Possible new companion?

[iank]

Doctor Who: No White People.

[Deleted]

Ncuti's been at the gym. Shame Jodie never posted a similar photo at the time.

[iank]

This is who this show is for now - Instagram posers.

[rushy]

Jan 22, 2024 21:00:04 GMT iank said:

Doctor Who: No White People.

who cares what colour their skin is

[Deleted]

I don't have an issue, but I'm sure RTD will be praised for having the first non-white Doctor/companion duo by some self proclaimed anti racist people who can't quite see the irony in celebrating the lack of white people in the cast.

[Deleted]

I don't care what colour they are. As long as they're good in the roles. Unfortunately, at least with Ncuti, that's far from the truth...

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2024 18:32:47 GMT zarius said:

That's in Penarth. Most likely doubling for England again.

The problem with shooting in Wales is that some of it is very beautiful, but it feels very flat when trying to pass for London. Look at Doomsday, for instance. Someone else mentioned the fact that there's not any particularly memorable London imagery like the Cybermen marching down the steps or the Daleks on the bridge or Trafalgar Square. The Cybermen stomping down a street in Cardiff with St. Paul's digitally added in the background just doesn't work for me. They did this with my home city as well in The Lodger and Closing Time. 

A fan from Colchester said this at time:

"it was totally unrecognisable as being in Colchester, obviously having been filmed in Cardiff. “It seems a shame really, especially because in this day and age I'm sure they could have filmed a bit of Colchester to be included in the programme, even if the actors didn't come themselves."

[iank]

Jan 22, 2024 22:11:15 GMT rushy said:

Jan 22, 2024 21:00:04 GMT iank said:

Doctor Who: No White People.

who cares what colour their skin is

Russell T Davies/Disney, at a guess. 

[ClockworkOcean]

It's unfortunate that this is even a conversation, but the woke identitarian crowd have only themselves to blame for opening this can of worms. Ten years ago, nobody cared about actors' immutable characteristics because it was generally understood that casting decisions were a product of artistic freedom and meritocracy. The relatively recent introduction of mandatory "diversity" quotas is the sole cause of the suspicious atmosphere that's arisen since, having produced countless examples of profoundly unsuitable candidates (e.g. Gatwa & Whittaker) being miscast in high-profile roles throughout the entertainment industry.

The portion of the fanbase NuWho now exclusively panders to ruthlessly attacked Capaldi from the moment he was cast partly because he's white, and even did the same to Whittaker to a lesser extent. It's hard not to second-guess the motivation behind just about every casting decision given that context.

It's completely fine for shows and films to have all-minority casts. It should also be acceptable for others to have all-white casts. And everything in between. What's fundamentally wrong is the obscene hypocrisy of Mulan and Black Panther being praised as "diverse" for having all-Asian and mostly black casts respectively, while films as universally beloved as Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy would be disqualified from winning Oscars today for remaining faithful to their source material's depiction of a world inspired by medieval Europe.

[zarius]

[Deleted]

Jan 23, 2024 5:17:46 GMT ClockworkOcean said:

It's unfortunate that this is even a conversation, but the woke identitarian crowd have only themselves to blame for opening this can of worms. Ten years ago, nobody cared about actors' immutable characteristics because it was generally understood that casting decisions were a product of artistic freedom and meritocracy. The relatively recent introduction of mandatory "diversity" quotas is the sole cause of the suspicious atmosphere that's arisen since, having produced countless examples of profoundly unsuitable candidates (e.g. Gatwa & Whittaker) being miscast in high-profile roles throughout the entertainment industry.

The portion of the fanbase NuWho now exclusively panders to ruthlessly attacked Capaldi from the moment he was cast partly because he's white, and even did the same to Whittaker to a lesser extent. It's hard not to second-guess the motivation behind just about every casting decision given that context.

It's completely fine for shows and films to have all-minority casts. It should also be acceptable for others to have all-white casts. And everything in between. What's fundamentally wrong is the obscene hypocrisy of Mulan and Black Panther being praised as "diverse" for having all-Asian and mostly black casts respectively, while films as universally beloved as Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy would be disqualified from winning Oscars today for remaining faithful to their source material's depiction of a world inspired by medieval Europe.

This also applies to gender as well. That was my big issue with Whittaker being cast because Chibinall made a really strange comment that if they hadn't cast a female Doctor the show "would have been behind the world" as if keeping a male character male would somehow have made the series out of date. It's just very strange. Unlike some, I would have been happy to accept a female Doctor if the people making the show were sincere about it. Sadly, I don't think the word sincere appears in many of these people's dictionary. 

[Bernard Marx]

Jan 23, 2024 5:17:46 GMT ClockworkOcean said:

It's unfortunate that this is even a conversation, but the woke identitarian crowd have only themselves to blame for opening this can of worms. Ten years ago, nobody cared about actors' immutable characteristics because it was generally understood that casting decisions were a product of artistic freedom and meritocracy. The relatively recent introduction of mandatory "diversity" quotas is the sole cause of the suspicious atmosphere that's arisen since, having produced countless examples of profoundly unsuitable candidates (e.g. Gatwa & Whittaker) being miscast in high-profile roles throughout the entertainment industry.

The portion of the fanbase NuWho now exclusively panders to ruthlessly attacked Capaldi from the moment he was cast partly because he's white, and even did the same to Whittaker to a lesser extent. It's hard not to second-guess the motivation behind just about every casting decision given that context.

It's completely fine for shows and films to have all-minority casts. It should also be acceptable for others to have all-white casts. And everything in between. What's fundamentally wrong is the obscene hypocrisy of Mulan and Black Panther being praised as "diverse" for having all-Asian and mostly black casts respectively, while films as universally beloved as Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy would be disqualified from winning Oscars today for remaining faithful to their source material's depiction of a world inspired by medieval Europe.

Additionally, it's worth noting that these quotas are not designed or integrated by production/awards companies to benefit anything or anyone from a progressive- or in any way "left-wing"- angle. They are being implemented to disingenuously give their corporate image a positive spin, and to discourage artists and audiences from either becoming socially conscious or making thought-provoking art. 

A salient passage from a certain website on this subject:

The underlying premise of this sort of effort is that “artwork should be categorized and presumably appreciated according to whether it represents a male or female, black or white perspective.” Whether they liked it or not, such forces were setting up this basic standard: “women gain more from art produced by women, Jews from work created by Jews, African-Americans from ‘African-American art,’ etc.”

...

Assuming that artistic perspective is thoroughly framed by race or gender, the AMPAS bureaucrats and their advisers elevate such matters to the level of a worldview. In ideological terms, in their obsession with race in particular, such views have been identified historically with the far right.

Such an approach, in fact, is death to art, which requires that the artist ignore external compulsions of every kind and be true to him or herself.

…

The claim that the Academy’s initiative involves “inclusion” and “diversity” in any meaningful sense is fraudulent. On the contrary, bringing in a portion of already affluent African Americans and females will not change the social character of American film and television in the least.

Indeed, one of the purposes of the new standards is to fix the focus of writers, directors, producers and actors on personal identity as the question of questions and to divert attention from the burning problems of war, poverty, pandemic and the threat of dictatorship.

[burrunjor]

Jan 23, 2024 13:13:32 GMT @kengrubshaw said:

Jan 23, 2024 5:17:46 GMT ClockworkOcean said:

It's unfortunate that this is even a conversation, but the woke identitarian crowd have only themselves to blame for opening this can of worms. Ten years ago, nobody cared about actors' immutable characteristics because it was generally understood that casting decisions were a product of artistic freedom and meritocracy. The relatively recent introduction of mandatory "diversity" quotas is the sole cause of the suspicious atmosphere that's arisen since, having produced countless examples of profoundly unsuitable candidates (e.g. Gatwa & Whittaker) being miscast in high-profile roles throughout the entertainment industry.

The portion of the fanbase NuWho now exclusively panders to ruthlessly attacked Capaldi from the moment he was cast partly because he's white, and even did the same to Whittaker to a lesser extent. It's hard not to second-guess the motivation behind just about every casting decision given that context.

It's completely fine for shows and films to have all-minority casts. It should also be acceptable for others to have all-white casts. And everything in between. What's fundamentally wrong is the obscene hypocrisy of Mulan and Black Panther being praised as "diverse" for having all-Asian and mostly black casts respectively, while films as universally beloved as Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy would be disqualified from winning Oscars today for remaining faithful to their source material's depiction of a world inspired by medieval Europe.

This also applies to gender as well. That was my big issue with Whittaker being cast because Chibinall made a really strange comment that if they hadn't cast a female Doctor the show "would have been behind the world" as if keeping a male character male would somehow have made the series out of date. It's just very strange. Unlike some, I would have been happy to accept a female Doctor if the people making the show were sincere about it. Sadly, I don't think the word sincere appears in many of these people's dictionary. 

No offense, but this I just don't understand. How can you be okay with a female Doctor? I mean I assume you agree with the idea that the Doctor has to remain fundamentally the same person across his different incarnations? That his consciousness is the same, it's only aspects of his outer persona that change? Well in that case, again how can a sex change not be seen as a huge, jarring thing to put the character through? 

Again if you saw Morgana Robinson playing the Doctor, could you really imagine that she was still William Hartnell under the new face, as easily as you could say Jon Pertwee and Peter Davison? Not that they didn't have differences, but again you can at least believe that's Hartnell who has gone through a bit of a shake up, physically and mentally, where as a woman? 





Only way you are going to accept that crazy blonde who would make a good Doctorish type of hero is actually, specifically Hartnell, is if you alter the character to be some trans, or genderless alien like Ziggy Stardust, which is changing the fundamentals of his character, same way a womanizer Doctor like Tennant is. 

It's just a bad, bad, bad idea fundamentally. Only way it could work is if it were a remake, but even then I'm not that interested as I'd actually for female representation, prefer a female hero. 

Let's all be creative and think up a crazy female hero that can be played by someone like Morgana, a mad bitch who is normally cast as villains, rather than first try and take that role away from male character actors, and then make it a role anyone can play, so it has no character left.

[Deleted]

I can't be arsed to get into it anymore. Everyone is set in the way about that particular subject so there's no point going over it. I have more to think about than getting caught up in a debate about the gender of a fictional character from a show that's essentially dead in the water.  

[Deleted]

Apparently she's going back to Corrie.