Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 18:31:40 GMT
'Left wing political agenda'? What on earth are you talking about?
The ratings crashed and burned because it was a bad season, with barely even one decent episode. A wasted opportunity, one they can't afford too often, as shows are easily cancelled. Again.
It was indeed an awful season with zero good episodes, but it was made even WORSE by the constant left-wing agenda. What was he talking about? "Bill" reminding everyone she's a lesbian in EVERY episode, for starters. The anti-capitalism episode "Oxygen". The endless attempts to force "diversity" and claim you're racist if you point out the UK doesn't nearly have as many "minorities" as they cast on the show. Imagine if the reverse happened and they invented a new companion who spent every episode reminding people he's a devout Christian who goes to church every Sunday, had an entire episode devoted to promoting Brexit, and had a "special guest appearance" from former President George W. Bush as a masterful UNIT leader who saves earth from the Daleks? Then when people who weren't hardcore conservatives complained, the BBC would shrug their shoulders are go "what right-wing bias? We're just showing the UK as it is in the 21st century". Just about all the companions of the revived series were women who ended up falling in love with the doctor. Or ended up in a sort of love triangle with him. How many episodes revolved around that boring old trope? Having a companion who did not do that, was a breath of fresh air imo. Bill didn't work well, imo, because of the bad stories. It had little to do with her gender or sexuality. Donna is still amongst the better companions, no bothering with her falling in love with the doctor, or the reverse, just a companion.
|
|
reelreviews2
Sophomore
Jon Stewart HIJACKED The Daily Show. We're taking it BACK.
@reelreviews2
Posts: 258
Likes: 105
|
Post by reelreviews2 on Jul 17, 2017 2:22:49 GMT
Just about all the companions of the revived series were women who ended up falling in love with the doctor. Untrue. None of the companions on NuWho fell in love with the Doctor and/or ended up in a relationship with him. Most of them had poorly-written boyfriend characters like "Danny Pink". You have been listening to the Moffat shills too much.
|
|
yogabagaba
Freshman
@yogabagaba
Posts: 54
Likes: 12
|
Post by yogabagaba on Jul 17, 2017 3:06:22 GMT
if it bothers you so much, there is always another option. Indeed. My option has been to watch the Patrick Troughton episodes in place of "Series 10", and I don't regret it one bit. The old black & white episodes focused on fun and adventure, rather than promoting leftist politics every episode. And Zoe is 10x the companion that "Bill" is, thanks to having an actual personality and being likeable and sexy. Imagine if Moffat had written Zoe, she would have come out as a transgender autistic paraplegic Muslim within 10 seconds of appearing on screen the first time (and then reminded you about it every episode) and then introduced her black boyfriend character named "Jimmy Clark" who is self-centered total douchebag always whining about how she spends time with The Doctor instead of him. Oh please, JIMMY! My preferred pronouns are HE, ever since I transitioned last year! Gawd you're TRANSPHOBIC! Now I have to get on saying my 3:00 prayers facing Mecca so I can be back on the TARDIS in time. Yeah, TARDIS this, TARDIS that! I'm so sick of hearing about the bloody TARDIS! What's the Docta got that I ain't got, ay? When did the idea that people shouldn't be discrimintated against based on their ethnicity, sexuality, social class, etc. become leftist politics? To me, that's just basic human decency. And for the record, sci-fi has been tackling social issues for a long, long time. That includes Doctor Who. As for your hypotheticals regarding what Moffat would do with the likes of Zoe, it's drivel, and deserves to be called out as just that. Spare us your poor attempts at Straw-Manning.
|
|
reelreviews2
Sophomore
Jon Stewart HIJACKED The Daily Show. We're taking it BACK.
@reelreviews2
Posts: 258
Likes: 105
|
Post by reelreviews2 on Jul 17, 2017 3:34:40 GMT
When did the idea that people shouldn't be discrimintated against based on their ethnicity, sexuality, social class, etc. become leftist politics? To me, that's just basic human decency. Actually, as far as U.S. politics go, I'd consider it to be right-wing politics. I can't speak for the civil rights movement in the U.K., but in the United States, it was conservative Republicans who spent a century pushing for things like equal voting rights both genders and the civil rights act of 1964. Left-wing Democrats under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt (and make no mistake, they were indeed LEFT-wing and promoted big government programs like the "New Deal" as the solution to everything) were vehemently against it, and said so at the time. I agree that idea that you cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of their gender or skin color should be a non-partisan issue that is considered basic human decency, but that doesn't change the fact that the people fighting against ending male-only voting and ending forced segregation of the races were almost uniformly liberal Democrats. You can look at the voting record on those issues, and the people opposing civil rights were about 90% Democrats. More specifically, American left-wing politics opposes equal rights and a color blind society in favor of SPECIAL rights for whatever group they are pandering to for votes at that given time in history (rural white agrarian society in the 1850s, non-heterosexual relationships during the 21st century, etc.) and us vs. them identity politics (which results in a character being introduced and defined primarily by their sexual orientation within 30 seconds of appearing on screen in a television show). The result is Doctor Who took a hard-turn towards American-style leftist politics of 2017 this year. If Doctor Who were made by left-wing writers in 1953, a show of that era might depict a working class WASP being the victim of assault by "dangerous negros" who had been armed by gun-rights groups. I'm sorry it offends you that I'm calling out how awful Moffat's 21st century liberalism would look in 1960s Doctor Who and how it would ruin classic episodes if it took the current show's approach. Must suck for you to realize the program once cared about interesting characters and compelling stories instead of preachy politics and relationship melodrama. Being butthurt by the truth won't stop it from being the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 8:44:10 GMT
Just about all the companions of the revived series were women who ended up falling in love with the doctor. Untrue. None of the companions on NuWho fell in love with the Doctor and/or ended up in a relationship with him. Most of them had poorly-written boyfriend characters like "Danny Pink". You have been listening to the Moffat shills too much. You have seen the show, right?
|
|
yogabagaba
Freshman
@yogabagaba
Posts: 54
Likes: 12
|
Post by yogabagaba on Jul 18, 2017 0:23:06 GMT
When did the idea that people shouldn't be discrimintated against based on their ethnicity, sexuality, social class, etc. become leftist politics? To me, that's just basic human decency. Actually, as far as U.S. politics go, I'd consider it to be right-wing politics. I can't speak for the civil rights movement in the U.K., but in the United States, it was conservative Republicans who spent a century pushing for things like equal voting rights both genders and the civil rights act of 1964. Left-wing Democrats under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt (and make no mistake, they were indeed LEFT-wing and promoted big government programs like the "New Deal" as the solution to everything) were vehemently against it, and said so at the time. I agree that idea that you cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of their gender or skin color should be a non-partisan issue that is considered basic human decency, but that doesn't change the fact that the people fighting against ending male-only voting and ending forced segregation of the races were almost uniformly liberal Democrats. You can look at the voting record on those issues, and the people opposing civil rights were about 90% Democrats. More specifically, American left-wing politics opposes equal rights and a color blind society in favor of SPECIAL rights for whatever group they are pandering to for votes at that given time in history (rural white agrarian society in the 1850s, non-heterosexual relationships during the 21st century, etc.) and us vs. them identity politics (which results in a character being introduced and defined primarily by their sexual orientation within 30 seconds of appearing on screen in a television show). The result is Doctor Who took a hard-turn towards American-style leftist politics of 2017 this year. If Doctor Who were made by left-wing writers in 1953, a show of that era might depict a working class WASP being the victim of assault by "dangerous negros" who had been armed by gun-rights groups. I'm sorry it offends you that I'm calling out how awful Moffat's 21st century liberalism would look in 1960s Doctor Who and how it would ruin classic episodes if it took the current show's approach. Must suck for you to realize the program once cared about interesting characters and compelling stories instead of preachy politics and relationship melodrama. Being butthurt by the truth won't stop it from being the truth. Yeah, kid, acting like Republicans NOW are against the idea of discriminating against people based on ethnicity, sexuality, religion, etc. because of what the party ONCE supported is delusional, and vice versa for the Deomcrats. The fact is that ever since the Democrats began supporting the civil rights movement in the 60s, the paradigm has shifted. And the Democrats knew they'd lose votes, especially in the southern US, as a result of that. Meanwhile the GOP stepped in to fill the void, gladly welcoming voters who were all about racism, sexism, etc.. The result is what you see today. And thnks for proving my point that it was the Democrats people who would today be called liberal-Democrats that supported ending men-only or white-only voting. And your notion of "color-blind" is so wrong because it ignore the history that preceded it. And your notion that offering the LGBTQ community equal protections offered to heterosexuals under the law is some how pandering? Well, that tells us a lot about you. So please, stop hiding behind what the GOP once did as if that justifies what they do now with the Orange Troll at their forefront. It only exposes you as either a bigot, or someone who doesn't think discrimination is a negative. There's no doubt as to which party and it's zealot-like supporters are the regressive ones, the people who, whether it's 50 years or a thousand years from now (assuming humanity is still around) are going to be seen as the ones denying decency. As for what you wrote up re: how Moffet would write Zoe? It's a farce. An exagerration made purely for the sake of a straw=man argument. Based on what we saw of Bill in series 10 (oh the horrrors! A gay black woman! I'm guessing that alone caused you to wake up in a cold sweat!) your piece is a joke, nothing more. And it deserves to be treated as such. A working class WASP being assaulted be negroes? No, today's equivalent to suit you would be the Doctor that an alien species that didn't believe in Time Lord values deserved to be wiped out in its entirity.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 18, 2017 0:49:22 GMT
I don't think the shows can really do much damage with political ideology (as someone remarked early on). The Communists tried that in Eastern Europe and Hungary, Poland, etc despise them to this day.
It is that the shows are aimed at a particular audience and the owners, who pretty much cannot hide their contempt for traditional heritage or society, are not allowing an alternative because they have a monopoly (created by tribal nepotism with commerce and government).
There's a good reason for that of course. If they allowed media competition based on merit instead of cronyism, no one would watch their garbage.
The BBC is based in a very multicultural place. Most of its executive decision makers are not ethnic Brits. Most of them are not even Western European! Arts and culture of a society has got to reflect the heritage of the audience among the creators.
It is as simple as that.
One could easily create an LGBTwhatever series just for them, or for any ethnic or civic group. Forcing any nontraditional ideology into a show aimed at a specific traditional demographic is as rude as barging into a children's clothing store and demanding they cater to elderly people, or vice versa.
Multiculturalism kills art.
Canada has had it for decades. Trust me--you don't want that in England, gov.
Besides, the whole point of an ethnic based show like Doctor Who is so foreign audiences can say, hey this is a British show--so that is what it is like over there.
If I watch a Mexican Santo movie, I dont want to see a transgendered Norwegian in the role. Few people would besides Brucelina Jenner.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 21, 2017 6:52:32 GMT
Untrue. None of the companions on NuWho fell in love with the Doctor and/or ended up in a relationship with him. Most of them had poorly-written boyfriend characters like "Danny Pink". You have been listening to the Moffat shills too much. You have seen the show, right? I've seen every episode, so Companions: Rose - romantic interest in the Doctor Mickey - no romantic interest in the Doctor Jack - any romantic interest was part of the running joke that Jack would hump just about anything Martha - romantic interest in the Doctor Donna - no romantic interest in the Doctor Wilfred - no romantic interest in the Doctor Amy - devoted to Rory and romantic comments toward the Doctor were merely the way her over-sexualized character was written Rory - no romantic interest in the Doctor River - calling her a companion is a stretch (you might as well count Handles as a companion) but since she did travel on the Tardis a few times we'll count her just to avoid argument- romantic interest in the Doctor Clara - no romantic interest in the Doctor Bill - no romantic interest in the Doctor Nardole - no romantic interest in the Doctor So, out of 12 companions (including River) 3 had an actual romantic interest in the Doctor. Seven female companions out of twelve total companions does not equal "just about all" being women and three out of twelve is definitely not "just about all" and even if we count only the female companions then three out of seven still doesn't support your claim.
|
|
reelreviews2
Sophomore
Jon Stewart HIJACKED The Daily Show. We're taking it BACK.
@reelreviews2
Posts: 258
Likes: 105
|
Post by reelreviews2 on Jul 22, 2017 5:41:16 GMT
D'oh! There you go debunking Moffat shill talking points by citing actual FACTS on this board. The Moffat shills won't like that. It reminds me when another Whoivan debunked their idiotic suggestion that the show would have been "better" if Clara ditched the Doctor the instant he regenerated into Capaldi.
|
|