Jump to content
IGNORED

Doctor Who

FishyFish

By FishyFish
in Film, TV & Radio

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hexx

Hexx

Posted
Posted
Their inclusion wasn't a 'reference' to homosexuality - it was simply a facet of two characters. If all the people in the cars had been white heterosexual humans, would that not have seemed a bit odd? The fact they were two married women was no more shoehorned in than the fact that one of the blokes in the cars had a completely red body. Given that you've admitted yourself that it didn't change the story at all, I'm not sure what problem you have with it

Except they didn't have a scene where he was (over the radio) called "Blue Body" and then correct them.

It was showhorned in. It wasn't required, it wasn't needed for the story, it added nothing.

Is there anything wrong with 2 little old Lesbos? Absolutly not.

Was this an example of poor writing to push a (valid) agenda. Absolutly yes.

It is possible to seperate the message and the way it's told. I'm guessing me and K have a problem with the "told" part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted
By having Sisters RTD drew attention to the fact and then hammered it home. "An old fashion cat", who's in an INTER-SPECIES (never mind racial!) wedding? It didn't fit the character and was completly unrequired.

1) Including unnecessary details is a requisite for you to actually build up characters.

2) It's called irony and is quite an important part of this thing humans call "humour".

It's not something we're getting clubbed over the head with. How many references to gay characters are there in New Who? By my memory it's less than one episode in three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kensei

kensei

Posted
Posted
Their inclusion wasn't a 'reference' to homosexuality - it was simply a facet of two characters. If all the people in the cars had been white heterosexual humans, would that not have seemed a bit odd? The fact they were two married women was no more shoehorned in than the fact that one of the blokes in the cars had a completely red body. Given that you've admitted yourself that it didn't change the story at all, I'm not sure what problem you have with it.

If you honestly feel like RTD is trying to force something down your throat, then I'd suggest you have a few issues hidden away somewhere. This was merely a few side characters who happened to be in love, and happened to be women.

Which is an argument I could accept if it was a rare occurrence, but it seems like they slip it in there all the time. It could well be that I'm conflating it with Torchwood, as I watched most of that too. I am almost fairly certain I'm not first person to have mentioned this, though forgive me if I don't go through the whole thread to prove it.

Also - I didn't make a big deal of it. I just meant it to be mentioned in vaguely tongue in cheek fashion.n Other people have went into hysterics about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hexx

Hexx

Posted
Posted
1) Including unnecessary details is a requisite for you to actually build up characters.

2) It's called irony and is quite an important part of this thing humans call "humour".

1) There were better ways to show it. e.g., one of them refer to the other as love,darling etc or having wedding rings when holding hands.

2) How was it ironic? Moronic, maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted
Was this an example of poor writing to push a (valid) agenda. Absolutly yes.

How on earth is it bad writing? You've got two people who are there to solve a problem in the plot. They're two old women. A sentence (one sentence!), and suddenly they (and with one more sentence, the cat on the other end of the radio) are slightly more interesting. How is making characters interesting with a single line bad writing, exactly? It didn't jar in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mogster

Mogster

Posted
Posted
Shakespear last week?

Maybe I'm just having a reaction to Twood.

Edit!: I didn't find the characters offensive, and neither has Kensie said that. I'm Gay FFS. I've also seen OAP loving before due to an Xtube blunder. I just find it poor story telling. There's a difference between showing you something, and telling you again and again. If they'd left out "sisters", but kept in the handholding in the end? Perfect.

I didn't notice anything in last weeks ep (must have so "crass" it bypassed my brain), but I really don't agree with you here. Surely his reference to teh couple as "sisters" was due to his old fashioned values? Besides, don't forget there are kids watching, and I think RTD is more than justified in pointing things out for them to help bring them up seeing homosexuality as normal. It's not like you even saw them kiss or anything, they were just an old couple being an old couple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted
1) There were better ways to show it. e.g., one of them refer to the other as love,darling etc or having wedding rings when holding hands.

2) How was it ironic? Moronic, maybe.

1) That would've been a crude way of executing it. You can't stop the show to have a shot of their hands just to send home the idea that they're married, and "love" and "darling" are generic endearments.

2) "Irony, from the Greek eiron, is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says, and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history)"

It was ironic that an anthropomorphic cat-person in the future would have "old fashioned" views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hexx

Hexx

Posted
Posted
How on earth is it bad writing? You've got two people who are there to solve a problem in the plot. They're two old women. A sentence (one sentence!), and suddenly they(and with one more sentence, the cat on the other end of the radio) are slightly more interesting. How is making characters interesting with a single line bad writing, exactly? It didn't jar in the slightest.

They're more interesting as they're gay? Hetrophobe? It DIDN'T add anything. That's the point. What did it achieve EXCEPT to say they were gay, which never came up again? Hell...say they're on their honeymoon, making them tragic. That adds something.

QUOTE(Hexx @ Apr 14 2007, 09:26 PM)

Shakespear last week?

Maybe I'm just having a reaction to Twood.

Edit!: I didn't find the characters offensive, and neither has Kensie said that. I'm Gay FFS. I've also seen OAP loving before due to an Xtube blunder. I just find it poor story telling. There's a difference between showing you something, and telling you again and again. If they'd left out "sisters", but kept in the handholding in the end? Perfect.

I didn't notice anything in last weeks ep (must have so "crass" it bypassed my brain), but I really don't agree with you here. Surely his reference to teh couple as "sisters" was due to his old fashioned values? Besides, don't forget there are kids watching, and I think RTD is more than justified in pointing things out for them to help bring them up seeing homosexuality as normal. It's not like you even saw them kiss or anything, they were just an old couple being an old couple.

Again. Old fashion values? He's had an INTERSPECIE wedding. It doesn't match the rest of his character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AK Bell

AK Bell

Posted
Posted

I can see how people can complain about the lesbian bit being poor writing, rather than offensive. It was as subtle as a florescent sledgehammer with a built-in crappy music player like you find in birthday cards when a toffee hammer would do.

I just found it odd that the babies were kittens. As much as the guy was a cat, he wasn't particularly shaped like one. I want hideous hybrids!!!

Overall, nice little episode. Not the best but had some good background info. Not something I'd have to rewatch in the future though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted
They're more interesting as they're gay?

Generally speaking, yes, an atypical or contradictory character (or indeed human being) will be more interesting for the audience than a generic one. Limping House played Lacrosse, Admiral Adama builds model ships, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman learned to sketch in strip clubs... these are not particularly important or dwelled-upon aspects of their characters, and they don't contribute to some overall emotional arc, but they add depth. Surely you can't have gone through life and not noticed this about people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hexx

Hexx

Posted
Posted
Generally speaking, yes, an atypical character (or indeed human being) will be more interesting for the audience than a generic one. Limping House played Lacrosse, Admiral Adama builds model ships, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman learned to sketch in strip clubs... these are not particularly important or dwelled-upon aspects of their characters, and they don't contribute to some overall emotional arc, but they add depth. Surely you can't have gone through life and not noticed this about people?

See, I think of being gay as being generic.

It's not special. It's not interesting. It's just another type of person. Much like I wouldn't think of them as more interesting if they had blue eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mogster

Mogster

Posted
Posted
Again. Old fashion values? He's had an INTERSPECIES wedding.

The human race is full of seemingly jarring or contradictory morals and values, and some predjudices die out before others. It's long ceased to be a taboo for a white person to marry a black person, but we've only recently legalised gay marriages. That's not quite on the same level as inter-species marriage of course, but it's a similar situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted
See, I think of being gay as being generic.

It's not special. It's not interesting. It's just another type of person. Much like I wouldn't think of them as more interesting if they had blue eyes.

I'm sorry to say I'm not as cosmopolitan as you, seemingly, but I've not actually met all that many old lesbian couples. So they make for more interesting characters, to me, than a random pair of old women, as I have met many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hexx

Hexx

Posted
Posted
I'm sorry to say I'm not as cosmopolitan as you, seemingly, but I've not actually met all that many old lesbian couples. So they make for more interesting characters, to me, than a random pair of old women, as I have met many.

So...what' we've agreed on is that RTD message is only annoying to gays/people exposed to that lifestyle alot?

Well that's gotta be bad writting! ;)

Anyhoo...still a very good episode :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hexx

Hexx

Posted
Posted
Aaaanyway, how about we move away from agonising over what, in most sane eyes, was perfectly fine thwowaway line in one of the best pieces of TV in ages, eh? :P

I object to the term "sane"!

Still it was very good. I really should have seen the dead city twist coming, but didn't. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mogster

Mogster

Posted
Posted
I object to the term "sane"!

That was another one of those throwaway lines. ;)

Yes, the dead city twist was masterful. Based on Who convention, and the innadvertantly creepy news hologram, I thought the motorway had been sealed off for some unknown evil purpose by a corrupt government or something. The actual explanation was an incredible piece of imaginative writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kensei

kensei

Posted
Posted
That was another one of those throwaway lines. ;)

Yes, the dead city twist was masterful. Based on Who convention, and the innadvertantly creepy news hologram, I thought the motorway had been sealed off for some unknown evil purpose by a corrupt government or something. The actual explanation was an incredible piece of imaginative writing.

Oh come on. The options were:

1. They were sealed in intentionally by the government

2. Everyone died

3. It was all the Doctor's fault because of the last time he was there and it was all zombies underneath.

It wasn't bad but masterful writing? Compared to the Girl in the Fireplace, or Dalek, or even some of the bits in

Doomsday, and it's well below that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept