Sherlock - BBC [4]

halfwise wrote:Wai...you folks have been passionately arguing whether Moffat should be allowed to write lesbian couples, when one of those involved happens to be a lizard?!

This discussion has gone completely off the deep end.  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Blue- I said your axe grinding was inexplicable- or at least unexplained as you or Figg never source it in the writing only in opinion of the writing. Which is not the same thing. (Look at Figg's response the Kate thing above- when faced with the evidence from the
show of what her actions actually are her reply is just to say 'nah' in denial- the debate equivalent of just closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears because the evidence contradicts the belief Moffat cant write competent women- and a lot of the arguments made against Moffat seem to have this level of sophistication to them)

How can we have a civilised debate when you resort to personal slights in order to bolster your position?

Nor have I ever claimed Moffat was always right- and I have been critical of episodes he has written in the past, of this and of Sherlock. He has his tropes, some I enjoy more than others, he has his idiosyncrasies of writing, I like some of those more than others.

But overall I think the hostility levelled at him by a noisy minority comes from an odd place- as it seem not only not evident in his writing but the guy has done way more than most writers of commercial mainstream television to put women in prominent roles throughout his writing career.

The noisy minority? yet more derogatory name calling. Do you feel so threatened that you have to resort to this?

And as I said above liking his characters is subjective- but the accusations thrown at him (on this thread alone in the past it has been claimed he actively tries to prevent women from working on Doctor Who!) are so far out of kilter with the evidence of his writing that it must be called into question.
And I have so far seen no evidence brought forward directly from his writing which supports any career spanning hatred of women, or sexist direction to his writing.

You have been given pages and pages of evidence but you reject all of it.

halfwise wrote:Could we just move this all to the Who thread and be done with it?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You seem to take criticism of moffat personally. - Figg

My problem Figg is how often those who do not enjoy his work, instead of say, you know, not watching his stuff, choose instead to make personal attacks, slurs and questionable comments about the man himself, and seem to think not being a fan of his writing allow for this or justifies it.

I don't make comments about him as a person, I make comments on his writing. If he writes sexist nonsense I will say so, I don't need to resort to 'slurs'. There is a great difference between criticism of him as a person and him as a writer. You seem to lump them both together and get defensive, and confuse the two.

Its well known my dislike for PJ's Tolkien adaptations- but they haven't altered one iota my admiration for his directing skills, my love of some of his other works, or the hope he will not screw up a Who episode and just do what I think he dos best and just direct one.

This is pure rank hypocracy. You have in the past slagged off PJ hundreds of times and made personal comments about him and his wife. You coined the flattering phrase 'The Coven' you have rained derision on him for years. The level of hypocracy you are labouring under is quite astounding.

What I dont do is seriously question his character, I dont see evidence that putting a clumsy awkward out of place love triangle in TH films for example makes PJ a hater of all women and an obvious sexist- yet had Moffat done the same thing there are those on here who immediately would have used it as an excuse to say so and to make personal attacks on Moffat. Its just name calling.

Nobody thinks PJ is a sexist for introducing Tauriel and the love triangle. Everybody knows it was about pandering to the studio. sexism does not figure in that instance, so its not a good example. Your second point is just coming from having a defensive attitude to legitimate criticisms. its not just the people on this forum who have problems with Moffats output. Moffat does have some good skills, such as stylistic, he can produce very stylish products I will give him that.

If you take a character like Ms Delcroix- my own view is that she was underwritten, underused and we didnt get enough time with her to make her a fully rounded villian (for that among other reasons I think Time Heist should have been a two parter) but to say she is sexist, that she is the only sort of character Moffat can write is clearly a nonsense- and if she is sexist then so are a whole host of other Who villians no one on here as ever had a problem with from RTD era- like the Nanny in the Adipose episode or the Head of Torchwood- Ms Delacroix is a Who villain in exactly that mould.

We didn't need to take a lot of time with her to understand. The shorthand they used was blatantly obvious and not very subtle, her dress, attitude were all a bit dominatrix pantomime villain. She wasn't interesting, and I doubt anyone is clamouring to see more of her. I imagine she has largely been forgotten as a stereotypical 'Moffat female' with nothing deeper to give. Moffat has better luck with male characters.

So not only is there unwarranted mudslinging at Moffat, its also selective. Where he is accused of things his predecessor is not when they are the same thing, for no other reason than the person making the attacks prefers RTD's writing style.

according to you. from where I am standing people have merely expressed their opinion without any mudslinging. You are over sensitive to ANY criticism of Moffat and immediately jump on anyone who dares.

There is nothing wrong in arguing the merits of both writers styles, but to use it as an excuse to make non joking personal attacks on the writers character I find uncomfortable, unwarranted and often, simply put, vile.

see above and hypocracy. nobody on this forum has attacked Moffat as a human being. you insistence that we have is a bit worrying

And as such I do defend against that with some vigour because I find it so distasteful.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I don't make comments about him as a person, I make comments on his writing. - Figg

What? You have said in the past such things as the reason there are few female writers on the show is because Moffat has a secret agenda to actively prevent women from working on the show- what has that got to do with his writing? Its just a unfounded conspiracy theory type attack on his person.

That has nothing to do with him as a private person, its about his possible hypothetical professional agenda. you are confusing the two. Again.

'This is pure rank hypocracy. You have in the past slagged off PJ hundreds of times and made personal comments about him and his wife. You coined the flattering phrase 'The Coven' you have rained derision on him for years. The level of hypocracy you are labouring under is quite astounding.'

If you note I made a clear distinction between comment made in humour and those made in seriousness.
The term the 'coven; is and always has been meant ironically, precisely because they are women. If you go back to the old forum stuff and find the original controversy that arose over the term you will find this was the case.
And I have rained derision on what they produced, not on them as individuals or PJ.

and I rained derision on what Moffat has produced. pot calling kettle black.

In fact I have many times stated my liking for PJ;s early work and style, that I think he is still a gifted director, just a terrible adapter of Tolkien and stroy teller, and that I would, with reservation,like to see him direct an epiosd eof Who, I even said in the past that #if I were to get a chance to speak with him there would be more we held in common in our likes of film than we have in discommon.
My position has always been clear- I use humorous 'petty' language to talk of Pj and the Coven in relation to films (making them almost caricatures of the real thing) and about the people themselves I only ever have called into question character over issues where they seem,in press briefings, to have been deliberately misleading in public- such as over the appendices use.

...so if I use 'humorous language' to talk about Moffat is that more acceptable to you?

'The shorthand they used was blatantly obvious and not very subtle, her dress, attitude were all a bit dominatrix pantomime villain. She wasn't interesting, and I doubt anyone is clamouring to see more of her. I imagine she has largely been forgotten as a stereotypical 'Moffat female' with nothing deeper to give. Moffat has better luck with male characters.'

Here is Ms Delacroix-



She is power hungry, she is a bit strict and dominatrix, and she heads a powerful organisation, a position she abuses to her own ends.

see most of Moffats female villains...yawnworthy dominatrix with an eye patch..

Here is the head of Torchwood, RTD era-



She is power hungry, she is a bit strict and dominatrix, and she heads a powerful organisation, a position she abuses to her own ends.

Hell if Moffat had even dressed one of his female villains like her you would be first in line to claim it as proof of his treatment of women.

But your original statement could just as easily apply to Torchwood lady and read-

'We didn't need to take a lot of time with her to understand. The shorthand they used was blatantly obvious and not very subtle, her dress, attitude were all a bit dominatrix pantomime villain. She wasn't interesting, and I doubt anyone is clamouring to see more of her. I imagine she has largely been forgotten as a stereotypical 'RTD female' with nothing deeper to give. RTD has better luck with male characters.'

This is exactly what I mean when I say you are hypocritical in how you see mofffat- the standard you hold Moffat to is one you give RTd a totally free pass on- even when RTD it way more blatantly than Moffat ever has such as with cleavage lady above, or having the female companion possessed as a means to make a suggestive series of jokes about her own body and how bouncy it is, whilst feeling her own curves up and down, or when he inserts an oral sex joke into an episode with a monster created by a Blue Peter competition winner, a child.

nobody criticises RTD for sexism, because it doesn't exist. conveniently you forget that small point.

If it ever seemed that you judged like for like I would be more inclined to view your points as more than just some strange hatred of Moffat that you do not apply to other tv writers.

' Everybody knows it was about pandering to the studio. sexism does not figure in that instance, so its not a good example.'

Someting you never consider for Moffat. For example at the time of the 50th there were a lot of complaints about the lack of any classic companions in it- we now know the reason for this- the BBC explicitly told Moffat he couldn't have any as they weren't footing the budget for them, end of.

We have no idea how often this sort of thing happens.

We know Matt Smith proffered the alternative version of his final episode, which was darker, the Doctor lost a leg in the siege of Trenzalore, and it had a different ending and speech- but who choose the one we saw? Who made the decision the original cut was too dark? We will probably never know.

You derided Moffat at the time as sexist for the scene where the Doctor kisses Jenny- we now know that scene was improvised and thought up by Matt Smith, the slap was the actress input to the improv, the director liked it, the editor kept it in- most likely by the time it came to Moffat for him to say, 'no I dont like that' redoing it means rebuilding the set, getting all the actors back in, spending expensive hours matching the lighting back up, and reshooting the scene. Alternatively they just leave it as is and use the time and money for the stuff they still have to shoot. All these decisions are going on all the time.

Not only me, but hundreds of people criticised that scene as being sexual violence. Just because Matt Smith like it does not make it right. and of course Moffat wouldn't get any problem with it. are you seriously saying they left in a dodgy scene for economic reasons? that's pathetic as an excuse.

But you pile every flaw you see on Moffats head as if as showrunner he magically controls the BBC and the budget and the scheduling and is present for the shooting of every scene and sitting in every editing suite on every episode. When in fact he is a consent fight for budget, resources, time, actors, directors, writers ect with the BBC.

'You are over sensitive to ANY criticism of Moffat and immediately jump on anyone who dares.'

If the criticisms is founded in the writing and seems well backed up with the evidence I will always listen to it. What I am sensitive too is when the complaints are just thinly veiled attacks on the writer and are never supported with evidence.

I have given you pages and pages and pages and examples coming out my ass. you ignore everything.


'you insistence that we have is a bit worrying'

I could go back through the threads of Who and simply quote occasions where you have done so- I have already highlighted one accusation you have made which has nothing to do with his writing and has no basis in any known facts- I really dont want to have to trawl for other occasions, we both know they exist and I know how much you hate it when I do pull up old quotes like that so Id rather not.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:its about his possible hypothetical professional agenda- Figg

This is exactly what I mean- it has nothing to do with is writing- because you object to his writing you are putting forth the argument that he is a criminal- sexual discrimination in the work place is illegal. Yet you think it quite justified to publicly accuse him of something for which there is no evidence what so ever simply because it goes along with your own opinion of how he writes female characters?
This is exactly what I mean by unwarranted, unfounded attacks upon his person which has nothing to do with is writing and everything to do with the size of the axe you seem to have grind with him.

don't exaggerate. its silly.

'nobody criticises RTD for sexism, because it doesn't exist. conveniently you forget that small point.'

And this is a perfect example of your hypocrisy and how you treat the two writers completely differently in the ame circumstances. The two character are all but the same in there purpose and presentation, save the RTD version is more overtly sexualised in dress and mannerism and more overtly dominatrix.

nope. its not hypocracy if its true.

Yet you choose to only see one version, Moffats as sexist. When a simple look at how they appear in episode above clearly shows RTD's version is more dominatrix and more sexual.
But they are essentially the exact same character and type of Who villian.

'Just because Matt Smith like it does not make it right.'

Thats not what I said- I said Smith improved it. Moffat neither wrote it, was present for the filming of it, or made the directorial choice to retain it and its unlikely he happened to be sitting in when it was edited either. Yet you deride him for it.

its his show its his responsibility.

And I think millions is somewhat overstating it- if you look to check and see how many complaints the BBC received about that scene it was, none at all.

if it makes that acceptable to you, keep on with the denial. not really fussed at this point. No matter what anyone says you are going to continue attacking anyone with any means necessary if they criticise Moffat. Its pointless debating with you. feel free to carry on your own, you will be blowing in the wind. I am done with this nonsense.

halfwise wrote:Could we just move this all to the Who thread and be done with it?

Norc wrote:like i did try to talk sherlock but i feel ignored, bad frum-etiquette!