Re: The Prequel (possible spoilers)
So we already know the secretary lied at least once in explaining the gap ... I'd hardly call the matter settled. Nah, an extraterrestrial explanation is preferable to the prosaic.
I will take on the first person who tries to counter this post, simply because every historical mystery the show has ever covered turned out to be aliens!
hasn't Nixon and
JFK been done to death.. no pun intended..
Nixon is evil, JFK good blah blah blah...
Soooooo tired of that crap in media..
it is almost like JFK could do no wrong so much so that his little brother could drown a woman in a lake and get away with it..
unbelievable..
if it is Nixon, I sure hope they don't get all cliched and make him the ultimate villain, cause that would really make me think twice about watching that episode. Almost like the whole
Obama is going to fix the world economy crap in the "end of Time" what a joke..
yep, he sure fixed us good..
politics and stereotypes should be left alone in Doctor who, so that way all people can enjoy it without having to put up with any liberal or what ever biased is placed in there...
just my opinion anyways..not meant to spark any kind of debate or hatred coming at me.. though I know some here can't help it..
Or, for all we know, Nixon could simply just be the President of the United States and nothing more. We haven't seen the episode yet. Let's hold off on any judgements, and then consequences, just yet. Yes, there's the image of the tape player, but it's now well-known that Nixon recorded his phone conversations anyway, regardless of intent. And even if the episode becomes a potshot, it's not the first time Doctor Who took a potshot at a head of state: there's still Queen Victoria in Tooth And Claw, and her actions helped lead to the gigantic invasion at the end of Series 2.
this is true.. and I am not an unreasonable person when it comes to stuff, I just feel like sometimes it is such an over done cliche, and not to mention that the Nixon family has had to deal with the demonization of one of their family member for like 30 years..he screwed up quite a lot.. but he wasn't some arrant monster like they try to always make him..JFK and RFK were a tragedy, but they weren't saints..nor gods..and their deaths came at the hands of communists..Oswald, and Sirhan Sirhan were both admitted Socialist or Communists who hated the West, and yet film makers in media seem to always decide to use the "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY" to put forth an agenda..yes, I am looking at you Oliver Stone.
This is one thing I dislike about current political rhetoric: that somehow socialism and communism is the only alternative to conservatism, or for that matter, the automatic vilification of any one established political group in that, if one party disagrees with you, they're quickly regarded as extremist like the KKK or Westboro. If you're a liberal, you're automatically a socialist or a communist, but the possibility of being moderate, a libertarian (in most issues), or, even better, someone who thinks things out on an issue-by-issue basis just isn't regarded. Yes, there are socialists and communists out there, but guess what? Most of them don't hate America and don't go assassinating people. Just as there are conservatives out there that aren't part of a vast right wing conspiracy. Similarly, just as it's unfair for filmmakers to say there's a vast right wing conspiracy, isn't it just as unfair to say "filmmakers in media seem to decide" to use that crutch? You're countering one perceived generalization with another, and that's not conducive to solving any sort of problems in terms of political depictions in media. Saying one side has a conspiracy and the other doesn't (and switching that around) seems too simple, too quick, too easy, too shallow, too fragile under a modicum of scrutiny.
With that said, we've no idea what Moffat's going to do with Nixon, so we just wait and see. And even if it's a potshot on Nixon, is that really a potshot on the party or conservatives in general? Say what you will about media portrayals of Nixon, but some of them only aim at the man and not the party or the policy, with Ford ascending to the presidency with sorrow.
One thing to remember: all this talk about Hollywood and Oliver Stone is strictly American. By the way you mentioned the media in general, I'm also assuming you primarily mean American media. Well, Doctor Who is made for the British first and foremost. There's going to be a disconnect. I don't think they're as caught up in this kind of discussion in terms of American political depictions and conspiracies, tendencies, etc as much as, well, Americans... unless it's about purely jingoistic depictions of "America #1!" (see: Independence Day)
wasn't that already done.. we saw what happened with that, the watchmen..
That director must be proud of himself..
he made people sit in a theatre and watch a large bright blue glowing CGI smurf penis on screen, and people paid for it!!..
To be fair to the director, it was Alan Moore, the author of the graphic novel Watchmen (released in 1986), who conceived the idea of Nixon as president in the 80s. Moore wrote that in the 80s himself, at the height of the Reagan/Thatcher era. It seemed that all the negativity in the graphic novel about Nixon transcended party: No Ford and No Reagan as presidents, either. I can't remember if Thatcher was Prime Minister in the Watchmen graphic novel, but the world was in trouble, the UK included -- Thatcher and Reagan were bffs, and if you remove one from the equation, the other is easier to deal with.
There's a context to the book that really should be explored given what was going on during its creation.
Also, the director didn't MAKE people sit in a theater and watch it. He didn't force people to buy tickets to see his movie. It was free-market. Advertising, marketing, choice. Saying the director made people watch it implies, ironically, a conspiracy of some sort.
I'm sure of it..
