mikelpen: discordsadvocate:mikelpen:theconfessionsofawhovian: theconfessionsofawhovian.tu
mikelpen: discordsadvocate: mikelpen: theconfessionsofawhovian: http://theconfessionsofawhovian.tumblr.com/ I mean, based on what? Moffat’s willingness to push the envelope of weirdness? His vibrant characters? How the charatacters’ arcs are tied in to his plots, so his plots and characters inform and impact each other? How his era consistently delivered some of the most striking and gorgeous imagery of the entire show? How he delivered some of the most consistent and intelligent characterization in the history of the show? How he often has stuff to say rather than milquetoast “the system isn’t the problem” or “if you kill him you’ll be as bad as him” bs? I think I’d still put my money on Moffat, thanks. I’m guessing because, at least on sherlock, never watched his doctor who, I’m not making this claim, he really could not write women Don’t really buy it. I’ve talked with and read too many intelligent women who have a keen, in-depth, and broad understanding of story-telling and characterization, who completely disagree with the “he really could not write women” claim. There’s a difference between “his female characters don’t click with me” and “he can’t write women,” and since his female characters are strongly written, multi-faceted, and complex, with distinct personalities, I believe that when someone says “he can’t write women,” what they really mean is “I don’t like his female characters.” One’s subjective response to a character is not synonymous with “poorly written.” So Moffat’s ability to write women might be what the OP was basing their promise on, but it still has no bearing in reality. -- source link