Please can you define the word "it" in the above sentence. It could be interpreted as being very homophobic.
You are not taking the time to properly read either my posts, the posts I'm responding to, or both. That's not my problem, it is yours. The "it" is perfectly clear if you just bother to read the post directly above that.
And I see you avoided the point I was making earlier.
I wouldn't say I avoided it, but ignored it, for it asked me to provide evidence of something I never claimed the existence of.
"High", "disproportionately high", that's just quibbling to dodge the question.
No, it's not. It's being accurate in my answers, which is how I try to avoid people misquoting me and my opinions (for all the good it does me!).
What level is "high enough", or "proportionately high"? What level of gayness would you find suitable?
Any level that doesn't scream out "I'm using this show as a platform for my views" on a near weekly basis. I imagine there are better writers out there who could keep the level just as high and not be as glaring as RTD, I did originally say it was his lack of subtlety and restraint as much as his regularity.
Any level that doesn't scream out "I'm using this show as a platform for my views" on a near weekly basis. I imagine there are better writers out there who could keep the level just as high and not be as glaring as RTD, I did originally say it was his lack of subtlety and restraint as much as his regularity.
In which case, please cite some specific examples of dialogue which lacked subtlety and restraint. You could also try offering suggestions as to how the same information could have been conveyed in a more subtle and restrained manner.
Also, you keep referring to homosexuality as an "issue" or a "view", rather than as a state of being. I don't recall any political view on gay rights being expressed in Doctor Who, so I find it odd that the mere inclusion of gay characters is supposedly an expression of the writer's "views".
No, it's not. It's being accurate in my answers, which is how I try to avoid people misquoting me and my opinions (for all the good it does me!).
Then clarify the statement while you give your answer, nothing wrong with that. You know fine what I was asking, there's no ambiguity.
Any level that doesn't scream out "I'm using this show as a platform for my views" on a near weekly basis.
Which is what? To be clear, I'm not saying there's a right answer. I'm just not sure to what degree writers are allowed to have "perspectives" and "views" before they turn into an "agenda". Is it actually quantifiable at all?
I imagine there are better writers out there who could keep the level just as high and not be as glaring as RTD, I did originally say it was his lack of subtlety and restraint as much as his regularity.
Although I will always agree that Russell has never been one for subtlety, are you suggesting that it might be Russell's writing style that's the perceived problem, rather than the subject matter?
And it should be noted that Steven Moffat, a straight man, has provided an even greater range of diversity in character relationships than RTD did.
And it should be noted that Steven Moffat, a straight man, has provided an even greater range of diversity in character relationships than RTD did.
This is a good point. will the straw clutchers trying but failing to convince the rest of us that there was anything like a 'gay agenda' in RTD's era now look at Moffats time with the doctor and river, Vastra and Jenny, and the brief period where Amy still loved Rory despite him being an auton and claim that Moffat is blantantly pedalling an 'inter species' agenda?
I very much doubt they will because in that instance they can probably see it's just something naturally reoccuring as part of a writers style but even though the RTD scenario is exactly the same thing the gay stuff is way more noticable to them, because they obviously detest it being on screen at all.
As I said in a previous post, RTD cultivated far more hetrosexual relationships than gay ones in his era, and the only reason anyone would suspect that the small amount of gay related things shown were some part of an 'agenda' is if they were indeed homophobes.
I will concede that sexual or romantic relationships tend to be harder to make implicit - i.e. whether a character is black or female is clearly identifiable on screen, only rarely is it called out in the script. We generally don't know a character sexuality unless it is mentioned explicitly in the script. We never see Canton's partner, we wouldn't even know about him - or indeed that he was a 'him' - until it's explicitly mentioned.
Is that the problem that some people have then? That we know characters are black without it being mentioned in the script, but if a character is gay the writers sometimes have to make it clear?
Which is what? To be clear, I'm not saying there's a right answer. I'm just not sure to what degree writers are allowed to have "perspectives" and "views" before they turn into an "agenda". Is it actually quantifiable at all?
Aparently the view that "there are gay people in the world, and that's ok as sexuality doesn't define anyone and is ultimately meaningless as a measure of a person, so let's represent this in a family orientated science fiction tv show which has a running theme that everyone is special for who they are" is actually an agenda and somehow ruins that show.
Aparently the view that "there are gay people in the world, and that's ok as sexuality doesn't define anyone and is ultimately meaningless as a measure of a person, so let's represent this in a family orientated science fiction tv show which has a running theme that everyone is special for who they are" is actually an agenda and somehow ruins that show.
Well, to be fair, I think many of the respondents have perhaps softened on the use of the word 'agenda', with the political implications it has, and I don't think anyone is arguing it ruins the show.
Just to throw a spanner into this discussion, does anybody think that if another producer (who happened to be straight), other than RTD, had brought the show back, then A) would there have been any "close" relationships between the Doctor and his companions and would any gay characters have been introduced ?
Just to throw a spanner into this discussion, does anybody think that if another producer (who happened to be straight), other than RTD, had brought the show back, then A) would there have been any "close" relationships between the Doctor and his companions and would any gay characters have been introduced ?
Yes, and yes, respectively. The original series suffered from insufficiently exploring the relationship between the Doctor and his companions, and for not exploring the diversity of the human condition. It's not enough to ignore human sexuality any more, just as it's not enough to announce that a female character has just decided out of nowhere to leave the Doctor and get married to an alien.
Or, I suppose, I think that's what was needed. I think if the BBC had gone with a more timid producer we wouldn't have got the kind of bombast that sustained it through those early years.
I agree with you johnny, times had changes so much between the end of the classic era and the start of new Who, that the format had to change somehow. I suppose it realy started with the McGann movie and the relationship with Grace. He (the Doctor) was obviously attracted to her in a sexual way and that was really the first time we ever saw that side of him. Not sure if I want to see that sort of relationship with Capaldi's Doctor, at least not to begin with.
This is probably more appropriate for another thread (and I expect there are already many) but I'll just say yes to companions being attracted to the Doctor, but no to the Doctor being attracted to his companions. But that's just me.
I agree with you johnny, times had changes so much between the end of the classic era and the start of new Who, that the format had to change somehow. I suppose it realy started with the McGann movie and the relationship with Grace. He (the Doctor) was obviously attracted to her in a sexual way and that was really the first time we ever saw that side of him. Not sure if I want to see that sort of relationship with Capaldi's Doctor, at least not to begin with.
I don't think he was; the kisses are very chaste. Kind of like a little boy type romance rather than whisking her off to the TARDIS.
I don't think he was; the kisses are very chaste. Kind of like a little boy type romance rather than whisking her off to the TARDIS.
Surely there was an obvious attraction between The Doctor and Grace, the fact that he kissed her not once but twice and then asked her to come with him showed he was attracted to her in a way that we hadn't seen before.
Comments
Any level that doesn't scream out "I'm using this show as a platform for my views" on a near weekly basis. I imagine there are better writers out there who could keep the level just as high and not be as glaring as RTD, I did originally say it was his lack of subtlety and restraint as much as his regularity.
Also, you keep referring to homosexuality as an "issue" or a "view", rather than as a state of being. I don't recall any political view on gay rights being expressed in Doctor Who, so I find it odd that the mere inclusion of gay characters is supposedly an expression of the writer's "views".
You're clearly determined to be offended
Which is what? To be clear, I'm not saying there's a right answer. I'm just not sure to what degree writers are allowed to have "perspectives" and "views" before they turn into an "agenda". Is it actually quantifiable at all? Although I will always agree that Russell has never been one for subtlety, are you suggesting that it might be Russell's writing style that's the perceived problem, rather than the subject matter?
And it should be noted that Steven Moffat, a straight man, has provided an even greater range of diversity in character relationships than RTD did.
I very much doubt they will because in that instance they can probably see it's just something naturally reoccuring as part of a writers style but even though the RTD scenario is exactly the same thing the gay stuff is way more noticable to them, because they obviously detest it being on screen at all.
As I said in a previous post, RTD cultivated far more hetrosexual relationships than gay ones in his era, and the only reason anyone would suspect that the small amount of gay related things shown were some part of an 'agenda' is if they were indeed homophobes.
Is that the problem that some people have then? That we know characters are black without it being mentioned in the script, but if a character is gay the writers sometimes have to make it clear?
Aparently the view that "there are gay people in the world, and that's ok as sexuality doesn't define anyone and is ultimately meaningless as a measure of a person, so let's represent this in a family orientated science fiction tv show which has a running theme that everyone is special for who they are" is actually an agenda and somehow ruins that show.
Well, to be fair, I think many of the respondents have perhaps softened on the use of the word 'agenda', with the political implications it has, and I don't think anyone is arguing it ruins the show.
Yes, and yes, respectively. The original series suffered from insufficiently exploring the relationship between the Doctor and his companions, and for not exploring the diversity of the human condition. It's not enough to ignore human sexuality any more, just as it's not enough to announce that a female character has just decided out of nowhere to leave the Doctor and get married to an alien.
Or, I suppose, I think that's what was needed. I think if the BBC had gone with a more timid producer we wouldn't have got the kind of bombast that sustained it through those early years.
I don't think he was; the kisses are very chaste. Kind of like a little boy type romance rather than whisking her off to the TARDIS.
Surely there was an obvious attraction between The Doctor and Grace, the fact that he kissed her not once but twice and then asked her to come with him showed he was attracted to her in a way that we hadn't seen before.