Doctor Who

VincentHanna said:
Weird that this sounds exactly the same as the supposed argument that Kathleen Kennedy is "ruining star wars" with "femanist SJW agendas"
Click to expand...

Hardly weird at all when it's plain as day to see. Whether you like stuff like that or not is another question.

Do people here actually have evidence that the show runner of Dr Who is being forced by the BBC to put in things to fulfil quotas?
Click to expand...

Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary for Doctor Who or Star Wars? I'm fairly certain not also.

All we do have, is that something that was previously at best alluded to or made part of the world itself, without being front and center is now being made front and center by breaking the story and breaking immersion by being completely disjuncted from how the rest of the TV or Movie flows naturally, making these points stand out unnecessarily (or possibly, necessary?). But there is no doubt it is now front and center. As to who is making this so apparent now is anyones guess however. Disney or Lucasfilm/Kathleen Kennedy? BBC or Chibnall? I don't think anyone really cares, just that they hate it when it's being done is such a bullish way when it wasn't part of how it was before. Which is the case of Star Wars and Nu Doctor Who.
 
VincentHanna said:
Do people here actually have evidence that the show runner of Dr Who is being forced by the BBC to put in things to fulfil quotas?
Click to expand...

Here ya go !!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/production/articles/diversity

The text you're interested in is...
The BBC diversity and inclusion strategy sets targets to ensure that diversity is hardwired into everything that we do.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, the BBC is legally required by their own stupid guidelines to choose people based on diversity and not ability.
 
Moonpie2 said:
Here ya go !!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/production/articles/diversity

The text you're interested in is...

In a nutshell, the BBC is legally required by their own stupid guidelines to choose people based on diversity and not ability.
Click to expand...
Don't believe that for a second, they aren't just putting in actors of different ethnicity for the hell of it. They will still choose the best person for that role.

IMO only those thinking about and obsessing over so called 'SJW' and diversity issues will notice them. I just watch a film or show and enjoy it. I do not think about who is in it or what their colour is or what disability they may have.

Diversity is a normal everyday thing in this modern world.

Back to This week's Who episode. I did enjoy it and am looking forward to next weeks one.
 
They're not doing it "for the hell of it" though.
They're doing it because they HAVE to.
(unless the story requires specifics, such as Rosa Parks being a black woman)

However you're free to interpret the BBC Diversity charter any way you like. :)
 
steve5424 said:
I just watch a film or show and enjoy it. I do not think about who is in it or what their colour is or what disability they may have
Click to expand...

Must admit I do think about who is playing who in things..example being the recent casting for The Witcher tv series, where the producers had asked for a BAME (Black, Asian, Minority Ethic) actress to play Ciri (an extremely pale, fair haired character). In the end they didn't cast a BAME actress but if they had I would have scoffed at the character in the show. When casting "original" characters I don't see much of a problem but when casting specific characters I do look to see who is playing the character. I never really quite gelled with Starbuck being a woman in Battlestar Galactica for example, as Starbuck to me will always be Dirk Benedict. This is something which isn't just down to race or sex of course..if they cast Stephen Merchant as James Bond I would equally scoff as he isn't the right physical shape to play James Bond.

In the case of the companions on Dr Who, cant say that I am bothered by the choice of actors for their parts..yes, it does look a little like a Benetton advert but to be honest I think that given the god awful standard of the shows writing, the cast is the least of their problems. The writers are the problem and as it stands currently, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the show ends up cancelled before the end of next year. One could even argue that being cancelled for a bit is precisely whats needed.
 
[ slight aside - BBC diversity at play - Fiona Bruce now for question time ? ... I don't think JCW is, just, a victim of the script/directors ]
 
No its a brexit allegory the doctor is Theresa May and King James - is he, entitled JacobRM , or Nigel Farage .. also inspired by the Ring ? and Columbo.

These latter ones are better than Chibnalls attempts, maybe he was given too many episodes ?
 
Absolute ******* guff! Says something when my ten year old Godson, who is a huge Dr Who fan, decided to go and check his homework ten minutes into last night's episode.
 
Last edited:
If they want to go with the proper time period stuff I find it amazing how they suddenly discount racism that was rife back in those times and no one mentions anything about the companions.

Waste of Alan Cumming also.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Because it wasn't rife back then, at least not in 1600s England. In fact, a coloured person in Elizabethan and Stewart era England was most likely to be a well-to-do merchant and slave owner. The fact that King James responds so well to Ryan, expecting him to be a person of standing, suggests the writers have done at least some reading on their history.
Religion and gender were far more pressing issues than race itself.


Not really - James I &IV was well-known for having had suspiciously close friendships with men, the nature of which is still heavily debated... especially since the personal accounts of some such men can be taken either way! ;)
Using Alan to portray some of those subtleties worked well, I thought, albeit in a modern style. However, the real James was quite solemn and calm, rather than flamboyant like Alan tends to be.

It was still a pretty duff episode, though and Bradley Walsh did more to lead this one episode than The Doctor has to date.
Click to expand...
Agreed, she isn't coming over as authoritative as previous Doctors.
I thought Alan Cumming was great.
Andi.
 
While not being too bothered about a woman playing the character, i saw a comment on another forum regarding her portrayal as channeling Paul Whitehouse's "brilliant!" Character off the fastshow which hits it on the head.

While the writing is pretty appalling, her doctor just doesn't give the impression that she could rip the universe apart if she ever got mad at a dalek.
 
Malevolence said:
Absolute ******* guff! Says something when my ten year old Godson, who is a huge Dr Who fan, decided to go and check his homework ten minutes into last night's episode.
Click to expand...
I think this is a doctor who spin off show gone wrong and they forgot to change the name.

Where's the imagination gone and did bbc cut he budget in half or something?


Anyone know the children's show horrible histories, is it a lot like this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom