This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
TheBigToePunt 09 May 22 3.30pm | |
---|---|
The perfect issue for our times. I have no evidence that Ncuti Gatwa was selected, even in part, because of his race or sexuality rather than his ability. The fact that Russell T Davies is gay and has written shows about gay life doesn't mean that he can only write about gay life, or that he has a distinct social/political position, or that he is bound to make the show a vehicle for any personal/social/political views he does hold. He was heavily involved with Dr Who in the Ecclestone/Tennant eras, and I can't remember being concerned about inappropriate content at that time, only that the show was very successful. On the face of it, nothing whatsoever to get excited about and perhaps even reason to dismiss complaints and concerns. And yet... The extent to which the BBC has allowed itself to become the epicentre of a strictly group-identity-based worldview, whilst raising the drawbridge not, as advertised, against 'hate' (whatever they mean by that) but against anything or anyone who might disrupt their ideological echo chamber, is so significant that it's hard not to treat something as innocuous as the announcement of a new Dr Who actor as part of that wider scandal. Having no evidence of bias would once have been all there was to it, but now there is so much reason to suspect bias that I feel I need proof of its absence. That's the mad outcome of all this identity politics; either society becomes disadvantaged because a person who is not the most capable candidate ends up in a job, or a perfectly capable person ends up in a job they would have got anyway, but now has to live with the suspicion that they didn't get the job on merit.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 09 May 22 3.42pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
All Dr Whos until the recent one have been white.. as in the main 'good guy'. I assume your sudden about turn and idea that the show must be incredibly racist is solely due to a black people finally playing the lead role. Token or not that's an odd conclusoon to draw. Mr 'don't let them pull your strings' unnerved by black doctor whos and 'black supremacists'.. At least you're now comically also angered by neo nazis though due to a Ukranian situation. A quality that was very much abscent on here during times where it may have been actually helpful and useful to speak up.
Come on Bluejay. This is nothing but token casting designed to look 'right on'. They have been building up to it for a few years now. I hope the shows ratings fall off the chart. The only positive is that Russell T Davies actually knows how to write good, albeit sexuality obsessed stories.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
TheBigToePunt 09 May 22 4.04pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It was nauseatingly woke. Dr Who is not meant to be a simple minded guide to the history of race relations. White kids are being brainwashed to hate themselves and care more about everybody else's interests over their own. It's truly perverse. You don't need a kids sci fi show to preach about American racial segregation. I should remind you that there were some sections of Black activism that supported segregation. Life is not simple enough to be dramatized for the purposes of politically prejudiced education. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 May 2022 1.30pm) The episode in question was a terrible mistake in a great many respects. Using a family-friendly, imaginative, escapism-providing, British sci-fi show to explore, in any way whatsoever, something as densely complex, significant, and of its time and place as the American civil rights movement is an idea that only makes sense in woke-world. Aside from the inevitable over-simplifications that come about when using the wrong medium for the issue, the thing I remember being struck by was how staggering it was that everyone at BBC HQ thought this was OK. I imagine somebody somewhere thought that the idea was 'brave'. That the audience won't otherwise get to find out about the issue (the myth of hidden history), or that the issue is so important and relevant as to outweigh the fact that this is, after all, Dr Who for f***s sake. Edited by TheBigToePunt (09 May 2022 4.06pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 09 May 22 4.15pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Come on Bluejay. This is nothing but token casting designed to look 'right on'. They have been building up to it for a few years now. I hope the shows ratings fall off the chart. The only positive is that Russell T Davies actually knows how to write good, albeit sexuality obsessed stories. I don't disagree that there's a token aspect to it - indeed I stated that. That itself is a problem in my view because what's wrong with coming up with new and interesting characters that have no previous history to them? So I do see the push in that direction or how sometimes it's a natural change that annoys, and others a far more pushed, contrived one. Problem being, it's treated as 'tokenism' regardless. Dr Who, is a fictional character that's varied in lots of ways over the years so why not racially, so I find the push 'for' a character to fit a certain criteria, and also the inevitable reaction against and how that is used by some to drum up dislike to be equally nuasiating. Where it's a real person cast as a different race (which of course has happeend too) there's a far better argument against, as it just comes off as designed to get a reaction. So I do appreciate that if they push racial 'set piece' type issues to inflame, it's probably not the right place. To the extent that aspect is present here, I agree with you. Within fiction though, it's called acting for a reason, so I think it's best to just see how someone does in the role than invalidate it due to their race. I'm not sure that's it great to just want it to fail by default because there's a black lead. People being angered by this, are at political opposites but identital in their approach to whose who declare that if a character in a movie is disabled he simply 'has' to be in everyday life too, or if they're gay they have to be gay in real life also. It's the same level of adamance that certain people simply must play certain roles. I think both perspectives are silly really, but if you try to be balanced or not get drawn into one foaming at the mouth tribe or another you're in nobodys best books really! People are hyper politicised across the board. Well at least those who are vocal or activist types etc. Most people in daily life thankfully aren't, as none of it helps anyone anyway really. We're in a new world of instant 'rage, then turn the page'. Attention span gone due to being rewired for internet life, fixated on whatever we're told to be fixated on. Seperated into little echo chamber groups with arbitrary bundles of beliefs that half the time in no way even belong together anyway. I'm not sure we quite grasp what it's done to us. Strange days.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Pembroke Bristol 09 May 22 4.16pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Like? A pacifist Doctor, wasn't Turn Left about immigration and Oxygen about privitisation?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
W12 09 May 22 4.26pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
All Dr Whos until the recent one have been white.. as in the main 'good guy'. I assume your sudden about turn and idea that the show must be incredibly racist is solely due to a black people finally playing the lead role. Token or not that's an odd conclusoon to draw. Mr 'don't let them pull your strings' unnerved by black doctor whos and 'black supremacists'.. At least you're now comically also angered by neo nazis though due to a Ukranian situation. A quality that was very much abscent on here during times where it may have been actually helpful and useful to speak up. Edited by BlueJay (09 May 2022 3.17pm) Minorities are over represented in every area of the media and arts. Who are these Holmesdale Nazis that you speak of?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 09 May 22 4.28pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Come on Bluejay. This is nothing but token casting designed to look 'right on'. They have been building up to it for a few years now. I hope the shows ratings fall off the chart. The only positive is that Russell T Davies actually knows how to write good, albeit sexuality obsessed stories. Yep that bothered me....he's meant to be an alien, not sexually interested in humans.....Well, I suppose that's the Dr Who type I grew up watching. I remember quite enjoying the initial return, Christopher Eccleston's stint, but as soon as they introduced the sexual stuff I stopped watching.....Dr Who has always been a bit cringe and meant for younger audiences but thankfully I stopped watching before they introduced major progressive messaging.....unless you're part of that mindset I imagine it's quite jarring. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 May 2022 4.30pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 09 May 22 5.04pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
I don't disagree that there's a token aspect to it - indeed I stated that. That itself is a problem in my view because what's wrong with coming up with new and interesting characters that have no previous history to them? So I do see the push in that direction or how sometimes it's a natural change that annoys, and others a far more pushed, contrived one. Problem being, it's treated as 'tokenism' regardless. Dr Who, is a fictional character that's varied in lots of ways over the years so why not racially, so I find the push 'for' a character to fit a certain criteria, and also the inevitable reaction against and how that is used by some to drum up dislike to be equally nuasiating. Where it's a real person cast as a different race (which of course has happeend too) there's a far better argument against, as it just comes off as designed to get a reaction. So I do appreciate that if they push racial 'set piece' type issues to inflame, it's probably not the right place. To the extent that aspect is present here, I agree with you. Within fiction though, it's called acting for a reason, so I think it's best to just see how someone does in the role than invalidate it due to their race. I'm not sure that's it great to just want it to fail by default because there's a black lead. People being angered by this, are at political opposites but identital in their approach to whose who declare that if a character in a movie is disabled he simply 'has' to be in everyday life too, or if they're gay they have to be gay in real life also. It's the same level of adamance that certain people simply must play certain roles. I think both perspectives are silly really, but if you try to be balanced or not get drawn into one foaming at the mouth tribe or another you're in nobodys best books really! People are hyper politicised across the board. Well at least those who are vocal or activist types etc. Most people in daily life thankfully aren't, as none of it helps anyone anyway really. We're in a new world of instant 'rage, then turn the page'. Attention span gone due to being rewired for internet life, fixated on whatever we're told to be fixated on. Seperated into little echo chamber groups with arbitrary bundles of beliefs that half the time in no way even belong together anyway. I'm not sure we quite grasp what it's done to us. Strange days.
And I don't. I want it to fail because of why there is a Black lead. I already feel sorry for the guy in question. He is now a pawn in the game of identity politics.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
YT Oxford 09 May 22 5.56pm | |
---|---|
BBC News last night reported on the TV BAFTA awards earlier in the night. The report highlighted that "It's a Sin", although much-nominated, didn't win a single award. The voiceover then said (paraphrased) that if a drama series with such a subject matter (AIDS) can't win a award, then one has to wonder how the BAFTAs can remain relevant to young people. Pick the bones out if that! My reaction was: "Eh?!!". In the olden days (love 'em or hate 'em) I'm sure TV awards were given on the basis of technical, artistic etc achievement. Now the relevant BBC correspondent thinks BAFTAs should be awarded simply because a programme was about the gays. Baffling.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Matov 09 May 22 6.06pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by YT
BBC News last night reported on the TV BAFTA awards earlier in the night. The report highlighted that "It's a Sin", although much-nominated, didn't win a single award. The voiceover then said (paraphrased) that if a drama series with such a subject matter (AIDS) can't win a award, then one has to wonder how the BAFTAs can remain relevant to young people. Pick the bones out if that! My reaction was: "Eh?!!". In the olden days (love 'em or hate 'em) I'm sure TV awards were given on the basis of technical, artistic etc achievement. Now the relevant BBC correspondent thinks BAFTAs should be awarded simply because a programme was about the gays. Baffling. How is AIDS relevant to young people in the 21st century? Just a nasty form of the clap which is treatable.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Eaglecoops CR3 09 May 22 6.10pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by YT
BBC News last night reported on the TV BAFTA awards earlier in the night. The report highlighted that "It's a Sin", although much-nominated, didn't win a single award. The voiceover then said (paraphrased) that if a drama series with such a subject matter (AIDS) can't win a award, then one has to wonder how the BAFTAs can remain relevant to young people. Pick the bones out if that! My reaction was: "Eh?!!". In the olden days (love 'em or hate 'em) I'm sure TV awards were given on the basis of technical, artistic etc achievement. Now the relevant BBC correspondent thinks BAFTAs should be awarded simply because a programme was about the gays. Baffling. I would say tiresome as well as baffling. I’ve never changed channels as often in my life as I have the last few years because of some of the crap spouted.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
PalazioVecchio south pole 09 May 22 6.16pm | |
---|---|
I once saw a straight white British man getting some respect on the BBC....
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.