Bleeding Cool claims Ace was the first SJW companion

Here's Bleeding Cool trying to prop up Ace as the ultimate SJW companion

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/07/06/doctor-who-ace-the-doctors-social-justice-warrior-companion-opinion/

There is a deleted scene in Battlefield of Ace meeting the Brigadier in which she does come across as an unlikable feminist cunt.

Bleeding Cunt wrote:I really don’t get all the complaints about the current series of BBC‘s Doctor Who having too much politics.

That is NOT the issue and you know it.

Bleeding Cunt wrote:The series always had politics embedded at its core: virtually every Science Fiction, spy or crime TV series created in the UK in the 60’s were about fighting fascism as Britain continued to recover from World War II. Doctor Who was no different: the Daleks were inspired by the Nazis from the get-go. Their voices were an exaggerated version of how cartoon Nazis talked in movies. The writers and producers of Doctor Who always wore their antifascism on their sleeves with pride.

Nobody has ever fucking denied that, you disingenuous cretin.

Bleeding Cunt wrote:In 1987, Andrew Cartmel became the script editor of the show and had ambitious plans. He was a card-carrying anti-Thatcherite...

Indeed, rather unlike his right-wing Blairite successor Matt Strevens. I don't imagine Cartmel approved of the lump of explicitly right-wing, pro-corporate, anti-worker propaganda known as "Kerblam" either.

Bleeding Cunt wrote:He wanted a feminist companion who didn’t need rescuing.

So did we. Isn't it curious that the independently-minded Ace and Romana are the most universally popular companions on what people like you are so eager to dismiss as a reactionary, patriarchal, misogynistic shithole of a forum? It's almost as if we don't have a problem with strong female characters at all, and actually object to your hypocritical, bigoted hatred of men.

Bleeding Cunt wrote:She was the most overt “Social Justice Warrior” out of all the companions and nobody ever complained.

Because back then "social justice" actually meant something other than a mirror image of 1950s-style bigotry with the opposite groups on the receiving end of mistreatment and injustice.

Bleeding Cunt wrote:She hated racism and felt ashamed when she shouted a racist word at a friend.

That's because she was an individualist liberal capable of basic human empathy who judged people on the content of their characters and understood that hatred, abuse and discrimination against innocent people on the basis of involuntary birth characteristics is always wrong. Why aren't you?

Bleeding Cunt wrote:Russell T. Davies, Steven Moffat, Chris Chibnall, and many of the writers were fans of his era.

Davies and Moffat have both publicly slagged off the McCoy era in interviews. Repeatedly.

Bleeding Cunt wrote:You can find traces of Ace in many of the current show’s companions, but none of them are as complex or specific as she was.

Yaz does fall ever so slightly short, doesn't she? The only thing she's missing is a single discernable personality trait.

The problem I think is it's a generational thing.

The article talks about the politics of the show's past, but the writers of the 1960's who wrote the Daleks as an allegory for the Nazis, had lived close to those horrifying years and were working through genuinely apocalyptic fears about Nazism or nuclear Armageddon. And they gave us a show that had massive and believable stakes as a result, despite its budgetary limitations.

Today's crop seem to be writing to keep sweet a sheltered generation of activists who's freak-out fears amount to a few naughty words and improper pronouns.

Andrew Cartmel did bring his politics to the show, but I think (certainly at the time) that was a good thing. He believed Doctor Who should be important and speak to adult concerns. And certainly he was what was needed to give the show some kind of values and stable base code again after the nihilistic mess of the JNT/Saward/Levine years had made that go haywire (Ian Levine being very much to the show then what the SJWs are to it now).

And it chimed with the times enough to stand the test of time. The urban backdrop of Remembrance of the Daleks with fascist groups does feel real, and does add dimension to the Daleks by giving them humans seemingly on a similar page to them to interact with and eventually betray.

In Ghostlight, Ace's line "white kids firebombed it" is a bit on the nose, but actually feels like it's speaking to the miserable social decay of Thatcher's Britain as it was lived by the youth, rather than speaking to some out of touch diversity marketing group or students wanting to demand more tokenist 'representation'.

ClockworkOcean wrote:Davies and Moffat have both publicly slagged off the McCoy era in interviews. Repeatedly.

It doesn't change what you are saying here but Moffat at least slagged off all eras of Dr Who up to 1989 with the sole exception of the Davison years which he praises as being well constructed and having the best leading man of the classic series run. So he doesn't discriminate. Too much.

Moffat dismisses Tom Baker as a drunken old lardie. I bet that was a good opener to the meeting where he asked Baker to pop back for his cameo in "The Day of the Doctor" ...

He disregards Hartnell with a simple "an old guy ... who cant remember his lines".

He generally dismissed the writers of the classic show as "middle of the range hacks" who couldnt get work outside of Dr Who (with notable exceptions such as Douglas Adams). I assume he includes Dicks, Hulke, Holmes Stephen Gallagher and Johny Byrne in this but he doesn't clarify.

The actors / actresses who played Troughton's companions were "unimaginably bad"  - he queried how they got equity cards.

He dismissed 60's Who as uniformly bad, rating only the pilot episode and saying that nothing else was worthy of being broadcast. He claims it was significantly worse than other 60's tv.

Colour Who was at least watchable but, at the same time, laughable.

The classic series was aimed at 11 year olds. The New Adventure books reinterpreted the show for Adults. Successfully.

The only person in this interview who comes across as a bigger arsehole than Moffat is Paul Cornell.

Sorry if this is off-topic.

Tanmann wrote:There is a deleted scene in Battlefield of Ace meeting the Brigadier in which she does come across as an unlikable feminist cunt.

She's like that for more than just one scene in the extended DVD cut of the story. I did find it a bit upsetting she'd act with such hostility around the Brigadier. Thankfully they felt they didn't need to include that in the televised version.

So did we. Isn't it curious that the independently-minded Ace and Romana are the most universally popular companions on what people like you are so eager to dismiss as a reactionary, patriarchal, misogynistic shithole of a forum? It's almost as if we don't have a problem with strong female characters at all, and actually object to your hypocritical, bigoted hatred of men.

This is what I've been saying for ages. (I'm sure you're all bored to death of it but its still true.) A very tiny percentage of sci fi fans, or indeed the general public have a problem with female led series or female created forms of entertainment to the point where its not an issue at all.

Do you know what the best selling albums in the UK of the twenty first century are? 21 by Adele and Back to Black by Amy Winehouse. Where were all the misogynistic alt righters who have apparently ruined Jodie's chances campaigning to have Amy's album sabotaged to stop a Jewish, bisexual woman smashing records set by straight guys?  

There are hundreds of female led shows and films all over the world. There have been since the 70s. From Mrs Peel to The Bride with White Hair to Xena to Nikita, none of these characters were rejected because they were women.

These pro Jodies simply resort to making out that the public still have a problem with female heroes because they can't answer genuine critics of series 11.

Indeed, rather unlike his right-wing Blairite successor Matt Strevens. I don't imagine Cartmel approved of the lump of explicitly right-wing, pro-corporate, anti-worker propaganda known as "Kerblam" either.

Thats the irony. Identity politics is often used by right wing people to make themselves look left wing. John Pilger did an excellent video on it which I'll try and find.

He brought up Obama and Tony Blair as prime examples. Both war mongerers but both were seen by idiots as a step forward because they hid behind identity politics. (Obama was the first black President, Tony Blair had a large amount of women in his cabinet, the "Blair babes.")

Meanwhile none of these idiots will even know who Tulsi Gabbard is, a genuine female hero, and an underdog Presidential candidate.

She's like that for more than just one scene in the extended DVD cut of the story. I did find it a bit upsetting she'd act with such hostility around the Brigadier. Thankfully they felt they didn't need to include that in the televised version.

I felt she was just more stroppy in that scene with the Brig, rather than a misandrist.

Even if Ace was a feminist that doesn't mean the new who companions have to be. Classic Who did make some mistakes too.

Isn't it funny how the goal posts shift for these people. One minute when its convenient for them not to have to write the Doctor in character, not to have to write the Master in character, have the Doctor shag his 19 year old companion etc, its "DOCTOR WHO IS ALL ABOUT CHANGE SO WE CAN'T STICK TO ANY CONVENTIONS FROM THE SHOW" and "CLASSIC WHO WAS A JOKE, THE NEW ONE HAD TO BE DIFFERENT."

Then however when its convenient for them to not bother keeping up a story arc, like everyone being aware of aliens, or to turn it into their own propaganda piece, they try and make out "CLASSIC WHO DID THIS IN ONE STORY SO WE HAVE TO STICK TO IT, WE'RE THE ONES BEING FAITHFUL" and they'll sight one story with a minor continuity blip like the UNIT dating, or one story with a slight political metaphor like Peladon, neither of which are comparable to back up their point?

burrunjor wrote: I felt she was just more stroppy in that scene with the Brig, rather than a misandrist.

I don't mind her being stroppy, I just wish her annoyance with the Brig had not lasted as long as it did in the extended version. It was just sad to see two great characters not really clicking. She's really cool in the rest of the story, though.

burrunjor wrote:Then however when its convenient for them to not bother keeping up a story arc, like everyone being aware of aliens, or to turn it into their own propaganda piece, they try and make out "CLASSIC WHO DID THIS IN ONE STORY SO WE HAVE TO STICK TO IT, WE'RE THE ONES BEING FAITHFUL" and they'll sight one story with a minor continuity blip like the UNIT dating, or one story with a slight political metaphor like Peladon, neither of which are comparable to back up their point?

Well, to play Devil's Advocate I suppose you could charitably say they're arguing that there are things as fans we have been prepared to be forgiving about concerning the classic show previously, and therefore prompting us to question what is it that makes it different to us and makes the New Series examples more of a deal-breaker for us that don't inspire the same forgiveness?

And the key to a robust or cathartic argument is knowing and understanding why and how to articulate why.

Okay thinking about it, I was probably wrong to say they mostly genuinely want to generate questions and discussions, rather than just enact an immediate pownage, or lay some bait..... Certainly when a particular disingenuous and persnickety Planet Mondas moderator laid his bait to me, I thought I saw a chance to give a winning counter-point that would force him to concede where I'm coming from, but that didn't happen because that wasn't his interest or his game.

But the "I'm just as reasonable, self-critical and forgiving as the next moderate and open to being proved wrong by credible, original argument" at least seems to be the narrative they're trying to sell and frame (and maybe my prior post shows that sometimes they even have me believing it). That they're 'fanning' right by enjoying the show and calling to the authority of the show when they want to argue a precedent gives a permission slip to a latest contentious development, to show themselves more open-minded and moderate, and therefore frame and dismiss us as narrow-minded, unreasonable zealots to our own bias who were determined to see the new era hated from the start.

The trick I think is to know their game, have the answers their question implies and disrupt the assumptions their narrative implies (even if the answer we give is more for the benefit of onlookers being persuaded by their narrative) and in general find ways to control the narrative, subtly drop truth bombs, disrupt or put a subtle wedge in the gears of their narrative, and make sure we're not in their passenger seat.

Does anyone really care what Bleeding Cunts says about anything?
Why do you people bother reading this drivel?