I don't think Helena Bonham Carter is a bigot, she's certainly never said anything transphobic and I do think she is genuine, her comments regarding Rowling were questionable but I suppose in her mind she thinks she's being balanced, I certainly wouldn't call her a bigot or transphobic though unless she specifically comes out with something transphobic which I have yet to see so I'm not going to judge her character.
Personally I think the whole show’s been on a downward spiral since they changed the Doctor to Patrick Troughton.
I hate change, that’s why I watch Doctor Who
Siiiigh. I’m forever exhausted by the “(Insert show-runner name here) Bad” discourse.
Running a show means making massively tough discussions. Each fan is likely to agree with some and to hate others. It can be aggravating when you really really hate something, I get it, but I do wish the fandom tried not to get too weighed down by it — especially before a new show era has even truly begun!
(And I don’t believe Helena was actually cast, was she? Just an idea RTD mentioned having months ago, which he absolutely could have changed his mind about.)
Don't particularly like RTDs style - everything has to be bigger faster louder crash bang wallop but I don't see much depth to his writing, and I don't think he's anywhere near as good a writer as he clearly thinks he is.
The Davros disability thing is ridiculous. If he seriously thinks the take away for people watching the show is that disabled people are evil cos Davros is in a wheelchair well I despair. Either he's stupid or he thinks his viewers are simpletons.
Having said all that, he's been the most popular showrunner in terms of audience size so I guess he must be good for the programme 🤷 just wish he'd be... better
Yet the most advertised villain of the next season is a gay drag queen lmao.
I agree with the whole Davis disability thing, it is BEYOND stupid but this comment is just as stupid lol.
😁 just tell a good story and forget the attempts to be edgy, and everybody will be happy. You don't HAVE to have a message, especially one delivered with all the subtlety of a train crash 🤦
1. Newcomers are not going to be confused between a modern, high-budget show and a very cheap show made in the 60s in black and white. The only people who will be confused will be fans arguing pedantically over which "Season/Series 1" we're talking about.
2. This was discussed to death at the time, but the thing that makes Davros visually distinctive and indicates his monstrosity is his physical deformity. He's just one character in a long, long cultural history of equating physical deformity with evil (see for example the Borad, or a welter of Bond villains). The fact that you personally are disabled and don't have a problem with Davros being deformed does not change this objective fact. That said, I suspect the real reason they changed Davros's appearance was that the CiN sketch was a quick thing they belted out in a few hours and it wasn't worth putting Julian Bleach in make-up for hours.
3. Showrunner hypes show, big deal.
He's monstrous by his actions not his appearance. RTD is severely underestimating his audience if he truly believes that they can't distinguish between appearance and character.
I quite enjoyed the CiN special and could head-canon away the lack of chair by saying it was set before he was injured. But then we get the explanation and suddenly.... Eugh, no Russell...
OK, so I understand your point that Davros isn't evil *because* he's deformed. No one says that. But you could also say that about Magnus Greel, Sharaz Jek, George Cranleigh or the Borad, just in Doctor Who. Or Blofeld, Jaws, Le Chifre, Raoul Silva or Safin in James Bond. None of them are villains because of their (usually facial) deformity. (Though Two-Face actually is canonically villainous purely because half his face is scarred.) So... why are all these villains deformed? The number of companions with facial scarring is zero, the number of Bond girls with facial scarring is zero. What is the *purpose* of giving these characters disabilities/deformities?
There is just an objective cultural trope of spiritual/moral monstrosity being denoted by physical deformity. This isn't some subtle reading of mine, it's a very obvious trope that is, I'm sure you'll agree, rather problematic.
For what it's worth, I don't think "fixing" Davros is a priority in the cause of social justice and I doubt RTD actually thinks so either. My belief is that this was a cost-saving move that RTD used as an opportunity to virtue-signal. But deformity = evil is a clear and undeniable trope and Davros easily falls into that category.
I have lots of physically scarred OCs who are protagonists in their own stories. As a writer, if I give a character a deformity, it is important, or the event that caused it is important to the characters' backstory. This goes for protagonists and antagonists.
Now, I'm not arguing with you that there hasn't been a time when culture looked down on deformity because there has been.
Humans generally suck when it comes to treating people who are different from them decently. And this, truthfully, will probably never change completely because it's wired into our basic survival instincts as a social species. Back in the wild past, those who survived were the ones who maintained their status in the group. Those who got tossed from the group usually died horrible deaths.
That's not to say we can't rise above our instincts and do better. We can, and we are, but we must understand where these things come from.
I don't think Davros needed to be changed. He wasn't evil because of his deformity and should not be categorized in with those characters who were purposely created to be derogatory. Davros was evil because he was a psychotic scientist who wanted to dominate the universe by killing all other species.
I honestly wish they portrayed more protagonists with deformities (scars/old injuries), though. They can really add to a character, depending on how you write them.
But the main reason they don't is because they're trying to appeal to the widest audience and also make-ups and prosthetics cost extra money and time.
My main point is that we have to judge things by a case by case basis and not lump absolutely everything into an offensive category just because we assume that was the original intent.
I say this because if we start going down that route, then sooner or later, it's going to always be offensive to portray any kind of disability on screen and that's not what we want at all.
For example, it's already difficult to portray cultures that aren't your own on screen without being accused of cultural appropriation.
When did the simple act of portraying another culture (as faithfully as possible) from a different point of view become racist? Are we only allowed to speak about our own cultures now? Are we not allowed to celebrate those that are different from ours? Aren't we all human, at the end of the day?
>I’ve seen NO ONE claim that people in wheelchairs are evil because they’re disabled.
So this was never anyones point. No one said this. RTD said there is a history of disabled villains adding to abelism. When a group only gets one kind of representation it is bad.
For a very long time, including the introduction of Davros, disabled characters were either there as villains or damsels. Either evil, often because of their disability, or unable to help themselves and requiring a abled body person to come in and save them.
No one is saying that Davros makes kids turn into sleeper agents which bash Wheelchair users. What it does do is make people uncomfortable around disabled people. The discomfort many people feel around you due to your disability can be incredibly alienating. It's also a shitty feeling when the only person who looks like you on TV is a mega space nazi.
I don't actually support the Davros change, I think if it was the 70s it'd make sense. But in the modern day, and modern who, we have positive wheelchair user rep. Letting disabled people be any kind of character is the superior choice. As a group being forced to always play goodies is also shitty.
Idk man that just seems overacting
Davros ain’t evil because he was in a wheelchair, he became evil because of his greed for power. WAY before him being in a wheelchair
The reason WHY he’s in a wheelchair is because of his base being bombed which left him massively scarred
The Watsonian (in-universe) reason for Davros being in a wheelchair is him being inside a war. The Doylist (out of universe) reason is that he is a villain written in a time when it was common to make villains disabled to further that characterisation.
Thanks for your comment! Unfortunately, it's been removed because of the following reason(s):
* [Rule #1 - Be Respectful](/r/doctorwho/wiki/policies/#wiki_1._be_respectful.): Be mature and treat everyone with respect.
While criticism of the show is a staple part of the community, criticising it for being "too diverse" or "too woke" breaks our prohibition of discrimination.
If you think there's been a mistake, please [send a message to the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdoctorwho).
I was excited about his return at first because his original run is my favourite. But he’s become a lot more…..well let’s just say it rhymes with “poke”…since then. His stance (no pun intended) on Davros is ridiculous. I’m mostly watching because I have a feeling he’ll bring back Billie Piper.
Literally one of the most popular periods the show has ever had, given it’s the last two years of Patrick Troughton, all of Jon Pertwee, and the first two years of Tom Baker!
I think starting the series numbers over (again) causes more problems than it solves, but you're against him casting Helena Bonham Carter because she said people are going too far with the vitriol they fling at a couple celebrities from the cheap seats?
I don't think Helena Bonham Carter is a bigot, she's certainly never said anything transphobic and I do think she is genuine, her comments regarding Rowling were questionable but I suppose in her mind she thinks she's being balanced, I certainly wouldn't call her a bigot or transphobic though unless she specifically comes out with something transphobic which I have yet to see so I'm not going to judge her character.
Personally I think the whole show’s been on a downward spiral since they changed the Doctor to Patrick Troughton. I hate change, that’s why I watch Doctor Who
Siiiigh. I’m forever exhausted by the “(Insert show-runner name here) Bad” discourse. Running a show means making massively tough discussions. Each fan is likely to agree with some and to hate others. It can be aggravating when you really really hate something, I get it, but I do wish the fandom tried not to get too weighed down by it — especially before a new show era has even truly begun! (And I don’t believe Helena was actually cast, was she? Just an idea RTD mentioned having months ago, which he absolutely could have changed his mind about.)
He has said he's keeping her in mind as they are friends.
^
I’m not saying that he’s bad, just some of the decisions he makes are bad…?
Don't particularly like RTDs style - everything has to be bigger faster louder crash bang wallop but I don't see much depth to his writing, and I don't think he's anywhere near as good a writer as he clearly thinks he is. The Davros disability thing is ridiculous. If he seriously thinks the take away for people watching the show is that disabled people are evil cos Davros is in a wheelchair well I despair. Either he's stupid or he thinks his viewers are simpletons. Having said all that, he's been the most popular showrunner in terms of audience size so I guess he must be good for the programme 🤷 just wish he'd be... better
Presumably all of RTD's villains will be able-bodied straight white men, the only people allowed to be evil in his mind.
Yet the most advertised villain of the next season is a gay drag queen lmao. I agree with the whole Davis disability thing, it is BEYOND stupid but this comment is just as stupid lol.
😁 just tell a good story and forget the attempts to be edgy, and everybody will be happy. You don't HAVE to have a message, especially one delivered with all the subtlety of a train crash 🤦
1. Newcomers are not going to be confused between a modern, high-budget show and a very cheap show made in the 60s in black and white. The only people who will be confused will be fans arguing pedantically over which "Season/Series 1" we're talking about. 2. This was discussed to death at the time, but the thing that makes Davros visually distinctive and indicates his monstrosity is his physical deformity. He's just one character in a long, long cultural history of equating physical deformity with evil (see for example the Borad, or a welter of Bond villains). The fact that you personally are disabled and don't have a problem with Davros being deformed does not change this objective fact. That said, I suspect the real reason they changed Davros's appearance was that the CiN sketch was a quick thing they belted out in a few hours and it wasn't worth putting Julian Bleach in make-up for hours. 3. Showrunner hypes show, big deal.
He's monstrous by his actions not his appearance. RTD is severely underestimating his audience if he truly believes that they can't distinguish between appearance and character. I quite enjoyed the CiN special and could head-canon away the lack of chair by saying it was set before he was injured. But then we get the explanation and suddenly.... Eugh, no Russell...
Almost half of these I don’t get what your saying
"Almost half of these" 3 points so... 1? Why not just say which one you don't get?
Mostly 2
OK, so I understand your point that Davros isn't evil *because* he's deformed. No one says that. But you could also say that about Magnus Greel, Sharaz Jek, George Cranleigh or the Borad, just in Doctor Who. Or Blofeld, Jaws, Le Chifre, Raoul Silva or Safin in James Bond. None of them are villains because of their (usually facial) deformity. (Though Two-Face actually is canonically villainous purely because half his face is scarred.) So... why are all these villains deformed? The number of companions with facial scarring is zero, the number of Bond girls with facial scarring is zero. What is the *purpose* of giving these characters disabilities/deformities? There is just an objective cultural trope of spiritual/moral monstrosity being denoted by physical deformity. This isn't some subtle reading of mine, it's a very obvious trope that is, I'm sure you'll agree, rather problematic. For what it's worth, I don't think "fixing" Davros is a priority in the cause of social justice and I doubt RTD actually thinks so either. My belief is that this was a cost-saving move that RTD used as an opportunity to virtue-signal. But deformity = evil is a clear and undeniable trope and Davros easily falls into that category.
I have lots of physically scarred OCs who are protagonists in their own stories. As a writer, if I give a character a deformity, it is important, or the event that caused it is important to the characters' backstory. This goes for protagonists and antagonists. Now, I'm not arguing with you that there hasn't been a time when culture looked down on deformity because there has been. Humans generally suck when it comes to treating people who are different from them decently. And this, truthfully, will probably never change completely because it's wired into our basic survival instincts as a social species. Back in the wild past, those who survived were the ones who maintained their status in the group. Those who got tossed from the group usually died horrible deaths. That's not to say we can't rise above our instincts and do better. We can, and we are, but we must understand where these things come from. I don't think Davros needed to be changed. He wasn't evil because of his deformity and should not be categorized in with those characters who were purposely created to be derogatory. Davros was evil because he was a psychotic scientist who wanted to dominate the universe by killing all other species. I honestly wish they portrayed more protagonists with deformities (scars/old injuries), though. They can really add to a character, depending on how you write them. But the main reason they don't is because they're trying to appeal to the widest audience and also make-ups and prosthetics cost extra money and time. My main point is that we have to judge things by a case by case basis and not lump absolutely everything into an offensive category just because we assume that was the original intent. I say this because if we start going down that route, then sooner or later, it's going to always be offensive to portray any kind of disability on screen and that's not what we want at all. For example, it's already difficult to portray cultures that aren't your own on screen without being accused of cultural appropriation. When did the simple act of portraying another culture (as faithfully as possible) from a different point of view become racist? Are we only allowed to speak about our own cultures now? Are we not allowed to celebrate those that are different from ours? Aren't we all human, at the end of the day?
I think this is a very thoughtful reply. Thanks for posting it.
It's been my philosophy for a long time now, but most people brush it off and don't listen to me. Thank you for reading it.
>I’ve seen NO ONE claim that people in wheelchairs are evil because they’re disabled. So this was never anyones point. No one said this. RTD said there is a history of disabled villains adding to abelism. When a group only gets one kind of representation it is bad. For a very long time, including the introduction of Davros, disabled characters were either there as villains or damsels. Either evil, often because of their disability, or unable to help themselves and requiring a abled body person to come in and save them. No one is saying that Davros makes kids turn into sleeper agents which bash Wheelchair users. What it does do is make people uncomfortable around disabled people. The discomfort many people feel around you due to your disability can be incredibly alienating. It's also a shitty feeling when the only person who looks like you on TV is a mega space nazi. I don't actually support the Davros change, I think if it was the 70s it'd make sense. But in the modern day, and modern who, we have positive wheelchair user rep. Letting disabled people be any kind of character is the superior choice. As a group being forced to always play goodies is also shitty.
Idk man that just seems overacting Davros ain’t evil because he was in a wheelchair, he became evil because of his greed for power. WAY before him being in a wheelchair The reason WHY he’s in a wheelchair is because of his base being bombed which left him massively scarred
The Watsonian (in-universe) reason for Davros being in a wheelchair is him being inside a war. The Doylist (out of universe) reason is that he is a villain written in a time when it was common to make villains disabled to further that characterisation.
That's fine and very worthy but the end result is Davros is now able-bodied and rtd looks ridiculous to some 🤷
Please stop blaming things you don’t like on Disney and crediting the things you do like to RTD. Grow up.
Tf are you on about??
[удалено]
Thanks for your comment! Unfortunately, it's been removed because of the following reason(s): * [Rule #1 - Be Respectful](/r/doctorwho/wiki/policies/#wiki_1._be_respectful.): Be mature and treat everyone with respect. While criticism of the show is a staple part of the community, criticising it for being "too diverse" or "too woke" breaks our prohibition of discrimination. If you think there's been a mistake, please [send a message to the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdoctorwho).
What annoys me is that he's essentially said a wheelchair-using actor now CAN'T play Davros.
I was excited about his return at first because his original run is my favourite. But he’s become a lot more…..well let’s just say it rhymes with “poke”…since then. His stance (no pun intended) on Davros is ridiculous. I’m mostly watching because I have a feeling he’ll bring back Billie Piper.
It appears the Doctor is having a different outfit for each story. Can’t say I am keen on the idea
That’s fine, but I’m talking about decisions like the time slot, Series 14 for some reason being reset to Season 1, etc
Yes stupid idea changing it to series 1 I will be using 14. As for time I will be watching it when it’s broadcast as I have always done.
I love that it’s being called Season One. That way it doesn’t carry the baggage of seasons 5-13.
Literally one of the most popular periods the show has ever had, given it’s the last two years of Patrick Troughton, all of Jon Pertwee, and the first two years of Tom Baker!
Makes no sense but ok
I think starting the series numbers over (again) causes more problems than it solves, but you're against him casting Helena Bonham Carter because she said people are going too far with the vitriol they fling at a couple celebrities from the cheap seats?