The 13th Doctor announced

[Fixer]

People don't view every subject through the lense of identity politics. You need to take those glasses off for a moment. If you're looking at all the incarnations of the Doctor over the last half a century you can only say that the race/gender of the Doctor has been a political issue for the past ten years or so and that is due to a small number of very loud individuals saying it needs to change because (insert reason here).

The idea that it's now a political act to not change a character's race and gender on the behest of a vocal minority of activists makes me look forward to the day when this fad finally dies.

[Durandal_1707]

Allowing your casting department to consider people from outside the 30% of the population (or whatever it is in Britain) that are white males is not a "fad." Jesus.

Especially when this is a character whose species is well-established to randomly change every aspect of their appearance during regeneration, including gender. That's all in the lore already. So if anything, having him be a white male every single time stretches plausibility.

Anyway, there are only about 3,482,461,569 shows out there with white males in the leading roles, so anyone who's offended by seeing someone else can always just go watch one of those.

Go ahead and ban me for saying that if you want.

[Durandal_1707]

Also: To show you how "new" this idea is, Patrick Troughton, who died in 1987, had this to say, probably before a lot of posters here were born.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMZuVfQgRCo

[Fixer]

Allowing your casting department to consider people from outside the 30% of the population (or whatever it is in Britain) that are white males is not a "fad." Jesus.

Especially when this is a character whose species is well-established to randomly change every aspect of their appearance during regeneration, including gender. That's all in the lore already. So if anything, having him be a white male every single time stretches plausibility.

Anyway, there are only about 3,482,461,569 shows out there with white males in the leading roles, so anyone who's offended by seeing someone else can always just go watch one of those.

Go ahead and ban me for saying that if you want.

You're not going to get banned for having an opinion. Breaking the rules, yes. I've already had people complain in PM for both "defending political correctness" and the reverse. So I'm going to be clear. I consider everyone regardless of who they are part of the same slowly decomposing pile of animal meat that is humanity regardless of their personal political views.

Going to make my promise here. Argue ideas in a rational and calm manner and not make personal attacks, "mind read" others assumed unclean motivations or otherwise break the rules of the forum and you're not going to receive a warning from me or otherwise. Dismantle my ideas or attack my arguments however you like, I welcome it in fact.

Moving to the topic at hand.

As discussed before, the canon for regeneration has only just been changed so that was a possibility. The one exception to the Doctor's method of regeneration in the classic series (Romana) did not include gender, and is highly controversial for fans years after for not following any of the previously set rules.

What nuWho has been doing over the years has been building up the canon to allow for the Doctor to become a different gender ever since an off-hand (pun intended) mention of the Corsair back in the Doctor's wife about 5 years ago.

The point is though, that the pressure surrounding the new Doctor's was so high it that became a political statement to not change the Doctor's race and gender.

I was watching the twitter drama drifting by. "Established character remaining white and male" was now considered as if it were a foreign land that needed to be conquered and occupied. Yes, by a prominent individual said this, one who has provoked much drama before and who shall remain nameless outside of PMs if requested. Hopefully we can avoid dragging that into the discussion.

Your argument about allowing such-and-such extra percentage of demographics to play a role is nonsensical. By this logic opening up the established as Japanese Major in Ghost in the Shell to be played someone other than the < 2% demographic of female Asians in the US was a good move. Or having Matt Damon star in a Chinese blockbuster as the lone non-Chinese in an entirely Chinese dominated Chinese film industry was a good move to improve diversity. I think we can agree that controversy individuals tried to drum up regarding those casting choices did not lean in that particular direction.

Offended people can leave and choose an alternative? I think there's enough recent examples of various creators going out to offend to show how bad an idea this can be. GB 2016 sunk the franchise. Marvel has been making a fine example that probably would have been crushed by market forces if not for the cinematic universe and the backing of the Disney empire. These are not acts I would emulate.
A political message, stirring up controversy and offending the built in audience of a particular franchise is not a good replacement for good story telling, engaging characters and making the fans feel appreciated for their devotion.

[Durandal_1707]

As discussed before, the canon for regeneration has only just been changed so that was a possibility. The one exception to the Doctor's method of regeneration in the classic series (Romana) did not include gender, and is highly controversial for fans years after for not following any of the previously set rules.

What nuWho has been doing over the years has been building up the canon to allow for the Doctor to become a different gender ever since an off-hand (pun intended) mention of the Corsair back in the Doctor's wife about 5 years ago.

Did you click the link I posted? Patrick Troughton, the guy who basically defined the Doctor's role as we know it today (Hartnell played a quite different sort of character than the ones that came after him), brought up the possibility, and since he died in 1987, that was at least 30 years ago. It was also in Curse of Fatal Death, and yeah I know that's a parody, but still, it shows that the idea was out there, and not at all weird or novel.

The point is though, that the pressure surrounding the new Doctor's was so high it that became a political statement to not change the Doctor's race and gender.

That's ridiculous. When Capaldi was cast, I remember reading a lot of consternation about whether he'd be too mean, too foul-mouthed, too violent, etc. When Smith was cast, it was all he's too young, his face looks funny, he's not David Tennant. What I don't remember reading anyone yammering on about was any kind of political statement. Some people may have been disappointed, sure, but continuing to cast white males isn't a political statement; it's more... inertia, more than anything.

Anyway, Smith and Capaldi both turned out to be pretty much born to play the role, so I think the lesson we can take away from this is that the DW casting department knows what they're doing.

Your argument about allowing such-and-such extra percentage of demographics to play a role is nonsensical. By this logic opening up the established as Japanese Major in Ghost in the Shell to be played someone other than the < 2% demographic of female Asians in the US was a good move.

And if damn near 100% of leading roles in movies had historically been taken up by that 2% of female Asians, that would be a really good point, and anyone whining about seeing something other than a female Asian for a change would be rightly called out for being ridiculous.

Offended people can leave and choose an alternative? I think there's enough recent examples of various creators going out to offend to show how bad an idea this can be. GB 2016 sunk the franchise.

1. What franchise? There hadn't been any new GB material since the 80s.

2. I haven't seen GB 2016, but my understanding is that the writing wasn't very good. There's only so much you can do when that's the case.

3. Do you even listen to yourself? Casting women in the lead roles is "going out to offend"? I can't imagine the levels of snowflake-ness needed to be offended at the fact that a woman got a leading role in a movie. Just...

[Fixer]

Did you click the link I posted? Patrick Troughton, the guy who basically defined the Doctor's role as we know it today (Hartnell played a quite different sort of character than the ones that came after him), brought up the possibility, and since he died in 1987, that was at least 30 years ago. It was also in Curse of Fatal Death, and yeah I know that's a parody, but still, it shows that the idea was out there, and not at all weird or novel.

A fan theory outside the established canon and a parody episode. There were fan arguments prior even to the knowledge that they'd be making a new Doctor Who series. Fan theories about Romana's comedy regeneration was that she wasted 5 regenerations picking who she'd be next. Mostly those debates comparing how this mattered to the Doctor's regeneration was to ignore them completely.

Fans in general hate it when you change the pre-established rules without good reason. Up until Capaldi there were arguments about whether or not the 13 regenertion limit was still in effect as well since it hadn't been mentioned in the new series.

That's ridiculous. When Capaldi was cast, I remember reading a lot of consternation about whether he'd be too mean, too foul-mouthed, too violent, etc. When Smith was cast, it was all he's too young, his face looks funny, he's not David Tennant. What I don't remember reading anyone yammering on about was any kind of political statement. Some people may have been disappointed, sure, but continuing to cast white males isn't a political statement; it's more... inertia, more than anything.

Well yes, that was the point I was making earlier. The Doctor's race and gender remaining the same was a matter of continuity and apolitical, Fuzzy Necromancer said that this has been consistently a political statement.

When the last regeneration came around it did become highly political though. One forum I was on had an individual stating that the Doctor needed to regenerate into a woman because, and I quote. "Young boys needed to be taught to respect female authority." and they would be ready to call the BBC out on their acts of cowardice should they fail to do so. Which they did in various tweets. Quoting Matt Smith who also said that the next Doctor should also be a woman. Or multiple other celebrities.

I think this one article here covers most of it:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... woman.html

Actual response from the fanbase Capaldi being chosen as the new Doctor varied. A lot of classic Who fans were hoping there would be a return to the older style of Doctor as an elder, eccentric mentor character and an end to the romantic sub-plots. The flipside a lot of fangirls got upset that their fantasy of man in a magic box sweeping them off to adventures in time and space got ruined by an "ugly old man".

Anyway, Smith and Capaldi both turned out to be pretty much born to play the role, so I think the lesson we can take away from this is that the DW casting department knows what they're doing.

In the case of the 6th Doctor, we can at least say that the Wardrobe department does not

And if damn near 100% of leading roles in movies had historically been taken up by that 2% of female Asians, that would be a really good point, and anyone whining about seeing something other than a female Asian for a change would be rightly called out for being ridiculous.

But that was not your argument. You said a character needed to be cast with a greater choice than a specific race/gender/sexuality. This makes makes as much sense as a live action Madoka Magika having the lead cast as a 80 year old 6ft black gay man because otherwise you'd be restricting the casting bench to a very small potential pool of potential young Asian girls to play the part.

What your're now saying is, only one specific demographic you say there's too much of needs to change. This near 100% demographic you speak of course only applying to western cinema, since the Chinese and Indian markets combined put out around 5 times as many films as Hollywood per year.

1. What franchise? There hadn't been any new GB material since the 80s.

2. I haven't seen GB 2016, but my understanding is that the writing wasn't very good. There's only so much you can do when that's the case.

You missed the Ghostbusters video game, which had the original cast and is considered by many to be the real sequel. Also the Extreme Ghostbusters of the 90s.

Despite Ghosbusters being an ageing franchise it still had a loyal fanbase. The drama surrounding the whole affair can neatly be summed up with how James Rolfe of Angry Video Game Nerd fame was treated.

James Rolfe was a noted fan of Ghostbusters, who had reviewed many of the games in the past. When his fan asked if he'd be doing a scathing review of the new Ghostbusters after the terrible trailer dropped. His response was that he was not interested, and wouldn't be doing that. In return multiple articles were written about what a sexist manbaby he and the rest of the fandom were for criticising what appeared to be (and were entirely correct in predicting) an awful reboot.
https://culturedvultures.com/avgn-james ... -backlash/

Sony managed to turn the built in fanbase of a beloved franchise actively hostile against the new movie they were making by insulting and offending them. An act of self sabotage who's legacy will be warning to others never to do something so stupid again.

3. Do you even listen to yourself? Casting women in the lead roles is "going out to offend"? I can't imagine the levels of snowflake-ness needed to be offended at the fact that a woman got a leading role in a movie. Just...

That's not the case though is it? It's changing the formula of a franchise or identity of a character with politics stacked behind it, then slandering anyone that complains as whatever-ist label you can apply at the time. It's happened enough recent have some sort of shorthand terminology for it. Ghostbaiting perhaps?

It's offensive to people to slander them just for posting their opinions or personal preferences on the story. I can quote gay men and straight women who have disagreed with the casting because it does't appeal to their ideal for how the Doctor formula should play out and I would not call them snowflakes for having to defend themselves against such attacks on their character.

Again, Moffat told the media to shut the hell up and stop spreading a false narrative. It didn't really bite like it did back with Ghostbusters, but then the show-runners were in with the outrage as well. Perhaps people are wising up, of the fad has reached it's peak and is starting to die off.

[The Romulan Republic]

People don't view every subject through the lense of identity politics.

Everything is political, because politics, when you get down to it, is simply a name for "When people disagree on a subject related to government, law, culture, or ideology".

Granted, identity politics is only one facet of politics, albeit an important one in a world where there are still deep divisions, and much discrimination, on the basis of identity.

You need to take those glasses off for a moment. If you're looking at all the incarnations of the Doctor over the last half a century you can only say that the race/gender of the Doctor has been a political issue for the past ten years or so and that is due to a small number of very loud individuals saying it needs to change because (insert reason here).

Actually, people have been talking about a female Doctor since the days of the old series, I believe.

And you are mistaken in characterizing the support for a female or non-white Doctor as entirely political (and as being the work of just a small fringe). Not that there's anything innately wrong with political- again, everything is political one way or another, and in my experience, when people complain about something being too politicized or having an agenda, what the usually mean is "it has an agenda I disagree with".

But leaving that aside, their is a very strong argument that this is a necessary creative step for the series for reasons beyond simply politics. I believe I posted at some length on this subject earlier in the thread, but in short:

Doctor Who is a series that has succeeded for as long as it has, in large part, due to its willingness to reinvent itself. And part of the problem of the series in recent years is that it has to some extent become stuck in a rut.

More specifically, it has become, in part, a series about the nature of identity. Every time the Doctor regenerates, we are faced with a question: if your face, even your personality, changes- are you still you? What makes you the person that you are? To my mind, this is the most consistent underlying theme of Doctor Who, beyond the usual themes (good vs. evil, etc.) that you would expect in an SF adventure series.

Having a female (or minority) Doctor is a logical extension of those themes, and will allow them to be explored in new ways.

And it has some very unfortunate implications when people assume that the casting of a woman or minority must have been simply politically motivated. Because if you immediately assume that that was the motive, the implication is: "Of course it must be political if a woman or minority is cast. After all, they could never have earned the role on merit."

The idea that it's now a political act to not change a character's race and gender on the behest of a vocal minority of activists makes me look forward to the day when this fad finally dies.

Or, to put it another way, why not cast a woman or minority (who have long been at a disadvantage in this and pretty much all industries) if you can, or at least give them an equal shot at the role? This is especially true with the Doctor, since the character can change race and gender in-universe.*

Yet it is seen as abnormal, as a "fad" (which frankly comes off as deeply insulting and dismissive) to cast women or minorities in these roles- the implication, intended or otherwise, being that "white man" is the default, and that everything else an aberration.

And I'm asking: "Why should that be the case"? Especially for a role like Doctor Who.

*For the record, my view (in general, at least) is as follows:

-You shouldn't change a character's race or gender inexplicably within a given continuity (at least if its meant to be a "realistic" work), because its a continuity error. Does not apply to the Doctor, because of the concept of regeneration as depicted in the show.

-Reboots/adaptations are fair game, unless their is a particular thematic or contextual reason why the character needs to be a certain race or gender (for example, you couldn't change the race of the protagonist in Twelve Years A Slave, because its a depiction of historical events and it would defeat the point of the film. Likewise, you couldn't change the gender of Buffy in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", because part of the point of the show is female empowerment and a deconstruction of the cliché female victim in horror, and if you changed the protagonist to a man, they'd be just another male action lead.

-As a rule, roles should go to the actor who is best suited to them, taking into account a variety of criteria including availability, acting talent, who the director feels most comfortable working with, weather they can fit the themes of the work (as described above), etc. However, some of these criteria can be subjective, and they are given different weight relative to each other by different people.

All other factors being equal, I'd give a role to a member of a disadvantaged group first, in an effort to off-set existing imbalances.

-I'm okay with directors casting people of a different race or gender than the character traditionally is, as long as they're willing to do it both ways. For example, I mostly accept Nolan casting white men as Bane and Ras Al Gul in the Batman films, because he also cast black actors as the canonically white Commissioner Loeb and Lucius Fox. So it comes off less as a case of Nolan "whitewashing" minority roles, and more as a case of the director just picking the actors he wanted to work with, regardless of race.

Granted, you could argue that the latter are smaller roles, but Fox was in all three films, and so probably (I haven't counted) got more screen time than Ras or Bane in total, even if his role was smaller in any given film.

[Robovski]

Everything is political to those that make things political. Some people just watch a show, or read a book, or listen to a song and enjoy it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Everything is political to those that make things political. Some people just watch a show, or read a book, or listen to a song and enjoy it.

And if that's how you want to experience the show, good for you. I honestly mean that.

But that doesn't mean that it isn't political. It just means that you are making a personal choice to engage with the political aspects of it as little as possible.* It also doesn't mean that you can tell other people that they're in the wrong for treating it as a political topic, if that is how they choose to engage with it. Well, you obviously can (free speech and all), but it would be rather pointless and foolish.

I also have to bring up "unfortunate implications" again, when people say things like "It shouldn't be political, I just want to enjoy the show" in response to a woman or minority being cast. First, again, because of the assumption that casting a woman or minority is automatically politically motivated, and the implication of that that they could not have gotten the part on merit. And secondly because... how exactly does having a woman in the lead role prevent you from enjoying the show?

And I will again point out that I posted a lengthy argument defending the creative merits of this choice for non-political reasons, and I'm rather disappointed that no one seems to be interested in having that discussion. It seems to me that its not only my side of this debate making it political- when the immediate response to any woman or minority being cast in a traditionally white male role (regardless of circumstances) is some variation on "How dare they ruin our shows with their political correctness!"... maybe its not just us who's making it political.

*Also, I can't speak for you personally, but again, in my experience, people who complain about something being "too political" usually only do it when its a message or agenda they don't agree with. Actually being apolitical is a rarity, I think.

[Antiboyscout]

10 years ago the conversation would be more focused potential stories and if this a good move in general. But as Justin Trudeau says "it's the current year". Feminist political agitation is everywhere and the effects are quite visible. Some of us read comics, some of us watch movies, and some of us play games. The trend of diversity for diversity's sake d*mn be to plot, realism, and most of all quality. All of the media that are obviously are pushing politics or appeasing political agitators make all the others suspect.

BBC recently has an iffy record on diversity for diversity's sake. Recall the minorities only jo- I mean internshi- I mean 'training programs' or the hiring quotas that are supposed to represent UK demographics but under-represents whites and over-represents minorities or the sacking of John Holmes a radio presenter for being a white man to make room for diversity.