I think the BBC is under immense pressure to promote homosexuality into as many of its shows as possible as part of its mixed diversity, multi-cultural, left wing agenda .....
.....simply awful, as was the scottish girl introduced to try and sex it up, whose accent I could never understand.
Is the use of sexy young women solely to "sex it up" also part of the left wing agenda? Something Germaine Greer and Harriet Harman have been demanding, I suppose. Damn commies!
Sexy young females isn't a modern jump the shark thing either. Carol Ann Ford was introduced to the public in 1963 by use of photos of her modelling underwear and reference to her attractiveness. She was playing a schoolgirl. At least Amy was an adult. And, as far as I recall, covered from neck to feet (thick tights, leggings, trousers) most of the time.
I think the BBC is under immense pressure to promote homosexuality into as many of its shows as possible as part of its mixed diversity, multi-cultural, left wing agenda . Just my opinion of course that I have noticed it creeping into more programmes.
They also need to appease their funding paymasters in the wake of some the Beebs stars being too friendly.
This thread was never intended to bash the Dr Who Xmas show, merely an observation from someone that has been watching Dr Who on and off over a 40 year period.
I suppose as you get older you can only compare the more recent actors efforts against Messrs Pertwee, Tom Baker, Manning, Sladen etc and I'm afraid Mr Smith is simply awful, as was the scottish girl introduced to try and sex it up, whose accent I could never understand.
Dr Who these days would not be out of place on the same channel as Blue Peter and In the Night Garden.
Feel free to call me stuck in the past but this forum was never intended just for Dr Who luvvies. I can only say it as I
see it but Mr Smith & Co are only marginally worse than McCoy.
They aren't promoting it because its not something that can influence people, other than seeing its OK to be gay and would result in less bullying. What's wrong with that?
Amy's accent really wasn't that strong but obviously it was because she was Scottish I'm sure if she had been a northern englander you would have managed to understand. :rolleyes:
They aren't promoting it because its not something that can influence people, other than seeing its OK to be gay and would result in less bullying. What's wrong with that?
Amy's accent really wasn't that strong but obviously it was because she was Scottish I'm sure if she had been a northern englander you would have managed to understand. :rolleyes:
Having characters from as far away and as unlikely places as Scotland is just part of the BBC's namby pamby multi cultural ethnic minorities agenda. Torchwood was full of Welshies! As if!
I suppose as you get older you can only compare the more recent actors efforts against Messrs Pertwee, Tom Baker, Manning, Sladen etc and I'm afraid Mr Smith is simply awful, as was the scottish girl introduced to try and sex it up, whose accent I could never understand.
You don't speak for all "older" people who grew up with Classic Who.
I also remember Pertwee and Tom Baker, and feel that Matt Smith is much better than the former, and one of the best since the latter. Never thought Katy Manning was a particularly good actress, and definitely prefer Karen Gillan.
Oh, and the use of "sexy" female companions is almost as old as Who itself.
I thought it was the best Christmas special in a long time, certainly since Matt Smith took over.
I love Madame Vestra, Jenny and Strax, I wish they could be in it more often.
My main gripe is with Clara. I don't see why we had to have 2 different versions of her before we get the main companion one. To me its just Moffat trying to be clever again, and I had hoped that we had seen the end of the over complicated timey wimey stuff with the demise of the Ponds. There was also no need for the snog - I hoped there would be no romantic entanglements for a long long time but its seems that there is going to be some sort of "connection" between Clara and the Doctor, just as there was with Amy.
I long for the days when the mad man ina box just landed on a planet, picked up a new companion and just had adventures together. No romances and no timey wimey c..p and no deep meaningful connections that it takes 3 or 4 years to get to the bottom of and even then you do not get a proper explanation!
This Christmas episode was infinitely better than last year's in my opinion. Good story, fantastic chemistry between Matt and Jenna-Louise, a brilliant hour indeed
And how does 'jumping the shark' have any relevance to a show that can reinvent itself in a heartbeat...?:cool:
Reading this thread I have concluded that the show is a very childish one, with plots that are too complicated.
The main character strictly never ever uses guns, but sometimes he does, going way back almost 50 years and up to very recently also (end of time).
Some of the other main characters run around rogering anything that will move, and people don't like it when there are any possibly-sexual new characters introduced, or if there are any hints that anyone may be intelligent, consentual, sexual beings. These hints at sexuality appear to be too vague for people to understand properly what it all means, because it is all too childish, and toned for children so that they don't ask questions of the parents, so the show really whould be on cbeebies....if only it weren't so complicated.
The show apparently has jumped several sharks in the last few years, but is also somehow currently at its most popular it has ever been, with loads of people saying how great the last episode was.
The organisation which produces the show also appears to be run by paedophiles, who only want to show communist propaganda at any and every opportunity, while taking a strict nazi-esque policy against anyone not towing the line.
OK- back to reality now- if you don't like the show then don't watch it. I don't like Eastenders. Do I watch it so I can go an post online how crap it was?
No, because that would be something which most people would call 'Trolling'
To the original post, if it was a series post then I'm sorry your thread ended up like this, and to try and answer- I think it has not jumped any sharks. I absolutely loved the last episode, and I am a happily married man with 2 kids. I am also not a secret homosexual or a paedophile, or nazi or communist. I just like watching sci fi.
I am very happy for some real plot and substance to think about with the hugely entertaining story arc that is emerging. It really is exciting to think how it could all turn out. I could probably go on even longer but then I really would be boring people, so I wont:p
I think the BBC is under immense pressure to promote homosexuality into as many of its shows as possible as part of its mixed diversity, multi-cultural, left wing agenda . Just my opinion of course that I have noticed it creeping into more programmes.
They also need to appease their funding paymasters in the wake of some the Beebs stars being too friendly.
This thread was never intended to bash the Dr Who Xmas show, merely an observation from someone that has been watching Dr Who on and off over a 40 year period.
I suppose as you get older you can only compare the more recent actors efforts against Messrs Pertwee, Tom Baker, Manning, Sladen etc and I'm afraid Mr Smith is simply awful, as was the scottish girl introduced to try and sex it up, whose accent I could never understand.
Dr Who these days would not be out of place on the same channel as Blue Peter and In the Night Garden.
Feel free to call me stuck in the past but this forum was never intended just for Dr Who luvvies. I can only say it as I
see it but Mr Smith & Co are only marginally worse than McCoy.
I think the BBC is under immense pressure to promote homosexuality into as many of its shows as possible as part of its mixed diversity, multi-cultural, left wing agenda . Just my opinion of course that I have noticed it creeping into more programmes.
They also need to appease their funding paymasters in the wake of some the Beebs stars being too friendly.
This thread was never intended to bash the Dr Who Xmas show, merely an observation from someone that has been watching Dr Who on and off over a 40 year period.
I suppose as you get older you can only compare the more recent actors efforts against Messrs Pertwee, Tom Baker, Manning, Sladen etc and I'm afraid Mr Smith is simply awful, as was the scottish girl introduced to try and sex it up, whose accent I could never understand.
Dr Who these days would not be out of place on the same channel as Blue Peter and In the Night Garden.
Feel free to call me stuck in the past but this forum was never intended just for Dr Who luvvies. I can only say it as I
see it but Mr Smith & Co are only marginally worse than McCoy.
Please don't speak for all older viewers. I've been watching Who since the mid-60s, so rather longer than you it would seem. And I think you're speaking nonsense, though you are of course entitled to your opinion. As it happens, I think Pertwee was the best Doctor and his era has never been bettered - for me. But that doesn't mean I dismiss everything that followed. Tennant was splendid, and I like Matt Smith, too. I was no particular fan of Amy, but wouldn't dream of dismissing those who are with such lofty disdain.
As for that old Daily Mail tripe about "promoting homosexuality"... well, it's just tommy rot. It would appear that some people on here need to grow up, regardless of how old they are.
Well, speaking as an "oldie" of 52, I was also a bit worried about the overtly lesbian angle to Vastra and Jenny. They are both interesting characters, and work well as a detective couple, and the idea that Vastra is an inspiration to Dr. Doyle is quite clever. But there is really no need in the story-line for them to be a lesbian couple, let alone married (has that actually been specified before?) - thus we are left with the conclusion that their relationship has been emphasised as part of a 'gay agenda'. Whose agenda that is immaterial. Why it needs be is the question. My 12-year-old son missed the earlier subtle hints, but when Vastra and Jenny said they were married (twice, wasn't it? Just to make sure no-one missed it?) he was mightily puzzled - not about inter-species marriage (look at Spock, and there was Brannigan, the cat-man, with his human wife and their...er, kittens), but about two women being married. I just do not think that that needs to be in a show aimed at least partially at children and broadcast before the watershed.
Besides which - how can two women get married in Victorian England (or Victorian anywhere else, for that matter)? Unless they awoke a Silurian priest to do the honours?
Oh, and what does "jump the shark" mean, and what is its derivation?
Dr Who these days would not be out of place on the same channel as Blue Peter and In the Night Garden.
Good God, not this again!
Did you watch any of the past 6 episodes?
You are entitled to your opinion by all means, but "Doctor Who is too childish now" is not a valid criticism. Yes, the odd few episodes have been silly and childish, but to say that all of it would not be out of place on CBBC or even Cbeebies is ridiculous in the extreme.
I'd be frankly worried if they had a show about a war criminal and his vengeful and angry creation on Cbeebies.
Besides which - how can two women get married in Victorian England (or Victorian anywhere else, for that matter)? Unless they awoke a Silurian priest to do the honours?
I had wondered that myself, to be honest. Unless they travelled to the future, got married and then came back
Oh, and what does "jump the shark" mean, and what is its derivation?
Jump the Shark means that a program has passed it's sell by date in terms of popularity and is desperately resorting to ever more ridiculous gimmicks to try to revitalise interest.
it is derived from an episode of Happy Days where Fonzie literally, jumped a shark:
Another poor Christmas episode, a lesbian lizard in a relationship with an earthling, trying to upstage the gay robots in the last series? Could not see any relevance to the story line?
Dr Who trying to be more kissy feely with his new assistant?
In the BBCs attempt to promote minorities and shiny medals for all, has Moffat had his day?
I agree. These recent episodes have defintely been designed to appeal to those minorities of lizard people and gay robots in our society. I'm sure gay robots in particular are sitting at home thinking "why are we not represented enough on TV?".
Moffat has defintely jumped the shark. Not only jumped it, but tied it to a sleigh and used it to fly through a Victorian-era Christmassy planet...
Jump the Shark means that a program has passed it's sell by date in terms of popularity and is desperately resorting to ever more ridiculous gimmicks to try to revitalise interest.
it is derived from an episode of Happy Days where Fonzie literally, jumped a shark:
I do not agree that Dr Who has descended at all, let alone to level at which a shark-jump might be needed. Therefore, the Vastra-Jenny affair (pun unintended) is not an attempt to jump the shark. It is there to suggest that on the one hand, women married together is a perfectly normal and ordinary thing, and yet on the other hand, it is not, as it is used to shock - or at least, to surprise - other characters, especially Victorian Englishmen, and by extension, the audience. To adults in the audience, it may provoke amusement - to children, it is a puzzle - one which their parents may not wish to have to explain until they are older.
Well, speaking as an "oldie" of 52, I was also a bit worried about the overtly lesbian angle to Vastra and Jenny. They are both interesting characters, and work well as a detective couple, and the idea that Vastra is an inspiration to Dr. Doyle is quite clever. But there is really no need in the story-line for them to be a lesbian couple, let alone married (has that actually been specified before?) - thus we are left with the conclusion that their relationship has been emphasised as part of a 'gay agenda'. Whose agenda that is immaterial. Why it needs be is the question. My 12-year-old son missed the earlier subtle hints, but when Vastra and Jenny said they were married (twice, wasn't it? Just to make sure no-one missed it?) he was mightily puzzled - not about inter-species marriage (look at Spock, and there was Brannigan, the cat-man, with his human wife and their...er, kittens), but about two women being married. I just do not think that that needs to be in a show aimed at least partially at children and broadcast before the watershed.
Besides which - how can two women get married in Victorian England (or Victorian anywhere else, for that matter)? Unless they awoke a Silurian priest to do the honours?
Oh, and what does "jump the shark" mean, and what is its derivation?
Why not have them in a relationship? It could also be a reference to the speculation of the nature of Holmes and Watson's relationship (which again would be nothing wrong with). If she is the inspiration of the stories.
It's not like they were having sex or even kissing (which the heterosexuals seem to get away with).
I really can't see the problem, I watched programmes with straight content when I was a child and I'm gay, so it's not like showing gay people will make you gay.
Also I personally think children need to see it as normal because if they realise they're gay when they are teenagers they may have difficulty accepting it. Lord knows there's too many young people killing themselves due to their homosexuality.
I don't see the issue with just saying 'Some ladies love ladies, and some men love men. And there's nothing wrong with loving whoever you fall in love with.' Doctor Who shows that.
Well, speaking as an "oldie" of 52, I was also a bit worried about the overtly lesbian angle to Vastra and Jenny. But there is really no need in the story-line for them to be a lesbian couple, let alone married (has that actually been specified before?) - thus we are left with the conclusion that their relationship has been emphasised as part of a 'gay agenda'. Whose agenda that is immaterial. Why it needs be is the question. My 12-year-old son missed the earlier subtle hints, but when Vastra and Jenny said they were married (twice, wasn't it? Just to make sure no-one missed it?) he was mightily puzzled - not about inter-species marriage), but about two women being married. I just do not think that that needs to be in a show aimed at least partially at children and broadcast before the watershed.
Besides which - how can two women get married in Victorian England (or Victorian anywhere else, for that matter)?
Well, speaking as an "oldie" of 52, I was also a bit worried about the overtly lesbian angle to Vastra and Jenny. They are both interesting characters, and work well as a detective couple, and the idea that Vastra is an inspiration to Dr. Doyle is quite clever. But there is really no need in the story-line for them to be a lesbian couple, let alone married (has that actually been specified before?) - thus we are left with the conclusion that their relationship has been emphasised as part of a 'gay agenda'. Whose agenda that is immaterial. Why it needs be is the question. My 12-year-old son missed the earlier subtle hints, but when Vastra and Jenny said they were married (twice, wasn't it? Just to make sure no-one missed it?) he was mightily puzzled - not about inter-species marriage (look at Spock, and there was Brannigan, the cat-man, with his human wife and their...er, kittens), but about two women being married. I just do not think that that needs to be in a show aimed at least partially at children and broadcast before the watershed.
Besides which - how can two women get married in Victorian England (or Victorian anywhere else, for that matter)? Unless they awoke a Silurian priest to do the honours?
Oh, and what does "jump the shark" mean, and what is its derivation?
I think the rot set in after demons run. Never dealt with the consequenc:eek:es of melodys kidnap. Sayimg being in love is the same as being mentally ill. Divorce infertility and prison all mentioned but then brushed aside. 11 should not be married to anyone. Doctor is suppose to be a lonely traveler. Never spending enough time in one place to form serious relationships.11 is making the same mistake with clara. Intelligence probably created her as a honey trap to draw him in. Clara will probably have to be sacraficed or die a final true death in the last episode.
:mad:Not bothered and strax kicks butt, as a classic whovian i do perfer sontaran as enimies but moffatt is writing a family programme so needs less violence ax
The mention of the marriage between Vastra and Jenny did actually have some reasoning behind it and was not put into the script as some sort of "gay agenda" as others are saying. Firstly, the idea of two women marrying in the Victorian era is almost sinful, as the Dr. Simeon hints at, who finds the idea of two women marrying more shocking than a human marrying a lizard woman from the dawn of time. This further hints at the theme of "Victorian values" which becomes an important aspect of the narrative. The marriage conversation also shows Dr. Simeon's loneliness, as Jenny remarks they are married, while Dr. Simeon is not. The fact he is lonely is another important part of the narrative, and hints how the Great Intelligence was using him when he was a lonely orphan who thought the other children were "silly".
Not only that, but the idea of a Silurian marrying a human could also be seen as comedic by long-term fans of the show, and it further builds the characters of Vastra and Jenny who are fast becoming important long-term characters of Doctor Who- along with Strax the Sontaran who received further characterisation throughout the episode too. To conclude, mentioning that Vastra and Jenny are married was not some sort of gay agenda pushed by the BBC. It had some importance within the script, both for narrative reasons and characterisation.
Comments
Is the use of sexy young women solely to "sex it up" also part of the left wing agenda? Something Germaine Greer and Harriet Harman have been demanding, I suppose. Damn commies!
Sexy young females isn't a modern jump the shark thing either. Carol Ann Ford was introduced to the public in 1963 by use of photos of her modelling underwear and reference to her attractiveness. She was playing a schoolgirl. At least Amy was an adult. And, as far as I recall, covered from neck to feet (thick tights, leggings, trousers) most of the time.
They aren't promoting it because its not something that can influence people, other than seeing its OK to be gay and would result in less bullying. What's wrong with that?
Amy's accent really wasn't that strong but obviously it was because she was Scottish I'm sure if she had been a northern englander you would have managed to understand. :rolleyes:
Having characters from as far away and as unlikely places as Scotland is just part of the BBC's namby pamby multi cultural ethnic minorities agenda. Torchwood was full of Welshies! As if!
You don't speak for all "older" people who grew up with Classic Who.
I also remember Pertwee and Tom Baker, and feel that Matt Smith is much better than the former, and one of the best since the latter. Never thought Katy Manning was a particularly good actress, and definitely prefer Karen Gillan.
Oh, and the use of "sexy" female companions is almost as old as Who itself.
I love Madame Vestra, Jenny and Strax, I wish they could be in it more often.
My main gripe is with Clara. I don't see why we had to have 2 different versions of her before we get the main companion one. To me its just Moffat trying to be clever again, and I had hoped that we had seen the end of the over complicated timey wimey stuff with the demise of the Ponds. There was also no need for the snog - I hoped there would be no romantic entanglements for a long long time but its seems that there is going to be some sort of "connection" between Clara and the Doctor, just as there was with Amy.
I long for the days when the mad man ina box just landed on a planet, picked up a new companion and just had adventures together. No romances and no timey wimey c..p and no deep meaningful connections that it takes 3 or 4 years to get to the bottom of and even then you do not get a proper explanation!
And how does 'jumping the shark' have any relevance to a show that can reinvent itself in a heartbeat...?:cool:
Or even two
Reading this thread I have concluded that the show is a very childish one, with plots that are too complicated.
The main character strictly never ever uses guns, but sometimes he does, going way back almost 50 years and up to very recently also (end of time).
Some of the other main characters run around rogering anything that will move, and people don't like it when there are any possibly-sexual new characters introduced, or if there are any hints that anyone may be intelligent, consentual, sexual beings. These hints at sexuality appear to be too vague for people to understand properly what it all means, because it is all too childish, and toned for children so that they don't ask questions of the parents, so the show really whould be on cbeebies....if only it weren't so complicated.
The show apparently has jumped several sharks in the last few years, but is also somehow currently at its most popular it has ever been, with loads of people saying how great the last episode was.
The organisation which produces the show also appears to be run by paedophiles, who only want to show communist propaganda at any and every opportunity, while taking a strict nazi-esque policy against anyone not towing the line.
OK- back to reality now- if you don't like the show then don't watch it. I don't like Eastenders. Do I watch it so I can go an post online how crap it was?
No, because that would be something which most people would call 'Trolling'
To the original post, if it was a series post then I'm sorry your thread ended up like this, and to try and answer- I think it has not jumped any sharks. I absolutely loved the last episode, and I am a happily married man with 2 kids. I am also not a secret homosexual or a paedophile, or nazi or communist. I just like watching sci fi.
I am very happy for some real plot and substance to think about with the hugely entertaining story arc that is emerging. It really is exciting to think how it could all turn out. I could probably go on even longer but then I really would be boring people, so I wont:p
He's done the exact opposite of jumping the shark.
He's revitalised his own era and the show in general with Clara.
How do you promote homosexuality ? Lol
Please don't speak for all older viewers. I've been watching Who since the mid-60s, so rather longer than you it would seem. And I think you're speaking nonsense, though you are of course entitled to your opinion. As it happens, I think Pertwee was the best Doctor and his era has never been bettered - for me. But that doesn't mean I dismiss everything that followed. Tennant was splendid, and I like Matt Smith, too. I was no particular fan of Amy, but wouldn't dream of dismissing those who are with such lofty disdain.
As for that old Daily Mail tripe about "promoting homosexuality"... well, it's just tommy rot. It would appear that some people on here need to grow up, regardless of how old they are.
Besides which - how can two women get married in Victorian England (or Victorian anywhere else, for that matter)? Unless they awoke a Silurian priest to do the honours?
Oh, and what does "jump the shark" mean, and what is its derivation?
Good God, not this again!
Did you watch any of the past 6 episodes?
You are entitled to your opinion by all means, but "Doctor Who is too childish now" is not a valid criticism. Yes, the odd few episodes have been silly and childish, but to say that all of it would not be out of place on CBBC or even Cbeebies is ridiculous in the extreme.
I'd be frankly worried if they had a show about a war criminal and his vengeful and angry creation on Cbeebies.
I had wondered that myself, to be honest. Unless they travelled to the future, got married and then came back
Jump the Shark means that a program has passed it's sell by date in terms of popularity and is desperately resorting to ever more ridiculous gimmicks to try to revitalise interest.
it is derived from an episode of Happy Days where Fonzie literally, jumped a shark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
We've already seen the Doctor perform a Marriage ceremony no reason he could not perform another.
I agree. These recent episodes have defintely been designed to appeal to those minorities of lizard people and gay robots in our society. I'm sure gay robots in particular are sitting at home thinking "why are we not represented enough on TV?".
Moffat has defintely jumped the shark. Not only jumped it, but tied it to a sleigh and used it to fly through a Victorian-era Christmassy planet...
Thank you - very interesting!
I do not agree that Dr Who has descended at all, let alone to level at which a shark-jump might be needed. Therefore, the Vastra-Jenny affair (pun unintended) is not an attempt to jump the shark. It is there to suggest that on the one hand, women married together is a perfectly normal and ordinary thing, and yet on the other hand, it is not, as it is used to shock - or at least, to surprise - other characters, especially Victorian Englishmen, and by extension, the audience. To adults in the audience, it may provoke amusement - to children, it is a puzzle - one which their parents may not wish to have to explain until they are older.
Why not have them in a relationship? It could also be a reference to the speculation of the nature of Holmes and Watson's relationship (which again would be nothing wrong with). If she is the inspiration of the stories.
It's not like they were having sex or even kissing (which the heterosexuals seem to get away with).
I really can't see the problem, I watched programmes with straight content when I was a child and I'm gay, so it's not like showing gay people will make you gay.
Also I personally think children need to see it as normal because if they realise they're gay when they are teenagers they may have difficulty accepting it. Lord knows there's too many young people killing themselves due to their homosexuality.
I don't see the issue with just saying 'Some ladies love ladies, and some men love men. And there's nothing wrong with loving whoever you fall in love with.' Doctor Who shows that.
Well summed up
do lesbians only come out after the watershed ?
Doesn't mean that anyone would actually recognise it though.
If Victorian people didn't recognise relationships between people of the same gender why would they recognise a relationship between two species?
Even today we'd probably see it as something akin to bestiality, call the human sick and lock them up.
Not only that, but the idea of a Silurian marrying a human could also be seen as comedic by long-term fans of the show, and it further builds the characters of Vastra and Jenny who are fast becoming important long-term characters of Doctor Who- along with Strax the Sontaran who received further characterisation throughout the episode too. To conclude, mentioning that Vastra and Jenny are married was not some sort of gay agenda pushed by the BBC. It had some importance within the script, both for narrative reasons and characterisation.