Moffat's Season better than all of RTD Combined?

[Sci]

Yeah, it's just being PC if someone opposes prejudice.

Yes, because by his remark, it's obviously prejudice. He mentioned the sudden and immediate influx of homosexuality into Doctor Who, so that must mean he's prejudice. It can't at all mean he was commenting on how obvious and excessive it was at times.

"Sudden and immediate influx of homosexuality?" There's a grand total of one primary character who is LGBT (Captain Jack, who is not introduced until late in Series One), one prominent guest star who is mentioned in passing as LGBT (Shakespeare in Series Three), and maybe four or five minor characters over the course of four seasons who are gay or lesbian. I'll grant you some Foe Yay subtext with the Master to be generous.

I'm sorry, but those numbers are underwhelming. That's a grand total of one LGBT primary character and one maybe-possibly LGBT primary character versus 13 or so heterosexual primary characters (the Ninth Doctor, Rose, Mickey, Jackie, the Tenth Doctor, Sarah Jane, Pete, Donna, Sylvia, Wilf, Martha, Tish, Francine) -- and that's not including the one-time-only companions who were also hetero, like Astrid, Jackson Lake, Lady Christina, and Adelaide.

That's not, as Pauln6 put it, "a sudden glut of gayness from famine to feast." That's a few LGBT characters who are outnumbered by straights more than 6 to 1.

To claim that there are too many LGBT characters when there are only a handful smacks of prejudice, pure and simple.

You're right, Sci. We should all be bowing to your obvious superior morality.

I really don't give a shit about what you think of me. Bow to Ubik for all I care. What's important is when people hold the LGBT community up to a double standard -- and to complain about a "sudden glut" of LGBT characters when those characters are outnumbered more than 6 to 1 by straights is to demonstrate that one is upset by the idea of LGBT persons being visible rather than invisible.

It is to hold them to a double standard: "It's okay to have straight person after straight person after straight person, but gosh it makes me uncomfortable to have two gays!"

 

[Brent]

After watching Vincent and the Doctor my opinion is even more firm than it was before. This is definitely shaping up to be one of the best seasons of nuWho yet.

 

[The]

"Sudden and immediate influx of homosexuality?

Yes. From zero sexuality to obvious and intentional sexual and homosexual content. It is as written.

That's a few LGBT characters who are outnumbered by straights more than 6 to 1.

Outnumbered you say? Is it a contest? Is it a moral sin if the numbers don't match exactly? Should this be applied to all shows? Shall I go through Will & Grace and measure the amount of heterosexual characters?

Why must every culture and race be represented equally on a television show? What about all of the other races and cultures not seen in the series? Would you like to climb onto a cross for them, as well?

To claim that there are too many LGBT characters when there are only a handful smacks of prejudice, pure and simple.

No one claimed there were too many. The poster remarked that the quota of homosexuality had gone from zero to one-hundred-percent. The words are right there on your screen. Calm down and put away the knee-jerk hyperbole.

I really don't give a shit about what you think of me.

Sure thing drama-queen. I'm certain you're right.

It is to hold them to a double standard: "It's okay to have straight person after straight person after straight person, but gosh it makes me uncomfortable to have two gays!"

And thus we reach the core of your knee-jerk reactions. The epitome of exactly the mindset I'm talking about. If you could think outside whatever political pamphlet you memorized for talking points, you would recognize the obvious and extreme over-reaction you are having towards Pauln6's simple remark. He didn't come in her burning a cross or throwing hate-speech around. He stated an opinion about RTD's era of Doctor Who. Try and consider how unfair you are being towards your fellow poster. Just this once...

 

[The]

After watching Vincent and the Doctor my opinion is even more firm than it was before. This is definitely shaping up to be one of the best seasons of nuWho yet.

Agreed. If nothing else, it's the meat I like about this season. The show has substance beyond a daytime soap opera now. I think one of the key things I love about this new era is that it isn't focused on The Doctor's emotional well-being. After four years of crying about the Time War, Gallifrey, and Rose, I'm glad to see a more reserved gentleman in the Time Lord again. It doesn't hurt that Matt Smith owns this role. This is definitely some damn good Doctor Who!

 

[Sci]

"Sudden and immediate influx of homosexuality?

Yes. From zero sexuality to obvious and intentional sexual and homosexual content. It is as written.

You're going to complain about a "sudden" influx of anything when there was absolutely nothing being written or produced between Survival and "Rose" other than the TV movie (which itself was the thing that introduced sexuality to the depiction of the Doctor, what with his makeout session with Grace)? C'mon. You can't look at "Rose" as an immediate continuation of the original series; it has to be treated as a new start that introduces both the show and whatever themes it wants. You might as well complain about a "sudden influx" of wrinkles on Kirk's face between "Turnabound Intruder" and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

That's a few LGBT characters who are outnumbered by straights more than 6 to 1.

Outnumbered you say? Is it a contest? Is it a moral sin if the numbers don't match exactly? Should this be applied to all shows? Shall I go through Will & Grace and measure the amount of heterosexual characters?

Why must every culture and race be represented equally on a television show?

I never said it should. What I did say was that it's logically absurd to claim that a show has a "glut" of homosexuality when there are far more straight characters than LGBT, and there are only a handful of LGBT characters. That's not a glut, that's just a fair depiction of life.

No one claimed there were too many.

Dude, calling it a "glut" of homosexuality is the same damn thing as saying there are too many.

The poster remarked that the quota of homosexuality had gone from zero to one-hundred-percent.

I'm going to presume you meant to include the words "did not" somewhere above, because your sentence literally does not make sense. For the "quota" of homosexuality to be 100%, every character would have to be LGBT.

It is to hold them to a double standard: "It's okay to have straight person after straight person after straight person, but gosh it makes me uncomfortable to have two gays!"

And thus we reach the core of your knee-jerk reactions. The epitome of exactly the mindset I'm talking about. If you could think outside whatever political pamphlet you memorized for talking points, you would recognize the obvious and extreme over-reaction you are having towards Pauln6's simple remark. He didn't come in her burning a cross or throwing hate-speech around. He stated an opinion about RTD's era of Doctor Who.

Yes. A prejudiced opinion, consciously or not, that holds the depictions of LGBTs and straights to different standards. A heteronominative opinion.

I'm not saying Pauln6 hates gays. What I am saying is, the idea that there's a "glut" because there happen to be a couple of gays on the show is absurd. It's an opinion that can only be motivated by an inconsistent standard between how art ought to depict gays and straights. If two gays is a "glut" but over a dozen straights isn't, then that's a double standard, pure and simple, and anyone who thinks that way needs to pause and ask themselves why it would even occur to them to react with a "yikes" to the presence of a handful of gay characters but not scores of straight characters.

 

[Neroon]

"Glut" can also indicate a significant increase over the previous number of whatever is being counted. It does not necessarily mean a majority or "too many" though I can see why someone might interpret it that way. Context is important. Additionally, from what I myself have been able to gather from various websites and friends who have watched earlier Doctor Who (I have seen almost none of the earlier shows), prior to RTD's reign, I can also see why someone might say that there has been a more than significant increase in sexuality of the show including homosexual or multi-sexual characters. Hence why I would not take the term "glut" to be negative here but more of a notice of a seemingly sudden increase.

 

[Sci]

"Glut" can also indicate a significant increase over the previous number of whatever is being counted. It does not necessarily mean a majority or "too many" though I can see why someone might interpret it that way. Context is important. Additionally, from what I myself have been able to gather from various websites and friends who have watched earlier Doctor Who (I have seen almost none of the earlier shows), prior to RTD's reign, I can also see why someone might say that there has been a more than significant increase in sexuality of the show including homosexual or multi-sexual characters. Hence why I would not take the term "glut" to be negative here but more of a notice of a seemingly sudden increase.

And that would be fair enough if the complaint gave equal weight to the depictions of heterosexuality in Doctor Who as well. It does not. It specifically cites the depiction of LGBT characters as something that's worthy of a "yikes," that is a bad thing, and gives no such weight to the show's depictions of heterosexuality.

 

[Neroon]

To each their own. I didn't take it that way, perhaps because it seemed to me RTD was trying to shoehorn homosexual references in an attempt to portray it as commonplace and generally accepted in society. I describe the portrayals that way, as each occasion was a sort of "background" reference and not a plotline that's front and center. Comments like in "Waters of Mars" with Yuri's depiction of his brother's partner (the exact quote escapes me at the moment). A similar case could be said for interracial relationships.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Homosexuality is common place and pretty well accepted by society. And interracial relationships haven't been controversial in a long time.

 

[jamestyler]

A lot of people like to think we're still in the age of seeing a gay couple and beating them to death with sticks. I don't know why.

 

[Ubik]

"Sudden and immediate influx of homosexuality?

Yes. From zero sexuality to obvious and intentional sexual and homosexual content. It is as written.

That's a few LGBT characters who are outnumbered by straights more than 6 to 1.

Outnumbered you say? Is it a contest? Is it a moral sin if the numbers don't match exactly? Should this be applied to all shows? Shall I go through Will & Grace and measure the amount of heterosexual characters?

Why must every culture and race be represented equally on a television show? What about all of the other races and cultures not seen in the series? Would you like to climb onto a cross for them, as well?

No one claimed there were too many. The poster remarked that the quota of homosexuality had gone from zero to one-hundred-percent. The words are right there on your screen. Calm down and put away the knee-jerk hyperbole.

I really don't give a shit about what you think of me.

Sure thing drama-queen. I'm certain you're right.

It is to hold them to a double standard: "It's okay to have straight person after straight person after straight person, but gosh it makes me uncomfortable to have two gays!"

And thus we reach the core of your knee-jerk reactions. The epitome of exactly the mindset I'm talking about. If you could think outside whatever political pamphlet you memorized for talking points, you would recognize the obvious and extreme over-reaction you are having towards Pauln6's simple remark. He didn't come in her burning a cross or throwing hate-speech around. He stated an opinion about RTD's era of Doctor Who. Try and consider how unfair you are being towards your fellow poster. Just this once...

But listen, in all seriousness, don't you think that implying that the presence of a handful of gay characters (a small handful), over the course of 5 years, is in some way "excessive" - isn't that, all joking aside, an insult? If the exact same comment had been made about Jews, or black people, it would more obviously seem offensive to more people on this board, I think. Imagine I had said, "Well, I like the show, but I do find the large amount of black characters on the show a bit much." Even that would be an insulting comment to make. Can't you at least agree to that? That's really all that caused my reaction, the implication that, not only are there more gay people on the show than usual, but that the "more" is more than it ought to be. You cannot deny that that judgment, of it being more than it ought to be, was implied in the original comment. That, indeed, is offensive. That's not a knee-jerk reaction. Thoughtfully, in retrospect, that really is an insulting insinuation.

 

[Rowan Sjet]

Just to weigh in on the recent discussion, I watched Gridlock a few days ago as part of my catching up on the RTD era episodes I missed first time around. In that ep, we have the Cassini "sisters", a name a character calls them by only so they can bring up that they're actually married. It didn't seem to serve any point other than to point them out as gay. Shouldn't their comments (IIRC) on how long they've been married later on be enough?

 

[cultcross]

That sort of gag is done all the time with characters. How many times were their Doctor/Donna 'marriage' jokes? Was that just to point out that they were straight?

 

[Rowan Sjet]

That sort of gag is done all the time with characters. How many times were their Doctor/Donna 'marriage' jokes? Was that just to point out that they were straight?

I'd say that's more a joke on how the previous two companions had romantic feelings for the Doctor, while he and Donna are very keen on being just friends, yet keep getting mistaken for having a more romantic relationship.

To be fair, I'd only remembered this was supposed to be a running gag today (like I said, I'm still catching up on RTD Who).

 

[The]

But listen, in all seriousness, don't you think that implying that the presence of a handful of gay characters (a small handful), over the course of 5 years, is in some way "excessive" - isn't that, all joking aside, an insult?

No, I take it as a viewer of the older series coming into the current stuff and remarking on the stark and immediate difference in sexual content. No more, no less. To assume he meant anything else (whether he actually did or not) is to project a personal perspective on the world, where far more than one already exists.

If you were honestly insulted by his remark, then I am honestly sorry you read it like that. It's not that I cannot understand the sensitive nature of the topic. That much is obvious. But, as jamestyler pointed out above, we are far past a prejudice societal view on homosexuality. To assume as much from such a tiny comment is to overlay an aging reverse bias born from the sins of our fathers, and their fathers, and their fathers' father, true, sincere, actual hate-fueled prejudice. It's a cycle of assumptive prejudice or bigotry that continues a social conflict that should have died twenty years ago.

Being different...having a different opinion, perspective...sexuality...does not mean you are wrong, bad, prejudice, or a racist. That applies both ways. Disliking something or someone is not intolerance. It's called diversity. And it's a demand of nature and evolution that we retain this diversity. Otherwise, we stagnate and die.

I don't expect to change your mind, or to even reach past Sci's ego. But, I've made my point and I think it's clear exactly what I am saying. Crucifying a hate-monger is one thing. Crucifying a guy stating his opinion about a television show, in a thread designed to welcome such content, is quite another.

With that, this is my last word on the subject. I don't like faceless, voiceless internet debate on such issues. It's like when the Doctor tries to reason with his monsters. He never ends up convincing them of anything, and it generally turns nasty for everyone by the end...

 

[Angel4576]

I voted no. Not yet at any rate.

The Moff is still finding his feet IMO. There have been a few hits and misses this season, leading to consistency issues. Oddly before the season aired I'd have thought that it might have been Matt Smith that had me being a little indifferent, however, I think he's nailed it so far. Karen's doing fantastically as well, so really it all comes down to the stories. There have been some corkers, not least of which was this week's blindingly good yarn, but also some that frankly bored me.

I've got littl doubt though that come next season, all of the little things will have been ironed out.

 

[Captain Pike]

After the latest masterpiece from Richard Curtis, I've had 5 good stories that I've liked and I'm starting to think that this season is pretty much the best season of new Who so far, and therefore it exceeds in quality any one RTD season.

 

[Admiral_Young]

In my opinion the only true dud of an episode for this series was "Victory of the Daleks" which was fine for the most part but it wasn't that great. Everything else has been great to excellent.

 

[jamestyler]

^ I feel the same. But to me the episode was there to introduce new Daleks and let us know they'll be back later.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^Agreed it was just there to set up the new Paradigm of the Daleks for future use.