Wow, what a great topic! I believe that "what is controversial" depends on the individual watching the show or episode in question. I have learned from reading metas (such as this one) that what is controversial for someone else, may not be for me. It really depends on your background (social et al
( ... )
I pretty much agree with you 100% as regards Sarah Jane (I thought she was a bit limp, though I like her a lot more now), Leela (though I always liked her and her knife!) Romana (I was a bigger fan of Lalla, but just having watched Key to Time, RomanaI was pretty awesome) Tegan (yes, too shouty!!) Nyssa (I actually know a girl named after Nyssa).
I like that there is more diversity now as well.
The "girl who waited" is such an old canard, needs to be put out of its misery. My least favorite aspect of New Who.
When I started watching Classic Who, I was actually positively surprised by the portrayal of female characters I saw, having fully expected the generation gap to come with a plethora of issues with sex and race (although it should be noted I've seen very few episodes from the 60s, so my opinion is based on Doctors 3-7).
And while there are definitely cringe-worthy moments, I've also found myself very happy with the characterisations throughout the series. There's a prevailing idea, I think, of the Classic Female Companion being a young woman whose scream can shatter glass and who has to be rescued constantly; while there's definitely foundation for that stereotype, I've personally found that it's indeed nothing more than a stereotype.
The female characters in Doctor Who are allowed their own personalities. They're not only there to ask questions and pose as eyecandy; Liz is not Jo is not Sarah Jane is not Leela, etc. Many also get their share of character development (although some of it tends to happen off-screen). In that respect
( ... )
There's a prevailing idea, I think, of the Classic Female Companion being a young woman whose scream can shatter glass and who has to be rescued constantly; while there's definitely foundation for that stereotype, I've personally found that it's indeed nothing more than a stereotype. I have to say, that until I watched the series again--as compared to female roles now--I bought into the Who females as stereotypes who, think I said tripped on twigs, rather than holding positions, or having accomplishments. My favorite thing to say was that their function was to ask "What shall we do Doctor, and trip on twigs". But looking at Sarah Jane's first day with the Third Doctor, she deserves, from me, a sincere apology and second look. The Classic Who female held position. The Doctor Assistant or not, Liz was hired because of her qualifications. Jo wasn't a scientist, but she was qualified as the Doctor assistant with other skills. As Jo knew how to fly helicopters and I think had martial arts--she was closer to a soldier than a
( ... )
I am always truly amazed by fans--of all ethnic backgrounds-- who think that the Doctor's reaction to Martha's question about the exisitence of the slave trade--bascially he insist it doesn't exist--is Politically correct because it proves the Doctor doesn't see "color".
This is similar to the issue a lot of people have taken with Moffat's tweet about how the Doctor presumably wouldn't understand what you're talking about if you use the words "gay" and "straight". Being blind to things like race and sexuality isn't a good thing - it's a sign of ignorance and lack of understanding of minorities' life experiences.
To say that the Doctor, who is supposed to be someone who readily questions authority and battles injustice, doesn't know about those things is more than just a little insulting. Because it means he doesn't understand the issues related to them, ranging from everyday discrimination to genocide.
"Problematic" doesn't really begin to cover it. Especially since genocide is a very present theme in NuWho.
I'm not sure I understand the use of the phrase "politically correct." To me it means trying to avoid doing or saying things that are offensive. Is that what the new Who primarily does? Was the old who deliberately offensive by contrast? To me, something like Talons of Weng Chiang is kind of iffy because of outmoded stereotypical portrayals of Chinese culture -- but I don't think they were trying to avoid being "politically correct" by the way they made their portrayal in that series; I think they acted out of ignorance. (Sherlock episode "the blind banker" also made me wince
( ... )
Was the old who deliberately offensive by contrast? To me, something like Talons of Weng Chiang is kind of iffy because of outmoded stereotypical portrayals of Chinese culture -- but I don't think they were trying to avoid being "politically correct" by the way they made their portrayal in that series; I think they acted out of ignorance. Notes from that time would suggest they were were very aware of the 'possible' offensive quality of the program, thus the very heated discussion about "privilage".
Remember this is the BBC, the same network that presented the Black and White Minstrel Show until the mid seventies, inspite of protest without and within the network. From everything I've read, their (BBC Head office) attitude towards the Weng Chiang episode was very similar to their attitude when confronted about the Black and White Minstrel show.
Or, one might say, "the inclusion of Martha Jones as the first companion of color is a bow to political correctness" -- if so then I have no problem with it Martha as a token character
( ... )
Thanks for the information about the BBC, which I did not know.
I think Freema is amazing and I am really glad she was cast. I mean, whether or not she was hired as a "token" I think she was much more because of her talent and also, I think her character is pretty well written.
From everything RTD has said, he hired Freema because he liked her and appreciated. However nothing he says indicates that he was unaware that she is a Woman of Color, or the challenge this posed when introducing this character as a Companion to a Time Traveler. And I agree, if we follow Martha's growth from Smith and Jones, throughout Torchwood, she was very developed
( ... )
Back on track with something that was cited as quite controversial last year - the inclusion of Hitler in season six.
Consider the fact that the Big Bad of Doctor Who since the program started airing in 1963 has been the Daleks, an extra-terrestrial race set on killing everything that isn't exactly like them, and quite obviously based on Nazis. Genocide has also been a frequent staple of Who stories; particularly NuWho, with the destruction of Gallifrey
( ... )
Good points all around. The usual approach to "Killing Hitler" in science fiction is the illusion that such an act would destroy the future.
Moffat might have intented putting Hitler in the closet as a metaphor of the rule that bringing up Hitler and the Nazi as the ultimate evil ends a debate. If he feel that such a rule is a thinly veiled excuse to avoid talking about Hitler and the Nazi party and their evil I agree. Hitler in comedy--think of how long the Producers has run on Broadway. However, as you pointed this program IS intended for a young audience. Is the story line age appropriate. Bad Taste is a given, but didn't the episode start with the naked Doctor hiding under a womans hoop skirts. Don't think Moffat is concerned with "taste".
Given the ethnic climate of our societies can we afford to allow young peple to think of a monster like this--as a comedic figure who is considered by humans in the future to be Less evil than River Song, who only crime shooting the Doctor?
It should, perhaps, be pointed out that I personally didn't think much of Hitler when he appeared in that episode. Hitler as a source of comedy isn't a new thing - it wasn't until afterwards when I started to think of the wider implications of his portrayal and other themes in Doctor Who that it started to bother me.
Godwin's Law in all honour, but I can't help but feel that in the end Hitler's appearance was absolutely pointless. And that makes me squint a bit.
Not a single thing about the setting affected the main plot; River and the Doctor's encounter, the introduction of the Tesseract, everything could've been played out somewhere completely different. That Moffat chose Nazi Germany and playing an appearance by Hitler for laughs; what does that tell us about Moffat's reasoning when writing the episode?
That's what makes me side-eye the episode the most. Historical atrocities shouldn't be swept under a rug or described in dull, graphic detail, reducing lives to numbers as we nod solemnly in respect for the dead. That Hitler is
( ... )
But like it or not, Hitler is a symbol of genocide. in the DW fictional univers, so is the Doctor. I was in fact shocked when the little petty people identified River Song as a great criminal for killing the Doctor rather than the Doctor. In the Cartoon he is accused of destroying 17 planets, I imagine inhabited, and has 3005 crimes from petty to destruction of planets, (I imagine the destruction of Gallifrey pretty much annihilated any other planets in the system!) going back 3000 years.
Comments 55
Reply
Reply
I like that there is more diversity now as well.
The "girl who waited" is such an old canard, needs to be put out of its misery. My least favorite aspect of New Who.
Reply
And while there are definitely cringe-worthy moments, I've also found myself very happy with the characterisations throughout the series. There's a prevailing idea, I think, of the Classic Female Companion being a young woman whose scream can shatter glass and who has to be rescued constantly; while there's definitely foundation for that stereotype, I've personally found that it's indeed nothing more than a stereotype.
The female characters in Doctor Who are allowed their own personalities. They're not only there to ask questions and pose as eyecandy; Liz is not Jo is not Sarah Jane is not Leela, etc. Many also get their share of character development (although some of it tends to happen off-screen). In that respect ( ... )
Reply
Reply
This is similar to the issue a lot of people have taken with Moffat's tweet about how the Doctor presumably wouldn't understand what you're talking about if you use the words "gay" and "straight". Being blind to things like race and sexuality isn't a good thing - it's a sign of ignorance and lack of understanding of minorities' life experiences.
To say that the Doctor, who is supposed to be someone who readily questions authority and battles injustice, doesn't know about those things is more than just a little insulting. Because it means he doesn't understand the issues related to them, ranging from everyday discrimination to genocide.
"Problematic" doesn't really begin to cover it. Especially since genocide is a very present theme in NuWho.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Remember this is the BBC, the same network that presented the Black and White Minstrel Show until the mid seventies, inspite of protest without and within the network. From everything I've read, their (BBC Head office) attitude towards the Weng Chiang episode was very similar to their attitude when confronted about the Black and White Minstrel show.
Or, one might say, "the inclusion of Martha Jones as the first companion of color is a bow to political correctness" -- if so then I have no problem with it Martha as a token character ( ... )
Reply
I think Freema is amazing and I am really glad she was cast. I mean, whether or not she was hired as a "token" I think she was much more because of her talent and also, I think her character is pretty well written.
Reply
Reply
Consider the fact that the Big Bad of Doctor Who since the program started airing in 1963 has been the Daleks, an extra-terrestrial race set on killing everything that isn't exactly like them, and quite obviously based on Nazis. Genocide has also been a frequent staple of Who stories; particularly NuWho, with the destruction of Gallifrey ( ... )
Reply
Good points all around. The usual approach to "Killing Hitler" in science fiction is the illusion that such an act would destroy the future.
Moffat might have intented putting Hitler in the closet as a metaphor of the rule that bringing up Hitler and the Nazi as the ultimate evil ends a debate. If he feel that such a rule is a thinly veiled excuse to avoid talking about Hitler and the Nazi party and their evil I agree. Hitler in comedy--think of how long the Producers has run on Broadway.
However, as you pointed this program IS intended for a young audience. Is the story line age appropriate. Bad Taste is a given, but didn't the episode start with the naked Doctor hiding under a womans hoop skirts. Don't think Moffat is concerned with "taste".
Given the ethnic climate of our societies can we afford to allow young peple to think of a monster like this--as a comedic figure who is considered by humans in the future to be Less evil than River Song, who only crime shooting the Doctor?
Reply
Godwin's Law in all honour, but I can't help but feel that in the end Hitler's appearance was absolutely pointless. And that makes me squint a bit.
Not a single thing about the setting affected the main plot; River and the Doctor's encounter, the introduction of the Tesseract, everything could've been played out somewhere completely different. That Moffat chose Nazi Germany and playing an appearance by Hitler for laughs; what does that tell us about Moffat's reasoning when writing the episode?
That's what makes me side-eye the episode the most. Historical atrocities shouldn't be swept under a rug or described in dull, graphic detail, reducing lives to numbers as we nod solemnly in respect for the dead. That Hitler is ( ... )
Reply
http://youtu.be/mhtwPxbokCE
Reply
Leave a comment