Asked by Anonymous
Yep he did, it was deleted of course and another lovely anon was kind enough to give me a link to an article about it. Here you go. blastr(.)com/2011/10/moffat_deleted_a_scene_he(.)php
What’s even worse is the comments down below discussing how “Great” it would be to see River Song’s “Bits”. I mean it’s down right disgusting how sexualized River Song is already and I don’t trust Moffat at all to do a nudity scene. It just would have been horrible.
It wasn’t a nudity scene and Moffat himself removed the scene. So get down off your high horse, because you’re assuming.
It was a Stormcage scene with the prison governor trying to stop River from escaping as she got ready to leave for America in The Impossible Astronaut. The whole script for it is here on tumblr as well as other places; all you had to do was look and you would have seen that it wasn’t sexualizing her at all. It discussed how capable and independent she was in leaving and traveling around time and space all on her own, and the impressive reputation she gained because of it.
Look at the facts next time.
Now as far as nude scenes and sexualizing DW characters: where is your hate for Jon Pertwee’s nude scene as the Third Doctor and the nude scene for the Tenth Doctor as well as RTD’s oral sex jokes sexualizing and demeaning a woman and Ten bragging and joking like a frat boy about taking a woman’s virginity and then dumping her? Please post the links to those posts you’ve written in the past about how much you hated these scenes and never trusted these writers again with characters since you hate the sexualizing of characters and nude/sex jokes. Because of course you aren’t playing favorites and excluding these other scenes & dialogue and more from Series 1 - 4 of New Who and all the years of Classic Who. I can post the links to my posts protesting these sex jokes and you will tell from the time stamps that I didn’t just post them to CYA myself here; where are yours?
And Moffat probably took it out b/c Executives at the BBC told him too most likely.And the reason I don’t want Moffat to do any type of Nudity scene at all. I don’t trust him. He has the Doctor go around call Amy, Legs, and the camera shots of Karen’s skirts are horrible
You did it again. 1) you made an assumption instead of looking up the facts. No, the BBC did not tell him to take it out. You also made assumptions about me. I point out when I disagree with any showrunner or writer equally and I noted when any of them has caused me to stop watching the show: Davies, Moffat and any in Classic Who. So you’re wrong about that too. 2) RTD also did the camera shots that you mention with women and had the Doctor call them such names & worse. He himself admits to the sexist way he prefers the Doctor and his women in his book. And yet you didn’t stop watching the show then. Nor did you tag these posts you talked about as hate. Not one thing tagged “Davies hate”, “RTD Hate”, “Tennant Hate”, “Tenth Doctor hate”, “Ten Hate” etc. I took the time to check that so I didn’t accuse you based on lies and assumptions. I also did a google search to make sure I didn’t miss a hate tag. Only took me a few seconds despite you saying it would take too long to look through your tumblr. And yet, look at all the posts tagged “Moffat Hate”!
So you proved you have a double standard. You will watch the show when someone else does it; you won’t post Hate about them — and that is the word you used — nor tag it that way. So it’s a good thing you don’t watch the show anymore because Davies isn’t working (by his choice, I’m sure you know why) and he’s the only one you will allow to do these things.
I just wanted to post one additional important fact because it was getting ignored:
Moffat did NOT show River topless. He did NOT show her nude. He NEVER wrote or had her filmed showing her chest.
Here is Rose in “The Unquiet Dead”. (thank you to sonic biro for the screencap)
Do you consider this disgusting? Showing too much of her body, hinting at nudity of the female form? Sexualizing Rose? Indecent for a family show? Well, I searched to see if people complained about it but no one has.
And yet, I didn’t touch this image at all. This is EXACTLY how Rose appeared on screen. You can go see for yourself and you will find more moments in the episode where the camera angles deliberately show Rose like this.
Reminder: this is the Russell Davies era.
Despite no one complaining that Rose (and other women) can’t appear on Doctor Who like this multiple times and full screen, Moffat cut the following River scene. Once again, this image is untouched:
NO MORE THAN ROSE. NO MORE THAN DAVIES ERA. And, like Rose, she was shown dressed in the rest of the scene. This was for her last line. (And yes, Alex was really dressed here.) So actually, ROSE SHOWED MORE THAN RIVER DID. Because was shown repeatedly like above.
Once again, you can double check me. I got this image from the Series 6 trailer on youtube (Thank you, DalekDom).
Now people can see the truth about this scene that wasn’t even shown.
So you see the double standard.
- Men in DW are allowed to show a lot more — even be really nude on set — and refer to their nudity with no one saying it must be censored.
- Haters do NOT complain about “The Unquiet Dead” and/or tag it “Davies Hate”, “Rose Hate” or anything else like it. Nor do they complain about when men are showed wearing far less, even though some of the men are truly nude, and they don’t tag any such scenes with “Hate”.
End of meta
Since the OP is so outraged at a scene that never happened, I’m sure s/he must be even more livid about the scene RTD wanted to put into the Tenth Doctor’s farewell tour:
"Then again, the thought of The Doctor walking in on Elton and Ursula’s sex life could be rather marvellous. Poor Ursula. Or lucky Ursula." ~ Russell T Davies, The Writer’s Tale: The Final Chapter
The two scenes aren’t even in the same league. One is about River showing up her guards yet again and the other one is fetishing a woman’s sexual activities.
And FYI, River is confident in her sexuality - bonus points for her being a 50+ woman who owns her goddamn sexuality - and yet she’s also one of the most clothed female characters. Her costuming was actually its own section in a major River Song research paper I wrote a few semesters ago for a Feminist Theory and Methodology course. Had this scene made it into the episode, it would’ve been a rare exception of her showing that much skin. Here’s the cliff note’s version:
Her style of dresses are predominately full length, with a few knee-length exceptions typically with nylons. (She even remarks in her diary in The Eternity Clock that she doesn’t like the mini skirts Amy left for her at the hospital.)
She also enjoys pants and shirts and, like many women, she likes to wear pants that accentuate her curves. Occasionally, she also wears shirts with minimal cleavage.
Combination and/or Unknown
Reblogging for kerjenfanfic's wonderfulness.
I am so fed up of the “Moffat hates women so we hate him” bullshit.
Doctor Who really is a religion, down to the point of some of its more outspoken followers picking out the pieces they choose to support their point of view and using them to make assumptions.
Nations are, by necessity, people united by common mythology. Sometimes that mythology arises from ethnic solidarity. Sometimes it is the product of a shared ideology. Others, as in the case of many post-colonial states, it derives from the mere legal fiction of internationally acknowledged boundaries. But nations do not exist without some kind of common purpose.
This is a problem that has particularly vexed the nations of the new world. Old world states define themselves in ethnic terms, and date the birth of their nation to the creation of their ethnic identity. This is the case with the French, the Russians, and the Japanese, and it is a conception of nationhood untroubled by sects who do not consider themselves bound by it, be they Basque, Chechan, or Ainu. The equivalence between nationhood and ethnicity is the reason why these societies have, in various ways, had such trouble adapting themselves to receiving immigrant inflows: if to be a French citizen is to be of Gallic heritage, what is one to make of French from North Africa or the near East? Should the nation continue to be ethnically defined, or can it find a new (excuse me) raison d’être?
The problem is both alleviated and compounded for states of the new world. The citizens of nations like the United States and Australia cannot with any awareness of history claim their nationhood derives from ethnic commonality. In such countries, settlers displaced, and now exist alongside, indigenous populations. Immigration has created culturally and racially pluralistic societies. There are not ethnic Australians the way there are ethnic Swedes or Thais or Greeks. Our nationhood cannot be defined by the forefathers of our citizens.
Being the first country to sever its ties with the British Empire, and having done so through armed rebellion, the United States was among the first modern society to consider this conundrum. Its determination, haltingly applied — through the inconstant expansion of citizenship and personhood to blacks, to its indigenous peoples, to immigrants — was that theirs was a nation founded upon an idea. To be American, unlike to be Portuguese or Dutch, is to find nationhood in the state’s civic religion, and especially, in the documents that express it: the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation, among others.
Australia, since its inception, has faced a similar problem to the United States, but we have not so readily found a solution to the conundrum of our nationhood. We are clearly not an ethnically united population: our continent’s original inhabitants are Aboriginal; our numbers have included Irish since the 18th century and Chinese since the early 19th century. And yet we feel ourselves to be more than a legally defined entity: we are a people with a common culture, common ideals, and common patriotic symbols.
The United States found its identity in rebellion and, later, in internal conflict. Australia, however, has experienced no great unifying upheaval. Its birth was legalistic, not military. Edmund Barton is no George Washington. Indeed, the story of our nation has been one of the slow process of creating a nation. When we ask who we are, we are answering the question even while we pose it.
Woman Time Lords can control the way they will look when they regenerate, while male Time Lords cannot. This was established in Classic Who, when Romana regenerated.
Also, the Doctor wanting to be Ginger is not about the hair color. In Gallifrey, the only ones to have red hair were the people called Heroes which were beings who were time-sentient (meaning they could see all of the time at the same time). So I doubt they will ever make him ginger.
awkward question for mayim
"Yeah, I’m a neuroscientist…you may not have known that."
FOR THE RECORD, THOUGH: The question he asked was actually: “Being on The Big Bang Theory, how many people —not that you’re NOT a genius— think that you can solve calculus at the drop of a hat?”
The male interviewer DID KNOW she was a scientist, though he didn’t know what kind. The female interviewer didn’t, however.
Man, I hope she and Natalie Portman have dinner occasionally where they catch up on the latest news in neurobiology and bitch about the dumb questions they’ve been asked that week. And they should do it in Hebrew or something for kicks since they’re both multi-lingual.
Indeed. And this should not be surprising. There have been numerous women like this in entertainment throughout the ages.
That last comment indeed.