It’s one of my favourite slower themes from all the soundtracks. Not only is it a gorgeous piece of music but the melancholy of it fits her life so well, the snatches of time she sees the Doctor, waiting for him to come back and her life cut short, just missing the Doctor by probably a few days. The single piano keys and the music box sounding element also give it a great delicacy over the loneliness of the strings, I think. (I suck at talking about music) Link to song from soundtrack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1sadZktyos
Off topic but my Doctor Who series 5 boxset arrived today.
<img src="http://i51.tinypic.com/ao9x74.gif" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic">
I can’t post it because of spoiler but I love the simplicity of the limited edition cover.
Great comment! I also loved the relationship between Reinette and the Doctor. She was fierce imo ๐
"(Someone tell me that au exists somewhere.) "
Not sure about that, but there are most definitely plenty of AUs where Rose wants to go back home when he brings Reinette onboard, so he dumps her back in France so fast it'd make your head spin XD
I really dislike when people diss/bash characters through fic. I read fic because I love the show and/or characters not to see any of them teared down.
Nah, you'd be surprised – a lot of the fics are very generous towards Reinette!! She is rarely if ever portrayed badly. Even the ones I mentioned where he dumps her back so Rose doesn't leave him. If anything, they are harsh on Ten for being such a insensitive git towards Rose (and to a lesser degree, Mickey).
I was thinking fic like that just makes everyone look bad. I haven't read that much Doctor Who fic but I'm glad I've managed to miss the bad character ones.
Of course that's everything to do with shipping. If you're reading a Harry/Hermione fic expect Ron to be a complete prick and utterly patronising asshole. It's just sad that some "fans" feel the need to bash characters because they're in the way of the obvious and destined love. I mean imagine putting your favourite characters together while still doing justice to the character that's in the way, I mean that's just not right. [/facepalm]
I was so disappointed when none of the shops near me had that limited edition cover. I ended up settling for the regular cover because I'm impatient and couldn't just wait until I found a copy with the limited cover.
I didn't know there was a limited edition until I was browsing online since the shops here tend to charge high enough for some boxsets. The art cards are wonderful as well.
"How on earth does Moffat take things as simply as white socks and make them so utterly terrifying?"
Haha, that's one of the many genius things about him. He knows that if you let him write enough episodes, you'll eventually be scared of every object in your house. That is the kind of horror that I love, because what's creepier than becoming frightened of things that surround you every day?
And yes, Moffat has an amazing brain which allows him to write some of the best episodes of Doctor Who. I teared up a bit at the end of both The Doctor Dances and The Girl in the Fireplace.
"There may have been a time when he was in love with Sarah Jane Smith, but we don’t ever see that."
Mark, seeing as how you haven't seen any of the Sara Jane Old Who episodes, you have no way of knowing this, but that was NOT how things went down. I don't know why RTD felt the need to make it some kind of contrived romantic undertone to School Reunion, but the relationship with the Doctor and Sara Jane had none of that going on.
Yeah, that whole bit kind of got retconned in. There was no romance between the Doctor and his companions back in Ye Olde Series.
I disagree with Hypatia's general statement on the old series, but do agree that Sarah Jane and the Third and Fourth Doctors really didn't have anything romantic or faintly sexual going on. It was totally a retcon created for the purpose of paralleling Sarah Jane and Rose in "School Reunion", and an injustice to the former.
Awesome, now I feel even more justified in disliking it. :/
Aw, this was my favorite episode of season 2 until I read the other comments. I still like it, but, darn. Ignorance is bliss?
For Dr. Horrible fans, a music video of this episode! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BSO5urOxiw
I love you for posting that, that was truly awesome. Several different interpretations of the song that I didn't expect but that were spot on. Also I sang with it the whole time. … I may or may not have the entire soundtrack memorized.
This episode contains so very many of my favorite lines from this show.
Oh, and hi Gwen from Merlin! I love spotting actors I know from before they 'made it'.
I'm not the biggest fan of Gwen but yay for Angel Coulby. I love how many of the cast members have crossed between the two shows.
Let's see, Gaius, Uther, Gwen, and Merlin all show up. Gwyneth from the Dickens episode shows up in the Merlin pilot. And Nimueh is in one of the specials. Did I miss anyone?
There's actually two more, but their appearances on Doctor Who are spoilery. I'll just say, Cenred and Percival from series 3 have appeared here too. (Percival was one of the knights that showed up at the end of series 3, and I honestly didn't realise he was the same person until it was pointed out to me).
I haven't seen the latest series of Merlin so I had to look them up and oh my god Cendred! I still have such a crush on him from being in Doctor Who.
Holy cow! I didn't recognize either of them!
I didn't catch them until it was pointed out to me, I think I recognised Cenred's actor's name in the credits but it was one of those "I know him from somewhere but I just can't place him." things. They both look so different on Merlin it's easy to miss them.
Well spotted! I've never actually made that connection, but then I'm always watching things and going, "I've seen him/her in something else…what was it?" I'm terrible with actors' names, too. People say, "This episode has got Person X in it!" And I'm like, "Who?" ๐
Oh Reinette, how I continue to have a massive girl crush on you <3 I may or may not have written to Sophia Myles after this ep aired and asked for a signed photo, which is also framed in my room next to my letter from David Tennant >.>
I honestly didnt find the clockwork robots all that scary, but I absolutely love and adore this ep for the relationship between the Doctor and Reinette. Fantastic acting from David and Sophia, and is it honestly any surprise they started dating after filming this? They had such fantastic chemistry. They're not together any more, but they were such a cute couple.
The Doctor's comment about letting Rose "keep" Mickey is also pretty problematic. Sure, it's funny, but I'm a bit disturbed by a white man talking to a white woman and referring to a black man as property or a pet.
Mmm that's a good point. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it but out thar on the interweb there's a critique of the way that Mickey is treated and it mentions that, as well as the 'Mickey-the-idiot' running gag.
The BBC is pretty good at trying to keep its casting representative but it can be very insensitive on some of the more subtle issues. Unless it's a programme particularly concerned with racial/gender/etc politics, these things kind of fall by the wayside.
I think it's less that and more a reference to him being 'the tin dog' like he was in school reunion.
Sometimes, regardless of the races of people involved, one person can be see as 'belonging' to the other more. Not that people are ever property, but-
arrgh, I can't explain this well at all.
It's like, a guy we knew once referred to me as 'Mrs (partners 1st name) and everyone was shocked and offended as it blatently wasn't tre, especially with the implication of ownership he imparted with it. However, if it'd been the other way around, if my partner had been mr MY first name, everyone would have shrugged it off. Why?Because I am the dominant personality in our relationship, and while there are no 'serious' implications of ownership, if there were I would be the owner.
I think it's more of a play on their relationship to be honest. Rose is the dominant personality and Mickey is… much less so.
After all, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Indeed. I mean, lordy, even Nine was treating Mickey better than that by the end of his run, and that's a really low hurdle to jump.
I can see your concern, but I really don't think it was meant to be interpreted that way. It was more just to highlight the slightly teasing relationship the Doctor and Mickey have. He's the 'Tin Dog' afterall, and I don't think his position in the show has anything to do with his race.
I don't believe it was ever intended to come across that way, I certainly don't believe that was the interpretation they wanted us to come away with. But there are certain turns of phrase that one should be careful with if one wants to avoid causing offence for the sake of a laugh.
It seems to me that if you're objecting to that turn of phrase purely on the grounds of the skin colour, then it's not the script at fault but your own interpretation. The line is funny, so to cut the line on the grounds of skin colour would itself be a form of racism.
I remember a few vocal American fans on the Sci-Fi channel forum objecting to a line in series 1, when the Doctor tells Rose to `keep the domestics outside`. They choose to interpret that as the Doctor viewing Mickey a domestic *servant* and so attacked the line on those grounds. But they didn't have a problem with the Doctor having the same reaction to Jackie. That was apparently OK because Jackie's white.
That's very shaky ground, to say the least!
Noel Clarke was laughing at that line in the online commentary with Steve Moffat, but pointing out that in terms of rudeness to Mickey, he'd been beaten to it in the previous episode with The Tin Dog.
People bristling at implied racial implications should know that parts like Mickey were almost certainly cast "colour blind". I.e. open at audition to actors of any ethnicity and cast on the basis of how they read the character. In UK terms, Mickey's skin colour is less important than than his social class. He started out as the unemployed, useless boyfriend, fond enough of his girl but hey, given a choice between comforting her when her job had been blown up (and nearly herself along with it) and slipping off to the pub to watch a match was trying to get off to watch the footy. The reasons why Rose would choose to go with a charismatic stranger and abandon Mickey had nothing at all to do with race and everything to do with the fact that at the time, he was a pretty useless boyfriend. A few steps up from what we see on the Jeremy Kyle Show, but not much.
Mickey shaped up a lot in the year that Rose was missing (he had to, trying to find out what had really happened turned him into a hacker, standing up to everybody thinking he'd murdered Rose toughened him up). By the time of the Christmas Invasion he'd even got a job!
By Boom Town, the Doctor was being rude to Mickey as a favour (concealing the fact that Mickey had felt that he wasn't yet brave enough to accept the invitation to come along, though the Doctor was willing to bring him). At the end of School Reunion, the Doctor accepted Mickey even though he knew Rose wasn't entirely chuffed about it, though she got over it quickly enough, enjoying being the tour guide.
In the UK there's no historic association with servants being black. Just watch Downton Abbey or Upstairs Downstairs, or any other period drama. Most domestic servants over here were white! Non-white servants were seen as a bit exotic and a cut above the rest.
Okay, so this episode was creepy as hell, and I really kind of loved it – I would have like to see Reinette get a little more characterization, and I kinda wanted her for a companion, even though I knew it wouldn't happen.
But all that was overshadowed by the fact that Angel Coulby was in this episode for one scene and HEARTS IN MY EYES FOREVER. (For those who don't know, she's Gwen in Merlin.)
^^^This. I seriously squealed when Angel came on-screen.
I had this moment of, "Wait, Gwen? Is that you? Damnit camera, quit moving, I wanna look at woman-who-I-think-is-Gwen!" And then I went on IMDb and checked to make sure it was her. ๐
(It was so much easier to recognize Uther and Gaius, but I wasn't nearly as excited about them, for some reason.)
Oh really? Wow, would have been so much more helpful to include that. I know they had to edit it down for time, but I'm sure there would have been 30 seconds somewhere to cut. Maybe the repetition of the scene at the beginning? I don't suppose that's online anywhere? Most of the deleted scenes are on YouTube but for series 2 all I can find are the outtakes.
I've just said the same thing above (didn't read the Guest comment properly!).
I'm pretty sure the line was cut from the script before filming.
Anyway, the Doctor's "slow path" would probably have been back to 2007 London, although there was some speculation that he could borrow the TARDIS from "The Reign of Terror" while the first Doctor wasn't looking. That would have meant waiting from 1749 to 1794.
I agree SO HARD with all of this. I was actually coming on here to do a similar little rant but you've saved me the trouble there, so thanks.
This episode is universally disliked by pretty much everyone I know (including my husband, so no, it's not just Doctor/Rose shipping fangirls).
Why? It’s out of character for everyone, and the “surprise ending” with the fireplace is insulting to one’s intelligence – most especially the Doctor’s!!!
My list of reasons for disliking this so much:
•Love: Ten is stupidly in love with Rose already (according to Steven Moffat himself, even!! As well as Piper, Davies, Tennant, Gardner, Eccleston, etc etc etc). So what gives with Reinette? The emotional continuity is …. discontinuous. This episode makes no sense in the context of anything we’ve seen. (Which makes Rose haters gleeful, yes I know).
•Mind meld: The Doctor – Ten especially – is a very private individual. He doesn't open up easily. The Ten I know would have been horrified at a violation of trust like that, not intrigued — he asked her permission to go inside her mind, had a life-or-death reason for it, told her how to avoid things being seen that she didn't want seen … and then what does she do in return? Basically mind-rapes him out of sheer curiosity – it's an unconsensual violation of his mind. I can't see Ten forgiving that, let alone going goo-goo-eyed over someone who would do that.
•Characterization: Rose is like a pod person here – she is jealous to a fault, we just saw this with Sarah Jane. She gives Ten what-for in School Reunion about his string of companions, and if he is just going to abandon her. Yet she shies away in front of Reinette's wiles? Lets her call her “child”? And she has no reaction when he leaves her (in danger) for Reinette? No way. The Rose we know would have been her typical HBIC over those things, not a doormat. It's not "maturity" – it's doormat-dom.
•Companion Safety: it is strongly implied in the script that Rose and Mickey are trapped on the ship without Ten there to get them home (Mickey's freakout about 'how are we supposed to get home' and Rose's teary silence). Nine kissed Rose on the head, locked her in the TARDIS, and sent her off home with a video hologram to let her know everything was gonna be OK. And we're supposed to believe that Ten – who again, is referred to as being so in love with her by Davies, Tennant, Piper, Eccleston, Gardner and even Moffat himself – is just gonna leave her stranded on a space ship full of body parts? Lol no.
•Steven Moffat’s Doctor is a moron: And even **if** I could buy that the characters were under mind control and turned into pod-people to act completely out of character, the "surprise tragic" ending with fireplace is ridiculous. In the first 5 minutes of this episode, he beats Rose and Mickey over the head with the fact that the fireplace is temporally unstable and that seconds on the spaceship side are months/years on Reinette's side. And so at the end, he is shocked – shocked!! – to discover that … seconds on the spaceship side are months/years on Reinette's side? Come on already ….. Moffat has this way of making the audience smarter than his protagonist, and it’s extremely frustrating. His Doctor reminds me a lot of Mr. Noodle on Sesame Street, if you have kids maybe you’ll know who that is (bumbling guy, the kids in the audience have to shout obvious directions to him multiple times before he understands anything).
•Characterization of Reinette: in real life, this was a very accomplished woman. In this episode, lip service is paid to that, and she’s otherwise portrayed as basically a geisha lol. The REAL Mme de Pompadour would have had Moffat’s head for that. (Quite literally). But then again, this is what Moffat loves to do, no matter the TV show, n’est-ce pas? Turn a complicated woman into a caricature.
On a side note, I know some fans (particularly those who hate Rose) are somehow convinced that there be sex that happened, which would simply add another layer of OOC onto the already-burgeoning stack of it here. This makes no sense to me. Like … zero sense. When they dance, it’s at Versailles — where she’s not even living yet!!! She’s a guest there at a party. She’s not with the king yet, she has no chambers there. So … where is the “DANCING-dancing” supposed to have happened, in a freaking coat closet? And immediately after DANCING, she dances with the king? The Doctor didn’t even DANCE-dance in the episode “The Doctor DANCES” lol. Anyway lol. One of many views of this episode that makes me wonder if those viewers are watching the same show that my friends and I do.
"Reinette's wiles"? What? I know your comment is long and you raise some good points but this is ridiculous. In what way did Reinette use her "wiles"? ugh.
BTW, yes, there was dancing. And banana daiquiris, which might have led to more dancing.
It's a party … everyone dances at a party =) Pretty rude not to, eh, with a special orchestra brought in and all for minuets!
"Wiles" as in she is a courtesan – charming, beautiful, educated, wordly. Socially and education-wise, she is everything that Rose isn't. Rose hasn't acted like a wallflower in front of anyone before – not Queen Victoria, not PM Harriet Jones. She has always confidently stood toe-to-toe. Here … not so much, which is a part of the massive OOC for her here.
Yes, it was a party, at pre-Revolution Versailles. There was dancing.
Frankly, I didn't see her wallflowery in this episode. She went to fight the robots, she faced them, she was brave all the time! Is it because when she went to explain the situation to Reinette she wasn't sure of how to explain spaceships and time travel to someone who didn't even know about trains? And then, when she sees that Reinette can understand it in her terms, she's glad? What was she supposed to have done? Scream about her man? Be jealous and rude? I really don't know what you mean.
IMHO, the least said about Rose's attitude in with Queen Victoria the better.
Yup, as was established, the Doctor dances, just like he danced with Rose in the episode of that title =)
She's wallflowery in front of Ten and definitely in front of Reinette. She is trying to help Reinette, who is nothing but surly back to her and talks down to her, calling her "child" and becoming haughty, angry and impatient with her. podperson!Rose tolerates it meekly — real!Rose would have HBIC'd her into showing some respect and manners.
Aww come on, I thought that Queen Victoria gag was funny as heck. Rose and Ten are just a bunch of overgrown kids. And their behavior does have consequences (banishment, Torchwood), so it's not like they got off scot free …….
Exactly! The danced at the TARDIS with Jack in one of those countless rooms (or broomclosets) that it has.
Then we disagree, I really don't like it when Ten and Rose behave like brats. At all. In that example, they didn't get scot free but I didn't got the feeling that they regreted their attitude, the opposite really. I just can't stand them when they are like that.
As for Rose, I think the way she spoke to Reinette was the proper way you treat someone you've never met. I didn't read Reinette as surly as such to her. As for her talking her "child" I see it just as a manner of speaking, maybe because I use it all the time with everyone, no matter their age, lol.
"Exactly! The danced at the TARDIS with Jack in one of those countless rooms (or broomclosets) that it has. "
Ha!! Your mind is in the gutter!!!!!! Although I 100% disagree with your assessment on this episode, I must say, mind in the gutter = I approve XD XD XD
Good comment! But you already know that I agree with you. ๐
Hee thanks … I figured you might, but it's still nice to hear that I'm making sense XD =)
Actually, Moffat wasn't able to see School Reunion and nobody told him that Rose was upset about Mickey joining the TARDIS (probably a good thing, since we weren't given any kind of reason). So Rose is actually enjoying having Mickey around, shock horror. It's also hard to be jealous of Reinette in the way she was jealous of Sarah Jane.
Either Moffat didn't ask, or Moffat didn't care. He knew enough about the ending of School Reunion to know that Mickey was newly onboard the TARDIS, as a writer he should have been interested in the circumstances.
You are right, we are never explicitly told why Rose doesn't want Mickey there. But like he says to Ten in School Reunion, "The missus and the ex. Welcome to every man's worst nightmare." I would assume that Rose's view isn't all that different (the not-quite boyfriend and the ex).
But why? She was the one who invited him on board the TARDIS in the first place. To me, it makes more sense for her to be happy to have him onboard then get all jealous over it.
I don't think they had sex, but I would like to point out that if she was a guest there, she very well could have had chambers there. In those days, when people "visited," they stayed for weeks.
I think someone else mentioned the whole whole "they couldn't have had sex because she didn't have rooms at Versailles" and I think its a bit naive. Anyone who has read a trashy historical romance novel knows that that is what the librarys/sitting rooms are for.
Also, about the mind meld I just took that as something that she did not really have control over since I think its safe assume that she had not ever experianced a pyschic connection with anyone else.
Disclaimer: I actually don't think any shenanigans went on b/w the Doctor and Reinette.
Notice how the only person who died (who was introduced in the story, at least) had died of natural causes. HOW DOES MOFFAT WRITE SUCH SCARE SHIT WITH THE LOWEST BODY COUNT OF ANY DOCTOR WHO WRITER?!
I suppose it's more the threat of death or the vulnerability to death that's terrifying. When someone's actually died, that's it. They can't die again. The thrill is in the chase, as they say.
Moffat's probably the best writer at juggling. It's Madame de Pompadour AND it's the Doctor experiencing a love story AND it's Mickey's first trip in the TARDIS AND it's robots disassembling humans for ship parts. But other writers can struggle with things like juggling a reunion with an old companion and aliens running a school. Moffat can blend things better and most importantly: MAKE THEM WORK. Without seeming the least bit contrived. And it's not just scary, it's not just dark, it's funny and heartwarming and heartbreaking and exciting and clever.
I think the fact that the only reason the clockwork robots stalked a seemingly random historical earth figure was because the ship was named after her adds a whole new level of darkness to the episode, and I'm really quite glad the Doctor didn't find out why because it probably would have devastated him further.
SOPHIA MYLES FOR QUEEN OF THE UNIVERSE Y/Y?
Yes but 50 crew members were chopped up by the Robots. Just because we didn't see it, doesn't make it any less dark.
I give this episode a body count of 51.
Hahaha, yes.
The Tardisode for this episode showed a woman at the bridge of the ship talking to one of the robots about the problems they had. Then the robot attacked her. It was chilling, actually.
I would like to see that Tardisode. I wish they were on the DVDs. That's an interesting insight into it. (Most of the rest of the Tardisodes sound like they were completely useless.)
I kind of hate this episode, but I am self-aware enough to know it's mostly because 1) I am a Rose fan and completely ship Ten/Rose, and 2) I am a fan of Moffatt's writing in his one-off episodes, but not a fan of his sexism, or when he inserts it in his writing, or the fact that he tends to write episodes where the Doctor falls in love with other women because he disliked Rose. I agree with the first commenter who said Ten isn't Ten and Rose isn't Rose in this episode. The characterizations are off because Moffatt twists them to what he wants them to be.
If the Doctor hadn't fallen for Reinette, or even if he had but Rose hadn't been in the picture, I probably would have loved the episode.
You missed the best quote!
"This is my lover, the king of France."
"Yeah? Well I'm the lord of time!"
This is my favourite episode of the season, hands down ๐
Far too pretentious then again that's Ten all over.
MY BRAIN IS FULL OF SQUEE BECAUSE NOW YOU'VE SEEN THIS~
Seriously, I've been just… bursting to talk about it here, to tell you how much you'd love this episode, but obviously I could not. I'm gratified to know I was right. =D See, this is what someone meant in the "Father's Day" comments when they said that Moffat is brilliant at using time travel. This is a beautiful episode, one of my favorites from the whole series. And I teared up too, I know several others who did also, so you are not alone. Amazing, wonderful episode. <3
Not how I interpret the episode but upvote anyway for explaing your point well.
Yes that's me too
+1
the reason the robots are after her is explained in the final shot of the episode
I love, love, love this episode. I agree with everything you say. Steven Moffat is some sort of genius at creating truly creepy monsters of the week, because the clockwork androids make me go EURGH as much as the gas mask kids. Such a lovely episode that reiterates how the Doctor outlives everyone, no matter how much he wishes otherwise. Lonely.
On a positive note, I love Mickey and Rose in this episode, even if they were a bit sidelined.
I love Rose and Mickey in this too. They both ignore what the Doctor said, grabbed the giant fire extinguisher guns and went exploring. How can you not love them.
And then Mickey finds some stairs and jumps and rolls and I love him forever.
The robots choose Reinette, because the ship’s name is SS MADAME DE POMPADOUR. You can see it in the final shot of the ship. There’s also a portrait of her that appears as the TARDIS dematerialises. That’s why the robots tell Reinette “We are the same”. And Mark, you’re STILL not prepared! ๐ Okay, maybe prepared a bit… ๐
Bit more prepared than yesterday, but still not prepared.
From Wikipedia's biography of the Madame:
Looking at the rain during the leaving of his mistress' coffin from Versailles, the King reportedly said: "La marquise n'aura pas beau temps pour son voyage." ("The marquise won't have good weather for her journey.")
I only just looked her up last night after this episode. And it makes me giddy that this was IN the episode.
And yes, I love this episode. There's one plot-holey thing that bugs me slightly, but that's because I still don't quite get the 'rules' of time travel. Why can't they go back with the TARDIS? They're part of the timeline? Aren't they always part of the timeline? It's not like anyone is related to the Madame.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Mark Watches รขโฌหDoctor Whoรขโฌโข: S02E04 รขโฌโ The Girl In The Fireplace | Mark Watches -- Topsy.com
You know I agree with you on everything XD
The one thing is "dancing" vs. "DANCING." I find it hard to believe they "DANCED." She wasn't even living at Versailles yet … where would it have happened? And immediately before she's with the king? Plus, although the whole episode is OOC, that would have kicked it up about 10 notches. He didn't even "DANCE" in "The Doctor Dances," so I don't think it happened here.
Oh I don't think it happened here either. I just think that Moffat thought he was being super clever, but it just set up this awful dichotomy between Rose and Reinette that is gross and skeevy.
Versailles is huge and everyone was at the dance: I bet there were lots of empty bedrooms. And if they couldn't find any, a broom closet. I'm sure they did "dance".
Yea, I'm kind of on the fence about that. Whether or not they did have sex. I think they could have.
There’s an audio commentary for this episode by Steven Moffat and Noel Clarke, in which Steven Moffat says he doesn’t think that any “dancing” (sex) happened between the Doctor and Madame de Pompadour. This came as a surprise to me because I had assumed it was Moffat’s intention to imply they had sex.
I transcribed the part of the conversation where they talk about “dancing”:
Steven Moffat: Yes, he’s off to dance. Now some people might think…
Noel Clarke: The horizontal foxtrot?
Steven Moffat: You know, actually, I don’t think. I’m the writer, I can say this. That’s the night of the Yew Tree ball, and Madame de Pompadour was actually, for all that she’s one of history’s most famous courtesans—look it up kids!—she was quite cold. She wouldn’t be that quick. I think what happened that night is he had the best night of his life at a party with, you know, flirting with Reinette, dancing with Reinette, talking to Reinette, and just thinking she was wonderful. And you’re about to see the after effects of the Doctor of having had the best night at a dance he’s ever had.
Noel Clarke. Okay. Because people have wondered if “dancing” was a euphemism for …
Steven Moffat: Well, I think it is. And in Doctor Who terms, also, she’s seen inside his head, she knows that he would use it in those terms. So she’s flirting with him. She clearly wouldn’t slap him in the face if he kissed her.
Noel Clarke: Of course not.
Well, that's a bit disappointing. Still, the author is dead :p and if he didn't want the audience to think they "danced"…
I believe that this sort of backtracking move is known as a "reverse ferret"…
Thank you so much for posting this!
Somebody’s probably already answered this, but I don’t have time right now to scroll through all 69 comments. They focused on her because the ship’s name is the Madame du Pompadour, and her portrait is behind the TARDIS when it disappears.
And now I'm on a full keyboard rather than touchscreen let's do this properly…
LOVE this episode, easily my highlight of Series 2 and one of my favourite Ten episodes full stop. Everything, EVERYTHING, just works beautifuly. The conceit behind it is great, ALL the main characters come off well (yes, I even liked Rose here as she was back to being a fully rounded human being who could and did make mistakes and actually showed Mickey some respect!), the bad guys are creepy as all hell while still being kinda sympathetic and, most importantly, I bought the Doctor falling for Madame De Pom… Madame De Pompa… Reinette totally.
She's just SUCH a wonderful character (albeit Moffat ramps her up from the actual factual historical character a LOT, but then again Queen Victoria's a werewolf….) and handles herself superbly. Utterly capable of standing on her own, not fearless exactly but able to do a pretty damn good job of hiding it, smart and just wonderfuly charming. The scene when she walks in his mind is just a thing of beauty and in that ONE scene I bought into the relationship far more than I ever did with the Ten / Rose paring. It doesn't hurt that Sophie Miles is drop dead gorgeous AND terrific in the part as well.
But the thing that stands out (as it always does for me in Moffat episodes) even more than the scares (the LITTERAL monster under the LITTERAL bed… good god Moff|) is the dialogue. While I love the "What do Monsters have nightmares about? ME!" and "One may tolerate a world of demons for the sake of an Angel" *sniff* it's Reinette's damn-near hissed "If my nightmares can return to plague me then rest assured… SO WILL YOURS!" at the end that sticks in the mind. Yeah, totally understand why Ten would consider her a Keeper.
One thing I did notice at the time, and it seems to stand up whenever this episode is discussed, there are two groups of people who tend to have an issue with it. The first is the dyed-in-the-wool "The Doctor is asexual damnit!" brigade who have dwindled in number over the years but are still fairly loud (and they may have a point, certainly it's a VERY delicate balance to strike). The other is some of the Ten / Rose shippers who do seem to HATE this with a firey passion, can't imagine why *snigger*. Oh well, part of the joy of a show like Who, if you don't like an episode just wait, something different will be along very shortly.
Oh and two small factoids: 1) Tennant and Myles dated after this episode… luckty ba%^&%&!!!!. 2) In their wisdom, and desire to scare the crap out of kids the length of the British Isles, the official Doctor Who magazine gave away a free Tardis clock the week before this episode. A CLOCKWORK Tardis clock…. Sweet dreams everyone!
I cannot up vote this because I’m on my phone but UP VOTE TO INFINITY! I agree with everything you said. I personally am in the Doctor is asexual brigade but then I don’t see this episode as overtly romantic on his part. But yeah, gee wonder why the shippers don’t like it! It’s a mystery.
Agreed again, Stephen. As far as Ten's feelings for Reinette go, I've always had the impression that he was fancying her in the way fanboys fancy a famous actress or a singer – because she was such a famous, influential and multitalented historical person, he was fascinated by her. And now their lives have been entwined together – well, who wouldn't be enchanted by her? He obviously cared for her and respected her hugely – but the "I'm the Doctor, and I've just snogged Madame de Pompadour!" line just reeks of fanboyism (and I don't mean this in a bad way ๐ ). So it's never a "OMG SOULMATE!!!" sort of relationship between them.
That was my impression. The Doctor definitely fanboys historical figures, remember how he started babbling with excitement when he met Charles Dickens? I also think that he was shocked and intrigued with her ability to see inside his head. I know a poster upthread referred to it as "mind rape", but to me it really didn't come off that way. It was more that once that "door" had opened, Reinette saw inside it without trying.
Oh yeah, I thought it was adorable fanboyism, this is one of the episodes where I like Ten, just for that! XD
Oh, and, the Doctor's comment at the beginning, telling Reinette to sit right in the middle of the bed and not let any parts dangle over the side– way to play into a child's absolute nightmares. I love that he says this, and I love that if I were a child at the time I would agree that THAT is the way to keep from getting attacked by the monsters under your bed. Right. In the middle. And don't move.
People in the continuity department must have been sleeping during this run if you consider the sheer inconsistencies between School Reunion and The Girl in the Fireplace. Russel T Davies has gone on record saying that Moffat's scripts are the only ones he doesn't touch a word of but surely you need to ensure things follow eachother logically within the series.
Rose disapproved of Mickey joining and now suddenly she acts like nothing happened and she couldn't be happier. It's not Moffat's fault he just got the brief saying "oh and this is Mickey's first episode as a companion."
I recall that Moffat had not actually read the School Reunion script before he wrote this one, hence those inconsistencies.
Davies didn't have editing rights over Moffat. Moffat's contract with the BBC precluded this. He couldn't have edited Moffat if he wanted to.
Davies is the same guy who, if you read A Writer's Tale, spent an entire MONTH when he was sick in bed coming up with … a certain scene from the last episode of season 4 to make sure the characterization was perfect. He can say whatever he wants to, but there is NO WAY he felt good about this episode.
Uh there's no way that's how it works. Do you seriously think you'd get a job writing tv if you went in. Yes sure I'd like to write for you but just as long as you don't change a word? Russel hands out the outlines and the other writers write the episodes which they then hand back for approval and later minor editing or the script just gets dropped altogether which has happened a number of times. As a scriptwriter you don't actually have much to say. You just write the script following the instructions you are given and sent it back pending constructive criticism.
Generally true, but Moffat was a special case. Clearly with most writers, that is not how it works. But Moffat apparently has mad negotiating skillz and his contract did not allow for this.
Then he could have changed the previous one. In fact, he should have because that ending was awful.
See, the Rose/Mickey thing never bugged me that much. I always thought it was the end of the last episode that was OOC for Rose. She's the one who wanted Mickey to come in season 1! I always figured, right after Sarah Jane, she was still trying to deal with the idea of having to leave the Doctor some day, and just wanted some time alone with him to get her balance back, and Mickey joining on right then just made it harder for her. It was the timing, not Mickey himself, that upset her. The fact that she'd gotten over it by next episode doesn't bother me because it's logical. She's known Mickey her whole life. He's a really good friend, even if their romance is no longer really a go. Why should she be upset?
Maybe it's because I'm rewatching ER season 1 right now. That series, at least early on, is full of jumps in character stories, where we don't get every little piece spelled out for us. It makes it feel more real, IMO. Like these are just glimpses of real lives and stuff keeps happening even when we're not watching.
I like you're view on Rose and Mickey in this episode. They were friends their entire life before they dated. They've been broken up since series 1 and still friends in the episodes he turned up in since then, aside from the end of School Reunion. There's nothing stopping them from just being good friends exploring a spaceship in the future.
Plus who knows how long they were on the TARDIS before it landed on the ship.
>Plus who knows how long they were on the TARDIS before it landed on the ship.
Exactly. Isn't it possible that in the time between the end of School Reunion and the start of this episode that Rose she simply got over it?
Adding an extra level of cool/creepy to this episode, here is a video of an automaton from the same historical period: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSxWmJLAaEg&fe…
I think I was kind of meh about this episode back in the day, but it got to me this time. It's a beautiful little standalone episode, which unfortunately doesn't quite fit very well in the progression of the season. Rose has a 180 in attitude toward Mickey for no discernible reason. I think I read somewhere (and I know I'm getting to say that a lot) that Moffat wasn't told about the ending scene of the previous episode, and only knew that he had Mickey for Mickey's first outing with the crew. Still, someone should have caught that early on and forced an edit for consistency.
The number of regenerations the Doctor can do or whether or not there is really a limit at all is up for debate, but I'm beginning to think his tenth incarnation is somewhat of a manifestation of a mid-life crisis. Which would be incredibly appropriate if he were just one or two regenerations away from the Time War. That would have had to make him take a good look at his own mortality.
I like this episode a lot better when I don't think about it. :/ And your opinion seems to be pretty consistent with the fandom. I don't really know anything about Moffat, but from what you've written, I'll probably have to revise my opinion of him. I do disagree on one point: some people can fall in love with more than one person at once. It might be out of character for the Doctor to shunt Rose to the side, but it's not ridiculous. I do wish that Mme de Pompadour's story had been better fleshed out and that Rose and Mickey could have played a larger role, but I enjoyed the episode for what it was on the surface.
I don't disagree that people can fall in love with more than one person at once, but I just think that the manner in which it was portrayed here was kind of offensive and for cheap laughs.
In general I like Moffat's episodes better when I don't think about it, but when I do think about them I go "wait. what?" And I'd like them better still if Moffat never ever talked to the press. Ugh. I know I wouldn't have nearly as many problems with his writing if I didn't know his opinions on men and women.
My IntenseDebate account must be haunted, because replies to me keep going missing…
You're right, the Doctor and Reinette's relationship was handled awkwardly in this episode, but it could have been a lot better, especially if Rose had played a larger role. It might have been great as a two-parter or if it was edited by someone else, if the comments here are any indication.
I know I wouldn't have nearly as many problems with his writing if I didn't know his opinions on men and women.
THIS. Bang on.
Giving you a thumbs up because I agree with you on the polyamory front. Yes, it is entirely possible to have relationships that involve more than two people. What I hate about the Moffat quote is the implicit attitude that ALL men and ONLY men would be interested in multiple partners. And the way the episode handles the dynamic is not poly-friendly in the least, especially when the Doctor implies that the two women in an M/F/F relationship having full knowledge of each other and *gasp* being friends is an alien idea ("France. It's a different planet.").
It wasn't handled well and what Moffat said gets all of the eyerolls for eternity, but yeah, thinking that he can only love Rose isn't a fair criticism (not that Karen said that). What's good about Mark Watches is that having these discussions makes me think a lot harder about what I just watched. I'm thankful for the passionate fans.
Yes, same! I have to agree with you. Mark Watches is making me think about these episodes in a completely different way. I'm happy to see other people's opinions and disagree with them. I was a bit taken aback by all the HATE when obviously everyone here wanted him to review the show. I figured there'd be lots of glowy goodness after all the cuts, but I was incredibly wrong. I'm glad that there are so many opinions.
I didn't get that from his one comment, but then I haven't read many Moffat interviews.
I do get the feeling he's being flippant a lot of the time.
For being a Moffat episode, this episode only rated a 3 for scariness with the fear forecasters. This is one of two episodes that I enjoy showing new watchers to 'hook' them. This one has romance, scifi, and intrigue. It also has buckets of nightmare fuel. It's a great mix. Also, it did kind of explain why they wanted her brain. The ship is SS Madame du Pompadour, and that's her name, so 'they are the same' in name.
BUMBUMBUM.
lol I do not share your love in the least for this episode. It actually made me glad that Nine was gone just so he wouldn't have been in this episode. I don't think I'll ever watch it again. It makes me cringe.
I like to think Nine would have laid the smackdown on Ten for his behavior in this episode. XD
"lazy writing" is exactly right.
This may in fact be my favorite DW episode – no surprise it's one of Moffat's. This is a man that can make a broken clock terrifying.
Okay, I know there are some plot holes, and a fair amount of wankbait, but I love the idea, and I love Reinette, and I love her coming on the ship, and I love the clockwork villains. There's also some great humor in this episode.
So people who don't like this episode or don't like Moffat – well, we would disagree at a fundamental level about, I dunno, storytelling in general.
Basically, if I only get one episode to convince someone to watch Doctor Who, this is the episode I'd recommend.
I don't care what the haters say, I love this episode and I love Reinette. This was the very first episode of Doctor Who that I ever saw, and I've liked the Moffatt stories the best ever since.
However, I don't ship Doctor/Rose at ALL, which is probably why I like this episode so much.
Sadly, I think a huge part of the hate from some quarters does have to do with the Doctor romancing someone that isn't Rose. Which, personally, I think is kind of silly, because why are we applying our human notions of monogamy on Time Lords?
Exactly!
Guh, yes, this. He's got two hearts! Surely there's enough emotion in them to go around, right? ๐
Then again, I've never cared for Rose, so I had no problem with her getting sidelined in this episode. ๐
I agree with this and a bunch of the comments on this, so I won't go into my detailed annoyance with Moffat. It's definitely a habit of his though….*ignore everything other writers have done with the series and characters because my ideas are clearly superior.*
This episode was one of the highlights of S2 for me.
I'm a Ten/Rose 'shipper. I loved this episode. I was more bothered by the previous episode than this one. Yes, the Doctor seems a little OOC because of the whole Reinette read his mind and he just went "Oh, cool, saves me the trouble" when he hasn't told Rose much at all about his past or himself. He seemed VERY OOC in leaving Rose and Mickey – sure, the emergency program would have taken them home, but Mickey's never used it and Rose has had her memory wiped. She may not remember it and Mickey may not know how Rose got home alone. Even if Rose did remember, I can't see her leaving the Doctor trapped in France. Send Mickey home? Maybe. Go home herself? No.
The "King's wife and King's girlfriend" line cracked me up. The Queen tolerated the King having mistresses because she nearly died in childbirth, and if the King was busy with a mistress he'd leave her alone. Reinette went out of her way to befriend the Queen because that way Louis didn't feel as guilty. (Also? It wasn't just the French kings who had mistresses.)
::coughNellGwyncough::
To name only one of many. ๐
The show redeemed itself in my eyes with later season two episodes-some of the best of new Who, in my opinion-but after this? I sat there thinking, holy crap, this episode is awful. It's unbelievably overrated. Essentially, it is that episode of sci-fi, the episode in a bottle, where the hero meets the LOVE of his LIFE and then she dies and is never mentioned again. I hate that episode every frickin' time it shows up. Not to mention, as someone very insightfully noted upthread, Moffat likes to let his audience figure it out and in doing so, he sometimes makes his hero a MORON. Which, okay, is just unforgivable when it's the Doctor.
I like this episode because it features Rose and Mickey working together. Mickey is having fun, Rose is having fun teaching him like the Doctor taught her. I LOVE it for the clockwork monsters, who are only following their programming. I love Sophia Myles as Reinette because she manages to give Reinette strength and character with very little time. I feel like the Doctor is in character for the Doctor but Ten is not in character for Ten because already they've made it so that he and Rose are tightly bound together.
I have one thing and one thing only to add to your thoughts
"I could have danced all night, I could have danced all and still have begged for more…"
My Fair Lady and The Doctor. The biggest win of all time.
What's interesting is that this time we get to meet a woman who is intellectually more of a match for him. He searches her brain, but she's clever enough to search his. She is a remarkable woman in her own right, she more or less did run France's foreign policy (not necessarily for the best in hindsight, but probably better than Louis would have done on his own). Here it was a nice touch that as Rose was groping around for a way to explain what was going on, she picked up the basic idea very quickly. That scene with Reinette and Rose was lovely, but clearly showed that she was more than a match for Rose! Anybody else get a slight suggestion that he couldn't quite face her straight away after "danving" and sent Rose instead?
Of course, we don't really know what love means for a Timelord, single loves? Multiple loves? Loves in different eras?
It's worth tracking down the episode commentary by the MIghty Moff and Noel Clarke, especially as they speculate as to what Rose's reaction might have been had Reinette come on board. They're both very funny people.
But nightmare fuel – you are not prepared. Without spoilers, he's once taken something which he spotted in his own son's bedroom and made something terrifying out of it. Sleep well, Moff Junior!
"Anybody else get a slight suggestion that he couldn't quite face her straight away after "danving" and sent Rose instead? "
No. First of all, I find it hard to believe there was any "DANCING" as opposed to "dancing" for the reasons I stated in my post on page 1 and don't want to rehash here XD
Second of all, it is already established in the script that while Rose was with Reinette, Ten was watching Reinette getting attacked by robots at the ball and trying to figure out what to do about it (he fixes the audio line, which is when Reinette hears herself scream). So, if he'd gone to her then, it might have meant letting her die 5 years hence. It was a logical decision.
Secondly, how stupid is the Doctor? Asking an established historical figure to go traveling in the Tardis with him? SURE, THAT WILL WORK OUT WELL.
Hee. My only comparison would be Bill and Ted stealing away with Elizabeth and Mary… but that's a whole other story.
Man, a lot of these comments are very well-meaning and intelligent, and I appreciate it, but are unbelievably spoiler-y to the series as a whole.
I want to reply to a lot of them, but I am afraid to read more. :/
It's no spoiler to say that you've just seen the second Hugo which Doctor Who has won during its entire existence. The first was awarded for a certain two-parter in the first series (by guess who? Clue – it mentions dancing a lot). Winning a Hugo is no mean feat for any series, so this episode obviously reached out to a wider audience than the usual.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm referring to about 90% of page one of the comments.
I posted an explanation, but it vanished. In the past, posting again seems to have brought things back.
If it doesn't come back, these links explain what a Hugo is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award
http://www.thehugoawards.org/
No spoilers, but don't click through to lists of nominees if you don't want to know the titles of future episodes (there are no plot summaries though, so it's pretty safe even if you do that).
To be pedantic, it appealed to around 187 Hugo voters*, who were attendees or supporting members of that year's World Science Fiction Convention. So, really, it appealed to a few hundred science fiction fans, which makes sense given the nature of the story. It's still an honour, but it doesn't say much about the wideness of the audience.
In the UK, at least, Doctor Who is popular mainstream television and The Girl in the Fireplace rated as well as any other episode, but no better. So I'd say it reached the same audience as usual, which is still remarkably wide.
*The Girl in the Fireplace got 187 votes once votes had been transferred from the other candidates as they were eliminated. 103 people voted for it as their first preference. 383 people voted in total.
All the figures are in this PDF:
http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2007%20F…
This was the lowest-rated episode in all of season 2, and at least a good portion of us detest it.
People didn't stop watching as it went along, though, so the low rating was down to other factors. If it was down to quality it would have been the first three episodes that did it, but the fluctuation of Doctor Who ratings suggests that people don't stay away, there's just a chunk of the audience who are swayed by other things. It still got excellent ratings for a drama, although not as high as some that year.
And, anyway, seven other episodes rated lower (it was a very hot summer).
And it got an AI* score of 84 which is pretty standard for that series.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciation_Index
"If it was down to quality it would have been the first three episodes that did it,"
That's your opinion. I thought New Earth was sweet and light, and the "GIVE HER BACK TO ME!!!!" gave me shipper squee. I thought Tooth and Claw was **hysterical**!! And I thought School Reunion was poignant — the conversation between Ten and Rose where she chases him down and confronts him is one of my favorite Rose moments of s2.
This episode is for me the only low point of s2, and one of the only low points of New Who in general. Luckily, like I said, fewer people saw it than any other s2 episode XD
Nothing to do with my opinion (I love those episodes) or yours.
What I'm saying is that if people had actively decided not to tune in to "The Girl in the Fireplace" it would have been because they'd given up on the series, as a result of what they'd seen so far. The only way people would have effected the ratings as result of what they though of that episode would have been if they switched off during it (in reaction to the episode itself).
Here are the quarter hour ratings:
1: 7.3m
2: 8.1m
3: 8.3m
So people didn't tune out as it was airing.
The average ratings for the first four episodes were: 8.62m; 9.24m; 8.31m; 7.90m.
So if you want to put the that 400,000 drop down to the perceived quality of the series, the first three episode have to take the blame. However, that's not considering the weather, the lead in, the competition on other channels or the start time, which was the earliest it had been up to then (and the first 15 minutes figure suggests that some people were caught out, lowering the average). The start times for the first four episodes: 7.15; 7.15; 7.20; 7.00.
And, to repeat, it didn't get the lowest rating of that series, here are the ratings in order (I've left off episode titles for future episodes, to be extra non-spoilery).
Tooth and Claw: 9.24m
5: 9.22m
New Earth: 8.62m
School Reunion: 8.31m
13: 8.22m
12: 8.19m
The Girl in the Fireplace: 7.90m
6: 7.64m
11: 7.14m
7: 6.76m
10: 6.66m
8: 6.32m
9: 6.08m
So that puts it in the middle of the episode ratings. Like I said, it did about as well as any other episode, both in its ratings and in how much the general audience liked it.
By the way, for US viewers, to get an idea of how mainstream Doctor Who is: the UK has a population of 60 million; the US 300 million; so, to get a rough estimate of the proportion of the population reached by the show, you need to multiply the above numbers by five, to express it in US terms.
Disappearing post, again. This will probably bring it back.
The thing about the spoilers I've noticed is that generally they slowly start creeping into more and more people's posts the longer it's been since the last STOP SPOILING ME message. After that it declines and then the whole thing starts over all again. Jojo effect.
Hahahah RIGHT. It's like radiation poisoning or something.
More like a temporal loop.
Yeah, really, what is UP with that?
Did you read the non-spoilery and (imho) most important note? The answer to the question "why her?" was given in the last shot of the episode. It was mentioned by several people but you might not have worked yourself back that far. ๐
Yes you did, sorry. Hard to keep track.
Yes! I responded to a few of them. NOW I GET IT!
Okay, maybe I'm a really bad feminist or something because I never really considered some of the issues earlier posters were bringing up (some I agree with, some not). I've also never read any of Moffat's interviews and don't intend to, because I don't want his personal views intruding on my enjoyment of his episodes, which 95% of the time I love. Maybe I'm not seeing some of the more egregious displays of sexism people are mentioning because I'm not looking for them?
I don't agree with the charge that Madame the Pompadour exists here to be a sexual plaything. People seem to be basing that one off the fact that we only see Reinette interacting with the Doctor. Well, yeah, we see this episode mostly from the Doctor's perspective, so we only see Reinette when he does. Considering she managed to become the official mistress of the King of France (and, historically, quite an educated woman, especially impressive as suffered from ill health much of her life), she clearly wasn't just sitting on her brocaded butt pining for the Doctor when he wasn't around.
I interpreted Rose's lack of jealousy of Reinette and her better treatment of Mickey as learning from her mistakes more than bad characterization on the part of the writer. She did the jealousy thing with Sarah Jane, realized that she was being silly, and made an effort to behave more maturely. And she's always been fond of Mickey, her not wanting him to join them on the TARDIS in "School Reunion" is more of an aberration than her treating him well now.
I did want to smack the Doctor for leaving Rose and Mickey stranded on a nonfunctional ship in the 51st century. I know now that the writer apparently intended for him to tell them to get in the TARDIS, she'll take them home and he'll meet them, having taken the "slow path". However, since we don't see that in the episode, it just appears that the Doctor's completely abandoned them. I mean, that sort of impulsive show-offy-ness is Ten all over, but that doesn't mean I like it.
All in all, I love this episode. I find it scary and poignant in all the right ways.
I can't upvote you more. I especially agree with your first two paragraphs.
Agreed to everything, specially, the part about not reading Moffat's interviews. Yikes.
The problem I'm having here about sexism and the Doctor is that I think RTD is worse about it but more subtle, in a way. And spoilers.
To me, this episode is perfect.
The problem I'm having here about sexism and the Doctor is that I think RTD is worse about it but more subtle, in a way.
Oh, agreed, agreed so much. There's more I want to say on that regard, but again, spoilers. :S
YES! I totally think RTD is worse, too.
I think I know what you're getting at, and yes. I agree. And spoilers.
I interpreted Rose's lack of jealousy of Reinette and her better treatment of Mickey as learning from her mistakes more than bad characterization on the part of the writer. She did the jealousy thing with Sarah Jane, realized that she was being silly, and made an effort to behave more maturely. And she's always been fond of Mickey, her not wanting him to join them on the TARDIS in "School Reunion" is more of an aberration than her treating him well now.
Yes. This. Thank you.
I thought the jealousy over Sarah Jane last ep was totally overthetop and a huge sexist stereotype itself so I was pretty happy to not see that in repeats. Besides that, Sarah Jane is someone that at one point in time had the exact same role in the doctor's life that Rose has now, so (even though I hated that part and how it was done and don't ship Rose/the doctor anyways) she's bound to feel more threatened by that than by the random woman the doctor is helping out this week. The lady is a mistress to the King and the doctor was clear that he didn't want to mess with the course of her life, especially that part so I really don't get why people are interpreting it as a giant love triangle.
Yeah, I was part of the "Moffat is so sexist!" crew for a while, but then I watched more and really, I can't discern his episodes being THAT much more sexist than the other ones anymore, either. It's just different kinds of sexism, really. With his interviews being so much worse than what he writes, I'm inclined to think he gets a bad case of foot-in-the-mouth syndrome. Maybe I'm being a generous, Moffat-loving bad feminist too, but there it is.
Then I'm a bad feminist too. Sure, he's a casual sexist but he gives me better, more rounded female characters than most writers and trust me, his casual sexism is really not gross at all in comparison to some of the shit that goes on.
Sure, someone needs to have a chat with him about it, but it's no worse than what most mens and womens magazines sell by the truckload.
This comment very much sums up how I feel about the episode.
Regarding the second paragraph, I read into it that they were validating history, and portraying her as a strong, respectable, important historical figure through the fact that the Doctor is so fascinated and overjoyed to meet her – not that it was intended to make her into just a 'sexual plaything', or a 'romantic interest'. I don't think the audience needs to have her importance or intelligence spelled out for them, as that is an historical fact. While I won't discount the fact that maybe he developed feelings for her in the context of the show, or she for him, I will say that I saw it more as a respectful relationship, and as just an addition to her life as opposed to something that ruled her life.
The point you make about us seeing only the points in time where they intersect is important, I think. I've heard others say that we see him 'watching' her through the portals where she is talking of him, but I don't think that is a valid point for stating she's obsessed with him, without having intimate information as to how the portals work. Maybe those points in time open BECAUSE of a connection between his mind and her: because she HAPPENS to think of him at that time, or she thinks of him because he's encountered a portal to her that triggers something. All conjecture, but who knows. My point is that just because we see five or six snippets of her thinking/talking about him doesn't mean she's doing that all the time. As you said – even in the context of the show, she mirrored history and made a life for herself.
In some respects, I like this episode, but I have one major problem with it–10 is a great big jerk in it. This was the first time in the new series where I found myself actually disliking the Doctor. We've had a season and a bit of seeing him being (sort of creepily) head-over-heels for Rose (including the accent & appearance of 10–RTD stated in an interview that the Doctor regenerated the way he did because he had some sort of subconscious desire to be as appealing to Rose as possible*) and suddenly he's ignoring her and taking her for granted. I mean… he's acting like a jerk. There's just no other way to say it. He's not ignorant of Rose's feelings for him, and he's hugely insensitive about them in this episode. I really think that could have been handled in a way more consistent with his earlier characterisation, without having to cut the whole interesting Reinette relationship thing.
*I read this interview a couple of years ago and can't remember what it's from. Anybody else remember it? He talked about the Doctor "imprinting" on Rose's accent and then having to cut that reference from the script because of continuity problems with Old Who, among other things.
I remember about reading about the imprinting at the time, but I don't think I remember anything about his physical appereance.
It may have been from a different article. I do remember something with RTD saying he was younger and a bit slim etc basically to make Rose want to stay with him. I'll have to poke around a bit and see if I can find it.
That's really interesting. I'd always thought that about his regeneration, it'd be good to see the interview to see it confirmed.
Oh god, if that's true re: Ten's appearance and accent, that's one of the creepiest things I've heard since Twilight. D:
I never really liked the idea myself, although I do think that the next regeneration is influenced by what their previous regeneration was like. I have a whole theory on why 11 is the way he is, but spoilers!
In some respects, I like this episode, but I have one major problem with it–10 is a great big jerk in it. This was the first time in the new series where I found myself actually disliking the Doctor. We've had a season and a bit of seeing him being (sort of creepily) head-over-heels for Rose (including the accent & appearance of 10–RTD stated in an interview that the Doctor regenerated the way he did because he had some sort of subconscious desire to be as appealing to Rose as possible*) and suddenly he's ignoring her and taking her for granted. I mean& he's acting like a jerk. There's just no other way to say it. He's not ignorant of Rose's feelings for him, and he's hugely insensitive about them in this episode. I really think that could have been handled in a way more consistent with his earlier characterisation, without having to cut the whole interesting Reinette relationship thing.
And I am a moron who managed to hit submit twice. Sorry, everybody.
So you may have noticed just how polarizing this episode is, huh Mark? :'D
Personally I'm surprised. I knew there'd be some differences of opinion but I didn't expect it to be quite so much. Then again I'm generally more of lurker. Some thumbs up and down have been going like yoyos.
I don't get thumbs down. If someone explains their views in a way that's not spoilery or insulting, just explain why you disagree but thumbing down is so childish. There are some comments here I don't agree with but I just can't think of thumbing down only for that.
Right? I do not support this method of downvoting!
Also, I had no idea people hated this episode. I feel kind of silly. :/
Also, is this like the Great Ginny Slut-Shaming War of 2010? Only nicer?
Don't feel silly! I'm really glad you liked it and that the clockwork monsters scared you (not because I enjoy your fear but because that means they did their job). And yes, this episode is a bit like the Ron/Ginny argument in that it polarises a lot of people… only I don't think it's as vicious.
Don't feel silly there's plenty of people who love the episode. Doctor Who can just inspire a wide range of interpretations and reactions. Even me and my sister disagree on some things on the show but we just talk about each others opinions. I can't remember how the proper quote goes but paraphrasing for every different reader there's a different interpretation of a text.
It does sometimes make you slightly wary to post some opinions though.
I'm surprised by the amount of negativity on the episode here too. I love it and it usually does very well in the rankings.
It was the lowest-rated episode of all of season 2 …
Ratings of individual episodes don't really say anything about the quality of that particular episode. People would still be included in the ratings if they turned it on, decided they didn't like and turned off. You can't can't talk about the quality of an episode in regards to the number of people who haven't seen it. Low ratings either means people stopped watching due to the quality of the previous episodes, that it clashed with something else popular or some big event or in some cases it was more outdoor type whether.
People just have very differing opinions about the episode and they're free to like and dislike so I think we can all just agree that some love, some hate and some are in between.
Seriously. Some of the best and best-loved shows ever have gotten low ratings, to the point of being cancelled because of it (Mark covered one such show on here immediately prior to DW), it's not an indicator at all of quality. I still remember, for example, watching one of the best episodes of a show called Pushing Daisies, and then the next day finding out that the ratings were very low and it had been axed. I don't go by that at all.
Agreed. There's always talk of some amazing shows being cancelled because of their ratings so it;s hard not to take ratings for individual eps, never mind whole series, with a pinch of salt.
Firefly was taken from us way too soon. Pushing Daisies is on my to watch list because of all the good things I heard about despite it's cancellation.
Not to overhype it, but PD is probably my favorite show ever, I found it beautiful in every way, and even though it's been a couple years since the cancellation, I still mourn it. ๐ I can think of other shows I loved that also got crap ratings and were cancelled, like Quantum Leap and My So-Called Life, so I've, yeah, learned the very very hard way to take ratings in general with – oh man, there is actually a PD line I have to quote here to sum it up, believe it or not. XD "That ain't a grain of salt. That's one of them blocks they give cows to lick."
tl;dr agreed, and definitely watch PD! <3
God yes, Pushing Daisies forever! Cut down in its prime, no Ned for dead TV shows. =(
Eternal sadness is mine because of its cancellation. ๐ And yet, I perpetuate this awful cycle with myself: it hurts to watch the episodes again because they were so amazing and it reopens the wound, but I need to watch them again because they were so good. Terrible loop.
"People would still be included in the ratings if they turned it on, decided they didn't like and turned off."
No they wouldn't. It's calculated as an average, down to the minute, across the whole period of the show. I think they also have to watch for at least 5 minutes to be counted. Whatever it is, someone tuning in for 5 minutes would counted as 1/9th of a person for the purposes of a 45 minute show.
Anyway, here are the 15 minutes breakdowns for this episode:
0-15: 7.3m
15-30: 8.1m
30-45: 8.3m
So people weren't tuning out as the show progressed and the AI* (84) suggest that they really liked it. It was also the earliest it had started that series (the first two started at 7.15pm, the third at 7.20pm and this one at 7.00pm), which is as likely an explanation as any for the 400,000 drop from the previous episode to this one.
And even if ratings meant something, The Girl in the Fireplace was the the 7th most watched out of the 13 episodes in series two, right in the middle.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciation_Index
Thanks for that information. I wasn't aware it varied depending on how long you watched it for.
No worries, I may as well put my long hours of having pointless arguments on the Gallifrey Base ratings thread to some use. There are more, not especially interesting, details here:
http://www.barb.co.uk/about/tvMeasurement?_s=4
And this is more fun, if a bit out of date:
http://keithtopping.blogspot.com/2009/02/doctor-w…
Moaners got it canned on Gallifrey Base, for shame. But that's an argument that's past…
No it wasn't. There were six episodes that rated lower. That puts it slap bang in the middle.
Also its ratings went up as it was airing, so that tells us that the quality of the episode didn't cause people to switch off.
If you think it means anything in terms of quality then it means something about the episodes that came before it. In all likelihood, though it means nothing in terms of quality.
Like every other episode of this series, it found a very large audience who generally really liked it. That doesn't mean you have to, but don't pretend that the numbers are on your side – they really aren't.
Where do you get your stats? Everything that I have seen published gives it a viewership of just over 7m, which is the least of any episode that season.
And not tuning out doesn't mean they "really liked it". I watched the whole thing, and I certainly didn't like it XD
http://gallifreybase.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1…
For which you need to be registered. But you can check it on the BARB site:
http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyTopProgrammesO…
You need to look at BBC One for the week May 1-7, 2006. Doctor Who is #6, beaten only by EastEnders and New Tricks.
Those are final figures, by the way, which include people who watched a recording within a week. But those are the official figures and the best ones to use, unless you're seriously arguing that people who watched a recording didn't see the episode.
The provisional, overnight, figure for "The Girl in the Fireplace" was 7.4 million, but that's a less precise measure and doesn't include people who watched within a week, "School Reunion" got 7.6 million for its overnight figure.
I can't be bothered to look up all the overnights, but episode 9 got 5.5m as an overnight (6.08m as a final figure), so there's no way "The Girl in the Fireplace" was the lowest rated by that measure, either. At a guess I'd say it was roughly in the middle, again.
The AI figure means they really liked it, in general. Not that everyone did – but the vast majority. The sample audience gave it marks out of ten and an AI of 84 means the average as 8.4.
And anyway you're argument seems to be that the number of people who watched means something, if the number of people who watched increased as the episode was shown, then the total number of people who watched doesn't mean anything about that episode. If people didn't tune in at all,
If you are going to stick with this argument perhaps you should spell out exactly what you think the ratings mean, in terms of the quality or popularity of the episode and why you think that?
Other places reporting 7.90m as the final rating:
http://www.themindrobber.co.uk/ratings.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_in_the_Fire…
And a couple more: http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/serials/2006… http://gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.com/2006/05/rat…
Sorry, half finished sentence, that paragraph should read:
And anyway you're argument seems to be that the number of people who watched means something, if the number of people who watched increased as the episode was shown, then the total number of people who watched doesn't mean anything about that episode. If people didn't tune in at all, it would have been because of what they'd watched previously rather than what they were about to not watch. Most likely, it was something else entirely, like the starting time being twenty minutes earlier than the week before.
I wasn't talking about ratings but about (online) rankings. As others have pointed out, tv ratings of individual episodes don't say anything about that episode.
Oh and by "it usually does very well in the rankings." I don't think our guest was referring to ratings, but rather fan polls, like Doctor Who Magazine's "Mighty 200" ranking of the first 200 Doctor Who stories, where is came in at #11, making it comfortably in the top 10% of all Doctor Who stories up to that point.
I'm not sure how much store I set by that, but a lot of people voted.
In the dynamic rankings, it's number 6:
http://www.dewhurstdesigns.co.uk/dynamic/full/res…
It ranks #12 of the first four series, accoding the votes on the old Outpost Gallifey forum (I seem to remember each episode got about 4,000 votes or so), averaging 4.331/5:
http://www.themindrobber.co.uk/new-series-popular…
(I've disregarded the series five scores there as they come from a different sources, since Outpost Gallifrey closed down before it started.)
OH: EPISODE NAMES IN LINKS, OBVIOUSLY, DON'T CLICK UNLESS YOU'RE HAPPY TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.
Interesting, informative comments with sources? SHENANIGANS
(Seriously, thanks)
Those are fan polls that are directed at a certain segment of the viewing audience though …
These same individuals were "AAAAAAAHHHHH NOOOOO!!! I DON'T GET IT!!!!" mad when the much-broader-audience-based Radio Times "Best Companion" poll came out a couple of months back XD XD
But the general audience liked it roughly as much as any other episode and watched in similar numbers.
Also, those polls are thousands of fans, people complaining about the "best companion" would only have been a few of those.
Fandom really doesn't divide the way you think you do.
Sorry to be rude, but are you going to make a coherent point about this episode in regard to its ratings or anything else?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. The first Star Trek was canceled because of poor ratings, my favorite Harry Potter movie, PoA, had the lowest gross of any of the Potter series, and DOCTOR WHO itself was once canceled. Does that make these things any more awesome? I don't think so. I guess I'm one of those contrary people that tend to like things more the less popular they are. It unfortunately is what kept me from reading Harry Potter when it originally became popular, to my shame.
In closing, the last Twilight movie has the record for largest grossing midnight opening. Enough said.
"I guess I'm one of those contrary people that tend to like things more the less popular they are. "
Generally, I do too! It just annoys me that a certain segment of fans want to keep labeling this a "fan favorite" when at best, it is probably the most fan-polarizing episode in Who history — at least, certainly in New Who. So they trot out gallifreybase polls of 500 Classic Who fans or whatnot, I trot out the viewership statistics of 60 million Britons (which you can find through a quick google).
So I'm reacting more to the "everyone loves this, it's soooo popular" than anything else.
I definitely agree that it is polarizing! I just call it "The episode that is either loved or hated."
It's polarizing in the smallish groups that you seem to run with. There isn't a survey where it's done badly.
If you think that GallifreyBase/Outpost Gallifrey is only classic Who fans then you've obviously never been to either forum. As for the Doctor Who Magazine poll, 8 of the top 20 were from the new series and Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways ranks one higher than The Girl in the Fireplace. They also voted David Tennant as their favourite Doctor, Rose as their third favourite companion (Sarah Jane Smith won but another new series companion was second) and Russell T Davies as the greatest contributor to Doctor Who.
By any measure it's a fan favourite, with plenty of anecdotal evidence that some people strongly take against it – but the polls suggest their numbers aren't as great as with some other episodes. Now those polls are imperfect but they still represent a greater cross-section of people who call themselves fans than "me, my friends and the vocal people whose posts I've read somewhere". The series two polls were on Outpost Gallifrey which is now closed, but series five episode one has 5,931 votes on Gallifrey Base. That's 12 times higher than your hyperbolic and unsupported "500 Classic Who fans" assumption. From memory, the Outpost Gallifrey votes were similar. 6,700 people voted in the Doctor Who magazine poll.
These are still pretty small numbers in terms of the general audience but if you're talking about fan reactions, there are a couple of hundred people at most who are opining about this on the Internet and I'll take the polls over the anecdotes any day. And if there are large numbers of fans who are represented by the vocal people who hate this episode then not only do they not join in with the vocal people but they don't seem to vote either. What, then, is the evidence that they exist?
You seem to be saying that the fans that have voted it a fan favourite are the wrong sort of fans.
As for the general audience, you keep claiming that it rated lower than any other episode that series, even though that's not true. Having been repeatedly told that you've got that wrong you're now telling people to Google it* and implying that it says something negative about the popularity of this episode. That's intellectually dishonest. Will you admit that the episode rated about average for the series?
Also you really don't understand that the ratings of a single episode tells us something about the general popularity of the series up to that point, maybe a little about how much people liked the "next time" trailer and how good the publicity for the episode was and probably most about the scheduling and weather an competition on the other side. The only time the ratings of a single episode tell us about the popularity of that episode is when people switch off in droves and the figures for the last 15 minutes are much lower. That has never happened with any episode of Doctor Who. In all cases the number of people who choose to sit down and watch the episode for the first time can't have anything to do with their opinion of it because they haven't seen it yet.
The next episode rated much higher again, but that was mainly because it followed an FA Cup match that went to extra time. Thus getting a really good lead in and a boost towards the end when people tuned in for the next programme. Ratings are a tricky business, you shouldn't be making sweeping statements about their significance.
Also, the Appreciation Index figures tell us that the general audience rate The Girl in the Fireplace roughly the same (to +/- 1 AI point out of 100) as New Earth, Tooth and Claw, School Reunion and episodes 7, 8 and 11. If you widen the scope to +/-2 AI points then that just leaves a couple of episode that got 89 and one that got 76. As near as damn it that means that the general public loved the whole series equally and in large numbers.
If there was really a significant drop in viewing figures for this episode as result of peoples opinion of it then you'd expect to see the figures for the later BBC3 repeats to be significantly different for other episodes (since a pretty big chunk of the audience would know about the episode in advance) and they aren't.
By all means make the point that this episode is not universally loved but please stop trying to use the viewing figures to prove something that they don't prove.
*incidentally, the top result from: http://www.google.com/search?q=The+Girl+in+the+Fi…
will give you the correct figure of 7.9 million. It still won't tell you that that's 7th for the series with an equal number rating higher and lower than that episode.
For the pure amount of logic and information backing you up:
<img src="http://i56.tinypic.com/34hutl5.gif" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic">
As someone said yesterday, Rose is pretty much the Ginny Weasley of Doctor Who, in terms of her polarizing effect in the fandom. And it isn't always nicer, unfortunately.
Don't feel silly. There are those of us who love it (this episode, that is).
I said it probably in the middle of a load of spoilery comments, but I think it's a lot to do with Reinette only being seen in glimpses, so we get her in shorthand. I suspect a lot then comes down to whether you're happy to go along with that and imagine the things we aren't shown or if you see her as essentially a blank, poorly-written character. I take the former view, but I understand the latter.
Russell T Davies has this amazing ability with glimpses of characters that few writers, including Moffat, seem to be able to match, so I think that, perhaps, throws things into relief. Mainly, though, I think the complexity of the plot limits the space Moffat has to explore the character, so he sacrifices one to allow the other.
RTD gave Moffat the elements of Madame de Pompadour and clockwork robots* and Moffat pushed it towards being both a love story and a time puzzle. If it had been more straightforwardly historical, it would perhaps have been more like The Unquiet Dead, with Reinette in the centre of things and more fully drawn. And with clockwork Autons! (That's what people guessed they might be when they were included in the series trailer at the end of The Christmas Invasion). That would probably have worked better for a lot of people, but I like the intricacy of this one and the more straightforward version could have ended up too similar to Tooth and Claw.
*he was thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk
Oh, and I meant to say:
I know nothing of Potter fandom but I was following along on "Television Without Pity" when someone called it "The Hurl in the Fireplace" which has always amused me.
And, again mentioned elsewhere, there was a line about Emergency Programme One taking them Rose and Mickey home if the Doctor didn't come back, which they cut because they though people would remember it from the end of series one. Which was a mistake, I think.
When the Doctor jumps through the window on the horse, though, he is trying to save Reinette's life and stop the re-writing of history (already mentioned when Rose talks to her) so whether or not he loves her more than he loves Rose doesn't seem that relevant at that point.
Someone I know calls it "The B…. in the BBQ" =)
Oh, that's not at ALL a misogynistic way to refer to the episode…
Too much of the criticism of a pretty sketchy character in Renette goes into casually misogynistic territory, usually on the basis of her apparent morality.
I'm not sure if all shippers have a proper sense of sisterhood.
I find it quite interesting that when faced with a lack of information about a character, some people assume the worst.
Same here, it's very interesting indeed.
Mark, unfortunately you are not prepared for how nasty DW discussion can get. I really, really hope we don't have to revisit some of the malice that came with later episodes, but I wouldn't count on it.
Fandom is divided straight down the middle. It seems like there are the types of fans who enjoy more older-sci-fi-oriented episodes, where Moffat fits in. Then there are fans who enjoy the newer style of sci fi, with the characterization arcs, HBICs, and (for lack of a better term) social awareness (homosexuality, social status and race, particularly for Davies).
I'm in the latter camp. You get an episode like this, which appeals to the former, you are going to severely tick off the latter, who has grown happily accustomed to their characterization arcs, HBIC, social status-means-naught, etc) and resents the alternative, old-school viewpoints. (The fact that I am a feminist, and that Moffat is VERY old-school when it comes to his views on women just compound this for me by many orders of magnitude).
Interesting model, though I wouldn't draw the line in quite the same way you do.
For one, I'd say Moffat does HBICs more than RTD, to the point that I had to double check that you did indeed include HBICs in RTD's domain.
I want to say more than "agreed!" or "this!", but spoilers. So I'll just upvote. =D
The thing with Moffat's HBICs — and I say this across the board for his work, so as for there to be no … um .. "spoilers!!" … is that he tends to give you a ready-made, one-dimensional HBIC. We don't know what makes her tick, what's going on in her head, or why she's a HBIC, she just is. Again, more old-school style characterization.
With Davies — again, across the board for his work — he likes to start off with someone like Rose, who doesn't KNOW she has it in her to be a HBIC. You learn her insecurities, her flaws, her fears, her self-talk … and then she grows, and becomes a HBIC over time (or in Rose's case, a H"BadWolf"IC) =) Here again, this is more nu-sci-fi characterization.
I didn't want to have yet another tl;dr comment on here so I didn't explain that very well in my original post.
I guess I'm going more off of HBIC as a trope, which tends to be those female characters who take charge from the get-go. Yes, Moffat's female characters
have that "ready-made" HBIC, I agree, but then I like that (which is not to say I dislike those HBICs that have to come into their own). I mean, I don't think we really disagree, we're just talking about slightly different things and different preferences.
Which was the point of your OP.
I would have to disagree with the way you break down fandom. Yes fandom is divided over various things but it's more complicated than some like old style and some like new style. I for one like all kinds of episodes from various writers and don't like the implication that because I like Moffat episodes I can't like characterisation arcs, HBIC or social issues.
I'm not trying to imply that you can't like those things. I know people who like Davies and Moffat both. But, **most often,** there is a general pattern among sci-fi viewers. A very, very polarizing pattern which is unreconcilable and is largely based on the writers' worldview.
Even just look on here — read the posts from people who dislike Moffat. In most of them (and I count my own post among those), you will see his real-life views on women referenced as a reason for their dislike. His worldview heavily influences his scripts, ergo I (and others) have a hard time enjoying his scripts, because we see that worldview everywhere in his work.
Likewise, when you see commentary on people who dislike Davies, there are certain real-life facts about him that are referenced as well. His worldview most DEFINITELY influences his scripts, and if someone does not approve of that worldview, then they often seem to have a big problem with his scripts too.
These worldviews bleed through … if you notice them, and if you dislike them, then you are going to pick a side, as many of us have.
"you will see his real-life views on women referenced as a reason for their dislike. His worldview heavily influences his scripts"
Sorry, but not having read Moffat's comments before this thread I disliked many other writers' treatment of female characters on the show, and on the whole I actually prefer the female characters of season 5 to those before it but I can't say why right now obviously. Actually I thought sexism was way more prevalent in the last episode and I was really confused about why so many people that thought this episode was so sexist had no problems whatsoever with the last one, so I can't really agree that it's so cut and dry.
Let's just say that I will be watching certain future comment threads very intently due to this.
LOL joy. Is it basically going to be the same deal for all the companions that come after this one?
I'm going to try my best not to be on team anybody, we'll see how long that lasts.
Most likely, yeah, though it'll be worse in some cases.
Yeah, I'm already noticing the talk of certain spoilery female characters being too capable and too _______ which is giving me flashbacks to MRHP.
Ohhhhhhhhhh yeah, me too.
Completely agree. I think that some peoples' view of Moffat as a person is intruding into their view of his episodes. Honestly, while he's guilty of some not-entirely-feminism-approved writing, he's hardly the only offender, or IMO the worst one.
Is there a wiki of fandom controversies I can read somewhere because I have never talked about this show on the internet and I don't think I'm prepared.
I've been in the fandom less than a year, and I still feel unprepared.
I can't say what the worst single offense IMO is right now, but rest assured, I will have PLENTY to say once Mark gets there.
I'n really curious to see what that is!
Fandom isn't divided straight down the middle, there are two vocal camps and a much larger and quieter third group who basically like all of it. That goes a thousand times for the general audience.
I fall into the third group.
Me too! I'm watching all these discussions like "Uh, actually I quite like all of these episodes, writers and characters… am I wrong?!?"
Nobody is wrong about what they themselves think.
People can be manifestly wrong about what other people think, though, which seems to be the case here. Apart from arguments based on how many people like or dislike something being essentially fallacious* I don't especially like being told what type of fan I must be if I like this episode.
For what it's worth, the scientific audience research suggests strongly that the general audience views it pretty much the same as any other episode (they like it and in spectacularly large numbers for a British drama). Defining fandom is much harder, but all the polling that has taken place rates it higher than most episodes and not a divisive as any others.
Going by discussion you have read online is really no way of establishing that "fandom is split down the middle". If you counted the people contributing to those discussions you'd probably not get past 100 people.
The 5,000 or so people who defined themselves as fans sufficiently to join the Outpost Gallifrey forums (which the biggest at the time and had a massive membership increase when the new series came back) voted this one pretty high, and generally did the same for all the episodes.
The 7600 Doctor Who magazine readers who voted on all 200 stories up until the Easter special in 2009, rated it at number 11. If they had been split down the middle, it wouldn't have got that high. Plenty of other new series stories rated high in that poll and Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways came in at number 10.
Now you can say that both of those are "not fandom" but then I think you have to say that fandom is essentially unquantifiable and blanket statements about it being "split down the middle" can't be backed up with anything.
At best I think we can say that some people take against this one strongly, for reasons that have been rehearsed in detail throughout these comments. There are enough of them that it's never a lone voice in any online discussion that come along, but beyond that I wouldn't like to guess about numbers within fandom (or even what fandom is and where it stops). Whatever the case, it isn't a big issue for the general audience.
There are also a group of fans who champion Moffat over RTD, quite strongly, and it's easy to assume that you have to fall into one camp or another. I'm really not convinced that that many people do. I think most people are fans of the series as a whole.
To repeat, none of this really matters in terms of what anybody thinks of this episode, nobody has to like it and there's no weight of numbers argument to prove that it's good. But liking doesn't make you an RTD hater.
*http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Nobody is wrong about what they themselves think.
People can be manifestly wrong about what other people think, though, which seems to be the case here. Apart from arguments based on how many people like or dislike something being essentially fallacious* I don't especially like being told what type of fan I must be if I like this episode.
For what it's worth, the scientific audience research suggests strongly that the general audience views it pretty much the same as any other episode (they like it and in spectacularly large numbers for a British drama). Defining fandom is much harder, but all the polling that has taken place rates it higher than most episodes and not a divisive as any others.
Going by discussion you have read online is really no way of establishing that "fandom is split down the middle". If you counted the people contributing to those discussions you'd probably not get past 100 people.
The 5,000 or so people who defined themselves as fans sufficiently to join the Outpost Gallifrey forums (which the biggest at the time and had a massive membership increase when the new series came back) voted this one pretty high, and generally did the same for all the episodes.
The 7600 Doctor Who magazine readers who voted on all 200 stories up until the Easter special in 2009, rated it at number 11. If they had been split down the middle, it wouldn't have got that high. Plenty of other new series stories rated high in that poll and Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways came in at number 10.
Now you can say that both of those are "not fandom" but then I think you have to say that fandom is essentially unquantifiable and blanket statements about it being "split down the middle" can't be backed up with anything.
At best I think we can say that some people take against this one strongly, for reasons that have been rehearsed in detail throughout these comments. There are enough of them that it's never a lone voice in any online discussion that come along, but beyond that I wouldn't like to guess about numbers within fandom (or even what fandom is and where it stops). Whatever the case, it isn't a big issue for the general audience.
There are also a group of fans who champion Moffat over RTD, quite strongly, and it's easy to assume that you have to fall into one camp or another. I'm really not convinced that that many people do. I think most people are fans of the series as a whole.
To repeat, none of this really matters in terms of what anybody thinks of this episode, nobody has to like it and there's no weight of numbers argument to prove that it's good. But liking doesn't make you an RTD hater.
*http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Working version of that fallacy link:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-t…
(without the asterisk error)
Sorry about the double post, I think it's a glitch (I only clicked once).
I think I'm going to get an account so that I can edit it if it happens again.
Mark – feel free to delete the duplicate and this explanation if you've got this far in the comments.
Yes, there is this. There are always bound to be things that one dislikes or finds irksome, but I have to say that one can be a hardcore, obsessed fan without drawing out all kinds of meanings and nitpickings of an episode. There are different ways to be a fan, and people are allowed to interpret things differently.
I'm all for debates and discussions, but arguments? Tick me off. We're all fans.
Yeah, I… am looking forward to Mark's reactions to some later episodes, but not the comment threads, I fear how nasty things will get and I'd been hoping so much to avoid it here. :/
IDK, if someone is making misogynistic comments, I'm probably going to downvote them no matter how polite they are.
Everyone I know loves this episode, Mark. Don't think you're silly if you liked it. It's pretty amazing. I know people who have only a few episodes saved on their DVRs or purchased and this is always one of them. I was looking forward to your post on this because I really thought you would like it.
Just don't change your mind because other people have different opinions.
Don't feel silly! There's no reason to – I was surprised myself by all the hate for this episode, and I don't feel silly for loving it too.
Unfortunately, though, this is only the start of stuff being rather polarizing. :/
Mark, I don't know if it would be out of place to ask/suggest you put some sort of guide to "rating comments"? Like, the sort of things that would generally deserve one thumb or the other? (IE, well thought-out comments and awesome gifs vs. spoilers and trolls) I know it can't really be moderated, but at least it would be more consistent across the community?
I like this idea.
I've only been downvoting spoiler hounds, I think. There have been a LOT of opinions in the comment that vastly differ from my own re: this episode and Moffat as a writer, but, well, mostly of them have been well-expressed and backed up, so they won't be getting thumbs down from me, and I think that's my general rule. I might even give them a thumbs up. Apart from people thinking it's cool to discuss characters who are three seasons away, you've *generally* got a pretty cool community here, Mark.
Yeah, I make a point to downvote spoiler hounds, there was something on another page here that I just about screamed at because I want Mark to be unprepared for every episode and character.
Yeah, that's something I don't get. I'm not going to downvote someone's well-thought-out post because I don't agree with their opinion. What gives?
I agree. I've thumbed up a bunch of people I may not agree with because they made a point well and weren't insulting or obnoxious and yet I've seen certain kinds of comments get thumbs down and I just end up frowning at the screen wondering why. Then again I tend to hand thumbs up out like sweets.
Maybe it's the anomity of it?
Yeah, I really am not sure if I like the ratings system at all. I only downvote spoilery things or rudeness.
Same here, I make a point of especially downvoting the spoilery stuff. I want Mark to be unprepared for every character/episode/plot point/etc., dammit! XD
Although sometimes, I feel like it's pointing out a spoiler when someone's post is reasonably well articulated, but has -26 next to it, you know what I mean? Like Mark will look at it more closely when he sees the rating, which is probably paranoid of me haha!
BTW, I am so glad some people are still on here this late. I just got home from work and it seems like I missed loads tonight!
Yeah, I wonder about that sometimes myself. I try to only do it on the ones that, say, mention a specific episode by name or something. It's a fine line to walk, and I try very hard myself to err on the side of caution.
I know there are some comment systems where comments can be hidden if they have low ratings–does anyone know if IntenseDebate can do that?
I wasn't that moved or scared by this episode because I'm a cold-hearted woman*, but the conceit of it is just genius. The way the Doctor interacted with Reinette's life stood in for the way he interacts with all the humans he loves – while mere seconds pass for him, years pass for them, and he only really reads a few "pages" in the books of their lives. It's a far more graceful elaboration of the little speech Ten gave Rose in "School Reunion" about being unable to spend the rest of his life with her. It's so much worse than he made it sound: Not only will her outlive her; her life will basically last no longer than the flip of a page to him.
I think that S2 is losing some of the positivity of the hyper-positive existentialism Mark described previously. But at least this episode wasn't too whiny about it. Moffat's writing of RTD's characters is often a teensy bit off-continuity, and so we get Rose's sudden turnaround from resenting Mickey's presence on the TARDIS to gleefully guiding him through Companionhood 101, and her startling lack of jealousy of Reinette compared to Sarah Jane. But since Rose is infinitely better this way, I'm not complaining.
*Or possibly because hearing the Doctor being called an "angel" makes me snicker uncontrollably. That guy is about as far from being an angel as it's possible to be; to have him earnestly described as such is fairly ridiculous.
"The way the Doctor interacted with Reinette's life stood in for the way he interacts with all the humans he loves – while mere seconds pass for him, years pass for them, and he only really reads a few "pages" in the books of their lives. It's a far more graceful elaboration of the little speech Ten gave Rose in "School Reunion" about being unable to spend the rest of his life with her. It's so much worse than he made it sound: Not only will her outlive her; her life will basically last no longer than the flip of a page to him."
Oooh, I really like that. I hadn't really thought of this episode that way. Now I like it even more!
"*Or possibly because hearing the Doctor being called an "angel" makes me snicker uncontrollably. That guy is about as far from being an angel as it's possible to be; to have him earnestly described as such is fairly ridiculous. "
This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO MUCH THIS!!!
Yet she mind melded and thus knows him oh so well … guffaw!! XD
Agreed with Hypatia, that was a beautiful way of explaining it.
And yeah, the "lonely angel" bit is lulzy, but I love it all the same because I'm a sap.
The "lonely angel" epithet is nothing compared to some of the things Ten gets called, though, let's face it.
Did anyone else get a "Phantom of the Opera" vibe off that? Reinette calls him her "lonely angel" and "Angel of Music" starts playing in my head.
Chiming in with the "this is a beautiful way to describe it" consensus. And honestly, the episode did move me, and I love it, but I laughed at the "angel" thing too, so don't feel bad. ๐
The future holds at least two episodes I consider far scarier than anything you're seen so far. Mark: Your preparation is inadequate.
Augh, so conflicted. I love period costume, I love Moffatt's monsters, but I think this could have been a better story overall. I think Reinette, with more character development, could have been a great companion and/or love interest for the Doctor- she doesn't seem like she takes crap from anybody and she's very smart. Unfortunately, we didn't really have time to see much of that.
Also, going with my usual theme of bringing HP into everything: The Doctor is the bad side of Gryffindor in this episode. He's all about being the big damn hero to the point of risking the safety of his friends (leaving Rose and Mickey on their own) just so he can show off. I know the Doctor isn't perfect- I prefer him that way- but this is actually out of character, especially for Ten.
In short: I do enjoy this episode, but it makes me think of the Doctor as James Potter aged 15. DO NOT WANT.
James would have been a moronic example of ANY Hogwarts House, AMIRITE? ๐
I had the same feeling about the glorious costumes… I just wished that they hadn't only focused on Reinette being "then king's girlfriend" when mistresses were a lot more than that at the time (I, sadly, have no experience with modern mistresses, because I spend all my time reading in the corner like a good Geek).
Of course, the Doctor is his best as a Ravenclaw, as I'm pretty sure you'd agree (though sometimes I see people calling Gryffindor the "dumb jock House", which is a little harsh. After all, the Weasley twins, Neville, and Hermione make up for it)
Augh people, why do you insist on ruining my good opinion of Stephen Moffat? T_T I'd much rather live in ignorance of his sexist comments in interviews, thank you very much! Maybe that makes me a bad feminist, but I DON'T CARE.
Even so, as my stance on the Doctor's sexuality ranges from asexual to very rarely interested in humans, this episode is clearly not my cup of tea. The clockwork androids were scary and the period costumes were amazing, but otherwise there's not much I find outstanding about this ep.
Except for the scene where the Doctor pretends to be drunk. And when he smashes through the mirror on horseback. :3 (Though apparently David Tennant is allergic to horses, so D: for him.)
I rather doubt he was around the horse all that much. I'm sure the jump must have been a stunt double, because whoever it was sat it well. I'm pretty sure David Tennant isn't an accomplished equestrian :-).
According to Wikipedia, it was a stunt double on the horse, with Tennant's face superimposed after-the-fact.
Yes, definitely a stuntman, but he still must've had to be around it for a while. They shot a later episode in a building that is usually used as a stable, and in the commentary Tennant said even that made his allergies act up.
In the Confidential for this episode they showed the logistics of the horse scene and how they almost couldn't pull it off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU4peBoH-lo&fe…
Ouch, I never knew that about Tennant. Poor guy! ๐ Allergies suck.
A man riding a horse on a spaceship and crashing through a window into an 18th Century ballroom is a wonderful unique image, but (and if you think behind the scenes stuff spoils the illusion, look away now) David was never on the horse, the horse was never in the ballroom and window didn't exist at all.
And to think, my mum used to tell me `what can't speak can't lie`. ๐
Moffat teased people in advance by calling it "a thing on a thing going through a thing".
Apparently, they had Tennant on a horse in a riding school against a green screen, the stuntman doing the jump with Tennant's face painted on, but at no time did the horse (or the mirror) appear in the ballroom. Owners of expensive stately homes do not seem to like horses on their highly polished floors. Factoid is that Mr. Tennant is apparently mildly allergic to horses (needs to take an anti-histamine when around them) and there's rather a lof of Casanova outtakes which show him finding new and inventive ways to fall off the things (sideways in the background to one shot).
I'll have to join you in the Bad Feminist Corner, I simply love the way he writes and, right now, I'd rather stick my fingers in my ears that read all those awful things he says in interviews. "If it's not in the show, it doesn't exist", that's my new motto.
Ignorance is really a bliss.
Been there, been doing that for months. I know how you feel.
Bad Feminists for Steven Moffat: covering our metaphorical ears since 2005(ish)!
If you look hard enough to find a reason to take offense to something, you're more than likely going to find one.
Well, I don't see it as "people looking to be offended" as much as "writer says assholish things, people are offended".
I love his writing so I'm really not going out of my way to hate him, quite the contrary, but the quotes Karen posted earlier were disgusting.
To be honest, it's more like "people overreact to his poor word choice and use contrived and pedantic logic to expose him as sexist chauvinist."
Just because, or example, Rose getting upset because the Doctor is out partying while she and Mickey are about to be chopped up and used for parts doesn't make it Steven Moffat's great misogynist view of how bossy and controlling women are. Maybe it's just A BLEEDING CHARACTER WHO'S A BIT MIFFED BECAUSE THE DOCTOR WAS OFF PARTYING WHILE SHE AND MICKEY WERE ABOUT TO BE CHOPPED UP AND USED FOR PARTS. If you read too much into something, you see only what you want to see.
I think Moffat's interview quotes are pretty horrid and easy to be offended by, but I agree with your second paragraph. I think ANYONE, regardless of gender, would be ticked off if the Doctor was off getting blasted while they were nearly hacked into small bits, and they'd be quite right to. I was completely on Rose's side there, and in her position, I would've been rather salty in my language towards the Doctor. ๐ But then, this is a TV show, so they couldn't let any character do that.
Ehh, I don't think that Moffat's problematic views are entirely imagined by his detractors, but I do think sometimes it's overdone a bit. If he really believed everything that came out of his mouth and was recorded by an interviewer, I can't imagine his scripts would look the same.
I'm with you about Moffat and Feminism. I don't think that it makes you a bad Feminist. I think you can still enjoy things that are problematic, to a degree. I firmly believe that it is best to just ignore as much as you possibly can about creative people you admire. Twitter has ruined too many people for me.
That's how I feel too, I've resigned myself to liking some stuff while still admitting it is problematic.
You pretty much have to.
Exactly.
Moffat is married to one of the most powerful women in British tv, who is apparently the daughter of one of the other most powerful women in tv. However he has had experiences which (ahem) inform some of his writing, including having his "greatest fan" run off with his first wife. I understand that the name of that fan has been trashed many times in tv scripts since…
I find his comments funny and as much against himself as against women.
Love this one. Just love it. Some combination of the historical setting, the romantic subplot and the ultimate tragedy of it all is just fantastic. And I love that the Doctor never does figure out why the (really gorgeous) clockwork androids wanted her specifically. The reveal at the end, that the ship shared her name, is just the cherry on top of this perfect, Moffat-flavoured Who-sundae.
You get all the hugs from me, Mark, at least partly because I know that NO ONE could possibly be prepared for what's coming. WE'RE ALL RIGHT THERE WITH YOU~
Can we share the love of the spaceage clockwork? Absolutely beautiful!
I'm sorry we spoiled you, Mark! I love reading your take on things as they unfold, and without all the context that you get once you've seen all the eps/other stuff. As with MRHP, there's something special about getting a fresh perspective on a series you've gotten used to. Maybe we need pointing to the Spoiler Code of Doom again.
I like this episode. I see what people mean with their comments about characterisation but there are some episodes I enjoy just as standalones and this is one of them. I mean, come on — THERE IS A HORSE NAMED ARTHUR WHO FOLLOWS THE DOCTOR AROUND A SPACESHIP how delightful. ๐
Moffat is king. Totally heartbreaking. I can ship Doctor/Rose til the cows come home, and still believe the Doctor loved Reinette and the end is incredibly tragic ๐
And yeah. The opening scenes in her bedroom. Arrrrrrrgh.
There seems to be A LOT of debate about SM going on. I'll be honest and say i have issues with him, but if i explained them all then there would be catastrophic sized spoilers, so i won't.
Anyway back to the episode in question.
I like it, it's fun and cheeky, but i don't love it, it just doesn't press my emotional (basketcase) button.
It brings back childhood fears of the monsters under my bed who were waiting for me to put my arms and legs over the side of the bed so they could chop them off! (what? leave my irrational childhood fears alone!)
It's my least favourite Moff episode, but every writer has episodes that don't grab me as much as others.
Sophia Myles is gorgeous! The chemistry between her and David is obvious (though i always feel it comes from David more than Sophia), they ended up dating for a few years after meeting (for the second time) on this episode.
Murray's music is absolutely heartbreaking.
I love Arthur.
The clockwork dudes are creepy.
Reinette's letter to the Doctor is heartbreaking.
So many great one liners (that i've completely forgotten even though i watched this episode last night!).
I realised last night that Angel Coulby (A.K.A Gwen from Merlin) is in this episode! I had no idea.
Oh I just remembered this time sitting in the living room, looking up at the digital clock, and then realizing I could hear ticking. That moment was terrifying. Apparently my mother decided it would be good to get a 4" clock that ticked and hide it in the living room. It… there are no words.
WHY THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE DO THAT D: D: D:
As much as i loved this episode, it kinda disturbed me that the Doctor was so happy that he got snogged by Madam, even though she was a child a minute ago….i felt better once i saw that David had been dating the actress who played Madam, though….
the fire extinguishers/ice gun thing made me laugh though, and the banana daiquiri scene =D this was a good episode all in all.
there have been no icons/gifs, so that's what i'll do:
<img src="http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp152/klhill07/Icon/Batch3/S2/Girl_in_the_Fireplace.png" border="0">
……..this was my favorite ._.
That bothered me a little bit, too. It was a definite eyebrow raiser.
Accidental downvote! Sorry, I actually agree with you!
No problem.
Welcome to Fusion's Random Facts. I'm going to honor my favorite quote first.
“No! You’re not keeping the horse!” “Why not? I let you keep Mickey!”
Now time for facts.
A. Sophia Myles and Tennant dated soon after working on this episode. Anyone who looks at Myles can see why Tennant said yes to dating.
B.Some working titles were Madame de Pompadour, Every Tick of My Heart and Reinette and the Lonely Angel.
C. The actor who plays Mickey is a huge gamer. You could actually order the shirt he wears from the British Official Nintendo Magazine. Mickey's actor also has a DS.
D. Here's something that proves the talent of the editor. The horse was not allowed set foot in the ballroom in the climatic scene. The various elements of the Doctor riding Arthur through the mirror: the horse, the mirror breaking and the reactions of the extras in the ballroom, all had to be filmed at separate times and then composited together
E. Radio Times credits Jonathan Hart as Voice of Clockwork Man and Emily Joyce as Voice of Clockwork Woman.
F. Sophia Myles' dress in the ballroom scene was originally worn by Helen Mirren in The Madness of King George.
Any facts I missed?
Time for my regular Tardisode spot. This one goes straight for the scares…
Two pilots are at the controls of an unidentified spaceship. Suddenly, an ion storm hits the ship, causing chaos as lights start flashing and things start exploding, with the two pilots desperately trying to regain control. One of them shouts "Mayday!" as the scene blacks out.
Later, the same cockpit is now bathed in a red light and both of the pilots are on the floor, one presumably dead. An eerie tick-tock noise is heard. A shadow falls over the surviving pilot, who is at first relieved to see help. Her relief soon turns to terror, as she suddenly becomes scared of whatever is looming over her, and she screams. A clock face cracks – part of a clock situated on top of a fireplace…
Tardisode Fact: This is the only one for which a new set was specifically built.
Because I haven't posted around here enough today, I just want to add: ticking. Good job Moffat. The ticking of a clock is such a weird thing in that it goes by unnoticed for so long, but then once you pick up on it, it seems so prominent. Clocks are rather sneaky and a bit creepy that way.
I am a Doctor/Rose shipper.
I ADORE THIS EPISODE.
That's all.
Someone else may have already said this, but they needed her brain because their ship was called the RSS Madame DePompadour ๐
Also, this is my absolute favorite episode of this season and I'm so glad you loved it. I watch it EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY LIFE.
But they DID say why they chose reinette! The ship was called the Madame Du Pompador! This is one of my favorites, and not a little bit because it is set in France at VER-FRACKING-SAILLES! And also because I love Mdm. Du Pompadour in this episode. She is really and truly badass.
"And if my nightmare can return to plague me then, rest, assured, so can yours."
One may tolerate a world of demons for the sake of an angel.
Would everyone just please calm down. Such a commotion, such distressing noise! Kindly remember that this is Versailles. This is the royal court, and we are French.
Reinette: "Supposed to happen". What does that mean? It happened, child.
And there are so many wonderful quotes from this episode, but I think that I love the delivery the most.
I'm The Doctor. And I just snogged Madame de Pompadour!
the way that Rose says "magic door"
Now you're gettin' it!
I think i just invented the bananna daquiri!
^.^
I always love Steven Moffat's episodes. This one will never fail to make me cry.
Everyone who sees this should have a listen to this song – "Madame de Pompadour" composed by Murray Gold (the genius who does ALL the music, except the theme obviously as that was composed by Ron Grainer but Murray did arrange it to give it more bash boom wallop for the revival series). It's Reinette's theme. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1sadZktyos
I LOVE Murray Gold's music, it adds so much to the show!
Wonderful! And my favorite theme is still yet to come.
Yeah, that's totally true. (This whole thread is completely changing my opinion about Moffat, by the way. I actually had no idea he had such sexist attitudes in real life.) RTD's episodes often have silly monsters and cheesy premises, but they make an effort to actually say something (or at least they do this early in the series). Moffat's good at pandering to primal fears, which makes his episodes, perhaps, more immersive at first… but they don't mean anything at all. It really is more like the mindless entertainment a lot of old-school fans accuse New Who of.
I adore this episode, ot ranks up there amongst my favourite of New Who eppys. This is partly due to my love of the period, allowing me to overlook any faults.
"Reinette (Madame de Pompadour) experiences the events over the course of fifteen years."
More like thirty – she's thirty seven when they come for her brain. It bugged me that she didn't age throughout her teens and twenties. Maybe if I were more hip to historical fashion I would have noticed that the styles of her dresses changed, but as it is it was too subtle a thing.
"It’s never quite explained why the androids chose Reinette, of all people,"
Not aloud. The ship is the SS Madame de Pompadour; we see in the very end the camera pans away from the ship and the name is on the hull. Thus the "we are the same" thing.
I WANT(ED) DAVID AND SOPHIA TO GET MARRIED AND HAVE LOTS OF RIDICULOUSLY GORGEOUS BABIES. ๐
Also, this was my very first episode of Doctor Who (aside from the TV MOVIE OF WHICH WE DO NOT SPEAK) so its status as one of my favorites, and Ten as My Doctor, might be due to some bias, admittedly.
I feel left out that I'm not in a rage about this episode. Then I remember that line where the robot was telling the doctor about how they needed parts for their ship and Mickey was like "isn't that what it always comes down to, the parts."
Yes why wouldn't a ship need parts when it breaks down, like anything else? WTF why did they have him laughing while he was saying that, there wasn't really anything funny about it or even really making sense there, SCREW YOU MOFFAT THAT LINE TOTALLY SUCKS AHGIPWGAktdfk.
I think he was laughing because he works repairing cars so he knows a lot about replacing parts and such. So, to him it was like: "board a spaceship, travel through time and space and then go back to talking about repairing stuff, which is what you do best."
I guess he found it ironic and that's why he laughed.
Also mechanics of all sorts are renowned, at least in the UK, for shaking their heads and saying "sorry, haven't got the parts" before adding a load of money to the bill and load of time for how long it has to take.
Oh, I didn't know that, I mean it's the same in my country but there's not like a stereotype of it. Thanks!
Hahaha, I'm sorry, I misread you a bit! I rage/lol about the Lonely Angel bit, it will never stop being silly to me.
*sigh* I really liked this episode the first time I saw it (granted I am easily entertained), but now after reading through the comments here, I don't think I can appreciate it so whole-heartedly again. Steven Moffat, you are an awesome writer, but your casual sexism revolts me.
'He's a man'
Really? That's your escuse for the Doctor being an insensitive jerkface to Rose and Mickey this episode ? Way to denigrate your entire gender.
Mental Note: Never read any future interviews of Moffats.
Ugh, Moffat's clockwork robots. What lives in this man's mind, I don't even know.
Oddly, I didn't like this episode, probably because of the romance. This season felt to me like it was really shipping Doctor/Rose and I hated it, so more romance made me more annoyed.
That and Louis XV was attractive. He was not an attractive man. But then, it's television, so I'm just being nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky.
As to why they fixated on Reinette, didn’t you see the name of the ship at the end?
It’s never quite explained why the androids chose Reinette, of all people
Um, actually it was explained. This was shown just before the credits.
<img src="http://pics.livejournal.com/gcg2004/pic/000fkys0.jpg" width="225" height="151" alt="SS Madame De Pompadour" />
I think that depends on the person, and shouldn't be taken as a general truth. I've found that his 'shock factor' episodes are some of my favourite to rewatch, even though I know what is coming in any subsequent viewing. There is more to it than just the shock – there is how that one aspect of the story is woven into the greater episode/the Who universe. I have no trouble overlooking a 'lack of shock', and don't find that it makes the episode any less in re-viewing.
Well – so long as it was an episode I enjoyed in the first place ๐
Pingback: Check out my FB profile
Great web site. A lot of helpful information here. I am sending it to some pals ans also sharing in delicious. And of course, thank you to your sweat!
Good blog! I truly love how it is easy on my eyes and the data are well written. I’m wondering how I might be notified when a new post has been made. I’ve subscribed to your RSS feed which must do the trick! Have a nice day!
Pingback: property & casualty insurance
Pingback: garmin nuvi 1490t
Pingback: Brookline apartments
Pingback: mitsubishi eclipse for sale
Pingback: test nissan juke
Pingback: Immigration solicitors
Pingback: Boston Apartments
Pingback: Conveyancing