^ Hey, how do you know I'm not the bird?
Just a quick clarification, do you mean there are fewer black Brits or more?
Just a quick clarification, do you mean there are fewer black Brits or more?
Has Doctor Who become too white?
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
I *think* there are fewer Black Brits than Asian Brits by a ratio of about 5:7 respectively. Keep in mind that the vast majority of Brits are white (something like 87% IIRC) and I think three quarters of those are mostly descended from the neolithic populations.
In short, we're a *very* white country once you get outside the inner cities and even the Caucasian population isn't anywhere near as diverse as say white Americans. I grew up in the English countryside and in all of my childhood I probably knew of only two, maybe three local families of African decent, all of which were military...OK yes, I know we're all of African decent if you go back far enough, but you know what I mean!
In short, we're a *very* white country once you get outside the inner cities and even the Caucasian population isn't anywhere near as diverse as say white Americans. I grew up in the English countryside and in all of my childhood I probably knew of only two, maybe three local families of African decent, all of which were military...OK yes, I know we're all of African decent if you go back far enough, but you know what I mean!
OK, given that, I think it's even mote of a shame there aren't more asian actors on Doctor Who
Nobody is saying any of these people should be case "just" because of their ethnicity, and it's an insult to all those performers to assume that, because they've all proven themselves very talented people. We don't want them cast because they aren't white; we want them cast because they're really good and deserve to be cast and we don't want them excluded from consideration because they aren't white. Inclusive casting isn't about meeting quotas that are solely about race, so please stop tossing that dismissive straw man around. It's about having enough brains and taste to look beyond race and appreciate talented performers regardless of what they look like.
And isn't it pretty ridiculous to claim that a show about an alien who travels through time in a phone booth that's bigger on the inside should "reflect reality?" Fiction has never been about reflecting reality. Its purpose is to fire our imaginations, to show us the world as it could be and thus inspire us to make it better than it is.
Is there some reason you put quotation marks around the word alien to describe Adric and Nyssa? Both were alien (as in not human), and Adric was even from a different universe.
And while Nicola Bryant was not American, her character was, so how about losing the quotation marks for her too, 'k?
You forgot Kamelion, the robot introduced in The King's Demons (and who died in Planet of Fire). Sure, he wasn't interacting with the rest of them much, but he did travel in the TARDIS with the Doctor and the other Companions.
Of course it counts, since we (at least those of us not in the fandom/information loop) didn't know Nyssa was coming back as a Companion. So technically, Adric was the only Companion from the end of Warrior's Gate until partway through Logopolis.
And in The Two Doctors, each Doctor had one Companion; in the Second Doctor's case, that was Jamie (not sure where Victoria/Zoe were).
It is a Christmas special for broadcast on Christmas Day as part of Christmas viewing - even as an atheist, I can see that the BBC isn't going to squander that amount of good will with license payers.
Is there a reason to believe that they are being excluded from consideration, though? (Asides from cases where it makes sense, like when casting another character's family.)
If "you" want actors cast on the basis of how good they are and how many viewers they can attract to "Doctor Who", then your wish is already fulfilled.
Actors are already hired for roles based on just these credentials. Not only in "Doctor Who", but in the entire industry, in general.
If "you" want for the ethnicity of an actor to give him/her an a priori advantage, then your wish is not fulfilled. Rightly so: discrimination is not any less ugly when it's enacted against caucasians.
Yes.
Indeed, viewership statistics and, based on it, deciding the details and marketing of shows, etc is established and ongoing.
As for Christopher's claim, what he said was a rather large dictum based on no evidence (which did not stop him from claiming evidence exists).
Not necessarily. They could also be picked based on a perceived sense of how the audience will identify with them.
I'm not sure viewership statistics are a referendum on whether one would like to see more minority characters or not. I certainly never viewed them that way and I doubt most viewers do either.
So I take it the vote is now 1-1 with me being in favor of more minority characters and you being opposed?
This 'perceived' sense is backed up by viewership statistics and study thereof.
Unlike Christopher's dictum:
"It is a mistake to assume that only "minority" viewers like watching diverse casts. That's not what the evidence shows. Inclusion is good for everyone.",
which is backed up by his wishful thinking and political corectness.
Also, if the viewers watch what they want to watch and don't watch what they don't want to watch, then the viewership statistics are most definitely useful in determining what they want to watch (obviously). Whether you see the statistics as a referendum on this or not is really irrelevant.
About them, 2 'votes', 20, 200 or even 2000 count for exactly nothing of any relevance when compared to the viewership of Doctor Who (of any more or less popular show, really).
Last edited:
Which a) is a far cry from your claim that the best actors were being chosen and b) brings up my point once again that I bet most people are unaware that their viewership choice is a vote for how they'd like the program to ideally be. Given that, there's too much noise to truly be a referendum. After all, how do you control for the people who just watch a program because they like it but would still prefer it to be more diverse? To me, those people would fall under the category of "want it to be more diverse" but you seem to put them under the category of "prefer to keep things how they are."
Well, so far the vote is 1-1, so I'm not sure why you're so convinced your point is winning.
On a side note, dictum is short for obiter dictum which is Latin for "said in passing." If it's part of the argument, it's not said in passing and it's not dicta.
Well lets examine the Christmas episodees
"The Christmas Invasion"
Location: Earth, UK early 21st Century
"The Runaway Bride"
Location: Earth UK early 21st century
"Voyage of the Damned"
Location: In Orbit over Earth early 21st century. Visited UK
"The Next Doctor"
Location: Earth, UK mid ninteenth century
"The End of Time"
Location: Earth, UK early 21st century
"A Christmas Carol"
Location: Unknown
"The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe"
Location: Earth, UK mid 20th century
"The Snowmen"
Location: Earth, UK late nonteenth century
"The Time of The Doctor"
Location: Trenzalore
So out of the 9 Christmas specials, only two ("A Christmas Carol", "The Time of The Doctor") have not been set on or around Earth or more specifically the UK.
Now whilst the UK might be more secular these days many of it's traditions come from the Christian beliefs. Walk down the majority of streets in the UK in the period around Christmas and you'll notice Christmas decorations.
So what? I'm atheist and I enjoy Christmas decorations.
And consider that many of the above-mentioned locations are in the UK. Given that the show is made in the UK and UK residents are its primary-intended audience, that seems reasonable. After all, how many American-made shows are set primarily in American locations? I can't think of a single American show I'm familiar with that was deliberately set in some other country like... Canada, for example. There's nothing sinister about Doctor Who being UK-centric. After all, most other countries that make TV shows do the same respective thing.
Woooooooooooooooosh!
Alidar Jarok
Your arguments were already answered to and refuted in my previous post:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=9054799&postcount=70
Viewers answered the question through their deeds, not through mere words.
PS - The only new argument is the 'dictum' one. Here's a more recent meaning of the word:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dictum
Your arguments were already answered to and refuted in my previous post:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=9054799&postcount=70
Viewers answered the question through their deeds, not through mere words.
PS - The only new argument is the 'dictum' one. Here's a more recent meaning of the word:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dictum
Last edited:
I responded directly to that post, so I don't see how you would think that I think it refutes my point.
My point was and still is that viewership statistics don't distinguish those who like the show and want to keep it exactly as is from those who like the show but would prefer to see greater diversity. Do you disagree? If so, explain.
Although if you really want to go with Viewership statistics uber alles, Smith and Jones had 8.7 million viewers, which is roughly on par with episodes like Partners in Crime and above episodes like Planet of the Ood, Sontaran Strategem, and Silence in the Library. Apparently having a minority character in a major role did not hurt your precious viewership statistics.
My point was and still is that viewership statistics don't distinguish those who like the show and want to keep it exactly as is from those who like the show but would prefer to see greater diversity. Do you disagree? If so, explain.
Although if you really want to go with Viewership statistics uber alles, Smith and Jones had 8.7 million viewers, which is roughly on par with episodes like Partners in Crime and above episodes like Planet of the Ood, Sontaran Strategem, and Silence in the Library. Apparently having a minority character in a major role did not hurt your precious viewership statistics.
Last edited:
I said that I refuted your arguments, not that you think I refuted your arguments.
You see, logic and objective facts are...well, objective. Their validity does not depend on your or any other person's subjective wish.
Alidar, the viewership statistics most definitely distinguish between these 2 categories:
-'those who like the show and want to keep it exactly as it is' will watch shows/movies/etc with similar cast composition;
-'those who like the show but would prefer to see greater diversity' will watch shows/movies/etc with more diverse cast composition.
As such, the preferences of the viewers, under this aspect, as well as many others, are evident in the statistics.
<Taps on the glass>
Timewalker, that list of locations, was, I believe, a response ro, "the whole universe isn't Christian and not everybody celebrates Christmas. Do we have to be hit over the head with "It's Christmas, IT'S Christmas, IT'S CHRISTMAS" in every Christmas Special?"
So, that list of locations is displaying the fact, that of Course Christmas was a main theme, as the episodes took place in Christmasy locations/times.
Maybe it's too early, but I fail to see how it makes this distinction. To me, both would be recorded as a "viewer." Could you elaborate a little more on that please?
Also, did you catch my edit?
I agree Davies had a more diverse group of people. Also a lot of interracial couples!