Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 70

Thread: Video killed the Tardis star

  1. #11
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,351
    Amen (Given)
    2172
    Amen (Received)
    1343
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    This last season featured a black lesbian companion, so they've hit the PC quota pretty squarely on the nose already.
    Serious question: Do you think that having a variety of demographics represented on TV in approximate reflection to their actual levels of prevalence in the population is "PC" or "accurately reflecting reality"?

    Historically, minority demographics have been overwhelmingly underrepresented on TV and in movies. Recently there has been an emphasis on fixing that, and having the portrayals be more representative of reality. Various analyses have now found that they are beginning to get fairly close to having an accurate level of representation of minority groups. Is that bad?

  2. #12
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,174
    Amen (Given)
    797
    Amen (Received)
    1255
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Serious question: Do you think that having a variety of demographics represented on TV in approximate reflection to their actual levels of prevalence in the population is "PC" or "accurately reflecting reality"?

    Historically, minority demographics have been overwhelmingly underrepresented on TV and in movies. Recently there has been an emphasis on fixing that, and having the portrayals be more representative of reality. Various analyses have now found that they are beginning to get fairly close to having an accurate level of representation of minority groups. Is that bad?


    Yes, when minority group members are inserted into a story for reasons of political correctness, 'diversity' and so on, it is bad. If they are there because they are part of the actual story, then it's fine.

    So:

    Robin Hood with a side character who is an Arab, being someone who Robin met and befriended on his travels in the Crusade: fine (great, even)

    Robin Hood with three of his 'merry men' being lesbian ninja nuns who can outfight any of the men in the outlaw band: PC rubbish


    Replacing an iconic or longstanding character with someone of the opposite sex (or sometimes of a different race) doesn't sit well with me, either. So Marvel's 'Thor' being a woman - No. (Same for Thor = space horse as well). Thor is a Norse male god - to me that's integral to the actual nature of the character. There are female characters (Sif, Valkyrie) for those that want that.

    Spiderman to me is a slightly nerdy white 'New Yorker', so I'm not keen on the Miles Morales 'version'. Luke Cage is a black man - would anyone be OK with Luke Cage being remade with a beefy redneck or hillbilly in the role?
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  3. #13
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,351
    Amen (Given)
    2172
    Amen (Received)
    1343
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Yes, when minority group members are inserted into a story for reasons of political correctness, 'diversity' and so on, it is bad.
    If minority groups accurately observe that they are underrepresented on TV and in movies relative to their actual demographics in the population today, is them asking for more accurate representation unreasonable in your mind?

    Robin Hood with a side character who is an Arab, being someone who Robin met and befriended on his travels in the Crusade: fine (great, even)

    Robin Hood with three of his 'merry men' being lesbian ninja nuns who can outfight any of the men in the outlaw band: PC rubbish
    Obviously actual historical stories change what is and isn't demographically reasonable in those settings. The vast majority of TV/movies are not historical stories that are limiting in this way though.

    Replacing an iconic or longstanding character with someone of the opposite sex (or sometimes of a different race) doesn't sit well with me, either.
    I kind of agree, although I don't have a problem with retellings or reimaginings of a story.

    So Marvel's 'Thor' being a woman - No.
    Sure, I can agree to that. Though making him black would seem okay to me... since he's an alien his skin color is hardly part of his character - same with superman.

    Speaking of Marvel's Avengers in their recent series of movies, I note that none of them seem to be gay or bi. Would it be unreasonable in your mind to have one of them be gay or bi? D.C.'s Constantine was bisexual in the comic books, very much so, but they cut that part out when they made the movies. Is that the kind of "changing the established character" that you object to? Or does it not apply when it plays into your own biases?

    Luke Cage is a black man - would anyone be OK with Luke Cage being remade with a beefy redneck or hillbilly in the role?
    I was unfamiliar with Luke Cage prior to watching the TV series. I wouldn't care one iota if they made another Luke Cage series where he was white.

  4. #14
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    738
    Amen (Given)
    166
    Amen (Received)
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Yes, when minority group members are inserted into a story for reasons of political correctness, 'diversity' and so on, it is bad. If they are there because they are part of the actual story, then it's fine.

    So:

    Robin Hood with a side character who is an Arab, being someone who Robin met and befriended on his travels in the Crusade: fine (great, even)

    Robin Hood with three of his 'merry men' being lesbian ninja nuns who can outfight any of the men in the outlaw band: PC rubbish


    Replacing an iconic or longstanding character with someone of the opposite sex (or sometimes of a different race) doesn't sit well with me, either. So Marvel's 'Thor' being a woman - No. (Same for Thor = space horse as well).
    Beta-Ray Bill, IIRC. Thank Odin I'd quit reading comics before that travesty.


    Thor is a Norse male god - to me that's integral to the actual nature of the character. There are female characters (Sif, Valkyrie) for those that want that.
    Much as I like Idris Elba, I hate him as Heimdall. A black Norseman? Oooo-kay.

    Spiderman to me is a slightly nerdy white 'New Yorker', so I'm not keen on the Miles Morales 'version'. Luke Cage is a black man - would anyone be OK with Luke Cage being remade with a beefy redneck or hillbilly in the role?
    Didn't Nicolas Coppola choose his "Nicholas Cage" stage name after the Luke Cage character?
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  5. Amen MaxVel amen'd this post.
  6. #15
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    738
    Amen (Given)
    166
    Amen (Received)
    265
    I wouldn't like a white T'challa or a Shang-Chi that looked like Danny Rand. I'm not thrilled that they turned Alan Scott gay. I prefer they introduce *new* characters, not drastically "reimagine" existing ones.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  7. Amen Cerebrum123, MaxVel, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  8. #16
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,540
    Amen (Given)
    3854
    Amen (Received)
    3805
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Yes, when minority group members are inserted into a story for reasons of political correctness, 'diversity' and so on, it is bad. If they are there because they are part of the actual story, then it's fine.

    So:

    Robin Hood with a side character who is an Arab, being someone who Robin met and befriended on his travels in the Crusade: fine (great, even)

    Robin Hood with three of his 'merry men' being lesbian ninja nuns who can outfight any of the men in the outlaw band: PC rubbish


    Replacing an iconic or longstanding character with someone of the opposite sex (or sometimes of a different race) doesn't sit well with me, either. So Marvel's 'Thor' being a woman - No. (Same for Thor = space horse as well). Thor is a Norse male god - to me that's integral to the actual nature of the character. There are female characters (Sif, Valkyrie) for those that want that.

    Spiderman to me is a slightly nerdy white 'New Yorker', so I'm not keen on the Miles Morales 'version'. Luke Cage is a black man - would anyone be OK with Luke Cage being remade with a beefy redneck or hillbilly in the role?
    Right. The problem wasn't so much that Bill was a black lesbian (Bill was the character's name) as it was the show creators looked for every opportunity to banner wave her sexual choice even when it was irrelevant to the story being told, like a guy she just met suddenly coming on to her, and she awkwardly explaining that, "Sorry, I'm not into bkokes that way." You could cut that dialog entirely, and it would have zero impact on the plot and narrative of the episode. I'm honestly surprised more people don't call this out for the politically correct pandering that it really is.

    And that's what bothers me about giving the Doctor an arbitrary gender change. It's not bold or daring or even a natural progression of the character but a subversive attempt to challenge traditional notions of sexuality by trying to blur and even erase the lines that naturally separate the genders.

    (Moderators, I'm not trying to hijack the thread, so feel free to split this topic off into its own thread.)

  9. Amen Cerebrum123, MaxVel amen'd this post.
  10. #17
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,299
    Amen (Given)
    570
    Amen (Received)
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Woman View Post
    And now feminism has ruined Doctor Who with the BBC's recent announcement that the next Doctor will be a female.

    Why does political correctness have to ruin everything?
    A tragedy :-)

  11. #18
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,425
    Amen (Given)
    16073
    Amen (Received)
    3083
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Yes, when minority group members are inserted into a story for reasons of political correctness, 'diversity' and so on, it is bad. If they are there because they are part of the actual story, then it's fine.

    So:

    Robin Hood with a side character who is an Arab, being someone who Robin met and befriended on his travels in the Crusade: fine (great, even)

    Robin Hood with three of his 'merry men' being lesbian ninja nuns who can outfight any of the men in the outlaw band: PC rubbish


    Replacing an iconic or longstanding character with someone of the opposite sex (or sometimes of a different race) doesn't sit well with me, either. So Marvel's 'Thor' being a woman - No. (Same for Thor = space horse as well). Thor is a Norse male god - to me that's integral to the actual nature of the character. There are female characters (Sif, Valkyrie) for those that want that.

    Spiderman to me is a slightly nerdy white 'New Yorker', so I'm not keen on the Miles Morales 'version'. Luke Cage is a black man - would anyone be OK with Luke Cage being remade with a beefy redneck or hillbilly in the role?
    To be fair the Marvel examples you gave aren't the best fit. Miles Morales is a different kid who got spider related powers, and knew Peter Parker. Jane Foster and Beta Ray Bill* were simply "worthy" when Thor himself wasn't in that particular time. They only got the powers, they weren't actually the "real" Thor.

    The Robin Hood example fits though.

    *He eventually got his own hammer by the order of Odin.
    Safka, you are NOT "unknown", you were loved by many, and you will not be forgotten. I will always remember you Puginator.


  12. #19
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    34,836
    Amen (Given)
    3089
    Amen (Received)
    16995
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    would anyone be OK with Luke Cage being remade with a beefy redneck or hillbilly in the role?
    Of course not. If you do that it would be "whitewashing" like in "Ghost in the Shell"

    Liberals get up in arms when such things happen. But it's fine to do the opposite.

  13. Amen MaxVel amen'd this post.
  14. #20
    Thanks Old Man... Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,439
    Amen (Given)
    6832
    Amen (Received)
    7119
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I care because it's an iconic male character, and arbitrarily making him a woman is a reflection of our perverse culture.
    It's a mantle, not a character. Admittedly, I don't watch it, so I may not understand what it takes to be "the Doctor". Is it a transient life form that continues to reincarnate, or is it just a title held by whoever is piloting the Tardis?

    As far as the Thor/Batman/Spiderman/Iron Man, etc thing... I see it like this:

    For those that are just mantles, like Spider Man, Mr. Fantastic, The Blue Beetle, Shazam, and others that something exterior to the person makes them that hero, I have no problem with allowing someone else to wear that mantle for a while. Heck, look at how many Green Lanterns there were. Miles Morales isn't Peter Parker, and isn't replacing Peter Parker. He's taking the mantle of Spider Man the same way Kyle Rainer took on Green Lantern from Hal Jordan. Now, the example of Luke Cage was brought up. Luke Cage is who he is. His superhero name was Power Man, which is now held by Victor Alvarez. Ironically, Luke Cage was not the first Power Man. Erik Josten (later changed to Goliath and then Atlas) was the original Power Man in 1965, but there was little complaint when Luke Cage was introduced as Power Man in 1974. Making Luke Cage white would be as wrong as making Johnny Storm black. It just isn't who they are.

    I do ask myself at times what would happen if a strong female character, like Wonder Woman, were to hand the mantle over to a man (I know, she's an Amazon from an island of strictly women, but you get the point), what would be the reaction of the public? Would it receive the same type of negative reaction as Jane Foster taking up Mjolinir?

    So, is "The Doctor" who he is, or a mantle that is carried? Why is it ok to change male actors and have others take on the mantle of Doctor, but it's not ok to change them into a female one?


    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 ---

  15. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •