Doctor Who II

[Derfel Cadarn]

41 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The second-ever Doctor Who story was an extended seven-episode metaphor about the evils of racism and the rise of totalitarianism. Almost every other Doctor Who story has been about railing against the industrial-military complex and favouring negotiations and peace over war (although granted the show has been fairly consistent in having negotiations fail and the Doctor having to blow the bad guys up, but still).

You mean, like Jon Pertwee did almost every single week in the 1970s, including whole serials about the environment (The Green Death), racism (The Silurians) and the threat of nuclear war (Day of the Daleks)?

The rest of your point is nonsense, but this at least is a valid point worth exploring.

"Franchise fatigue" is a thing. It doesn't matter how good or bad the show is, at a certain the point the audience goes "too much!" and needs a break. If you're clever, you'll program in a break for a set amount of time and then bounce back with new episodes. If you're a money-hungry corporation, you won't and will run the thing into the ground and flog its corpse until it stops twitching before giving it a rest. The simple fact is that Doctor Who has produced (as of the end of this year) 13 seasons and 166 hour-or-longer episodes in sixteen years. That's an absolutely absurd amount of television by British and especially BBC standards. For contrast, Red Dwarf has only produced 74 half-hour episodes in 33 years.

There also hasn't entirely been a clean break in production all that time, with producers and writers heavily overlapping; Chibnall's first script was in Tennant's second season, fourteen years ago, and he was more heavily involved in Torchwood. So whilst there have been different people in charge, they've still been fairly heavily influenced by the Russell T. Davies era. My view is that they probably need to sever that altogether and actually do a real paradigm shift in terms of tone and style, as they really haven't since 2005 (and, before that, 1981). Otherwise resting the show for ~5 years might be a good idea.

Of course, that may also be the view of a middle-aged person to whom five years goes by way too fast these days. One of the biggest complaints I've heard from younger people is that the show has had too many hiatuses recently (three seasons and just 28 episodes airing over five years), and they don't watch the show live or even within months of it airing because they know it'll be 18-24 months for the next season, so why rush it?

I mean, they did the whole thing with the war-loving Prime Minister of Britain being cut down to size by the Doctor, something that at the time was acknowledged, even by RTD, for being a heavy-handed critique of the Iraq War.

You should probably stay well away from (checks notes) every single Doctor Who historical story produced in the show's first six seasons, then.

Some them didn't have aliens in them at all (gasp!) and just had the Doctor and his companions meeting historical figures and getting embroiled in whatever historical events were going on.

Black Orchid (5th Doctor) was basically an Agatha Christie-esq romp in a country estate, with no aliens or proper villains, just a mentally ill guy and the Doctor playing cricket

[Werthead]

4 minutes ago, sifth said:

You're really reaching with some of those.

Not really. You merely wish it was so.

Quote

The Long Game is a great episode about the dangers of the media and the influence it can have on people, but had nothing to do with politics as a whole.

What the fuck even is this statement.

Quote

I'll admit I don't remember much about The Hungry Earth and Cold Blood, so I can't speak much on that episode. I think it involved a race of lizard people being the original people to colonize Earth or something, again my memory isn't the greatest on this one. 

The Silurians (and Sea Devils) have been a pretty big part of Doctor Who mythology since 1971, and one of them was one of the Doctor's semi-recurring companions in Paternoster Gang in the Moffat era. They're not exactly easy to forget.

Quote

Before the Christmas Invasion, World War III was less subtle - lying about inspectors finding "massive weapons of destruction... capable of being deployed within forty five seconds" was an incredibly blatant Tony Blair / Iraq reference.

Ah, but don't you see? You can put as much political references into your media going back decades upon decades as much as you want, as long as you don't do that whilst the main character is female. The second you do that, it becomes Clunky™ and Pandering™ and Part of the BBC Woke Agenda™ and A Sign SJWs Are Taking Over the World™.

[sifth]

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Ah, but don't you see? You can put as much political references into your media going back decades upon decades as much as you want, as long as you don't do that whilst the main character is female. The second you do that, it becomes Clunky™ and Pandering™ and Part of the BBC Woke Agenda™ and A Sign SJWs Are Taking Over the World™.

I did say it started with the second half of Capaldi's run. Rather funny how you choose to forget about that part, just to make this a thing about people hating women. Heck I even openly mocked Capaldi's "war is bad speech", which was insanely cringe at the time.

But sure, it's a thing about people hating Jody's gender, it has nothing at all to do with the quality of the writing.

[Werthead]

7 minutes ago, sifth said:

I did say it started with the second half of Capaldi's run. Rather funny how you choose to forget about that part, just to make this a thing about people hating women. Heck I even openly mocked Capaldi's "war is bad speech", which was insanely cringe at the time.

But sure, it's a thing about people hating Jody's gender, it has nothing at all to do with the quality of the writing.

But there was no measurable change in the show's quality of writing or it's political content halfway through Capaldi's run. The show remains in 2021 (and since 2018) what it was in 2005: a fast-moving live-action cartoon aimed primarily at 10-year-olds which occasionally rises above that to deliver something a bit stronger but a lot of the time doesn't, with clunky political metaphors and a highly optional approach to continuity.

Watching people pretend there's some kind of meaningful difference between the show in 2005 versus 2018 is entertaining. Russell T. Davies and Steven Moffat were just as clunky and awkward as writers as Chibnall is, they just managed to produce a few episodes better than anything in Chibnall's run so far (though Davies needed some heavy help for that from Paul Cornell, who really would be a great choice for showrunner), and some stuff that's far worse. Though Chibnall, in the polar opposite to Moffat, has at least not written anything as bad as his pre-showrunner stand-alone stuff (Cyberwoman immediately comes to mind) since he's been showrunner, and I'd argue Season 11 was possibly the most consistent season since the show's return in 2005, and the absence of a long-form story arc for that season was a great decision they really shouldn't have ditched immediately.

[sifth]

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

But there was no measurable change in the show's quality of writing or it's political content halfway through Capaldi's run. The show remains in 2021 (and since 2018) what it was in 2005: a fast-moving live-action cartoon aimed primarily at 10-year-olds which occasionally rises above that to deliver something a bit stronger but a lot of the time doesn't, with clunky political metaphors and a highly optional approach to continuity.

Watching people pretend there's some kind of meaningful difference between the show in 2005 versus 2018 is entertaining. Russell T. Davies and Steven Moffat were just as clunky and awkward as writers as Chibnall is, they just managed to produce a few episodes better than anything in Chibnall's run so far (though Davies needed some heavy help for that from Paul Cornell, who really would be a great choice for showrunner), and some stuff that's far worse. Though Chibnall, in the polar opposite to Moffat, has at least not written anything as bad as his pre-showrunner stand-alone stuff (Cyberwoman immediately comes to mind) since he's been showrunner, and I'd argue Season 11 was possibly the most consistent season since the show's return in 2005, and the absence of a long-form story arc for that season was a great decision they really shouldn't have ditched immediately.

I can agree with you on these two points, if nothing else I suppose. Moffat was amazing when it came to stand alone episodes and two parters, but he was all over the place the moment he had to handle season long story arcs.

You're also right on it being primary a children's show, because it is. It's just one with an insanely high body count, which to this day I find strange. I mean even my 11 year old, is able to tell the difference in the quality of the writing of a Star Wars movie made by Lucas and ones made by Disney and she watched them without me. She's even made jokes in front of me, about how no one ever gets their body parts chopped off in the newer films, which made me laugh. I wonder what her take on Doctor Who would be, since she's part the audience the show is built for.

[Ghostlydragon]

7 minutes ago, sifth said:

I can agree with you on these two points, if nothing else I suppose. Moffat was amazing when it came to stand alone episodes and two parters, but he was all over the place the moment he had to handle season long story arcs.

You're also right on it being primary a children's show, because it is. It's just one with an insanely high body count, which to this day I find strange. I mean even my 11 year old, is able to tell the difference in the quality of the writing of a Star Wars movie made by Lucas and ones made by Disney and she watched them without me. She's even made jokes in front of me, about how no one ever gets their body parts chopped off in the newer films, which made me laugh. I wonder what her take on Doctor Who would be, since she's part the audience the show is built for.

Haha yes dalek death ray or disintegrations or clean deaths seem to be the limit.

And another thing about the chibnall era that is ignored by a lot of people is how unlikeable 'the first female doctor' is. From judging Ryan's dad while not letting him say why he did what he did, to flat out offering no reassurance to Graham when he said he was scared his cancer might come back was disgusting. I'm not surprised him and Ryan left but it made me wonder why the so called fam supported her. I assume the two guys had nothing better to do and yaz is a lesbian who wants the doctor. And the lack of meaningful goodbye to Graham and Ryan was terrible. I know that kinda thing happened in original who all the time but it was different then. 05 new who put so much focus on the companions that anyone who leaves deserves a real goodbye.

And I really hope the word fam is gone forever. Its a complete joke. Rory and Amy were the doctors true family. And of course his pre-leaving Gallifrey days biological family too.

[mormont]

Wert has covered a lot of the responses to the earlier 'critiques', but the one that really sticks out to me is the idea that what the Rosa Parks story really needed was more nuanced and sympathetic white characters. Because when telling a story about black oppression in the US, that's the priority, right? Malke space in the narrative to centre white viewers and their feelings. Remind everyone that Not All White People and All Lives Matter. Sure, there's the Doctor herself and her white male companion but we needed more!

Look, folks, I'm sorry if you were sold these as something they are not. But they are not actually valid critiques of the show. They are right-wing ideological discomfort in an unconvincing wig and glasses.

[sifth]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

Wert has covered a lot of the responses to the earlier 'critiques', but the one that really sticks out to me is the idea that what the Rosa Parks story really needed was more nuanced and sympathetic white characters. Because when telling a story about black oppression in the US, that's the priority, right? Malke space in the narrative to centre white viewers and their feelings. Remind everyone that Not All White People and All Lives Matter. Sure, there's the Doctor herself and her white male companion but we needed more!

Look, folks, I'm sorry if you were sold these as something they are not. But they are not actually valid critiques of the show. They are right-wing ideological discomfort in an unconvincing wig and glasses.

I mean one of my closest friends is a white lady who lives in the south and she's a saint. I mean heck she pulled her son out of a school, just because one of her sons teachers called a close friend of hers the N word, so it does sort of bother me when all white southern people are portrayed as monsters, who hate people who are different. It's basically the equivalent of making Nazi's the main villain of your movie, because you need a group associated with doing something evil. 

I always like to watch this video, when it comes to how I think issues of race should be handled. It's not about condemning one side as monsters and the other side as saints. It should always be about showing that both sides are humans.

[Ghostlydragon]

8 minutes ago, mormont said:

Wert has covered a lot of the responses to the earlier 'critiques', but the one that really sticks out to me is the idea that what the Rosa Parks story really needed was more nuanced and sympathetic white characters. Because when telling a story about black oppression in the US, that's the priority, right? Malke space in the narrative to centre white viewers and their feelings. Remind everyone that Not All White People and All Lives Matter. Sure, there's the Doctor herself and her white male companion but we needed more!

Look, folks, I'm sorry if you were sold these as something they are not. But they are not actually valid critiques of the show. They are right-wing ideological discomfort in an unconvincing wig and glasses.

A story about oppression of black people where every single white person apart from the main characters is bad is terrible storytelling. Its like how Ramsay Bolton's army against Jon's army was far less interesting than say Stannis v Joffrey in s2 because when everyone on one side is good and one side is bad, it doesn't make the conflict deep at all where its not clear if any particular side is in the right.

This was a blatant way of portraying that period in a very black and white way- pun intended - and is just too easy to write.

And right wing ideology. What does that even mean? I'm just a fan who despises what the show has turned into. And yes, the signs were there in s10. It was clearly creeping in while Moffat was in charge. Its just so much worse now.

[sifth]

5 minutes ago, Ghostlydragon said:

A story about oppression of black people where every single white person apart from the main characters is bad is terrible storytelling. Its like how Ramsay Bolton's army against Jon's army was far less interesting than say Stannis v Joffrey in s2 because when everyone on one side is good and one side is bad, it doesn't make the conflict deep at all where its not clear if any particular side is in the right.

This was a blatant way of portraying that period in a very black and white way- pun intended - and is just too easy to write.

And right wing ideology. What does that even mean? I'm just a fan who despises what the show has turned into. And yes, the signs were there in s10. It was clearly creeping in while Moffat was in charge. Its just so much worse now.

Plus the Doctor is an alien and well above us stupid humans on Earth. So she doesn't count in this case and Graham is an enlightened person from the future. Every character who's white in that episode and from the south is portrayed as bigot. Though I suppose it's not about being historically correct, it's about sending a message.

[Ghostlydragon]

1 minute ago, sifth said:

I mean one of my closest friends is a white lady who lives in the south and she's a saint. I mean heck she pulled her son out of a school, just because one of her sons teachers called a close friend of hers the N word, so it does sort of bother me when all white southern people are portrayed as monsters, who hate people who are different. It's basically the equivalent of making Nazi's the main villain of your movie, because you need a group associated with doing something evil. 

I always like to watch this video, when it comes to how I think issues of race should be handled. It's not about condemning one side as monsters and the other side as saints. It should always be about showing that both sides are humans.

Good on her. That's exactly what I meant. Going by that episode, your friend would be one of the racists of that time when she is clearly not like that at all. That is what I hated about the episode.

And as I said earlier. Why do the episode at all? Yes, original who was about being educational and not focused on bug eyed monsters but like I said, every historical episode from 05 has felt like sci fi with a good villain such as the gelth in s1. And in s11 we got a racist human from the future and a racist community.

How the mighty have fallen.

[john]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

That's not even touching the whole idolisation of the Doctor into a Lonely God by Davies and Moffat, long before Chibnall took over. That ship sailed a long, long time ago.

You would have to agree that in terms of idolisation making the Doctor a unique being from another universe and the fount of all timelord society is a long step beyond anything Moffat, RTD, or indeed any writer in any DW media, has ever done.

[sifth]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Wert has covered a lot of the responses to the earlier 'critiques', but the one that really sticks out to me is the idea that what the Rosa Parks story really needed was more nuanced and sympathetic white characters. Because when telling a story about black oppression in the US, that's the priority, right? Malke space in the narrative to centre white viewers and their feelings. Remind everyone that Not All White People and All Lives Matter. Sure, there's the Doctor herself and her white male companion but we needed more!

Look, folks, I'm sorry if you were sold these as something they are not. But they are not actually valid critiques of the show. They are right-wing ideological discomfort in an unconvincing wig and glasses.

Now imagine if the show did the reverse. Have the Doctor visit a part of New York or New Jersey with a high black population, but portrayed everyone who lived their and had dark skin as a horrible person or a bigot. Don't worry though, Ryan and Yasmin are with the Doctor, so not all people with dark skin are evil. Are you honestly saying no one would get triggered by that, regardless of the concept of the episode; I can tell you I certainly would.

[felice]

6 hours ago, sifth said:

I mean one of my closest friends is a white lady who lives in the south and she's a saint. I mean heck she pulled her son out of a school, just because one of her sons teachers called a close friend of hers the N word

And how often do you think white people did anything like that in 1955? You describe her as a saint, not as a typical reasonable person; what percentage of the white population of Alabama in 1955 do you think should qualify as saints? How many of the white characters in Rosa should therefore have been saints in order to accurately represent the demographics of the time?

[mormont]

8 hours ago, sifth said:

I mean one of my closest friends is a white lady who lives in the south and she's a saint. I mean heck she pulled her son out of a school, just because one of her sons teachers called a close friend of hers the N word, so it does sort of bother me when all white southern people are portrayed as monsters, who hate people who are different. It's basically the equivalent of making Nazi's the main villain of your movie, because you need a group associated with doing something evil. 

Fortunately, Who has over the years done numerous WWII episodes, so we can compare. How many of those episodes make a point of showing sympathetic characters on the Nazi side?

At no point is the show saying or implying that people like the lady you mention did not exist, by the way. It's just not making a point of inserting them into the story, because it has limited running time, and this is not their story. Again, this is about priorities, and it seems like any time one tells a story about racism and black/brown/other people fighting to liberate themselves from prejudice, the priority some viewers insist on is showing that Not All White People. The thing about the Rosa episode is: it wasn't about us. A story about racism can just be about black people standing up to it, without needing to make a point of showing that yes, some white people also did not like it, in the same way that we can see Churchill fighting the Nazis without inserting a sympathetic German character every time.

[Heartofice]

Not sure there are many nazis up in arms about the unfair stereotyping they receive in the media. ‘What about all the nice Nazis!!’ I’m sure they are crying. 
 

This is a whole different topic but I’m not sure racial stereotyping is ever a good thing, and is actually racism. If you are trying to argue why it’s ok to portray all people of one race in a singular negative light, especially in a tv show aimed at ‘educating’ children then maybe you need to re-examine your position a little.

[mormont]

If anyone ever tries to argue that, I'm sure you'll put them right.

[Ghostlydragon]

4 hours ago, felice said:

And how often do you think white people did anything like that in 1955? You describe her as a saint, not as a typical reasonable person; what percentage of the white population of Alabama in 1955 do you think should qualify as saints? How many of the white characters in Rosa should therefore have been saints in order to accurately represent the demographics of the time?

Some people! That's the point. It may have been a terrible place and the equivalent of some of the worst towns and estates in England, but are we honestly supposed to believe every white person was a terrible person. Just give us a conversation where Ryan says something like how he can't believe this is how it was and the doctor assures him not everybody treated black people terribly, or show someone being sympathetic to black people.

Just something to show that not all white people are racist pieces of sh1t.

[Ghostlydragon]

10 hours ago, john said:

You would have to agree that in terms of idolisation making the Doctor a unique being from another universe and the fount of all timelord society is a long step beyond anything Moffat, RTD, or indeed any writer in any DW media, has ever done.

Exactly. The Doctor was always different. He wanted to stop evil and help people compared to the other time lords who just wanted to watch things happen. And some people called him a lonely god, and other terms for his different attitude to the rest of his people, but there is a difference in being a literal god (who isn't even Gallifreyan now). The Doctor is just an ordinary time lord. It's why he was born on Gallifrey, has time lord biology exactly like anyone else and would die at the end of his thirteen lives without a new set of regenerations.

It's stuff like this that has made so many fans angry and turned against the show.

[felice]

14 minutes ago, Ghostlydragon said:

Some people! That's the point. It may have been a terrible place and the equivalent of some of the worst towns and estates in England, but are we honestly supposed to believe every white person was a terrible person.

Yes, some of the white folk in Alabama were decent people, but they were a small minority; racism was pervasive at the time. And we don't see the entire white population in the episode; there can't be more than half a dozen white guest characters. Making even one of them anti-racist would be grossly exaggerating the prevalence of anti-racist behaviour in that culture. If a whole season was spent in the 1950s, there'd be more room for nuance, but given the small sample size of interactions you're dealing with in a single episode, Rosa was a sadly accurate depiction.