Seeing that structure reflected on a show like Doctor Who is a real shame.
Why is it a shame that it's on the show? I think it's great that Davies chooses to draw attention to things like that (which he is currently doing in Torchwood: Miracle Day, as well). Davies always wanted his characters to be very true to life, and it's reflected in things like that. Another classic example is how he included the phrase "you're so gay!" in Aliens of London - he took some flack for that, but said that he included it because that's how people (particularly people Rose's age) talk. He also included a brief nod to racism in Rose, when Clive's lily-white neighbor sizes up Mickey, who is parked in a car on the street of a nice neighborhood.
Rose, Martha and Donna's suitability for being companions is shown against the lack of suitability of other characters
True - but there was an entire episode devoted to companion suitability - The Long Game, where the loser was Adam, who was white. And don't forget that Nine invited Mickey to come along in s1.
More characters like Nasreen in the future, please,
But Nasreen falls into the stereotypical trap of female characters - she basically gets herself locked in a bunker, frozen, for god-knows-how-many-hundreds-of-years, for a man who may or may not reciprocate her affections. I think I "ugh!!!"'d aloud when that happened.
Visual representation of counterstereotypical marginalised group members seem to be one of the most powerful ways to break down implicit bias, the research suggests. Doctor Who can be seriously awesome in this respect, as I've mentioned in various examples above. There's also definite room for it to be better.
Amen to that!!!
I'll be honest - Moffat's iteration of Doctor Who makes me really, really happy.
I dislike it intensely, and I don't think that his characters are three-dimensional like you do. Sometimes there comes along someone like Neil Gaiman, who can write Amy beautifully - but I don't think that Moffat has the ability to, not by a long shot. I find Moffat tends to want to write scripts and treats his characters like pieces on a chess board that move where the script ordains them to move, whereas Davies wanted to write stories, which are true to the characters' nature above and beyond anything else - an approach that I find to be much more organic. Some people can overlook that about Moffat: but it is 99% of the reason I dislike his body of work (across fandoms) so much.
I agree with your criticisms, across both eras -- but they are MOST glaringly obvious to me in the past season and a half, where there is very little that I have enjoyed, which leaves me with nothing to counterbalance the multiple "wait a minute, wth are you doing?" moments that occur in any TV show. At least in the Davies era, I can handwave things that bother me because I enjoy the story arcs and character arcs so much. I can't say the same thing now, so every singly little misstep and weird characterization sticks out like a horrible sore thumb to me.
no subject
Why is it a shame that it's on the show? I think it's great that Davies chooses to draw attention to things like that (which he is currently doing in Torchwood: Miracle Day, as well). Davies always wanted his characters to be very true to life, and it's reflected in things like that. Another classic example is how he included the phrase "you're so gay!" in Aliens of London - he took some flack for that, but said that he included it because that's how people (particularly people Rose's age) talk. He also included a brief nod to racism in Rose, when Clive's lily-white neighbor sizes up Mickey, who is parked in a car on the street of a nice neighborhood.
Rose, Martha and Donna's suitability for being companions is shown against the lack of suitability of other characters
True - but there was an entire episode devoted to companion suitability - The Long Game, where the loser was Adam, who was white. And don't forget that Nine invited Mickey to come along in s1.
More characters like Nasreen in the future, please,
But Nasreen falls into the stereotypical trap of female characters - she basically gets herself locked in a bunker, frozen, for god-knows-how-many-hundreds-of-years, for a man who may or may not reciprocate her affections. I think I "ugh!!!"'d aloud when that happened.
Visual representation of counterstereotypical marginalised group members seem to be one of the most powerful ways to break down implicit bias, the research suggests. Doctor Who can be seriously awesome in this respect, as I've mentioned in various examples above. There's also definite room for it to be better.
Amen to that!!!
I'll be honest - Moffat's iteration of Doctor Who makes me really, really happy.
I dislike it intensely, and I don't think that his characters are three-dimensional like you do. Sometimes there comes along someone like Neil Gaiman, who can write Amy beautifully - but I don't think that Moffat has the ability to, not by a long shot. I find Moffat tends to want to write scripts and treats his characters like pieces on a chess board that move where the script ordains them to move, whereas Davies wanted to write stories, which are true to the characters' nature above and beyond anything else - an approach that I find to be much more organic. Some people can overlook that about Moffat: but it is 99% of the reason I dislike his body of work (across fandoms) so much.
I agree with your criticisms, across both eras -- but they are MOST glaringly obvious to me in the past season and a half, where there is very little that I have enjoyed, which leaves me with nothing to counterbalance the multiple "wait a minute, wth are you doing?" moments that occur in any TV show. At least in the Davies era, I can handwave things that bother me because I enjoy the story arcs and character arcs so much. I can't say the same thing now, so every singly little misstep and weird characterization sticks out like a horrible sore thumb to me.