14th Doctor is Here! BBC Children in Need 2023!

I think as an aspiring writer/artist, the dilemma becomes: whose standards dictate what art I can make? Many today complain that there's not enough imagination in stories anymore, not enough bold or daring flights of fancy. How can there be if we don't feel we can go wherever our creativity leads us. I have no desire to offend anyone, but I also don't want to be stifled. Where is the middle ground where we all can be happy? It's not easy to find that ground these days.

Sorry to be too philosophical. I guess as long as I produce art only online for my friends, I don't really need to worry. But others with higher aspirations could have problems.
 
I think as an aspiring writer/artist, the dilemma becomes: whose standards dictate what art I can make? Many today complain that there's not enough imagination in stories anymore, not enough bold or daring flights of fancy. How can there be if we don't feel we can go wherever our creativity leads us. I have no desire to offend anyone, but I also don't want to be stifled. Where is the middle ground where we all can be happy? It's not easy to find that ground these days.

Sorry to be too philosophical. I guess as long as I produce art only online for my friends, I don't really need to worry. But others with higher aspirations could have problems.
Depends on your audience. If you try to make everyone happy, one group will say you didn’t do enough to accommodate, and the other group will say you went too far. Most don’t care.

If your goal is to make money, you should address the majority that has money to spend that isn’t extreme either way.

It’s when accommodation hurts the product that you’ll definitely know when you went too far. The most ridiculous thing I’ve heard all year is a description of the new live action Snow White movie. It said: Snow White who isn’t white with seven diversity hires that aren’t dwarves. Made me laugh.
 
Do you have evidence for this claim that the Walt Disney Company pressured RTD to reimagine Davros?

Of course there isn't evidence of this because Disney+'s association with Doctor Who doesn't give them any authority to dictate what the BBC, RTD, and Bad Wolf Studios do when it comes to the IP or anything creatively related to it.
 
Last edited:
I don’t have evidence but for RTD to personally create

Cassandra
John Lumick
Max Capricorn

Then come out with that seems a bit strange.
People can change their positions in a decade or come to entire new ones.
I know I was mighty ignorant about a lot of things in the past and probably made I’ll informed decisions or acted in very stupid ways.
(The same will be true in a decade or two when I look back to today).

i am partway on his reasoning.
I see that it is important to show Davros is not evil because of the disability.
In fact there is no correlation between the two traits at all.
Accept that his disability might be a direct consequence of his evil acts
Or it might not, do we know he didn’t just trip and fell down some stairs?

what was the original reasoning behind his character design back in the day?
Did they disfigure him just to make him scary? Or was there an important backstory reason?
 
I don’t have evidence but for RTD to personally create

Cassandra
John Lumick
Max Capricorn

Then come out with that seems a bit strange.

Is it really so strange to imagine he might have changed his position over the course of almost twenty years? I mean, Jesus, you're citing episodes made in 2005 and 2006 there. The new series lead Millie Gibson was a literal infant when those episodes aired.
 
Accept that his disability might be a direct consequence of his evil acts
Or it might not, do we know he didn’t just trip and fell down some stairs?

what was the original reasoning behind his character design back in the day?
Did they disfigure him just to make him scary? Or was there an important backstory reason?

Dramatically and literally, Davros is half-human (or Kaled) and half-Dalek. He’s the missing link, an intermediary stage between us and them (and then he kept coming back because it meant he was a Dalek who could carry on a conversation). I’d assume the scarred makeup design was meant to evoke the idea of the Dalek mutant being the result of ages of brutal warfare, just like his “chair” was a Dalek casing.

As pointed out elsewhere, suggesting that Davros’s condition is meant to just be unrelated visual signaling of his moral corruption implies that the same is true to an even greater degree of the Daleks themselves. I’m not sure how much of the Daleks is left if you take away the element of them being totally dependent on their weapons to live. Are they just guys in armor with typical bodies and minds? Robots?
 
He's expanded "The Gay Agenda" to "The Woke Agenda".;) RTD does seem to be pushing an almost cartoonish stance at times so I'm hoping actually seeing the new works will balance this out once when we see the new stories play out.

This might be a be careful what you wish for but I'd like a showrunner who started on nuWho instead. Still I'm eager to see what RTD2 has to pull out of his pocket, as others say I think his intentions are good even if he's maybe trying a bit too hard.
 
I think it was a regular TARDIS toilet plunger

There was a fridge in Legends of Tomorrow, where every time you opened the door, the space inside the fridge reset to what ever was inside the Fridge from Just like before you opened the door last. (Just like in Lost Room.)

They made money by selling the same bottle of wine, thousands of times, during early 20th century US Prohibition.

This, but in reverse, for a time lord toilet?

Or would they make a dimensionally transcendental septic tank?

Sad unfulfilled poop falling forever and never splashing down.
 
Back
Top