|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Aug 25, 2018 21:19:51 GMT
No, people shouldn't apologise for liking something, that's pretty stupid. What people should do, however, is stop trying to make excuses for the serial. It doesn't matter how much context someone can give ("Ooh, but it's a Fu Manchu pastiche!"), the result is still offensive to a great number of people. I'm usually the first to pound on the 'Context' drum in terms of discussion of older media, but even that doesn't excuse. In fact it makes it worse because A) There's a good reason why Fu Manchu has been a dead property, and that death started not far off from this story. B) Doctor Who already had cast Asian actors in Asian roles before this, like in Mind of Evil six years earlier. There's even Asian actors in Talons! There was no excuse in 1976/77 on Maloney's part not to find an Asian to play Chang. It's really arbitrary that Fu has to be a white guy because 'well, that's how it always was'. Funny how Dracula is not played exclusively by East European actors, then...
John Bennett did a great job, in terms of being menacing, but he's still a white guy with yellow paint and taped slant eyes. You can't get around that if you're intereted in honest discussion, and it's irritating because, Talons' high quality aside (and make no mistake, it's a damn good mystery Gothic historical), it's really the only out and out stereotype of this nature in Classic Who: they at least had sense not to do red faced Native Americans or grass-skirt cannibals.
Going at a little tangent, I believe that the biggest problem with Fu Manchu is the bad reputation and bad versions While the first book was excessive by today's standards, later books progressed away from that in the first book Fu Manchu is described as the Yellow Peril Incarnate but in the Golden Scorpion (a spin-off between the third and 4th book) the term "yellow peril" is laughed at over it's racism Fu Manchu's motives in later books include trying to prevent the Second World War, trying to block dangerous scientific research and trying to blackmail America into helping him overthrow the communists and return China to imperial rule (the Chinese seem to be quite capable of fightng him off without Western help) Fu Manchu is significant in villain history not for being an offshoot of the pre-existing Yellow Peril concept but for popularisng the notion of a villain who is ruthless but also has a strong code of honour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2018 23:06:43 GMT
I think there are far more offensive examples in popular culture. Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's? That seems to be sidestepped as Audrey Hepburn is seen as iconic in that role. We do not see calls for all those posters be removed from walls. Far fewer people actually watch the film, than celebrate her sophistication in the role, i suspect. Dr Sandifer demanding that the editor of DWM be sacked or resign for defending the serial? This is out of proportion and the issue has already become something of a joke on wider social media. I accept that the consensus is that there is a subconscious racism present, but in no way do i feel it to be derogatory. I viewed today, in response to this thread, the Father Ted 'I hear you are a Racist now, Father' scene. For all the poking fun at racist attitudes, it is still uncomfortable that the audience laughs along (out of disbelief probably) with Father Ted's initial fun poking, as I felt at the time of first broadcast. Father Ted - I hear you are a Racist now?
Yes, John Bennett, as outstanding as he was, could have been supplanted more formidably by a distinguished Asian actor, as he would no doubt be today, but his character is a strong and noble one, amongst the ruddy faced Londoners inhabiting this Victorian underbelly. We are critcised for defending it as 'of it's time', but that is it. It is what it is, and casting aside, I see no reason why it would be done differently today. Tom Baker hailed it as his favourite production on the series. What would he have to say about the current brouhaha?
|
|
|
Post by masterdoctor on Aug 26, 2018 3:17:23 GMT
After learning about the vitriol thrown at Big Finish by a twitter user, I ended up reading the rest of the posts that this user had made and got a very clear reminder that there are extremist fans on both sides of the spectrum. And the sad thing is that some of the tweets have called some who actors horrible things such as nazis etc. for either disagreeing with them or based on a story which the user can't prove other than the "because I said so" argument. The twitter user is Dr. Elizabeth Sandifer as I do think that I should be clear in my sources. Im not going to link anything specific as I don't feel that it is something that should be read on a family friendly forum, but if anyone does wish to read more about it, I do think that it is only fair to allow for that.
As a sidenote, it makes me very proud to be part of such a community that is able to have a conversation that this twitter user is having about Talons, but do it in a way that isn't attacking each other and able to respect each others opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 5:55:10 GMT
I'm usually the first to pound on the 'Context' drum in terms of discussion of older media, but even that doesn't excuse. In fact it makes it worse because A) There's a good reason why Fu Manchu has been a dead property, and that death started not far off from this story. B) Doctor Who already had cast Asian actors in Asian roles before this, like in Mind of Evil six years earlier. There's even Asian actors in Talons! There was no excuse in 1976/77 on Maloney's part not to find an Asian to play Chang. It's really arbitrary that Fu has to be a white guy because 'well, that's how it always was'. Funny how Dracula is not played exclusively by East European actors, then...
John Bennett did a great job, in terms of being menacing, but he's still a white guy with yellow paint and taped slant eyes. You can't get around that if you're intereted in honest discussion, and it's irritating because, Talons' high quality aside (and make no mistake, it's a damn good mystery Gothic historical), it's really the only out and out stereotype of this nature in Classic Who: they at least had sense not to do red faced Native Americans or grass-skirt cannibals.
Going at a little tangent, I believe that the biggest problem with Fu Manchu is the bad reputation and bad versions While the first book was excessive by today's standards, later books progressed away from that in the first book Fu Manchu is described as the Yellow Peril Incarnate but in the Golden Scorpion (a spin-off between the third and 4th book) the term "yellow peril" is laughed at over it's racism Fu Manchu's motives in later books include trying to prevent the Second World War, trying to block dangerous scientific research and trying to blackmail America into helping him overthrow the communists and return China to imperial rule (the Chinese seem to be quite capable of fightng him off without Western help) Fu Manchu is significant in villain history not for being an offshoot of the pre-existing Yellow Peril concept but for popularisng the notion of a villain who is ruthless but also has a strong code of honour. This is honestly very, very common when examining works even as young as over twenty years old. Speaking as someone who did English Literature for three years, I can safely say that properly contextualising historical fiction is... damn near impossible. It has to be viewed through three viewpoints simultaneously, each as complex as the other: there's the period within it was written (already complicated), the period it's being viewed (like trying to grapple quicksand) and the reputation it has garnered in between. The example I use most commonly is James Bond, since he's widely known and all of the texts are easily accessed. Bond has a reputation since Daniel Craig took over the role for being the ruthless killer. Very "book Bond" and very close to Fleming's original intention is the reputation. In reality, book!Bond spends his first scene in the Goldfinger novel getting drunk over a man he's killed. He wonders what kind of person he is and why he keeps going on doing what he does. Another example is For Your Eyes Only, where he has to psyche himself up to assassinate figures he knows machinegunned close friends of M's for a chunk of real estate. He has a conscience, he has doubts, but the reputation and perception since then is that he has no emotional interior and that historical generalisation casts a different light on the character. I think the whole crux of this thing on Twitter is that it forgets that history is complex and people can have complex opinions. To behave otherwise is, ironically enough, to stereotype. These two sentences are all the same opinion: I've enjoyed The Talons of Weng-Chiang and find the characters really compelling. Done today, I believe there would be a few textural changes to address problematic undercurrents; I can easily see Dr. Litefoot being portrayed by an Asian actor and Greel's henchmen being more multicultural. I'm rather chuffed too that we can be talking about such a delicate and complex topic as this without anyone throwing a chair through a window. The respect is tangible, it's marvellous.
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Aug 26, 2018 8:47:17 GMT
Well Talons Of Weng Chiang is my all time favourite Doctor Who story of all time, anyone who tells me I'm racist for liking it gets a two fingered salute, the pc brigade & sjw throwing there toys out there pram can go do one I'm sick at how people are attacked nowadays for liking something, Talons was made in the 70's the world was different back then.
I swear we'll be using the three sea shells next & fined for cursing.
I also found that those like myself who would've prefered the Doctor to remain male were trolled & persecuted far more than those who accepted the change, again my opinion, i prefer the Doctor to remain male but if Jodie pulls it off & changes my opinion I'll be the first to say she proved me wrong.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,666
|
Post by shutupbanks on Aug 26, 2018 10:23:18 GMT
After learning about the vitriol thrown at Big Finish by a twitter user, I ended up reading the rest of the posts that this user had made and got a very clear reminder that there are extremist fans on both sides of the spectrum. And the sad thing is that some of the tweets have called some who actors horrible things such as nazis etc. for either disagreeing with them or based on a story which the user can't prove other than the "because I said so" argument. The twitter user is Dr. Elizabeth Sandifer as I do think that I should be clear in my sources. Im not going to link anything specific as I don't feel that it is something that should be read on a family friendly forum, but if anyone does wish to read more about it, I do think that it is only fair to allow for that. As a sidenote, it makes me very proud to be part of such a community that is able to have a conversation that this twitter user is having about Talons, but do it in a way that isn't attacking each other and able to respect each others opinions. I've enjoyed a lot of Dr Sandifer's posts in the past and even bought one of her books which was a great, thoughtful read. However, I do think she is very wide of the mark here in her criticism of Big Finish: I know that there are a lot of "issues" with the makeup of the production team but I think that can be excused by the great mix of actors who perform the stories and who have gone on to become leading lights of the company themselves. Also the criticism of the stories seems unfair when a lot of BF's output is very often a lot smarter and cleverer than the material it is based upon (Yeah - I went there!).
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Aug 26, 2018 10:37:43 GMT
After learning about the vitriol thrown at Big Finish by a twitter user, I ended up reading the rest of the posts that this user had made and got a very clear reminder that there are extremist fans on both sides of the spectrum. And the sad thing is that some of the tweets have called some who actors horrible things such as nazis etc. for either disagreeing with them or based on a story which the user can't prove other than the "because I said so" argument. The twitter user is Dr. Elizabeth Sandifer as I do think that I should be clear in my sources. Im not going to link anything specific as I don't feel that it is something that should be read on a family friendly forum, but if anyone does wish to read more about it, I do think that it is only fair to allow for that. As a sidenote, it makes me very proud to be part of such a community that is able to have a conversation that this twitter user is having about Talons, but do it in a way that isn't attacking each other and able to respect each others opinions. I've enjoyed a lot of Dr Sandifer's posts in the past and even bought one of her books which was a great, thoughtful read. However, I do think she is very wide of the mark here in her criticism of Big Finish: I know that there are a lot of "issues" with the makeup of the production team but I think that can be excused by the great mix of actors who perform the stories and who have gone on to become leading lights of the company themselves. Also the criticism of the stories seems unfair when a lot of BF's output is very often a lot smarter and cleverer than the material it is based upon (Yeah - I went there!). It should be borne in mind that we're not privy to what goes on at BF. They're always checking out and hiring new talent. A more diverse wave may be coming, they just haven't been announced yet or haven't finished their commissions yet.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,666
|
Post by shutupbanks on Aug 26, 2018 11:34:20 GMT
I've enjoyed a lot of Dr Sandifer's posts in the past and even bought one of her books which was a great, thoughtful read. However, I do think she is very wide of the mark here in her criticism of Big Finish: I know that there are a lot of "issues" with the makeup of the production team but I think that can be excused by the great mix of actors who perform the stories and who have gone on to become leading lights of the company themselves. Also the criticism of the stories seems unfair when a lot of BF's output is very often a lot smarter and cleverer than the material it is based upon (Yeah - I went there!). It should be borne in mind that we're not privy to what goes on at BF. They're always checking out and hiring new talent. A more diverse wave may be coming, they just haven't been announced yet or haven't finished their commissions yet. That may be true, but their output so far has not had that diversity and - as a white, middle-aged man - I believe that it is open to criticism on those grounds. I have no problem with them using a bunch of the same authors for a big chunk of their work, nor with the make-up of a lot of their casts but I don't believe that we should be holding back any criticisms because of information that we haven't had made available to us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 11:42:33 GMT
After learning about the vitriol thrown at Big Finish by a twitter user, I ended up reading the rest of the posts that this user had made and got a very clear reminder that there are extremist fans on both sides of the spectrum. And the sad thing is that some of the tweets have called some who actors horrible things such as nazis etc. for either disagreeing with them or based on a story which the user can't prove other than the "because I said so" argument. The twitter user is Dr. Elizabeth Sandifer as I do think that I should be clear in my sources. Im not going to link anything specific as I don't feel that it is something that should be read on a family friendly forum, but if anyone does wish to read more about it, I do think that it is only fair to allow for that. As a sidenote, it makes me very proud to be part of such a community that is able to have a conversation that this twitter user is having about Talons, but do it in a way that isn't attacking each other and able to respect each others opinions. I've enjoyed a lot of Dr Sandifer's posts in the past and even bought one of her books which was a great, thoughtful read. However, I do think she is very wide of the mark here in her criticism of Big Finish: I know that there are a lot of "issues" with the makeup of the production team but I think that can be excused by the great mix of actors who perform the stories and who have gone on to become leading lights of the company themselves. Also the criticism of the stories seems unfair when a lot of BF's output is very often a lot smarter and cleverer than the material it is based upon (Yeah - I went there!). Cleverer than Time-Flight? Cleverer than--Well, okay you have a point.
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Aug 26, 2018 12:23:50 GMT
I remember when i reviewed Iron Man 3 & give it a bad review, next thing Marvel fanboys appear trolling comments at me like "i hope you catch AIDS Timelord & die" or "hope you get murdered" all because i differed in a opinion over a movie talk about extremism, what was worse there was no moderation & i had to Email the site for them remove the comments.
It's great to debate, it's fine to disagree but what is unacceptable is the hate & trolling because one has a differing opinion, thankfully this site has always been respectful & well moderated when a few savoury characters overstepped the mark.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Aug 26, 2018 13:13:40 GMT
I remember when i reviewed Iron Man 3 & give it a bad review, next thing Marvel fanboys appear trolling comments at me like "i hope you catch AIDS Timelord & die" or "hope you get murdered" all because i differed in a opinion over a movie talk about extremism, what was worse there was no moderation & i had to Email the site for them remove the comments. It's great to debate, it's fine to disagree but what is unacceptable is the hate & trolling because one has a differing opinion, thankfully this site has always been respectful & well moderated when a few savoury characters overstepped the mark. On the other end of that scale is, on every new thing that is put out about S11, you always get the same 'RIP Doctor Who' comments over and over. And I mean stuff that has nothing controversial or political or objectionable or offensive. It doesn't even have to have footage and you get the 'RIP' brigade.
Or even more recently, the whole 'diversity hire' tripe when Blackman and Patel are brought up: whatever you may think of their work, or even if you will or won't watch S11, they've earnt the right to write for the show. They fit any meritocratic, talent-first, all about the writing definition. And frankly, why should that bother them so much: did they meet Chris once in a loo and think they were promised a slot on the show by handing him paper? They're not 'taking' your jobs, so what difference does that honestly make?
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Aug 26, 2018 13:22:06 GMT
I remember when i reviewed Iron Man 3 & give it a bad review, next thing Marvel fanboys appear trolling comments at me like "i hope you catch AIDS Timelord & die" or "hope you get murdered" all because i differed in a opinion over a movie talk about extremism, what was worse there was no moderation & i had to Email the site for them remove the comments. It's great to debate, it's fine to disagree but what is unacceptable is the hate & trolling because one has a differing opinion, thankfully this site has always been respectful & well moderated when a few savoury characters overstepped the mark. On the other end of that scale is, on every new thing that is put out about S11, you always get the same 'RIP Doctor Who' comments over and over. And I mean stuff that has nothing controversial or political or objectionable or offensive. It doesn't even have to have footage and you get the 'RIP' brigade.
Or even more recently, the whole 'diversity hire' tripe when Blackman and Patel are brought up: whatever you may think of their work, or even if you will or won't watch S11, they've earnt the right to write for the show. They fit any meritocratic, talent-first, all about the writing definition.
All we want is dramatic storytelling at the end of the day, i have been very cynical of the upcoming series but haven't gone on a hate trolling spree which sadly many so called fans have done, Tim Bradley bless him has persuaded me to watch the first episode & as I've said if Jodies good I'll acknowledge it but if she isn't i will say so & my reasons why, I'm a analogue signal in a digital age but I'll give this series a go see what happens, I've always tried to be civil & respectful even when we disagree on a topic. Sadly with social media nowadays trolling is part of the fixture & fittings it a shame but goes with the territory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 13:53:31 GMT
Took a short walk in the rain with my cd Walkman....lol i like when people look and think...geez he must be really poor he cant afford an iPod.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2018 0:01:34 GMT
All we want is dramatic storytelling at the end of the day, i have been very cynical of the upcoming series but haven't gone on a hate trolling spree which sadly many so called fans have done To be fair, when Jodie was announced you posted that you put your fist through the shed wall, were going to get rid of your Who DVDs and said the people who supported Jodie were "PC fanboys who could go to hell". I wouldn't be throwing too many stones in the glass house when you were posting things like that online yourself.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Aug 27, 2018 0:21:29 GMT
All we want is dramatic storytelling at the end of the day, i have been very cynical of the upcoming series but haven't gone on a hate trolling spree which sadly many so called fans have done To be fair, when Jodie was announced you posted that you put your fist through the shed wall, were going to get rid of your Who DVDs and said the people who supported Jodie were "PC fanboys who could go to hell". I wouldn't be throwing too many stones in the glass house when you were posting things like that online yourself. Also to be fair, when I first heard about Jodie it was naturally from Big Finish, and for the first 15 minutes I was ready to just up and delete my Big Finish account in protest for them having the audacity to ruin my life like that and then not attach condolences, as if they thought this awful female Doctor business were somehow a good thing. I tried desperately to blame it all on Stan Lee and not Big Finish, the word "Gimmick" issued forth like machine-gun fire, and anyone who didn't like my doing so could also go right straight to .... because they should, they don't get to tell me what to think about stuff. If I had bothered to post that very independent-minded sentiment in the heat of the moment, I think it would still be a very different thing than telling someone that you hope they catch a disease or that someone murders them just because you happen to have the luxury of saying that to someone without having to look them in the face when you do it.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Aug 27, 2018 1:11:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by J.A. Prentice on Aug 27, 2018 1:33:24 GMT
Sandifer is clever and insightful, but she also has an irritating tendency to be deliberately provocative. I can understand it (It's the same impulse that obligates me to list the War Chief every time we discuss the Master's incarnations ) but there are times where she allows for no nuance or structures an essay ingenuously so as to let her make a bigger "splash." Her Big Finish attacks are a mix of this, a drop of truth if we're being honest (There are a lot of audios and not a lot of women or minorities working on them), and her natural inclination – which the Eruditorium is built on – to turn everything into a narrative. "Big Finish puts out some great stuff, a lot of good stuff, and some unnecessary dross" doesn't make a good narrative. "Big Finish, like the novels, has run out of steam in the same way the rest of the Doctor Who EU has" does. Unfortunately for her, that narrative's only true if you look at a few select ranges. She picked one boxset to make a point, but if she'd picked another, like one of the New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield she could easily have argued Big Finish is in a golden age of creativity and innovation, although her choice of wanting something related to Series 9 did cut down her options. Perhaps she'll give the Diary of River Song a better review when she gets to Husbands of River Song, though I'm not holding my breath. Oh, and speaking as someone who counts Talons as one of the greatest Doctor Who stories of all time and thinks Jago and Litefoot are the best guest characters the show has ever had... it's racist. It just is. (Kate Orman's article does an excellent and balanced job of explaining it.)
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Aug 27, 2018 4:49:52 GMT
I got lost in one twitter thread of a bunch of Doctor Who fans defending Talons as "not racist". I almost tweeted "nice echo chamber you have there" but I decided not to.
There's no question that Talons is racist.
I also don't think that Sandifer deserves all of the abuse she's gotten for her comments.
I mostly saw her comments about Talons, didn't get too deep into the ones about Big Finish.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Aug 27, 2018 4:52:53 GMT
Also, I thought Paul Cornell made some very good comments on Twitter about the Talons issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2018 5:39:40 GMT
Ditto to Orman's essay. There's been a lot of thought put into it (right down to its footnotes). It's honestly really well-written, nicely balanced and you can't help but come away from it feeling really satisfied on the topic.
|
|