(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. Apparently I'm not the only one who didn't enjoy this week's Who all that much and had issues with it.

I didn't hate it. But, I'm admittedly not quite as fannish about the series as others. But I did think it was rather clumsily written.

Hmmm, while hunting down the listing of this season's Doctor Who episodes (hard to do when you have no clue which season this is supposed to be), I stumbled upon an announcement of the NEW DOCTOR or rather who will be replacing Capadali and when it will happen.[ETA: Fake announcement. Just found out it was fake. So never mind.]

Looked up Peter Harness, who co-wrote Pyramid at the End of the World, and yep I don't like his writing. He'd also wrote the Zygon invasion episodes, which I also had issues with. In fact, I think I gave up on Doctor Who during that season in part because of those episodes.

2. Dinner was lovely with U last night. She's very wise. She refuses to discuss or talk about politics at all. With anyone. I'd bring it up. She'd say nothing. Or change the subject. (U voted for Clinton.) Avoids it completely in every way.

3. My crazy church friends on FB are still throwing cats at me. The latest is a poor cat who is depressed after just losing her owner of ten or twelve years. This is getting ridiculous. Although it is rather amusing. My friends on Dreamwidth are trying to talk me out of it, while my friends on FB are trying to guilt me into adopting a cat right this very second. Who knew adopting a cat was such a controversial subject? I blame all those cat videos.

Comments

[shadowkat]

Thanks, didn't know any of that. Sounds like the US version of The National Enquirer. It's hard enough to keep track of one's own country's fake news sources, let alone other country's. It did seem odd though that no one on my reading list had mentioned it or ranted about it. But why would someone post this fake rumor in any thread?

See I don't know anything about Kris Marshall or British humor in this regard.

It's been edited.

[elisi]

It's hard enough to keep track of one's own country's fake news sources, let alone other country's.
Oh aye. The Daily Mail is often referred to as 'The Daily Fail' or 'The Daily Heil' (now, guess it's political leanings...), and it's so known for making stuff up that wikipedia will not allow it to be credited as source material. >:) (The other two are not much better.)

It did seem odd though that no one on my reading list had mentioned it or ranted about it.
The BBC would usually be the first, esp since these days they tend to have a special programme revealing who the new Doctor is.

See I don't know anything about Kris Marshall or British humor in this regard.
Kris Marshall is... um... well, he's an actor. And he's been in things. But not Doctor material in any way shape or form. *shudders*

It's been edited.
Thank you! <3

[shadowkat]

Kris Marshall is... um... well, he's an actor. And he's been in things. But not Doctor material in any way shape or form. *shudders*

He did seem to be a very odd choice. (I still want Idris Elba. Or maybe Hugh Laurie, although can't see either happening, they have huge careers.}

I found the whole thing to be very bewildering.

[elisi]

He did seem to be a very odd choice.
That was the point - what's the most middle-of-the-road, unexciting actor we can possibly think of? ;)

I still want Idris Elba. Or maybe Hugh Laurie, although can't see either happening, they have huge careers.
Hugh Laurie? I hadn't even thought of that. Hm, not convinced. Idris Elba possibly. Or a woman. Just someone other than a straight white guy.

I found the whole thing to be very bewildering.
Welcome to British humour?

[shadowkat]

Just someone other than a straight white guy.

Eh. Good luck with that. Although I'm not sure it matters if they cast straight or not straight -- because honestly unless the Doctor becomes bisexual as a character, it doesn't matter. Rock Hudson, Richard Chamberlain, Montgomery Cliff, and various other macho movie stars were gay, and no one could tell. I always thought casting based on actor or actress' sexual orientation was rather silly. They are acting after all.

As for a woman or someone who is ethnically not a white British man...I somehow doubt the BBC will take the risk, not with dwindling ratings. Personally, I'd like it to be someone like Idris Elba or even Olivia Coleman. But I know they'll never do that.

[elisi]

Never say never. Moffat has certainly laid the ground work, it just remains to be seen if Chibnall (the BBC) is brave enough.

because honestly unless the Doctor becomes bisexual as a character, it doesn't matter.
Well he's from a species that can change gender. I don't think straight or gay are distinctions that mean much to him, if anything, and he would certainly not describe himself as straight.

And I would love for it to be Olivia Coleman. (Might not fit with her schedule, sadly. She has young children and Doctor Who is very very hard work.)

Mind you, the Doctor has been female in audio adventures, and once in The Curse of Fatal Death (comedy sketch for Red Nose Day back in the 90's). So I'm optimistic.

[shadowkat]

Due to what is currently going on at my workplace, I'm admittedly twitchy when it comes to gender/ethnic specific casting. I'd like them to do it because it works as a character or plot twist not for socio-political reasons.

And I can see ways that regenerating the Doctor as a POC or female or both...would twist the plot and character in a new way. So it doesn't have to be just about politics. And you can make him bisexual without casting someone who is. I always thought of the Doctor as more aeexual.

[elisi]

Well the 'straight white male' was just the usual shorthand. ;)

And obviously it should be done because the actor is the right choice. However, after seeing people arguing that casting a woman 'would just be a stunt' I'm feeling a bit annoyed. We're half the population, it shouldn't be considered a 'stunt'.

Of course, having a female or POC Doctor would both be brilliant and also open them up to everyone arguing they were doing it wrong. So yeah. No right answer.

[shadowkat]

I wish it wasn't an issue. Either way, you are screwed when you make it one.

I think they will get a backlash if they go for a woman Doctor, based on the backlash that I saw regarding River Song. And I don't think it will be from male fans, there's a lot of female fans out there who don't want a female doctor. Some because they just hate change. Other's because they are heterosexual and want to fantasize about a male Doctor. I know the female well. Saw this happen with Supernatural as well. You should see them on soap opera boards and Amazon paranormal romance novel reviews. There's a lot of ladies out there with ingrained misogyny.

I think it's more likely to get a POC Doctor. But honestly think either would open up the story a bit, and challenge the character and its own views.
Heck, they turned the Master into a female upon regeneration so the foundation is there. Sort of.

[elisi]

Don't sell men short - they invented misogyny after all.

[shadowkat]

Might not fit with her schedule, sadly. She has young children and Doctor Who is very very hard work.)

Hmmm. Doctor Who is what? 12 episodes plus a Christmas show? In the US actresses have small children and do 22 episodes a year, and some do daytime, which is approximately 200 episodes a year, some are 12-13 hour days.

This sounds rather easy in comparison. Hardly any work at all. I know actors who'd kill for a 12 episode high profile gig.

[elisi]

This sounds rather easy in comparison. Hardly any work at all.
You would think so, wouldn't you? But you would be wrong. It takes 9 months to shoot, the actors have to move to Cardiff (it's not possible to commute, the days are very long, I'm sure 12 hours isn't uncommon), and after long days working they then have to learn a crazy amount of lines. Plus lots of running and no cushy studios.

[shadowkat]

There are US shows with similar issues. LOST was 22 episodes, on location, Hawaii, and people had to move there.

Still a breeze in comparison to US schedules. And seriously, they have trailers and aren't acting the whole time. I have co-workers with young kids, who have harder workloads.

[ex_peasant441]

I'm sad it is fake news! Kris Marshall would have been perfectly acceptable. He tends to play slightly awkward, bumbling people who are very intelligent underneath, and that would have worked very well actually.

The Sun, Mail, Mirror, Express etc are perfectly reliable news outlets that are pitched for the non-inteligentsia. The journalism is often of a very high standard actually, and it certainly isn't fake news (beyond the occasional error). Unfortunately they display their political bias on their sleeve more than the broadsheets and this has led many people to take violently against them, especially if they hold the opposing political views. Sun and Mail bashing is almost a sport in certain circles.

It did seem odd though that no one on my reading list had mentioned it or ranted about it.

I think I did see it on Twitter a few weeks ago. I didn't pay much attention because the rumours always fly thick and fast at this stage of casting either Doctor Who or James Bond. Best to just ignore the lot and wait and see.

But why would someone post this fake rumor in any thread?
Probably because they thought the idea of Kris Marshall as Doctor Who was a mildly alarming idea. The whole thread was about us poking fun at the terrorists by saying we don't have time to be scared of them because these are the things we are really scared of. The epitome one being 'there is only one tea-bag left'. It was a good thread and a great way for everyone to pitch in and cheer each other up after Manchester. I loved it.

[shadowkat]

The Sun, Mail, Mirror, Express etc are perfectly reliable news outlets that are pitched for the non-inteligentsia.

So less National Enquirer and more Daily News, New York Post, and Newsday?

Of course if any of them are owned by Rupert Murdoch, I'll question them, because Murdoch is the king of yellow journalism. That said, he did buy and own the Wall Street Journal which is perfectly reliable.

I know the Guardian and Telegraph are very liberal biased similar to The Village Voice and various others in the US. The Times, seems to be the equivalent of the New York Times, which is more moderate and less biased.

That said, the Sun, Mirror, Daily, etc have on occasion passed around some interesting urban legends. (Snopse and Fact Check.org are our friends) It's surprisingly easy to hood-wink the press. They don't fact-check things like they should. And they've gotten progressively worse with time. Hence the delivery of fake news on both sides of the spectrum. People on both sides of the political spectrum think the fake news is proliferated by just one side, it really isn't. There's a couple of left-leaning mags/onxine sites who do it too.

In the 1990s, my brother conducted an experiment of sorts...it was performance art project in Ohio, to see if he could hood-wink the press with just a few press releases and wandering around doing a performance. He accomplished it. He completely fooled every Ohio newspaper and broadcast network in the area within the space of two weeks. No one fact-checked or investigated it. When he revealed it, they got upset and screamed bloody murder -- because obviously it was all his fault for fooling them, they weren't responsible at all.

But thanks, I feel less stupid now for believing the rumor. ;-)

[ex_peasant441]

So less National Enquirer and more Daily News, New York Post, and Newsday?

Having glanced very briefly at some of their websites, I think that is correct. The Sun is probably the least respectable of ours, focusing mostly on celebrity stuff and sports.

if any of them are owned by Rupert Murdoch, I'll question them, because Murdoch is the king of yellow journalism.
Murdoch owns the Sun. He also owns The Times - which is about as reputable as journalism comes. So it goes to show you never can tell.

I know the Guardian and Telegraph are very liberal biased

Actually the Guardian is left wing and the Telegraph is right wing. The Guardian is catering for the classic urban intelligentsia Anywhere types. It would be characterised as supporting the Liberal Democrats (since the Labour Party got taken over by terrorist-supporting extremists) and unreconciled Remain voters. The Telegraph has a much bigger readership and is more rural and small town Somewhere types, characterised as voting Tory and Leave. The Times has about the same readership as the Telegraph but is more London, especially city workers, centre right, and voted Remain but is now reconciled and pragmatic about it.

Snopse and Fact Check.org are our friends
Except I learnt the hard way that Fact Check.org is very left biased and not reliable itself :D

It's surprisingly easy to hood-wink the press. They don't fact-check things like they should.
This is true. And whenever you know anything about something in the press it is always slightly wrong. Journalists are drawn from a limited pool of backgrounds and they really don't understand any subject outside their own. But I guess we can say that the noise and bluster generally seems to spit the truth out along the way. And sometimes a good bit of journalism really can change history. Watergate in your country is the obvious example. In this country it was the Telegraph investigation into Parliamentary Expenses, which completely changed how everyone viewed MPs. The repercussions are still with us.

In the 1990s, my brother conducted an experiment of sorts...it was performance art project in Ohio, to see if he could hood-wink the press with just a few press releases and wandering around doing a performance. He accomplished it. He completely fooled every Ohio newspaper and broadcast network in the area within the space of two weeks. No one fact-checked or investigated it. When he revealed it, they got upset and screamed bloody murder -- because obviously it was all his fault for fooling them, they weren't responsible at all.
That is brilliant!

People on both sides of the political spectrum think the fake news is proliferated by just one side, it really isn't.
Full disclosure time: I am descended from a long line of journalists and news editors, and my grandfather was head of BBC news. It is family legend that after any significant news broadcast he would be rung up by both the chairmen of the Tory and Labour parties, both claiming the report had been completely biased against their own party. Of course nowadays the BBC is completely biased, but we often forget the problem has been around for a very long time.

[shadowkat]

Kris Marshall would have been perfectly acceptable. He tends to play slightly awkward, bumbling people who are very intelligent underneath, and that would have worked very well actually.

Okay, now I'm puzzled as to why the fandom considered this a horrible idea. I mean, he sounds similar to Matt Smith, but much better looking. It's why it looked real to me. What's the difference between Kris Marshall and Matt Smith? Smith had relatively little experience. I admittedly preferred 9 and 10's takes on the Doctor, which were more serious and less bumbling. But that just me.

I do however, think there is some truth to the claim that the BBC wants another David Tennant, because the ratings were highest during Tennant's period. Although I think there were other reasons for that, not just Tennant.

[ex_peasant441]

now I'm puzzled as to why the fandom considered this a horrible idea. I mean, he sounds similar to Matt Smith, but much better looking.

Absolutely! Maybe he was in something I haven't seen that condemns him. Or maybe people want their Doctor more competent than his usual characters. Also I think a large segment has set its heart on the next Doctor being either female or black.

I do however, think there is some truth to the claim that the BBC wants another David Tennant, because the ratings were highest during Tennant's period. Although I think there were other reasons for that, not just Tennant.

I think the BBC need to tread carefully and find a ratings winner for the next Doctor. Ratings have been slipping away gradually for a few years and they really cannot afford to waste any more ratings capital on catering to fanservice rather than the wider audience appeal. (A good writer should be able to do both but the writers are not always good.) Most importantly, they need to appeal to the kids - speaking to my 8 year old nephew, Doctor Who is clearly not as all-important in child culture as it needs to be to sustain its current place. Doctor Who needs to be like the best children's books - catering to kids first and then with a really good added layer that only the adults notice. I'm not sure that children's stuff has been much in evidence this year. I mean Pilot was dull as ditchwater from a kid POV. Smile was worse. Then they had an elephant on the ice and then did nothing with it, though that one did at least have some children in it. Knock Knock was probably okay for kids since it was basically a haunted house story. Oxygen had the attractive idea of zombies on a spaceship but none of the satisfactory splatting zombies normally bring. Extremis was beyond wonderful for adults but probably incomprehensible for kids. Pyramid could well have been the best for kids, given it had soldiers, a pyramid, creepy aliens and a submarine nose down in the desert - but six episodes is a long time to wait.

[shadowkat]

Also I think a large segment has set its heart on the next Doctor being either female or black.

While I'd personally love that, particularly Idris Elba, I don't see that happening. I agree in regards to the ratings -- they can't afford to waste ratings capital catering to a portion of the fanbase. So going outside the box, may well be too risky for the BBC.

Doctor Who needs to be like the best children's books - catering to kids first and then with a really good added layer that only the adults notice.

Doctor Who as a kids show has bewildered me. Because what I've seen to date, I wouldn't consider appealing to kids and in some cases is either too scary or too boring from their perspective. (Although I know 8 year olds watching The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones and Supernatural...so what do I know? )

Kids fare has changed a great deal since I was a child. And depends on their parents, apparently.

But I'd have to agree nothing I've seen this season would be that appealing to a kid. Adults maybe but not kids. Oxygen and possibly Thin Ice might appeal to them. Moffat and RT Davies aren't really good children's writers. But then again, there are kids watching The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. And I don't have kids, nor is my niece watching Doctor Who.

[ex_peasant441]

they can't afford to waste ratings capital catering to a portion of the fanbase

I think that excludes a woman. I am not sure it excludes a BME man providing he meets the other criteria for being the Doctor. It is very hard to guess how the public would react but that is my unscientific gut instinct. If they want someone like Tennant then there are plenty of classically trained actors who are good looking enough without being too alpha, and range-wise can switch between serious and silly. Adrian Lester is the one who springs immediately to my mind.

While I'd personally love that, particularly Idris Elba

Idris Elba must be the only person to be suggested for James Bond and the Doctor. It is sad because is too old for James Bond now. And for me he is wrong for the Doctor, both because his body type is too muscular and his character is too alpha dominant. Those things would have made a great James Bond to my mind, but are almost the opposite of how I see the Doctor. Also, could Elba do silly?

My 8 year old nephew has just started watching Doctor Who (and he certainly isn't allowed to watch Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead) he has only seen Pilot so far, which he said he quite liked but it clearly wasn't a life-changing experience. He asked me what the Doctor's real name was and said he thought the police 'car' was cool - that was about it. Back when the new show started I asked my brother-in-law (in the teaching profession) what the children were saying about it and he replied they didn't seem to be talking about it. I think that did change, but I suspect it has never become as much a stalwart for children as it was back in the day when there were so few alternatives.