Announcement

Collapse

Amphitheater Guidelines

In the Amphitheater we sit back and share a good song, offer a movie review, discuss sports, or anything in entertainment and family enjoyment.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorum, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: here
Steam Group: here

Thanks!
See more
See less

Video killed the Tardis star

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    DOCTOR WHO is ostensibly a children's program, but the Doctor has been teamed up with a number of attractive females over the years for the "dads" in the audience.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      It's been my all-time favorite TV show for the past 30-years, which is why feminising the Doctor feels like a kick in the teeth to me.
      Don’t worry, you got used to hot and cold running water eventually, I’m sure you’ll get used to this too.
      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
      “not all there” - you know who you are

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by brain doesn't go past the firstfloor View Post
        Don’t worry, you got used to hot and cold running water eventually, I’m sure you’ll get used to this too.
        That was almost clever.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #49
          So, a female Doctor, and now I see this headline:

          "UK Regulator to Ban Adverts Depicting ‘Gender Stereotypical’ Roles"

          http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...r-stereotypes/

          Are the Brits just going insane with political correctness?
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Peter died saving Miles' family after Miles had been bitten by the Oz-enhanced spider. Miles took the mantle of Spider Man as a homage to the hero who saved his life.



            There have been a number of women to wear the mantle of Wonder Woman. Queen Hippolyta , Artemis of Bana-Mighdall, Orana, Nubia, Cassandra Sandsmark, and Donna Troy all wore the mantle.
            I bow to your superior nerd-knowledge, oh Feline One who owes an unspecified amount.



            (Isn't Peter still alive in some iterations?)
            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Eh, Miles Morales and Jane Foster are both widely considered part of the transparent attempt on Marvel's part to create the illusion of diversity in their line by hijacking established characters. A lot of fans found it irritating at the least. I think people want diversity, they just don't want it at the sake of established popular characters. We don't need half a dozen new Spider-Men that each correspond to a different ethnicity. A good writer should be able to create new and unique compelling characters with diverse ethnicities if that's what they're going for.

              The underlined. Exactly. Marvel's comic sales are tanking because of poor writing and 'diversity' being used to trash established characters. But somehow it's the fault of the ignorant fans for not buying comics that disrespect them and the characters they love.
              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                AFAIK Miles Morales only took up the mantle of Spider-Man after Peter Parker died, at least that's the way they portrayed it in one of the games I play. They are calling Jane Foster Thor, and Thor has been going by Odinson. Beta Ray Bill is weird yeah, but kind of an interesting character IMO.

                And, no, I haven't watched that channel.
                Well get on it then!
                ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                  I bow to your superior nerd-knowledge, oh Feline One who owes an unspecified amount.
                  I used to work for a field service firm that paid me to be on call for computer problems. When I was on the clock, but not on a call, they didn't care what I did, so I hung out at the comic book store with a friend of mine who ran the place. I read quite a few comics in that period.

                  (Isn't Peter still alive in some iterations?)
                  He's been cloned more times than Jango Fett. And a Peter from another universe somehow ended up on Earth-616 a year or so later, so he didn't stay "dead" for long.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  - Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    So, a female Doctor, and now I see this headline:

                    "UK Regulator to Ban Adverts Depicting ‘Gender Stereotypical’ Roles"

                    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...r-stereotypes/

                    Are the Brits just going insane with political correctness?
                    The last comment in the reference: Conservative Member of the European Parliament David Campbell-Bannerman called the move “worrying”, likening it to thought policing:

                    That's what it is, to be sure.


                    As for Doctor Who: the assistants have always been the mainstay of the show. Every doctor from the first has been something of a bumbler, and the assistants have been the ones to keep him grounded. The switch to a female Doctor will inevitably change the whole paradigm.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      So, a female Doctor, and now I see this headline:

                      "UK Regulator to Ban Adverts Depicting ‘Gender Stereotypical’ Roles"

                      http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...r-stereotypes/

                      Are the Brits just going insane with political correctness?
                      so basically they are going to force all ads to depict LGBT situations?

                      Can't show a nuclear family sitting around a dinner table? Can't show a man and a woman walking down a beach hand in hand?

                      wow.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        It all depends on how you define a phrase like "gender stereotypical roles". Some examples are included in the article:
                        • An ad which depicts family members creating a mess while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up;
                        • An ad that suggests a specific activity is inappropriate for boys because it is stereo-typically associated with girls, or vice-versa;
                        • An ad that features a man trying and failing to undertake simple parental or household tasks.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          so basically they are going to force all ads to depict LGBT situations?

                          Can't show a nuclear family sitting around a dinner table? Can't show a man and a woman walking down a beach hand in hand?

                          wow.
                          No - and this is a marvelous example of why I don't read Brietbart anymore. They put out this grossly missleading article, leaving the kinds of impressions you two are complaining about and affirming the bias already present in their target audience. I see it so often, I've become pretty sure they know a VERY small percentage of people will actually follow the link and read the article - not to mention the associated study. They also put quotes around phrases designed to inflame by leaving the impression of mocking (i.e., "qualitative") and bring in completely irrelevant tangents (i.e., a question favored in a survey about Brexit). Their professional journalism credentials are on par with the National Enquirer.

                          The study is here: https://www.asa.org.uk/asset/2DF6E02...7CA2110264347/

                          The kinds of things they are looking to crack down (and these are the examples cited at/near the top of the study) include:

                          An ad which depicts family members creating mess while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up

                          An ad that suggests an activity is inappropriate for a girl because it is stereotypically associated with boys or vice versa.

                          An ad that features a man trying and failing to undertake simple parental or household tasks.


                          They explicitly note, in the study, that normal people doing normal things (a woman cleaning, etc.) are NOT the target - but rather the target is ads that emphasize (and/or mock) "traditional" gender roles (i.e., tasks that have been historically attributed to someone on the basis of their gender) or attributes (i.e., body characteristics, moods, attitudes, etc.).

                          At no point does it say anything about relationships, or outlaw any relational combination. So a traditional couple walking hand-in-hand on a beach is no problem. Traditional couples walking down the beach kicking sand on same-sex couples would be. A dad fixing a car is not a problem. A mom fixing a car and failing would be. A mom taking care of children is not a problem. A dad taking care of children and failing would be. The intent is to target any ad that implies suggests a gender role or attribute MUST be a certain way or something is wrong - unless the attribute is undeniably tied to gender (e.g., a woman giving birth).

                          It's also a marvelous example of our previous discussion about the misuse of "PC" today, and how nebulous the term is anyway. Things that are "PC" today are not "PC" tomorrow. Language and language conventions are fluid. "PC" is simply someone saying "I don't like that new language convention." The boundaries can and do shift from person to person. This entire article is designed to further inflame the "PC" complaints of the left (hence including it in the title) and keep the right salivating with irritation.

                          Don't fall for this kind of stuff, guys. You're better than that.
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-15-2017, 07:13 AM.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            It all depends on how you define a phrase like "gender stereotypical roles". Some examples are included in the article:
                            • An ad which depicts family members creating a mess while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up;
                            • An ad that suggests a specific activity is inappropriate for boys because it is stereo-typically associated with girls, or vice-versa;
                            • An ad that features a man trying and failing to undertake simple parental or household tasks.
                            Nice - so you DID read the study! Did you read the whole thing?
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-15-2017, 07:13 AM.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              When I was a kid back in the early 80s I had a friend who used to run around with the fourth Doctor's scarf. The show used to freak me out, personally. It was that theme song, and how creepy and lo-fi the whole thing looked (I like the song now). When the series was rebooted my girlfriend and I got pretty into it, but I had to bail some time towards the end of the tenth Doctor. It was just too silly for me, and his powers/mythology were too inconsistent, which is kind of why I wasn't surprised that they sprung the whole "The Doctor is now a woman" thing.

                              Assuming Doctor Who's audience leans mostly male (I know that definitely holds true for the long time, hardcore fans), I'd be surprised if she lasts long. Sci-Fi audiences typically enjoy protagonists they can identify with, which is why the more popular characters have always been nerdy males.
                              adrift it was what they did back then with the low tech they had for film making that made the Doctor Who series so interesting to me and my siblings they did a lot with what they had to make it look high tech.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                                adrift it was what they did back then with the low tech they had for film making that made the Doctor Who series so interesting to me and my siblings they did a lot with what they had to make it look high tech.
                                I mean, I was just a kid when the 4th Doctor was on PBS, but even back then it looked like cheap cardboard sets to me. I was more a Knight Rider, Voyager (about the time travelers, not the later Star Trek series), and Greatest American Hero fan. While the Brits were dinking around with stiff looking, cardboard Daleks, we had the much more technical looking Twiki from Buck Rogers.

                                I will say that the old Dr. Who episodes were pretty creative with those low budgets though. All of the set pieces looked authentically alien, for how cheap, weird, and oddly lit they were.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by RumTumTugger, 02-06-2024, 11:54 AM
                                5 responses
                                39 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 08-13-2023, 02:09 PM
                                57 responses
                                522 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X