|
Box of Bunnies posted:I bring Sutekh's gift of adorable scamp grandpa Bill Hartnell They need to have David Bradley recreate this scene.  Also I'd like to add my 2 cents (or pence? Is that what you guys do?) to this: quote:The Companion Chronicles / The Early Adventures The original brief with these was they were single hander audiobooks, but as they lines go on they really blur them with multiple cast members and you have guys like Frazier Hines and Peter Purves doing imitations of Doctors 2 and 1 that are pretty drat perfect, so the newer ones are no different than a full cast audio to my ears. There's still the odd narration which I wish they'd give up though.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
The biggest problem with 9 is that we truly didn't get enough time to see where Eccleston and RTD would take the character. Imagine we only had one season (and no BF) of 6 or 12? Not a fair assesment in my book.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Vinylshadow posted:Casual Calapdi is a thing of beauty I love the fact that he's doing the Pertwee Pose, but in a t-shirt.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Pray that whoever we get as The 13th Doctor, he gets it as much as Capaldi does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdMOHb4RKEg Q_res posted:https://youtu.be/ffX5iAG0GWI Speaking of 6 I finally got around to The Last Adventure: I'd heard rather mixed reviews ITT of it, and I have to agree. The first story was smashing; would stand up to any Doctor, any era. The second was...silly. Kinda dumb. The third, well Jago and Litefoot always bring it, but the ending was a bit lame. I think there was a lot of missed opportunity in the 4th story. Sure, the idea that old Sixie was the willing architect of his own death as a way of saving the Time Lords, and by extension, the Universe, from The Valeyard was a nice gesture to C Bakes, but I have to admit when I saw Sylvester McCoy in the credits I would have hoped for meatier role--imagine the apotheosis of The Valeyard trying to steal The Doctor's remaining regenerations; imagine he succeeds, and 6 kills him--only for him to regenerate into a Valeyard version of 7, played to the hilt by McCoy Not that I'm begrudging Michael Jayston his performance because he certainly chews the gently caress out of the scenery as only he can. But another missed opportunity--the Valeyard is always portrayed as Evil Incarnate, always creepily insinuating or manically cackling--imagine him played as a True Nth Doctor--imagine him being genuinely sincerely charming to a companion, imagine him doing what he thinks as right as The True Doctor, but misguided from our perspective--that would have been a nuanced take indeed.The idea that The Valeyard is really, truly, a Doctor Gone Wrong is something we've never really seen, and we're the poorer for it IMO.Another missed opportunity that only BF could do--the Valeyard is the Doctor at the end of his (first) regeneration cycle. In theory he has the memories of all the Doctors, at least to Trenzalore. So they could have dropped a few hints that he knows more. Imagine he referenced stuff from past 6 that Trial of a Timelord never could? When he mentioned Jago as a having a military bearing in the 3rd episode, imagine Jago being hinted at playing Captain Jack, and Ellie as playing Rose in the macabe play acting of the 9th Doctor's regeneration? Or hints of 8? Could the Bowtie reference been to 11 instead of 2? A great way to dovetail BF into the greater world of the current show. The best we got was the reference to Flip "falling a great distance if she didn't look where she leapt" or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Vinylshadow posted:
The Five Doctors II: Five Harder
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
David Bradley, duh!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:apparently today was Peter Capaldi's last day filming. I'm going to miss seeing how much more insane his hair can get From the same twitter: https://twitter.com/AdamOrford1/status/856660207103082497 Well to be technical, it's David Bradley as Peter Capaldi as Jon Pertwee.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:One thing I've thought of for a regeneration episode is have the Doctor regenerate with a new actor... They almost kinda did this with Time and The Rani--when Sixie regenerated into 7, he was unconscious and seemed to still think he was C Bakes--but there was a lot of post regeneration mental instability in there, and it didn't last long.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:It's actually me, that's why I'm in London. It's like The Pope, where techinically any Catholic can be elected; you don't even have to be an actor to be The Doctor, just a registered Whovian. TinTower posted:Alternative casting: I'd be hip to that. learnincurve posted:Jamie Bamber Holy poo poo, that is an excellent idea! He has the scifi street cred with BSG, he's had semi leading roles in ensemble series like BSG and L&O:UK. Plus he's still kinda young and sexy. My mom, for example, loved Tennant and hates Capaldi--she'd be all for that. docbeard posted:I haven't ever really followed the bookies' choices that closely, but wasn't Patterson Joseph considered to be very heavily in the running for Eleven right up until Matt Smith was cast? That's a vague memory so I'm probably wrong about some/all of the details. IIRC Patterson turned the role down, or so the rumor goes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
All the racists ITT need to get over their fear of a Bluish Doctor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
She was really good in Broadchurch.Burkion posted:The only reason I suspect Gomez Master doesn't have some self loathing issues is because the only person the Master doesn't hate is themselves. Well I wouldn't even go that far, since they killed each other... TinTower posted:She's got etheric beam locators! The Moffat Curse of Fatal Death predictions continue-- the show keeps on making everything happen that we saw in that short, even beyond Moffat's tenure. The_Doctor posted:Talking of Transformers, TFwiki has a great take on RUINED FOREVER. http://doctorwhogeneral.wikia.com/wiki/Times_Doctor_Who_Was_Ruined_Forever
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:I always thought that the Time Lords would be big into eugenics and growing babies in a lab myself. That's why I liked the idea of Looms--it was the ultimate expression of how ossified and apart from the life of the Universe the Time Lords were. They play better as being dusty old academics who are locked away from reality, mired in pointless ceremony and titles, than being actual people who live and love and have babies. It highlights why the Doctor would leave.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Vinylshadow posted:
To me that's the way to do it. I know some people will tell me as a man I don't get what sexism or being a woman is about when I say this, but I think it shouldn't be acknowledged in the show at all. They've gone through great pains in the past few seasons to show Time Lords don't really acknowledge or care about gender, and it would be a mistake to go back on that. Maybe it comes up sometimes when she visits some patriarchal society but there's been plenty of times the Doctor has been poo poo on by the Powers That Be in any time or on any planet, so that she could piledrive her way through. But the extent of the "now am a Woman" stuff should be left with The Master's dumb jokes in the last episode. To me, that would do a lot to erase the doubts of the people freaking out that Doctor Who Has Been Ruined Forever--if they tune in and it's recognizably the same show, same character, doing the same things. I mean, we've had the whole "you're an attractive person. Probably" bit from both 4 and Missy--it's been well established that Time Lords just don't give a gently caress about gender, sexuality, attractiveness, etc. Or what they do see is something else entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Wyld Karde posted:Gonna break out my crystal ball for a minute here. That would go right against what 12 said a couple episodes back about not even being able to remember if he or the Master were men or women growing up--it's NOT a big change from a Gallifreyan POV. Plavski posted:He's also a grandfather  Grandmother
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
"drat YOU TUMBLR, YOU ARE A WORSE PERSON THAN THE HACKER KNOWN AS 4CHAN!!!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Cruel Rose posted:Trevor Baxter's died. So long, Professor Litefoot. drat.  We get a new Doctor, and the next day we get crushed. I just started listening to J&L recently, and I'm on series 8. There was so much to listen to, but I thought it would go on forever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
I wonder what Mad Larry thinks of all this... https://twitter.com/Lawrence_Miles/status/887038694112329728 Well, he's actually all for a female Doctor! Too bad 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:She did? Where? I don't know if he's ever mentioned much about BF, or that he listens (he totally does though, you know it). If he had any doubts about wanting to do the audios, I'm sure Nick Briggs has already written a script for a multi-Doctor episode featuring him and Tom Baker, and that would probably seal the deal instantly to be able to work with one of his childhood heroes!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:Yeah, by the time Tom Baker started, Capaldi would be 16. Young, but not a kid. It was awhile before he outgrew it (if he ever did): 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Oh, gosh, she was only 69. That's brutal. At least she got to live long enough to see a female Doctor.  First Professor Litefoot, and now Victoria. A rough week for Victorian era companions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Cruel Rose posted:https://www.facebook.com/christopherjonescomicart/posts/1358069847563940 I agree. I think he's being unfairly bashed. He was very effusive with his praise of Jodie: quote:I feel... I think the time for discussion about that is past. They’ve made the announcement. Jodie Whittaker is the next Doctor and that’s great! quote:she has my best wishes and full confidence. I’m sure she’ll do a wonderful job. quote:The time for discussion is over. We have a new Doctor. And let’s give her our full support. He is very much against the sexism against her and thinks people who doubt her in the role should give her a chance: quote:I would encourage them to watch. I think there’s too much... you know on the internet... there’s too much bile coming from both sides. And too many people are being horribly sexist about it, and too many people are saying, ‘Well, we don’t care about you. You’re old fashioned. Go away and watch something else.’ I think fans who are doubtful, who are uncertain should be encouraged and welcomed. And just approach it with an open mind. He's absolutely right. It seems like a lot of people are shredding him because he had expressed less than full and rapturous enthusiasm for the part going from a man to a woman, and because he dares to feel that boys should have male role models. HopperUK posted:Well I guess the argument then is 'why do girls need women to be represented if gender doesn't matter'. Clearly it does matter, but I feel like to be on the 'boys are losing out' side you'd have to believe either that representation doesn't matter (and I think it does) or that men and women are already equally represented so nothing needs to change (ha). For someone who is progressive, there is zero problem squaring the circle with saying "Girls should have positive female role models. Boys should have role models that are male or female. Strictly male role models for boys are not necessary." For someone particularly of Davison's generation, that sounds like a contradiction. For progressives, it's not at all--because of inherent inequality due to the patriarchal power structure. But you can't expect someone who hasn't been made aware of social justice studies, arguments, etc to know all about that point of view. So instead what happens is Davison get's pilloried which exactly what he says fans should NOT be doing to people who dislike a woman in the role: quote:I think that it will be hard for some fans to adjust to it. As I said before, it’s difficult to adjust to any new Doctor, but I think the important thing is that those are uncertain fellows, those who are uncertain should be encouraged to watch it with an open mind. Instead of pushing people away and saying "gently caress THOSE SEXIST ASSHOLES, I DON'T WANT THEM WATCHING THE SHOW ANYWAY!" they should be encouraged to watch, to give it a chance, and maybe they'll learn something. Personally I think it doesn't matter anyway, because just because the Doctor regenerated into a woman once, it doesn't mean they'll always be a woman. Hell, my biggest fear was that with Tennant and Smith we'd never see an old guy in the role again, that it would always be dreamy young men--til Moffat cast Capaldi (and Hurt for that matter). So I can deal with the next 4 Doctors not being older, because we've seen we can always go back and the Doctor isn't one archetype one way or another. Basically sometimes the Doctor will be a woman. Sometimes he'll be a man. Sometimes old, sometimes young. Sometimes white, sometimes not. And it will matter less and less as time goes on, which to me is a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Because of the deliberate shock factor, they played with regeneration quite a lot this year and it would have fit the pattern. For what it's worth, at the Comic Con panel Capaldi said one of the things he was happiest about was getting through the last few years without getting sacked, and from his tone and the facial expressions of him, Moffat, Mackie etc when he said that it seemed genuine. Maybe he really did quit. OTOH, when you look at the IMDB he's got about 10 less episodes than Smith and Tennant.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:I've been going through the Seventh Doctor era stuff, and I've gotta say, I like the one where he takes a cruise vacation to Mexico with Benny and Jamie Holy poo poo...this is a thing that exists.  This happened in my timeline. I'm a bit drunk right now; I'm going to have to come back to the thread tomorrow to see if it's still there and watch it because I have my doubts right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
I guess you could say the 10th Doctor was kinda getting his groove back after being War who he wanted to forget, and 9, who was still saddled with guilt over what he (thought he) did as War. So he overcompensated a bit. One concern I do have with Jodie is that I wonder what her relationship is with the show as a fan. I haven't heard her speak much about it, but I'm pretty sure she's not a superwhonerd like Tennant or Capaldi, nor can I see her writing fanfiction and geeking out over Troughton eps like Smith did to get into the role. Of course Eccleston wasn't a huge fan either as far as I know, and he did a great job performing. Though he was quick to leave and not want to come back, which I can never see happening with 10, 11, or 12. I guess it was bound to happen sometime--you aren't always going to get massive fans cast in the role. At least the showrunner is though. When we get some kind of nu-Who done by both an actor and a showrunner who aren't huge fans (or the same stable of writers who have been involved in spin off media for the past 20 years) things could take a massive nosedive. Or not, but looking at the shitshow that is modern Star Trek I don't want to see my other favorite franchise go that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Timby posted:Ten wasted an entire regeneration because he was too full of himself to accept changing. Or you might say he regenerated...into himself.  Which makes you wonder why Capaldi wouldn't just do that if he didn't want to change again. The Doctor has shown greater and greater control over the process and the Master has as well ("If the Doctor can be young and strong..."). Plus I would imagine having a whole new cycle would give you a sort of level up, so even without extra hands or Karn potions in theory he should be able to stay the same. Of course he can't, but in universe you have to wonder why.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Watching Season 3 of Broadchurch, and it's so cool seeing the 10th and 13th Doctors in the same scene!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Let's Kill Hitler. Oh yes Mels, the best friend we've never mentioned before. How is this poo poo just a year after the wonderful series five? Mels is the Poochie of Doctor Who. MELS REGENERATED INTO ALEX KINGSTON ON THE WAY BACK TO HER HOME PLANET
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Jodie has Chris' seal of approval! She will only do one season and it'll leak that she's leaving when the first episode airs?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
pgroce posted:He wasn't saying they should have cast white actors in the roles. He was saying that: Yes. For one they could have written them as a space salvage crew instead of space car theives.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:lol sure thing Astroman, that's the way it goes, the people who bring it up are the ones who call it a "derail." Well let's see: 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. You're saying here that if you point out what you perceive as racism in media, and someone disagrees with your basic premise, they are denying, deriding, and outright dismissing it. You're saying that sure, it can be discussed, but only if they start by saying "Well, I actually think it addresses regressive stereotypes via.." and that if someone denies they see what you see, then "discussion becomes impossible." It's you, it is you who is shutting down discussion.  Murderion posted:I, too, am mystified as to why actors, especially minority actors who are commonly shut out of major roles, would choose to appear in Britain's most internationally famous television show if they disagree with their portrayal. Hmm, maybe you could whitesplain to these professional actors how they are being sucked in by institutional racism into acting against their best interests as you see them. Here's their twitters, I'm sure they'd love it if you #WOKE them: https://twitter.com/ashleywalters82?lang=en https://twitter.com/007markoliver?lang=en https://twitter.com/mrjevvy?lang=en Let us know how it goes. FWIW, I do agree that Talons of Weng Chiang is pretty horribly racist. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:That's a much more nuanced take than "is racist" Exactly--he started the discussion with an un-nuanced statement, kickflipped away, and then when people responded then suddenly nuance was required on thier part. I do believe racism exists. I do believe there are racist people who deliberately betray minorities in a bad light. However in this case, in what is one of the most progressive shows on tv, it's reaching to say that they were being racist, or casting black actors in these roles would be seen by the average person as confirming a negative stereotype of blacks as criminals or carjackers. The only people who see this are people who are trying to find racism, sexism, etc around every corner, and by pointing it out it not only actually creates the association to the general public who didn't see it, it also trivializes it when real examples are pointed out, making the general public more likely to dismiss them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:This is the issue in a nutshell. This is why these arguments are always such a fuckarow (in fact, it's why they are heated arguments instead of discussion). Even people who argue points frequently suggest that the people claiming something is insensitive are doing just because they're looking to be outraged which poisons the well and honestly, is patently ridiculous in every way. Astroman does it directly below: insisting that literally the only way someone could find racism in the episode is if they are searching for it everywhere. That's the lack of nuance, and it's really, incredibly stupid to believe that five people who posted about it are just walking around all day looking for something to manufacture outrage about. You have to absolutely bend over backward to believe that is how anyone except for an extremely tiny minority of people are acting, and it is always arguing in bad faith to suggest it. Always, every time. I notice one common thread in all your arguments though---that you are absolutely right and everyone on the other side of the issue is absolutely wrong and at best doesn't understand it as well as you. Murderion posted:... That was the exact opposite of my point, and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I don't blame the actors for taking work, the vast, vast majority of actors aren't in a position to turn down speaking roles on primetime TV. It's not their responsibility to vet every role for 100% Correctness, and leaving a gig because you don't agree with what you're portraying is seen as completely unprofessional as it, y'know, is in fact unprofessional. Yes, but you're missing my point--you assume the actors didn't agree with the portrayal but gutted it out anyway. And while I was being hyperbolic with the twitters, why don't you ask them? If they say "yeah, we saw that too but it was a great opportunity..." then I was wrong. But neither of us know what was in their heads then or now about the roles. CommonShore posted:This is going in circles. Do we have anything else we can discuss? I was pondering 13's probable costumes or styles the other day, but that's maybe not even a great topic. Well this is a time for discussing uncomfortable truths.  I do appreciate that we are having the discussion though and nobody has gone crying to a mod to demand a ban for wrongthink. But the Who thread has always been one of the more civiized ones. I don't know how they'll dress her but her enthusiasm in that video gives me greater confidence in her in the role! It goes a long way to assuaging my biggest doubt about her--that she was a non fan and wouldn't "get it."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I still think this version of the First Doctor is going to be in Twelve's head rather than him literally meeting One, but maybe I'm biased in terms of what I'd prefer to watch. Do you realize how difficult it is to discuss it when you're saying "they weren't intending to be racist, but because of these inherent societal structures of racism that are built in around us they were racist anyway and perpetuating stereotypes so they should have done it differently"? Your argument is "it's racist. You can't say it's not because it. just. is. Even if you think it's not." My argument is: they didn't intend to be racist. It wasn't racist. Just because a minority is portrayed as doing wrong doesn't make it racist. The only way to not do that is to not cast minority people as villains (or in this case, even cast them as flawed people, because those guys weren't really villains). Not to mention I, and a lot of other people, didn't dream up the "lol they're black so they're stealing cars" stereotype until people like you pointed it out. That never entered my head when watching it. It (probably) didn't enter the heads of the producers, writers, or the black actors. Or vast majority of the viewing public. So if nobody saw it, then the harm came when you pointed it out. Then suddenly it became damaging and racist. You think you're pointing out problems and raising awareness, but you're creating them instead. Assuming the general public actually listens to you, and doesn't dismiss what you're saying as silly and trivial. And if they do, they're more likely to do the same when serious, actual problems are pointed out which is even more damaging.This is a lot like the discussion in The 100 thread where you had a few people (really one person) melting down because one of the many gay characters on there was killed off and it was supposedly yet another "Fridging the Lesbian" trope and the implication was the writers made the character gay as a trick to get gay people to watch and then cruelly killed her because gays can't be happy and must die for the sake of drama or something. Then as discussion went on it was revealed that said poster pretty much only started watching the show in Season 2 because she heard it had lesbians and shipped those two characters herself. Most of the thread realized how silly this all was. But part of the discussion was "if you're going to have more representation of gay people in fiction, then sometimes they will die/be bad guys etc and it's not because they're gay, but because they are characters who don't have character shields around them." To say that Doctor Who is somehow tone deaf and made a major racism misstep because it's "progressive but progressive shows make mistakes or are rooted in their past" is silly as well. This is a show that replaced an Old White Military Leader with a black woman--and not just with the Gallifreyan General a couple seasons ago, how about in 1989 with Brigadier Bambera? The same era they shocked us with the "No Coloureds" sign in Remembrance of the Daleks, pointing out how lovely society was in the year the show debuted? Or cast a black man in an interracial relationship in the revival, a guy who went from a schulb mooning over his girlfriend to a cool action hero? The same production team and showrunner that gave us these alleged "space carjackers" also gave us Bill. So if they were just unintentionally racist, then racism becomes some minefield that you need a degree in social justice to navigate, because even the most innocuous thing can somehow have massively horrible connotations and somehow be massively offensive and damaging and you'll never know it unless you run it by a whole panel of experts. But that's something Peter Davison now well knows I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Read this bit a few times. I understand that. I just disagree that it exists in every single time it's pointed out. If it is that pervasive, it's impossible to fight, because it's literally everywhere at all times and in all things. No matter what, somebody could find some sort of hidden sexism/racism/anti-gay/transphobic/ableist etc message in everything. You can't every make that world better without the most extreme measures of censorship or Harrison Bergeronesque measures. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Some of the problem here is that I already did ten rounds on this specific case the last time it came up, and rewatching it, I really hate the episode for unrelated reasons, so I'm not going to go into a contextual line-by-line on how I feel about some side characters whose story was kind of half-ignored anyway, but some of the way you argue this at all is so obstreperous that it abstractly condemns all discussion on this topic in its entirety. Like, seriously: The differences we seem to have are you believe racism doesn't have to be intentional. It can be accidental, by well meaning people who don't realize they are being racist, but their actions are horribly damaging. So therefore something *IS* racist if you say it is. And if I don't start with that premise and fully accept it and agree with it, we can't even begin to have a discussion. My point is we ARE having a discussion, despite post after post of you saying "All you're doing is shutting me down and we can't have a discussion, so once again Astroman I'll condescend to explain to you why you just don't get it..." I do agree that racism can happen unintentionally. I don't believe it happened here though. Give me an example of a time when a black person was portrayed in a negative light, as a villain or flawed character where you DIDN'T think it was racist (if you can)--and I'll show you how somebody, somewhere could argue it's racist.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
pgroce posted:It is. It doesn't offend me, but it sounds like what you are saying is the only way to combat racism is to make Doctor Who (and most other shows I guess) completely minority focused. And how do you do more representation--make every show minority majority cast? That doesn't seem practical, and I disagree that's the only way to fight stereotypes. I mean we're already watching a show with black companions, black Colonial soldiers, and black Romans, and we've come darn close to a black Doctor. But it's still a "horrible underrepresentation?" Gaz-L posted:This is a circular argument, dude. You're basically saying because opinions on this vary, that no opinions can be valid. And you've been VERY firm on the 'it's not racist if they didn't mean to be' train which is also a non-starter unless you actually believe, say, the Disney people went into Song Of The South thinking "Gosh, we should totally portray those n*****s in a foolish, subservient light to put them in their place!". Very few people THINK they're wrong or set out to hurt others. And as Bicyclops said, no-one is trying to say that one mistake makes Doctor Who into A Bad Show That Is Terrible And Racist Forever! Criticism of this type is not much different than saying the set design was poor or the editing disjointed, while still enjoying the other parts of an episode. Like, I've been watching Futurama again recently and good god is there some really iffy transphobic comedy in there that I found funny 15 years ago, but cringe at now, because I've matured and learned, and even actually know some trans people, so the tastelessness and meanness of those jokes now comes off as offensive. That does not mean that every other joke or episode of the series is worthless, just that you have to go "Yeah, that was pretty bad, if they did it now, maybe do something better", just like you would if you look at anything that has flaws. No, what I'm saying is it's possible to find offense or racism anywhere if you try hard enough, and not every one of those may be actually racist to any reasonable person.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:I doubt that anyone disagrees that institutional racism and unintentional racism exist. We're all Woke as hell. The disagreement is that we don't see it in Journey to the Center of the Tardis. "Working class salvage crew in space" is in no way a black stereotype, much less a negative stereotype. Some folks reframe it as "carjackers in space" but there is no carjacking of any kind so that's not even a stretch, it's a flat out fabrication. They let their sibling rivalry get out of hand in a big way, but that also isn't a black stereotype. This is what I've been trying to say all along, but far less concisely. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:about that I for one can't wait til 12 starts talking down to this young man and telling him what's what.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 02:12
|
|
