|
Post by jasonward on Feb 26, 2018 18:37:08 GMT
Welp, looks like the guy who thinks Broadchurch sanctifies women is back to complain: ... Imbecile. Guys & Gals, In terms of earnings, it doesn't matter one jot what you think of this guy and his videos, what counts is views. Views do two things, one is they directly contribute to the payments Youtube make to him, secondly the more views he gets the more like others are to be directed by Youtube to his video, if you want to have no part of propelling this guys and his views into the laps of others, then don't link to his videos and don't above all else watch them, oh, and don't hit the dislike button either, Youtube don't care that you don't like it, they care that people want to watch it, and includes the nay-sayers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 18:37:33 GMT
The show will probably be cancelled after this year" is like a mantra for these trolls. I guess if they say it every year they'll be right eventually, ignoring the times they were wrong. "I don't like the change personally but I think it could well be successful and lead the show onwards and upwards" said no troll ever. They must always use the cancellation h-bomb to make it clear they know exactly what will and won't work for the show.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 26, 2018 18:40:51 GMT
*mops brow* Whew, that gave me a chuckle. Personally, I find the people that whinge about "politics" in pop culture absolutely infantile, and typically have no grasp on how actual real people make actually real creative decisions, so that was a glorious three minutes for me to grab the popcorn for. These 'fans' in particular also seem to forget that the show already has a built-in narrative reason for the change which was actually shown at Christmas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 19:06:16 GMT
*mops brow* Whew, that gave me a chuckle. Personally, I find the people that whinge about "politics" in pop culture absolutely infantile, and typically have no grasp on how actual real people make actually real creative decisions, so that was a glorious three minutes for me to grab the popcorn for. These 'fans' in particular also seem to forget that the show already has a built-in narrative reason for the change which was actually shown at Christmas. It boggles the mind to think that some people don't grasp the narrative reason was simply a regeneration.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 26, 2018 19:14:51 GMT
*mops brow* Whew, that gave me a chuckle. Personally, I find the people that whinge about "politics" in pop culture absolutely infantile, and typically have no grasp on how actual real people make actually real creative decisions, so that was a glorious three minutes for me to grab the popcorn for. Presumably those same people would have stopped watching Who at Episode 2 of The Daleks had they been around. 'It was such a good show, but those Daleks are so obviously allegories for the Nazis-why bring politics into it? It'll be cancelled.' Saying something is political is not a criticism. Equally saying Who has only recently become political is just false. One of my tutors for my politics course likes to include pop culture suggestions next to lecture topics, for Just War Theory he put The Day of the Doctor, for Genocide he's put a clip from The Doctor's Daughter. For those two episodes, the politics is not the focus-but it's there. Politics can be interpreted into anything if you look hard enough-saying something is political is not a criticism.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 26, 2018 19:24:23 GMT
These 'fans' in particular also seem to forget that the show already has a built-in narrative reason for the change which was actually shown at Christmas. It boggles the mind to think that some people don't grasp the narrative reason was simply a regeneration. You'd think they'd be used to that by now. In The Parting of the Ways the Doctor even says he could be anything!
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 26, 2018 19:26:55 GMT
*mops brow* Whew, that gave me a chuckle. Personally, I find the people that whinge about "politics" in pop culture absolutely infantile, and typically have no grasp on how actual real people make actually real creative decisions, so that was a glorious three minutes for me to grab the popcorn for. Presumably those same people would have stopped watching Who at Episode 2 of The Daleks had they been around. 'It was such a good show, but those Daleks are so obviously allegories for the Nazis-why bring politics into it? It'll be cancelled.' Saying something is political is not a criticism. Equally saying Who has only recently become political is just false. One of my tutors for my politics course likes to include pop culture suggestions next to lecture topics, for Just War Theory he put The Day of the Doctor, for Genocide he's put a clip from The Doctor's Daughter. For those two episodes, the politics is not the focus-but it's there. Politics can be interpreted into anything if you look hard enough-saying something is political is not a criticism. I mean everything's political to a certain extent, otherwise your screenplay wouldn't be saying anything.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 26, 2018 19:49:58 GMT
*mops brow* Whew, that gave me a chuckle. Personally, I find the people that whinge about "politics" in pop culture absolutely infantile, and typically have no grasp on how actual real people make actually real creative decisions, so that was a glorious three minutes for me to grab the popcorn for. Presumably those same people would have stopped watching Who at Episode 2 of The Daleks had they been around. 'It was such a good show, but those Daleks are so obviously allegories for the Nazis-why bring politics into it? It'll be cancelled.' Saying something is political is not a criticism. Equally saying Who has only recently become political is just false. One of my tutors for my politics course likes to include pop culture suggestions next to lecture topics, for Just War Theory he put The Day of the Doctor, for Genocide he's put a clip from The Doctor's Daughter. For those two episodes, the politics is not the focus-but it's there. Politics can be interpreted into anything if you look hard enough-saying something is political is not a criticism. It silly to suggest real world politics has not been in Who before, the first ones that come to my mind are the 7th Doctor's adventures, which often passed commentary on Thatcher era politics. But even if you blind yourself to the real world commentary Who has often offered, causing revolutions and over throwing the current hegemony is not only bread and butter for many Who stories, it's overtly political in nature. Anyone that can't grasp that is either deluding themselves or has comprehension difficulties.
|
|
|
Post by J.A. Prentice on Feb 26, 2018 20:05:00 GMT
There's also the fact that casting a white man is just as much of a political statement as casting a woman or a POC. The only reason people don't see that is because we think of it as the "default," which is problematic in itself. All art is political somehow, either by saying something or by being silent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 21:27:56 GMT
I am surprised no one has compared the inclusion of the Gender Symbolism in this example. If it is unintentional then it would be a fair coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 26, 2018 23:18:36 GMT
It boggles the mind to think that some people don't grasp the narrative reason was simply a regeneration. You'd think they'd be used to that by now. In The Parting of the Ways the Doctor even says he could be anything! I don't want to do this whole thing over again, BUT: the weakest possible reason you could have for introducing something new - something that one might expect would vastly affect a civilization (yeah, I know, 12 gave a mini-speech about how gender-free TLs are; read further) - is to have a character say that something that never happened before is possible. That's especially true when you're not far off your 50-year anniversary/30th season. That's not a narrative reason. That's just the author/showrunner/whomever using a proxy so they stop just short of breaking the fourth wall and simply telling the audience that such-and-such is possible even though it was never on the radar. A narrative reason used to introduced the concept would be, say, to have The Master go to Karn to drink a potion to change him into a female so as to help escape detection because it's unusual or somesuch. Or, to focus really really really hard, at a cost, to change sexes during a regeneration. Or that it's some capability intoduced during the Time War. A narrative reason would (a) plug into a story (b) make sense of the fact that the only time anything like it happened in a show was a sight gag, an obvious joke. (b) refers to Romana's body-change routine that directly mirrored Tom Baker's costume-change routine when 3 turned into 4, though it might be noted that each of her test-bodies was still female. A narrative reason is not telling Matt Smith to talk about "The Corsair" being a woman for a while, then have the Doctor murder someone only to have them gripe about their last body being the only male one they had (then have the Doctor tell the audience via proxy-Bill that TLs don't care about gender), then have the Doctor turn female. That's just doing it because they want to. And as Chinball said, it was always going to be a female successor. So there's no real in-universe narrative reason, and the real world reason isn't even best actor OR actress. The reason is wanting to make 13 female, period, full stop, end of story. There hasn't been any narrative regeneration for sex-change regeneration. It was just the real world thinking of "oh, wouldn't it be cool if we did this with the show"? (Or some other thought process). They did it. Maybe she'll be great, maybe not. I'll watch and I'll judge based on the stories. But I cannot agree that there was ever anything like a "narrative reason" for this whole thing to be introduced. There was a real-world reason. It has nothing to do with helping Doctor Who tell a story or an arc across stories. It was about and only about the having of a female Doctor.
But they did it and the episodes are being filmed. I don't see the point in trying to argue for some kind of in-universe narrative reason why this suddenly makes sense. How about we just watch and see whether the episodes are good ?
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 26, 2018 23:24:51 GMT
You'd think they'd be used to that by now. In The Parting of the Ways the Doctor even says he could be anything! I don't want to do this whole thing over again, BUT: the weakest possible reason you could have for introducing something new - something that one might expect would vastly affect a civilization (yeah, I know, 12 gave a mini-speech about how gender-free TLs are; read further) - is to have a character say that something that never happened before is possible. That's especially true when you're not far off your 50-year anniversary/30th season. That's not a narrative reason. That's just the author/showrunner/whomever using a proxy so they stop just short of breaking the fourth wall and simply telling the audience that such-and-such is possible even though it was never on the radar. A narrative reason used to introduced the concept would be, say, to have The Master go to Karn to drink a potion to change him into a female so as to help escape detection because it's unusual or somesuch. Or, to focus really really really hard, at a cost, to change sexes during a regeneration. Or that it's some capability intoduced during the Time War. A narrative reason would (a) plug into a story (b) make sense of the fact that the only time anything like it happened in a show was a sight gag, an obvious joke. (b) refers to Romana's body-change routine that directly mirrored Tom Baker's costume-change routine when 3 turned into 4, though it might be noted that each of her test-bodies was still female. A narrative reason is not telling Matt Smith to talk about "The Corsair" being a woman for a while, then have the Doctor murder someone only to have them gripe about their last body being the only male one they had (then have the Doctor tell the audience via proxy-Bill that TLs don't care about gender), then have the Doctor turn female. That's just doing it because they want to. And as Chinball said, it was always going to be a female successor. So there's no real in-universe narrative reason, and the real world reason isn't even best actor OR actress. The reason is wanting to make 13 female, period, full stop, end of story. There hasn't been any narrative regeneration for sex-change regeneration. It was just the real world thinking of "oh, wouldn't it be cool if we did this with the show"? (Or some other thought process). They did it. Maybe she'll be great, maybe not. I'll watch and I'll judge based on the stories. But I cannot agree that there was ever anything like a "narrative reason" for this whole thing to be introduced. There was a real-world reason. It has nothing to do with helping Doctor Who tell a story or an arc across stories. It was about and only about the having of a female be the Doctor.
But they did it and the episodes are being filmed. I don't see the point in trying to argue for some kind of in-universe narrative reason why this suddenly makes sense. How about we just watch and see whether the episodes are good ?
But the very fact that Hell Bent showed regeneration is gender-neutral makes regeneration a narrative reason for the Doctor being female. It is a reason for him being female. You also invalidated your entire argument by pointing out Romana tried on various bodies of different species for her regeneration scene from Destiny of the Daleks.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 26, 2018 23:55:01 GMT
I don't want to do this whole thing over again, BUT: the weakest possible reason you could have for introducing something new - something that one might expect would vastly affect a civilization (yeah, I know, 12 gave a mini-speech about how gender-free TLs are; read further) - is to have a character say that something that never happened before is possible. That's especially true when you're not far off your 50-year anniversary/30th season. That's not a narrative reason. That's just the author/showrunner/whomever using a proxy so they stop just short of breaking the fourth wall and simply telling the audience that such-and-such is possible even though it was never on the radar. A narrative reason used to introduced the concept would be, say, to have The Master go to Karn to drink a potion to change him into a female so as to help escape detection because it's unusual or somesuch. Or, to focus really really really hard, at a cost, to change sexes during a regeneration. Or that it's some capability intoduced during the Time War. A narrative reason would (a) plug into a story (b) make sense of the fact that the only time anything like it happened in a show was a sight gag, an obvious joke. (b) refers to Romana's body-change routine that directly mirrored Tom Baker's costume-change routine when 3 turned into 4, though it might be noted that each of her test-bodies was still female. A narrative reason is not telling Matt Smith to talk about "The Corsair" being a woman for a while, then have the Doctor murder someone only to have them gripe about their last body being the only male one they had (then have the Doctor tell the audience via proxy-Bill that TLs don't care about gender), then have the Doctor turn female. That's just doing it because they want to. And as Chinball said, it was always going to be a female successor. So there's no real in-universe narrative reason, and the real world reason isn't even best actor OR actress. The reason is wanting to make 13 female, period, full stop, end of story. There hasn't been any narrative regeneration for sex-change regeneration. It was just the real world thinking of "oh, wouldn't it be cool if we did this with the show"? (Or some other thought process). They did it. Maybe she'll be great, maybe not. I'll watch and I'll judge based on the stories. But I cannot agree that there was ever anything like a "narrative reason" for this whole thing to be introduced. There was a real-world reason. It has nothing to do with helping Doctor Who tell a story or an arc across stories. It was about and only about the having of a female be the Doctor.
But they did it and the episodes are being filmed. I don't see the point in trying to argue for some kind of in-universe narrative reason why this suddenly makes sense. How about we just watch and see whether the episodes are good ?
But the very fact that Hell Bent showed regeneration is gender-neutral makes regeneration a narrative reason for the Doctor being female. It is a reason for him being female. You also invalidated your entire argument by pointing out Romana tried on various bodies of different species for her regeneration scene from Destiny of the Daleks. No, a narrative REASON, means a REASON for something. What we see happen with The Doctor regenerating happens for no narrative reason, it just happens.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 27, 2018 0:03:18 GMT
But the very fact that Hell Bent showed regeneration is gender-neutral makes regeneration a narrative reason for the Doctor being female. It is a reason for him being female. You also invalidated your entire argument by pointing out Romana tried on various bodies of different species for her regeneration scene from Destiny of the Daleks. No, a narrative REASON, means a REASON for something. What we see happen with The Doctor regenerating happens for no narrative reason, it just happens. It is a reason. Regeneration is always a narrative reason! The Doctor was injured in The Doctor Falls, so the regeneration started but he put it off, until he decided to regenerate in Twice Upon A Time and as a result of the regeneration regenerated into a woman.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 27, 2018 0:06:55 GMT
No, a narrative REASON, means a REASON for something. What we see happen with The Doctor regenerating happens for no narrative reason, it just happens. It is a reason. Regeneration is always a narrative reason! The Doctor was injured in The Doctor Falls, so the regeneration started but he put it off, until he decided to regenerate in Twice Upon A Time and as a result of the regeneration regenerated into a woman. No. That's a reason for regeneration. I'm not arguing that that regeneration should not be into a woman, but there is no more reason for The Doctor to be female than there is for The Doctor to have ginger hair.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 27, 2018 0:12:05 GMT
It is a reason. Regeneration is always a narrative reason! The Doctor was injured in The Doctor Falls, so the regeneration started but he put it off, until he decided to regenerate in Twice Upon A Time and as a result of the regeneration regenerated into a woman. No. That's a reason for regeneration. I'm not arguing that that regeneration should not be into a woman, but there is no more reason for The Doctor to be female than there is for The Doctor to have ginger hair. I completely disagree. Regeneration is a narrative reason for the Doctor to be anything. To say it's not is basically saying the Doctor is only female to promote feminism, which is just sexist and unfair towards Jodie Whittaker.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 27, 2018 0:22:00 GMT
No. That's a reason for regeneration. I'm not arguing that that regeneration should not be into a woman, but there is no more reason for The Doctor to be female than there is for The Doctor to have ginger hair. I completely disagree. Regeneration is a narrative reason for the Doctor to be anything. To say it's not is basically saying the Doctor is only female to promote feminism, which is just sexist and unfair towards Jodie Whittaker. Does that means you believe there is a narrative reason for The Doctor to be ginger haired? Or is sex a special case? And neither I nor mrperson said the Doctor was female to promote feminism, but even if one or both of us had, why would that be in of itself unfair to Jodie Whitaker?
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 27, 2018 1:13:24 GMT
Welp, looks like the guy who thinks Broadchurch sanctifies women is back to complain: ... Imbecile. Guys & Gals, In terms of earnings, it doesn't matter one jot what you think of this guy and his videos, what counts is views. Views do two things, one is they directly contribute to the payments Youtube make to him, secondly the more views he gets the more like others are to be directed by Youtube to his video, if you want to have no part of propelling this guys and his views into the laps of others, then don't link to his videos and don't above all else watch them, oh, and don't hit the dislike button either, Youtube don't care that you don't like it, they care that people want to watch it, and includes the nay-sayers. Now naturally, I'm not interested in giving this guy tons of undeserved traffic (hence not even using his name). All the same, I feel, for the sake of a healthy and mature discussion, that specifics are useful in gauging what the opposite side of a given argument feels. Like it or not, this is more useful than a wall of faceless, voiceless comments on a subreddit, even if it is hyperbolic codswallop.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 27, 2018 1:14:57 GMT
*mops brow* Whew, that gave me a chuckle. Personally, I find the people that whinge about "politics" in pop culture absolutely infantile, and typically have no grasp on how actual real people make actually real creative decisions, so that was a glorious three minutes for me to grab the popcorn for. Well glad this video gave you that much. That's likely the most positive thing it's contributed to anything ever.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 27, 2018 7:54:36 GMT
I completely disagree. Regeneration is a narrative reason for the Doctor to be anything. To say it's not is basically saying the Doctor is only female to promote feminism, which is just sexist and unfair towards Jodie Whittaker. Does that means you believe there is a narrative reason for The Doctor to be ginger haired? If he regenerates into a body with ginger hair, yeah. Because it would be disregarding her talent.
|
|