Moffat vs Davies: The Doctor Who Face-Off

Doctor Who fandom is a very strange, varied, and fervent lot. You have your old-school fans who look upon the new series and its fandom as trendy knockoffs and posers. You have your new fans that started with Tennant or Smith, and have never seen so much as a single episode of the original series. You have fans that love both, and fans that viciously tear apart characters and creators aside from their own personal favourites. Myself, I'm aware of the flaws in the series, the sometimes stilted storytelling and cheap effects of the classics and the weird pacing and oft-too intense focus on romance in the new series, but love the show for all of its flaws and and successes. My favourite Doctor, for the record, is Sylvester McCoy (7), and my least-favourite is one I still have a great deal of respect for, Jon Pertwee (3).

Russell T. Davies was the man who launched the show again in 2005. He was the one who cast Eccleston and Tennant, the one who created Rose Tyler, and the man responsible for the show's rebirth. He's also the man who brought us the farting Slitheen, the blowjob paving stone, and season 2 Rose Tyler. But he was progressive in a good way, introducing a lot of diverse characters and giving them some depth. We wouldn't have Captain Jack Harkness (wink, smile) without him, and he was beloved by much of fandom for this.

About six months or so before it was even announced, there was a great disturbance in the force. Steven Moffat, who had brought us "Blink", "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances" (Everybody lives!), and "The Girl in the Fireplace" (sob) was to take over the show from RTD. Maybe it's hyperbole, maybe it's me mis-remembering, but I'm sure there were cries of misogyny before "The Eleventh Hour" even aired. According to a very vocal section of fandom, Moffat hates women. Moffat's female characters are terrible. But what's the truth?

Your combatants, picture courtesy whatculture.com

I seem to be making a habit of shittingon waifus lately, so let's dive in.

• Rose Tyler: I like series 1 Rose Tyler. I do. She's a sweet, well-meaning girl from a rough neighbourhood who has a very small life. She's got a boyfriend she's not too serious about, and at this point in her life, they're good for each other. Then she starts traveling with the Ninth Doctor and her universe expands. She faces death without blinking. She saves the day a few times herself and points out the obvious when Nine overlooks it. But somewhere in the first 20 minutes or so of Series 2's "Tooth and Claw", she starts turning obnoxious and gobby, and her entire character devolves into fawning over the pretty 10th Doctor as she grows more and more detached from her roots.

• Martha Jones: This one irritates me greatly. Martha is an accomplished young medical student, a doctor-in-training herself, ready to accept the fantastical and jump in with both feet. She maintains this greatness save for one flaw that destroys her character: she's got a crush on the 10th Doctor, and you can see the huffy sighs and irritated eye-rolling every time he mentions Rose. It isn't until she's forced to save the world herself that she finally realizes that she's got to get away from him, as it's unhealthy for her.

• Donna Noble: Donna started off gobby and obnoxious, but in a relatable way. She's older than previous companions, but still working a shit job and living at home. She remains gobby and obnoxious, but grows into a more confident and capable person along the way. Then it's all undone with a tear-jerking slide back into mediocrity by the end with amnesia that will explode her head if she ever remembers and regains that confidence and competence.

• Kylie Minogue: Kylie Minogue in a sexy cocktail waitress dress.

• The Lady Christina de Souza: GOD DAMMIT RTD YOU COCKTEASE

I weep for what could have been.

So that's RTD. I am unimpressed. Let's look at Moffat.

• Amelia “Amy” Pond: Let's just overlook the fact that she's a nearly six foot tall Glaswegian redhead that seems genetically engineered to turn my head; Amy Pond is a mess. When we meet her she is working as a stripper (shut up, she's a stripper, it's a family show so they play it off as kiss-o-gram) and is emotionally unbalanced because of the promise of adventure that is ripped away from her as a child (YOU SAID FIVE MINUTES!!). She's got a boyfriend whose relationship with her she promptly denies in their first encounter with the Doctor, and then proceeds to walk all over him, pushing him around and generally giving him no say in their relationship, to the point of passive-aggressing him into divorce before a forced reconciliation. Amy Pond is complex. She's a properly human and fleshed-out character. She's not a very pleasant person, but she's interesting.

• River Song: Controversial, this one. A lot of people can't stand River, and it's probably due to her first few appearances, coming onto the scene like a proper Mary Sue, with all the air of an established character with her 'sweeties' and her 'spoilers.' I've heard a lot of complaints thrown in Moffat's direction about how a 'strong female character' was brought low by being turned first into a lunatic and then into a simpering weak woman. The problem is, that's proper character development, but shown in reverse, because we're seeing most of her life in reverse order to the Doctor's timeline. River is born on Demon's Run, kidnapped as a baby by religious zealots and brainwashed into finding and murdering the Doctor before escaping, regenerating into a rebellious young child who grows up with Amy, then regenerating again when meeting the Doctor, attempting to murder him before breaking her programming, then kidnapped and re-programmed to kill him again. She then spends time in prison and the timeline is fuzzy, but by the time we meet her in her first appearance she's the capable and confident badass and has retroactively earned that sass she displays. An interesting experiment in character building that I enjoyed the more I watched.

• Clara Oswald: Clara spent a year as a temporal construct, a person split into many people that existed for a short time long enough to save the Doctor from the Great Intelligence before he figured out the mystery that she was and retrieved her from the temporal winds of his own timeline. We don't meet the real Clara Oswald until the 50th anniversary special, where she begins to grow as a character, free from her duty to protect the Doctor from an omnipresent enemy. By the first episode with Capaldi's 12th Doctor, we have a much clearer picture of her: She's a teacher. She's got a life outside the TARDIS, and uses the Doctor as a weekend getaway. She's got control issues, and doesn't entirely trust him. She's incredibly awkward around someone she's got a romantic interest in, and adorably he mirrors that. And after the tragic events of last series finale, she's got even more room to grow.

Pictured: Control Issue.

In conclusion, I'm going to state very firmly that Steven Moffat writes better women than Russell T. Davies did. I say this for two reasons:

1. Moffat's companions don't define themselves by a romantic interest in the Doctor.
2. They're complex and relatable people.

I will credit Davies with Donna Noble (until her last episode), but that's all he's getting from me.

“I'm not your boyfriend, Clara.”

“I never thought you were.”

“I never said it was your mistake...”

Dr. Pym or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Ride the Marvel Hype Train

“I’d ask ridiculous questions all the time. Peyton Reed, he just kept saying, ‘Dude, just do it.’ But I’d say, ‘I don’t understand. Does the mask go up this way or this way?’ And there’s a visual effects guy there and I want an answer. They got so tired of my questions: ‘So I don’t understand — If I was just over there, how did I get over here so quick?’ Reed would be like, ‘Cannavale, it’s a superhero movie, dude. Just do it!’ But I’d say, ‘Yeah, but do I have superhuman speed, because I was just three blocks away and now I’m here and I’m not even out of breath. Should I be out of breath?’ He’d be like, ‘Dude, it’s not ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being.’ It’s just [frick]ing ‘Ant-Man’. Just say the line.’ Then it just became a joke. I had a blast. We laughed so much on that thing.”

Dude, it’s not ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being.’ It’s just [frick]ing ‘Ant-Man’.

The words above these words come from Ant-Man director Peyton Reed, by way of co-star Bobby Cannavale. Peyton Reed is the 3rd director to be attached to the Ant-Man film, which has been in development hell since before the MCU even started. Peyton Reed’s previous credits include the Jim Carrey turd Yes Man, Bring it On, and Back to the Future: The Ride. In other words, Peyton Reed is a soulless, corporate yes-man who’s integrity only stretches as far as his bank account. This makes him the perfect director for Ant-Man.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Edgar Wright had a vision. Edgar Wright imagined an Ant-Man film that adapted the “To Steal An Ant-Man” story arc. Scott Lang, a career criminal desperate for redemption, steals the Ant-Man suit from Hank Pym in a desperate bid to save his daughter Cassie, who is dying from a rare and fatal heart condition.

Initially, Marvel bent over backwards for Edgar Wright to make this film. You know how in Avengers, Hawkeye and Black Widow are founding members of the team? You can thank Edgar Wright for that. Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne basically have a birthright to the core Avengers roster, but Marvel wrote them out so Edgar could make his precious Ant-Man film.

And then Edgar quits, appearing butt-blasted over “big corporations”. Who did he think he was fucking working for? Yes, Scott Pilgrim was awesome, but it was also a box office bomb. Edgar Wright is an incredibly talented director, with a great eye for what makes comic book movies work. But he’s also a liability. And rather acting like an adult and compromising after 12 years of constant compromise, he did the 21st century equivalent of shitting his pants and then blaming the diaper for not holding it well enough.

Honestly though, maybe Edgar Wright did Marvel a favor. They’ve always been embarrassed by the Ant-Man character, specifically Hank Pym. Dr. Pym’s resume includes creating Ultron, discovering Pym Particles, and founding a superjail located in the N-Zone. None of these facts matter to the pop-culture omniverse, however. His real legacy? Beating his wife. Spider-Man is a troubled teenager, Daredevil is blind, and Ant-Man loves domestic violence.

So sure, Marvel, make Hank Pym old and have Michael Douglas play him. Have Wasp be dead before the film even starts. Why not? Ant-Man sucks, after all. He’s a stupid hero! All he can do is control ants! Ha, what a loser!

At the end of this trailer, Yellowjacket (who is the villain for some presumably stupid reason) cowers in fear, shielding himself from Thomas the Tank Engine. This is a metaphor for how Marvel plans to move forward with their cinematic universe. Yellowjacket represents Edgar Wright, Joss Whedon, or anyone else who tries to slow them down with independent thought. Thomas the Tank Engine represents the sheer power of corporate greed, and the fact that not even God himself will slow Marvel down.

They’re just getting started.

Defending the Batgirl Cover

As of the time this is published, indeed as of the time that I write this, I already know it's too late. The artist of the cover to Batgirl #41, under pressure from a mob of neo-Puritanical zealots, has requested that DC not use his artwork for Batgirl #41. I no longer have a dog in this fight, but I refuse to give up completely.

To Mr. Rafael Albuquerque: your cover was fantastic. It upset some people, and that's okay. It was supposed to. It was art, and art is often upsetting. And pleasing. And evocative, scary, titillating. And inspiring. And when it comes to Batgirl, it was inspiring.

Not because, as some complete numpties have suggested, because I as the reader was supposed to identify with the Joker and feel a sense of power over Batgirl. That's, pardon me, fucking ridiculous. How the hell do you seriously suggest that someone identifies with Joker? There's not just something wrong with Joker, there's very nearly nothing right with Joker. Another few mis-wired neurons, and the man would probably not be able to sit up straight or feed himself. Anyone who thinks that the audience is supposed to identify with Joker has something seriously wrong with themselves. And I welcome any accusations of ableism that statement brings.

No, Mr. Rafael Albuquerque, it inspired me because I knew by the end of the story, Barbara would overcome the fear shown in her eyes, and being the character I identify with in the book (that's right, neo-Puritanical zealots, a cis-het-white-dude can identify with a formerly disabled woman) that inspires me. I've had some really dark, really low points in my life, and it was around then that I picked up Birds of Prey for the first time. I'd had no idea what had happened to Barbara Gordon since the tragic events of The Killing Joke, but what I saw was amazing, and I fell in love with the character ever since. A lesser person would have allowed themselves to be relegated to the background, but not Barbara Gordon. She became even more indispensable to the DCU than ever. Seeing her on that cover, I knew she'd overcome her greatest fear: Joker and a gun. Because that's what Barbara Fucking Gordon does.

It's a human character that has one great, paralyzing fear. No pun intended.

I am shamed that you may have received threats and harassment over your commissioned artwork by the comics fans (the official word is you didn't, but I was watching the hashtag. I know what I saw), but I also feel that you're apologizing to the wrong people. I really don't believe it's the actual fans of Batgirl that are giving you grief over this. You had nothing to apologize for.

To Cameron Stewart: You didn't so much throw Rafael under the bus as you drove said bus yourself. And then backed up over him.And then drove for 17 blocks with him stuck to the undercarriage of the bus. Nice job.

Which leads me to DC: You've capitulated to the formless cacophony of people that not only weren't going to buy your product in the first place, but would likely have found something “problematic” with whatever you put out, even if it were a relaunch of Archie Comics where Betty and Veronica realize they don't need Archie, form a relationship with each other, then set out to smash the Patriarchal culture that Jughead reinforces.

I had empathy for you, though, up until now. It hasn't been easy, I know, watching Marvel drag itself out of the financial collapse, dust itself off, and become an entertainment powerhouse whilst simultaneously playing a long game at easing into diversity in a natural way. And you were catching up. It wasn't as fluid or as smooth as Marvel's changes, but it was there. When they stumbled with Thora (a blatantly unlikeable character that's only been positively received among those whose ideology is being blatantly pandered to). But following up Gail Simone's powerhouse writing with cheap-webcomic art and a writer that openly referred to the title as “sjw”? I'm not sorry anymore that it's resulted in accusations of transphobia and reinforcing rape culture.

By editorial mandate, you have undone years of hard work on a character that is very personal to me, and that's a bed I'm content to let you lie in. I was prepared to sit out Cameron Stewart's run and check back in when a new creative team took the lead, but since buckling to #changethecover, I no longer have faith in the creative direction that could possibly be taken. Any risk in storytelling will, going forward, be measured against the possible social media backlash by people that feel no connection to the character or her stories and wouldn't have purchased the final product anyway.

DC, my trust is broken. I'll go back and read through Birds of Prey again. I'll read Gail Simone's run on Batgirl again. I'll go back and read Batgirl: Year One, and even the Cassie Cain and Stephanie Brown stories where Barbara is mentoring them. I'll even go rewatch that painful Birds of Prey TV series for Dina Meyer's excellent Babs, but I'm scared to come back to you now, as it's clear you're not writing for the fans. I'll leave you to your drunk party girl Batgirl and smiley selfie covers. I hear there's a great writer doing some good stuff over at Dynamite with Red Sonja in the meantime.

As for the rest of you: In response to "just how wrong Barbara's tears are", compare that cover to this video. This is probably the most messed up thing I've seen in Batcanon. (Spoilers for Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker)

Love it or hate it, why people should shut up about Big Bang Theory being "offensive to nerds"

This entry just might be the closest thing to "inflammatory" I've written. 

Let's get this out right now: I love the Big Bang Theory. Most of my "nerd" friends love the show. It's a show.  All of us have the good sense to suspend our disbelief and disassociate ourselves from the exaggerated characters, because at the end of the day, they are exactly that: caricatures.  When I was growing up in a standard middle class family, we didn't bitch about "Rosanne's" white-trashiness.  I didn't hear about talk radio personalities or psychiatrists raving about the neurosis of "Doctors Frasier and Niles Crane".  No journalists were ranting about "questioning journalistic integrity" of Murphy Brown and the crew at FYI: we still embraced the characters. Quirks and all. Every 6 months or so, people flare up against BBT's "stereotypes":

"Psh, girls can't walk into a comic book store?" 

"Intelligent guys are fumbling and awkward around pretty women?" 

"Nerds can't defend themselves against bigger guys?".  

Yes, a comic book store's larger demographic is still mostly male between 18 and 35.  Girls aren't *forbidden*, in fact more and more females are coming into any given comic book shop to make purchases.  The atmosphere of the store and the attitude of the staff are *HUGE* factors in this. But, more often then not it's guys that walk through the door.  It's not a hard and fast rule of the universe, but it's an observation on the world as I've experienced it. 

Maybe it's not the sex of the person walking into a comic book store, but those particular characters.  They don't frequent that shop because their interest in the subject is lacking, therefore the semi-blank stares they get when they enter the comic book shop doors are met with stares from its patrons because the patrons can tell these people don't come in here often.   If I walked into a sports memorabilia store donning my Green Lantern shirt and Doctor Who Fez, I'm sure they'd consider me shopping for someone else.  

Yes, intelligent guys can get too "inside their own head" when they find a girl attractive and it makes it difficult to make a successful first impression. I'm *married* and I still have those moments.  Guys aren't alone, though: it happens to girls too.  Because as a human being, it's in our nature to want other human beings to like us.  People with lower inhibitions don't tend to see it that way, but for some of us that would give a second thought to almost every. action. It can get kind of annoying inside our heads. 

No, a lot of "nerds" can't (sometimes won't) defend themselves when it comes to physical altercations. I'm not a small guy, but given the opportunity, I'd probably duck and cover in a fight (or, ya know, run away if I was directly involved.)

Ever since the emergence of "Reality TV", people seem to find it harder and harder to be able to tell the difference between that and true "scripted television".  It's starting to get to a point where shows need a disclaimer before it starts: "WARNING: These are characters created by writers in a room. They are not real people. They are exaggerations of, at *best*, a sampling of people the writers have observed within a radius of a single city block. CALM DOWN." 

Whenever people bring up this subject, no one looks back and craps on the 1984 comedy "Revenge of the Nerds". The styles might have changed, but these characters aren't any less awkward, socially inept, and generally stereotyped caricatures of an "unpopular sub-culture".  Honestly, I still love "Revenge of the Nerds" as well.  I never felt slighted by its portrayal of "nerds and geeks".

I think one of the more recent BBT flare-ups has been exacerbated by the upcoming "King of the Nerds" (speaking of Robert Carradine), a reality game show premiering on TBS later this month. Am I going to watch it? Probably not.  I generally avoid almost all "reality TV". Am I going to picket against it and spew "nerdrage boycott" rantings all over the internet? No.  Do I think the contestants represent myself or any of my friends? I don't know: I don't know those people personally and I know how those shows are edited in a specific fashion. None of this affects my daily life.  The airings of these shows don't affect how I am perceived or how I interact with people. Do you know what does? My interactions with people. Apparently, the only thing that bothers me is when people get on a soapbox about how these shows "shed a negative light on our sub-culture".  People a lot smarter than myself have thoroughly enjoyed themselves by being involved with the show, be it an episode (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking and Steve Wozniak) to show regulars (Mayim Bialik)   So let's sit down together as human beings and enjoy some entertainment that some people made up.

Thank you.

Ross Demma is the author of Christmas Fire as well as other comics. He comes to us from sunny Tucson where you don't need a fire to make s'mores..just a cute purple dragon and some of the natural heat. The Big Bang Theory Pint Glass Set 4 Pk (Google Affiliate Ad)