|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jul 20, 2018 23:55:26 GMT
So of course, this has cropped up a lot lately on here and has been part of a bigger discourse across every bit of media in the last couple of years. Yes yes, talent and ability should be first yadda yadda yadda, but what is or should be it's actual significance? And what does that say about us?
And, just to throw this out there for my own two pence, but I've never gotten the argument from POCs and female fans of 'well, I've identified with white and/or male characters all my life, so everything's just fine' (I hear this one alot with comics). Great, that's a sign of strong writing and other elements and I'm glad you were engaged, but that's not really an answer to the whole 'representation' debate. That's like telling the ice cream man you like cookies: they're delicious, sure, but what about the ice cream?
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jul 21, 2018 0:11:30 GMT
Art, in order to be relevant, needs to reflect the time. We live in a world that is more diverse by the minute. The art and entertainment produced needs to show that. People need to see something they recognize of their own lives and experience in film, TV, art, music and literature. Representation matters. Diversity matters. Walking out of Black Panther listening to 8 and 9 year old children of color talking about how they wanted to be scientists and leaders because of what they had just seen onscreen was incredibly moving and potent. To see the videos of those young women who reacted with joy at seeing the Doctor revealing herself was incredibly moving. By the show expanding what the Doctor can be it shows a new generation of fans that gender doesn’t determine how smart or clever a person can be. If anything, Doctor Who is becoming a more inclusive program. The Doctor was a hero for 13 lives as a man. Now The Doctor is a woman and still a hero. Everyone wins.
|
|
|
Post by analex on Jul 21, 2018 8:10:12 GMT
It matters a whole lot. Yes, telling good stories is the pirority, but there's no reason why male and white should be the default for anything. If anything, if done properly, it enriches the story. Writers have that responsibility to the world.
But, y'know, we've got a whole generation who think Family Guy is satire (and McFlarene's intentions don't mean shit, he's a talentless thoughtless hack who tapped a nasty vein) and I wish some parents had did better with their kids and their internet usage and had them engage with the actual real world, so they can have actual thoughts in their head so when representation does show up, they don't feel invalidated. If your identity is so freakin' consumed by the media you consume, your pretty doomed to life anyway. Yeah, this is a wider multilayered problem, but anyone who can't feel comfortable with themselves in their adult skin and needs to be catered to in such a fashion in the large sways we see in various fandoms isn't exactly a functional adult anyway. Yes, there's the other side to all of this, but as I said: tell good stories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 8:26:34 GMT
I think one of the main reason these debates always go so toxic so fast is that there are always people who seem to think that the achievements of the person in question are secondary to or even nullified by their race/gender/sexuality. So to use the most obvious example for this site, to them Jodie wasn't hired because she's a talented,young actor who has worked hugely successfully with Chibnall....she's just "a woman".
Representation doesn't mean putting white straight men down...it just means we're open to stories seen through the prism of different perspectives and that there should be more opportunities for people in the creative arts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 9:07:12 GMT
I think one of the main reason these debates always go so toxic so fast is that there are always people who seem to think that the achievements of the person in question are secondary to or even nullified by their race/gender/sexuality. So to use the most obvious example for this site, to them Jodie wasn't hired because she's a talented,young actor who has worked hugely successfully with Chibnall....she's just "a woman". Representation doesn't mean putting white straight men down...it just means we're open to stories seen through the prism of different perspectives and that there should be more opportunities for people in the creative arts. Exactly. Everything that has come before is still there, it's another branch being grown rather than a bough being cut. Better still, everything that has come before still grows alongside the radical new idea and vice versa. It's a profoundly complex set of affairs, but in many ways, one of the most prominent things to have shifted is that spotlight (superheroes existed for almost a century before they launched a cinematic universe). The introduction of the new does not mean the erasure of the old. We have a vast and beautiful lineage of stories to that effect. We need that diversity of concepts for media to function in the first place, never mind flourish. It's that diversity which helps to make good storytelling and good art.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 21, 2018 10:36:40 GMT
I think one of the main reason these debates always go so toxic so fast is that there are always people who seem to think that the achievements of the person in question are secondary to or even nullified by their race/gender/sexuality. So to use the most obvious example for this site, to them Jodie wasn't hired because she's a talented,young actor who has worked hugely successfully with Chibnall....she's just "a woman". Representation doesn't mean putting white straight men down...it just means we're open to stories seen through the prism of different perspectives and that there should be more opportunities for people in the creative arts. But Jodie's casting is not the strongest argument against toxic debate. They Were looking for a Women, she obviously gave the best audition, and her pervious great work with Chibnall is a bonus, but the aim it seems was casting a woman.
Regards
mark687
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 11:00:36 GMT
I think one of the main reason these debates always go so toxic so fast is that there are always people who seem to think that the achievements of the person in question are secondary to or even nullified by their race/gender/sexuality. So to use the most obvious example for this site, to them Jodie wasn't hired because she's a talented,young actor who has worked hugely successfully with Chibnall....she's just "a woman". Representation doesn't mean putting white straight men down...it just means we're open to stories seen through the prism of different perspectives and that there should be more opportunities for people in the creative arts. But Jodie's casting is not the strongest argument against toxic debate. They Were looking for a Women, she obviously gave the best audition, and her pervious great work with Chibnall is a bonus, but the aim it seems was casting a woman.
Regards
mark687
No-one cared when literally the entire other 50% of Equity, the men, were the only ones who were being considered for decades. It seems that giving the other 50% a shot is an issue. Put it this way Mark - would you ever have said when Capaldi was cast that they were looking for a male as their primary aim? No. It just seemed implied that a man would get it and people accepted he was the best person based on what Moffat was after. Jodie doesn't get that consideration from some quarters. As far as we know it's only, for 55 years, been men who have been auditioned. Now, once, it was women and that's an issue...I just don't get it. I don't see how this is terribly different than Lloyd and Davis thinking outside the box replacing Hartnell with the massively different Troughton when they could have just gone with another old man in a grey wig. The Doctor can change massively...but not too much? Seems rather limiting to me. Take the gender out the equation just for a second. Jodie says she views the role as genderless. I could accept Whitaker, from what we've seen, as the same person as Tennant or Smith before I could accept Smith or Tennant were the same as Hartnell and Pertwee yet they were of course all men. From all we've seen and heard she's going to be a fun loving adventurer on the run with friends helping where she can. I'm not sure her being a woman negates that being inherently the character of The Doctor. As valid as any and ...perhaps better than some, time will tell on that.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 21, 2018 11:15:45 GMT
Doctor's should always be cast based on what the Producers vision of the show is agreed, but women were they only ones considered this time so by default Gender became a primary consideration.
I've always viewed the role as gender natural as possible BTW.
Regards
mark687
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 11:19:09 GMT
Doctor's should always be cast based on what the Producers vision of the show is argreed, but women were they only ones considered so by default Gender became a primary consideration. I've always viewed the role as gender natural as possible BTW. Regards mark687 Again Mark - MEN were the only ones considered for 55 years - so by default was gender a primary consideration of each and every casting of The Doctor ever? Or does that only apply when it's women considered?
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 21, 2018 11:29:03 GMT
Doctor's should always be cast based on what the Producers vision of the show is argreed, but women were they only ones considered so by default Gender became a primary consideration. I've always viewed the role as gender natural as possible BTW. Regards mark687 Again Mark - MEN were the only ones considered for 55 years - so by default was gender a primary consideration of each and every casting of The Doctor ever? Or does that only apply when it's women considered? But that's a comment on the industry and no one knows if no women whatsoever was ever considered in pervious Castings, we do know they were a primary consideration this time.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jul 21, 2018 11:30:08 GMT
Jodie's casting as The Doctor reflects the much wider conversations going on at the moment, not only gender equality, but also questioning what gender even now means to our society.
Had a female Doctor been cast in the 70's or 80's I suspect, expect even, that it would have been a failure, because society at that time had much clearer, fixed ideas about gender roles and The Doctor was male, I don't think the public would have welcomed or accepted a change.
But times move on, attitudes move on, but it's not like a light switch, its a development overtime, with some sections of society being more conservative than others, holding onto the older views and attitudes.
Some of us, as we get older, will see ourselves getting left behind by the conversation, many unfortunately get left behind but never realise, but during this transition period, where attitudes are changing, you have to expect and be ready to deal with a broad cross spectrum of attitudes, even ones that seem old dated or narrow minded.
|
|
|
Post by analex on Jul 21, 2018 11:33:01 GMT
Again Mark - MEN were the only ones considered for 55 years - so by default was gender a primary consideration of each and every casting of The Doctor ever? Or does that only apply when it's women considered? But that's a comment on the industry and no one knows if no women whatsoever was ever considered in pervious Castings, we do know they were a primary consideration this time.
Regards
mark687
RTD said he always felt the audience wasn't ready yet, Moffatt's been laying the groundwork for it. You've got to push from somewhere above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 11:37:42 GMT
Again Mark - MEN were the only ones considered for 55 years - so by default was gender a primary consideration of each and every casting of The Doctor ever? Or does that only apply when it's women considered? But that's a comment on the industry and no one knows if no women whatsoever was ever considered in pervious Castings, we do know they were a primary consideration this time.
Regards
mark687
If you can show where a woman was seriously considered or auditioned I'd concede that point but just saying "well, we don't know women weren't considered." is a real cop out. I, and most of us here, have read absolutely tonnes on the history of the show for decades from hundreds and hundreds of insiders and I can't name one woman even rumoured to have been in with a real shot before. People - all of us included - just assumed that it would be all men on the shortlist till now. Yet, and I say again, it never seemed to be an issue till the shortlist criteria changed to allow the other 50% of people who were always denied being on it before to have a chance at the job. Why is it OK to only consider men but when you do the same with women you trigger this backlash?
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 21, 2018 11:46:19 GMT
Anyway back to the original question,
It should be matter of is this person the most qualified for the job, the optics and message it sends should be secondary (unless they have a violent or sexual crime past)
Regards
mark687
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 11:55:16 GMT
I really don’t see why people are complaining that Chibnall only auditioned women. If that’s what he wanted then what’s the issue? Again it comes down to this “best person for the job” mentality. Do people really expect Chibnall to begin auditions without knowing what he’s after? I hate to be so blunt about it but the vast majority of fans don’t have a clue what they’re doing on about, and their wondrous ideas of meritocracy does not and will never translate to creative decision making. You’d be an idiot to go into casting without knowing what kind of actor you want to cast. A real idiot.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 21, 2018 12:01:43 GMT
But that's a comment on the industry and no one knows if no women whatsoever was ever considered in pervious Castings, we do know they were a primary consideration this time.
Regards
mark687
If you can show where a woman was seriously considered or auditioned I'd concede that point but just saying "well, we don't know women weren't considered." is a real cop out. I, and most of us here, have read absolutely tonnes on the history of the show for decades from hundreds and hundreds of insiders and I can't name one woman even rumoured to have been in with a real shot before. People - all of us included - just assumed that it would be all men on the shortlist till now. Yet, and I say again, it never seemed to be an issue till the shortlist criteria changed to allow the other 50% of people who were always denied being on it before to have a chance at the job. Why is it OK to only consider men but when you do the same with women you trigger this backlash? Its not Ok but it happened and the way its been handled shows an as yet unjustified moral superiority.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by analex on Jul 21, 2018 12:09:22 GMT
If you can show where a woman was seriously considered or auditioned I'd concede that point but just saying "well, we don't know women weren't considered." is a real cop out. I, and most of us here, have read absolutely tonnes on the history of the show for decades from hundreds and hundreds of insiders and I can't name one woman even rumoured to have been in with a real shot before. People - all of us included - just assumed that it would be all men on the shortlist till now. Yet, and I say again, it never seemed to be an issue till the shortlist criteria changed to allow the other 50% of people who were always denied being on it before to have a chance at the job. Why is it OK to only consider men but when you do the same with women you trigger this backlash? Its not Ok but it happened and the way its been handled shows an as yet unjustified moral superiority.
Regards
mark687
Chibnall wanted to shake up audience's expectations - the New Series is now in it's thirteenth year and there's been four main male actors in the part. You have to shake long running franchises up from time to time and Chibnall casting a woman in the role was part of that. What do you mean by 'moral superiority'?
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 21, 2018 12:31:42 GMT
Its not Ok but it happened and the way its been handled shows an as yet unjustified moral superiority.
Regards
mark687
Chibnall wanted to shake up audience's expectations - the New Series is now in it's thirteenth year and there's been four main male actors in the part. You have to shake long running franchises up from time to time and Chibnall casting a woman in the role was part of that. What do you mean by 'moral superiority'? Seems to be a be a thought process of "We on message therefore we'll definitely be a hit" going on.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by analex on Jul 21, 2018 12:37:57 GMT
Chibnall wanted to shake up audience's expectations - the New Series is now in it's thirteenth year and there's been four main male actors in the part. You have to shake long running franchises up from time to time and Chibnall casting a woman in the role was part of that. What do you mean by 'moral superiority'? Seems to be a be a thought process of "We on message therefore we'll definitely be a hit" going on.
Regards
mark687
On message of what? This is a big gamble by the BBC and Chibnall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 12:38:22 GMT
A quick word just to say that we all have opinions on this, and a lot of those opinions dovetail with our feelings towards current directions taken by Doctor Who. It is great to read such polite, informed and non-judgemental posts from so many on here. Never has this debate - and it's a pretty hot one! - fallen into the kind of unhelpful name-calling and hostility that I've seen casually practiced in places elsewhere. It's a pleasure to read.
|
|