Here you go, Eight fandom. I’m sure we’ll get a lot of use out of it. (Original gif by Harbek!)

So, uh, random thought while I was working earlier, thinking about various things to distract me from the mundane nature of the job:

In Production Notes in Doctor Who Magazine the other month, Moffat lists his favourite Sixth Doctor story as The Holy Terror. That made me quite happy when I read it, seeing Shearman and Big Finish get the praise they deserve.

But… Does it strike anyone else as intriguing that he lists as one of his favourite stories one where a creepy alien child goes around asking people if they’re his parental figure? A story that was released 5 years before The Empty Child?

 Jane: “Don’t get me wrong, Oliver, I’m a very sexual person! In fact, I’m a very bisexual person, so I sort of double up on that.”

Oliver: “Yeah, yeah, you’re just frightened of naked people!”

Jane: “There’s naked, and there’s naked!”

Oliver: “You’re not bisexual!”

Jane: “I’m sorry?”

Oliver: “I don’t buy it!”

Jane: “You don’t what?”

Oliver: “And I don’t buy the crazy, wacky Jane thing. I don’t buy the you ‘follow the philosophy of plants’ thing. I think you’re terrified you’re not interesting enough, so you make up any old rubbish just to try and get attention. Do me a favour, look in the mirror! The way you look, as if you have to try!”

Jane: “I am so bisexual!”

Oliver: “Yeah?”

*he holds up the porn magazine*

Jane: “OK!”

*she flinches*

Oliver: “Jane, I’m a science fiction fan. I run a science fiction bookshop. It’s the headquarters of lonely. I am the boss of sad. You can fool everyone else, but you can’t fool me.”

daguchna:

soufflé girl: vagrantinvenice: wobblytime: gallifreyfieldsforever: one thing…

vagrantinvenice:

wobblytime:

gallifreyfieldsforever:

one thing though

Read More

Oh for fucks sake. Moffat can quite literally do nothing right anymore can he?

He created Jack. Pansexual hero known to millions.
He created the victorian multi-species lesbian relationship in Good Man Goes to War, apologies, I’ve forgot their names right now.
He created River- who admitted in Silence in the Library that she fancied all of her crew, male and female.
CANTON DELAWARE III.
These are characters from stories he’s wrote for Doctor Who and that’s just off the top of my head that I can think of right now.

And then in his other work, there’s the happy lesbian couple in Jekyll too.

Dont say that Moffat is homophobic, or that he’s perpetuating the stereotype that not being straight is only a phase. He’s given us some of the best queer characters in Doctor Who. One character who mentioned having a phase of believing she wasn’t completely straight- which hey, does happen sometimes! doesnt mean that Moffat is any sort of homophobic or perpetuating any sort of stereotype.

I am so fucking done with Tumblr. Jesus. 

Sexuality fluctuates, alright? It changes. It CAN be a phase. I went through a phase where I thought I was strictly a lesbian! So she said she went through a phase. Is it really so wrong that she called it a phase?! No! It’s not! Because sexuality is hard to figure out, and it’s very fluid, and it’s perfectly okay for you to go through phases when trying to figure out your sexuality. It’s perfectly okay for you to say it was a phase. Guhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Exactly.

First off, he didn’t create Jack. RTD did. Moffat just got the episode where he was introduced, and decided to fill it with mentions of him sleeping with a ton of people (which RTD said ‘probably wouldn’t come up’ in the show.) Do research.

Second off, since we’re mentioning Jekyll, why don’t we mention Coupling? Y’know, the series where the one bisexual character is treated as delusional, and bisexuality is treated as just a way to get men to fancy you. And ever since that point, bisexuality has only ever been mentioned by Moffat as a punchline or flirtatious stuff that’s subsequently ignored.

So no, don’t try and excuse him just because he’s written a few gay characters. And let’s not forget that he didn’t even bother to give NAMES to half the gay characters in AGMGTW, because it’s just so quirky and unusual, lol!

1. Coupling

The show’s sole bisexual character is Jane. In the first episode, she avoids a breakup with her boyfriend (Moffat’s avatar in the show) by tantalising him with information about how she’s been with women in the past, which makes him speechless and unable to break up with her.

Later on, she is established as rather delusional, believing in one episode that being bisexual means she can date gay men. This sets the tone for the rest of the series. Jane’s bisexuality is constantly doubted, and in the final episode, her new love interest confronts her with a pornographic magazine, and her disgust at seeing a naked woman is shown as proof that she isn’t bisexual. She is comforted by him saying that she doesn’t have to pretend about any of that stuff to impress him. Because that’s what bisexuality is for. To impress guys.

2. Sherlock

Irene Adler’s not bisexual, she’s just a lesbian with a crush on/in love with a man! No! No bisexuals here! Bad bisexuals! Keep away! Move on, quickly!

3. Doctor Who

Captain Jack’s profile was written by Russell T. Davies. He said that Jack would happily “shag anyone”, but that it wouldn’t come up much in the series itself. Moffat took this as a challenge, and established his wide array of sexual conquests. In later non-Moffat episodes, he was allowed to mature somewhat.

River Song is, according to Moffat’s twitter, happily bisexual. The only indication of this in the show is a one off joke in Silence In The Library where she establishes that the reason Lux has his helmet on is because she doesn’t fancy him, indicating that she presumably does fancy the female member of the crew. Funnily enough, this is still probably Moffat’s best representation of bisexuality.

Oswyn mentions her first crush as being on a girl called Nina while flirting, but is very quick to dismiss it as “a phase”, because Moffat couldn’t have left that line out, could he? If she remained bisexual, why, he’d have to write her as a punchline from here on in!

In conclusion? An awful track record, and one that doesn’t look to be ending any time soon.

harbek:

arqueete:

harbek:

heardwonders:

Sherlock DVD Commentaries → A Scandal in Belgravia
↳based on this transcript

In which Moffat once again exhibits his inability to imagine any sexuality but heterosexuality, such as asexuality.

It’s funny that Moffat seems to find the idea of asexuality to be so boring because I think most of us thought the character was more interesting when it seemed likely he was asexual or at least anything other than straight (as it made him even more of an atypical male lead). Certainly, though, one could argue (and many have), that Irene’s attraction to Sherlock is the more problematic part of it— the show has had several gay male characters and it would be nice if Irene and Kate weren’t the end of the (seemingly) LGBTQ female characters, considering Irene in particular is very much the sexy-woman-who-supposedly-loves-women-but-we-mostly-only-see-her-liking-this-man sort of LGBTQ woman that seems to be all we often get on TV…

Though honestly this episode didn’t even really bother me that much. The writing is still otherwise more or less excellent (as usual). Hopefully someday Moffat will just learn to think a bit differently about gender and sexuality in his writing.

Oh god I have so many problems with this episode. Not the writing, no, it’s interesting and entertaining as usual, it’s just… Hold on, other people says it better than me. Like this thing I read earlier. But that’s more to do with feminism/gender than sexuality (while of course related), and making Irene’s power a sexual one rather than an intellectual one.

The fact that she says she’s gay yet ends up pursuing Sherlock (and the fact that she has plenty of male clients) very much reminds me of the whole No Bisexuals trope. Of course, behavior does not equivalate identity, so identifying as gay but still occasionally being attracted to men is not something I would judge a person on, but as a character, we’re not really given enough nuance and depth there to really believe it.

But yes, there is a lack of queer female characters, which is a general trend in TV, except for when they’re fetishised, which Irene very much is - it’s practically the point of Moffat’s version of the character.

The problem with Moffat is that he doesn’t seem to WANT to learn. Every criticism is replied to either with a snarky comment or a complete failure to see the point. So honestly I don’t have much hope.

When it comes to Moffat and “No Bisexuals”, I can’t help but think of Coupling, which in many respects is a great series, and possibly the best sitcom I’ve ever watched, but intensely problematic in how it treats the sole bisexual character, Jane.

Her bisexuality is brought up in the first episode as she attempts to stop her boyfriend from leaving her, trying to turn him on by talking about things she’s done with women. It’s treated as purely a device to attract men. 
By the final episode, she’s been shown a picture of a naked woman and appeared visibly disgusted, and her male love interest tells her that she doesn’t have to pretend to be bisexual to be interesting, suggesting she just does it for attention.

So yeah, Moffat’s pretty damn awful with this stuff.

(via theheroheart)

“Not everyone gets out alive, and I mean it this time”

Yeah, you keep saying that, and by this point, we don’t believe you.

I’ve got my copy of DWM 433 in front of me. Advertising ‘The Impossible Astronaut’, it had a collectible cover with either the Doctor, River, Amy or Rory, and the tagline is “Marked For Death? One of them WILL die in the amazing season opener!” (By the by, I got the Rory cover, because odds were it was going to be him. Just my luck, this was the one time he DIDN’T die!) Inside the issue, we get the letter from the editor. “One of these four characters will die in the first episode of the new series! And that’s a promise.”

Then we get the article itself. “One of them will die! The Doctor, Amy, Rory or River. In this year’s two-part series opener. Or so this issue’s cover strapline alleges. You reckon that’s hyperbole, don’t you? Yeah, well - it’s not. One of the TARDIS crew will breathe their last before the end credits roll, we promise you…”

Now, I don’t mind you hyping us up. It’s part of your job, really. But you can’t keep saying “Oh, for reals! I’m not lying! It’s totally true, just look!” then do a huge fakeout, then start saying it again. It’s becoming less the showrunner hyping things up, and more ‘the boy who cried wolf’. If you’re actually telling the truth this time, then hooray for you, proved me wrong, thanks for actually being honest for once, but… I seriously doubt it. I just hope this time you think up something more imaginative than “It was a robot double.”

Of course, none of this was the biggest lie in that issue of DWM. No, that would be the one that said Series 6 was “More ambitious and more surprising than anything Doctor Who has ever attempted before.” Pfft, yeah right. Just for a start, Trial Of A Time Lord was far more ambitious and more surprising, and more cohesive an arc. And I guarantee that the revelation of the Valeyard’s true identity will be talked about long after River’s true identity.