|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on May 19, 2017 18:23:12 GMT
Personally I would quite like it if in a future series The Doctor reveals that he's autistic, and he regards autism as being like his 'superpower'. There's no reason why Earth has to be the only planet with autism. Who's to say other planets such as Gallifrey don't have autistic citizens too?
I think making The Doctor autistic would deliver quite a powerful and much-needed message to both autistic and non-autistic viewers of acceptance. We currently have a blind Doctor, so why not an autistic one?
What do you think? Would you like to see The Doctor revealed as autistic?
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on May 19, 2017 18:57:35 GMT
Personally I would quite like it if in a future series The Doctor reveals that he's autistic, and he regards autism as being like his 'superpower'. There's no reason why Earth has to be the only planet with autism. Who's to say other planets such as Gallifrey don't have autistic citizens too? I think making The Doctor autistic would deliver quite a powerful and much-needed message to both autistic and non-autistic viewers of acceptance. We currently have a blind Doctor, so why not an autistic one? What do you think? Would you like to see The Doctor revealed as autistic? Hmmm, works and doesn't work at the same time. The part of me that objects to the idea, objects because autism is a human classification about humans, The Doctor despite being humanoid is likely to have quite different brain both in chemistry and physically. That said, any biological complex system like the brain of a self aware, intelligent beings is likely to develop in many different ways, it's how evolution works, and it could well be that what differentiates Timelords from Gallifreyans started out as what was seen as an abnormality in brain development, but I'm left thinking it's a stretch to define Timelords as autistic Gallifreyans and I certainly don't see The Doctor as being particulary different from Timelords in general, within his own society he doesn't appear to have any particular abnormal behaviours. |
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on May 19, 2017 21:00:33 GMT
He's an alien.*
While I think it is a great goal to have everyone represented, I only agree to that so long as we are talking about representation across a given broadcaster. I am actually rather starting to be rather annoyed by the idea of needing to change X,Y,Z about a specific show solely because of that outside need. If there's an in-show purpose, that's a different story.
I'm not talking about being annoyed at bill being gay. It is the idea of taking the lead character of any show, and now, making them X,Y,Z. I won't turn off the TV if he regenerates an he's a female who is autistic and has A,B,C other attributes that represent generally excluded individuals, but I'll be annoyed. I think they should simply aim generally - they meaning the BBC, meaning HBO, meaning any broadcaster in general - to produce the best stories possible going forward; they can work in these things as they want.
I just don't like the idea of changing something that is "established" in some sense (and no, I really don't intend to dredge up that old argument about what is/isn't established) for the sake and ONLY for the sake of executing a good intention.
And get off my lawn!
*(I suppose that raises a separate issue: which message is being sent? He can be brilliant but ice cold (Into the Dalek, etc), to the point of cruelty. I do not have a great understanding of autism, but I hope I correctly understand that missing social cues, and a whole lot more and greater difficulties. Is it really the best idea to say that The Doctor, as he has been portrayed over 50+ years (that's a sentence!), represents autism? He has been portrayed many ways.
IF they were to do this, I would strongly recommend a remark about "in this regeneration". After all, I do believe they think it is a mix of genetics and epi-genetics (broadly speaking, the latter being environmental factors that affect how genes are expressed.
Does he truly represent autism? Or does the wish derive from wanting a hero with similarities? Would it really be a good idea, on balance?).
|
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 19, 2017 21:28:11 GMT
Well in The Curious Incident of the Doctor in the Night-Time it is heavily implied the sixth Doctor is autistic or at least has some traits. Tbh I think it would be a better exercise to introduce an autistic character to the series rather than make the Doctor himself autistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by constonks on May 20, 2017 13:42:51 GMT
Well in The Curious Incident of the Doctor in the Night-Time it is heavily implied the sixth Doctor is autistic or at least has some traits. Tbh I think it would be a better exercise to introduce an autistic character to the series rather than make the Doctor himself autistic. Yeah, that's a good point. An autistic companion would be fine, could bring something interesting. And we'd see how the way the Doctor thinks is similar to the companion sees the world, kind of like in Curious Incident. |
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on May 20, 2017 14:05:09 GMT
Well in The Curious Incident of the Doctor in the Night-Time it is heavily implied the sixth Doctor is autistic or at least has some traits. Tbh I think it would be a better exercise to introduce an autistic character to the series rather than make the Doctor himself autistic. Yeah, that's a good point. An autistic companion would be fine, could bring something interesting. And we'd see how the way the Doctor thinks is similar to the companion sees the world, kind of like in Curious Incident. I'm surprised there hasn't been a disabled companion yet, and an autistic companion would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on May 20, 2017 14:19:47 GMT
A physically disabled participant could present issues with stories, companions need to be able to run, climb, manually operate machinery etc, not insurmountable things to overcome, but all the options I see for overcoming them end up presenting us with an in effect able bodied person, even if what gives them that is augmentation of some sort, but since there is no story value in endlessly watching someone use augmentation, the augmentation would become near invisible to the viewer, or would become the character, they wouldn't be disabled, they would either be "normal" through augmentation or even extra-ordinary through augmentation, in effect the disabled companion would disabled in name and reference only, either that or half the stories involve leaving the disabled companion behind... which I don't think would be that much of a positive image at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Star Platinum on May 21, 2017 7:49:55 GMT
A physically disabled participant could present issues with stories, companions need to be able to run, climb, manually operate machinery etc, not insurmountable things to overcome, but all the options I see for overcoming them end up presenting us with an in effect able bodied person, even if what gives them that is augmentation of some sort, but since there is no story value in endlessly watching someone use augmentation, the augmentation would become near invisible to the viewer, or would become the character, they wouldn't be disabled, they would either be "normal" through augmentation or even extra-ordinary through augmentation, in effect the disabled companion would disabled in name and reference only, either that or half the stories involve leaving the disabled companion behind... which I don't think would be that much of a positive image at all. Just imagine! swap k9 out with a wheelchair bound companion, they'd leave them behind all the time. As for the doctor being autistic, I'd be strongly opposed to that. I dislike characters being modified or appropriated in such a manner, (Marvel is notoriously bade for this, woman thor, gay iceman. the new black iron man) I'd much rather a legacy character be left alone and a new original character be created.\ I feel like calling the doctor autistic would simply be a lable placed on the character for some feel good PR from the press in an attempt to garner good will from the public. |
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on May 21, 2017 7:53:48 GMT
Personally I would quite like it if in a future series The Doctor reveals that he's autistic, and he regards autism as being like his 'superpower'. There's no reason why Earth has to be the only planet with autism. Who's to say other planets such as Gallifrey don't have autistic citizens too? I think making The Doctor autistic would deliver quite a powerful and much-needed message to both autistic and non-autistic viewers of acceptance. We currently have a blind Doctor, so why not an autistic one? It's worth noting that there has been a backlash recently against attempts to show positive aspects of autism from - generally - parents of autistic children who do not have incredible capacities for numbers, and so forth. People have expressed frustration at having recieved patronising remarks such as "oh, he's autistic? I bet he'll be the next Steve Jobs" in regard of children with significant and restrictive problems and don't possess stereotypical talents on computers or whatnot. I entirely agree that there are genuine possibilities from including autistic characters in television - but don't call it a superpower, by any means. |
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on May 21, 2017 9:05:38 GMT
Personally I would quite like it if in a future series The Doctor reveals that he's autistic, and he regards autism as being like his 'superpower'. There's no reason why Earth has to be the only planet with autism. Who's to say other planets such as Gallifrey don't have autistic citizens too? I think making The Doctor autistic would deliver quite a powerful and much-needed message to both autistic and non-autistic viewers of acceptance. We currently have a blind Doctor, so why not an autistic one? It's worth noting that there has been a backlash recently against attempts to show positive aspects of autism from - generally - parents of autistic children who do not have incredible capacities for numbers, and so forth. People have expressed frustration at having recieved patronising remarks such as "oh, he's autistic? I bet he'll be the next Steve Jobs" in regard of children with significant and restrictive problems and don't possess stereotypical talents on computers or whatnot. I entirely agree that there are genuine possibilities from including autistic characters in television - but don't call it a superpower, by any means. I don't see why it should be shown as a negative thing, and I would question whether those parents complaining about positive aspects being shown are thinking of what's best for the autistic family member to see. It seems ridiculous to complain about it being shown in a positive light. Personally I would prefer to see a positive portrayal of autism over a negative one. I like to think of it as a superpower rather than Kryptonite, and I think portraying it like the latter is far more problematic because you're saying that those of us with autism have a disease (which it isn't). I believe it's treating it as Kryptonite and these parents who complain about it being portrayed positively that causes some with autism to develop depression and in some cases attempt suicide. It needs to be shown positively, and the parents who complain should be ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 21, 2017 9:19:41 GMT
It's worth noting that there has been a backlash recently against attempts to show positive aspects of autism from - generally - parents of autistic children who do not have incredible capacities for numbers, and so forth. People have expressed frustration at having recieved patronising remarks such as "oh, he's autistic? I bet he'll be the next Steve Jobs" in regard of children with significant and restrictive problems and don't possess stereotypical talents on computers or whatnot. I entirely agree that there are genuine possibilities from including autistic characters in television - but don't call it a superpower, by any means. I don't see why it should be shown as a negative thing, and I would question whether those parents complaining about positive aspects being shown are thinking of what's best for the autistic family member to see. Fitz didn't say they wanted it shown negatively: he said they were angry because of the 'savant' stereotype linked to autism since Rain Man. Such a role model is useless to those with the lower functioning version of the condition, and even high ones who don't possess academic gifts. Dalek, I'm glad you've found a way to look at the bright side, but as someone who has links to the problems families with disabled children face, it's not as simple a solution as you think it is. The line between encouraging and lying is a very thin one. |
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on May 21, 2017 9:25:32 GMT
I don't see why it should be shown as a negative thing, and I would question whether those parents complaining about positive aspects being shown are thinking of what's best for the autistic family member to see. Fitz didn't say they wanted it shown negatively: he said they were angry because of the 'savant' stereotype linked to autism since Rain Man. Such a role model is useless to those with the lower functioning version of the condition, and even high ones who don't possess academic gifts. Dalek, I'm glad you've found a way to look at the bright side, but as someone who has links to the problems families with disabled children face, it's not as simple a solution as you think it is. The line between encouraging and lying is a very thin one. You can't have an entirely accurate portrayal of autism anyway though because everyone is affected differently. One person's 'excellent portrayal' would be another's 'That's nothing like me'. With that in mind I still think it is better to show it as a 'superpower', and I don't see what good reason anybody would have to complain about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on May 21, 2017 9:36:52 GMT
I rather think the Doctor is on what we humans would call the Autistic spectrum - but different Doctors sit on different individual diagonises.
The twelfth is probably classical Autistic, he doesn't like being touched, he experiences hyperfocus, he cannot tolerate change.
But the second and fourth are more ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder) - show him authority and he cannot resist defying it for the sheer sake of defying it.
Sixie, ten and eleven are all Bipolar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 11:46:25 GMT
While I think it is a great goal to have everyone represented, I only agree to that so long as we are talking about representation across a given broadcaster. I am actually rather starting to be rather annoyed by the idea of needing to change X,Y,Z about a specific show solely because of that outside need. If there's an in-show purpose, that's a different story. Yes, for the love of God, don't try to make stories "trendy". Especially when they are dealing with incredibly sensitive and often really personal issues like socially maligned individuals. It should not be something to tick off a checklist, but instead a legitimate and well-considered part of your narrative. That's what drove me nuts about Danny Pink and his posttraumatic stress disorder, it was never really dealt with beyond a token acknowledgment. Well in The Curious Incident of the Doctor in the Night-Time it is heavily implied the sixth Doctor is autistic or at least has some traits. Tbh I think it would be a better exercise to introduce an autistic character to the series rather than make the Doctor himself autistic. Even with The Curious Incident, I'm not entirely sure I buy that from the Sixth Doctor. It certainly got me thinking about it, but his incarnation strikes me as someone more shellshocked than autistic. I'd have said that the Twelfth Doctor was more likely with his inability to recognise faces, if not for his more recent stories with Bill and Nardole. Hmm... It's an interesting idea, but a difficult one to get right. The question, first of all, would be whether he was high-functioning or not. Likely he would be because the Doctor needs to be able to perform certain functions as part of the show. He is the character who gives us context and leaving him unable to respond leaves us as the audience often in the dark. Much like making him a paraplegic, there are likewise certain elements that would take time to adequately explore and in forty-five minutes, you won't really get the chance. Once that particular problem is sorted, a few more arise in regards to the idea's execution. If you restrict the concept to a particular incarnation it can be seen as "gimmicky" and if you apply it to him throughout his lives, it fundamentally doesn't gel with what we've seen from him before. I think it'd work a lot better with a companion rather than an incarnation of the Doctor. You get a clean slate that way and the chance to do it right. |
|
