βWe want a man as Doctor Who again!!β
*man cast as Doctor Who*
βNo, not THAT type of man!!β
The rivers of man tears flow once again, balance is restored π
πππ
share
MovieChat Forums > Doctor Who (2006) Discussion > βWe want a man as Doctor Who again!!β
π
shareWhat people want is to have a show that doesn't feel like you're watching a religious movie.
Obviously, the first priority for modern BBC is to convey The Message. I guess that's OK, religious shows have their target, and woke ones are no exception. Not everybody enjoys religious shows, but some people definitely do, nothing wrong with it.
Very true. DW has become the new "Davey and Goliath" for the cult of mental illness.
shareThat might be what some people want, but there are others who just want a show about a shape-shifting alien who travels through space and time in a police box having adventures with human companions. Luckily for those people we still have that.
But by all means keep complaining about it not being 1984 anymore. Itβs a productive use of your time and sure to change a whole lot.
but there are others who just want a show about a shape-shifting alien who travels through space and time in a police box having adventures with human companions
Sure. The non-woke public. Fortunately, we quite some Doctor Who pre-woke seasons, including the classic ones π share
"But by all means keep complaining about it not being 1984 anymore. Itβs a productive use of your time and sure to change a whole lot."
Turning 50 this year, I am starting to realise for myself now why so many older people I've known tend to prefer the OLD stuff compared to the "new-fangled modern stuff". I too prefer the oldschool way of doing things like in Doctor Who and others.
Basically, Chibnall, Whittaker, the Timeless Child and all of your social media influentials are the future now. Just leave us older fuddie-duddies with our memories of OUR time on this or any other TV show or movie.
Sometimes old stuff is better. Sometimes new one is better.
Take anime, for example. Besides a few jewels, old stuff used to be presumptuous and shallow. Last 15 years, on the other hand, it's nothing but pure gold. It's the complete opposite of what has happened in western movies and series.
And old stuff is not always as good as we remember. The problem is the comparison: new one is garbage. The only saving virtue is how good it looks because of how cheap and powerful CGI has become. But after 15-30 minutes it usually reaches the point "looks great, it's still shit".
Obviously, the first priority for modern BBC is to convey The Message.
Wait , what now?
I thought the first priority for modern BBC is to convey leftie commie fake news and do down the honest hard working white folk on the far right?
Theres a religious "propaganda" / "Agenda" force now?
cant say i'd noticed
BBC News is one of the few outlets that is neutral and concentrates more on reporting the facts rather than opinion. See the Media Bias Chart:
https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Licensed-Copy.pdf
I get my news from sources that fall within the green rectangle. The BBC and PBS are my usual choices.
BBC News is one of the few outlets that is neutral and concentrates more on reporting the facts rather than opinion
πππππππππππππ
πππππππππππππ
πππππππππππππ
πππππππππππππ share
So, Mr. Funny Dude, what news sources do you recommend?
shareMr Dude made a point, what is your response? Do you seriously think the BBC is impartial in regards to (identity) politics?
shareSee the link I posted above regarding media bias. I watch the BBC News on-the-hour reports only, not the filler material that begins on the half-hour. I don't see any "identity politics" in the reports but maybe the other features include it; I don't know because I don't watch these.
Anything that falls outside of the green rectangle on the chart does not get any viewership from me.
I do watch the BBC news channel sometimes but am long past trusting them to tell the truth and do my own research . The chart shows them to be impartial which surprises me. The Brexit debate comes to mind. And the identity politics I referred to is their obsession with box ticking when it comes to representation, some people are clearly not there on merit.
shareOkay. I live in the U.S. so the only channels I get are the BBC News Channel and BBC America. I've never seen BBC One, BBC Two or any of the other channels. Obviously I'm missing something, since there are some who feel so strongly about what they are seeing.
My main point was concerning news, which is why I use that chart as a guide. There are too many fringe "news" channels on both sides of the political spectrum here in the U.S.
You're not missing anything, trust me. The BBC news channel isn't as bad as CNN.
shareThere are too many fringe "news" channels on both sides of the political spectrum here.
Yeah. We don't really have that here in the UK. Our broadcasters aren't perfectly neutral, of course, but they all -- not just the BBC -- have to abide by legislated broadcasting standards, including fairness and impartiality clauses, that you pretty much got rid of in the USA under the Reagan administration.
The BBC gets attacked for its perceived 'bias' from both sides of the political spectrum. Has done for pretty much its entire existence.
Does it always get things right? Of course not. Is there recourse when it gets things wrong? Yes. It's a very different media landscape to the USA. And people who complain vociferously about the BBC are usually solipsistic or narcissistic enough not to comprehend their own biases are colouring their views of the organisation. share
When the fairness doctrine and the equal-time rule were dropped, that marked the beginning of the downfall of American journalism. Four decades later we are seeing the effects of this with the plethora of fringe "news" channels offered by the cable/satellite companies. Plus the increase in rushed reporting, poor spelling and grammar, and general sloppiness, all for the sake of TV ratings and ad revenue.
You are fortunate that the U.K. still has at least some standards.
Yes. I agree. Although of course, some people -- mentioning no Rupert Murdochs -- are desperate to chip away at those UK standards. And desperate to denigrate the BBC for their own profit-driven agendas.
For now, we're in a better position than you in terms of broadcast journalism... although we do have similar issues surrounding 'rushed reporting' (24 hour rolling news has much to answer for.)
And our newspapers and their associated websites are a complete mess. But that's a different topic all together.
PBS is far from neutral too. I listen to it daily and it is very left leaning.
shareAs long as the stories and scripts are good, I don't care.
shareOf course you donβt, because youβre a decent person without hate in his heart. These muppets can bang on about βwokeβ like it means anything as much as they want, but it doesnβt mask their hatred of anything they donβt consider normal.
They are bitter and youβre not. Itβs as plain as day.
Anyway, looking forward to the return of RTD and seeing how this new fella tackles the role of a lifetime. Regeneration is always an exciting time for a fan π
Well thatβs awfully nice of you to say.
Tbh Dr Who has always been woke. I started watching it as a boy when John Pertwee was around and there were always left leaning and at times preachy themes. It makes me laugh when people bang on about βforced agendasβ as if nothing like this existed before.
Capaldi could have been a brilliant Dr, but was let down with poor stories.
Whittaker could have been an incredibly interesting Dr, but the inconsistent scripts let her down.
If the stories are strong, it will work!
I started watching it as a boy when John Pertwee was around and there were always left leaning and at times preachy themes
The left back then was a completely different ideology from the left right now. And the show never reached the level of preachiness that it has right now. Not even close.
As easy as this: if classic Doctor Who was done today, it would be labeled as a white supremacist far-right show. That says it all. share
Times change - except for the timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbly stuff.
shareOf course you donβt, because youβre a decent person without hate in his heart
Then he's definitely not a Democrat. They're the most hateful people on the planet. share
This isn't the Politics Board.
shareUnfortunately, a lot of ppl use this website as their political outlet.
shareIt's pretty sad that these people don't have a life. We're supposed to be discussing Doctor Who. These people would take a discussion of even Disney's Bambi and insert stupid politics into it.
This is why there is a Politics Board on MovieChat. They can make their pathetic comments there.
In case you didn't notice, this entire thread has a political undercurrent. No one's actually talking about Doctor Who, here.
P.S. You know nothing about what life I may or may not have.
So if i wanted to make a shaft movie with a white lead and black people complained i should just blindly write them off as hateful morons. Or i could just think that they care about the character and don't want to see him hijacked to fit someone else's mold or identity politics agenda. The Doctor has always been a white male. wanting to keep him that way is nostalgic not racist. Race/gender changes aside what ultimately killed the show for me was Chibnall's shit writing and woke retconning. That was the final nail in the coffin for me
shareFor me the Shaft analogy is disingenuous. Shaft is a human character whose race is intrinsically tied to his story and motivations so it would make no sense to switch his race. Thatβs not say I agree with race swapping for the sake of it, such as getting a black actress to play a white historical figure like Anne Boleyn. I find that a bit silly, but that said I would just not watch it as opposed to raging about it til Iβm red in the face on the internet. What would be the point?
The Doctor, however, is a shape-shifting alien and therefore the perfect character to open up to people of any race, gender or persuasion to play. I tend to agree with Tom Baker who suggested at the end of his tenure in the early 1980s that maybe it was time for a female Doctor. Why not? I reject the insinuation that to accept actors who are not white men as the Doctor is some form of SJW virtue-signalling. Of course I also donβt subscribe to the view that traditionalists who prefer the white guy Doctor standard of old are all racists, some people just feel more comfortable with nostalgia, thatβs fine. Still, having diverse casting in the show has certainly brought people with their own prejudiced agendas out of the woodwork. Not all people who dislike the current series are racists or misogynists, but you canβt deny that those who are seem to be screaming the loudest.
Fantastic
shareβbalance is restored πβ
Hold on a minute! Isnβt that a Star Wars reference π€£
Haha
Right you are, apologies for my mixed sci-fi references π
Be careful - I read once that a bunch of Whovians and Star Wars fans got arrested for getting into a brawl at a sci-fi convention in Norwich, lol.
shareThatβs hilarious!
I would pay good money to see a full-on brawl between rival sci-fi fans. Battle of the nerds!!
I just found this: -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22542222
Perhaps some international viewers won't remember this as clearly as UK viewers because the show wasn't as global in 2005-7, but back in the day when Russell T Davies was first in control of the show there were many, many internet complaints about his 'gay agenda'.
And some of those same people were delighted to see RTD back at the helm... so I'm looking forward immensely to them declaring it 'woke' and 'PC' and 'forced diversity'... and then tying themselves up in knots trying to explain why 'no, it was different when he did these things before.'
Coming soon to an internet forum near you.
Perhaps some international viewers won't remember this as clearly as UK viewers because the show wasn't as global in 2005-7, but back in the day when Russell T Davies was first in control of the show there were many, many internet complaints about his 'gay agenda'.
I was there. Loved the series, my main complain was that it looked too campy (I still think the Eccleston seasons looked too campy). Jack Harness was one of my favorite characters. Indeed, I started to follow Torchwood because of how much I liked the character. And I completely dislike the new woke run of Doctor Who.
Sure, there were some people back then that complained because there was a gay character. Oh, god! a gay character! So what? That's very different of current complains because of woke agenda displaying "good" characters all diverse and "evil" characters as mostly white males, which is basically demonizing an ethnic group.
You watch Torchwood, it wasn't about gays being good while straight white males being evil. It was just a fucking gay character, and wonderfully written and played by the way. Trying to equal complains about woke agenda and white demonization with those complains about Jack Harness character is manipulative gaslighting.
share
Well, no. There weren't just a few objections to one omnisexual character. There were people who were convinced RTD and the BBC had a 'gay agenda'. Week in, week out they complained about 'left-wing propaganda' and 'forced diversity' in the cast and, y'know, essentially all the same things these folk have been complaining about for decades now. I know. I remember it.
The only real difference between then and now is that we hadn't been quite so infected with America's bovine 'culture wars', so these complaints tended to fall under the rubric of 'political correctness gone mad' rather than 'wokeness'.
The buzzwords change. But the bigotry behind those words is ancient.
Again, you're trying to equal two set of complains that are completely different.
What you're doing is manipulative gaslighting. It's toxic and dishonest debate.
It isn't a debate. I'm just telling you things. That you don't accept those things is your issue, not mine. But it certainly isn't a debate.
shareNo he is showing that no matter what people will complain.
Everyone seems to find agendas in stuff. It's becoming stupid.
I watch doctor who to be entertained. I have found the writing bad but I don't think about agendas.
Are you someone who dislikes Bill from series 10 because she gets so much hate yet to me her sexuality was brought up less than Jack. Someone the other week said they wouldn't watch RTD era due to the gay agenda.
White demonisation. What a crock π
So was having Sacha Dhawan as the Master an example of Indian demonisation? How about Lenny Henry as the villain in Spyfall, black demonisation I suppose? And then thereβs the regular white male characters in the recent seasons, Graham and Dan, how were these loveable and heroic characters demonised exactly?
Iβm way past sick of people like you crying about agendas when itβs so obviously YOU that is promoting your own agenda by throwing around terms like white demonisation without any basis in truth whatsoever.
So was having Sacha Dhawan as the Master an example of Indian demonisation?
Check what percentage of evil or negative characters in that season were white males or clearly associated to white males, and what percentage were diverse. Do the same thing with positive characters. If percentages were similar, then you'd have a point.
Otherwise, your "but there was that one character that..." excuses are irrelevant. share
Do you realise who The Master is? Weβre not talking about a guest villain, he (or she) is the main antagonist in the entire history of the show and certainly the most featured villain in season 12.
In any case, the fact that you had no comment about the other characters I mentioned is telling.
Doctor Who does not, has never and never will demonise white people. It celebrates all people, which I suspect is your real issue here.
Speaking of The Master...
Those who complain about Jodie Whittaker as a female Doctor have forgotten about The Mistress (a.k.a. "Missy"), who appeared in 2014. The ability of Time Lords to regenerate as a different gender is nothing new.
Invented by that hack Moffat!!! Never in it before not once!
JB
So much for βSpace for allβ eh?
Anyway, everybody knows that the British make the best villains.
This.
People seemed to complain about series 12 being anti White but I can't see it.
Straight away we have 2 very bad people who are not white. I think it was interesting to see the master played as a non white and dare I say risky. I suppose Delgado was technically mixed race with Belgium and Spanish parents but was British as born in London.
Graham also was portrayed as the voice of reason. Not to mention the Ruth doctor is seen to be more ruthless (no pun intended).
If people have an actual point I might not agree but I'll listen but this is just nonsense.
βNot to mention the Ruth doctor is seen to be more ruthless (no pun intended).β
Ha! I endorse the pun. And you are absolutely right, if there was an agenda to denigrate white people, why make the very first black Doctor a gun-toting renegade with dubious motives as opposed to the peace-loving pacifist every other Doctor has been? Excellent point, Pete.
Oh it gets worse.
After posting this I remembered the fact the doctor at the end of spyfall part 2 basically turned of the masters perception filter and threw him, a person of colour, to the Nazis.
13 has a few incidents like this. While I wasn't a fan of the whole Trump thing with Robertson in arachnids in the UK, his idea to shoot the big spider at the end surely was more humane than the doctor just leaving it to suffocate. Add to that the amount of times someone jumps in to sacrifice themselves instead of the doctor and the doctor doesn't really object that much