thoughts on DW prequel

[sebastienne]

Moffat, is it vitally important for you to show us all of your sex-object women as small children? Clara, Amy, River, Reinette; even with Nancy (who's really part of a different Moffat tradition, womb-worship) we thought she was a "girl" and then it turned out she was a "woman". This obsession is REALLY CREEPY. It also makes it impossible for the Doctor to have safe, adult, consensually negotiated relationships with these women when they've all imprinted on him under the age of ten!

Don't get me wrong, I am super-excited for this new half-season! I could just do without the same-old.

Comments

[thefairymelusine]

It's like it's J.M. Barrie o'clock, all the time with this man but without the self awareness that the epilogue of Peter Pan brings. Also, I would mind less if there was some variation with it as a theme- like, I don't know, if you could have something that you don't discover until they are leaving/grown up and that the doctor didn't realise- kind of like the end of Twelve Monkeys, or something Diana Wynne Jones would do, or Pratchett. (I don't know, a companion who was at an event where the doctor saved the day as a child, but not in direct contact with him, and grew up WANTING TO BE AS COOL AS THE DOCTOR).

Although actually, DWJ would have pointed out in some way that the relationship had some problems if it involved imprinting on someone at the age of ten or under. (see Fire and Hemlock)
or you know, a seventeen year old of either gender (I know that should be any gender, but let's face it, it's Moffatt) who imprinted on the doctor. one of the kids off Rose's estate who was doing some graffiti when the tardis turned up. Me, wandering around Chiswick at one of the points he was dropping off/hanging out with Donna Noble. Someone at one of Martha's family events, or one of her cousins.

Basically, "Love and Monsters" is 90 per cent a favourite episode of mine for a reason.

[sir_guinglain]

The nearest we've had to the Doctor learning something at the very end is Amy's final direction to him - to go back and see her younger self, suggesting that throughout her time with the Doctor, Amy has had some foreknowledge of events, though doubtless not too much!

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

He's not coming across well, is he? Current gossip (see Private Eye) about Caroline Skinner's departure doesn't help. But yes, definitely within the established Moffatian boundaries where women are concerned.

[widsidh.livejournal.com]

Obviously, I wouldn't be able to comment on the mechanics of sexual imprinting and such like (I have never had your associations with these characters, presumably for that reason), but isn't it possible to interpret this as just an attempt, however coloured by his personality, to present the friend/companion as a child, for the benefit of the younger component of a family audience?

[vampire-kitten.livejournal.com]

Would be a more believable argument he he'd done it for say Rory, or any character Moffat didn't give sexual plotlines with the doctor.

[widsidh.livejournal.com]

Rory is really the only male character I can think of where this might have applied (so the only counter-argument I can think of, and as such a rather small sample). Another question is what constitutes a sexual plotline (especially if sexuality and romance are kept separate).

I do admit to devil's-advocating a bit, though, and I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle...

[robot-mel.livejournal.com]

I totally agree! When I saw that all I could think of was OH NO NOT AGAIN! Especially made worse as we'd already seen other Clara/Oswins grown up!