Look at how the self loathing fanboy who wrote this article introduces himself.
Jef Rouner is a contributing writer who covers politics, pop culture, social justice, video games, and online behavior. He is often a professional annoyance to the ignorant and hurtful.
Of course again the fact that he thinks Jodie is breaking a glass ceiling shows how ignorant he is of female heroes, but you all know that. Why is it that all these soy boys never watch female heroes despite claiming that they really care about representation?
‘Her Reaction to Cosplayers is Adorable’ ‘She Wants to be a Role Model for Boys’ ‘She Built Her Own Prop Bomb to Practice Technobabble’
WTF? How is any of this relevant as to whether or not she’ll make a good Doctor in the actual show?
Also: 'To say that Whittaker’s casting has stirred emotions would be an understatement. I’ve been blocking sexist fans in Facebook groups for months. As a longtime advocate for the gender swap and a fan of Chibnall’s work on the show, everything I’ve seen so far looks amazing.'
Bragging about blocking people opposed to a female Doctor. What a fucking saddo.
Posts : 3093 Join date : 2017-02-10 Location : Aussieland
lol Because having a problem with an iconic male hero being castrated for zero reason other than to pander to man-haters is sexist. But they're not sexist. Honest. What a fucking half-witted little cunt.
Well-written historicals are great. Considering the current talent involved in Doctor Who, I'm going to take a real gamble and assume these 'historicals' are going to be pseudo-history to supplement a political agenda. A poor move commercially, likewise.
I guess the classic example of a role written that was potentially written as generic male but could also be played by a woman was Ripley from Alien and we all know how well that turned out.
Obviously, for reasons I don't have to go into, this is different but in a general sense, to varying degrees for each story, this might work to some degree at least. I guess we'll all see in due course.
I don't have a huge problem with a gender swap so long as it doesn't alter the source material, nor substantially effect our idea of the character; and that it actually brings something to the table under a competent writer. Sometimes it can add colour as a variant interpretation of a character, sometimes a male-dominated cast can be made more interesting with a female personality.
The Hannibal TV series handled it well. Alan Bloom was a very minor character in the Red Dragon book - in the show they were gender swapped (to Alana) and made a more substantial character: really she is an entirely new character and the name is a reference more than anything else. Freddie Lounds was a fairly notable character in the Red Dragon book alone - the character was gender-swapped into a more prevalent and honestly more interesting character in the show.
These were good decisions, if anything. Gender-swapping Hannibal, or likewise Will Graham or Clarice Starling, would have been disastrous: altering their character to the point of unfamiliarity.
On the contrary: for the Doctor, it is everything wrong with the concept made manifest.
Posts : 2401 Join date : 2017-02-11 Age : 33 Location : Glasgow
shan164 wrote:I guess the classic example of a role written that was potentially written as generic male but could also be played by a woman was Ripley from Alien and we all know how well that turned out.
Obviously, for reasons I don't have to go into, this is different but in a general sense, to varying degrees for each story, this might work to some degree at least. I guess we'll all see in due course.
I've never liked the Ripley defense. Men and women are different. You have to take that into account to some extent. No one is saying that you can't have men and women occupy the same types of roles, but there has to be a bit of a difference in the approach.
Look at Xena and Hercules. Both the same type of hero, tall, dark, sexy, muscle bound hero in ancient Greece, who fights literally the same villains (Ares, Callisto, Cesar.) Meets the same supporting cast like Bruce Campbell and Ted Raimi, but they are two completely different shows. Ditto Buffy and Angel.
Sometimes gender won't matter at all in a character its true, but that's only when the character is so minor, or doesn't really have a personality. In the first Alien film Ripley or indeed any of the others didn't really have personalities. Their backstories weren't fleshed out, their dialogue was all just about surviving a tense situation. The first Alien film is all about the horrible situation the characters are in. It doesn't need fleshed out characters, so it doesn't have them. They are all basically stock characters. The gun toting action guy who gets killed fighting, the scaredy character, the final survivor etc.
In the sequels however where they actually flesh Ripley's character out, do you really think they could flip Ripley's gender and it wouldn't make a difference? Its funny how nobody mentions the sequels in regards to Ripley, even though she's far more heroic in them! She more or less just runs away from a drone in Alien and shoots it when its not looking, but in Aliens she beats the shit out of the Queen Alien.
The second Aliens movie is all about a war between two mothers, Ripley protecting Newt, and the Alien Queen protecting its eggs. You wouldn't have that same dynamic if Ripley were a guy. Also other scenes like where Ripley sleeps in the same bed as a little girl she just met, would probably seem a bit weird if she were a dude.
In Alien 3 meanwhile a large part of the dynamic is that Ripley is the only woman on a planet full of men. It obviously wouldn't be the same if she were a guy.
Gender is important to a characters personal history and how the audience may identify with them. SJWs however (not saying you) are such irrational, lazy morons that they just see it as "YOU'RE SAYING MEN AND WOMEN AREN'T IDENTICAL THAT MEANS YOU MUST THINK THAT WOMEN ARE LESSER". And spineless idiots like Mofftwat pander to them.
I wonder if Chibnall and Moffat and all these other fandom incrowd sellouts like Gary Russell will one day realize this is how pathetic they look.
Never said it was a defence, just an observation about the generic scripting of a character that's adaptable to both male and female actors - and only referring to Alien. Hung a big lampshade on what I was going for, too.
As for Alien 3, given the dozens of scripting ideas in pre-production, there were versions with a male lead character including possibly Ripley and Newt returning to Earth and only Hicks being ejected to Fury 161. That, along with planets made of wood and Aliens made of glass ... well, the making of Alien 3 generally was a weird time for everyone involved.
Well, looking at the latest Doctor's costume yet again, I can accept a lot about this latest incarnation of the show but I still just can't help but feel that pants that stop short of the socks and shoes are a bridge too far.
Posts : 409 Join date : 2017-11-05 Location : Death Valley
shan164 wrote:Well, looking at the latest Doctor's costume yet again, I can accept a lot about this latest incarnation of the show but I still just can't help but feel that pants that stop short of the socks and shoes are a bridge too far.
If they got rid of those stupid rainbows on her coat and shirt, and made it so that her trousers actually came all the way down to her boots then I reckon it would have been a fairly decent costume.
Hell, even the rather bland outfit that Jodie wore during the reveal trailer would have been way better than what we have currently.
shan164 wrote:Well, looking at the latest Doctor's costume yet again, I can accept a lot about this latest incarnation of the show but I still just can't help but feel that pants that stop short of the socks and shoes are a bridge too far.
If they got rid of those stupid rainbows on her coat and shirt, and made it so that her trousers actually came all the way down to her boots then I reckon it would have been a fairly decent costume.
Hell, even the rather bland outfit that Jodie wore during the reveal trailer would have been way better than what we have currently.
I thought this would have been quite good. Obvious reasons as to why not.
I have seen about 31% of Classic Doctor Who + TV Movie (Time 37% of total) but when you factor in New, that jumps to 74% of all Doctor Who (Time 65% of total).
Only Classic Doctor I've seen all of is Peter Davison (fallen just short on Tom Baker), seen all the New stuff so far.
They’re doing it by stories rather than episodes, which is stupid because some of the stories in Classic Who were nearly an entire season of NuWho(ie War Games is 10 episodes). Note: I know time-wise is shorter since episodes were only 25 minutest, but air-date/season wise, you’re still looking at 10 weeks.
There was a few things I left out as a result as I know I've mostly seen them but not quite completely. For some reason, I'm yet to see the very end of The Time Monster, I think (like the last part of the last episode) and I've almost seen all of Trial of a Time Lord but I think not quite all of the last two episodes (just parts of it). Ditto quite a few things from that era. I think the time factor would be covered though with the percentage of total footage seen sort of thing, right?
Home
