Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70

Thread: Video killed the Tardis star

  1. #21
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,429
    Amen (Given)
    16092
    Amen (Received)
    3083
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    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?
    It's who he is*. Whenever the actor is changed, it's because The Doctor has suffered fatal wounds and has gone through "regeneration". It's one of the abilities of a Time Lord. Oh, and I agree with you about the "mantle" thing.

    *As far as the show is concerned. Unless they change things drastically just for this, it will be the same character, but with a body regenerated to be female.
    Safka, you are NOT "unknown", you were loved by many, and you will not be forgotten. I will always remember you Puginator.


  2. #22
    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
    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?
    Meh. Unreasonable? Probably not. Wise? Debatable. Do we want a world where we have to depict every minority group in accurate percentages in all entertainment media, or feel that there's something wrong with society?

    Where would we draw the line? Do TV and movies have to have accurate percentage representation of every minority group? Cause there are a LOT of minorities - gay, coloured, white uneducated, transexual pre-op, trans post-op, asexual, Latino, Afro-Caribbean, Southern religious conservative male, stay-at-home moms, numerous minorities with disabilities - blind, deaf, sight impaired, mobility impaired; the left-handed, autistic, Asperger's syndrome, Down's syndrome, haemophiliac, agoraphobics, claustrophobics.....

    ... not to mention the combinations of those (and all the others I didn't mention or even think of - like Gerbils)



    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight
    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.

    I kind of agree, although I don't have a problem with retellings or reimaginings of a story.

    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.
    I don't see Thor as an alien, but as a Norse god. So Nordic ethnicity, and male. If someone else is deemed worthy of carry Mjolinir, fine - but they're NOT Thor. Ditto for Spiderman - that is Peter Parker. If someone else gets similar powers, fine, but they're NOT Spiderman. They can use some other name


    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight
    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?

    Yes, if they're an established character who is not gay or bi. Create a new character who is that, make them interesting on their own merit - NOT 'this character is on the team so that gays are represented' - isn't that the worst kind of patronising tokenism? No thanks to gay or bi for any of the current Avengers, they're all long-established as not that. Yes to a new character who is (incidentally) gay or bi. Why does that have to be the focus of what the character is about?



    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight
    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?
    Was his sexuality relevant to the story being told in the movies? If 'Yes', then they shouldn't have ignored it. If 'No' then why should it be raised at all? Don't LBGT people want to be accepted as normal members of society? Shouldn't that mean that their sexuality is incidental to who they are, and greeted with a shrug rather than flashing neon signs and 'Hey everyone, I'm GAY. I'm a GAY superhero! See, gay people can be cool too!'


    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight
    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.
    I would, because that would be a violation of the character merely to serve the interests of the political mores of the day.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  3. Amen RumTumTugger, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  4. #23
    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 Cerebrum123 View Post
    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.
    Miles Morales should have his own, different, identity (unless perhaps he's Spiderman in a parallel universe). Jane Foster and Beta Ray Bill weren't ever Thor, just people who temporarily wielded Thor's hammer. Which I don't object to in principle (But, gee a space horse? Bleh).

    Ever watched the 'Diversity and Comics' channel on YouTube?
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  5. #24
    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 Bill the Cat View Post
    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?
    I disagree about Spiderman - AFAIK Green Lantern was written as a character where there were multiple Green Lanterns across the galaxy, so it is obviously a title given to a position. Peter Parker, on the other hand (IIRC) chose Spiderman as his superhero identity after he accidentally got spider superpowers. So Peter Parker (only) is THE Spiderman. I suppose he could pass that on to someone else if he wanted to. I see it as his intellectual property.


    I would hate to see Wonder Woman becoming 'Wonder man' - but I could see a male analog - someone from a hidden male-only culture who leaves that to fight evil in the wider world etc. With his own set of powers and so on. That could be kind of cool if done well.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  6. #25
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,582
    Amen (Given)
    3868
    Amen (Received)
    3820
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    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?
    When the Doctor becomes old or mortally wounded, he can "regenerate" which grants him a new appearance and personality while retaining the same memories, attachments, and core values, and it has been a staple of the program since day one that the Doctor is male, and I would argue that he is essentially male- (his 10th incarnation asserted that he is "literally the same man" across regenerations, and he has only ever been attracted to female characters, in those rare instances over the show's history when he was attracted to anybody at all.

    The idea that he can swap genders is a new invention that I believe is grounded in a misguided sense of political correctness. The last episode of this past season had the Doctor lecturing his lesbian companion about how his race had evolved beyond the "crude" notion of biological genders, and since the Doctor is nominally married to a female character, I fear the creators will force the issue by implying that this upcoming female incarnation could be or even necessarily is a lesbian.

    In short, it's a slap in the face to long-time fans and a direct assault on traditional family values. It would be like turning Kirk and Spock, or Holmes and Watson into gay lovers.
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 07-18-2017 at 03:40 PM.

  7. Amen Cerebrum123, MaxVel, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  8. #26
    Thanks Old Man... Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,444
    Amen (Given)
    6836
    Amen (Received)
    7129
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    I disagree about Spiderman - AFAIK Green Lantern was written as a character where there were multiple Green Lanterns across the galaxy, so it is obviously a title given to a position. Peter Parker, on the other hand (IIRC) chose Spiderman as his superhero identity after he accidentally got spider superpowers. So Peter Parker (only) is THE Spiderman. I suppose he could pass that on to someone else if he wanted to. I see it as his intellectual property.
    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.

    I would hate to see Wonder Woman becoming 'Wonder man' - but I could see a male analog - someone from a hidden male-only culture who leaves that to fight evil in the wider world etc. With his own set of powers and so on. That could be kind of cool if done well.
    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.


    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 ---

  9. Amen RumTumTugger, MaxVel amen'd this post.
  10. #27
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,582
    Amen (Given)
    3868
    Amen (Received)
    3820
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    I thought I saw someone say he just did it as part of regeneration. I haven't watched the show in forever. Last time I consistently watched the show was when Matt Slick was The Doctor.
    The Master inexplicably becoming a woman is at least consistent with the perverse nature of the character.

  11. #28
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,433
    Amen (Given)
    6145
    Amen (Received)
    5904
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Meh. Unreasonable? Probably not. Wise? Debatable. Do we want a world where we have to depict every minority group in accurate percentages in all entertainment media, or feel that there's something wrong with society?
    Pretty sure he's wrong about under-representation anyways. Last I read, LGBT on tv and in film was (intentionally) over-represented (in recent polls Americans overestimated the number of LGBT in the US, which, of course, helps normalize those sexual orientations) and ethnic minorities are about evenly represented.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    I don't see Thor as an alien, but as a Norse god. So Nordic ethnicity, and male. If someone else is deemed worthy of carry Mjolinir, fine - but they're NOT Thor. Ditto for Spiderman - that is Peter Parker. If someone else gets similar powers, fine, but they're NOT Spiderman. They can use some other name
    They made Thor an alien in the films, contrary to his status in the comics. I think it was done because early on they wanted to ground the new Marvel world in science rather than any magic or mysticism. It's only with Dr. Strange (and I guess...Ghost Rider) that they're opening up the canon to include the supernatural and magical.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Yes, if they're an established character who is not gay or bi. Create a new character who is that, make them interesting on their own merit - NOT 'this character is on the team so that gays are represented' - isn't that the worst kind of patronising tokenism?
    Yep. This was precisely Michelle Rodriguez' point a couple years ago.





    People will watch non-white, non-male characters if the characters are interesting, and worth watching (I'm assuming the upcoming Black Panther film will do very well).

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Was his sexuality relevant to the story being told in the movies? If 'Yes', then they shouldn't have ignored it. If 'No' then why should it be raised at all? Don't LBGT people want to be accepted as normal members of society? Shouldn't that mean that their sexuality is incidental to who they are, and greeted with a shrug rather than flashing neon signs and 'Hey everyone, I'm GAY. I'm a GAY superhero! See, gay people can be cool too!'
    Starlight is being a bit disingenuous (no surprise there). First of all, there's only been one Constantine/Hellblazer movie, not "movies". Second of all, most of Constantine's relationships in the comics were with women, so it's not like in the course of a two hour film they're going to explore Constantine's complete sexuality. Third, his sexuality is the last thing people cared about them getting wrong. They made a blonde haired, blue-eyed Englishman solving supernatural mysteries in London, to a dark-haired, brown-eyed American solving supernatural mysteries in LA. The TV show came a bit closer to the actual comic book character, but it lasted a season. I saw that he's now part of the Arrowverse, but I doubt he'll have enough screen time to explore his bisexuality. Be strange thing to focus on.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    I would, because that would be a violation of the character merely to serve the interests of the political mores of the day.
    I'd be irritated more because I'm a stickler for the source material (or historical context) whenever practical. There was absolutely no good reason to change the Ancient One's race and gender in the Doctor Strange film. The creators maintained they did it to break off the mystical Asian stereotype, but like the Cartoon Network's Politically Correct faux pas when they temporarily stopped showing Speedy Gonzalez episodes, Asians actually embrace the character, and ironically viewed the change in race as an instance of whitewashing. Course the other theory is that Hollywood intentionally changed the race so's not to offend the Chinese government with a Tibetan character.
    Last edited by Adrift; 07-18-2017 at 04:29 PM.

  12. Amen Cerebrum123, MaxVel amen'd this post.
  13. #29
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    34,998
    Amen (Given)
    3104
    Amen (Received)
    17055
    This might be the end of Doctor Who if the ratings drop because of this.

    Yes, it is nothing but PC nonsense. Pretty sure that is what killed off Torchwood, when they made Captain Jack Harkness blatantly gay and even showed him in bed with another guy - him being gay wasn't the problem, it was the pushing it in your face that was the problem. It didn't last long after that.

  14. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  15. #30
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,582
    Amen (Given)
    3868
    Amen (Received)
    3820
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    This might be the end of Doctor Who if the ratings drop because of this.

    Yes, it is nothing but PC nonsense. Pretty sure that is what killed off Torchwood, when they made Captain Jack Harkness blatantly gay and even showed him in bed with another guy - him being gay wasn't the problem, it was the pushing it in your face that was the problem. It didn't last long after that.
    It's like when Ellen DeGeneres came out as gay, and suddenly her sitcom was all about pushing the gay agenda down viewers' throats. I think her show only lasted one season after her celebrated/controversial "coming out" episode.

    I suspect once the initial curiosity and novelty of a female Doctor wears off, the ratings will tank, and the BBC will be forced to either make a hasty course correction, or cancel the show entirely.
    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

  16. Amen Cerebrum123 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
  •