"Woke" Franchises

[Lord Sovereign]

It isn't, lmao. British police are basically real life monty python sketches at this point.

Depends on the Constabulary (the Met are seen as a joke by the rest of the country) and there are a lot of old and weird laws that the pencil pushers see as too much of a headache to get rid of and the bobbies don’t enforce them.

That aside, I do want to press this, street bobbies have a pretty thankless job so people tend to join out of a genuine desire to serve their community. A lot of them aren’t exactly onboard with all the crazed lefty stuff that is entirely top down (which is why a lot of old timers have just up and left), but orders are orders.

 

[Captain X]

That aside, I do want to press this, street bobbies have a pretty thankless job so people tend to join out of a genuine desire to serve their community. A lot of them aren’t exactly onboard with all the crazed lefty stuff that is entirely top down (which is why a lot of old timers have just up and left), but orders are orders.

Then someone needs to remind them that that's what the Nazis said at Nuremberg, too.

 

[Jormungandr]

Depends on the Constabulary (the Met are seen as a joke by the rest of the country) and there are a lot of old and weird laws that the pencil pushers see as too much of a headache to get rid of and the bobbies don’t enforce them.

That aside, I do want to press this, street bobbies have a pretty thankless job so people tend to join out of a genuine desire to serve their community. A lot of them aren’t exactly onboard with all the crazed lefty stuff that is entirely top down (which is why a lot of old timers have just up and left), but orders are orders.

To be fair, America has a lot of those laws, too. Many are holdovers from when they were actually applicable in daily life.

Someone breaking those "laws" these days? Yeah, even the coppers and judges probably unknowingly do, like buying pork on a Sunday when that's illegal from a grocer that sells 24/7, lol.

 

[Stargazer]

It always had Left and liberal leanings, yes, but it was still a good show. Fenric was a good ass episode.

It's only recently they went full on Kool-Aid.

I guess that makes me someone to the Left of Stalin, then.

And, yes, I'm staring at your post with a deadpan expression right now. facepalm

I can't speak for "classic Who", but progressivism has certainly been baked into Who since series 9. It was evident in things like Jack Harkness being implied to be bisexual, etc. People frustrated with how Who has been written lately maybe don't recognize how the seeds were always there. Davies always believed this sort of stuff. It's just that as the moral decay of society has accelerated, progressive writers have gotten bolder with how much they can push. But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone who was paying attention. There never were any brakes. They're just pushing the gas harder now.

 

[Jormungandr]

I can't speak for "classic Who", but progressivism has certainly been baked into Who since series 9. It was evident in things like Jack Harkness being implied to be bisexual, etc. People frustrated with how Who has been written lately maybe don't recognize how the seeds were always there. Davies always believed this sort of stuff. It's just that as the moral decay of society has accelerated, progressive writers have gotten bolder with how much they can push. But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone who was paying attention. There never were any brakes. They're just pushing the gas harder now.

Jack shags anything that moves -- it's always been part of his character, but no-one cared because he was genuinely a good character.

But you are right about their pushing boundaries now because they're seen as "acceptable"; it's just before it wasn't written as overt propaganda.

 

[Stargazer]

Jack shags anything that moves -- it's always been part of his character, but no-one cared because he was genuinely a good character.

But you are right about their pushing boundaries now because they're seen as "acceptable"; it's just before it wasn't written as overt propaganda.

And his character was written like that, and treated as acceptable, for the same reason as all the stuff that's been happening lately. It was to push a progressive social agenda.

 

[Jormungandr]

And his character was written like that, and treated as acceptable, for the same reason as all the stuff that's been happening lately. It was to push a progressive social agenda.

I can't disagree with that, but there is a distinctness between writing a good character that happens to be gay and then writing a character for the sake of being gay (e.g. propaganda). Jack Harkness was the former.

Bill Potts, for example, was the latter.

It was brought up at least every episode or so that she's Black and a lesbian, and to hammer it on home they had her being love/in love with a human outcast girl-turned-liquid-alien-that-has-her-memories/personality as a key part of the plot.

That was so overt it was like smashing your face in with a shovel. sigh

 

[Stargazer]

I can't disagree with that, but there is a distinctness between writing a good character that happens to be gay and then writing a character for the sake of being gay (e.g. propaganda). Jack Harkness was the former.

Bill Potts, for example, was the latter.

It was brought up at least every episode or so that she's Black and a lesbian, and to hammer it on home they had her being love/in love with a human outcast girl-turned-liquid-alien-that-has-her-memories/personality as a key part of the plot.

That was so overt it was like smashing your face in with a shovel. sigh

Bill did mark the point where Who was now about social progressivism, in a way I found to be morally unacceptable (the lesbian part, not the black part). That's where I stopped following Who. But I wasn't really surprised by it. If you had told the writers ten years before that they would have a character like Bill, they would probably have been excited.

 

[evilchumlee]

Someone breaking those "laws" these days? Yeah, even the coppers and judges probably unknowingly do, like buying pork on a Sunday when that's illegal from a grocer that sells 24/7, lol.

I'm in NJ and of our counties has a "blue law" that stores can't be open on Sunday, and it IS enforced. It's so odd.

 

[Jormungandr]

I'm in NJ and of our counties has a "blue law" that stores can't be open on Sunday, and it IS enforced. It's so odd.

There are some truly odd laws that are still technically legal both in the US and UK. There's a heap of videos on YouTube about them.

I mean, they applied at the time, but these days they're just quirks and oddities.

Bill did mark the point where Who was now about social progressivism, in a way I found to be morally unacceptable (the lesbian part, not the black part). That's where I stopped following Who. But I wasn't really surprised by it. If you had told the writers ten years before that they would have a character like Bill, they would probably have been excited.

I think that's where we diverge a little: I personally don't find it morally unacceptable for someone or a character to be gay, Bi, or lesbian, unless they're a real-life Groomers United weirdo or an author basically perverts a character that's gay or straight into being the other (which includes fanfiction, and it's why I can't stand fics that have a straight character suddenly turn gay or a gay character suddenly turn straight).

Jack being... well, Jack worked in that fictional context, despite being a real-life Groomers United's wet dream, because of the relevant fictional context (the century he came from, thousands of years in the future, et cetera). He was actually a good character, and Torchwood was one of my favourite spin off shows.

Bill Potts was just over progressive propaganda ("Look at me! I'm Black and a lesbian!"), as was making the Doctor a woman, the episodes revolving around what was basically social justice causes (Rosa Parks episode, 'nuff said), et cetera.

It's ironic that the Specials they hoped would lure in more watchers as a bait-and-switch for the new Doctor are already failing, heh.

 

[Vyor]

Jack being... well, Jack worked in that fictional context, despite being a real-life Groomers United's wet dream, because of the relevant fictional context (the century he came from, thousands of years in the future, et cetera). He was actually a good character, and Torchwood was one of my favourite spin off shows.

He also notably really fucking hates pedos, which I think is something we can all get behind.

 

[Stargazer]

I think that's where we diverge a little: I personally don't find it morally unacceptable for someone or a character to be gay, Bi, or lesbian, unless they're a real-life Groomers United weirdo or an author basically perverts a character that's gay or straight into being the other (which includes fanfiction, and it's why I can't stand fics that have a straight character suddenly turn gay or a gay character suddenly turn straight).

Jack being... well, Jack worked in that fictional context, despite being a real-life Groomers United's wet dream, because of the relevant fictional context (the century he came from, thousands of years in the future, et cetera). He was actually a good character, and Torchwood was one of my favourite spin off shows.

Bill Potts was just over progressive propaganda ("Look at me! I'm Black and a lesbian!"), as was making the Doctor a woman, the episodes revolving around what was basically social justice causes (Rosa Parks episode, 'nuff said), et cetera.

It's ironic that the Specials they hoped would lure in more watchers as a bait-and-switch for the new Doctor are already failing, heh.

So, basically, you didn't have any principled moral objection to the characterization of Bill, like you didn't have any principled moral objection to Jack. You don't have any real objection to the progressive agenda they're pushing. It's just a matter of you being annoyed at how "in your face" they were with Bill, and with subsequent writing choices.

Why then shouldn't the writers just shrug their shoulders and say "You don't like it? Tough, we're making these for the people who do like this stuff. Get over it."

 

[Jormungandr]

So, basically, you didn't have any principled moral objection to the characterization of Bill, like you didn't have any principled moral objection to Jack. You don't have any real objection to the progressive agenda they're pushing. It's just a matter of you being annoyed at how "in your face" they were with Bill, and with subsequent writing choices.

Why then shouldn't the writers just shrug their shoulders and say "You don't like it? Tough, we're making these for the people who do like this stuff. Get over it."

Honestly? Context and characterization are key.

If Bill were actually a good character and not a blatant prop for an agenda, I wouldn't have cared; nor, do I feel, would most people out there, too. Jack was gay, but it was an organic part of his character. Bill was literally just a progressive prop with very little character depth. The new companion coming up with the next Doctor, Rose (2)? She's a transgender teen, and that's another agenda-pushing prop to try to normalize this repulsive shit.

Heck, a lot of nuWho's storylines and themes pre-2015 were more social commentary than anything, such as the Torchwood episode with the Sex Gas basically having the underlying message that women indulging in casual sex is wrong.

A character doesn't have to be straight to be a good or "moral" character, which is what I think you believe judging by your posts.

Most people in this day and age don't share your view that being gay, Bi, or lesbian is inherently wrong or immoral; hell, they probably just don't care as a whole. That's not the same as accepting or not objecting to "progressiveness", since the apparent alternative in your eyes is that all characters cannot be interesting or be anything but straight, lest they be "immoral" or "pro-progressive".

However, when such things are used as a character's defining trait used to push a 'message', like Groomers United shit? That's what people object to and intensely hate.

Again, context.

Edit: oh, and the people that "like" this stuff, like Transtrender Rose? It's the same as the people on Twitter who decry games for not having X or Y compared to everyone else, when in reality they don't even buy nor play nor read what they're railing against. They're less than a few percent at most.

 

[evilchumlee]

Why then shouldn't the writers just shrug their shoulders and say "You don't like it? Tough, we're making these for the people who do like this stuff. Get over it."

See I would say there's actually no problem with that at all. I also just think creators should do one of two things... or potentially both...

1) If you're writing things that are specifically targeted for a niche group, you have to expect niche engagement. You can't expect to write something targeted at a specific minority and expect it to make a billion dollars... you're just an idiot. Temper the expectation to what you are making.

2) If you're writing things for people who like those things, that's totally fine. But like, write them well. I don't think most people have any particular issue with just about anything, it just becomes problematic when it's poorly written or shoehorned in for no other reason that to check off a diversity box. Don't make a gay character and just have "gay" be their only, defining trait. I don't think most people take issue with a character who is well written and well rounded and also happens to be gay.

But really, if you're creating something tightly focused at black transgender lesbians... that's ok. Make whatever you want. Just don't expect it to appeal to anyone who isn't a black transgender lesbian. That goes for the flip of ideologies too though, just to be clear. If you create something specifically aimed at white conservative men, don't be super surprised if it's not super wildly successful.

From a business perspective, I think its odd to do these things. I would try to create something with the broadest appeal possible, because I like money.

 

[Vyor]

So, basically, you didn't have any principled moral objection to the characterization of Bill, like you didn't have any principled moral objection to Jack. You don't have any real objection to the progressive agenda they're pushing. It's just a matter of you being annoyed at how "in your face" they were with Bill, and with subsequent writing choices.

Why then shouldn't the writers just shrug their shoulders and say "You don't like it? Tough, we're making these for the people who do like this stuff. Get over it."

There is that whole... only the sinless should throw the first stone thing...

 

[Stargazer]

Honestly? Context and characterization are key.

If Bill were actually a good character and not a blatant prop for an agenda, I wouldn't have cared; nor, do I feel, would most people out there, too. Jack was gay, but it was an organic part of his character. Bill was literally just a progressive prop with very little character depth. The new companion coming up with the next Doctor, Rose (2)? She's a transgender teen, and that's another agenda-pushing prop to try to normalize this repulsive shit.

Heck, a lot of nuWho's storylines and themes pre-2015 were more social commentary than anything, such as the Torchwood episode with the Sex Gas basically having the underlying message that women indulging in casual sex is wrong.

A character doesn't have to be straight to be a good or "moral" character, which is what I think you believe judging by your posts.

Most people in this day and age don't share your view that being gay, Bi, or lesbian is inherently wrong or immoral; hell, they probably just don't care as a whole. That's not the same as accepting or not objecting to "progressiveness", since the apparent alternative in your eyes is that all characters cannot be interesting or be anything but straight, lest they be "immoral" or "pro-progressive".

However, when such things are used as a character's defining trait used to push a 'message', like Groomers United shit? That's what people object to and intensely hate.

Again, context.

Edit: oh, and the people that "like" this stuff, like Transtrender Rose? It's the same as the people on Twitter who decry games for not having X or Y compared to everyone else, when in reality they don't even buy nor play nor read what they're railing against. They're less than a few percent at most.

You didn't really answer my question, and you kind of just agreed that you have no principled moral objection. The "context" is really you just being annoyed at the way things are written and preferring it was done differently. That's not even worth getting mad about. Why not just get over it and move on to greener pastures?

See I would say there's actually no problem with that at all. I also just think creators should do one of two things... or potentially both...

1) If you're writing things that are specifically targeted for a niche group, you have to expect niche engagement. You can't expect to write something targeted at a specific minority and expect it to make a billion dollars... you're just an idiot. Temper the expectation to what you are making.

2) If you're writing things for people who like those things, that's totally fine. But like, write them well. I don't think most people have any particular issue with just about anything, it just becomes problematic when it's poorly written or shoehorned in for no other reason that to check off a diversity box. Don't make a gay character and just have "gay" be their only, defining trait. I don't think most people take issue with a character who is well written and well rounded and also happens to be gay.

But really, if you're creating something tightly focused at black transgender lesbians... that's ok. Make whatever you want. Just don't expect it to appeal to anyone who isn't a black transgender lesbian. That goes for the flip of ideologies too though, just to be clear. If you create something specifically aimed at white conservative men, don't be super surprised if it's not super wildly successful.

From a business perspective, I think its odd to do these things. I would try to create something with the broadest appeal possible, because I like money.

It's not your money though, so it's really none of your business what they do with it.

There is that whole... only the sinless should throw the first stone thing...

Well that wasn't even in the original Gospel of John, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[Skallagrim]

It's not your money though, so it's really none of your business what they do with it.

Unless we're still talking aout Doctor Who, and you're British.

Then it very much is your money, because it's made by the (government-funded) BBC...

 

[Stargazer]

Unless we're still talking aout Doctor Who, and you're British.

Then it very much is your money, because it's made by the (government-funded) BBC...

Sure. In that case, if you're really that concerned with the money being wasted, take it up with your MP.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

I can only imagine that Doctor Who takes a few million, minimum.

A quick search shows 10 million GBP per episode.

Given the deteriorating state of the public healthcare system in the UK: How many hospitals could be renovated and expanded for that? How many nurses and doctors could be hired?

How many schools could be invested in?

How many infrastructure projects could be funded?

How much more money could be laundered if there were lots of projects instead of just the TV show?

Like, it's win-win if they could contain their greed just a smidge.

 

[Typhonis]

I can only imagine that Doctor Who takes a few million, minimum.

A quick search shows 10 million GBP per episode.

Given the deteriorating state of the public healthcare system in the UK: How many hospitals could be renovated and expanded for that? How many nurses and doctors could be hired?

How many schools could be invested in?

How many infrastructure projects could be funded?

How much more money could be laundered if there were lots of projects instead of just the TV show?

Like, it's win-win if they could contain their greed just a smidge.

How much of that money is actually being spent on the show and is not being siphoned off somewhere else Like KK did with Disney SW?