|
Post by mark687 on Dec 9, 2017 16:10:00 GMT
But as Jason said its not the BBC that needs appealing too/ courting its the Press, if they don't like it they'll put negative headlines on it (but Chibnail doesn't court the Press).
Regards
mark687
But where do the press get negative headlines from? Us.
No its how its presented in Social Media and then interpreted by the Press, There should be nothing wrong in believing a Female Doctor will or will not work or not wanting one, the problem is if you don't want one your seen as being negative and that's what the press pick up on and then so do the general audience.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 9, 2017 16:15:15 GMT
You have the tail wagging the dog. Not only does the BBC have to shape itself around the Charter, it's also larger than BBC worldwide in terms of revenue, spending and staff. BBC Worldwide do not dictate to the BBC, if they did the very existence of the BBC would be under threat as it would totally undermine the Charter and the legal basis on which the BBC exists. Your point about brands... I don't get it at all, yes, there are lots of BBC Worldwide brands, including many that have nothing at all to do with the BBC, a brand is just a recognisable name, with some legal protections against others exploiting that name. I'm sure that should the BBC want to cancel Who for some reason, that BBC Worldwide would look to have someone else, perhaps even themselves, make it instead, but there is no reason to assume that they would be successful. But the developments at DWM and certain aspects of production have strongly implied a more hands on role from Worldwide since the 5oth.
Actually here's the latest on BBC's Commercial Development
www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/studios-worldwide?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_press_office&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=corporate
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 9, 2017 16:33:53 GMT
No, I'm saying give at least one piece of positive feedback. Being negative is fine, but it is important that we all state at least one thing we enjoyed from every S11 episode so the first female Doctor cannot possibly be seen as a failure. Why? Look I have no intention to be posting negative comments if the show doesn't deserve them, and I'm hoping it doesn't. But equally I'm not going to post a positive comment if the show doesn't deserve them. I will call it the way I see it, and I hope everyone does that. Genuine feedback, good or bad, is always going to be better for the show (and in life in general) than feedback designed to flatter (a nice word for the less nice word deceive). Why? In this scenario, the 'why' is to stop the first female Doctor from being labelled a failure so we get more female Doctors in the future.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 9, 2017 16:34:53 GMT
No, I'm saying give at least one piece of positive feedback. Being negative is fine, but it is important that we all state at least one thing we enjoyed from every S11 episode so the first female Doctor cannot possibly be seen as a failure. Important we all say at least one thing we enjoyed from every episode of Series 11? So you’d be satisfied if the majority of episodes went like this in showing it’s not a complete failure as it has at least two positive things about it? Acting - amateurish Writing - mess Directing - rubbish Music - awful Lighting - could have been better Make-up - fantastic Costume design - not the best Set design - good Yes, so long as any criticism of Jodie Whittaker starts with 'It's not because she's female'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 16:46:32 GMT
I shouldn't get involved in this, but ... let's get this right: if we don't like the idea of a female Doctor, we shouldn't be negative about her, because if we are, we won't get anymore female Doctors. Is that it?
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Dec 9, 2017 16:51:11 GMT
In this scenario those of us who like the new era would have to urge the others who aren't enjoying it to be as positive to be as positive as possible to stop the first female Doctor being seen as a failure. It is absolutely vital that this fanbase is positive about the Chibnall era so that the higher-ups don't get the wrong idea that a female Doctor doesn't work (it absolutely will). Can't speak for anyone else, but I'll just treat Series 11 like any other series of Who. If I enjoy an episode, I'll say so. If I don't, I'll say so. I hope it's good, that's all I can do.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Dec 9, 2017 16:51:54 GMT
It's almost like your saying that the popular press isn't reactionary. I'm not going to argue with you on this point, I'm just going to say if Jodie's doctor is judged a failure, of course she would be replaced, whether that judgement is right or wrong. The BBC is under a lot of scrutiny. If they replaced the first female Doctor they would be heavily criticised of sexism, and it would possibly lead to the down-fall of the BBC. The government would certainly make things harder for them. Really don't think the government cares about Doctor Who.
|
|
|
Post by rran on Dec 9, 2017 16:56:03 GMT
It’s okay for people to have any opinion towards her or the new series in general. Who are we to judge others’ reactions ? In my opinion both positive and negative reactions are fine. We just need to have the tolerance to accept contra-views. It’s the same with any Doctor and should be treated the same in her case as well. Some like the new doctor. Others do not. That’s okay.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Dec 9, 2017 16:56:49 GMT
I shouldn't get involved in this, but ... let's get this right: if we don't like the idea of a female Doctor, we shouldn't be negative about her, because if we are, we won't get anymore female Doctors. Is that it? Might not get any more Doctor Who.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 9, 2017 16:57:52 GMT
But where do the press get negative headlines from? Us.
No its how its presented in Social Media
Exactly. We're the ones who talk about the show online.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 9, 2017 17:03:05 GMT
Why? Look I have no intention to be posting negative comments if the show doesn't deserve them, and I'm hoping it doesn't. But equally I'm not going to post a positive comment if the show doesn't deserve them. I will call it the way I see it, and I hope everyone does that. Genuine feedback, good or bad, is always going to be better for the show (and in life in general) than feedback designed to flatter (a nice word for the less nice word deceive). Why? In this scenario, the 'why' is to stop the first female Doctor from being labelled a failure so we get more female Doctors in the future. If she's a failure (and I'm neither expecting or hoping her to be) then that needs to be said, if you avoid saying that just because she's a she, then you are being as sexist as those that only saying it because she's a she.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 9, 2017 17:08:13 GMT
You have the tail wagging the dog. Not only does the BBC have to shape itself around the Charter, it's also larger than BBC worldwide in terms of revenue, spending and staff. BBC Worldwide do not dictate to the BBC, if they did the very existence of the BBC would be under threat as it would totally undermine the Charter and the legal basis on which the BBC exists. Your point about brands... I don't get it at all, yes, there are lots of BBC Worldwide brands, including many that have nothing at all to do with the BBC, a brand is just a recognisable name, with some legal protections against others exploiting that name. I'm sure that should the BBC want to cancel Who for some reason, that BBC Worldwide would look to have someone else, perhaps even themselves, make it instead, but there is no reason to assume that they would be successful. But the developments at DWM and certain aspects of production have strongly implied a more hands on role from Worldwide since the 5oth.
Actually here's the latest on BBC's Commercial Development
www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/studios-worldwide?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_press_office&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=corporate
Regards
mark687
Your saying because BBC Worldwide commercially exploit Who, and have a good strong relationship with the production team they get to control the BBC? Sorry, no, it just ain't so. You keep pointing at BBC worldwide and saying .... I don't know what. What is your point about BBC Worldwide and BBC Studio merger?
|
|
|
Post by masterdoctor on Dec 9, 2017 17:13:38 GMT
First off, I don’t mean the people are dead set against a female doctor, I mean the people who watch the new series with open mindedness and end up not liking it. Because, honestly, I’m more and more worried that anyone with a less than stellar review of Series 11 will be marked as sexist, misogynistic etc. whether or not they are being so. What are people’s thoughts on this. Best way to handle other people’s opinion is to ignore/avoid reading it - the only one that matters is our own. The viewing figures are the only measurable indicator to ascertain its success, not comments aired over the Internet. Don’t give a monkeys what other people think, if it entertains me I’ll watch more, or if not I’ll stop. Very well said. However I do think that I need clarify my OP. My concern is that their will be reviews and comments that are of the negative sort that are well put together and have nothing to the gender politics, but will have people accusing them of sexism etc. because they are not enjoying a female doctor. And unfortunately, Dalek's response, while not as extreme as my proposed situation, is what's worrying. The idea of policing and being able to shut down opposite views due to anything(in this case, a female doctor) is quite dangerous and its quite scary.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 9, 2017 17:20:30 GMT
No its how its presented in Social Media
Exactly. We're the ones who talk about the show online. Yes but "We" won't change opinion on-line if someone doesn't like it they won't like it. The only way opinion will change is if the show is flawless or there is positive promotion of the show BY THE SHOW in those corners even going as far as setting up Official Forum actually staffed by complaints and control personnel.
Regards
mark687
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 17:24:55 GMT
Exactly. We're the ones who talk about the show online. Yes but "We" won't change opinion on-line if someone doesn't like it they won't like it. The only way opinion will change is if the show is flawless or there is positive promotion of the show BY THE SHOW in those corners even going as far as setting up Official Forum actually staffed by complaints and control personnel.
Regards
mark687
Yes. Online opinion does not hold any water, if it did many shows would not have been cancelled. Not sure why some people think online opinion is so important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 17:27:20 GMT
I shouldn't get involved in this, but ... let's get this right: if we don't like the idea of a female Doctor, we shouldn't be negative about her, because if we are, we won't get anymore female Doctors. Is that it? Correct & it will end the BBC...apparently...
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 9, 2017 17:31:29 GMT
Your saying because BBC Worldwide commercially exploit Who, and have a good strong relationship with the production team they get to control the BBC? Sorry, no, it just ain't so. You keep pointing at BBC worldwide and saying .... I don't know what. What is your point about BBC Worldwide and BBC Studio merger? The point being is I think they're going more corporate and individuals relationships with the show are ending and changing as a result whether that's good for the show or the BBC in the long term I don't know.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 9, 2017 17:45:35 GMT
Your saying because BBC Worldwide commercially exploit Who, and have a good strong relationship with the production team they get to control the BBC? Sorry, no, it just ain't so. You keep pointing at BBC worldwide and saying .... I don't know what. What is your point about BBC Worldwide and BBC Studio merger? The point being is I think they're going more corporate and individuals relationships with the show are ending and changing as a result whether that's good for the show or the BBC in the long term I don't know.
Regards
mark687
I just don't see it, it would be so hugely undermining to very existence of the BBC that you'd have to question the insight and ability of any senior manager at the BBC who allowed it, it may even be illegal, I suspect it would be.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 9, 2017 17:57:27 GMT
Why? In this scenario, the 'why' is to stop the first female Doctor from being labelled a failure so we get more female Doctors in the future. If she's a failure (and I'm neither expecting or hoping her to be) then that needs to be said, if you avoid saying that just because she's a she, then you are being as sexist as those that only saying it because she's a she. Yes, but if she somehow isn't good in the role and we say it will get misinterpreted as the female Doctor concept in general not working.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 9, 2017 18:02:10 GMT
If she's a failure (and I'm neither expecting or hoping her to be) then that needs to be said, if you avoid saying that just because she's a she, then you are being as sexist as those that only saying it because she's a she. Yes, but if she somehow isn't good in the role and we say it will get misinterpreted as the female Doctor concept in general not working. Possibly, but you don't fight such sexism by more sexism, you fight it by calling it.
|
|