|
Post by Vegas on Jul 17, 2017 15:40:25 GMT
No, it's nobody's fault. And the BBC are free to do as they choose with their intellectual property. You are free to have an opinion, you are free to like the change. Just as I am free to dislike it. As are the many other people who don't like it. And others are free to draw conclusions as to your reasons. And if this conversation never went any further than his one post in the OP.... You might be right that he is purely being sexist.... But, he does go on further, in his very next post in this thread, to clarify: So... now, to me, he seems more a purist than a sexist. But, that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 15:41:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Jul 17, 2017 15:50:16 GMT
The new Doctor should have been Grumpy Cat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 16:57:05 GMT
So... now, to me, he seems more a purist than a sexist. But, that's just me. Seems to me that sexism is the reason for his purism. Or vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 17, 2017 18:17:40 GMT
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? Perhaps he just wanted to honour his is predecessor's legacy? I know it's not perfect, but it explains why we have to accept Roger Moore and Sean Connery are the same person, they are not.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 17, 2017 18:19:14 GMT
It may not be true, but it is the fan theory that makes the most sense by a country mile. As lostkiera said, that makes it rather curious that Moore's Bond put flowers on the grave of Lazenby's Bond's wife. And that Lazenby's wife took his codename as her own and that he chose to bury her under that name, for that matter. And that Moore's Bond coincidentally also had a wife who died tragically. And then there's this : Fair call it is contradicted by things in the series, it just allows me to reconcile Roger Moore with , well not just Sean Connery, but pretty much every other bond. In my defense I have not been a huge Bond fan, I do like Daniel Craig though, and Sean Connery.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jul 17, 2017 18:27:36 GMT
If the Who dude could become a woman at anytime (I have no idea what the lore of the show is...), is there a reason why it wasn't sooner? If people are having issues with this in 2017, imagine how well this would have gone over in 1966.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jul 17, 2017 18:28:18 GMT
The new Doctor should have been Grumpy Cat. Wasn't that the very first Doctor?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 19:35:22 GMT
Why should I have to like it? Huh? Nobody said you "have to" like it. All I've said is that you have not, so far, been able to articulate any reason why you don't like it, and that observers are therefore free to draw their own conclusions as to your motivations. It seems like it's the important can in the conversation. Why not? But those differences are going to be no greater than the differences between being one man and a different man. What you are describing already happens with the Doctor - his behaviour and the way he approaches things changes from one body to the next, whilst the fundamentals remain the same. I genuinely see no reason why it is going to be any different this time. I'm saying that however she plays it will be "playing it like a woman" by definition, since she is a woman. But there is no difference between "playing it like a woman" and "playing it like a man". The two things are identical. In fact I don't see that the labels even make sense. What is "playing it like a woman" even supposed to mean? Women are all different, they would all play it differently. I understand it fine. What part of "you would have had to" do you not understand? Well, unless you can articulate some other reason then yes, pretty much. The closest you have come so far is an apparent belief that all women are one thing, all men are something completely different, and never the twain shall meet. You have it backwards. You're criticising me for attacking other people's opinions. Which is itself a criticism of my opinion. Either it's fine to criticise other people's opinions, in which case I get to do it too, or it's not, in which case you don't get to criticise mine. Pick whichever you like. If you believe that all traits exist in all humans then the whole "becoming a woman will change the Doctor into something else" argument goes right out the window, and you are left with no reason for your opinion at all. (And as I said before, that's ignoring the fact that even if that were true for humans, it doesn't make it true for Galifreyans.) Yes. Exactly so. I literally cannot think of any difference between men and women except for junk and other physical items. And I've asked you to name one, and you haven't. All people are different. But the differences between men and women are no greater than the differences between men and other men, or women and other women. I said before : there is no character trait that a man can have that a woman cannot. But let's be even more specific. Can you name any specific character trait that the Doctor has, which a woman cannot have? Anything at all? The Doctor is kind and caring towards others. Can a woman be kind and caring towards others? The Doctor is lonely. Can a woman be lonely? The Doctor is brave. Can a woman be brave? The Doctor is intelligent and knowledgeable. Can a woman be intelligent and knowledgeable? The Doctor is inspiring. Can a woman be inspiring? The Doctor lies. Can a woman lie? The Doctor is compassionate. Can a woman be compassionate? The Doctor is a tragic figure. Can a woman be a tragic figure? It seems to me that every single answer to those questions will be "yes". Do you disagree? Can you name any important aspect that I missed, anything at all, that a male Doctor could have and a female one could not? I'm betting that you can't. It would depend on the person. I'd ask this person if they could express a reason for their unhappiness. If they couldn't, then I'd certainly consider sexism to be a possibility. We can have the discussion as to why I welcome the change if you like, and unlike you I can articulate reasons why. So your comparison really don't work. Yes, I have. You choose not to accept it, which you are free to do. However, you are not free to pretend I haven't done so. Yes, they would. Testosterone levels are around 18 times higher in men than women, but no man has 18 times the testosterone of any other man. Well, if you declare I would then I guess thats that then. Really? So in general terms women and men focus on work in the same way? Expression emotions in the same way? Speak in the same way? Flirt in the same way? Men treat women differently to other men and women treat other women differently to men. Men will change their behaviour if women are present. Men and women do not react to danger the same way, women are more risk averse than men. Men and women do not judge happiness by the same metrics, women tend to judge their own happiness based on relationships and men on success. Humans and other primates show different play behaviors based on gender from infancy. That simply isn't true. See above, also women generally are better at communication skills than men. Women do not do as well as men in exam based education courses, but do better at coursework based ones. Men and women have different threat responses and perceive threats differently. Women display a female only group bias that men do not. Since I've already said all human traits are present in both genders, I fail to see the benefit of asking again? However, do you think men and women express emotions in the same way? Do you think that expression changes based on the gender of the person they are expressing emotions to? Do you think men react the same way to female aggression as they do to male aggression? Do men and women react the same way to children?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 19:37:33 GMT
And others are free to draw conclusions as to your reasons. And if this conversation never went any further than his one post in the OP.... You might be right that he is purely being sexist.... But, he does go on further, in his very next post in this thread, to clarify: So... now, to me, he seems more a purist than a sexist. But, that's just me. That doesn't count. Because reasons.......As I said, if you rebooted Alien with Allan Ripley I would scream blue fuck, because I hate women, or something.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 17, 2017 19:47:19 GMT
Eh. The actual cannon of the show didn't render this surprising to me at all. Frankly I'm ready for some new plot devices as a result.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 17, 2017 19:59:46 GMT
Eh. The actual cannon of the show didn't render this surprising to me at all. Frankly I'm ready for some new plot devices as a result. Honestly my only concern is whether she's right for the part. I would have preferred Olivia Colman. While I've seen Colman in more than just Broadchurch and I'm sure she could play the Doctor quite well, Broadchurch is the only thing I've ever seen Whittaker in and playing a supporting role in a crime drama isn't a good indicator of whether she will be able to handle the lead in a Sci-Fi series. Well, I was reminded last night that she was in one episode of Black Mirror but I don't recall anything special about her from that. But at least on Broadchurch she was surrounded by several Doctor Who alumni who may have given her some pointers and it was directed by Chibnall so maybe she's ready for the part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 20:16:29 GMT
Really? So in general terms women and men focus on work in the same way? Expression emotions in the same way? Speak in the same way? Flirt in the same way? "general terms" isn't relevant. If, as you say, all traits can be present in either gender, then you've admitted that some women flirt the same way most men do, and some men flirt the same way that most women do. Which destroys the entire idea that there is an inherently "male" way of flirting in the first place. Again : the differences between men and women are no greater than the differences between individual men or individual women. Yes, it is. Again : women are better at communications skills, you claim. Is every woman better at communicating than every man? Or is it, as I said, that the differences between men and women are no greater than the differences between men? Hint : it's the latter. Ditto for everything else you said. Women perceive and respond to threats differently, you claim - but whatever response you think that is that women have, I can guarantee that some women don't do it and some men do. Because you make that claim now and again and then go on to state completely the opposite by claiming that men do certain things that women don't. You're contradicting yourself and don't seem to realise it. Once again, I think it depends on the individual and any response can be forthcoming from either gender. Which you have already admitted to, in between saying the opposite. I fail to accept it because your stated reasons make no sense. As such, they come across less as reasons and more as excuses.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 21:44:01 GMT
Really? So in general terms women and men focus on work in the same way? Expression emotions in the same way? Speak in the same way? Flirt in the same way? "general terms" isn't relevant. If, as you say, all traits can be present in either gender, then you've admitted that some women flirt the same way most men do, and some men flirt the same way that most women do. Which destroys the entire idea that there is an inherently "male" way of flirting in the first place. Again : the differences between men and women are no greater than the differences between individual men or individual women. Yes, it is. Again : women are better at communications skills, you claim. Is every woman better at communicating than every man? Or is it, as I said, that the differences between men and women are no greater than the differences between men? Hint : it's the latter. Ditto for everything else you said. Women perceive and respond to threats differently, you claim - but whatever response you think that is that women have, I can guarantee that some women don't do it and some men do. Because you make that claim now and again and then go on to state completely the opposite by claiming that men do certain things that women don't. You're contradicting yourself and don't seem to realise it. Once again, I think it depends on the individual and any response can be forthcoming from either gender. Which you have already admitted to, in between saying the opposite. I fail to accept it because your stated reasons make no sense. As such, they come across less as reasons and more as excuses. Sorry, but if you ask about "men" and "women" you are talking in general terms. Except, they are. Men and women do not react the same way to things, do not approach problems in the same way, do not interact with each other in the same way. You are literally denying reality now. Right and the fact that A woman might be stronger than A man disproves the general rule that men are physically stronger than women. There is no point to this, you can't ask about "women" then point out that some women don't fit the general trend. This is bloody obivous. once again I forgot the need on this board to preface every point with #notall. See everything above. I'll use your logic to say the following. The gender earnings gap doesn't exist because not all women earn less than men. If the writers don't take advantage of the fact that she is female, what is the point of the gender swap? You interpret them as excuses simply because you want to. Simply because of the perceived notion of women as an oppressed class. Same thing Cash did with race. Again, you wouldn't be calling me sexist if the genders were the other way around, nor would you claim I had internalised misandry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 2:10:45 GMT
I'll just leave this here... in case it's useful for anybody.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 18, 2017 3:32:04 GMT
If the Who dude could become a woman at anytime (I have no idea what the lore of the show is...), is there a reason why it wasn't sooner? If people are having issues with this in 2017, imagine how well this would have gone over in 1966. Well, that's a fifty year difference and it just goes to the point. This was not some natural evolving thing, it was a decision to shake things up to generate interest. That doesn't mean the intent isn't honorable and some great stories could come out of it. It's just also very calculated and easily correctable.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jul 19, 2017 15:18:53 GMT
If people are having issues with this in 2017, imagine how well this would have gone over in 1966. Well, that's a fifty year difference and it just goes to the point. This was not some natural evolving thing, it was a decision to shake things up to generate interest. That doesn't mean the intent isn't honorable and some great stories could come out of it. It's just also very calculated and easily correctable. Although Doctor Who started in the Early 60s, the show hasn't run continuously for 50+ years. I doubt they would have changed the gender role during the 60s or 70s (or maybe even in the 80s). The show was rebooted in 2005, so I doubt they would have changed the main formula for the first few "new Doctors." I'm not a TV executive, but I understand why they waited to make the change. (As I mentioned, even today, people are having issues with the gender swap). You're right. I'm sure it "was a decision to shake things up to generate interest." They probably are trying to keep things fresh. Those are good things. Since Steven Moffat (executive producer, etc.) is moving on, this is probably the right time to make various changes. Everything in business should be calculated. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "easily correctable."
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 19, 2017 15:46:21 GMT
However, I'm not sure what you mean by "easily correctable." I think he means that they can easily go back to having a male playing the part...
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jul 19, 2017 16:25:01 GMT
However, I'm not sure what you mean by "easily correctable." I think he means that they can easily go back to having a male playing the part... OK. If so, sure. I hope they occasionally swap back and forth....just to keep things interesting.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 20, 2017 9:26:28 GMT
I think he means that they can easily go back to having a male playing the part... OK. If so, sure. I hope they occasionally swap back and forth....just to keep things interesting. Next time, I hope to see a black Doctor, just to keep things rolling, after so many years of conservative casting.
|
|