Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 22:57:22 GMT
I have always been opposed to gender and race swapping of main and central characters. Why? I can understand it in most cases - if it were a female James Bond, say, I could see why people would be bothered. But the idea that the Doctor undergoes a complete and radical change in physical makeup has been present in the character almost since the beginning of the show. It's perhaps the one role in all of television where a gender change is a perfectly logical thing to happen. So what is the objection, exactly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 23:06:51 GMT
...the Timelords can regenerate to any gender they desire... Hmmm. To me, it always seemed that the regeneration was a random roll of the dice. I didn't think The Doctor could purposely choose young, old, male, female, ginger, not ginger, etc. He can't. However, there are other Time Lords who can. Romana could not only regenerate at will and choose what form she took, she could "try on" different bodies until she hit one she liked. The Doctor has never had any control over the outcome - though when he changed to Capaldi, he did comment that his subconscious had chosen to copy a face he'd seen before as a way to tell him something. And we've seen that he can do things like hold a regeneration off for a while, or expend regeneration energy to heal other people. Basically it seems like Regeneration is a skill, and the Doctor is just one of those Time Lords who is really bad at it. Which is an idea I rather like, it makes him a little less perfect than he has been lately.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 16, 2017 23:08:25 GMT
...the Timelords can regenerate to any gender they desire... Hmmm. To me, it always seemed that the regeneration was a random roll of the dice. I didn't think The Doctor could purposely choose young, old, male, female, ginger, not ginger, etc. Good point, although one doctor did suggest that they intended to come back differently.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 16, 2017 23:21:08 GMT
I have always been opposed to gender and race swapping of main and central characters. Why? I can understand it in most cases - if it were a female James Bond, say, I could see why people would be bothered. But the idea that the Doctor undergoes a complete and radical change in physical makeup has been present in the character almost since the beginning of the show. It's perhaps the one role in all of television where a gender change is a perfectly logical thing to happen. So what is the objection, exactly? Because I don't recognise the regeneration argument. We all know that was never intended to be a thing, but they wanted to keep the show going. The Doctor was a man and was always intended as such. I didn't care when the commander changed sex. I did when The Master did, especially with that stupid name change and I do when its The Doctor. And why not just use one of the female Timelords, Romana or The Rani? The opportunity was there to push two existing female characters and leave The Master alone for a while, but no, lets gender swap The Master for no reason. Remember guys, Feminist Frequency told us "Miss Male Character" was sexist, what is this if not that? Similarly I didn't give a toss about Heimdal becoming black, or the Ancient One becoming female, but I would if it was Thor or Dr Strange. The actress is in a bit of a no win. She either plays the character as a women, which will change the tone of the show completely, or she tries to play it like a bloke, which will come across as cringe and unrelatable. Not many people have problems with female or minority leads, the last two Star Wars films have grossed over $3,000,000,000. The Force Awakens had a black guy and a woman as it co leads. Rogue One didn't have a White Male in the protagonist ensemble, but still took over a billion dollars. People do care when you start pissing around with established characters, as Marvel found out, then denied after getting shit on social media. Consistently, the most requested solo film in fan polls for the MCU is Black Widow. I want a Black Widow film, a James Bond type film with her and Hawkeye would be great. So do that, don't make Thor a woman because "diversity" Same here, people can fling "muh sexism" at me all they like, but check out social media and there are many, many women who don't like this change either.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 16, 2017 23:26:21 GMT
Hmmm. To me, it always seemed that the regeneration was a random roll of the dice. I didn't think The Doctor could purposely choose young, old, male, female, ginger, not ginger, etc. Good point, although one doctor did suggest that they intended to come back differently. Some Timelords can control their regeneration. I don't think The Doctor can, although he has never chosen to regenerate. I don't like the moping about before a regeneration either. The Doctor is supposed to be fundamentally the same person. 9 got a bit maudling, but the 10 carried on as if nothing had happened with Micky, Rose and Jackie. When he came to regenerate, he went on an extended tour to visit them all for no real reason, the 11 promptly forgot about them. Its also a bit inconsistent, as before the regeneration The Doctor will get all upset and act like He is going to be replaced, then he spends the next episode trying to convince him companion he is the same person. He has done this 12 times now. Pigeons learn faster than that.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 23:30:32 GMT
Ah, the privilege bullshit again... When I was growing up, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air was one of my favourite shows. If you suggested rebooting that with a white family I would kick and scream. Being black was an essential part of those characters, from Carlton being "not black enough" to Uncle Phil being an "Uncle Tom" to Hilary being "too pale" to the family losing their shit when Vivien's sister married a white guy. I don't watch or know anything about Dr. Who, so I'll refrain from discussing that... but it's rather odd you call privilege "bullshit" while praising Fresh Prince given they basically did an entire episode (and perhaps more that I'm forgetting) on the subject when Will and Carlton spent a night in jail while "driving while black" and Phil had to bail them out by threatening the racist cops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 23:36:30 GMT
Because I don't recognise the regeneration argument. We all know that was never intended to be a thing, but they wanted to keep the show going. I don't know what this means. You don't recognise that the Doctor regenerates? He's done it over and over again! What's that got to do with anything? Yes, I understand that. What I am asking is why you care. This is just "why didn't they write it the way I would have written it". That can be a fun game to play, but it isn't really an argument. No, sorry, I don't know what this means either. She is obviously going to play the character as a woman, because, well, however she plays it will be as a woman by definition. It's impossible for her to "play it as a bloke" since she isn't one. I'm sure she will play it differently from previous Doctors. Which is no bad thing, since every Doctor is different and unique (whilst retaining the same basic character traits). Personally I think they should just ignore the gender change completely. Write her exactly as they would write any other Doctor. Why not? If this is your attitude, I assume you would have wanted the show to be cancelled once William Hartnell left? After all, regeneration was never intended to be part of the character, and just pissed him about by turning into something he was never meant to be. I really am genuinely mystified by your thinking here. You say that as if you think that a woman saying something automatically means that what she has said cannot be sexist. Which is again weird.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 16, 2017 23:44:26 GMT
Good point, although one doctor did suggest that they intended to come back differently. Some Timelords can control their regeneration. I don't think The Doctor can, although he has never chosen to regenerate. I don't like the moping about before a regeneration either. The Doctor is supposed to be fundamentally the same person. 9 got a bit maudling, but the 10 carried on as if nothing had happened with Micky, Rose and Jackie. When he came to regenerate, he went on an extended tour to visit them all for no real reason, the 11 promptly forgot about them. Its also a bit inconsistent, as before the regeneration The Doctor will get all upset and act like He is going to be replaced, then he spends the next episode trying to convince him companion he is the same person. He has done this 12 times now. Pigeons learn faster than that. Agreed there is some conflicting canon, honestly I have not really watched DR who since the 90's, I tried the reboot, but the comedy was just too much.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 16, 2017 23:47:28 GMT
Ah, the privilege bullshit again... When I was growing up, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air was one of my favourite shows. If you suggested rebooting that with a white family I would kick and scream. Being black was an essential part of those characters, from Carlton being "not black enough" to Uncle Phil being an "Uncle Tom" to Hilary being "too pale" to the family losing their shit when Vivien's sister married a white guy. I don't watch or know anything about Dr. Who, so I'll refrain from discussing that... but it's rather odd you call privilege "bullshit" while praising Fresh Prince given they basically did an entire episode (and perhaps more that I'm forgetting) on the subject when Will and Carlton spent a night in jail while "driving while black" and Phil had to bail them out by threatening the racist cops. Not really a topic for this thread, but I'll happliy discuss that elsewhere if you like.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 23:52:05 GMT
I don't watch or know anything about Dr. Who, so I'll refrain from discussing that... but it's rather odd you call privilege "bullshit" while praising Fresh Prince given they basically did an entire episode (and perhaps more that I'm forgetting) on the subject when Will and Carlton spent a night in jail while "driving while black" and Phil had to bail them out by threatening the racist cops. Not really a topic for this thread, but I'll happliy discuss that elsewhere if you like. *Shrugs* That's your call.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 0:06:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 0:13:31 GMT
Because I don't recognise the regeneration argument. We all know that was never intended to be a thing, but they wanted to keep the show going. I don't know what this means. You don't recognise that the Doctor regenerates? He's done it over and over again! What's that got to do with anything? Yes, I understand that. What I am asking is why you care. This is just "why didn't they write it the way I would have written it". That can be a fun game to play, but it isn't really an argument. No, sorry, I don't know what this means either. She is obviously going to play the character as a woman, because, well, however she plays it will be as a woman by definition. It's impossible for her to "play it as a bloke" since she isn't one. I'm sure she will play it differently from previous Doctors. Which is no bad thing, since every Doctor is different and unique (whilst retaining the same basic character traits). Personally I think they should just ignore the gender change completely. Write her exactly as they would write any other Doctor. Why not? If this is your attitude, I assume you would have wanted the show to be cancelled once William Hartnell left? After all, regeneration was never intended to be part of the character, and just pissed him about by turning into something he was never meant to be. I really am genuinely mystified by your thinking here. You say that as if you think that a woman saying something automatically means that what she has said cannot be sexist. Which is again weird. I don't recognise it as an argument for a gender swap. Because I respect the characters, their history and creation. Selene is a woman, Blade is black. As I said before, I would equally object to gender swapping Ripley as I did to gender swapping Starbuck. Maybe this is juts me getting old, but there are characters such as Luke, Han, Leia, Indy, Ripley, Hicks, Alice, Selene, Blade, Spiderman, Batman, Starbuck, Apollo, The Doctor, Pinhead, Ivanova, they all mean something to me for whatever reason and I don't want them pissed about with. It kind of is when the driver behind these gender swaps has been diversity. Two female characters could have been brought into the show alongside the existing male ones. I'm saying she could basically do an impression of a man. The only way I can see it working is if The Doctor says something along the lines of "Oh, I'm a girl now" then moves on, but I don't think her gender will be incidental, to be honest. I wasn't alive then. I might well have been. Yet the immediate reaction to my objection is "sexist!!!!!1111!!!!11!!" Because this is how people want to frame it. If male and female fans object to this and male and female fans support it, I fail to see why its a gendered issue. And as Isaid before, had I objected to a female character being gender swapped, nobody here would call me sexist.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 0:15:09 GMT
Some Timelords can control their regeneration. I don't think The Doctor can, although he has never chosen to regenerate. I don't like the moping about before a regeneration either. The Doctor is supposed to be fundamentally the same person. 9 got a bit maudling, but the 10 carried on as if nothing had happened with Micky, Rose and Jackie. When he came to regenerate, he went on an extended tour to visit them all for no real reason, the 11 promptly forgot about them. Its also a bit inconsistent, as before the regeneration The Doctor will get all upset and act like He is going to be replaced, then he spends the next episode trying to convince him companion he is the same person. He has done this 12 times now. Pigeons learn faster than that. Agreed there is some conflicting canon, honestly I have not really watched DR who since the 90's, I tried the reboot, but the comedy was just too much. Try jumping in at season 5, with Matt Smith. It loses a lot of the campy humour and is kinda a soft reboot in itself.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 0:38:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 17, 2017 1:03:35 GMT
Agreed there is some conflicting canon, honestly I have not really watched DR who since the 90's, I tried the reboot, but the comedy was just too much. Try jumping in at season 5, with Matt Smith. It loses a lot of the campy humour and is kinda a soft reboot in itself. Might give it a whirl the humour ruined it for me. Thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 1:55:14 GMT
I don't recognise it as an argument for a gender swap. Why not? And like I said, if it were any other character I could actually understand that. Not agree, necessarily, or at least not always - for some characters the gender or race is important, but for others it really isn't. But the Doctor is, almost uniquely, a character that canonically is meant to change on a regular basis. It seems to me hypocritical to say that you accept that Doctor changing into a completely different person... but only so long as that person is the same colour and gender. It only makes sense if you think that changing into a different person who is black (for example) is an inherently worse change than changing into a different person who is white. Or that changing into a woman is inherently a worse change than changing into another man. ...like wearing a strap-on penis or something...? I don't think that's going to be a problem. So you would have wanted the show cancelled after four years. No Pertwee, no Tom Baker... it would be nothing other than a long forgotten sixties show. Yeah... I don't think many would be with you on that one. But at least you would have your ideological purity, I guess. And also, if you're honest, because your reaction along with your lack of any compelling reason to justify it invite that reaction. And that's the crucial thing about this, to me. It kind of reminds me of the whole gay marriage debate, where one side was so vehemently against it, and yet so completely incapable of generating any argument that wasn't transparently just an after-the-fact excuse to cover their real views. I've had this discussion with a dozen different people, and I have never known a single one of them to provide a reason not to have a female Doctor. The ONLY thing that is ever offered is some variant of "I don't like it being a woman" along with a desperately unconvincing attempt to justify why that isn't based on sexism. It's pretty clearly about sexism to my eyes. And it doesn't cease to be about sexism just because there are sexist women in the world. I might, depending. The question I would ask is, is it important to the character that it be female? If it is, then sure, I'd object to a switch. If it isn't, then I wouldn't, and I'd think anybody who did was being sexist.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 2:31:38 GMT
I don't recognise it as an argument for a gender swap. Why not? And like I said, if it were any other character I could actually understand that. Not agree, necessarily, or at least not always - for some characters the gender or race is important, but for others it really isn't. But the Doctor is, almost uniquely, a character that canonically is meant to change on a regular basis. It seems to me hypocritical to say that you accept that Doctor changing into a completely different person... but only so long as that person is the same colour and gender. It only makes sense if you think that changing into a different person who is black (for example) is an inherently worse change than changing into a different person who is white. Or that changing into a woman is inherently a worse change than changing into another man. ...like wearing a strap-on penis or something...? I don't think that's going to be a problem. So you would have wanted the show cancelled after four years. No Pertwee, no Tom Baker... it would be nothing other than a long forgotten sixties show. Yeah... I don't think many would be with you on that one. But at least you would have your ideological purity, I guess. And also, if you're honest, because your reaction along with your lack of any compelling reason to justify it invite that reaction. And that's the crucial thing about this, to me. It kind of reminds me of the whole gay marriage debate, where one side was so vehemently against it, and yet so completely incapable of generating any argument that wasn't transparently just an after-the-fact excuse to cover their real views. I've had this discussion with a dozen different people, and I have never known a single one of them to provide a reason not to have a female Doctor. The ONLY thing that is ever offered is some variant of "I don't like it being a woman" along with a desperately unconvincing attempt to justify why that isn't based on sexism. It's pretty clearly about sexism to my eyes. And it doesn't cease to be about sexism just because there are sexist women in the world. I might, depending. The question I would ask is, is it important to the character that it be female? If it is, then sure, I'd object to a switch. If it isn't, then I wouldn't, and I'd think anybody who did was being sexist. Because The Doctor isn't 13 different people. The Doctor is one person. But I don't accept that. The Doctor remains the same man, his personality changes slightly, his appearance changes, but he is the same person. That was the point. If you change a persons biology on that level you will change the person. I didn't bring up better or worse, thats a strawman. Hell, this woman might play the part better than anyone else, but she still won't be The Doctor to me. Yes, that was exactly what I meant.... As I said, I wasn't alive. I might have, I might not. No, you simply choose to say its about sexism. You don't seem to understand that The Doctor is just as fixed a Character as James Bond for some people, me included. Fine, if thats how you see it. I'm sure the women who disagree with you will be okay with saying they have internalised sexism. Thats not sexist at all. It isn't like they could have an independent opinion or anything.... A character that was written as a female was done so for a reason. I don't know where you stand, but I firmly believe that behaviours are gender largely specific and while influence by society have their basis in biology. We know testosterone and estrogen affect behaviour. So If I wrote a character to be female or male I did it for a reason. See, the regeneration thing is an excuse. I could do the same for pretty much any character to justify a gender swap. Since 007 is a codename, the next Bond film will see James replaced by his half sister Jamie Bond. The franchise will continue with a female 007. Black Widow is also a code name, so Jason Statham will be taking the role in Avengers 3 Captain Kirk will get gender dysphoria and have a sex change off screen and be replaced by a female Captain Kirk. Supreme Leader Snoke will use the force to push Rey's consciousness into the body of a bloke called Ray, the franchise will continue will a male Ray. I wouldn't accept any of that. But by your logic you would have to. Is it essential that Rey be a woman? Why not swap Kirk for a woman, his personality will have to change, but what the hell? And whether you accept it or not, I don't see swapping The Doctor any differently to the above. Had The Doctor been a woman for 50 years and was now being made a man I would react the same way, because he would not be The Doctor to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 2:55:16 GMT
Because The Doctor isn't 13 different people. The Doctor is one person. In thirteen different bodies. Why shouldn't one of those bodies be a female one? I'm afraid it's true that the Doctor changes periodically, whether you accept it or not. It's also true that there's absolutely no reason why one of those bodies shouldn't be female. And the Doctor is still the same "man", except in a female body now. No, you don't change the person just because you change the body. To claim that flies in the very face of what you've just said yourself about how the appearance changes but the person remains the same. Then like I said, I don't think that will be an issue. You would pretty much have to, unless you're rather a hypocrite. I simply choose to say it because you can't - or at least haven't - articulated any other reason. The way your argument comes across it's "my reason is sexism but I don't want to admit it to myself". And I'd be fine with a female James Bond. There are characters I'd object to a gender swap on, but Bond isn't one of them. Rather a silly self-defeating argument to attack my opinion for my attacking other people's opinions. And to my mind, you've confirmed that the basis of this whole thing is just sexism. You see women as fundamentally different from men, which they are not. I defy you to name one character trait that is present in all men and no women. Even one. Bravery? Intelligence? Logical thinking? Empathy? Quick Wittedness? Love? Anger? Despair? You cannot do it; every one of those things can be present in either gender, or absent in either gender. And that is ignoring that even if that were true of human beings, you have no basis whatsoever to assert that it is also true of Galifreyans. I know you're trying to highlight a perceived absurdity, but I'd be fine with any of those changes. Actually, as a Star Trek fan of such magnitude that it's almost tragically stereotypical (I have my own Star Trek website. With articles. Thousands of them. With millions of views. And a forum.), I'd be quite intrigued to see a female Kirk. In fact there actually was an occasion on which a woman played the part of Captain Kirk, and it was quite entertaining (although not a very good episode overall). (In passing, I'll note that the idea that James Bond is a code name is almost certainly untrue. But whatever.) And nor do I. Bring it on, I say.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 17, 2017 3:09:02 GMT
(In passing, I'll note that the idea that James Bond is a code name is almost certainly untrue. But whatever.) It may not be true, but it is the fan theory that makes the most sense by a country mile.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 17, 2017 7:17:16 GMT
(In passing, I'll note that the idea that James Bond is a code name is almost certainly untrue. But whatever.) It may not be true, but it is the fan theory that makes the most sense by a country mile. Though why would Roger Moore Bond leave flowers at the grave of George Lazenby Bond's wife?
|
|