|
2house2fly posted:I know! I was saying maybe they didn't use more complex language in that bit to make sure that young children watching didn't get confused!!! Sorry, I was scarred for life by Outpost Gallifrey back in the day 
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
I was little when the dumbass Candyland episode of McCoy's aired and the Bertie Bassett thing scared the poo poo out of me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Helen A should've had another assistant called the Norm, who looked like a scarecrow and was always on a bike.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Um, the Doctor who television program was and always has been written for children, with stuff added in for the adults. It was never meant to be like Star Trek. Stuff like "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" never had any deep root in science, it was just a linguistically funny phrase that sounds sciency.  If Doctor Who has very little basis in science and lots of nonsensical technobabble, then surely it is like Star Trek?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
marktheando posted:
Now, now, let's not say things we can't take back Doctor Who doesn't attract pedophiles like Star Trek does. I guess no one likes Adric
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
marktheando posted:
Every hardcore Trekkie I've met likes to talk about the "science" of Star Trek, and how it would really work, and poo poo like that. Doctor Who and Star Wars fans tend to be more like, "It's magic." Yeah there are people out there writing "Science of Star Wars" books, and I'm sure some Who fan has "totally figured out" how the Tardis does it's thing, but they're few and far between.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
 just got this wall decoration as an early birthday gift. Love the old Cybermen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
egon_beeblebrox posted:
Why is it right against that wooden beam?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Every hardcore Trekkie I've met likes to talk about the "science" of Star Trek, and how it would really work, and poo poo like that. Doctor Who and Star Wars fans tend to be more like, "It's magic." Yeah there are people out there writing "Science of Star Wars" books, and I'm sure some Who fan has "totally figured out" how the Tardis does it's thing, but they're few and far between. Blueprints, Trekkies loving love blueprints. Especially if they are in book form, with lots of cross sections included as well. Not that I'm judging them or anything, but it's certainly a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Why is it right against that wooden beam? It must adapt to survive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:It was never meant to be like Star Trek. Stuff like "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" never had any deep root in science, it was just a linguistically funny phrase that sounds sciency. This isn't quite the case - the writing was much more scientifically literate, but Pertwee couldn't remember it so they taught him a simple phrase to remember and regurgitate when required.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Also to briefly go back to the race discussion it's important to note that the demographics of the united kingdom are very different to those of the united states; the largest non-white ethnic group in the UK is Asian or Asian British (and in particular Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi) rather than Black or Black British (7% vs 3%; the UK in general is 87% white, compared to the 72% white USA).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Oh god, look. It all boils down to the small child going "why is there no one on TV/movies/books/magazines that looks like me??? " The white kids are going to be watching British or American television and see thousands of white people of all shapes and sizes, it won't mean a drat thing to them if one or two characters are black or Asian. But it sure as poo poo will mean something to the small black kid if they see a black centurion or a Victorian soldier, historical accuracy be damned. If you ever feel the need to bitch about the colour of a character on a children's TV show remember Whoopi Goldberg saying that the first time she saw Star Trek she went running to her mother going "mama mama, there is a black woman on TV and she ain't no slave!!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
I don't think Jakiri was trying to advocate for the show's whiteness, just explaining that Asian representation is also important in a UK show, particularly given some of the history with India, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
I know but people have been banging on and on and on about racism the only problem I ever had was them making the first black companion's father a cheat who left his family for another woman, which did display a staggering lack of awareness of racial stereotypes by everyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Every hardcore Trekkie I've met likes to talk about the "science" of Star Trek, and how it would really work, and poo poo like that. Doctor Who and Star Wars fans tend to be more like, "It's magic." Yeah there are people out there writing "Science of Star Wars" books, and I'm sure some Who fan has "totally figured out" how the Tardis does it's thing, but they're few and far between. I think comparing Doctor Who and the two big Star franchises is interesting, and I think Who's somewhere between them. Star Wars doesn't care one iota about the fact it takes place in a 'sci-fi' universe, and barely even pays lip service to anything resembling sci-fi concepts, and yes I admit I'm a bit mad about that. But it's really not trying to do any of that just as a franchise. Who isn't like that, Who does very deliberately play with sci-fi concepts even if the actual science of it is nonsense and basically just aesthetic. It's still a lot softer than Star Trek since it doesn't shy away from straight-up craziness and things that cannot by any stretch of the imagination make real-world sense, but I feel like it usually does endeavor to at least make everything that isn't the Time Lords make sense, and face some very hard sci-fi concepts that Wars would never touch (and I'm specifically thinking of the Cybermen here, but there's other examples). I think it's oversimplifying it to say that Doctor Who is like Star Wars in its level of hard and soft sci-fi. Star Wars is wizards in space, but I feel like Doctor Who is more like a space wizard inhabiting a universe that, outside of him, isn't really powered by space magic. Cleretic fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Aug 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:I know but people have been banging on and on and on about racism Its okay to discuss that. Most of the discussion this time was a few people defending the right to discuss it at all. In rewatch world: Listen was as good as I remembered it. The beginning is the only part of it that's outright silly, because he finds existing animals for the "perfect" hunter and the "perfect" defense before saying "What about the perfect hiding?" It does invite Jakiri's criticism. I think it's easy to get past, though, and it's just about how even a centuries-old supergenius gets very scared, and obsesses over his fears when he's left alone. I don't mind that they go to the Doctor's past; it's mysterious and vague and reveals less than when Four meets his classmate. I can see why people get annoyed with it. It's not subtle, and the Danny/Orson stuff is an intentional unsolvable mystery that sort of invited people to solve it. I can't not love it, though. It's just sweet. It's got a cute little first date story in which learning about the past and thinking about the possible future and how worlds might collide are represented more literally through time travel. It's one of the few times in the season that Twelve's identity crisis makes it easy to identify with him rather than be angry at him. He doesn't lash out as much as he asks for help, because he's gone stir crazy and scared himself shitless telling himself ghost stories. He does a great job of comforting a child briefly (even if he does go off the rails right afterward), and he finally realizes he needs to stop and listen to the person he brought along to help him. And how often do we get a Doctor Who episode that really doesn't have a monster in the end? I also like the Heist episode for what it is, and the Robin Hood one has its flaws, but it's fun at parts. The Caretaker, though, yikes. So much of it just makes me uncomfortable, and not in ways that I think it should. The Doctor is too mean to Danny and Clara, and the "You're the PE teacher" scene isn't just a throwaway line, it just drags on and on. They keep hitting the "joke" with a hammer. It's bad, it makes the Doctor look like an rear end in a top hat grandpa, and it reminds me of uncomfortable times I've had to endure tone-deaf tenured faculty condescending to new assistant professors. Then, after the scene is over, he brings it up, again, later. And then again, and again. Plus the jokes about Clara's appearance have more than worn out their welcome by then, and why is it the Doctor's right to decide who she's dating. I think I liked it more when I was watching it, but really, I think making the Doctor unlikable was as much of a mistake as it was during the Colin Baker years, especially after seeing what Capaldi did with the role in season 10. I do like the joke in which Twelve thinks that Clara has a thing for the Matt Smith look-alike, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Who isn't like that, Who does very deliberately play with sci-fi concepts even if the actual science of it is nonsense and basically just aesthetic. It's still a lot softer than Star Trek since it doesn't shy away from straight-up craziness and things that cannot by any stretch of the imagination make real-world sense, but I feel like it usually does endeavor to at least make everything that isn't the Time Lords make sense, and face some very hard sci-fi concepts that Wars would never touch (and I'm specifically thinking of the Cybermen here, but there's other examples). I think it's more than just an aesthetic choice; the character is named after a respected figure of learning and his m.o. is based around applying knowledge over more physical forms of heroism. The show values science and rationality (and wants the audience to as well), even if the specifics are nonsense. BSG (to pick an example) is much harder sci-if but it doesn't have the same reverence for actual science that Star Trek or Doctor Who have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Its okay to discuss that. Most of the discussion this time was a few people defending the right to discuss it at all. Define "discuss." I think it's fine to discuss, but I also think you are incredibly dismissive of anyone who disagrees with the point. "Discussion" with you seems to be "Well we should all at least agree this is horrible and objectively wrong and if you disagree you are ignorant and trying to shut down dscussion." I think if you want representation, you have to accept that there will be flawed characters and some of them might fall into a stereotype. Unless what you're asking for is representation with perfect, always positive characters which make for boring drama. Rose's father was not depicted as perfect either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Astroman posted:
That doesn't mean we can't talk about it and say that the stereotyping was wrongheaded to write into the script. It's not a binary where an episode is either "good" or "bad," Astroman. Stereotyping is a flaw and it's worthy of criticism, just the same as bad writing, poorly timed jokes, or terrible set design.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:That doesn't mean we can't talk about it and say that the stereotyping was wrongheaded to write into the script. It's not a binary where an episode is either "good" or "bad," Astroman. Stereotyping is a flaw and it's worthy of criticism, just the same as bad writing, poorly timed jokes, or terrible set design. When did I say you can't talk about it? What you can't get through your neutronium-dense head is that me saying I disagree with you is not me saying you can't discuss it. Discussion means you have 2 different opinions, not different shades of agreement of the nuances of the same opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
The PE joke did go on a bit, didn't it. Knowledge of future episodes makes me laugh at "There's a sinister puddle" now. The Doctor's attitude to Clara dating and his comments only really make sense to me as manifestations of insecurity after she almost left him in Deep Breath, and much as I miss Grumpy Doctor I don't mind those aspects being exorcised by the end of Last Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Astroman posted:
This, I hope is unintentional on your part, but this argument gets used a lot to shut down criticism and discussion of these topics. I think this might be where the conflict is stemming from, because you're not trying to do so, but you're also regurgitating the same talking points that basically get used by people who use the terms 'SJW' and 'snowflake' unironically. The goal is to both broaden representation to the point that there's all kinds of characters of all different types, so that one or two that match stereotypes don't matter as much as they do now when those stereotypes are a disproportionate amount of the characters from a particular group that we see. It's where trends tend to factor into it and you have to marry the micro to the macro. Yes, an individual portrayal of a stereotype may be relatively harmless or even justifiable in a given work, but if those stereotypes are ALL we see, then it's valid to speak up and suggest that maybe we could see some non-stereotyped characters. There's a difference between having a bisexual villain who places value on money over human life, and having one who's portrayed as an indiscriminate sexual predator, for instance. Both are negative, flawed characters, but one is a harmful, pervasive stereotype, and the other is not. It's not about flawless, perfect characters that are beyond reproach. It's about not just using the same type of negative portrayal over and over. You somehow jumped from one episode of Who and disagreeing that it depicted stereotypes to saying "well, EVERYTHING's racist if you look hard enough so you should just accept it" which is kind of going to rub some people the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Astroman posted:When did I say you can't talk about it? Your only arguments have been, repeatedly, that racism must be intentional (we are beyond the point where this is worthy of anything but ridicule) and "you're condescending to people who disagree with you," which is ironic, given that you begin every single argument about this by accusing people of acting in bad faith by literally searching for things to be angry about. Find something else to say, perhaps. Also lol at "different shades of agreement of the nuances of the same opinion," which is otherwise known as "a disagreement that factors in complexity and nuance." Do put the tone policing to rest; it suits you even less than most.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Like, you're very close to literally saying "You're just going to have to accept some stereotypes," and accusing people of being condescending, it's kind of incredible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:I think it's more than just an aesthetic choice; the character is named after a respected figure of learning and his m.o. is based around applying knowledge over more physical forms of heroism. The show values science and rationality (and wants the audience to as well), even if the specifics are nonsense. Yeah, I'll agree with that. It doesn't care much about the specifics of science, but it very much respects and agrees with the concept of it. It has that in common with Star Trek, and it's a big commonality even if Who's far more inclined than Trek to introduce concepts and solutions that just don't work with science at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Star Trek is also a bit more broad in its scientific optimism. It takes place in an egalitarian post-scarcity economy with a United Earth. It's about a whole society that has adopted the pursuit of knowledge and idealism over violence, bigotry and cynicism. Doctor Who is about one guy with those ideals, mostly up against societies that have fallen victim to militarism, hate or inequality, and all of which have been doomed to a dystopian life in a quarry because of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Astroman posted:I for one can't wait til 12 starts talking down to this young man and telling him what's what. I am salivating for that moment. One: "Now you listen to me—" Twelve: "Quiet, kiddo, the adults are talking. Hasn't anyone told you to have respect for your elders?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Star Trek is also a bit more broad in its scientific optimism. It takes place in an egalitarian post-scarcity economy with a United Earth. It's about a whole society that has adopted the pursuit of knowledge and idealism over violence, bigotry and cynicism. Also about making it with a green chick. This is extremely important.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:I am salivating for that moment. I always found it odd how the later Doctors kind of defer to Number 1 in the multi Doctor eps. It makes sense from a fandom perspective cause he's the original, but in universe it makes very little sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Also about making it with a green chick. This is extremely important. Don't be ridiculous! Sometimes she's blue, or she just had forehead ridges or spots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:I always found it odd how the later Doctors kind of defer to Number 1 in the multi Doctor eps. It makes sense from a fandom perspective cause he's the original, but in universe it makes very little sense. If you're 40 you're probably going to want to let you in your prime handle most of the heavy lifting if you're 1493 you probably don't want a toddler handling your current day business
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:I always found it odd how the later Doctors kind of defer to Number 1 in the multi Doctor eps. It makes sense from a fandom perspective cause he's the original, but in universe it makes very little sense. I like to think it's because he lived a long full life in that incarnation, plus he was the first to make that initial step/move that lead to them becoming the Doctor in the first place. We don't know exactly why he left Gallifrey with Susan, but he chose to do so, stealing a TARDIS and going on the run at a time when he was (physically) old and worn down in spite of his comparative "youth". They're all him with the benefit of many centuries/millennia of extra experience and perspective, but none of them would be who they were if they hadn't been him first, and they kind of defer to him in that regard. I hope that makes some kind of sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I like to think it's because he lived a long full life in that incarnation, plus he was the first to make that initial step/move that lead to them becoming the Doctor in the first place. We don't know exactly why he left Gallifrey with Susan, but he chose to do so, stealing a TARDIS and going on the run at a time when he was (physically) old and worn down in spite of his comparative "youth". Makes some sense. Honestly, while I know the Multi Doc eps aren't very good, I have an affection for them anyhow as Five Doctors was the second thing I had ever seen as an attempt the see who I would like. In hindsight, the strangest thing about five Doctors is older Susan traveling with the (False) First Doctor. She is this pivotal part of the history of the show, showing up for the first time since her departure from it and She just does nothing, and no fuss is payed toward her at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
I feel like if there were three of me from different time periods working together, I'd look at teenage me with a bit of awe, not because I was impressed with him, but because of all of the times I'd be forced to say "Oh, right... that's where that comes from. Everything I am is because of this poor, confused infant." Still, it's probably mostly the outside perspective, demonstrating respect for Hartnell, etc. Both of the Doctors in the 50th treat the War Doctor like he's a relative whose respect they're trying to earn, which has reasons within the show but is also a way of bowing down to guest actor, John Hurt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I feel like if there were three of me from different time periods working together, I'd look at teenage me with a bit of awe, not because I was impressed with him, but because of all of the times I'd be forced to say "Oh, right... that's where that comes from. Everything I am is because of this poor, confused infant." I enjoyed the vibe of this between Missy and the Master in the finale. Just this sense that he doesn't know any better because he's a kid. Also the Doctor called him Junior at one point and it made me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:I enjoyed the vibe of this between Missy and the Master in the finale. Just this sense that he doesn't know any better because he's a kid. Also the Doctor called him Junior at one point and it made me laugh. His face is not round
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:His face is not round That's why Missy is so angular. It hurt his feelings 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
"It was a mutual kicking me out"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
remusclaw posted:Makes some sense. Honestly, while I know the Multi Doc eps aren't very good, I have an affection for them anyhow as Five Doctors was the second thing I had ever seen as an attempt the see who I would like. In hindsight, the strangest thing about five Doctors is older Susan traveling with the (False) First Doctor. She is this pivotal part of the history of the show, showing up for the first time since her departure from it and She just does nothing, and no fuss is payed toward her at all. I think I read somewhere (please correct me if I'm wrong), that they wanted to downplay the idea, implying that the Doctor had sex at some point, eventually resulting in her. Or something like that. I know the later books explictly say the Time Lords are loomed and are sterile, but isn't carried over into the revival (thankfully IMO). And in the audios, they make indirect references to both, but muddled. Also, in more general terms, while I love the Bicyclops posted:Star Trek is also a bit more broad in its scientific optimism. It takes place in an egalitarian post-scarcity economy with a United Earth. It's about a whole society that has adopted the pursuit of knowledge and idealism over violence, bigotry and cynicism. Doctor Who is about one guy with those ideals, mostly up against societies that have fallen victim to militarism, hate or inequality, and all of which have been doomed to a dystopian life in a quarry because of it. Yeah, there's always that edge of dystopia in Who - everything, even the good things, are a bit poo poo. The United Earth in Who becomes an galactic empire (not that one), there's galactic famine (unless they follow Davros'... imaginative solution), and you can always count upon the worst of human nature and weakness to surface...until the Doctor comes along and acts as a changing force, or inspires or encourages others to become that force. It's always going to be a little poo poo, but will be better after. The biggest difference is that Who is narratively freer than Star Trek due to its structure; The TARDIS can go anywhere and when, and the narrative structure of a given episode can change depending on the type of story (a certain time period, a location, genre, etc), where as Star Trek either has to rely on infrequent time-travel, the holodeck, a themed planet or a god-being to achieve the same thing. [e]: Actual not-bullshitting genuine crossover comic that actually exists: 
Pesky Splinter fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Aug 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 05:23
|
|
