heywood on 18/7/2017 at 13:22
You didn't even try to respond to or rebutt any of his points, you just suddenly threw a bunch of ad hominem insults at him.
PigLick on 18/7/2017 at 13:45
also can we stop saying "retconned" because jesus christ that is really irritating me.
Kolya on 18/7/2017 at 13:55
I assume by "his points" you mean icemann's. Let's look at those points.
1. "It's a retcon" - We already know that the show has had multiple retcons for various reasons. And why not.
2. "I'm all for women's lib and all that, but the Doctor is male. Always has, always should be." - An appeal to the status quo while forgetting that previous changes and retcons are also part of the status quo, in other words this is cherry picking.
3. "Have it be a completely new Timelord with her own unique back story." - That's a preference, not an argument.
I understand that none of you thinks of themselves as misogynists, but the truth is that sometimes the preferences you've come to hold dear from childhood to now are based on misogyny of others in the past, eg why heroes of films and tv shows historically have been white males. You truly seem to believe that this was an "artistic choice" ignoring proven historical chauvinism, meanwhile hiring a woman rings to you as a "political" agenda.
There's a willful naivete in that which isn't innocent at all.
Kolya on 18/7/2017 at 14:07
Have you also read what I said about this kind of preferences?
Kolya on 18/7/2017 at 14:22
It's a show that's been running since the 1960s. If its tone was set in stone it would still look like it did back then, eg it would be black/white. Since it obviously does not, you seem to be taking special exception to this particular change. Isn't that so?
Krush on 18/7/2017 at 14:39
A female doctor eh? So in a year she'll go on maternity leave and then only work part time during office hours.
How will the universe survive?
Kolya on 18/7/2017 at 15:43
You could hire two of them, but they'll just sync their periods and pregnancies. :/
heywood on 18/7/2017 at 16:58
Quote Posted by Kolya
I assume by "his points" you mean icemann's. Let's look at those points.
1. "It's a retcon" - We already know that the show has had multiple retcons for various reasons. And why not.
2. "I'm all for women's lib and all that, but the Doctor is male. Always has, always should be." - An appeal to the status quo while forgetting that previous changes and retcons are also part of the status quo, in other words this is cherry picking.
3. "Have it be a completely new Timelord with her own unique back story." - That's a preference, not an argument.
I understand that none of you thinks of themselves as misogynists, but the truth is that sometimes the preferences you've come to hold dear from childhood to now are based on misogyny of others in the past, eg why heroes of films and tv shows historically have been white males. You truly seem to believe that this was an "artistic choice" ignoring proven historical chauvinism, meanwhile hiring a woman rings to you as a "political" agenda.
There's a willful naivete in that which isn't innocent at all.
I don't think it was an artistic choice, and I don't think it was political correctness either. Like I said before, I think it was a business decision, intended to draw more female viewers, especially younger ones. Because if they want this show to go on for another generation, they have to develop new fans and not just coast on the traditional fan base.
The show is over 50 years old and one of the things that has remained constant through its run is that the Doctor is played by a British male actor (Englishman or Scot), so I think it's entirely reasonable to argue about whether the gender and nationality of the actor are important to the role or not. If someone prefers a male actor to play a character that has always been, for 50+ years, male, that does not make them a misogynist. Look up the definition.
I personally don't give a damn who plays the Doctor, because I've never really watched the show. I liked the theme music, but beyond that it didn't grab my interest. However, I'm defending icemann here because he doesn't deserve a nasty bag of insults just for wanting a favorite show to stay the same.
Quote:
It's a show that's been running since the 1960s. If its tone was set in stone it would still look like it did back then, eg it would be black/white. Since it obviously does not, you seem to be taking special exception to this particular change. Isn't that so?
Everyone expects television technology and equipment to change over time. The identity of the show's central character is naturally more important to long time fans.
Trance on 18/7/2017 at 17:01
And, really, saying "if you've got a problem with this then you're a misogynist virgin pissbaby" does nothing except turn you into ammunition for the people you're railing against. Don't engage in stereotypes or you'll become one.
Sulphur on 18/7/2017 at 17:38
I don't think there was this big a furore over Star Trek putting a female captain in as a lead for the show. It's another thing that Voyager was pretty bland and mulchy from what I saw of it, but given that Dr. Who fans have 5+ decades of stuff to revisit if they don't like the show's new stylings (and let's be fair, Who's spinoffs like Torchwood proved that these things can be extremely progressive), what do you stand to lose? At best this might serve as a shot in the arm and you get a fun series if the casting and writing are good (ahahahahaha *snort* ...ahem), and at worst you can write it off as an experiment that didn't work. It's not the end of the world.
