Doctor Who

Werewolf said:
Just as well we've still got a rather old white guy with grey hair who looked like he'd just stepped off the set of Scrooge where he played the main character then.

It never fails to amuse me that people complain about a character changing in a series where one of it's primary defining features is that the main character has changed in almost every single aspect over the years, from simple things like hair colour, to age, personality*, height, weight etc.


*And he's run pretty much the full range of personalities including at times quite a callous seeming one, to one that cares massively, from one who'd do almost anything to avoid killing, to someone who IIRC consigned millions/billions of sentients to death or a fate worse than death.
Click to expand...
As mentioned before it’s not the diversity it’s the associated preachy wokery.
 
n111ck said:
As mentioned before it’s not the diversity it’s the associated preachy wokery.
Click to expand...

Exactly, diversity itself doesn't make a show bad, unless it's meant to be historically accurate....

Even so, it can still work if the writers and actors respect the character and IP. It doesn't work if the replacement and writers are woke and preachy.
 
Last edited:
ebilcake said:
Exactly, diversity itself doesn't make a show bad, unless it's meant to be historically accurate....

Even so, it can still work if the writers and actors respect the character and IP. It doesn't work if the replacement and writers are woke and preachy.
Click to expand...

Yes - it works when the diversity element is incidental to the character and not their sole reason for existing.

Look at Rose in ep 1 - they clearly spent 5 mins finding any actor that was trans rather than a good actor - they then chucked them into a few scenes to go through the usual trans tropes (mis gendering / pro nouns) and then ultimately the character was essentially trivialised into a plot 'macguffin' just so Tate could say "binary / non binary". Is that really good representation of minority groups or simply cliched wokery..
 
See it from the other side though.

If you were a trans person watching you'd be happy that there was someone like you being represented and all the trauma and issies that they face on a more than likely daily basis, or at least have done in the past are being brought up and talked about. In the hope that people understand and might actually react positively.
To them it's not preachy or woke but important and a real issue. Same could be said of the UNIT advisor in the wheelchair not being able to get places due to limited wheelchair access. Those small things can mean a lot to those affected.

I've never seen it but apparently Yasmin is good in the Netflix show she stars in. So maybe she just wasn't given enough to do so people can see how good an actress she is.
 
n111ck said:
Yes - it works when the diversity element is incidental to the character and not their sole reason for existing.

Look at Rose in ep 1 - they clearly spent 5 mins finding any actor that was trans rather than a good actor - they then chucked them into a few scenes to go through the usual trans tropes (mis gendering / pro nouns) and then ultimately the character was essentially trivialised into a plot 'macguffin' just so Tate could say "binary / non binary". Is that really good representation of minority groups or simply cliched wokery..
Click to expand...

When characters or people in general announce their gender, sexuality (whatever).. like this is their main identity, then I have to conclude they're incredibly shallow. That's not a good start for a character.

I can't imagine the pool of good trans actors is particularly rich tbh, it's less than 0.5% of the population. :D
 
Last edited:
The problem is that “diversity” has been taken to ridiculous extremes. For example there was a news article last night complaining that non-white wheelchair users were “underrepresented” on television.

The fundamental issue I have is this imagined and misplaced right to be “represented”. You should be given a job based on your ability and merit. Not because you’re there to make up some quota because of your gender, ethnicity, sexuality.

People should be offered equal opportunities. Not forcibly made equal!
 
Last edited:
steve5424 said:
But how do you create equality when it's not there? You need to offer jobs to those minorities.
Click to expand...
if those minorities are good enough to get the jobs they can compete for them like everyone else does!

Are you suggesting minorities aren’t as capable as other groups and need preferential treatment?

The reality is these people asking “representation” and “equity” are just asking for reverse discrimination against other groups.
 
Last edited:
Malevolence said:
We used to have an Equality & Diversity Officer at one of my previous places of work. She was an absolute ******* nightmare.
Click to expand...
They often are....those officers and Health and Safety Officers, in my experiences are both often absolute ******** nightmares. A breeding ground of careers for Karens (and whatever the male equivalent of a Karen is)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom