The Doctor Who thread

monquixote

digitalscream said:

I have absolutely no problem with gender/identity politics in this context - it's when it's so blatantly SHOUTEDINYOURFACE. It's like smacking the audience round the head until they give in, rather than putting in the hard yards with subtle writing that makes them think and then change their minds (if needed).

Viewing figures would seem to indicate that this approach just isn't working. Preliminary US figures suggest that the first episode of this new relaunch has done worse than the last episode of Whittaker's time (which was, at the time, pretty much the low point for the entire franchise).

It's difficult to say because America is a very racist country and often shows with black leads can struggle. 

I do agree about the shouty morals thing. The Rosa Parks episode was sung praises from the heavens, but I thought it was one of the worst episodes I've seen. It completely failed to understand how you tackle something like racism in the context of sci-fi coupled with being boring to watch. 
At the same time I was reading the Smeds and the Smoos to my kids which manages to do that in the context of a children's picture book about aliens and also manages to tell the story of Romeo and Juliet. Maybe Julia Donaldson should write Dr Who. I bet it would be bloody fantastic.

Offset

I think that's pretty much spot-on @digitalscream .

Just checked in with my 22 year-old daughter, who as I said earlier was a massive DW fan.  Having watched some trailers/spoilers, she doesn't plan to watch the current series but is however going to rewatch the DT and MS series.  So to borrow a quote from another thread in OT, it isn't just "'moany old entitled white men" who are bailing out :-)

Offset

I want to see Sanjeev Bhaskar play DW.  He would be an absolutely perfect fit on any number of fronts, but a combo of gravitas and humour are absolute musts for The Doctor.

Jalfrezi

Offset said:

I want to see Sanjeev Bhaskar play DW.  He would be an absolutely perfect fit on any number of fronts, but a combo of gravitas and humour are absolute musts for The Doctor.

Miriam Margolyes would be my choice, but probably too late in the day for her I suspect.

Offset

Jalfrezi said:

Offset said:

I want to see Sanjeev Bhaskar play DW.  He would be an absolutely perfect fit on any number of fronts, but a combo of gravitas and humour are absolute musts for The Doctor.

Miriam Margolyes would be my choice, but probably too late in the day for her I suspect.

Oh man she'd tear the carpet up!!!

Kittyfrisk

Offset said:

Jalfrezi said:

Offset said:

I want to see Sanjeev Bhaskar play DW.  He would be an absolutely perfect fit on any number of fronts, but a combo of gravitas and humour are absolute musts for The Doctor.

Miriam Margolyes would be my choice, but probably too late in the day for her I suspect.

Oh man she'd tear the carpet up!!!

Agreed, although I suspect the show would need a PG rating for strong language 

Offset

Kittyfrisk said:

Offset said:

Jalfrezi said:

Offset said:

I want to see Sanjeev Bhaskar play DW.  He would be an absolutely perfect fit on any number of fronts, but a combo of gravitas and humour are absolute musts for The Doctor.

Miriam Margolyes would be my choice, but probably too late in the day for her I suspect.

Oh man she'd tear the carpet up!!!

Agreed, although I suspect the show would need a PG rating for strong language 

It would be post-watershed.

Kittyfrisk

I reckon a brilliant, vivacious old Australian lesbian is just what the show needs  

Offset

Kittyfrisk said:

I reckon a brilliant, vivacious old Australian lesbian is just what the show needs  

I absolutely bloody adore her.  An octogenarian, foul-mouthed DW would be brilliant.

digitalscream

monquixote said:

digitalscream said:

I have absolutely no problem with gender/identity politics in this context - it's when it's so blatantly SHOUTEDINYOURFACE. It's like smacking the audience round the head until they give in, rather than putting in the hard yards with subtle writing that makes them think and then change their minds (if needed).

Viewing figures would seem to indicate that this approach just isn't working. Preliminary US figures suggest that the first episode of this new relaunch has done worse than the last episode of Whittaker's time (which was, at the time, pretty much the low point for the entire franchise).

It's difficult to say because America is a very racist country and often shows with black leads can struggle. 

I do agree about the shouty morals thing. The Rosa Parks episode was sung praises from the heavens, but I thought it was one of the worst episodes I've seen. It completely failed to understand how you tackle something like racism in the context of sci-fi coupled with being boring to watch. 
At the same time I was reading the Smeds and the Smoos to my kids which manages to do that in the context of a children's picture book about aliens and also manages to tell the story of Romeo and Juliet. Maybe Julia Donaldson should write Dr Who. I bet it would be bloody fantastic.

It's almost as though...the writers are in their 50s and 60s, and believe that the audience is full of unruly children who need to be taught how to behave.

The problem is that the majority of the show's fans are actually in their 30s and 40s, and - crucially - have grown up in a world where diversity has become pretty normalised amongst sci-fi fandom because we already learned that from Star Trek. They don't need to learn that lesson, because they already have; worse, the next generation (in their teens and 20s) tend to find it completely baffling that anybody would even question it, much less need to be taught about it.

And so...there's absolutely no need for any of it, but it's putting off the audience in their millions.

This is all because the writers' generation struggles to accept modern diversity, and they can't seem to understand the perspectives of anybody younger at all, so they do nothing but yell about the "new morals" at us, fundamentally missing the point that their generation is largely the main remaining problem; they're like that Japanese soldier who kept fighting WWII decades after it was all over (I may be misremembering that).

Offset said:

I think that's pretty much spot-on @digitalscream .

Just checked in with my 22 year-old daughter, who as I said earlier was a massive DW fan.  Having watched some trailers/spoilers, she doesn't plan to watch the current series but is however going to rewatch the DT and MS series.  So to borrow a quote from another thread in OT, it isn't just "'moany old entitled white men" who are bailing out :-)

My daughter's in exactly the same camp (turns 30 later this year). Even my wife, who absolutely loves Ncuti Gatwa, isn't bothering with it.

Offset said:

I want to see Sanjeev Bhaskar play DW.  He would be an absolutely perfect fit on any number of fronts, but a combo of gravitas and humour are absolute musts for The Doctor.

Fantastic shout, actually! I'm pretty sure he'd shut down any attempts to making him parrot shitty lines, too (although I said the same about Capaldi, and they still managed to sneak a few in there).

Jalfrezi said:

Offset said:

I want to see Sanjeev Bhaskar play DW.  He would be an absolutely perfect fit on any number of fronts, but a combo of gravitas and humour are absolute musts for The Doctor.

Miriam Margolyes would be my choice, but probably too late in the day for her I suspect.

Not so sure there, I think she'd lean far too much into the campness. She pretty much already did in The Space Beast or whatever it was called.

marauder

Rutger Hauer was the perfect doctor who never was.

Offset

marauder said:

Rutger Hauer was the perfect doctor who never was.

Too 'ard.

Rabs

marauder said:

Rutger Hauer was the perfect doctor who never was.

I wanted to see more of John Hurt....  Such a great actor.

RocknRollDave

As I said previously, I didn’t enjoy the Devil’s Chord episode too much BUT I want to add that it hasn’t dented my faith in the concept.
Ncuti Gatwa is just so watchable, he’s such a nuanced actor, even in such a silly storyline. Seriously, he’s one of the greats.
The Rose actress…again, doing an awful lot with the little she has been given. 

These two are absolutely holding it all together for me.

We need a bit more depth from the storylines, now their characters have been established. 

Is 46 minutes really enough to fit a satisfying story arc?

I’ve been watching some of the Pertwee-era stories: 25-or so minutes but a good few of them are 6-episode stories.

darthed1981

monquixote said:

digitalscream said:

I have absolutely no problem with gender/identity politics in this context - it's when it's so blatantly SHOUTEDINYOURFACE. It's like smacking the audience round the head until they give in, rather than putting in the hard yards with subtle writing that makes them think and then change their minds (if needed).

Viewing figures would seem to indicate that this approach just isn't working. Preliminary US figures suggest that the first episode of this new relaunch has done worse than the last episode of Whittaker's time (which was, at the time, pretty much the low point for the entire franchise).

It's difficult to say because America is a very racist country and often shows with black leads can struggle. 

I do agree about the shouty morals thing. The Rosa Parks episode was sung praises from the heavens, but I thought it was one of the worst episodes I've seen. It completely failed to understand how you tackle something like racism in the context of sci-fi coupled with being boring to watch. 
At the same time I was reading the Smeds and the Smoos to my kids which manages to do that in the context of a children's picture book about aliens and also manages to tell the story of Romeo and Juliet. Maybe Julia Donaldson should write Dr Who. I bet it would be bloody fantastic.

The Rosa Parks episode was basically OK, I've not heard anyone singing praises about it?

My problem with both posts above is... what's done these things WELL where we are saying "do it like this - this is better?".  Romeo and Juliet is a pretty everyman story, there is nothing controversial there to a modern audience, except possibly that they are both supposed to be 14... but I'm guessing a kids book glossed over that bit.

I don't remember the Devil's Chord being all that "woke" really - yes it had the drag queen in it, it mentioned that Ruby is bisexual.. but apart from that?  Space Babies was much more on the nose, and the comments about refugees and abortion were pretty obvious... but also fair comment.

Racism?  In my view the finest exploration of racism in sci-fi is the Deep Space Nine episode "Far Beyond The Stars" - but that is a MASTERPIECE of television - are we saying Who has to reach that level every week to be worth it?  What else are we thinking?  The abandoned racism subplot from season three of Battlestar?

Star Trek Discovery got a lot of flak for it's quite heavy-handed non-binary sub-plot in season 3, but if it doesn't push the boundaries, it's not Star Trek.  FWIW - having a gay married couple is the least they could do, when in the past they have run scared so many times from having gay characters (doing TNGs "The Outcast" and DS9s "Rejoined" fine episodes in their own right, but ultimately not what their creators really wanted, what they could get away with).

There was nothing subtle about Jack Harkness, or the hints the 9th Doctor was bisexual, in season one... but is that more what people want?

If you really want to see someone's sexuality "in your face" I'd look at Olly Alexander's Eurovision performance - but even then I didn't find myself minding it, was just what he wanted to do.

digitalscream

darthed1981 said:

There was nothing subtle about Jack Harkness, or the hints the 9th Doctor was bisexual, in season one... but is that more what people want?

Bit pushed for time, but this is a great example - the most interesting thing about Jack Harkness wasn't the fact that he was gay. It was an aspect of his character which influenced the way he interacted with people (as it does for people in the real world), sure, but it wasn't the majority of his motivation and it actually came up pretty rarely.

As for the hints about 9, yes absolutely - the hints were all that was required to get the point across, because it was written very well.

That's the subtlety of good writing that just hasn't been present in Who for a very, very long time.

monquixote

darthed1981 said:

monquixote said:

digitalscream said:

I have absolutely no problem with gender/identity politics in this context - it's when it's so blatantly SHOUTEDINYOURFACE. It's like smacking the audience round the head until they give in, rather than putting in the hard yards with subtle writing that makes them think and then change their minds (if needed).

Viewing figures would seem to indicate that this approach just isn't working. Preliminary US figures suggest that the first episode of this new relaunch has done worse than the last episode of Whittaker's time (which was, at the time, pretty much the low point for the entire franchise).

It's difficult to say because America is a very racist country and often shows with black leads can struggle. 

I do agree about the shouty morals thing. The Rosa Parks episode was sung praises from the heavens, but I thought it was one of the worst episodes I've seen. It completely failed to understand how you tackle something like racism in the context of sci-fi coupled with being boring to watch. 
At the same time I was reading the Smeds and the Smoos to my kids which manages to do that in the context of a children's picture book about aliens and also manages to tell the story of Romeo and Juliet. Maybe Julia Donaldson should write Dr Who. I bet it would be bloody fantastic.

The Rosa Parks episode was basically OK, I've not heard anyone singing praises about it?

It was mostly from the press focusing on how they had consulted with various people to make sure it was ok and I think it won an award on that basis.

Everyone I know who watched it thought it was awful

darthed1981

digitalscream said:

darthed1981 said:

There was nothing subtle about Jack Harkness, or the hints the 9th Doctor was bisexual, in season one... but is that more what people want?

Bit pushed for time, but this is a great example - the most interesting thing about Jack Harkness wasn't the fact that he was gay. It was an aspect of his character which influenced the way he interacted with people (as it does for people in the real world), sure, but it wasn't the majority of his motivation and it actually came up pretty rarely.

As for the hints about 9, yes absolutely - the hints were all that was required to get the point across, because it was written very well.

That's the subtlety of good writing that just hasn't been present in Who for a very, very long time.

Yeah but... Ncuti hasn't been snogging blokes and going to pride events has he?  There was the dancing scene with a sort of skirt thing - but Harry Styles wears skirts and he is really really not gay.

Where in the first two episodes has sexuality been shoved in anyone's face?  Ncuti calls people "babes" once or twice if I recall but where else?

Yes we got the drag queen - but I thought that was played to make her more alien.  I thought the acting job was solid, and no, not in the league of Neil Patrick Harris, but he would make a great doctor.

The over-arching plot is really cool this time as well, I really want to see more of the "pantheon" and the more supernatural villains now the Doctor accidentally let them in...

digitalscream

darthed1981 said:

digitalscream said:

darthed1981 said:

There was nothing subtle about Jack Harkness, or the hints the 9th Doctor was bisexual, in season one... but is that more what people want?

Bit pushed for time, but this is a great example - the most interesting thing about Jack Harkness wasn't the fact that he was gay. It was an aspect of his character which influenced the way he interacted with people (as it does for people in the real world), sure, but it wasn't the majority of his motivation and it actually came up pretty rarely.

As for the hints about 9, yes absolutely - the hints were all that was required to get the point across, because it was written very well.

That's the subtlety of good writing that just hasn't been present in Who for a very, very long time.

Yeah but... Ncuti hasn't been snogging blokes and going to pride events has he?  There was the dancing scene with a sort of skirt thing - but Harry Styles wears skirts and he is really really not gay.

Where in the first two episodes has sexuality been shoved in anyone's face?  Ncuti calls people "babes" once or twice if I recall but where else?

Yes we got the drag queen - but I thought that was played to make her more alien.  I thought the acting job was solid, and no, not in the league of Neil Patrick Harris, but he would make a great doctor.

The over-arching plot is really cool this time as well, I really want to see more of the "pantheon" and the more supernatural villains now the Doctor accidentally let them in...

OK, so...how do you explain the viewing figures? It looks like these two episodes hovered around the 2.5m range, basically just over half of the worst-received of 13's episodes, and 20-30% of the average of the previous incarnations? People just don't like this show any more. From browsing around, it seems more like people are re-watching older series rather than watch the new ones.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that's nothing to do with the characterisation, the writing or the preachiness. 

You can't explain it just by saying "oh, 80% of the fans are homophobic and racist". That's just not remotely realistic, unless you make the assumption that the majority of the population are actively racist and homophobic.

Incidentally, when you have lines like "I've just been snowmanned" in what people keep saying is a kids' show...how is that not "in your face"?

Offset

This is going to be another of those threads that goes Jo Jo Gunne.