DR Who Oct 7th

[Femina]

While It's impossible to tell for certain if DW's been Rotten Tomato bombed or not with any certainty, I can reason that in the cases where such things ARE review bombed, the intent is NOT to prove the show is bad because the person who review bombed it had no interest in if the show was actually good or not, the reasoning for the action is generally an act of political agenda... but not hatred, REAL hatred is a tricky subject, but generally speaking if you feel strongly enough to review bomb something its because you feel scorned in some way and want to lash out in a way that makes your feelings known while hatred tends to result in one ACTIVELY ignoring the thing they hate, as example I hate conflict (of the immediate in your face variety, internet debates don't count because there's distance involved) so I will do absolutely anything in my power to ensure conflict does not occur withi8n my presence. In this particular case, if new Who's been review bombed, it's likely to be Who veterans who were never that interested in giving a female Who a shot and feel that something they love has been tarnished in some way.

I tend to be hesitant on commenting on Rotten Tomatoes however, both because I don't consider it a solid metric on a things value unless both the audience and Critics are pretty much in agreement (I.E. Both LOVE it or both HATE it... it's generally somewhat reliable as well if critics hate it but audiences love it) but also because I don't like to call a low audience score a lie because at least some of those low scores were posited by people giving their honest opinions.

Having watched most of the season so far, I can say that I think they are slowly getting into the right gear, early on things were a bit overly frantic and there were some strikingly odd camerawork choices that made things look more sureal than they should have been, but episodes like 'KABOOM' prove they are steadily getting a hang on what Dr. Who is... but I'd not call this season the best season ever or anything... I'm still partial to Matt Smith's first season.

[Dazzle1]

The people who are doing the reviews are not people who have any standing anymore than the fans who do youtube. And no a larger audience than usual has not like it. It went down hill after the first two episodes

A lot of the fans including me actually prefer Whittaker over Calpaldi

If you compare the reviews, the fan ones are more in depth and give explanations while the critics just praises that it is inclusive and the Doctor is a woman


but the BBC and a lot of the leftists SJWs which Chibnal is one of it are invested in the in crusade and attack anyone who dares criticize including Slyvester mcKoy and Peter Davison

One of the reason that Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman gets a favorable response is that it was a well written character but she has flaws as opposed to Rey who does not.

What is this weird obsession people have with somehow proving a TV show is bad by bombing the reviews?

The critics liked the current Dr Who, a larger audience than usual enjoyed it, and it's been renewed. Outraged idiots spiking the reviews on metacritic don't change anything. And why are they even trying?

It's the She-Ra thing all over again.

I can understand that for these spectacularly weird folks on Youtube, this is an issue. It has to be an issue, that's their job. These people are literal outrage farmers. They plant the outrage, they nuture the outrage, they harvest the outrage via clicks and hits and merch or whatever. What baffles me though is why people subscribe to it.

They are basically conspiracy theorists except they've picked an insanely trivial hill to die on.

"No really you guys! This kids TV show that none of us have to watch anyway is ACTUALLY BAD!"

[Dazzle1]

The people who are doing the reviews are not people who have any standing anymore than the fans who do youtube. And no a larger audience than usual has not like it. It went down hill in the ratings after the first three episodes, ironic as the best episode was the conclusion to the season

A lot of the fans including me actually prefer Whittaker over Calpaldi

If you compare the reviews, the fan ones are more in depth and give explanations while the critics just praises that it is inclusive and the Doctor is a woman


but the BBC and a lot of the leftists SJWs which Chibnal is one; are invested in the crusade and attack anyone who dares criticize including Slyvester mcKoy and Peter Davison

One of the reason that Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman gets a favorable response is that it was a well written character but she has flaws as opposed to Rey who does not.

What is this weird obsession people have with somehow proving a TV show is bad by bombing the reviews?

The critics liked the current Dr Who, a larger audience than usual enjoyed it, and it's been renewed. Outraged idiots spiking the reviews on metacritic don't change anything. And why are they even trying?

It's the She-Ra thing all over again.

I can understand that for these spectacularly weird folks on Youtube, this is an issue. It has to be an issue, that's their job. These people are literal outrage farmers. They plant the outrage, they nuture the outrage, they harvest the outrage via clicks and hits and merch or whatever. What baffles me though is why people subscribe to it.

They are basically conspiracy theorists except they've picked an insanely trivial hill to die on.

"No really you guys! This kids TV show that none of us have to watch anyway is ACTUALLY BAD!"

[Dogfish]

The people who are doing the reviews are not people who have any standing anymore than the fans who do youtube. And no a larger audience than usual has not like it. It went down hill after the first two episodes

A lot of the fans including me actually prefer Whittaker over Calpaldi

If you compare the reviews, the fan ones are more in depth and give explanations while the critics just praises that it is inclusive and the Doctor is a woman


but the BBC and a lot of the leftists SJWs which Chibnal is one of it are invested in the in crusade and attack anyone who dares criticize including Slyvester mcKoy and Peter Davison

One of the reason that Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman gets a favorable response is that it was a well written character but she has flaws as opposed to Rey who does not.

What is this weird obsession people have with somehow proving a TV show is bad by bombing the reviews?

The critics liked the current Dr Who, a larger audience than usual enjoyed it, and it's been renewed. Outraged idiots spiking the reviews on metacritic don't change anything. And why are they even trying?

It's the She-Ra thing all over again.

I can understand that for these spectacularly weird folks on Youtube, this is an issue. It has to be an issue, that's their job. These people are literal outrage farmers. They plant the outrage, they nuture the outrage, they harvest the outrage via clicks and hits and merch or whatever. What baffles me though is why people subscribe to it.

They are basically conspiracy theorists except they've picked an insanely trivial hill to die on.

"No really you guys! This kids TV show that none of us have to watch anyway is ACTUALLY BAD!"

They're reviews, they're people's opinions. This is why review aggregation sites are so bad. Back in the day a reviewer's opinion was their opinion, and what they said was important only so far as people respected their individual opinion. Now everything gets averaged out and you get outraged arseholes attacking reviewers, that they usually wouldn't ever read, over a difference of opinion because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Regarding ratings, the ratings for any season of Dr Who drop off after a few episodes, Whittaker did better than any since the restart.

There's also a point to be made here about the opinion of 'fans' versus the opinion of new viewers, and that is they are equal. I don't care that some old timey Dr Who fans don't like this show (although many do). I don't care that some old timey Star Wars fans don't like new Star Wars. Nobody cares. If you're a long time fan of a children's TV show or a series of kids movies and you're genuinely outraged by changes made to those shows to appeal to a new audience, the chances are that you're the one with the problem.

Fortunately, there's a whole Youtube industry willing to cater to adults furious with the state of children's entertainment and to encourage it.

What's kind of a worry is that folks being alienated and raging about it is such an easily exploitable route to cause disharmony that foreign governments are willing to exploit it. That is to say, there are literally agents of a foreign power trashing movies because emboldening the Comic Book Guy demographic in the USA, making them feel like they are something other than a tiny minority, is seen as a viable way to do societal damage the USA.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/2/1792 ... bots-study

[tallyho]

There's also a point to be made here about the opinion of 'fans' versus the opinion of new viewers, and that is they are equal. I don't care that some old timey Dr Who fans don't like this show (although many do). I don't care that some old timey Star Wars fans don't like new Star Wars. Nobody cares. If you're a long time fan of a children's TV show or a series of kids movies and you're genuinely outraged by changes made to those shows to appeal to a new audience, the chances are that you're the one with the problem.

If you truly believe that last line you have completely missed the point. The reason old hands take exception is that if you change the essence of a piece of art then it is no longer that piece of art. To keep calling it the same name is a cynical way to exploit the older fan base. If you want to come up with something new, great, go for it. Be creative. But if you lack the balls to do so, to just use an old successful brand and just keep the name and change everything about it that made it good/successful/iconic in the first place speaks volumes about the way that organisation is deliberately exploiting an existing fan base. Italian Job the reboot had nothing to do with the Michael Caine classic other than the name of the character. So why not call it something original and have it as a new heist movie instead of clinging to the shirt tails of a classic for the extra coin that old fans of the film will give to see what its like. I dont mind it as a piece of entertainment.It passes the time and is watchable. But its not the Italian Job.
Its not the CHANGES per se people object to, its the hijacking of the piece due to laziness and profit chasing.
Same with most of the scifi issues that old timers have. Well this old timer anyways. If something is good, fine no issue. Rogue One is great, imo. Force Awakens is an abysmal piece of crap and Last Jedi has the dumbest chase in movie history. Its not the fact that its being done, its the fact that its being done BADLY
Doctor Who was a kids programme about exploring the Universe. Didnt need any sexualisation, dont need GLBT characters to make it inclusive, you just need good stories. I stopped watching the new who halfway through the second series when everything just got resolved in the last 2 mins by pushing a button. Dont care if the Doc is a man woman or a dog. But if you wanted a female timelord give Romana her own show. As, ya know she was a female timelord an' all.

[Dogfish]

I don't buy that because the majority of people don't mind. Most old timey Star Wars fans like the new stuff. Most Dr Who fans like the new stuff. The people who voice an opinion on this kind of thing are always a tiny minority (and that goes both ways) but the success of these projects both culturally and commercially is obvious. Most people are happy to just kick back and consume culture without reacting to it one way or the other. It's why they keep making Transformers movies despite none of them ever being good or memorable.

The thing with art is that the thing you liked is never going to get messed with (unless George Lucas is around). Classic Dr Who is Classic Dr Who, old Star Wars is old Star Wars. The new stuff is what it is. If you like it, great, more stuff to enjoy, if you don't like it, welp, nuts, but you've still got your old stuff.

And I say this as a fan of the Alien movies. I mean you think anything that's happened to Dr Who or Star Wars is bad, shit, don't get me started.

[Void]

From the point of view of the content producer, I'd like to think they want their content to land well with 'fans' above and beyond how it lands with a new audience. Obviously in practical terms you just want to make money and for as many people as possible to like your product, and to that end perhaps you actively court as many people as possible, but I also think there's something to be said for wanting to make something that will age favourably and stand up tall alongside the fandom that surrounds it. Like, if I were commissioned to write the next Batman movie, sure I would want to make a popular, successful, lucrative movie, and I would generally like to make a good movie, but before any of those things I'd like to think I would want to make a good *Batman* movie, right? The verdict that would matter the most to me, and most strongly indicate the legacy of what I had done, would be the Batman fans, rather than the randoms who liked my movie as they passed by.

Not sure if that makes sense or not... What I'm saying is that with a long-running IP you aren't starting from nothing, and don't get to be judged as if you were, but instead ought to be motivated to create something that respects the material it is using, and when writers are guilty of actively disregarding the material in favour of their own vision or to expressly pander to whoever - then that would rightly show in the final product's legacy. Like, it's possible the new Predator movie was a good movie, and if it were called something like 'Attack of the Space Crabs' and didn't actually use the Predator IP at all, it's possible that would be a fun nonsense romp that I would recommend to someone wanting some braindead fun. But it's a 'Predator' film, and in that context, even allowing for how low the bar is for 'Predator' films, it's hot garbage that I'm reasonably confident every predator fan will pretend never existed.

I guess I'm a fan of fans...

P.S Sidebar - if you like the Alien franchise, and have it in you to even humour playing a video game, I would strongly recommend the Alien Isolation game. Easily the best thing done with franchise since the first film, imo. But yes... it isn't easy being an Alien fan and trying to like virtually anything done with it in the last twenty odd years.

[Dogfish]

Yeah Alien Isolation is amazing. I guess the trade off for people mediocre stuff is that it keeps the property fresh so that folks are willing to pick it up for things like Isolation, which is clearly a labour of love made with immense reverence for the original material.

[lionbadger]

Doctor Who was a kids programme about exploring the Universe. Didnt need any sexualisation, dont need GLBT characters to make it inclusive, you just need good stories.

I'm not sure this is true, else there would never have been a companion it would all have just been a doddering old grandfather character wibbly about fucking Mary Sue Daleks.

The main problem I have with Dr Who is that it has gone all Batman v Superman, in that, crica the Ben Afleck interview you can see Capaldi and Whittaker trying to do their best with the character but the scripts are just mundane and shitt (and so fucking help if I ever meet the person at the BBC who had Bradley Walsh tacked on I'll eat their spleen in front of them!)

The BBC has never really believed in sci fi.

[Dazzle1]

The two point Dogfish is missing is that

1. these reviewers are not sci-fi or even entertainment reviews. For instance this would be like Charles Blow of the NYT reviewing Black Panther.

2. There is a relexive response from the left wing press and the feminist press to attacks those who dare to criticize a female Doctor, Rey or Bill Potts the black lesbian companion with the previous Doctor

Compare that to the lack of attacks when Abrams came out with the Star Trek Movies which many Star Trek fans of the TV series also attacked.

As far as Whittaker I do think her season was better than Calpaldi but still it is going in a SJW agenda and Whittaker is not helping by catering to the tiny minority of SJW fans by attacking white male fans

[Visitor]

You can compare Dr. Who with another long running franchise that stuck to a formula of what audiences wanted with only a few changes, James Bond movies.

Both replaced the main actor as he got older. However supporting roles were kept with the same actors as long as possible. There were some changes like making M a woman using Judi Dench before killing her off in a believable way. Adding an assistant and later replacing Q. Changing the race of Moneypenny and making her more than a secretary at the start. But almost all the movies have the same structure without being boring.

They have avoided doing anything too controversial like make Bond a woman or an American. Although there were rumors that those had been considered in the past.

[shevek]

Dogfish-

Are you sure that you are not swallowing the Kool-Aid on Doctor Who?

Is it really a conspiracy theory to observe that most of the pop-culture shill media is progressive in political outlook?

Is it also a fact that the latest Dr Who was enjoyed by a "larger audience than usual"? Maybe the season debut, but from what I read, the audience numbers dropped precipitously as people tuned out over time.

And why do you believe that people are negatively "review bombing" Rotten Tomatoes for Doctor Who? If so, are they are positively "review bombing" Aquaman to counter the many critics who pooh-poohed the film? Or could the latest Doctor Who just be generally regarded as bad while Aquaman is generally regarded as good?

And if one must pursue outrage, isn't it more practical to pursue it "for a living" (referring to the Youtubers) than for a pie-in-the-sky utopian political dogma? I mean, if Doctor Who is such an "insanely trivial hill" then why hold conventions about it, or for that matter even make a thread about it?

Just some questions for your perusal. I don't have a dog in this fight as I haven't watched the show since they used to show it on PBS in the 80s.

[Dazzle1]

You can compare Dr. Who with another long running franchise that stuck to a formula of what audiences wanted with only a few changes, James Bond movies.

Both replaced the main actor as he got older. However supporting roles were kept with the same actors as long as possible. There were some changes like making M a woman using Judi Dench before killing her off in a believable way. Adding an assistant and later replacing Q. Changing the race of Moneypenny and making her more than a secretary at the start. But almost all the movies have the same structure without being boring.

They have avoided doing anything too controversial like make Bond a woman or an American. Although there were rumors that those had been considered in the past.

Another good example was the 5 ST series, not Discovery and Abrams

They followed the rules Gene Roddenbury set up, and they never promoted isn't is great Sisko is black or Janeway is a woman

[Dogfish]

Dogfish-

Are you sure that you are not swallowing the Kool-Aid on Doctor Who?

Is it really a conspiracy theory to observe that most of the pop-culture shill media is progressive in political outlook?

Is it also a fact that the latest Dr Who was enjoyed by a "larger audience than usual"? Maybe the season debut, but from what I read, the audience numbers dropped precipitously as people tuned out over time.

And why do you believe that people are negatively "review bombing" Rotten Tomatoes for Doctor Who? If so, are they are positively "review bombing" Aquaman to counter the many critics who pooh-poohed the film? Or could the latest Doctor Who just be generally regarded as bad while Aquaman is generally regarded as good?

And if one must pursue outrage, isn't it more practical to pursue it "for a living" (referring to the Youtubers) than for a pie-in-the-sky utopian political dogma? I mean, if Doctor Who is such an "insanely trivial hill" then why hold conventions about it, or for that matter even make a thread about it?

Just some questions for your perusal. I don't have a dog in this fight as I haven't watched the show since they used to show it on PBS in the 80s.

Most people are progressive so I don't see a conspiracy, I see reality. Most people who complain are reactionary, most people who create are progressive. There are some exceptions and there are some extremely talented conservatives out there like Clint Eastwood or John Milius, and there's some utter shitters like Snyder and Bay as well. But by and large, most creatives hold progressive values. That's not a conspiracy there's just a lot of us about.

All seasons of Dr Who have a drop off. In recent years it's not been that great, which in part was why it leaned so heavily on Daleks and callbacks and other things. In this season the numbers dropped off, they remained higher than where prior seasons had dropped off to, but notably they didn't do anything specifically as ratings bait. There were no Daleks, no Cybermen, no timey wimey stuff involving some rarely mentioned continuity from the 1980s. But the show still did better than usual.

People review bomb things because they see it as a form of political protest and there are loads of people out there who will review bomb to order of for reasons of political motivation. I mean seriously if you've got an hour to watch somebody ranting about why the SJWs are killing Movie Franchise X then you've got time to downvote all the movies that you've decided are politically compromised. A lot of Very Online people do this, and sure it cuts both ways, but it's utterly trivial and review aggregate scores mean nothing. I mean even if they did mean something you could sway them heavily for a couple hundred bucks to an Eastern European troll farm.

And, no, it's not good to pursue outrage farming for a living. The current media landscape thrives on escalation. We've gone from people doing videos about how The Phantom Menace was really bad, to now doing videos about how everything is a conspiracy to poison folks brains. That so much of it ties back in to extremist right wing politics is also really disturbing. You see a bunch of lads rallying around a 'gate' conspiracy, ten to one there'll be a bunch of literal Nazis backing their play on 8chan or wherever. And I'm aware that that also sounds like a conspiracy theory. What should be nerds talking about the movies they like or don't like on the internet got really dark.

So I mean, I guess it's an insanely trivial hill, but we live in weird times. And clearly there's view numbers to be had on trivial hills these days, and to a lot of people that's all that matters.

[Dazzle1]

Dogfish-

Are you sure that you are not swallowing the Kool-Aid on Doctor Who?

Is it really a conspiracy theory to observe that most of the pop-culture shill media is progressive in political outlook?

Is it also a fact that the latest Dr Who was enjoyed by a "larger audience than usual"? Maybe the season debut, but from what I read, the audience numbers dropped precipitously as people tuned out over time.

And why do you believe that people are negatively "review bombing" Rotten Tomatoes for Doctor Who? If so, are they are positively "review bombing" Aquaman to counter the many critics who pooh-poohed the film? Or could the latest Doctor Who just be generally regarded as bad while Aquaman is generally regarded as good?

And if one must pursue outrage, isn't it more practical to pursue it "for a living" (referring to the Youtubers) than for a pie-in-the-sky utopian political dogma? I mean, if Doctor Who is such an "insanely trivial hill" then why hold conventions about it, or for that matter even make a thread about it?

Just some questions for your perusal. I don't have a dog in this fight as I haven't watched the show since they used to show it on PBS in the 80s.

Most people are progressive so I don't see a conspiracy, I see reality. Most people who complain are reactionary, most people who create are progressive. There are some exceptions and there are some extremely talented conservatives out there like Clint Eastwood or John Milius, and there's some utter shitters like Snyder and Bay as well. But by and large, most creatives hold progressive values. That's not a conspiracy there's just a lot of us about.

All seasons of Dr Who have a drop off. In recent years it's not been that great, which in part was why it leaned so heavily on Daleks and callbacks and other things. In this season the numbers dropped off, they remained higher than where prior seasons had dropped off to, but notably they didn't do anything specifically as ratings bait. There were no Daleks, no Cybermen, no timey wimey stuff involving some rarely mentioned continuity from the 1980s. But the show still did better than usual.

People review bomb things because they see it as a form of political protest and there are loads of people out there who will review bomb to order of for reasons of political motivation. I mean seriously if you've got an hour to watch somebody ranting about why the SJWs are killing Movie Franchise X then you've got time to downvote all the movies that you've decided are politically compromised. A lot of Very Online people do this, and sure it cuts both ways, but it's utterly trivial and review aggregate scores mean nothing. I mean even if they did mean something you could sway them heavily for a couple hundred bucks to an Eastern European troll farm.

And, no, it's not good to pursue outrage farming for a living. The current media landscape thrives on escalation. We've gone from people doing videos about how The Phantom Menace was really bad, to now doing videos about how everything is a conspiracy to poison folks brains. That so much of it ties back in to extremist right wing politics is also really disturbing. You see a bunch of lads rallying around a 'gate' conspiracy, ten to one there'll be a bunch of literal Nazis backing their play on 8chan or wherever. And I'm aware that that also sounds like a conspiracy theory. What should be nerds talking about the movies they like or don't like on the internet got really dark.

So I mean, I guess it's an insanely trivial hill, but we live in weird times. And clearly there's view numbers to be had on trivial hills these days, and to a lot of people that's all that matters.

Most people are in the middle.

The so called progressive are intolerant aka Sean Penn Danny Glover wikipedia ethnic studies departments, Boston Globe or the Guardian

As far as the reviews, you are ignoring that the critic reviews are them ones not doing analysis but are virtue signaling while the fans give explanations

But stepping away from media for a moment, do you trust a so called food critic review over the majority of Trip Advisors? I will take the later of the non planted ones

[shevek]

I won't deny that most 'creative' people are progressive. As a strong creative who hangs around with mostly creative people, I have plenty of progressive tendencies myself. Perhaps some of those 'progressive' tendencies are actually the ones which intersect with true social libertarianism, such as pro-abortion, pro-LGBT rights, pro-drug legalization and so on. But I'm not into identitarianism/intersectionalism and I'm pro free speech, which means that to many of these 'progressives' I am centrist, which to them *might as well* be right-wing even though it clearly isn't. It's not me who has changed, it's that the Overton window amongst the left has moved further to the left. Tim Pool has a good recent video on this which came out today, actually.

Anyway Dazzle is right, progressives are still a minority, which was why Bernie Sanders (who is now considered to be almost centrist to the current crop of far-lefters) couldn't surmount Hillary. There are (at least in the States, but I don't think it's that different in Britain) a bigger percentage of conservatives than there are progressives, and there always will be, because that is the nature of humans.

So despite the exceptions (some of which you've mentioned above), we can generally say that progressives are creative, centrists (which are most people) are consumers, and conservatives (who comprise a larger population than progressives) are reactionary. Fine. But the problem is this: progressives are supposed to be creating for a mass audience which includes all three of these groups, or in a purely demographic sense what marketing departments call the 'four quads' (men under 25, men over 25, women under 25, women over 25). But if you create something that beats people over the head with progressive politics (as many Marvel and Image titles do now, and as the Whittaker Who is purported to do, as well), you alienate MOST of your potential audience. Then you get a lot less income. This is known as the "Get Woke, Go Broke" phenomenon. Now, it's not an absolute axiom..but this phenomenon does happen a lot and demonstrably so.

The opposite of the Get Woke Go Broke phenomenon is when you make a product that everyone can enjoy. So instead of Rose Tico or Star Trek Discovery or She-Ra which only appeals to some people and alienates others, you make an Aquaman that appeals to almost everyone (except of course for far-left progressives..but they're the smallest portion of the audience). Please note: Aquaman director Wan and lead actors Momoa and Heard are typical California lefty-liberal types and probably hold a lot of the same views that Chibnall and Whittaker do. But, by and large, they keep those views OUT of their movie and give the public what it wants: a action flick with amazing visuals, tight costumes and sexy abs. Black Panther and Avengers did the same thing on the Marvel side.

So the Internet outrage farmers are not dying on as 'trivial' a hill as you make it out to be. It's the difference in philosophy between a mainstream satisfying blockbuster flick pushing hitting $750 million and a cringeworthy 'sjw' comic book that drops to 7,000 sold by its 3rd issue. And no, those aren't apples and oranges, because (as I said) the difference is creative philosophy, not numbers.

[Dazzle1]

I won't deny that most 'creative' people are progressive. As a strong creative who hangs around with mostly creative people, I have plenty of progressive tendencies myself. Perhaps some of those 'progressive' tendencies are actually the ones which intersect with true social libertarianism, such as pro-abortion, pro-LGBT rights, pro-drug legalization and so on. But I'm not into identitarianism/intersectionalism and I'm pro free speech, which means that to many of these 'progressives' I am centrist, which to them *might as well* be right-wing even though it clearly isn't. It's not me who has changed, it's that the Overton window amongst the left has moved further to the left. Tim Pool has a good recent video on this which came out today, actually.

Anyway Dazzle is right, progressives are still a minority, which was why Bernie Sanders (who is now considered to be almost centrist to the current crop of far-lefters) couldn't surmount Hillary. There are (at least in the States, but I don't think it's that different in Britain) a bigger percentage of conservatives than there are progressives, and there always will be, because that is the nature of humans.

So despite the exceptions (some of which you've mentioned above), we can generally say that progressives are creative, centrists (which are most people) are consumers, and conservatives (who comprise a larger population than progressives) are reactionary. Fine. But the problem is this: progressives are supposed to be creating for a mass audience which includes all three of these groups, or in a purely demographic sense what marketing departments call the 'four quads' (men under 25, men over 25, women under 25, women over 25). But if you create something that beats people over the head with progressive politics (as many Marvel and Image titles do now, and as the Whittaker Who is purported to do, as well), you alienate MOST of your potential audience. Then you get a lot less income. This is known as the "Get Woke, Go Broke" phenomenon. Now, it's not an absolute axiom..but this phenomenon does happen a lot and demonstrably so.

The opposite of the Get Woke Go Broke phenomenon is when you make a product that everyone can enjoy. So instead of Rose Tico or Star Trek Discovery or She-Ra which only appeals to some people and alienates others, you make an Aquaman that appeals to almost everyone (except of course for far-left progressives..but they're the smallest portion of the audience). Please note: Aquaman director Wan and lead actors Momoa and Heard are typical California lefty-liberal types and probably hold a lot of the same views that Chibnall and Whittaker do. But, by and large, they keep those views OUT of their movie and give the public what it wants: a action flick with amazing visuals, tight costumes and sexy abs. Black Panther and Avengers did the same thing on the Marvel side.

So the Internet outrage farmers are not dying on as 'trivial' a hill as you make it out to be. It's the difference in philosophy between a mainstream satisfying blockbuster flick pushing hitting $750 million and a cringeworthy 'sjw' comic book that drops to 7,000 sold by its 3rd issue. And no, those aren't apples and oranges, because (as I said) the difference is creative philosophy, not numbers.

Except for 2 point, I agree with your reason and that is progressives aka the Ocasio-cortez, Antifa are the reactionary ones not the conservatives, it the progeessive left than committs the violence on the street in 90% of more of the cases since 216.

There are plenty of creative people are not progressive. William Shatner comes to mind. But many others keep their mouth as Hollywood and the media are McCarthey like in their tactics. Just ask Diversity in Comics or James Woods

[Femina]

Just a tidbit, Aquaman does not appeal to everyone. It appeals to people who love action movies for braindead people, while outright OFFENDING the narrative preconceptions of viewers who want to watch films for deeper purposes as little as possible. The film itself is still pretty dumb. I probably won't be buying it or anything or even looking that hard for it on HBO or whatever televised channel it comes out to. It was a dumb but minorly entertaining film that will succeed because it doesn't aggravate, but wont be remembered as one of the great superhero films. It's still behind even the worst marvel film. I'd watch Thor 2 over this... though admittedly... just barely.

[shevek]

Femina: you do realize that you described the characteristics of a movie with maximum mass appeal? When I say "everyone" it's obviously shorthand for the vast majority of people, it doesn't mean every single person on Earth. They just have to reach the widest possible target audience. They reached you, so they obviously succeeded. You don't have ever watch it again, and that's fine, but if it appears for free, I'm guessing you probably in fact might watch small parts of it again. I know I won't have any problem in the future occasionally watching short clips of the scenes where Amber Heard is wearing the tight, gorgeous costume anymore than people are still watching Lynda Carter clips from 40 years ago.

Dazzle: I'm not exactly sure that the hard-left creates the most incidents of violence. That's hard to say. Maybe in street protests or in direct actions they are markedly more aggressive than the right wing, but as far as incidents of extreme violence it's still probably true that the extreme-right incidents and the extreme-Islam incidents kill by far the most people. In the US, extreme-right actions like the Pittsburgh shooting or Dylan Roof are uppermost in people's minds, whereas elsewhere in the world (such as in Europe and Asia) it's the Islamist incidents that lead the pack. Where the hard-left gets really destructive is not much where they're not in charge, but where they run governments, like Venezuela or China. But then, all measures of authoritarianism (such as in Syria or Saudi Arabia or Burma or Iran or even Israel's clampdown on Palestinians vs the Palestinians' continuous responses of terror) causes untold harm. That's a complex phenomenon that can't just be ascribed to one political spectrum, it's more about control, period. That's why I'm for freedom and free speech wherever possible - it loosens the power of control.

Of course creative non-progressives generally keep their mouths shut out of compliance. That is the current climate. Or they toe the line as neutrally as possible. The best approach is actually the classic one: quality customer service with a smile. That's what companies typically instruct their employees to do, and that's what Aquaman director James Wan just did by telling everyone that it was OK not to like his movie and to criticize it, but that it's important to discuss the movie without harassment or hate from either camp. A gentleman and a scholar, this man is. He's the opposite of, say, Rian Johnson, who called anyone who criticized Star Wars to be "manbabies". He's the opposite of multiple leftist comicbook creators who have denigrated their critics as being Nazis or white-cis-males or bigots. And he's certainly the polar opposite of the millennial from Xhale Vape store who recently got famous for completely freaking out on a calm-and-collected customer who was wearing a Trump shirt (this video recently went viral). The problem with "customer service with a smile" is that (much like that kid) the "sjw" camp finds it hard to adult, because 1) they think they're always right and they have to continuously virtue signal about it or risk getting eaten alive by their own kind; 2) they don't believe in capitalism and they don't think making money is important or admirable, and therefore the "customer" opinion is irrelevant; 3) they sometimes have inadequate social skills and are often narcissistic, so any little 'microaggression' can trigger a reaction.

Sorry this got a bit off the Doctor Who topic as we were comparing what Chibnall & Whittaker are doing vs some other examples.

[Dazzle1]

O.K getting back to Dr Who, I think to be considered a credible reviewer in a publication, you need to know something about the show and have seen it before Whittaker. so when a Guardian writer says it is the greatest season of DR Who when she admidts never having seen it before she is not qualified and should not be reviewing it.

[shevek]

Here's a Nerdrotic video where he points out that the Doctor Who and The Orville Rotten Tomatoes scores are *almost exactly inverted*.



So then, Dogfish, "review bombing" is both positive and negative? And you can't trust the audience scores because why..because everyone just wants to be 'ornery' to oppose the critics? Or they're Russian bots or something? And yet Nerdrotic is able to cherrypick plenty of well-written positive comments from the audience side with relative ease?

Perhaps it is more true that the critics are simply out of touch culturally and politically with the audiences of such shows? And that they show marked
preference for Chibnall and notable disdain for Seth MacFarlane (because of Family Guy and American Dad establishing a healthy atmosphere of centrist
skewering)?

[Femina]

I don't think review bombing is positive/negative. I think a high overall score, a low overall score, and a low critic/high audience score are generally good indicators that you may probably enjoy something. I think high critic/low audience scores are entirely illegible and require a viewer to go and just sit through it to find out for themselves.

I am more inclined to believe the audience actually fully endorses the Oriville and the critics find it distasteful than I am to believe that a high critic/low audience score is legitimately the consensus of something. Viewers can tend to enjoy more popcorn/fun spirited concepts that don't necessarily push all the buttons of a 'critic', but I feel a film that DOES push all the buttons of a critic are still somewhat likely to be enjoyed by viewers since we enjoy BOTH high concept stuff AS WELL AS popcorn fluff because we don't have to watch ALL the movies ALL the time enough to get sick of what we consider 'poor quality' films. Critics tend to be less forgiving of popcorn fluff in general because they HAVE to watch them all.

As example: I saw, and was not sorry that I saw, Aquaman BUT I probably would not have been as likely to enjoy it if I'd just seen three other films I considered 'shlock' that weekend.

But again... this is why Rotton Tomatoes isn't a very good metric for much of anything.

[shevek]

You've just said and proved (and I agree!) that it *is* a good metric for something: a show with a low critic and high audience score.
It shows that the critics are either out of touch sociopolitically with mainstream audiences (and this can easily be believed), or so jaded that they can't bother to like anything remotely schlocky (and this can easily be explained). Probably both.
Think we'll just leave it at that and move on

[ivandobsky]

Leaving aside the argument over how out of touch the set of Rotten Tomatoes critics are, even if they are representative of the users such that at least one of them represents me, all a 100% fresh score is is a guarantee that I won't think that the film doesn't completely suck, which is fairly worthless - I'd sooner stay home than watch a film i'd rate 60%.

In reality, a divided critic score fills me with hope. 100% fresh suggests safe and boring.

[lionbadger]

this is literally the only place that I hear people talking about reviews and review sites and what the critics are saying.

Either I'm into the backstory and I'm going to see/buy something or I get hooked by an especially good trailer.

I think the only time I looked at rottentomatoes was to check if Fury Road really was the highest rated film ever and I can't remember what the answer was.

[Femina]

You've just said and proved (and I agree!) that it *is* a good metric for something: a show with a low critic and high audience score.
It shows that the critics are either out of touch sociopolitically with mainstream audiences (and this can easily be believed), or so jaded that they can't bother to like anything remotely schlocky (and this can easily be explained). Probably both.
Think we'll just leave it at that and move on

Well let's not eat a peeled banana. I said I agree that audiences probably definitely liked the Orville and that the low critic/high audience is a generally fine indicator that audiences are liking it, but I'm arguing the inverse, high critic/low audience score is a more muddled less certain message. A high critic/high audience score is the golden goose here for a reason, it means EVERYONE is liking a thing, and if BOTH hate it, then it means EVERYONE is hating it... and if critics are snubbing it but audiences aren't there is indication there that a disconnect exists.... but the high critic/low audience score is muddled. It's hard to read.

Yeah it can mean there's a disconnect and the critics are out of sync... or it can mean the thing is getting hate for political reasons... the reasons I feel this is muddled and say, the Orville is NOT is due to my opinions on average human nature... that we are twice as likely (at least in the online front) to venomously down vote something we've never seen because someone told us it represents something we hate than we are to up vote something we've never seen for the opposite reasons. We tend to be generous with our vitrol and picky with our praise, because expressing vitrol relieves stress, and praising a thing tends to make one feel more like they are making a deliberate statement. We do NOT value pro and con equally.

Take the new She-Ra for instance? It was pretty likely review bombed on RT when it first came out. It had a high critic and low audience score... I suspect this changed when either its detractors lost interest or actually watched it... heck there's even that video from a dude pretty harsh against anything that smells of any sort of feminism who ended up accepting it because his daughter loved it... (Apologies for not bringing that video up... apparently 'she-ra' includes two words to short to utilize with this websites search engine and I can't find the topic we discussed it in.) She-ra's audience score has leveled out since, but She-Ra's fan base is far FAAAAR from as entrenched and dedicated as Dr. Who's fan base is.

this is literally the only place that I hear people talking about reviews and review sites and what the critics are saying.

Either I'm into the backstory and I'm going to see/buy something or I get hooked by an especially good trailer.

I think the only time I looked at rottentomatoes was to check if Fury Road really was the highest rated film ever and I can't remember what the answer was.

Review's are a generally source-able indicator of a things success which is why you'll often see them pointed at in discussions of if a thing is 'objectively' good or not.... but you're not wrong in ignoring them, nothing is objectively good to everyone, and Rottontomatoes is the WORST place to source... its just the easiest.

[shevek]

We tend to be generous with our vitrol and picky with our praise, because expressing vitrol relieves stress, and praising a thing tends to make one feel more like they are making a deliberate statement. We do NOT value pro and con equally.

Take the new She-Ra for instance? It was pretty likely review bombed on RT when it first came out. It had a high critic and low audience score... I suspect this changed when either its detractors lost interest or actually watched it... heck there's even that video from a dude pretty harsh against anything that smells of any sort of feminism who ended up accepting it because his daughter loved it... (Apologies for not bringing that video up... apparently 'she-ra' includes two words to short to utilize with this websites search engine and I can't find the topic we discussed it in.) She-ra's audience score has leveled out since, but She-Ra's fan base is far FAAAAR from as entrenched and dedicated as Dr. Who's fan base is.

I think the only time I looked at rottentomatoes was to check if Fury Road really was the highest rated film ever and I can't remember what the answer was.

I actually watched it as well, at least the first two episodes. I confirmed one thing that the critics have been saying, which is none of the women look
like women, and that's because they're not - they're child soldiers (really!). The characters were all re-imagined as younger instead of adults. But if I let go of my 80s nostalgia and looked at it with the eyes of a young person, I was entertained on that level.

The video you're referring to is the one by Richard of Comics Matter with Ya Boi Zack & Luna (who until a couple days ago used to be called Diversity & Comics). And he is not against feminism - what he's against is the current dogmatic breed of fourth wave intersectionalist outrage (harbored by only a small percentage of the public - only 8% of Americans consider themselves 'progressive') that he thinks goes too far and divides the country by refusing to acknowledge normal centrist views which most people hold (the kind that draws them to see movies like Aquaman). He prefers the attitude of the 80s and 90s - there was feminism and diversity there, just like there is in mainstream American life, but it wasn't as preachy and extremist and dogmatic (hating white-cis-males, having constant meltdowns about Trump, calling cops fascist, wishing for the downfall of the West, banning people from websites because of their political views.... things like that). The way the far-left works today is almost McCarthyist is its ideological intensity (kind of like the way the Christian right was in the 80s, if you recall!) and he's not into that, and neither am I.

Heroineburgh is the same way - it's a second-wave feminist project that draws influences from all periods but tries to strike a balance between female empowerment and the male gaze rather than tilting way too far in one direction or another...we keep the issues relatable to everyone and not divisive (like when King Orm complained about surface trash, nobody could disagree with that) in order to maximize the audience potential.
So I can relate somewhat.

What happened in that video is that Richard played the new and old She-Ra cartoons for his daughter, and she liked the new one better because it was closer to the style of animation that she is currently used to. By the end of the video, he was encouraging his daughter to become empowered by thinking of herself as a "princess of power". That does NOT sound to me like someone who is harsh against feminism - does it sound like that to you?
The critics of his channel exaggerate his stance, and make him seem like a bigoted evil Nazi, when he is merely expressing reasonable centrist opinions. That's what the far-left likes to do: demonize its enemies. Other extremes (extreme right, extreme Islam) do the same.

Sorry if this isn't at all about Doctor Who.
But even with some people re-evaluating She-Ra after watching their kids enjoy it, the audience score still only rose to 72%. That still doesn't
account for the almost insane 100% critics score the cartoon got (and yes that's even higher than Fury Road!). The gap is 28 percentage points which would be similar to a gap of, say, 78 to 50.

The Doctor Who reaction is very different. Unlike with She-Ra, the more people watched it, the more people hated it and the audience score kept dropping. I also understand that taking stock in that ratings website is not the be-all and end-all. The best recommendation always comes by word
of mouth.

[Dazzle1]

I just watched the New Years Special

First it is obvious Chibnal does not think the history of the show and what the Daleks are is important

So he creates the story of a single Dalek in the 9th century defeated by some ancient warriors and the remains spread through out earth
Than he decideds a Dalek can posses a human which has never happened and that Dalek are able to be powerful outside the casing.
Chibnal claims to be a DW Who fan but ignores the history of the show and why Davros created them in the first place

Ryan's father come back and there is the lecture from the Doctor but he is reedemed in the end. Strange how Ryan takes the whole season accepting Graham and forgives his father who abandoned in one episode

Unit is gone thanks to Brexit, another poltical shot by Chibnal. And so the military is useless even though they developed Dalek piercing technolgy decades ago.


As usual Yaz has nothing to do

Overall it still was one of the better stories.

[Visitor]

It had some of the worst science in it for a show that loves to just use techno babble to explain advancements way past Earth technology. I was really happy about them using a microwave until I saw how they did it compared to a MacGyver episode a few weeks ago that did it correctly.

It wasn't too bad for a Dalek show since they had a reasonable explanation of a different Dalek type not used in previous stories. However it skipped so much of Dalek history to make it almost a new enemy.

[Dazzle1]

It had some of the worst science in it for a show that loves to just use techno babble to explain advancements way past Earth technology. I was really happy about them using a microwave until I saw how they did it compared to a MacGyver episode a few weeks ago that did it correctly.

It wasn't too bad for a Dalek show since they had a reasonable explanation of a different Dalek type not used in previous stories. However it skipped so much of Dalek history to make it almost a new enemy.

I don't think it was that reasonable, but I will say I prefer junk pile Dalek over Power Ranger Daleks in the Smith era

[Femina]

This isn't a 'new who' problem. Dalek's have always been whatever the episode needed them to be. They make periodic changes and inevitably revert back to the old 'tank Dalek' those aren't gone, they just weren't the episodes thing. Dr. Who doesn't have a 'hard continuity' and NEVER has. Facts about the whoverse are only facts insofar as they don't interfere with the plot of the week (12 doctor cap anyone?) and if there's a problem they just deus ex in anything that's necessary to change that thing that was a problem. Changing the 'cannon' isn't some new thing that's just happened... it's been going on since Dr. Who got rebooted a decade and a half ago... and honestly was probably going on in old who whenever the makers thought it needed to as well.

[Dogfish]

If there's one thing that the new season has shown it's that the problem isn't with the new Doctor, or with the actors playing the companions, it's with the writing.

I liked the season finale but it's still hitting a few of the beats that have been off quite a lot this season. Few things I noticed with the finale in particular though:

1. They repeated a trope from an earlier episode of introducing a character, having them announce that they are gay, then killing them off. Is explaining their sexuality like this something gay people do? I get that they are trying to be inclusive, but it comes across like they want to look inclusive but also they don't have a problem with gay people having like a 90% mortality rate in the show. It's something I've seen crop up a few times in games too, characters who are trans or gay just immediately drop that into their opening conversation. It's dreadful writing, and I hate to see it at this level, I mean if you're writing a prime time TV show you ought to be better than that.

2. You can't have a conflicted relationship between a father and son as a main driving element of the plot if they are going to be incredibly emotionally honest and clear with each other the moment you sit them down with a cup of tea. I mean how did Ryan even fall out with his dad if they're happy to open up like that? Again, this is fundamentally bad writing. They needed to earn that moment, because it was a good moment. The writer has had time to work on this storyline, they've got resources to change around some of the scenes and whatnot, they could have done better.

3. The fight with the Dalek and the soldiers was just bad. Now here's the thing, Dr Who has very often been bad with these things, but it's been bad in great ways. "Chap with the wings, five rounds rapid" springs to mind. This was like, the Dalek meets some assorted British military elements in a carpark is it? Carnage ensues. Without context. Without reason. Why has it landed in a carpark in front of a bunch of soldiers? And they just mob up in front of it like it's a firing squad. And then goes to one room of GCHQ and shoots a guy? It's just bad. And I don't want to be Comic Book Guy but damn. Do the words more good mangs.

4. The whole introduction about the warriors uniting and cutting the original Dalek apart and scattering it to the three random corners of the world was sort of cool. But taking that idea to its conclusion with, "Ah but somebody dug up one of the pieces and put it under UV light so it came back to life and teleported all of the pieces back together" is like whaaaaaaaaaat. With my writing hat on, I'd be thinking either set the episode in the 9th century and do swords vs Dalek or skip the three warriors cutting the Dalek up bit, just have the whole Dalek in the dead guy's possessions. Saves dicking around with globetrotting special effects shots and makes tons more sense.

So. Yeah. I think the season is being carried because Jodie Whittaker is funny and unpredictable and the supporting cast are good, but I worry that they need to sort that writing out or it's going to get ugly. Jodie Whittaker cannot be unpredictable for three whole seasons.

Also I agree they don't give Yaz enough to do. She had one great episode but her role seems mainly to be wandering off and getting things done in an efficient and competent manner, which, y'know, would look great on her CV but it's not great telly. I'd like her to be a bit more combative, she is a cop after all.

[lionbadger]

If there's one thing that the new season has shown it's that the problem isn't with the new Doctor, or with the actors playing the companions, it's with the writing.

This

This for like, 4 years

[Visitor]

If there's one thing that the new season has shown it's that the problem isn't with the new Doctor, or with the actors playing the companions, it's with the writing.

This

This for like, 4 years

The saddest thing is that it isn't confined to just Dr. Who. It's a widespread problem across much of the entertainment industry where they figure put in enough special effect explosions and action scenes so viewers will forget how bad the plot is and there is no continuity. The worst of it is that when they have plenty of time to write a pilot episode or return from a long break, they produce a junk script.

[shevek]

If there's one thing that the new season has shown it's that the problem isn't with the new Doctor, or with the actors playing the companions, it's with the writing.

I liked the season finale but it's still hitting a few of the beats that have been off quite a lot this season. Few things I noticed with the finale in particular though:

1. They repeated a trope from an earlier episode of introducing a character, having them announce that they are gay, then killing them off. Is explaining their sexuality like this something gay people do? I get that they are trying to be inclusive, but it comes across like they want to look inclusive but also they don't have a problem with gay people having like a 90% mortality rate in the show. It's something I've seen crop up a few times in games too, characters who are trans or gay just immediately drop that into their opening conversation. It's dreadful writing, and I hate to see it at this level, I mean if you're writing a prime time TV show you ought to be better than that.

Now you're finally starting to get it. This is called 'virtue signaling' and also sometimes 'forced diversity'. The writing isn't natural, and characters aren't given sufficient depth and pathos beyond the surface aspects of their immutable identity. In previous generations of writing diverse characters 80s/90s/early 00s) sure there were stereotypes, but those characters were also given depth. We are careful to do that in Heroineburgh - to balance the diversity that reflects the *real* strengths of the Pittsburgh region with backstories that give each character plenty of unique and relatable traits far beyond their ethnicity or sexual orientation.

The stilted, surface-trait intersectionalist approach to character creation is something that certain 'usual suspects' have been complaining about for several years with regards to entertainment media (I've followed it most closely with comics but it's evident in every genre, pretty much, except for genres not produced in the U.S., like anime/manga or Bollywood etc). And now you see that they have a real point. It's as evident (or more evident) in Doctor Who as it is in other places.

However, I also do agree with you somewhat that LGBT characters do get sidelined - this happens with regularity in many places where progressive producers think it's really important to virtue signal but not to offer any real depth or commitment. It's not the case everywhere, however: Sarah Lance (White Canary) from Legends of Tomorrow is a good example of an LGBT character who has been put in a steady leadership position and her character has been developed quite well in the past few seasons of the show, and Constantine (from the same show) had a same-sex love story as well that recently spanned a couple of episodes. But it's also true that if we want equality of presentation with such LGBT characters, we have to be ready for them to sometimes suffer the same fates as everyone else (such as the death of Lexa in The 100) and not coddle them like fragile purse puppies.

What I would love to see is all storylines respected with the same level of depth: arcs about hot heterosexual relationships (like Hawk + Dove) placed alongside arcs about hot homosexual relationships (given my orientation, I would of course prefer they be lesbians, but the guy/guy stuff is of course fine too - it's not just gays who enjoy that, women find it hot as well, and women deserve equal fan service - why is that never talked about???). Just consistent hotness, all around, with depth and variety. And a lot less characters announcing and virtue-signaling their identities, while also making speeches about one-sided politics..instead just demonstrating what their passions and interests are by *doing* and *acting*. I'm very interested to see how they'll approach this in the new Batwoman show because (unlike with the Captain Marvel movie) we have no evidence to go by yet.

Oh, hey, and as far as the review-bombing thing (which currently puts Dr Who critics at 94% vs Dr Who fan reviews, numbering well over 5000, at 23%), I expect that at some point in the near future a 'scandal' about forced/pressured positive reviews will come to light on the critical side of things. Some brave critic who is fed up with the media shill system will eventually break ranks and bust this situation a bit more wide open than the person who is quoted here:

[Dazzle1]

If there's one thing that the new season has shown it's that the problem isn't with the new Doctor, or with the actors playing the companions, it's with the writing.

I liked the season finale but it's still hitting a few of the beats that have been off quite a lot this season. Few things I noticed with the finale in particular though:

1. They repeated a trope from an earlier episode of introducing a character, having them announce that they are gay, then killing them off. Is explaining their sexuality like this something gay people do? I get that they are trying to be inclusive, but it comes across like they want to look inclusive but also they don't have a problem with gay people having like a 90% mortality rate in the show. It's something I've seen crop up a few times in games too, characters who are trans or gay just immediately drop that into their opening conversation. It's dreadful writing, and I hate to see it at this level, I mean if you're writing a prime time TV show you ought to be better than that.

Now you're finally starting to get it. This is called 'virtue signaling' and also sometimes 'forced diversity'. The writing isn't natural, and characters aren't given sufficient depth and pathos beyond the surface aspects of their immutable identity. In previous generations of writing diverse characters 80s/90s/early 00s) sure there were stereotypes, but those characters were also given depth. We are careful to do that in Heroineburgh - to balance the diversity that reflects the *real* strengths of the Pittsburgh region with backstories that give each character plenty of unique and relatable traits far beyond their ethnicity or sexual orientation.

The stilted, surface-trait intersectionalist approach to character creation is something that certain 'usual suspects' have been complaining about for several years with regards to entertainment media (I've followed it most closely with comics but it's evident in every genre, pretty much, except for genres not produced in the U.S., like anime/manga or Bollywood etc). And now you see that they have a real point. It's as evident (or more evident) in Doctor Who as it is in other places.

However, I also do agree with you somewhat that LGBT characters do get sidelined - this happens with regularity in many places where progressive producers think it's really important to virtue signal but not to offer any real depth or commitment. It's not the case everywhere, however: Sarah Lance (White Canary) from Legends of Tomorrow is a good example of an LGBT character who has been put in a steady leadership position and her character has been developed quite well in the past few seasons of the show, and Constantine (from the same show) had a same-sex love story as well that recently spanned a couple of episodes. But it's also true that if we want equality of presentation with such LGBT characters, we have to be ready for them to sometimes suffer the same fates as everyone else (such as the death of Lexa in The 100) and not coddle them like fragile purse puppies.

What I would love to see is all storylines respected with the same level of depth: arcs about hot heterosexual relationships (like Hawk + Dove) placed alongside arcs about hot homosexual relationships (given my orientation, I would of course prefer they be lesbians, but the guy/guy stuff is of course fine too - it's not just gays who enjoy that, women find it hot as well, and women deserve equal fan service - why is that never talked about???). Just consistent hotness, all around, with depth and variety. And a lot less characters announcing and virtue-signaling their identities, while also making speeches about one-sided politics..instead just demonstrating what their passions and interests are by *doing* and *acting*. I'm very interested to see how they'll approach this in the new Batwoman show because (unlike with the Captain Marvel movie) we have no evidence to go by yet.

Oh, hey, and as far as the review-bombing thing (which currently puts Dr Who critics at 94% vs Dr Who fan reviews, numbering well over 5000, at 23%), I expect that at some point in the near future a 'scandal' about forced/pressured positive reviews will come to light on the critical side of things. Some brave critic who is fed up with the media shill system will eventually break ranks and bust this situation a bit more wide open than the person who is quoted here:

Of course many of the "DW critics" are people with no background in Science fiction and most lean left. In fact many could care less if Jodie Whittaker was a terrible actress( she isn't). their only concern is the virtue signaling

[Femina]

So what is it when you are signaling how much you know don't like the leftists and the virtue signalers? Seriously? Like, what's the difference?

[Dazzle1]

Feminia I suggest you read the reviews on RT or in left wing magazines or newspapers.

They are not DW fans and only care that the doctor is not a woman

I am on record saying Whittaker is the second best Doctor after Tennant in New Who. My problem is that they are doing a white male bashing on this show and doing social and politcal comments in a heavy handed way.

Compare how issues were handled with Star Trek until discovery

[Femina]

It's conjecture. You don't actually know what any of those reviewers thought or felt. You're just guessing. Maybe guessing right, I honestly don't know for sure either... but that's not what I asked. I asked how puffing up and exposing how terrible the 'virtue signalers' are and how this 'other way' is the right and correct path is any different whatsoever than puffing up and exposing how inherently 'Un-PC' enough something is.

An agenda isn't right because it's in opposition to another one. An agenda isn't right just because it finds a valid flaw in another one. An agenda is an agenda, and all human beings have agendas, and most of those agendas are built on and based upon a person's factual values.

In other words, if someone is willing to write a review about 'how awesome such and such is!' without having been a fan it because it stars a woman, or a black man, OR shows a healthy relationship between a man and a woman, or champions gun control, etc. etc. its usually because they've heard that 'such and such' championed that thing and that thing is what they believe in. Is it an agenda? Probably... but eying up the last slice of stead so strongly that it causes your sibling to empathize and suggest you take it is an agenda. Going to an interview for a job is an agenda. We're all full of agendas, agenda's aren't a character flaw, they are part of human nature.

The continued campaign against the 'libtards' 'virtue signalers' 'snowflakes' and 'librals' is no less guilty of being a populace keen to signal their ideas and values where it doesn't belong than are the targets of their childish catchphrases and slogans.

There's no difference. None.

[Dazzle1]

It's conjecture. You don't actually know what any of those reviewers thought or felt. You're just guessing. Maybe guessing right, I honestly don't know for sure either... but that's not what I asked. I asked how puffing up and exposing how terrible the 'virtue signalers' are and how this 'other way' is the right and correct path is any different whatsoever than puffing up and exposing how inherently 'Un-PC' enough something is.

An agenda isn't right because it's in opposition to another one. An agenda isn't right just because it finds a valid flaw in another one. An agenda is an agenda, and all human beings have agendas, and most of those agendas are built on and based upon a person's factual values.

In other words, if someone is willing to write a review about 'how awesome such and such is!' without having been a fan it because it stars a woman, or a black man, OR shows a healthy relationship between a man and a woman, or champions gun control, etc. etc. its usually because they've heard that 'such and such' championed that thing and that thing is what they believe in. Is it an agenda? Probably... but eying up the last slice of stead so strongly that it causes your sibling to empathize and suggest you take it is an agenda. Going to an interview for a job is an agenda. We're all full of agendas, agenda's aren't a character flaw, they are part of human nature.

The continued campaign against the 'libtards' 'virtue signalers' 'snowflakes' and 'librals' is no less guilty of being a populace keen to signal their ideas and values where it doesn't belong than are the targets of their childish catchphrases and slogans.

There's no difference. None.

For many of them it's not conjecture they are writing it. They think it is important for social reasons to change the sex of the Doctor not for the storyline.

Which is why a DR fan in this case who has been doing a You Tube videos for years in DW has more credence than someone from Salon or the Guardian who knows nothing about the show.

[Femina]

For many of them it's not conjecture they are writing it. They think it is important for social reasons to change the sex of the Doctor not for the storyline.

Which is why a DR fan in this case who has been doing a You Tube videos for years in DW has more credence than someone from Salon or the Guardian who knows nothing about the show.

You don't know that. You weren't there inside their heads when any single one of them wrote their reviews. You are simply assuming that some of them did it for social reasons perceived as malicious or conspiratorial in nature. Perhaps. I wasn't there in their heads either so I can't say for certain that they aren't, but even those that may have been written to that goal were probably written by people who BELIEVE what they were writing... call it 'virtue signalling' if you MUST assign a pejorative, but for crying out loud I wish the people inventing these silly catch phrases would at least stop acting like they weren't being ginormous hypocrites when they start whining about how what somebody else has written down is 'just an agenda!' in accordance with their own agenda to devalue and shut down the other persons opinion... furthermore, a DW fan's opinion should only matter more to a Dr Who fan who shares their views. All those reviews by other people are for their readers.

I'm about to say something that may shock and surprise you all, but it has to be said.

An agenda is not a bad thing! An Agenda is just topics to be discussed. The day we stop having agendas is the day nobody is talking to anybody. Shit, the day we stop 'signalling' is the day we stop communicating.

So go signal all you like, but for the love of god shut up about signalling or go argue for the government to veto the first amendment!

[shevek]

Femina - everyone has agendas. It depends on which agenda you agree with. For example, I agree with part of the progressive agenda (the part that provides equality to women, minorities, LGBTs..which is known mostly as second-wave feminism and civil rights) but not with another part of the progressive agenda (the intersectionalist identity politics 'equity' stuff that involves communist-style levelling of entire groups, condemning people wholesale for their immutable traits). The far-progressives who talk constantly about 'representation' and think that a Burger King Kids Club of characters can replace meritorious art, story and plot have that agenda, and it's one I don't agree with. I think representation is important and can be a factor, but it should not be an overwhelming end in itself.

The only thing I would be careful with, though, is calling someone who wants comic books and movies to be entertaining and escapist, and not push leftist agendas (or at least, provide balanced views) all the time a "conservative" (which lionbadger did, at least once). I would say someone who wants those things is more of a centrist. A conservative would be someone who comes from farther right to declare an entire industry to be morally bankrupt because it doesn't represent traditional values, or something like that. I believe that the movement to keep these entertainment industries from constantly displaying one-sided bias is centrist and mainstream, keeping the Overton window from shifting too far to one side.

And I am, in fact, exercising my first amendment by doing so. When hard-leftists tell me to shut up and not talk, or they block entire legions of fans on Twitter, or they drive Republican comics creators out of the industry, etc., when credit companies and tech giants ban certain content creators from their platforms.... that is censorship and THAT is against the first amendment, at least in spirit.

[Dazzle1]

Femina - everyone has agendas. It depends on which agenda you agree with. For example, I agree with part of the progressive agenda (the part that provides equality to women, minorities, LGBTs..which is known mostly as second-wave feminism and civil rights) but not with another part of the progressive agenda (the intersectionalist identity politics 'equity' stuff that involves communist-style levelling of entire groups, condemning people wholesale for their immutable traits). The far-progressives who talk constantly about 'representation' and think that a Burger King Kids Club of characters can replace meritorious art, story and plot have that agenda, and it's one I don't agree with. I think representation is important and can be a factor, but it should not be an overwhelming end in itself.

The only thing I would be careful with, though, is calling someone who wants comic books and movies to be entertaining and escapist, and not push leftist agendas (or at least, provide balanced views) all the time a "conservative" (which lionbadger did, at least once). I would say someone who wants those things is more of a centrist. A conservative would be someone who comes from farther right to declare an entire industry to be morally bankrupt because it doesn't represent traditional values, or something like that. I believe that the movement to keep these entertainment industries from constantly displaying one-sided bias is centrist and mainstream, keeping the Overton window from shifting too far to one side.

And I am, in fact, exercising my first amendment by doing so. When hard-leftists tell me to shut up and not talk, or they block entire legions of fans on Twitter, or they drive Republican comics creators out of the industry, etc., when credit companies and tech giants ban certain content creators from their platforms.... that is censorship and THAT is against the first amendment, at least in spirit.

--------------

Good point

You need only look at JawBreakers in the comic industry

Rotten Tomatoes reviewers

Wikipedia banning anyone not on the left when it comes to the U.S or Israel

Papers banning posters who are not left wing

Heckler's vetoes on colleges

Sorry intolerance in North america and western Europe is almost entirely on the left