Doctor Who

[jpaul]

what were the best lines/take-aways from it ?

Funny(black-humour) lines - "did you look on the ceiling/look-up ?"
and, the (telegraphed) "What are you again ? I'm your nieces's wife, sir. Exactly", that was also an odd way for her to respond, not to instinctively use first name of the niece, but maybe that was obfuscation for younger viewers ("I am a United States senator ... exactly")

Do the BBC acknowledge if there are test-audiences for episodes ?

 

[Meddling-Monk]

We spent an entire 2 or three scenes watching a normal nuclear family doing normal family ****, but one line about a non-traditional relationship is a "shove in viewers faces"?!

Yes it is.

As I have explained already. If that was more integrated into the story, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelash as there would be a point to it within the story/show - but so far none of the ones in Doctor Who S11 so far has been anything close to subtle. Instead, we got it in just one throwaway line in a throwaway moment (a scene which if you removed that sentence, it would not impact at all on the whole scene or show), where it becomes a moment that pulls you out of the show and makes it very obvious that it's a thing they want to push onto viewers minds.

I can bench 400lbs.

So... Yes. It is.

Surely it's just being inclusive to its wide audience?

You can be inclusive without throwing it out in your face and causing it to becomes more than just part of the story and show (and subsequently, breaking immersion and it is no longer part of the show).

Captain Jack? No issue. His sexuality wasn't highlighted or anything. It just was.
Ianto Jones? It wasn't highlighted in the episode he appeared in.

I have 5 more diplomas than your average person.

James Cordens character didn't have to go "I'm in love with a woman" to highlight their character was heterosexual.
Neither did Danny Pink, or Rory Williams have to go "I'm attracted to women". But that was never the important part anyway. If you did need to single that one specific piece of information out, you clearly want that to be noticed. But does it serve the show further? Or are you just you putting it in there?

Like the two sentences I put in above. Which is nowhere near true. But it certainly causes a break in the flow of the rest of this post. You can delete it and it wouldn't have made a single bit of difference. Same with the actress (Frankie) being required to specifically say "I'm married to your niece". It wasn't necessary. We don't have every character declare their sexuality or marital status once they come on screen. Why have this one instance when it doesn't even add to the story? The answer? We didn't.

Hence, it was added for the writers own gratification and shoved into the faces of the viewers. Which beaks immersion heavily just so they can get that out in the viewers face edge wise.

 

[cheesyboy]

Yes it is.

As I have explained already. If that was more integrated into the story, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelash as there would be a point to it within the story/show - but so far none of the ones in Doctor Who S11 so far has been anything close to subtle. Instead, we got it in just one throwaway line in a throwaway moment (a scene which if you removed that sentence, it would not impact at all on the whole scene or show), where it becomes a moment that pulls you out of the show and makes it very obvious that it's a thing they want to push onto viewers minds.

The point of that moment was character setting the awful businessman guy. He's so narcissistic and utterly disinterested in the people ferreting around on his behalf that he was unaware who the wife of his niece even was. Next thing, he sacks the manager of his new hotel like swatting a fly. It seemed natural because we'd built his personality very quickly.

Her sexuality was incidental and obsessing over the sexual leanings of a minor character isn't them rubbing your face in it - it's you getting sidetracked by your own bigotry.

 

[Meddling-Monk]

The point of that moment was character setting the awful businessman guy. He's so narcissistic and utterly disinterested in the people ferreting around on his behalf that he was unaware who the wife of his niece even was. Next thing, he sacks the manager of his new hotel like swatting a fly. It seemed natural because we'd built his personality very quickly.

Replace the sentence Frankie said with: "I love puppies.", or "But I'm not related to you.". It wouldn't make sense and take you out of the scene for the former, and for the latter, it would make more sense and wouldn't take you out of the scene much. But it would still make the businessman an awful person in either case as that is established afterwards from actions, not something that may have been offscreen between Frankie and the businessman prior to the start of the episode. Therefore, the original sentence served no in story purpose other than to have that sentence in that scene to stand out.

I love swimming, especially in bright sunshine yellow socks, even though I don't do it often.
^
Pointless sentence above.

Her sexuality was incidental and obsessing over the sexual leanings of a minor character isn't them rubbing your face in it - it's you getting sidetracked by your own bigotry.

Wow, MY bigotry? Not YOUR bigotry to people like me who are raising things which aren't even sexuality based as the actual problem? Again, I've already said that it's not her sexuality that's the problem, but it's part of what's so jarring about it all. It's the pointlessness of the sentence which means it's not being used for anything other than for the writers to put that message out to the audience.

Again, Captain Jack? No issue. His sexuality wasn't highlighted or anything. It just was. Ianto Jones? It wasn't highlighted in the episode he appeared in either. So I have issue with one but not the other? Really?

The issue is the writers who are putting these in willy-nilly and it becomes very jarring to some viewers. Something which should be intergrated well into the story (again, check out Captain Jack Harkness), instead becomes a break in the whole scene, and anything that is done then is VERY noticable. And it has been done twice so far out of four episodes, it's become VERY noticable.

Episode 2, Planet Desolation, the Female alien comments that her wife is dead too. Not an issue content wise, but the way it was done was not. No hint of marriage or relationship, then we come out with it and it's just so she can say it's "her wife" that's been killed too. But that one at least was part of the story (not very well, but at least it tried). And now in Episode 4, right at the start, we get a "Who are you?" which begs people to pay attention, and we get a "I'm married to your niece.". So it's very clearly designed to be put front and centre. (But again, as it could easily have not been included and it wouldn't have changed a thing, it's clearly an intended message).

Which means either the writers are REALLY bad (which is very likely at the moment I'd say), or they are deliberately trying very hard to integrating these parts in to push their messages across.

 

[cheesyboy]

@Meddling-Monk I've already explained the purpose of that line. You've floated the idea that you could do it another way, but why bother? This was only, what, 4 words? It carried the water it needed to.

She could have said "I'm married to your nephew". Would that have bothered you?

She was an incidental supporting character, who was gay. It only detracts from the show if her sexuality bothers you. And, really, that's on you.

 

[Meddling-Monk]

@cheesyboy

And what? That means it gives you or anyone else the right to call me a bigot or anything like that? I'm commenting on the show and how it's going about doing certain things badly. And some posters decide to attack another poster instead by strawmanning their posts and trying to paint them in a negative light and browbeat them down.

Who's the bigot there? Double standards much?

She could have said "I'm married to your nephew". Would that have bothered you?

Yes. Because even as a minor character in the episode with very few scenes overall, as part of the starting scene, and with expositional information, they are actually far more important than what you are making out. They will stand out in particular as the "villian" asked them who they were and how they were related, even though they dismissed them despite the relation anyway. So why provide that information? That will be on viewers minds for a bit.

But in this case here and the last case (episode 2 and 4), two references of lesbian relationships were put into the show VERY clunkily, making them stand out unnecessarily. That's poor writing by the writers, or it's them deliberately pushing a message. And I seriously doubt the writers are that incompetent. Either that, or I'm giving far too much credit to this writing team.

 

[Tombstone]

And I seriously doubt the writers are that incompetent. Either that, or I'm giving far too much credit to this writing team.

To be fair, that's pretty possible really lol. The writers of this show have shown time and time again just how incompetent they are, with all their many many deus ex machina endings over the seasons of the show and their plotholes and their screwdriver-getoutoftrouble-clause and their total mis-use of the talents of Peter Capaldi. The one thing that I have become fairly certain of throughout the seasons is that competency is not a trait the writers score terribly highly in

However, I am also not naïve enough to not have noticed that the BBC has an extremely clear and blatant agenda in all of their broadcasting in recent years, so maybe its all a combination of the two things rather than either one.

 

[cheesyboy]

@cheesyboy

And what? That means it gives you or anyone else the right to call me a bigot or anything like that? I'm commenting on the show and how it's going about doing certain things badly. And some posters decide to attack another poster instead by strawmanning their posts and trying to paint them in a negative light and browbeat them down.

Who's the bigot there? Double standards much?



Yes. Because even as a minor character in the episode with very few scenes overall, as part of the starting scene, and with expositional information, they are actually far more important than what you are making out. They will stand out in particular as the "villian" asked them who they were and how they were related, even though they dismissed them despite the relation anyway. So why provide that information? That will be on viewers minds for a bit.

But in this case here and the last case (episode 2 and 4), two references of lesbian relationships were put into the show VERY clunkily, making them stand out unnecessarily. That's poor writing by the writers, or it's them deliberately pushing a message. And I seriously doubt the writers are that incompetent. Either that, or I'm giving far too much credit to this writing team.

This is all very garbled.

Is your problem with how 'clunky' it is for her to say she's married to one of his relatives, or is the problem that it's a whopping second mention of homosexual relationships in one series?

We've had a significant amount more screen time dedicated to straight relationships.

And it's not 'pushing a message' or setting some sort of agenda to write a world how you see the world. As with anything (at least, anything not fed through a committee-sausage-machine), you see the vision conjured in the eyes of the writer, reflecting their sensibilities.

 

[Sasahara]

@Meddling-Monk I've already explained the purpose of that line. You've floated the idea that you could do it another way, but why bother? This was only, what, 4 words? It carried the water it needed to.

She could have said "I'm married to your nephew". Would that have bothered you?

She was an incidental supporting character, who was gay. It only detracts from the show if her sexuality bothers you. And, really, that's on you.

I think the point Meddlign Monk is trying to make, is the line was very obviously shoehorned in as a tick box exercise to fulfill a diversity check list the producers have.

In the context of the situation any self respecting woman asked that question (lesbian or not) by her boss would have stated her job title. Not drawing attention to a the fact she may have only got the job because she is related to his niece.

Also based on the his attitude he doesn't seem the type that would have employed random relatives anyway.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[cheesyboy]

I think the point Meddlign Monk is trying to make, is the line was very obviously shoehorned in as a tick box exercise to fulfill a diversity check list the producers have.

In the context of the situation any self respecting woman asked that question (lesbian or not) by her boss would have stated her job title. Not drawing attention to a the fact she may have only got the job because she is related to his niece.

Also based on the his attitude he doesn't seem the type that would have employed random relatives anyway.

1.

it's not 'pushing a message' or setting some sort of agenda to write a world how you see the world. As with anything (at least, anything not fed through a committee-sausage-machine), you see the vision conjured in the eyes of the writer, reflecting their sensibilities.

2.

The point of that moment was character setting the awful businessman guy. He's so narcissistic and utterly disinterested in the people ferreting around on his behalf that he was unaware who the wife of his niece even was. Next thing, he sacks the manager of his new hotel like swatting a fly. It seemed natural because we'd built his personality very quickly.

3. Ever heard of Trump?

 

[cheesyboy]

I think the problem is that, as you say:


The way to do it is along similar lines of how Jack Harkness's romances were sometimes handled - They just did it, as if it were the most common ocurrence ever. If you have an agenda like this, that's how you get people to accept it - You don't keep pointing it out and drawing attention to it, you just portray it as normal. Looking at a lot of historical photos and accounts, people tend to mention the weird, unusual, remarkable things, while the normal everyday ones aren't often even mentioned because they're taken as given.

We've had two of these. one where someone's talking about the family they've left behind, or who've died or something. Pretty natural to mention your wife/husband. And another where some ******** businessman is so dismissive that he doesn't even remember what's significant about the employee who his brother/sister's kid has married.

I really don't see how much more 'normal' they could make it. Maybe have a family scene with two mums - do you think we would get fewer 'shoving it down our throats' comments in that instance?

 

[Tombstone]

This is an example of a time when I am glad that I am a bigot, makes things all so much easier to coast along with, without ending up overly involved in arguments or debates

 

[jpaul]

or is the problem that it's a whopping second mention of homosexual relationships in one series?

he - MM - has already clearly answered that, to my mind .. it was an unnecessary (agree) and disjoint/cliunky bite in the dialogue.

It was, also, not just the four words, the previous and next words too - a conspiratorial and intentional dialogue exchange, like slapstick, 'he's behind you, no he isn't'.
You would never see that in a purely adult oriented (non-farce) drama, and maybe, the conclusion is that a dual purpose adult/child drama, which this tries to be, is (self-evidently?) difficult to write in a virtue signalling world.

These bites can be counterproductive, re-enforcing prejudices too, presented in this un-natural fashion.

Maybe the writer intentionally intended to provoke discussions, like these ?, amongst adults.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[aardvark]

they've done this for at least the last 10 seasons, its just the way dr who works now.
Sure it stands out but its a kids show so who cares.

 

[ivrytwr3]

And, back to the episode. Very creepy and back to the 'hide behind the sofa' Doctor Who - spiders/CGI made my hairs stand on end!

Still not fully onboard with JW, but there were a few standout moments for her.

 

[Efour]

MEh im already over it. I cant even be arsed to download and watch It. maybe ill binge a few when its near the end of the series.
Not a terrible doctor but gonna need some time to develop some screen presence.

 

[SPG]

Oh dear...

That first episode was crap, even worse than Matt Smith time to put Dr Who to bed for another 5-10 years.

 

[ivrytwr3]

I enjoyed Matt Smith's Doctor. Smith was quirky, was able to give a great Doctor speech and had screen presence as the Doctor despite his young age. However, the actor cannot help when some of the scripts are pants.