The All-New, All-Different, Random Dr. Who Thread not strictly related to the specials thread

[Skanky Vamp]

So I am a relatively new who (somewhat) ex-fan and I was puzzled by this comment from BBC:
"the show has and will always continue to proudly celebrate diversity and reflect the world we live in."

To me, the large part of Who appeal was that it didn't reflect the world we live in. It showcased other worlds and their trial and tribulations as allegories to our world. Am I wrong? I don't really want to see a Dr. Who focused on, and reflecting upon, the world we live in. To me, the more the Dr. stays on (modern-day) earth, the less interested I am. The sure fire way to kill most sci-fi is to have it reflect the world we live in.

Thoughts?

 

[The Bronze]

"the show has and will always continue to proudly celebrate diversity and reflect the world we live in."

They mean casting mainly. Representation of race/sex/gender/sexuality etc.

The show will still bounce around other planets as well as earth.

 

[thetopher]

"the show has and will always continue to proudly celebrate diversity and reflect the world we live in.

They mean strip out any allegorical nature of Dr. Who shows and use the IP as a skinsuit to preach their cultural ideology, whether it makes sense or not, whether the quality of writing is good or not. It's pretty much always 'not'.
There shall be no more escapism in stories, instead these stories will teach lessons, preach messages, make overt political points and follow identity politics to an incredibly literal degree.
Davros in a wheelchair? But...Davros is evil...and that implies (to the writers) that wheelchair users are evil. Not in 2023 they aren't, just make him a straight white male Nazi instead, nobody to offend there.

 

[thrasherpix]

I caught part of a Picard ep (it was playing where I was at, did not stay for it but saw a little). I didn't even know what it was at first as it was a standard car chase scene in the modern world (not even a scifi setting), and then the characters got beamed out making it pointless. I know Nu-Trek is different from Star Trek, but if I watched ANY Star Trek (Nu-Trek included) and saw a car chase from some off the rack cop show, I'd feel as if I'd gotten served a fast food burger rather than the crab I was hoping for. And given the time and CGI, I hope they didn't have the gall to complain they didn't have enough time or money to do it "right" after they squandered what they had on what scenes like that.

I'd thought of seeing Picard, he is one of my favorite characters, and some clips on YT for the show looked awesome, but what I stumbled across has pretty much soured me to the idea of ever giving it a chance.

And since all the show makers copy each other's work rather than being distinctive (changing the names and background to copy what worked for someone else on a different show doesn't count for me, though it's apparently a winning strategy, and I wonder how what film school teaches will change in the future as a result), I figure that's probably what the rest of them are doing as well, including Dr. Who.

 

[Bop]

Not in 2023 they aren't, just make him a straight white male Nazi instead, nobody to offend there.

But straight white males as a demographic aren't a minority in this population. So nobody would point to any straight white male and call them Davros because they see straight white males everywhere. On the other hand, there's a Doctor Who fan who's a wheelchair user and he was called Davros growing up (as an insult) because for those children Davros might be the only or one of few wheelchair users they've seen on TV. So when they see a wheelchair they do think of Davros. So while I wouldn't have thought of Davros as a problem there's nothing that insane about the principle.

 

[thetopher]

But straight white males as a demographic aren't a minority in this population. So nobody would point to any straight white male and call them Davros because they see straight white males everywhere. On the other hand, there's a Doctor Who fan who's a wheelchair user and he was called Davros growing up (as an insult) because for those children Davros might be the only or one of few wheelchair users they've seen on TV. So when they seen a wheelchair they think of Davros. So while I wouldn't have thought of Davros as a problem there's nothing that insane about the principle.

By this rationale we should just make all negative characters/villains straight white men in case somebody- a minority- gets called the name of a fictional character that shares some odd characteristic and is utterly devastated as a result, takes the name-calling to heart and thinks all those people with certain innate characteristics also have certain innate character traits.

...Am I telling it right? Because that sounds like a massive backward step in representation and diversity in fiction because feelings.

And, for the record, that isn't the reason RTD gave for changing Davros, he stated that it changed people's perception of wheelchair users. Sorry, but wtf?

I grew up reading X-men comics and not once thought that anybody in a wheelchair had god-like telepathic powers, and I was a pretty credulous kid.

So here's a radical idea, have both. We have diverse characters in wheelchairs (or whatever minority) that fill all sorts of character types, hero, villain, rival, buddy, schemer whatever. That's the way forward; don't patronize people, represent them in all their complexity.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Representation of race/sex/gender/sexuality etc.

Right, but theoretically, apart from the Doctor, who is not human, there is only one other human in the episodes not set on earth, so the whole representation of the world we live in angle seems flawed. Not every world in time and space they visit would or should represent our own.

 

[Bop]

By this rationale we should just make all negative characters/villains straight white men in case somebody- a minority- gets called the name of a fictional character that shares some odd characteristic and is utterly devastated as a result, takes the name-calling to heart and thinks all those people with certain innate characteristics also have certain innate character traits.

No it's just something to be careful about in Children and Family entertainment. It's totally plausible for children to see a character in a wheelchair and make straight associations to a person in a wheelchair, so in the case of Davros it's putting negative, gross and ugly associations on that person. That's just how children are, that's why a family entertainer can put on pink face paint, ears and a hat and the children see her as Poppy the singing troll from the Trolls movie, because they see those characteristics and associate them with that character.
Obviously as adults nobody should be associating a wheelchair user with Davros even if Davros is the only character they've seen in a wheelchair.

And, for the record, that isn't the reason RTD gave for changing Davros, he stated that it changed people's perception of wheelchair users. Sorry, but wtf?

Yeah but RTD mentioned that he felt it was important to change Davros because that short was for a Children in Need special, for a cause dedicated partly to children with disabilities or disfigurements. So yeah it was about him feeling that those children might see themselves in Davros or that others, I'm thinking children, might see Davros in them.

So here's a radical idea, have both. We have diverse characters in wheelchairs (or whatever minority) that fill all sorts of character types, hero, villain, rival, buddy, schemer whatever. That's the way forward; don't patronize people, represent them in all their complexity.

I think balance should be the answer too, and I understand what you mean about erasure because I've seen some other disabled Doctor Who fans that are upset about the Davros change - they see it as erasure. But then as I've said above other disabled Doctor Who fans are happy about the change because they've been associated negatively with Davros. So there's no one right answer.

 

[thetopher]

It's totally plausible for children to see a character in a wheelchair and make straight associations to a person in a wheelchair, so in the case of Davros it's putting negative, gross and ugly associations on that person. That's just how children are, that's why a family entertainer can put on pink face paint, ears and a hat and the children see her as Poppy the singing troll from the Trolls movie, because they see those characteristics and associate them with that character.

Right, so this is the point where the kid turns to their parents and asks a very literal question 'are all wheelchair users Nazi's/have rocket launchers' and then the parent can clarify that it's just a show or whatever, like normal people have been doing since there was TV.

Children can, in fact, tell fact from fiction, they understand that a TV show is not real life 99% of the time.

Your argument seems very similar to the puritanical arguments of the 1980's that were coming from the right, sorry but they were wrong then and they're wrong now.

Obviously as adults nobody should be associating a wheelchair user with Davros

Apart from RTD and co- they said Davros is disabled and they had a problem with that, that an evil character had those characteristics. The vast majority of fans did not, but it was changed to suit a minority of overly sensitive fans.

I think balance should be the answer too, and I understand what you mean about erasure because I've seen some other disabled Doctor Who fans that are upset about the Davros change - they see it as erasure. But then as I've said above other disabled Doctor Who fans are happy about the change because they've been associated negatively with Davros. So there's no one right answer.

Like I said we had the right answer already; the balance is lots of diverse characters with different characteristics and a plethora of identities. God and bad and in between of ALL varieties. That's supposed to be what the word 'inclusive' means, in olden times 10 years ago.

This erasure for the sake of feelings only goes one way. RTD and co. absolutely think that they have the right answer, that they know best and don't really care what the majority think.

 

[Bop]

Right, so this is the point where the kid turns to their parents and asks a very literal question 'are all wheelchair users Nazi's/have rocket launchers' and then the parent can clarify that it's just a show or whatever, like normal people have been doing since there was TV.

Children can, in fact, tell fact from fiction, they understand that a TV show is not real life 99% of the time.

Yeah because all children turn to their parents and vocalise every thought and question that they have.

Your argument seems very similar to the puritanical arguments of the 1980's that were coming from the right, sorry but they were wrong then and they're wrong now.

I put out an argument at least, and I didn't try and associate you with anything to do it.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Yeah because all children turn to their parents and vocalise every thought and question that they have.

Or you know parent(s) actually pay attention and listen. The days of children talking to their parents about what they've seen on TV have long since passed. Doesn't make the changes right but I can't imagine children striking up a dialogue with their parents based upon a television episode. It's not the 80s.

That being said, I can't imagine that friggin Dr. Who is high on the list of things that children would actually want to watch. LOL.

 

[Bop]

The days of children talking to their parents about what they've seen on TV have long since passed. Doesn't make the changes right but I can't imagine children striking up a dialogue with their parents based upon a television episode. It's not the 80s.

Parents don't often watch TV with their children anymore either, the children probably like to watch it on their own devices or just on the TV by themselves.

That being said, I can't imagine that friggin Dr. Who is high on the list of things that children would actually want to watch. LOL.

Yeah it's probably not but I think the people behind Doctor Who still think a lot of children are watching.

Post automatically merged: Jan 4, 2024

@Skanky Vamp But how would they get those demographics, assuming children watch on their parent's account?

 

[Ethan Reigns]

The last program starring someone in a wheelchair was Ironside where Raymond Burr (of Perry Mason fame) became a detective in a wheelchair, on the side of the good guys.

 

[NotASlayer]

Honestly, I have never looked at Davros and thought "person in a wheelchair" but "person in half a Dalek."

 

[thetopher]

Yeah because all children turn to their parents and vocalise every thought and question that they have.

It's less idiotic an assumption that children seeing Davros and automatically thinking 'all wheelchair people are evil'.

Simplistic media exists for children but 'family entertainment' can afford to be a bit more nuanced that RTD's bigoted thought-processes would allow.

I put out an argument at least, and I didn't try and associate you with anything to do it.

You are obviously defending the new direction Nu-Who is going and you're defending the rationale behind it.

 

[Bop]

You are obviously defending the new direction Nu-Who is going and you're defending the rationale behind it.

So what? Not everyone sees the show or the direction as you do and it's extremely ironic for you to say my argument is puritanical when you're the only one who said your argument is right and mine is wrong. So clearly you have this idea about the show that you don't accept any criticism against.

 

[thetopher]

Not everyone sees the show or the direction as you do and it's extremely ironic for you to say my argument is puritanical when you're the only one who said your argument is right and mine is wrong.

Do you know what puritanical actually means? If so then what I said wouldn't be ironic. It's not actually puritanical to believe that one argument is flawed wrong and another isn't; because I'm not excluding your argument for the conversation, I am, in fact, exgaging with you in debate.
There is nothing authoritarian about standing up to people who would use an entertainment platform as a soapbox for their thinly veiled political beliefs.

And that's what RTD is doing, and not too subtly. Goes to the lie that any of his actions are about inclusion or tolerance, they're about pushing his 'correct' vision onto everyone else.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

standing up to people who would use an entertainment platform as a soapbox for their thinly veiled political beliefs.

But inherently there is nothing wrong with using an entertainment platform as a soapbox for political beliefs. That's been done since forever. I mean Tolkien did it back in the 30's. edit: and more apropos to the topic, Dr. Who did it for years.

It's just the majority, or vocal minority, of today's entertainment isn't very well done and lacks any form of nuance. It's all about execution.

But when you have to completely alter and "destroy" the original canon and source material in order to tell your ham-fisted stories is when fans seem to have a problem with it.

 

[thetopher]

But inherently there is nothing wrong with using an entertainment platform as a soapbox for political beliefs. That's been done since forever. I mean Tolkien did it back in the 30's. It's just the majority, or vocal minority, of today's entertainment isn't very well done and lacks any form of nuance. It's all about execution.

Well, there is that school of thought that everything is inherently political and that any fiction is going to contain propaganda for one thing or another, that's fine as long as the story is good and tracks coherently; and allegory is a particularly powerful tool for fantasy (like Tolkien) and sci-fi. Dr. Who has done that in the past.

But, to me, soapbox-like stories are stories where the writer has the political message first and then forms the story around it, doesn't matter if the story is entertaining or logically consistent with itself or canonical within the IP's already established material.
Nowadays the majority of writing, at least in genre shows, is soapbox writing, pushing a message before story, characters or any attempt at entertainment.

The hope of many fans was that RTD would correct course in regards to Dr. Who after ol' Chibbers, but he's made it explicit that's he doubling down, making unpopular additions to the lore canon and that his agenda will be front and center going forward; he wants to frighten children with 'real world concerns'.

Hmn, wonder what wonderful magical tales will be coming up? Though I doubt we'll have any sci-fi adventures inspired by the horrors of the Tavistock clinic.


This kinda stuff used to make me mad, or at least kinda sad, now I have a sort-of intellectual curiosity about how many IP's have to be destroyed by toxic cultural ideology before things change again and some new thing becomes popular.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

wonderful magical tales will be coming up?

I think that's the part that irritates me more, is that they are turning it into a fantasy show versus a science fiction.