|
Post by Gorn on Nov 14, 2017 17:59:11 GMT -7
It all started with Starbuck...
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 14, 2017 19:08:24 GMT -7
Funny, the Starbuck gender swap never bothered me. I️ think it depends on how much baggage they try to shovel in with it.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Nov 14, 2017 19:40:23 GMT -7
Well - the whole New-BSG had a tonne (metric) of baggage since it was deeply depressing (at least to those that loved the old show).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 8:04:42 GMT -7
Not really...
Starbuck (and Boomer) did not regenerate as women. They were rewritten as women in a completely different version of the show. Dr. Who gets a new body every now and then, and there has never been anything in Dr. Who canon to require same-sex regeneration. It seems to be the norm, but it is not set in stone (AFAIK).
I've seen Jodie Whittaker in at least one other show (with David Tennant), and she was really quite good. I have not seen an New Who yet, but I'm looking forward to seeing Dr. Jodie.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 15, 2017 14:04:38 GMT -7
None of these reach the level of smug preachiness as “lady thor” or miles morales. I think that’s the difference.
Dr who remains to be seen. Color me skeptical, there will be a lot of pointless fan-service tough girl emasculation or male protagonists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 18:01:09 GMT -7
It could very well be Fan service... but it's hard to emasculate Dr. Who after Matt Smith.
It may be good or it may suck, but could it possibly be worse that Discovery?
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 15, 2017 20:23:03 GMT -7
No, I mean like more pointless male bashing. A good example is lucy lawless character Deanna biers in Battlestar (reimagined). You’ll notice that NO male character can be competent around her, even series leads like Apollo or Adama. Same thing with the lady who played ensign Ro. (the Razor side-story DVD).
Maybe it’s just typical of the period, but it seems like someone decided female strength was synonymous with male strength. It just takes me out of it when almost every female lead is written that way, and I know and have worked with (and taken orders from) strong women. They cant "all" be the hard as nails bad ass.
It's almost as distracting to me when a 125lb woman physically beats up a 200lb man. It makes me laugh every time.
That's what i mean "fan service". Not all fanservice is t'n'a. Female empowerment is fan service too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 4:23:56 GMT -7
Wait... non-T-N-A fanservice... I'm not comfortable with that at all. Yeah, I see what you mean. Lady Thor, Lady Captain Marvel... It is Fanservice, but the industry has realized (late) that women watch sci-fi and read comics. So they are pretty much pandering. I'm not quite seeing that with Dr. Who. We'll see when the episodes come to the States. For me Galactica (reimagined) lost all credibility when Stabuck's Hummer had California plates.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 22, 2017 15:03:13 GMT -7
the problem is women DON'T read comics (or play video games) a the same level of financial commitment as males. Thanks to the marvel comics swapping out all the popular characters for inclusivity-friendly pastiches, people can't go into the comic book shop and recognize thor, captain America or iron man anymore. They have totally failed to capitalize on the massive success of the Avengers movies as a result.
Marvel comics sells books at 4,000 SHIPPED copies (which is not actual sales, just orders) which would have met with cancellation back in the 90's. even the most popular marvel title (Spider man) sells at 1/2 of what a chris Claremont/jim lee x-men run did in the 90's.
this is all off topic. I don't think Dr. Who being female is a problem (unless they turn her into the most shrill annoying, sexless romanceless man-hating byotch imaginable...I'm not holding my breath), but there's a critical mistake made with 'inclusivity'.
People don't identify with heroes because of they must identify with the hero's racial or ethnic background. That's not how it works. Besides there's nothing wrong with the original.
They said re: miles morales, the people that had a problem with miles morales were the reason there was a miles morales. Meanwhile comic fanboys like me were just saying it's not peter parker's ethnicity that makes him compelling, it's that he's a relatable human being.
The smugness, professorial tone and tacit accusations of racism were just too much for most fans. Miles Morales is fine but they are just writing him EXACTLY like they did peter parker. So in essence they changed nothing, which means the fans were right all along.
in fact Marvel recently changed their editor over this crap and the alt versions of characters not selling well at ALL, so I'm hoping this whole debacle, while embarrassing, is ultimately short lived.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Nov 22, 2017 18:50:44 GMT -7
What? You mean corporate stupidity is still contagious?
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 23, 2017 5:21:16 GMT -7
What? You mean corporate stupidity is still contagious? Unfortunately. DC has stayed out of it, but by now this inclusivity game is paint-by-the-numbers. For example I bet the odds are stacked against the new Dr. being heterosexual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 18:52:12 GMT -7
I was guessing she would be more "not-so-sexual" like most of the other Doctors. Maybe "omni-sexual" like Capt Jack Harkness
|
|