Next Doctor

stevenmu

K-9 wrote: »

The comment about the Queen was very like his humour though, that's how I took it, he often takes the piss out of twitter, blogs etc.

Yeah, I think they're taking something that was just a throwaway slightly humorous comment and dissecting it as if it was some thoughtfully written policy statement.

pixelburp

Killer_banana wrote: »

An interesting article about Moffat, a female Doctor and a lot of problems some fans (myself included) have with how he writes the show.

Sorry but I think this is real 'mountain out of a molehill' territory and don't agree with that blog's attitude. Outside of politics, only in genre-fiction fandom will you see an otherwise innocuous, flippant attempt at a joke parsed into a national crisis and an axe to grind, in this case about Moffat and his term; that clearly he has some insidious agenda & is determined to spit in the faces of women and black people everywhere.

I actually tangentially blame Gaiman for all this, because if he hadn't written that tiny, passing little aside in The Doctor's Wife about a male Time Lord sometimes being a her, there probably wouldn't be as much of a to-do. But it's continuity now, apparently, and once more a tiny remark is used as a rod to beat on Moffat as a person and as a writer. It's baffling because while RTDs scripts had their own faults, he didn't seem to attract such specific attacks about female characters.

RTD seemed to avoid this backlash, with people conveniently forgetting that his first two companions were grossly more offensive: one being a lovestruck teenager who devolved into a jealous obsessive with a 900 year old man, and the other a mere cypher whose main trait was her unrequited love for the Doc (seriously, tell me one other thing about Martha's personality without googling). And that's just the 2005 reboot, do we even bring up 'characters' from the old series such as Jo Grant, Peri or Leela? Leela, whose sole reason for being was so Dads might tune in to watch her run about in a leather onesie. Yeesh.

Amy was smart, strong, independent, took no sh*t and was broadly in control. Yeah she became a passenger somewhat with the whole Melody Pond plotline, but that article seems to just ignore all that for the sake of some ambiguous nonsense about her being an enigma, rather than a character. Which in a series that has repeatedly focused on its companion for plots & themes, is selective to say the least.

If anything we should be hopping mad about Moffats flaky plotting and refusal to tie up any of the threads he has left dangling over the last 3 series. Nope, instead we're getting mad because a hitherto male character hasn't been arbitrarily gender swapped, and because Moffat has the audacity to only write strong, independent, confident women. It's equally embarrassing that Gaiman has to come out and say "well at least one black actor was offered the role" just to assuage those being equally offended the new Doc isn't black.

All that said, I remember seeing an archived newspaper article from around the time Tom Baker was leaving (so circa 1980) and sure enough, it was talking about the next Doctor possibly being a woman. Now, it was more akin to tabloid tattle than soapbox offence, but even so, I guess there really isn't anything new under the sun.

Blergh, rant over

SweepTheLeg

Killer_banana wrote: »

But as the article says, it's not about the doctor needing to be black or female it's that the idea never seemed to enter Moffat's head.

Thought never entered my head either, does that mean i'm racist/sexist? People who want the Doctor be a woman or different ethnicity for the sake of being "progressive" annoy me.

psicic

Killer_banana wrote: »

I really do hate the promo picture, what is he meant to be doing his hand?! I don't get it...

Woah - you're right... if ever there was a pic that could be a little bit villainous

stevenmu

pixelburp wrote: »

RTD seemed to avoid this backlash

I think RTD got away with that particular backlash because of the differences in style between him and Moffat.

RTD focused more on character development than fancy intricate plotlines. Even his more clever stories (and he did have some very clever ones) tended to be light on details and big on character reactions and emotions. His episodes were also more prone to being pretty nonsense-y and often childish. Most people don't worry too much about continuity when the story is about aliens in fart-suits.

In contrast, Moffat seems to focus on more detailed and intricate plots with different pieces and clues falling together in clever ways. His stories feel, to me at least, more like 'hard' sci-fi where things should be logical and make sense. In that context, continuity becomes more important, and errors stand out and hurt more.

FWIW I think RTD does get a lot of criticism too, most of which seems to be centred around the aliens in fart suits, which I think is a little unfair because he did write some brilliant episodes with amazing concepts and some that were very emotional too.

Wibbs

stevenmu wrote: »

Moffat seems to focus on more detailed and intricate plots with different pieces and clues falling together in clever ways. His stories feel, to me at least, more like 'hard' sci-fi where things should be logical and make sense

I'd agree. I'd personally break it down like this; RTD was mass audience writing a family show writer, whereas M is mass audience but writing for the nerdfans* more.

For me this really shows in the female characters. IE Rose and Donna were mass audience catnip, whereas River Song is a nerdgasm in jodhpurs. The diffs between them? Nerdfan strong women tend to be very obvious in their strength. They're written from the outside in. Dominant? Check. Leather? Check. Large gun? Check. Constant reminders about how strong they are? Check. Mass audience strong women tend to be written from the inside out with less obvious surface strength accessories, though have a tendency to go Penelope Pitstop at times. Actually I reckon that's were they really screwed the pooch with the Rose character. When she came back(first mistake) they tried to nerdfan strong woman her up. The checklist above was all ticked and it just didn't gel. Clara is the mass audience "ordinary" woman of the Moffat era and you get the feeling he doesn't quite know what to do with her in that context. Though I agree with PB above, no idea what he/they were thinking with Donna. Waste of a good actress IMH.

FWIW I think RTD does get a lot of criticism too, most of which seems to be centred around the aliens in fart suits, which I think is a little unfair because he did write some brilliant episodes with amazing concepts and some that were very emotional too.

+1 and though he defo had his howlers IMH he was streets ahead of Moffat in real dialogue writing.






*I'm posting here, I get the internal references, yes I am a giant Nerd. \0

Frank Lee Midere

Killer_banana wrote: »

An interesting article about Moffat, a female Doctor and a lot of problems some fans (myself included) have with how he writes the show.

I knew that writer was American before she even got to that mysterious group of people called the Caucasians. To put it in the kind of argot, her American privilege has blinded her to other cultures not having the same ethnic composition. The demand for a black actor? Blacks are only about 2% of the British population. The claim that Capaldi is white, and therefore not a minority - incorrect. He can self declare as White-Irish an ethnic group with 1.2% of the population, not too far from blacks.

There are as many Indians as blacks in the UK, but you rarely see demands for Indian actors. Certainly an American criticizing it would nearly always mean black when she says "non-caucasian".

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

As for a female doctor: of course, there is no restriction ( although I am a watcher of the show, not a reader of the canon so I don't know). However relationships on Gallifrey would be fraught if people changed sex. Its probably difficult enough, as is.

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

For me this really shows in the female characters. IE Rose and Donna were mass audience catnip, whereas River Song is a nerdgasm in jodhpurs. The diffs between them? Nerdfan strong women tend to be very obvious in their strength. They're written from the outside in. Dominant? Check. Leather? Check. Large gun? Check. Constant reminders about how strong they are? Check. Mass audience strong women tend to be written from the inside out with less obvious surface strength accessories, though have a tendency to go Penelope Pitstop at times.

That's actually kind of offensive to me as a fanboy of many things, Wibbs.

I'm sick and tired of comics, movies and series thinking they're being progressive by giving a woman a big gun and showing shes, like, so TOTALLY independant because she acts a little bitchy to men. Just because I am a fanboy doesn't mean I don't want my characters well written and thought out and people regardless of what's between their legs. I don't like when a series does this. I don't nergasm. It just annoys me.

I find that stereotype insulting to the viewers, boring and tbh, nearly as bad as the status quo of how women are written in Hollywood movies.

Now, I don't know on what planet these gender stereotypes can be applied to nuwho. This is the series that gave, without fanfare or nailing in the point, a bisexual action hero. It gave us a gay couple working in an army with no discussion. It gave us Clara, who's arc culminated in saving the Doctor's entire existence- the arc revolved around the lead female this year, not the male. FFS the main character fell in love with the middle aged Professor instead of the young hot red head. All of this- in a family tv show!

The recent years of Who have been so incredibly progressive compared to anything else on pre watershed television it annoys me when people pick on this one sticking point. Why is the new Doctor not exactly the way I want it to be? Frankly, because you're not as good as Moffat.

To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, if he'd listened every time people demanded something of him instead of doing what he wanted we'd have never seen Death, we'd never have met Weatherwax, or Sam Vimes. He would have just written 30 books of Rincewind in different situations. If you're a Pratchett fan, you'd know what a loss this would be (interestingly enough, given the discussion, one of the books that would never been written would be "Equal Rites").

So, Moffat shouldn't cast a woman, or a black man, or a young white man or an old white man or whatever if it doesn't match exactly what he wants to do with the story. He should just try and make what the best tales he can. If he bowed to the pressure of putting in a woman, that's just as bad as bowing to the pressure of making Tennant 2.0 (which I am sure was there).

BlitzKrieg

Killer_banana wrote: »

An interesting article about Moffat, a female Doctor and a lot of problems some fans (myself included) have with how he writes the show.

I think the argument the first comment under the article sums it up best:

Wow....he wrote "The Curse of the Fatal Death" in which he introduced the 13th Doctor who was female introduced Professor River Song, Madam Vastra, and Jenny...wrote "Blink" which had a remarkable turn by Carey Mulligan as Sally Sparrow...Madame De Pompadour from the "Girl in the Fireplace"...introduce a kick butt gun toting Queen of England...Madge Arwell from, "The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe" and if you want to go back and watch "Coupling" to see (3) of the most well rounded and scene capturing females in sitcom history, but yet he can't write compelling female characters....

Moffet has written fantastic female characters, they just were not The Doctor. Do they need to be The Doctor?

norrie rugger

Doctor DooM wrote: »

That's actually kind of offensive to me as a fanboy of many things, Wibbs.

I'm sick and tired of comics, movies and series thinking they're being progressive by giving a woman a big gun and showing shes, like, so TOTALLY independant because she acts a little bitchy to men. Just because I am a fanboy doesn't mean I don't want my characters well written and thought out and people regardless of what's between their legs. I don't like when a series does this. I don't nergasm. It just annoys me.

I find that stereotype insulting to the viewers, boring and tbh, nearly as bad as the status quo of how women are written in Hollywood movies.

Now, I don't know on what planet these gender stereotypes can be applied to nuwho. This is the series that gave, without fanfare or nailing in the point, a bisexual action hero. It gave us a gay couple working in an army with no discussion. It gave us Clara, who's arc culminated in saving the Doctor's entire existence- the arc revolved around the lead female this year, not the male. FFS the main character fell in love with the middle aged Professor instead of the young hot red head. All of this- in a family tv show!

Which is why, out of all the recent companions, I liked Donna most (Clara is in a similar vein).
They both were just regular people in extraordinary circumstances but never bow down to The Doctor or allow him to get above himself, without resorting to the Pond style of petulance.
Donna basically acted as an equal and Clara can make him look like silly child, both of which bring out the best in him

Das Kitty

Moffat also wrote my first female fictional role model, Lynda Day from Press Gang.

I find the accusations of sexism hard to take, personally.

My main bugbear with his writing is that there's no room to breathe in his scripts. He stacks so much in that you don't get much of a chance to think about anything before the next thing is happening. It really takes the punch out of the emotional moments. And I'm a big cry-baby, but Moff's never made me shed a tear despite adoring a lot of his character.

Frank Lee Midere

Das Kitty wrote: »

Moffat also wrote my first female fictional role model, Lynda Day from Press Gang.

I find the accusations of sexism hard to take, personally.

My main bugbear with his writing is that there's no room to breate in his scripts. He stacks so much in that you don't get much of a chance to think about anything before the next thing is happening. It really takes the punch out of the emotional moments. And I'm a big cry-baby, but Moff's never made me shed a tear despite adoring a lot of his character.

He has a lot to get in in 45 minutes. Again that's an concession to America. The BBC could do hour long episodes as it does with much of its output were it not for BBC America. 45 minutes doesn't suit the BBC schedule.

Wibbs

Doctor DooM wrote: »

That's actually kind of offensive to me as a fanboy of many things, Wibbs.

I'm sick and tired of comics, movies and series thinking they're being progressive by giving a woman a big gun and showing shes, like, so TOTALLY independant because she acts a little bitchy to men. Just because I am a fanboy doesn't mean I don't want my characters well written and thought out and people regardless of what's between their legs. I don't like when a series does this. I don't nergasm. It just annoys me.

I agree 100% DD but it's sooo very common unfortunately and it does seem to appeal more to the more hardcore fans. Plus let's face it one could well argue River song is an example of "giving a woman a big gun and showing shes, like, so TOTALLY independant because she acts a little bitchy to men", which is why I didn't like her(other than in the library story). Yes she's a little more rounded than that, but not by that much.

Now, I don't know on what planet these gender stereotypes can be applied to nuwho. This is the series that gave, without fanfare or nailing in the point, a bisexual action hero. It gave us a gay couple working in an army with no discussion.

I agree and to be fair to RTD he was the vanguard in that in such a big way. Can you imagine how the first pitch of Captain Jack might have gone. "Right we have this action hero, real matinee idol stuff, but he's bisexual and a slut with it and we see him early on slapping the arse of a world war two British officer". Fair play that it got passed as not so long ago there would have been letters to the Times. Even more importantly they weren't "tokens", they were just characters in a story. Would Moffat have ran with similar if RTD hadn't shown it was acceptable, even lauded by as you say a family show? I dunno he may have. but RTD ploughed that particular furrow.

FFS the main character fell in love with the middle aged Professor instead of the young hot red head.

Are you suggesting Alex Kingston aint damned hot? That's a paddlin

The recent years of Who have been so incredibly progressive compared to anything else on pre watershed television it annoys me when people pick on this one sticking point.

+1

So, Moffat shouldn't cast a woman, or a black man, or a young white man or an old white man or whatever if it doesn't match exactly what he wants to do with the story. He should just try and make what the best tales he can. If he bowed to the pressure of putting in a woman, that's just as bad as bowing to the pressure of making Tennant 2.0 (which I am sure was there).

+2 and I'm sure Tennant 2 was there alright. What a disaster that would have been. Just likeRose 2 was. The latter I'd defo blame RTD for bowing to pressure and making a haimes of it, while he was at it.

Killer_banana

So I disagree with some things said here and agree with some but there's been so many posts I think writing a responsething replying to everyone would be nigh on impossible. I'm also really outnumbered so any rebuttal would do no good and drag the thread further off topic than I've managed so I'm going to leave it if ye don't mind. I know some of ye will see me as an awful coward backing out after posting the link, and ye're right, I am. But I feel I'm fighting a losing battle (as in I would get nowhere) and would just serve to annoy people moreso than anything else.

I will add though, PB you said if people want to complain about Moffat then complain about his plotholes and the loose ends he leaves andthat has always been the thing I complain most about and I've seen more complaints in general about that than about how he writes women. But I guess it depends what websites you visit. Anywho I'll shut up now.

pixelburp

Killer_banana wrote: »

So I disagree with some things said here and agree with some but there's been so many posts I think writing a responsething replying to everyone would be nigh on impossible. I'm also really outnumbered so any rebuttal would do no good and drag the thread further off topic than I've managed so I'm going to leave it if ye don't mind. I know some of ye will see me as an awful coward backing out after posting the link, and ye're right, I am. But I feel I'm fighting a losing battle (as in I would get nowhere) and would just serve to annoy people moreso than anything else.

I will add though, PB you said if people want to complain about Moffat then complain about his plotholes and the loose ends he leaves andthat has always been the thing I complain most about and I've seen more complaints in general about that than about how he writes women. But I guess it depends what websites you visit. Anywho I'll shut up now.

Well yes true, when it became clear that Moffat wasn't closing off many of the threads he opened, it became the most vocal complaint about his time in charge. But the regeneration has flared up a persistent complaint from some quarters about his female characters that I simply don't subscribe to and find a touch disingenuous & selective at best. I genuinely think RTDs female characters were worse & and the tally of memorable, strong female characters is somewhat in Moffat's favour when you reach beyond the companions

As for annoying people, I don't think this forum is that kind of place so I'm sure we could argue the toss without it getting into agro; I'd hate to think users are preferring not to post here because they might get a negative reaction In any case, I'd be more interested to hear your opinions on the matter than read the thoughts of a talking head from a blog who's probably just trying to bump up the website's hit rates

Doctor DooM

Killer_banana wrote: »

So I disagree with some things said here and agree with some but there's been so many posts I think writing a responsething replying to everyone would be nigh on impossible. I'm also really outnumbered so any rebuttal would do no good and drag the thread further off topic than I've managed so I'm going to leave it if ye don't mind. I know some of ye will see me as an awful coward backing out after posting the link, and ye're right, I am. But I feel I'm fighting a losing battle (as in I would get nowhere) and would just serve to annoy people moreso than anything else.

Ah no, it's ok for people to disagree and I'm the first to say just because I hold a position doesn't mean I'm right. I hope you don't feel that post was an attack on you, because I didn't mean it that way- I just disagree!

That said- I enjoy debating with Wibbs the odd time, so...

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree 100% DD but it's sooo very common unfortunately and it does seem to appeal more to the more hardcore fans. Plus let's face it one could well argue River song is an example of "giving a woman a big gun and showing shes, like, so TOTALLY independant because she acts a little bitchy to men", which is why I didn't like her(other than in the library story). Yes she's a little more rounded than that, but not by that much.

Ah she is more than that. How many main characters have we followed from birth in Who in as much detail? How many women (since, I guess, Romana) have been the equal of the Doctor (perhaps superior- she's the "child of the Vortex", after all. She appears to be a human with all a Timelords powers, which seems to support the not-all-Gallifreyans-are-Timelords argument).

Does she occasionally tote a gun? Yes. She's also a professor, and a vulnerable child, and a brain washed assassin, and the most important person in the Doctors world. That's a character, right there, not a archetype.

In the defence of male fans, I would like to think past around the age of 18 "WUMMIN + GUN = HOT" starts to not be the deciding factor about choosing your favourite character

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree and to be fair to RTD he was the vanguard in that in such a big way. Can you imagine how the first pitch of Captain Jack might have gone. "Right we have this action hero, real matinee idol stuff, but he's bisexual and a slut with it and we see him early on slapping the arse of a world war two British officer". Fair play that it got passed as not so long ago there would have been letters to the Times. Even more importantly they weren't "tokens", they were just characters in a story. Would Moffat have ran with similar if RTD hadn't shown it was acceptable, even lauded by as you say a family show? I dunno he may have. but RTD ploughed that particular furrow.

I'm not going to argue on this at all, yes, I think RTD did important work pushing this with Who, and I would guess Moffat found it significantly easier to continue in the same vein because of him. RTD is indeed the hero on this score, however Moffat did continue, and when people are accusing him of sexism et al in his choices or the poor writing of women etc, I think they're being very selective in what they're seeing (although to be fair, not on purpose). Personally I love Vasta, I think she's a great character, for example.

Wibbs wrote: »

Are you suggesting Alex Kingston aint damned hot? That's a paddlin

Not at all, I'm just saying in holywoodland she'd be a mentor to the Doctor, not his squeeze. She'd probably be all harsh and authoritarian and matronly, because THAT would be the stereotype. To which I would fall asleep

Wibbs wrote: »

and I'm sure Tennant 2 was there alright. What a disaster that would have been. Just likeRose 2 was. The latter I'd defo blame RTD for bowing to pressure and making a haimes of it, while he was at it.

Yup!

pixelburp wrote: »

Well yes true, when it became clear that Moffat wasn't closing off many of the threads he opened, it became the most vocal complaint about his time in charge. But the regeneration has flared up a persistent complaint from some quarters about his female characters that I simply don't subscribe to and find a touch disingenuous & selective at best. I genuinely think RTDs female characters were worse & and the tally of memorable, strong female characters is somewhat in Moffat's favour when you reach beyond the companions

I have a problem with this too. That voice in the Tardis only has 2 hours to be explained, for one.

Frank Lee Midere

Killer_banana wrote: »

I will add though, PB you said if people want to complain about Moffat then complain about his plotholes and the loose ends he leaves andthat has always been the thing I complain most about and I've seen more complaints in general about that than about how he writes women. But I guess it depends what websites you visit. Anywho I'll shut up now.

His potholes are deliberate, I think. For instance in the 11th hour - the first outing for Matt - we saw something move across the screen in the kitchen when Amy was outside. Maybe, or maybe not, the thing in the secret room - but how did it get out? And we never met her aunt. I was convinced this meant something, but he leaves clues like this because in part he is writing a detective show. What links these guys up? What does "silence will fall" mean? Who is Amy? etc. Also its a time travel show, it's going to get complicated.


I think the River Song idea is better than most people think. The timelines really do work there.

K-9

Tbh I found Amy slapping Rory, for comic effect, a tad sexist, never really got that!

The Master

Biggest Moffet plot hole ever, who blew up the Tardis? Never explained

OldmanMondeo

The Master wrote: »

Biggest Moffet plot hole ever, who blew up the Tardis? Never explained

Yet!

Killer_banana

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Yet!

After two years and already having visited Trenzalore without even a hint about it I cannot see him ever resolving it. I would go so far as to say I'd eat my hat if he did but Pixelburp said something to similar recently and it didn't end so well for him. :P

pixelburp

Killer_banana wrote: »

After two years and already having visited Trenzalore without even a hint about it I cannot see him ever resolving it. I would go so far as to say I'd eat my hat if he did but Pixelburp said something to similar recently and it didn't end so well for him. :P

Ha, says you, I'll have you know that hat I ate was delicious. A little salt, some pepper and the gag reflex is minimal! :P

Sleepy

I'm not overly familiar with the Capaldi but he has a good look for the role. I'm happy they went with an older actor this time around too, loved Smith but with him following Tennant it was starting to look a little like they were going to go the route of "young and good looking" which, while fine for Hollyoaks, doesn't really work for the Doctor for me at least.

Killer_banana

Das Kitty

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh I found Amy slapping Rory, for comic effect, a tad sexist, never really got that!

Yeah that really bothers me too. They wouldn't dream of doing it the other way around, so why this way. I hate when River does it too.

Plotholes: Both the "thing" moving past the window and Amy's Aunt were explained in the Big Bang. The moving thing was the Doctor coming back to tuck little Amy into bed. And Amy's aunt Sharon was there bringing her to the shrinks and she was later in the wedding scene.

The who blew up the Tardis thing, I dunno if it's just got so convoluted that it makes sense to me now. The silence blew it up to stop the trenzalore thing, but didn't mean to end the universe (whoops). And the allied forces of enemies were trying to prevent the Tardis blowing up?

That's my problem really. It's too complicated. I've watched series 5 a lot and still can't get my head around it.

Killer_banana

Das Kitty wrote: »

That's my problem really. It's too complicated. I've watched series 5 a lot and still can't get my head around it.

That's my issue with a lot of Moffat's 'clever' plots they're so convuloted and complicated most people can't figure them out. It sometimes feels like the Doctor is saying random gibberish with some wibbly wobby timey wimey thrown in to sound clever when it really isn't. I'm not saying this is always the case but it can feel like it sometimes.

tritium

Killer_banana wrote: »

An interesting article about Moffat, a female Doctor and a lot of problems some fans (myself included) have with how he writes the show.

Tbh crap like that blog really annoys me. Its agenda driven social planning by people who don't give a damn about the show. If you took everyone who'd lobbied for a female or black doctor I'd guess they'd make up about 1% of the shows regular audience. If you then eliminated those who couldn't name five previous doctors you'd have an even much smaller group.

All this "the time is right for..." Blah blah blah. Why? Just because a small cadre of idealogues would like to take a pretty good show and use it to push their social agenda? No thank you! If they want a strong female/ ethnic/ etc sci fi character get off their asses and write their own, and leave the doctor, who in many ways has displayed more social progressiveness than they'll ever understand, alone

SweepTheLeg

tritium wrote: »

Tbh crap like that blog really annoys me. Its agenda driven social planning by people who don't give a damn about the show. If you took everyone who'd lobbied for a female or black doctor I'd guess they'd make up about 1% of the shows regular audience. If you then eliminated those who couldn't name five previous doctors you'd have an even much smaller group.

All this "the time is right for..." Blah blah blah. Why? Just because a small cadre of idealogues would like to take a pretty good show and use it to push their social agenda? No thank you! If they want a strong female/ ethnic/ etc sci fi character get off their asses and write their own, and leave the doctor, who in many ways has displayed more social progressiveness than they'll ever understand, alone

I'm going to use this every time I come across articles like that. It was beautiful.

old hippy

I'd have liked to see Paterson Joseph in the role. Not because he happens to be black, rather his persona reminds me of the Timelord.

pixelburp

So presumably I'm not the only one curious if Capaldi will play the role with his natural accent, and at a recent interview, Moffat said that he'd "... be very surprised if he didn't." Not exactly confirmation, but I guess his ambiguous answer is because the actors tend to put their own stamp on the character; Capaldi may feel more comfortable with a different accent (but I hope not)