Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 18:53:56 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. Well if that happens then so be it. I will not remain silent just because of that possible outcome.
|
|
|
Post by rran on Dec 9, 2017 20:03:27 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. If I don’t like her or the new season, I’ll definitely call it out. People may choose to interpret it as they wish. I can’t control that. Those who don’t like my opinion always have the choice to ignore me
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Dec 9, 2017 20:28:30 GMT
Who I handle them generally depends on how much I like the performance.
I do worry about the writing, though. If the Show is true to its message, then it should not and will not matter that he's now a she. But will the writers approach it that way, or will they keep playing it for gags/stereotypes? I guess we'll see....
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Dec 9, 2017 20:31:18 GMT
And that's the problem nobody can be absolutely sure it will work and that's the trouble this time they'll have a ready excuse ( to be clear I hope it will be good) and swapping back to a man would be considered the easiest way to fix it.
Regards
mark687
But we need to communicate to the BBC publically through online comments that in this scenario any negativity is not because the first female Doctor is not working. That's why it is vital for the first series at least that we all at the bare minimum point out one positive thing even if we hate an episode. The last thing that needs to happen is the press seeing any totally negative comments and calling the first female Doctor 'a disaster'. Why should I feel any need to communicate that? If I end up not liking her performance, I'm not going to pretend otherwise to fight some social cause. I want good Who, period.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Dec 9, 2017 20:38:28 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. Why should that be a goal for me? Bear in mind, Chinball said 13 was always going to be a female. If it turns out that she isn't a good fit, why would I want to encourage that kind of approach to casting in the future? If we really don't care about the Doctor's sex or gender, then they shouldn't be seeking out a specific sex or gender. They should just audition people for the role and pick the one they like the most.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 9, 2017 21:05:42 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. Why should that be a goal for me? To stop sexism in the industry, and stop sexist woman haters for winning again when they already sort-of had a victory with the 2016 Ghostbusters underperforming at the box office.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Dec 9, 2017 21:10:38 GMT
Why should that be a goal for me? To stop sexism in the industry, and stop sexist woman haters for winning again when they already sort-of had a victory with the 2016 Ghostbusters underperforming at the box office. Well, that one we've already argued about plenty here. I don't agree that anyone is going to "stop sexism in the industry" by making the Doctor female specifically. But they did it, so so be it. I see it as making only a itsy bitsy little more sense than it would make to cast a female as the new James Bond. I don't see why they can't just have more shows with strong female leads in general, going forward. This feels hamfisted, and my worry is as someone else said in another thread, that she'll be written as a walking political statement. I just want good Who. I don't want a social cause to come first even if it is a worthy cause. And because of that, I'm not going out of my way to encourage more of it. I'll just watch things I like.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 9, 2017 21:26:49 GMT
Why should that be a goal for me? To stop sexism in the industry, and stop sexist woman haters for winning again when they already sort-of had a victory with the 2016 Ghostbusters underperforming at the box office. I admire the sentiment, but again, surgery with a cake kit. Jodie's hiring won't stop future Weinsteins, and GB 2016 has a more complicated history than you may realize, and the people making it were anything but wholly innocent of the blame (Paul Feig, especially, being the height of unprofessional, as was Sony).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 21:28:28 GMT
Why should that be a goal for me? To stop sexism in the industry, and stop sexist woman haters for winning again when they already sort-of had a victory with the 2016 Ghostbusters underperforming at the box office. Admirable, but blindly dropping plaudits on a show simply because the lead is a woman is NOT the way to go! No sir.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Dec 9, 2017 23:38:06 GMT
To stop sexism in the industry, and stop sexist woman haters for winning again when they already sort-of had a victory with the 2016 Ghostbusters underperforming at the box office. Admirable, but blindly dropping plaudits on a show simply because the lead is a woman is NOT the way to go! No sir. Agreed... In the unlikely event that my opinion ever actually mattered to the proceedings, I'd hope they could count on me to be halfway helpful in offering any constructive criticism I might have, rather than potentially being misled by me cheering for something I privately thought turned out poorly. (Interestingly enough, every time I hear the show criticized for catering too much to an audience with more background on the series, it does make me wonder if someone up there really is listening to someone somewhere. Who knows?) It is a very admirable sentiment to not want to let the show be misused by any anti-feminist contingent, but hopefully the world will know any persons with such inclinations for what they are. I'll take a wild guess some might start off with "Now I'm not just saying this because The Doctor is a woman, mind you..." and then likely proceed to trash any and every little thing about the show because they hate the very idea and want it to fail, and it will kind of show?... Whereas I think people here who have had some genuine concerns or misgivings about upcoming seasons separate from The Doctor's gender itself have usually succeeded in distinguishing themselves, even when it's maybe been too easy earlier on to be mistaken for someone who might have a slightly less respectable agenda than simple concern for the show's quality and well being. Hopefully honesty still is the best policy, and it's still safe to say what we honestly think about this or that, and a thoughtful opinion will speak for itself often enough. Also, if one's comments really were to be misconstrued, a positive or a negative opinion could be mistaken for something that was said merely because of a bias about The Doctor's gender, so why worry about it? Why not just express the opinion that you really have? Personally, I hope to avoid dealing with anyone who's already decided to give Jodie or Chris a trial and find them guilty when they haven't even done anything yet, just by not visiting less civilized forums and by skipping the comments section of news articles - I might ignore the articles as well if they wish to wax hysterical about things, as they sometimes do. Hopefully the show will continue on its own strengths as it has thus far, regardless of what's being said about it.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 10, 2017 0:34:30 GMT
Surely the concern is not whether Whittaker is bad or if Chibnail is bad, so much as what if *both* are? Even if audiences are low, so long as the reviews are good they will have no excuse to bring in a new Doctor. But if the scripts are bad they will have an excuse to cancel "Doctor Who" altogether. To springboard off that into Chibnall, I'm curious where, other than mere internet conjecture via the culture war, the idea that Chibnall will create towering feminist propoganda really comes from? A quick glance at his credits doesn't paint him as an especially political writer (if you can put any philosophy to his work, I'd argue it's some type of bleak nihilism: people are crap and will do anything to save their skins, which runs contrary to the more idealistic 'principles' of feminism as a concept), nor one with any Whedon-style fixation on women, their issues or deifying them. If anything, the opposite is a bigger risk: Chibnall understates it, thus making you wonder, 'well, what was the point?'
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 10, 2017 0:38:36 GMT
To stop sexism in the industry, and stop sexist woman haters for winning again when they already sort-of had a victory with the 2016 Ghostbusters underperforming at the box office. Admirable, but blindly dropping plaudits on a show simply because the lead is a woman is NOT the way to go! No sir. It shouldn't be about who did something, but about what they did. Success or failure does not depend solely on gender.
|
|
|
Post by themeddlingmonk on Dec 10, 2017 0:45:55 GMT
Surely the concern is not whether Whittaker is bad or if Chibnail is bad, so much as what if *both* are? Even if audiences are low, so long as the reviews are good they will have no excuse to bring in a new Doctor. But if the scripts are bad they will have an excuse to cancel "Doctor Who" altogether. To springboard off that into Chibnall, I'm curious where, other than mere internet conjecture via the culture war, the idea that Chibnall will create towering feminist propoganda really comes from? A quick glance at his credits doesn't paint him as an especially political writer (if you can put any philosophy to his work, I'd argue it's some type of bleak nihilism: people are crap and will do anything to save their skins, which runs contrary to the more idealistic 'principles' of feminism as a concept), nor one with any Whedon-style fixation on women, their issues or deifying them. If anything, the opposite is a bigger risk: Chibnall understates it, thus making you wonder, 'well, what was the point?' Personally I’d prefer it this way. I’d rather there wasn’t “a point” if I have to have a female Doctor and they just exist because Jodie is great in the role.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 1:36:11 GMT
Honestly, the Thirteenth Doctor's gender shouldn't be a focal point at all, except in passing or in stories that actively require it to be for some story based reason. The gender of previous Doctors was rarely made a big point of, it should be no different now. And along those same lines, Jodie Whittaker should be judged on her performance as the Doctor, just like every other actor to play the part before her. Some will likely love the new Doctor, some will likely hate the new Doctor, many will be ultimately indifferent in all likelihood, and the rest will fall somewhere in between those extremes. And all those views will simply be a combination of personal taste and individual opinion, and should be taken as such.
Everyone should feel like they can give their own honest opinion, or opinions honestly aren't worth giving.
|
|
|
Post by newt5996 on Dec 10, 2017 1:59:10 GMT
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'. Bull. I'll say it right here, Bull. If there's an episode of Series 11 that I don't like, or if I don't like Whitaker's Doctor I refuse to begin with anything of that sort. simply because if I give my reasons for not liking something adding a caveat like that only makes it look more like I don't like it because she's female.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Dec 10, 2017 7:22:55 GMT
That’s easy. We ignore them because they’re wrong. So, everyone that doesn't agree with you, is wrong? Yeap. terribly simple philosophy, don’t you agree? no? tough - you’re wrong, see above
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 9:54:06 GMT
Honestly, the Thirteenth Doctor's gender shouldn't be a focal point at all, except in passing or in stories that actively require it to be for some story based reason. The gender of previous Doctors was rarely made a big point of, it should be no different now. And along those same lines, Jodie Whittaker should be judged on her performance as the Doctor, just like every other actor to play the part before her. Some will likely love the new Doctor, some will likely hate the new Doctor, many will be ultimately indifferent in all likelihood, and the rest will fall somewhere in between those extremes. And all those views will simply be a combination of personal taste and individual opinion, and should be taken as such. Everyone should feel like they can give their own honest opinion, or opinions honestly aren't worth giving. This. Some people like Underworld, some people don't. Neither is or can be objectively wrong and both have their valid points. Rather a lot like life. Now, in real life, if someone were to hold a grudge -- a serious grudge, one that lasts for potentially years at a time -- over an opinion half-overheard at a café, pub, library or other public space, their friends and colleagues would likely consider it an abject waste of their time and energy. It would end up being exhausting, as bitter anger always is. Moreover, if they started stalking this person like some kind of sinister Macra, it would end up being not only tiring but rather creepy as well. It's very easy to insinuate on the internet, to believe that an argument or even an entire phrase is about someone when it isn't. Case in point, how many people read that sentence and thought for a moment that it was them? *shakes head* It isn't, I'm thinking about my hat perched on top of Cary Grant: A Life in Pictures at the moment and wondering if it's stable (it isn't). The negative may be easy to focus on, but the positive is so much more rewarding and much livelier. No one here has come for a fight or to make themselves feel miserable. They're here to have fun and chat about a favourite topic. Without fear, fury or furtive frowning. Everyone handles language a different way and there are bound to be a few hiccups. Give them the benefit of the doubt, ask for clarification and if it's a misunderstanding (which it often is) -- no harm, no foul and on with the motley. And for goodness sake, it's the month of Christmas. We've all the excuses in the world to be smiles and joy.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 10, 2017 19:35:22 GMT
Yes, so long as any criticism of Jodie Whittaker starts with 'It's not because she's female'. What? Is that gonna mean that if we had a male Doctor Who for S11, we'd have to say "it's not because he's a male"? No, because there have been 13 male Doctors already.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 10, 2017 20:23:18 GMT
No, because there have been 13 male Doctors already. But there are probably just as many people who wanted 13 to be specifically man, as those who wanted it to be specifically a woman. (Doesn't mean I agree with either, btw). Yeah, but the reason why we would have to say 'It's not because she's female' before any criticism is because there hasn't been a female Doctor. If it would have been a man again it would be obvious that no criticism is because of gender as there have been 13 men.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Dec 10, 2017 21:13:52 GMT
Yes, so long as any criticism of Jodie Whittaker starts with 'It's not because she's female'. What? Is that gonna mean that if we had a male Doctor Who for S11, we'd have to say "it's not because he's a male"? Nope. But previous Doctors were all male so it wasn't an issue. It might have been one if they'd all been female though. If Jodie gets "She's not as good as Tom/David/Peter" then that's par for the course for a new Doctor, And totally acceptable even if we disagree, because a previous Doctor is someone's favourite somewhere. If we get "The story was kak because it's a woman"...that's not on. There may in fact BE stories where that's going to be true, where a male Doctor would be a better fit, who knows? It's never come up before. How many stories in the previous 50 plus years can we look back at and ask ourselves would they have worked better with a female Doctor? I know I've never done it, why would I have? But it's all new again so let's just all of us (not aimed particularly at you, ratsa) just wait and see beyond the first couple of episodes. Either way we have 12 and 1 and then 13 at Christmas!
|
|