Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jul 18, 2017 15:20:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Jul 18, 2017 15:25:15 GMT -8
So, after not taking my own advice, I've noticed that two of the most common additional complaints are "now the next Doctor will have to be Syrian" and "now the next Doctor will have to be transgender." To the former, having a brown Doctor would by no means be a bad thing or detract from the show in any way, and the latter is already happening, in a sense? I know it's not the same thing as true transgender representation, but still.
I know I keep harping on it, but I can't get over how absurd this whole situation is. Usually, these sorts of outrages lie on a spectrum of having a grain of truth in them at one end and at least having a veneer of legitimacy on the other. This one is just straight up "girls = bad." If these people were so set on watching a show that stars dudes only, maybe they should have been fans of something that doesn't explicitly have the possibility of the lead character changing genders written into its canon.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 18, 2017 20:53:43 GMT -8
I've had thoughts and second thoughts about bumping into this thread because I've never seen a single episode of Who and regard it as having an odious fanbase (says the anime fan), but I can't say I'm surprised to see people resort to flimsy slippery slope styled logical fallacies in counterargument to the new lady doc. There's a weird lack of empathy or identification with others that occurs in these subcultures, plus the whole dynamic of "it's for meeeeee not for you"
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Jul 19, 2017 8:38:18 GMT -8
I think the problem is the opposite; Doctor Who has this problem because its fandom and cultural impact is so large. Practically anyone with even a tertiary interest in science fiction watches it, and it's the national treasure of an entire country to the extent that the Queen and Prime Minister have been known to remark upon new developments on occasion. Not only is the amount of people who do watch or used to watch the show incredibly large, but those viewers are from all corners of the political and temperamental spectrum. There are a lot of malcontents just because there are a lot of viewers generally and because the news media talks about the show an inordinate amount, at least in Britain, so anyone complaining gets a megaphone shoved in front of their mouth.
I did read in a couple places that polls and social media studies and whatnot have observed that most of the reaction to the news has been either positive or ambivalent, and the negative reactions have been a minority, just a very loud one.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 19, 2017 10:07:41 GMT -8
Hmmmm all right then. I didn't really know it had that level of cultural impact within the UK but then I'm riffing off my own experience which has been knowing sci-fi/fantasy nerds myself and never really encountering it in the wild (the how and why of getting into what interests us would be an interesting unrelated topic). I couldn't point to a single friend that watches it, but I'll defer to your take on the matter of its cultural impact. I'll sign off by saying that cartoon in the Daily Mail is absolutely delightful even if the article itself was reactionary garbage.
|
|
|
Doctor Who
Jul 19, 2017 10:46:58 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by Zarnium on Jul 19, 2017 10:46:58 GMT -8
It's easily the most watched show among my peers, at least. And while I can't vouch personally for its popularity in Britain, the way I've heard it described by Brits before makes it sound like there's an odd sort of patriotic reverance for it over there as a quintessentially British cultural touchstone, hence why it may attract more conservative news outlets to comment on it than most other "nerd" shows.
|
|
|
Doctor Who
Jul 19, 2017 10:56:04 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by ThirdMan on Jul 19, 2017 10:56:04 GMT -8
I'd say I have something resembling a "tertiary interest" in sci-fi, and I've never watched a single episode.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jul 19, 2017 12:22:37 GMT -8
Hm. Sounds like a British version of the New York Post. Except without as many awful puns in the headlines. And perhaps slightly less trashy. (You may infer that I'm not a fan of the New York Post.) Does the New York Post actively instruct people on how to vote? These are two of our 'fishwrap' newspapers on the eve of the snap general election last month: A quick Google informs me that yes, the Post does instruct people on how to vote.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jul 19, 2017 12:26:52 GMT -8
And while I can't vouch personally for its popularity in Britain It is remarkably popular; it occupies a prime-time slot on Saturday nights and the Christmas Day special is a honoured tradition. Viewership has probably tailed off in recent years, but it still hoovers up a lot of interest for a sci-fi programme. Oh yeah, the BBC's salary report just broke, and the Mail were actually pretty on-target about the inequality.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 19, 2017 14:35:15 GMT -8
Does the New York Post actively instruct people on how to vote? These are two of our 'fishwrap' newspapers on the eve of the snap general election last month: Oh, instructing people how to vote has become a hallmark of American media. I lost track of the number of major news outlets last year that ordered people to vote for Clinton. See, if the DM article was focused on the wage gap, it wouldn't be too much of a problem. As it stands, it just comes off as a shortsighted rant about "political correctness."
|
|
|
Doctor Who
Jul 19, 2017 15:34:47 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by guttersnipe on Jul 19, 2017 15:34:47 GMT -8
Exactly. It's one of those 'know your enemy' things that help me understand why so many people in this country take a paper's perspective as gospel; in other words I understand why Mail articles open with an agreeable point so as to glide the torrent of rhetoric home.
But you know what's really scary? When you point out to current readers that it was once practically the British face of Der Sturmer and they very quickly shrug that little detail off.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 19, 2017 16:55:53 GMT -8
I sent the picture of the fem-Dalek to a friend and she responded by informing me that the Daily Mail had also seen fit, in the wake of this announcement to take and post a bunch of screenshots from the episode of Black Mirror where Jodie Whitaker has a pseudo-time-traveling sex scene. Stay classy, Mail.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jul 20, 2017 0:14:49 GMT -8
Yeah, several papers did that, within hours of the announcement. Amusingly, our right-wing platforms are always so keen to claim they represent family values, whilst running slut-shaming articles with far more pictures than text (The Express is actually run by a porn baron).
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Dec 28, 2017 21:01:01 GMT -8
So the Christmas episode aired and the final one with Peter Capaldi as The Doctor. :Maybe spoilers:
Twice Upon A Time: So from what I gathered the first Doctor incarnation met the latest incarnation and had some wacky fun with a British soldier from WW1.... why did you say 1...... sorry, spoilers. I would say that Testimony will give the series a few more plot points in the coming years. The Doctor trying to tell the old Doctor that he couldn't say certain things was fun and the response by both him and the soldier regarding Bill's love life.
I found the episode to be interesting and fun, and a fitting send-off for the Capaldi era. I have enjoyed Peter's tenure and there have been some standout episodes for him. It was also good to see Bill return, even if it wasn't technically her.
As usual, the Doctor spouts on for about twenty minutes about how he will die before actually, finally, transforming into a representation of a female of the species. I was hoping Jodie would copy the last reveals by counting her body parts to make sure they were there and comment on having breasts like "finally" or "there they are again". I suppose "Oh, brilliant'. is okay. What I found a little alarming was the first female Doctor that we see ends up pushing something and gets thrown out of the TARDIS while it is burning. It kind of makes her seem inept. I would say they have a reason for it but we have to wait months to find out so not a great first impression.
All in all..... a good send-off for Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Apr 5, 2021 19:30:32 GMT -8
I'm mostly curious how they're going to pull this off. And disappointed because I misread and thought that Forest Whitaker was going to take over the role, which would be Oh, and worried that if the new series ends up sucking because of Chibnall's incompetence at writing engaging science-fiction (as opposed to Broadchurch which is supposedly quite good), people will blame it on the female Doctor and not the writer. I'm really optimistic. Running Doctor Who and writing episodes for Doctor Who are two different beasts (RTD and Moffat both excelled at one, not so much at the other). Chibnal has proven himself more than capable as a showrunner (Broadchurch as you already mentioned), and a writer of "engaging science-fiction" ("Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", "Adrift", "Fragments", "Exit Wounds"). I'm also sure he's grown as a writer since he last wrote for Who back in 2012. And Jodie Whittaker looks fantastic already. (hoping that hoodie isn't her costume though). The more I think about her as the Doctor, the more I think it'll work. Well, apropos of nothing.....I do feel the need to come back here 4 years later, and say, I was wrong! Completely and utterly wrong! Chibnall- Who is the worst iteration of the show since 1986, back when its script editor and executive producer basically teamed up to sign the show's death warrant. It's that bad. On par with Kurtzman Trek in terms of quality, I'd say. It's vapid, dull, lifeless, and utterly boring all in one shiny package. I know Chibnall had an uphill battle to climb. The Davies-Moffat stint was probably the longest run of sustained greatness the show has ever had. But good lord, Chibnall is falling short of my low expectations.
|
|