So a recent question to Joss Whedon was would you write for Doctor Who and the answer was check back with me when the Doctor is female, if thats the case get the move made and get Joss on board!
shareWhat a stupid comment from that guy what so he can't write for any other male apart from him
share"Him"? Who him? Joss Whedon has written tons of female AND male characters. TBH he's way too big of a name for Doctor Who so it'd figure he wouldn't involve himself unless it was a big game-changer type of a thing.
The one writer I'd really most want to see pen an episode for DW is Vince Gilligan. That could be awesome.
'Dead' is just Time Lord for 'man flu'.
TBH he's way too big of a name for Doctor Who
TBH he's way too big of a name for Doctor Who so it'd figure he wouldn't involve himself unless it was a big game-changer type of a thing.
If the Doctor's gender doesn't matter one way or the other, it shouldn't be a game-changer.
What's The Avengers?
So this is permanence, love's shattered pride.
What once was innocence, turned on its side.
Really? I'm not a huge fan of the film but it was hugely popular (I think it's #5 in the all-time box office.) Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and all that. Avengers Assemble it's called in the UK I think.
'Dead' is just Time Lord for 'man flu'.
Oh, I thought it would be something of that ilk. Commercially successful, then.
Personally, I think Gaiman is heavily overhyped, and certain works of his (American Gods) are hugely overrated, but there's no denying his contribution to storytelling. His Sandman series changed the way people viewed comics. At least two of his novels have been successfully filmed - both a bit more original than yet another team-up of superheroes.
In 100 years from now, I think Gaiman will be remembered for his diverse imagination. Whedon might be remembered for Buffy.
So this is permanence, love's shattered pride.
What once was innocence, turned on its side.
Well, it was critically rather successful as well actually.
I admit I don't really know much about Gaiman. I mean I have heard of Sandman but I don't think it's hugely popular in my country (interesting fact: neither was The Avengers. It was #1 in tons of markets in 2012 but somehow it ended up at #22 here in Finland lol. But everyone knows some of the characters.) Douglas Adams is probably the most well-known person to have written for Doctor Who in my opinion.
'Dead' is just Time Lord for 'man flu'.
Well, it was critically rather successful as well actually.
I admit I don't really know much about Gaiman.
Douglas Adams is probably the most well-known person to have written for Doctor Who in my opinion.
Steed and Gale.
Or Steed and Peel.
Or Steed and King.
There are other combinations as well.
ant-mac
Really Gaiman? I get he is a great writer but I am pretty sure he doesn't have 2 Billion dollar movies under his belt.. plus the cult following of the Buffy series which is still ongoing in the comics trumps Gaiman... let alone all the other series and movies under Whedon's belt.
JP
I was just about to post something similar.
shareNot so long ago, I thought a female Doctor could be done as a no-big-deal "So what? The Doctor's female now!" thing. Now, I think it would be impossible not to come across as stunt casting, thanks to Ghostbusters.
I'm not at all opposed to the Doctor becoming a woman.
And I quite like Joss Whedon. (Or, more accurately, I'm a big fan of Buffy.)
So, here's a plan:
1) Joss Whedon continues to write his own stuff.
2) Doctor Who does or doesn't get a female Doctor if and when it becomes appropriate.
3) Doctor Who continues to bring in more female writers, instead of bringing in a big-name writer as a stunt; a big-name writer who, by the way, has previously stated that he has never been a fan of the show.
4) Everybody happy.
I suspect he was probably giving a tongue-in-cheek response to a stupid, boring and repetitive inquiry.
-There is no noun that cannot be verbed.
Are there BBC rules about hiring people from outside the UK? They hired Rachel Talalay, but she has duel citizenship.
You're a nutcase.
Well, it'd most likely be illegal to curb hiring from inside the EU.
As for people from outside of the EU: they would presumably be subject to labyrinthine home office rules. I'm sure if they do get Peter Jackson over to do an episode, he'll need some sort of temporary work permit.
But how those rules might apply to a non-EU writer who wouldn't have to leave their couch and would probably be selling their script rather than their labour directly, I'm not sure.
And I'm not aware of any specific BBC rules on the matter. But they might exist.
Or the short, less speculative answer: I really don't have a clue.
-There is no noun that cannot be verbed.
3) Doctor Who continues to bring in more female writers, instead of bringing in a big-name writer as a stunt; a big-name writer who, by the way, has previously stated that he has never been a fan of the show.
That the writers should be good writers is implicit; your obtuseness is tiresome.
-There is no noun that cannot be verbed.
That the writers should be good writers is implicit
your obtuseness is tiresome.
no it isn't
Not at all
Not worth it, man. You always have these types among the bunch when the 'radical' idea of female writers is brought up.
--
As All Books Claim Eternity Has Many Universes
You know fine well that arguments for equality of opportunity are not arguments for the diminution of quality, but for removal of barriers to entry - so, yes, it's implicit.
And it really doesn't matter to me either way.
You know fine well that arguments for equality of opportunity are not arguments for the diminution of quality, but for removal of barriers to entry - so, yes, it's implicit.
Quotas work. They remove barriers to opportunity. They ensure your organisation is drawing from the entire pool of talents. That's the whole point of them.
But you only draw from a pool of people who are qualified (which is why quotas are ordinarily aspirational rather than fixed.) This is not left-wing or radical; it's just sensible business practice to ensure you're getting the best people regardless of background.
Is there evidence that they have put up barriers to entry?
Quotas work.
In the way I already set out in my previous post.
-There is no noun that cannot be verbed.
Is there evidence that they have put up barriers to entry?
P.S. Yes I know your post wasn't addressed to me but I gamely answered it on 'Organic's' behalf as he's now declared he doesn't care anyway.
OTOH there may be occasions in (say) a male dominated industry when it might be wise to choose a female candidate over a male (all else being equal) because the female viewpoint might prove to be a valuable asset that they've been missing out on up till now.
This is probably the reason Moffat has increasingly been hiring female writers. He's been criticized for years and years for his writing of female characters so it's no big surprise that he'd seek that viewpoint.
Interesting articles.
If women in the boardroom really does result in greater success for the company, then it will be in the company's interest to ensure a mix - and therefore no need for a quota. (Yes, I do appreciate the point made that quotas may be lifted once equality is reached.)
I note also that one article talks of companies unable to find sufficient men to meet the externally-imposed quota. I mean, come on, if the best candidates for the positions are mostly women, then select mostly women!
Also, if there have to be quotas for gender equality, what about other equalities? Should there be quotas for race, sexuality, religious belief?
If anyone can find a legitimate reason why the creative industries, such as writing or acting, should prove to be exceptions to this general thrust, I'm all ears.
Yes, there are certain genres or types of story that are more likely to be written by one gender or the other.
I note also that one article talks of companies unable to find sufficient men to meet the externally-imposed quota. I mean, come on, if the best candidates for the positions are mostly women, then select mostly women!
We've seen UNIT run almost entirely by women, which frankly wasn't convincing; it didn't help that they were incompetent too.
^That's somewhat remiscent of a rather telling photo of an editors meeting recently taken at The Huffington Post I believe that depicted a boardroom comprised exclusively of women (and with a mere two exceptions they were all white too). After the inevitable scoffing and accusations of discrimination HuffPo reputedly claimed that such lack of diversity was only because they hired the best, of which just happened to be all female.....
Given that white men and indeed men generally are not exactly a rare demographic (yet and especially not in the media) I find that a little difficult to believe somehow....
They'll continue to get away with it though I'm sure as accusations of gender/racial discrimination only ever seem to be applicable one way. Sadly.
We've seen UNIT run almost entirely by women, which frankly wasn't convincing; it didn't help that they were incompetent too.
Who cares.
If we were going for convincing most of the Classic era planets the Doctor visited wouldn't have anyone living on them
I don't know.
Yeah I just edited my above message apologizing for the "who cares" part.
Yes of course having a few more females than males in an organization like UNIT requires more suspension of disbelief than having whole civilizations with seemingly no females at all. D'uh! Basic biology <<<< employment policy.
'Dead' is just Time Lord for 'man flu'.
If we were going for convincing most of the Classic era planets the Doctor visited wouldn't have anyone living on them, since sometimes we didn't see females at all and sometimes just a token few. Or maybe they all had male pregnancy, I don't know.
I'm just generally a bit exasperated (sp?) by how much I've heard of the UNIT situation being unrealistic and unconvincing. I didn't even notice it. I know it's a military organization but it's also a UN office and many of the majors that provide UN with employees these days are very female heavy. I mean I work in legal in a government agency and we're 15 women to 1 man! I also rarely see a male judge or prosecutor since men tend to gravitate towards the private or financial sector. It's not because we're systematically discriminating against male applicants, it's just that law like many other fields is becoming female-dominated. When I started law school (2009) the male to female ratio was like 1-3,5. It's just...happening like that these days. Our universities aren't allowed to pick their students we are admitted purely by an entrance exams, so again it isn't result of any affirmative action or quotas gone wrong.
As to quotas, I'm generally against them except for some public offices that are supposed to be representational.
Sorry for the emotionality, I'm woman enough to admit that. And no I'm not saying they should make Doctor Who of today unconvincing because it used to be like that way back, but also I wouldn't expect someone like Chopper to admit that there was ever anything unrealistic about having civilizations with no females at all.
'Dead' is just Time Lord for 'man flu'.
Part of my reason for disliking Genesis of the Daleks and Face of Evil is the total absence of female Kaleds (and precisely one Thal IIRC), and only one female Sevateem - and she was considered expendable.
Aren't you essentially judging history by modern standards though Paul?
This is probably the reason Moffat has increasingly been hiring female writers. He's been criticized for years and years for his writing of female characters so it's no big surprise that he'd seek that viewpoint.
Anyways, to take this to the land of concrete: half of series 9 episodes had either a female writer or a director: The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar, The Woman Who Lived (I didn't like this episode though, but it wasn't as dire as Sleep No More by any means), Face The Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent. It doesn't seem to have hurt Doctor Who to hire female writers/directors. At least if compared to series 7, that many consider the weakest of the Moffat era, which had zero female writers or directors. Maybe drawing from a bigger pool indeed leads to better results?
I'm not saying the female writers/directors are directly to thank for better episodes/stories, but they haven't hurt either.
As it stands, I am not convinced that a quota system is a good way of achieving equality of opportunity.
A simple assertion that it does is not sufficient. So I largely agree with you there. OTOH there may be occasions in (say) a male dominated industry when it might be wise to choose a female candidate over a male (all else being equal) because the female viewpoint might prove to be a valuable asset that they've been missing out on up till now.
But yeah, the idea of defaulting to an assumption of barriers seems a bit unlikely where the BBC are concerned. Maybe there's a parallel world in which John Barrowman and RTD had to hide their sexuality to get work, but it's not the case in this world!
Or he could write the spin-off Class. They said it'd be like british Buffy anyway...
shareMake the Doctor a transgender and solve everything
shareI find it ironic that he constantly pushes his feminist agenda so much yet in The Avengers sequel had Black Widow captured and needing rescuing, something most non-feminist directors wouldn't resort to. He wanted to prove he's such a feminist that he fumbled the whole thing and ended up doing the exact opposite, damaging his street credit with feminists in the process.
Joss Whedon is a neurotic feminist. He's as bad as Paul Feig in not being able to direct men. To be honest if he was put in charge of Doctor Who and it was critically/commercially badly received he's not the person to own up to being at fault. The man only blames other people for his mistakes. Putting his feminism aside is that the kind of person you want running Doctor Who? Someone who's so up himself he doesn't think rationally. I mean if he did the Doctor being a man or woman shouldn't be a deal breaker but this is Whedon we're talking about here.
No matter how good a writer is, it isn't worth forcing a change onto the Doctor that could be very divisive to the fanbase.
After the GB16 fiasco especially, I'm tired of people trying to blackmail and jam females into roles just because "it's time".
-----------
Censor Censorship!
🍆
I'm tired of people trying to blackmail and jam females into roles just because "it's time".
I can understand being adverse to a female Doctor, just about, but what's wrong with a non-white Doctor? Dude changes faces, why is skin color in any way a defining feature in the Doctor?
'Dead' is just Time Lord for 'man flu'.
I can understand being adverse to a female Doctor, just about, but what's wrong with a non-white Doctor? Dude changes faces, why is skin color in any way a defining feature in the Doctor?
Does any of that actually equate to "need" though?
James Bond not being portrayed by/depicted as a yeast intolerant lesbian hermaphrodite of Turkmenistani heritage
The Doctor needs to remain from the British Isles, race and sex are irrelevant.
shareThe Doctor needs to remain from the British Isles, race and sex are irrelevant.
No. But you're really adamant that the Doctor needs to stay white. What's the difference between you and these people who need him to be something else?
Well it's not like James Bond can be worse. That franchise needs a swift euthanasia. I've watched half a James Bond movie in my life and it was quite enough for me.
as wanting something to stay constant in a world of change. FWIW I was very excited in the 1980s when it seemed that the TARDIS's chameleon circuit would be fixed for good and would no longer be a police box - but there was public outrage when it was suggested, with "newspaper" headlines demanding, "Save our police box!"
That franchise needs a swift euthanasia.
I've watched half a James Bond movie in my life and it was quite enough for me.
If you read her reply to my post, you'll see her reasons for not liking the franchise are sound, and watching half a film is sufficient to make such a judgement.
So this is permanence, love's shattered pride.
What once was innocence, turned on its side.
and watching half a film is sufficient to make such a judgement.
Well hardly considering that the main objection appears to be Bond's machismo of which is evidently somewhat 'problematic' to modern leftwing sensibilities. Personal prejudices are hardly a legitimate justification for essentially demanding an entire iconic franchise be eviscerated!
The Bond films should always be regarded purely as to what they are intended to be: mainstream escapist entertainment.
Well hardly considering that the main objection appears to be Bond's machismo of which is evidently somewhat 'problematic' to modern leftwing sensibilities.
Personal preferences/prejudices are hardly a legitimate justification for essentially demanding an entire iconic franchise be eviscerated!
The Bond films should always be regarded purely as to what they are intended to be: mainstream escapist entertainment. If one chooses to dwell on whether a certain character is waycist or sexist et al then they're unlikely to ever enjoy them fully, if at all.
I think all entertainment is entertainment and it's just as bad to say 'oh noes there's one of those blacks they have now Peeceegonemad'
1 mark deducted for not being Curse of Fenric. Insert 'The' into previous if you are Ant-Mac
The Bond films should always be regarded purely as to what they are intended to be: mainstream escapist entertainment. If one chooses to dwell on whether a certain character is waycist or sexist et al then they're unlikely to ever enjoy them fully, if at all.
For the night is dark and full of turnipsshare
'I don't think anyone here seriously believes Bond is misogynistic/racist'
Erm....
Do I think the character of Bond as portrayed in the films is racist? No
Do I think the character of Bond as portrayed in the films is misogynist? Yes at a low level - that's part of the point of the character.
Do I think the books are racist/misogynistic? Yes I do - but also well written and entertaining.
I am perfectly capable of thinking 'well that's a slightly patronising portrayal of Chinese people but on the other hand Dr No is a pretty y good novel' as opposed to sort of people who either way 'it's racist ban it now' or 'you said it was racist you must be a PC SJW who wants to ban it now'
1 mark deducted for not being Curse of Fenric. Insert 'The' into previous if you are Ant-Mac
I don't think there's any suggestion that Bond hates or fears women, so no, I don't think he's misogynistic. Sexist, arguably, but that's not the same thing.
I haven't seen You Only Live Twice recently, but in the novel, British values are compared with Japanese values and generally found wanting. British people put bogie-filled handkerchiefs back in their pockets - how disgusting is that? Meanwhile, Bond gains respect by understanding what haikus are and even doing a creditable job of writing one. Keep in mind that this was written at a time when internment in Japanest POW camps was still a raw memory for some.
The thing that I consider the biggest problem (in fiction) right now is the assumption that "the other" (whether it's a Pakistani, a gay person, a disabled person or whatever) has to represent everyone in that group, and at the same time must not be a stereotype. So, if you have a character who is a man from Pakistan, he must not own a corner shop, and he must not "talk like that".
So this is permanence, love's shattered pride.
What once was innocence, turned on its side.
In hindsight if the Bond flick you partially watched was 'Die Another Day' then perhaps I can empathise with your damning assessment of the entire franchise after all.
I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with politics. Dislike of womanisers as heroes is entirely down to personal taste. I know a lot of people - mainly women - who don't enjoy James Bond films.It's a mute point really because James Bond was created and has almost always been shown as an anti-hero not a hero. We're not supposed to totally warm to him because he treats women like leverage, gambles and murders people as a job. Heroes don't murder or take people out because they're good guys. There's a scene in A View to a Kill where Bond carries Stacy down the stairs of a burning building, the crowds are cheering and the music suddenly changes to a heroic John Barry/Duran Duran piece of music. THAT is the only time Bond has ever been portrayed as a hero in the films. One little moment.
It's a mute point really because James Bond was created and has almost always been shown as an anti-hero not a hero. We're not supposed to totally warm to him because he treats women like leverage, gambles and murders people as a job.
So a recent question to Joss Whedon was would you write for Doctor Who and the answer was check back with me when the Doctor is female, if thats the case get the move made and get Joss on board!