|
Lampsacus posted:Who would be the weirdest New Who character to bring back? I reckon Rickey. It'd be awesome. The villainous dad from "The Idiot's Lantern".
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
The Next Doctor should have another adventure imo
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:The Next Doctor should have another adventure imo I was watching State of Play the other day and David Morrissey and John Simm should be in more stuff together, make it happen Chibnall
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Also, the converse of the companion scale is that Ace was totally a lesbian and the best companion ever. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
For some reason, I always forget Rose only stayed for two seasons. I guess it doesn't help that her character's influence pervades the whole of Tennant's stay as the Doctor, but sometimes it feels like she's had more material than she actually did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Real talk, I would love for Billie Piper to come back as a companion as Bad Wolf. That would be swell
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Also, the converse of the companion scale is that Ace was totally a lesbian and the best companion ever. I think we can find several novels
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Counterpoint: Karra.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Bisexual people exist, you know
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Forktoss posted:I can't remember if RTD has actually said this or if it's just been hypothesized in this thread, but The Parting of the Ways is written in a way that would have allowed them to lead into pretty much any possible Doctor/companion pairing for the next season with very small changes depending on which actors wanted to stay on. If both Billie Piper and Christopher Eccleston wanted to stay, the Doctor and Rose could both have easily survived; if Piper wanted to leave, the vortex energy could have killed Rose and the Doctor would have gone off with Lynda; or, as ended up happening, if just Eccleston wanted to leave, he could save Rose by absorbing the vortex energy and then regenerate. It seems pretty clear that who were and were not staying on for Season 2 was still up in the air as the scripts were being written, and the finale is constructed to be pretty malleable to accommodate for that. Going by Rusty's writing style and pace, he likely just wrote the whole finale the night before after burning through 80 fags.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:I was watching State of Play the other day and David Morrissey and John Simm should be in more stuff together, make it happen Chibnall The Next Doctor and Paternoster Gang all run in for a HUUUUUGE NON-DOCTOR EPISODE
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Would Clara have been better or worse if her entire run was different Claras meeting the Doctor every episode or two and then dying
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Neil Gaiman reportedly was under the impression that the Doctor was going to be travelling with Victorian Clara from "The Snowmen" and wrote "Nightmare In Silver" with this in mind before he was corrected (I think the kids Victorian Clara was governess for were meant to be going in the TARDIS with them).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Dabir posted:I think we can find several novels Yeah, but it's in the goddamn episode titles: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
After The War posted:Yeah, but it's in the goddamn episode titles: Rona Munro must have been so upset when they changed hers to "Cheetah Girlfriend, but with Really Bad Makeup and Costumes."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Must have been losing her virginity to Sabalom Glitz on the floor of his spaceship that turned Ace into a lesbian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
After The War posted:Yeah, but it's in the goddamn episode titles: Having read all of Ben Aaronovitch's river's of London series I'm really not surprised to see him on that list. He really is a very strange man and I'm never sure if what I'm reading is genius or a car crash in word form. One thing I am sure of is that he does not seem to recognise the existence of Lesbians. Out of the dozens of women in that series, who have spent hundreds or even thousands of years in each other's company, exactly none of them are not straight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Bring back Chantho
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:One thing I am sure of is that he does not seem to recognise the existence of Lesbians. Out of the dozens of women in that series, who have spent hundreds or even thousands of years in each other's company, exactly none of them are not straight. What about DS Stephanopolous?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Tony Selby is still alive. I could get behind an elderly Sabalon Glitz story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:What about DS Stephanopolous? Ok I'll grant you the stereotypical mannish boss lady Lesbian with a chip on her shoulder. I can't remember who her partner is but I'm assuming she is a tiny pretty Asian. Only reason a lesbian river goddess couple would crop up is if he wants to shoehorn in another overly graphic and completely unnecessary sex scene, also the hero would be asked to join in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Having read all of Ben Aaronovitch's river's of London series I'm really not surprised to see him on that list. He really is a very strange man and I'm never sure if what I'm reading is genius or a car crash in word form. One thing I am sure of is that he does not seem to recognise the existence of Lesbians. Out of the dozens of women in that series, who have spent hundreds or even thousands of years in each other's company, exactly none of them are not straight. Fwiw, at least one major recurring character in his Rivers of London books is a lesbian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Ok I'll grant you the stereotypical mannish boss lady Lesbian with a chip on her shoulder. I can't remember who her partner is but I'm assuming she is a tiny pretty Asian. Only reason a lesbian river goddess couple would crop up is if he wants to shoehorn in another overly graphic and completely unnecessary sex scene, also the hero would be asked to join in. There's also Tyburn's daughter in the latest book. Though I can't think of any others. Speaking of the most recent one, actually, I think the ideal casting for the main villain if RoL ever gets to TV would really have to be Jacob Rees-Mogg. Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Having read all of Ben Aaronovitch's river's of London series I'm really not surprised to see him on that list. That's the last two series of the original run ("The Baseball Bat One" is Remembrance, for example, and "Not the Baseball Bat One" is Silver Nemesis)
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I'm so glad that we can now spend another ten pages of people being obtuse about how maybe, just maybe, the portrayal of those three characters was insensitive at best, and we can split hairs about how they're not thieves but salvage crews, despite the fact that they very clearly are trying to take things the Doctor repeatedly begs them not to take, and only offers them anything at all because they have put him in a terrible position. They put him in a terrible position? They initially thought it was too dangerous to deal with so they wanted to throw the TARDIS back into space. Instead, The Doctor tells them they would have the salvage of a lifetime if they help him look for Clara. This is clearly a trick because not only would he not just give his TARDIS away, he even tells them once inside that the salvage was actually Clara, not the TARDIS. Then once they are inside he locks the doors, traps them inside, and activates what they think is a self destruct set for 30 minutes. The one guy starts disassembling the control room because they are shady scrappers and that's what happens in every plot situation like this no matter what color the person is. Then the other guy steals that egg thing because, faced with the possibility of an object that can create anything, it's too good to pass up. This is also what always happens in plots like this no matter what color the person is. But I guess you can twist things however you want as long as you can get offended by it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:They put him in a terrible position? They initially thought it was too dangerous to deal with so they wanted to throw the TARDIS back into space. Instead, The Doctor tells them they would have the salvage of a lifetime if they help him look for Clara. This is clearly a trick because not only would he not just give his TARDIS away, he even tells them once inside that the salvage was actually Clara, not the TARDIS. Then once they are inside he locks the doors, traps them inside, and activates what they think is a self destruct set for 30 minutes. The one guy starts disassembling the control room because they are shady scrappers and that's what happens in every plot situation like this no matter what color the person is. Then the other guy steals that egg thing because, faced with the possibility of an object that can create anything, it's too good to pass up. This is also what always happens in plots like this no matter what color the person is. But I guess you can twist things however you want as long as you can get offended by it. Casting a bunch of black people as shady criminals trying to carjack the doctor is a pretty easy example of racial insensitivity. It wasn't something somebody did on purpose. Nobody went, "well, they have to be black, right? Because they're car thieves." And nobody is suggesting that anybody did. Just that nobody thought about it hard enough before creating the episode. In addition, nobody has suggested that anybody who likes the episode is racist, or a bad person, or anything of the sort. The only thing that has occurred is the suggestion that maybe it wasn't the best move to cast the people they did in the roles that they did, because it reinforces negative stereotypes. The fact that this results in any argument, and in fact, any discussion beyond "yeah, that wasn't the best" is just more machinery in the giant apparatus that keeps our collective heads in our asses as a culture. Because it is seen as "divisive" to mention issues of race or gender or sexuality, even when talking about fiction, these discussions become themselves resented, and the onus of responsibility always seems to lay on those suggesting there might be a problem, while blame is entirely lifted from those demanding that those people stop besmirching the good name of whatever it is that's being discussed. And so we are taught not to talk about it, or, just as negatively, we are taught that when we do talk about it, it must be an argument. My hope is that, this being the Doctor Who thread, we can arrive somewhere better than a more eloquent version of "nuh-uh"-ing and "yeah-huh"in back and forth when talking about social issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:
In fact, it gets to be so exhausting, dealing with the same tired "I guess it's racist whenever a person of color does anything bad in media, followed by pages of pages of people bending over backwards finding fictional "in-universe"reasons why it is okay, as if the fantastical and science fiction written in our time does not have real life analogues and influences, argument after argument that isn't even "Well, I actually think it addresses regressive stereotypes via..." but flat-out denials that there is a problem, and assertions that the person who suggested insensitivity is part of some kind of "outrage police," that discussion becomes impossible. It's even entirely possible to disagree on what is regressive or progressive and to have a good discussion about it, because fiction is subject to interpretations based on individual experiences, and people might see nuance differently. That's never it, though. It's just denial, derision and dismissal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
That's a nice strawman you built there, but like I said, they weren't car thieves. They brought the TARDIS onboard because they thought it was scrap, and then they tried to scrap it after they thought they were invited to scrap it. The episode is stereotypical in that it's yet another "new characters are on a space ship and are supposed to be helping but they are actually doing something nefarious" plot similar to Star Trek's Starship Mine. But that isn't even applicable because The Doctor actually tells them they can scrap the TARDIS if they help find Clara. The carjacking thing is people trying to make up a problem to complain about. I'm sick of the stereotypical goon bullshit of "This show is actually racist, if you don't see it you're just obtuse, discussion over, I win." There's enough problematic episodes of sci-fi out there like Star Trek's Code of Honor, and Stargate's Emancipation that crying racism every time a black person is cast in a role where they do something bad is counter-productive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Look, we may never agree on everything, but we can all agree that while Mel was an awful companion in the show, she is really wonderful in Big Finish right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:That's a nice strawman you built there The irony is pretty exquisite here. I'm onto Day of the Doctor and hoping I enjoy it as much. I liked Name of the Doctor okay, I guess... I don't think, ultimately, that is serves as a very satisfactory conclusion to the Clara mystery, but it's okay. The seance is really a bit much, and River's inclusion feels like it's there just to hit post season 5 finale notes, but taken as an individual episode, it's alright. It's a good illustration, maybe, of why the show has to change hands every once in awhile, because the difficulty with it is that it feels overloaded with staples that have worn a bit thin (the rhyming chants, River's joke about the champagne, "Yowza!" etc. etc). They're all totally fine on their own, but they start to overwhelm, to the point where the whole episode feels like it's just a collection of the writer's signatures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Season seven has episodes that are pretty cool on their own but its story arc is really undercooked. "The Name of the Doctor" had some okay moments but it felt like the payoff for a story that didn't really happen. By the way, Bicyclops, what did you think of "Nightmare In Silver"? I think I missed your thoughts on revisiting it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Tony Selby is still alive. I could get behind an elderly Sabalon Glitz story. Why he hasn't done any Big Finish is beyond me. I always liked Glitz so that would be an instabuy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:
There are things I liked about it, but I still don't think it's a great episode. It's easy to say that it was just Gaiman writing for the Victorian governess Clara, but I think, really, that the Cybermen ar hard to write for as a rule, and they don't really play to Gaiman's strengths. The rest of it it all feels like it gels. We have an abandoned amusement park, a carnival barker type with cheap carnival games, an emperor in hiding, a villain who uses the Doctor's own mind against him in a high stakes chess game that, of course, ends through cheating, some kids who won't listen and get themselves into trouble, etc. etc. All that stuff feels like fodder for a pretty good Neil Gaiman story. But then, there's the Doctor Who military, who predictably want to blow up the whole planet at the first sign of a threat, painting by the numbers in the background. Meanwhile, the Cybermen have a threat of conversion that feels toothless because of how easily people seem to snap in and out of it and how partial it is, both practically and aesthetically. The sense of permanent loss that comes once they've got someone on their side is entirely lost. The characters and visuals tell us there are millions of Cybermen and only four weapons, but we never really feel like the protagonists are outnumbered or that anything they do matters; the Cybermen are just used as batteries for the chess game and Clara (cum military) don't even really feel like a distraction. We're told the children are the reason the Cybermen are awake and then are told in the very next sentence that they didn't need children after all. They also don't seem to do much in their semi-converted state, which they spend most of the episode in. Basically, the Mr. Clever stuff works and the setting is intriguing, but there's this whole B plot that feels like it's trying to connect to it and can't find the threads. I wish Mr. Clever had been some kind of amusement park computer using the Doctor's head and that it had used the setting, a space theme park, to try to kill Clara and the kids, instead of dragging the Cybermen into it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:In fact, it gets to be so exhausting, dealing with the same tired "I guess it's racist whenever a person of color does anything bad in media, followed by pages of pages of people bending over backwards finding fictional "in-universe"reasons why it is okay, as if the fantastical and science fiction written in our time does not have real life analogues and influences, argument after argument that isn't even "Well, I actually think it addresses regressive stereotypes via..." but flat-out denials that there is a problem, and assertions that the person who suggested insensitivity is part of some kind of "outrage police," that discussion becomes impossible. It's even entirely possible to disagree on what is regressive or progressive and to have a good discussion about it, because fiction is subject to interpretations based on individual experiences, and people might see nuance differently.  Thank you for this. Had I not had an exceptional day, this small acknowledgement of this problem surely would've made my day. Cojawfee posted:That's a nice strawman you built there, but like I said, they weren't car thieves. The fact that so many found it problematic is not evidence of malice. It is evidence of insensitivity. And that's okay. It doesn't make the show bad, and you don't have to defend it. It requires no defense. In fact, the best defense on the part of those actually responsible would be, "yeah, we acknowledge that that wasn't a good look, and let's try to be better in the future." Nobody is asking for anything else, even an apology, and nobody is demanding anything at all. The show did not need to have them be named as literal thieves to play upon decades upon decades, if not centuries, of images of black people as thieves. And it did play with those images, albeit likely unintentionally. If I were to continue your argument, as reductive of the issue as I on my side of this believe it to be, if what you're saying is correct, the show would've benefited from a scene explicitly saying what you're insisting it implied: that the characters very much aren't thieves. And have morals. And a code. And would never, ever steal a thing from somebody who would be hurt by its absence. If it did, I'd be much more open to your argument that a salvager is not a thief, therefore this portrayal was just fine. Furthermore, it would be some good worldbuilding for the episode. I'd identify with the characters more than I did. Just have one of them grab something that's loose and have another grab their wrist, rack focus to the grabber's face, and say, "that's not salvage. That's stealing." Five seconds, and the problem is solved. But it didn't do that. It was a little tone-deaf. And that's fine. We just want to point that out without causing a pages-long derail about whether anything at all is ever racist, intentionally or not, because if the counterarguments are to be believed, literally nothing is. And I'm sorry, Bicyclops, 'cause I can tell you're trying to just move us past this, but I had to take one more stab at it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
I, for one, am sick that Doctor Who would perpetuate the stereotype that black people like to convince each other that they are robots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Old companion brought back? How about the appropriate companion for a Doctor who just got traumatized fighting the Cybermen? Handles Mk. 2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Narsham posted:Old companion brought back? How about the appropriate companion for a Doctor who just got traumatized fighting the Cybermen? Handles Mk. 2. maybe k-9 could come back
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Narsham posted:Old companion brought back? How about the appropriate companion for a Doctor who just got traumatized fighting the Cybermen? Handles Mk. 2. Bring. Back. Anneke. Wills.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Can you at least understand that though there is an out for the writer and the casting director, and everybody involved, in the form of your argument, that as presented, the characters unintentionally played upon the stereotype of black people being car thieves? No, I can't. I don't see how what they did could be tied to something black people stereotypically do, instead of something a character of any race does in a treasure hunting story. At no point do they hijack the TARDIS, so the car jacking complaint is just stupid. Like I've said two times now, they only want to even salvage the TARDIS after they get kidnapped and trapped inside by The Doctor. While searching for Clara, they decide to split up and one or two of them decide to start salvaging things on the way. While this is a stereotype of these types of stories, it is not a black stereotype. Then one of them is faced with the greatest find of all time, one that would make him inconceivably rich and he falls for it. This is also a stereotype of these kinds of stories, but once again, not a black stereotype. Yes, The Doctor asks him not to take the egg thing because the TARDIS doesn't want him to, but at this point he is so enamored with the thought of a device that can make anything, that he doesn't listen to reason. You see this in any kind of movie or TV show where someone finds some rare treasure and are told they can't take it because it is a curse or a trap or whatever. I still don't even know why you are calling them thieves. In the grand scheme of things, they are technically stealing things because The Doctor lied to them, but they don't know this. The entire time they are in the TARDIS they are under the assumption that they are allowed to take those things because The Doctor explicitly tells them they will be allowed to scrap the TARDIS in exchange for finding Clara. Going back to that incident where one of them takes that device and the TARDIS seals them in that room. The guy who thinks he is an android gives you exactly what you want and refuses to cut through the wall while telling his brother that the TARDIS is a living they and they shouldn't hurt it. I've already said the same thing three times and I don't feel like saying it anymore, so I'm done with this topic unless someone has something new to add. Cojawfee fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
LividLiquid posted:We just want to point that out without causing a pages-long derail about whether anything at all is ever racist, intentionally or not, because if the counterarguments are to be believed, literally nothing is. No, you guys just want to be able to say things like Fair Bear Maiden posted:And racist. Don't forget. Really not their best rodeo. LividLiquid posted:Can you at least understand that though there is an out for the writer and the casting director, and everybody involved, in the form of your argument, that as presented, the characters unintentionally played upon the stereotype of black people being car thieves? What about the actors? Do they bear no responsibility for choosing to take the roles? LividLiquid posted:The fact that so many found it problematic is not evidence of malice. It is evidence of insensitivity. And that's okay. It doesn't make the show bad, and you don't have to defend it. It requires no defense. In fact, the best defense on the part of those actually responsible would be, "yeah, we acknowledge that that wasn't a good look, and let's try to be better in the future." The fact that many found it problematic is not evidence that they are correct. Not everyone is going to agree with your interpretation, and saying that anyone who disagrees is "shutting down discussion" is it's own way of shutting down discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 03:07
|
|