Do you ever read your scripts and think to yourself, “That still happens, yeah, that still happens in modern America?” The plight of women, while it has improved, has not advanced to the point where these are the types of mistreatments that are so unusual that they are extinct.
Heere’s the thing about 11th Doctor: his character could be done well. If y’all think back to episodes like The Girl Who Waited and The God Complex, these episodes were well-written, straight-forward, and properly heart-wrenching at points, and there was actually character development. These episodes made you care for the characters and understand this new Doctor. Why? Because the episodes were written by someone who wasn’t Moffat. The trouble with the new!Who is not it being tired or the actors doing a bad job, but the chief writer is a complete pig that writes sexual assault as comic relief and turns the Holocaust into a gimmick. And people wonder why I’m sceptical about 12th doctor.
Sidenote: not saying all guest writers are beneficial, see Gatiss.
#perhaps it’s the fact that twelve has a pose all about power and control while clara is all demure #he looks straight into the camera #challenging it #while she smiles sweetly and looks off to the side #one leg bent - one hand on the console #unsteady almost #certainly staged #this just has heteronormative gender roles written all over it #the oncoming patriarchy #is all i can seevia thesilverdevastation
PRAISE THE TAGS
And in contrast, observe Rose Tyler, BAMF, in promo stills for Series 1:
Firmly rooted. Looking straight at the camera. NOT smiling. Even when Nine is guarding her with his body, she’s directly engaging with whatever they’re confronting. And sometimes she’s looking at the viewer, or the action, and Nine is looking at *her*. She’s a force to be reckoned with. She’s a force to be reckoned with.
“I already saw that on Tumblr.”
"You have five hundred a year. From who? Five hundred what? No one knows. No one cares. You have it. It’s yours. Every year. All five hundred of it."
Okay, okay, I’m going to tell you what Hermione sees in Ron.
A trio is a balancing act, right? They’re equalizers of each other. Harry’s like the action, Hermione’s the brains, Ron’s the heart. Hermione has been assassinated in these movies, and I mean that genuinely—by giving her every single positive character trait that Ron has, they have assassinated her character in the movies. She’s been harmed by being made to be less human, because everything good Ron has, she’s been given.
So, for instance: “If you want to kill Harry, you’re going to have to kill me too”—RON, leg is broken, he’s in pain, gets up and stands in front of Harry and says this. Who gets that line in the movie? Hermione.
“Fear of a name increases the fear of the thing itself.” Hermione doesn’t say Voldemort’s name until well into the books—that’s Dumbledore’s line. When does Hermione say it in the movies? Beginning of Movie 2.
When the Devil’s Snare is curling itself around everybody, Hermione panics, and Ron is the one who keeps his head and says “Are you a witch or not?” In the movie, everybody else panics and Hermione keeps her head and does the biggest, brightest flare of sunlight spell there ever was.
So, Hermione—all her flaws were shaved away in the films. And that sounds like you’re making a kick-ass, amazing character, and what you’re doing is dehumanizing her. And it pisses me off. It really does.
In the books, they balance each other out, because where Hermione gets frazzled and maybe her rationality overtakes some of her instinct, Ron has that to back it up; Ron has a kind of emotional grounding that can keep Hermione’s hyper-rationalness in check. Sometimes Hermione’s super-logical nature grates Harry and bothers him, and isn’t the thing he needs even if it’s the right thing, like when she says “You have a saving people thing.” That is the thing that Harry needed to hear, she’s a hundred percent right, but the way she does it is wrong. That’s the classic “she’s super logical, she’s super brilliant, but she doesn’t know how to handle people emotionally,” at least Harry.
So in the books they are this balanced group, and in the movies, in the movies—hell, not even Harry is good enough for Hermione in the movies. No one’s good enough for Hermione in the movies—God isn’t good enough for Hermione in the movies! Hermione is everybody’s everything in the movies.
Harry’s idea to jump on the dragon in the books, who gets it in the movies? Hermione, who hates to fly. Hermione, who overcomes her withering fear of flying to take over Harry’s big idea to get out of the—like, why does Hermione get all these moments?
[John: Because we need to market the movie to girls.]
I think girls like the books, period. And like the Hermione in the books, and like the Hermione in the books just fine before Hollywood made her idealized and perfect. And if they would have trusted that, they would have been just fine.
Would the movies have been bad if she was as awesome as she was in the books, and as human as she was in the books? Would the movies get worse?
She IS a strong girl character. This is the thing that pisses me off. They are equating “strong” with superhuman. To me, the Hermione in the book is twelve times stronger than the completely unreachable ideal of Hermione in the movies. Give me the Hermione in the book who’s human and has flaws any single day of the week.
Here’s a classic example: When Snape in the first book yells at Hermione for being an insufferable know-it-all, do you want to know what Ron says in the book? “Well, you’re asking the questions, and she has to answer. Why ask if you don’t want to be told?” What does he say in the movie? “He’s got a point, you know.” Ron? Would never do that. Would NEVER do that, even before he liked Hermione. Ron would never do that.”