Has Doctor Who become too white?

[Ubik]

I responded directly to that post, so I don't see how you would think that I think it refutes my point.

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.

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.

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.

I'm sorry, I haven't gone through all 6 pages here, but I believe you're arguing that the writers of Doctor Who ought to give the viewers what the BBC perceives that those viewers want? If that is what you are suggesting, then you are placing Doctor Who squarely in the box of "product" (where it has been for much of its life, in any case), and forever banishing it from the possibility of being art, or inspiration, or something socially relevant. Doctor Who, precisely because it has such a large potential viewership, should absolutely aim to be something higher, something more relevant, something with a greater sense of purpose, then just "filling 45 minutes every week to keep millions of people not-bored."

Of COURSE Doctor Who could be better than it is. Being "fun" and "entertaining" and "time-wasting" and "heart-tugging" is easy as hell. A computer could write an episode with those extremely low standards.

But why not bring more colour to the show? Why not show black or Asian people being the hero, rather than always the white male? Why not try to push the envelope? That is, after all, what science fiction, at its best, has always done best.

The show is very male, and very white, not only in content and character breakdown, but also in outlook, in world view, in attitude. It is a wish-fulfillment fantasy for white nerdy men (begrudgingly saving the universe from disaster while hot girls, and the rest of humanity, worship you.)

Its outlook is boring. And easy. And traditional. And completely socially and intellectually unhelpful and uninspiring and uncourageous.

Do viewers want something different from Doctor Who than they're getting now? I haven't the faintest idea. But the writers and producers shouldn't care, not if they have high morals and artistic integrity and soaring ambitions and a modicum of imagination. If, however, they are merely business people selling a product, then, yeah, I suppose they could keep things the way they are. But that would be so, so, so disappointing.

 

[JoeZhang]

The show is very male, and very white, not only in content and character breakdown, but also in outlook, in world view, in attitude. It is a wish-fulfillment fantasy for white nerdy men (begrudgingly saving the universe from disaster while hot girls, and the rest of humanity, worship you.)

Its outlook is boring. And easy. And traditional. And completely socially and intellectually unhelpful and uninspiring and uncourageous.

Do viewers want something different from Doctor Who than they're getting now? I haven't the faintest idea.

highly doubtful given it is shown at tea-time on the most reactionary (by necessity for all sorts of reasons) of the BBC channels.

It's interesting you talk about it being a fantasy for nerdy white men when there is nothing I have ever seen to suggest that the general population who tune in at tea-time are desperate for any radical changes.

But the writers and producers shouldn't care, not if they have high morals and artistic integrity and soaring ambitions and a modicum of imagination. If, however, they are merely business people selling a product, then, yeah, I suppose they could keep things the way they are. But that would be so, so, so disappointing.

It would actually be easier to do if they were business people, instead they are recipients of a license fee in a context where the right-wing press and govt. are looking for any trip-up.

 

[Timewalker]

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.

<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.

My post was perfectly relevant, given the content of the post I quoted. Showing Christmas themes in a Christmas episode is reasonable. If you don't like Christmas stuff, by all means don't watch it. The choice is yours. This complaint, to me, makes as much sense as people bitching about Christmas trees, decorations, and Linus quoting from the New Testament in the Charlie Brown Christmas Special.

The post mentioned a lot of UK locations. Again, it's reasonable, given that the show is produced in the UK, features mostly UK-based actors, and is intended primarily for UK-based audiences.

 

[Guy Gardener]

By the time they're ready for a black Doctor Who, who it is then, right now is probably still almost a nobody.

 

[RoJoHen]

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.

<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.

My post was perfectly relevant, given the content of the post I quoted. Showing Christmas themes in a Christmas episode is reasonable. If you don't like Christmas stuff, by all means don't watch it. The choice is yours. This complaint, to me, makes as much sense as people bitching about Christmas trees, decorations, and Linus quoting from the New Testament in the Charlie Brown Christmas Special.

The post mentioned a lot of UK locations. Again, it's reasonable, given that the show is produced in the UK, features mostly UK-based actors, and is intended primarily for UK-based audiences.

The post that you quoted was already on your side. Did you read the post that it was replying to?

MacLeod's post wasn't a complaint. It was explaining why the Christmas specials are always about Christmas.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think it's silly to complain about a Christmas special being about Christmas. It's set on Christmas because they know people look forward to it and will probably watch it. Considering that, it would probably be fun to be about Christmas.

That being said, I wish finales stopped being the Christmas episode. I know people hate season splits, but I'd much rather the series be split into two halves with the Christmas episode in the middle than to have to mix fun Christmas elements into what might have to be an otherwise very serious plot.

 

[Christopher]

I think it's silly to complain about a Christmas special being about Christmas.

Is that really the complaint, though? Personally I don't see why there has to be a Christmas-themed special every single year. It makes Christmas too dominant a theme in the Doctor's adventures. Why do so many important things in his life happen to fall on Christmas? Two regenerations, his first meeting with Donna, his first meeting with Wilf, his second meeting with an incarnation of Clara -- what are the odds that they all just happen to fall on December 25th? It's as contrived as the '80s/'90s Star Trek shows always having big, important, cliffhangery events happening just when the stardates rolled back to 000, once a year like clockwork.

The original series didn't have annual Christmas specials. The only Xmas specials they had were "The Feast of Steven," an intentionally disposable sidebar in the middle of the saga "The Daleks' Master Plan," and the K9 and Company spinoff pilot (which wasn't specifically Xmas-themed until the closing scenes).

 

[Timewalker]

<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.

My post was perfectly relevant, given the content of the post I quoted. Showing Christmas themes in a Christmas episode is reasonable. If you don't like Christmas stuff, by all means don't watch it. The choice is yours. This complaint, to me, makes as much sense as people bitching about Christmas trees, decorations, and Linus quoting from the New Testament in the Charlie Brown Christmas Special.

The post mentioned a lot of UK locations. Again, it's reasonable, given that the show is produced in the UK, features mostly UK-based actors, and is intended primarily for UK-based audiences.

The post that you quoted was already on your side. Did you read the post that it was replying to?

MacLeod's post wasn't a complaint. It was explaining why the Christmas specials are always about Christmas.

Y'know, I don't always reply to posts I disagree with... sometimes I just give my own opinion.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

It's done because people enjoy watching it. Because they're at home with the family and enjoy watching Doctor Who. It doesn't make Christmas too significant in Doctor Who because there isn't a storytelling reason, just a programming reason.

 

[RoJoHen]

The original series didn't have annual Christmas specials.

At this point, though, it's become a tradition. For the last several years, my family actually gathers around the TV on Christmas night to watch the Doctor Who special. We don't do that for anything else.

 

[Christopher]

Well, let me summarize my argument this way, then:

Bah humbug.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

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.

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?

The statistics are not only of Dr. Who's viewers, but of the viewers of all shows/movies/etc. They are corroborated by criteria, establishing target audiences - sf viewers who prefer caucasian casts vs the ones who prefer minority casts, etc, etc.

But I see you've realized this can be done - vis a vis your edit.
Why did you even ask the question, Alidar?

I responded directly to that post, so I don't see how you would think that I think it refutes my point.

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.

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.

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.

I'm sorry, I haven't gone through all 6 pages here, but I believe you're arguing that the writers of Doctor Who ought to give the viewers what the BBC perceives that those viewers want? If that is what you are suggesting, then you are placing Doctor Who squarely in the box of "product" (where it has been for much of its life, in any case), and forever banishing it from the possibility of being art, or inspiration, or something socially relevant. Doctor Who, precisely because it has such a large potential viewership, should absolutely aim to be something higher, something more relevant, something with a greater sense of purpose, then just "filling 45 minutes every week to keep millions of people not-bored."

Of COURSE Doctor Who could be better than it is. Being "fun" and "entertaining" and "time-wasting" and "heart-tugging" is easy as hell. A computer could write an episode with those extremely low standards.

But why not bring more colour to the show? Why not show black or Asian people being the hero, rather than always the white male? Why not try to push the envelope? That is, after all, what science fiction, at its best, has always done best.

The show is very male, and very white, not only in content and character breakdown, but also in outlook, in world view, in attitude. It is a wish-fulfillment fantasy for white nerdy men (begrudgingly saving the universe from disaster while hot girls, and the rest of humanity, worship you.)

Its outlook is boring. And easy. And traditional. And completely socially and intellectually unhelpful and uninspiring and uncourageous.

Do viewers want something different from Doctor Who than they're getting now? I haven't the faintest idea. But the writers and producers shouldn't care, not if they have high morals and artistic integrity and soaring ambitions and a modicum of imagination. If, however, they are merely business people selling a product, then, yeah, I suppose they could keep things the way they are. But that would be so, so, so disappointing.

Dr. Who is both product and art. Indeed, most of art is both product and art.

As product, acting ability and how many viewers are attracted are highly relevant criteria for selecting the actors.

As art, the director can artistically prefer a caucasian cast or a minority cast. And these preferences have EQUAL artistic validity.

Just because you prefer minority casts does not mean this is an artistically superior choice (beyond the confines of your own brain), making all other art 'boring'.

And just because you prefer minority casts most definitely does NOT mean that politically correctly discriminating against caucasians is the correct and proper thing to do or in any way less racist.

 

[JoeZhang]

The statistics are not only of Dr. Whoțs viewers, but of the viewers of all shows/movies/etc. They are corroborated, among many criteria, establishing target audiences - sf viewers who prefer caucasian casts vs the ones who prefer minority casts, etc.

Please provide a link to where this has been done - it's possible but as far as I am aware, it's not actually been done...

 

[Edit_XYZ]

JoeZhang

Here are some relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience_measurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts

As for the Dr. Who marketing work, it's not public. You may call BBC - but I doubt it will be given you.

PS - I find it surprising how quite a few posters assume million dollars productions don't routinely make such market research in order to estimate future profits, etc.

 

[JoeZhang]

Nobody is disputing audience measurements, people are disputing that you can actively work out the variables you are suggesting to such a degree of accuracy - so your links don't help. You seem to have taken a number of concepts and mashed them up to create something that only exists in your head.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

JoeZhang

Do you have anything to actually support your dictum - beyond disputing audience measurements? Let's see it.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The statistics are not only of Dr. Who's viewers, but of the viewers of all shows/movies/etc. They are corroborated by criteria, establishing target audiences - sf viewers who prefer caucasian casts vs the ones who prefer minority casts, etc, etc.

But I see you've realized this can be done - vis a vis your edit.
Why did you even ask the question, Alidar?

I asked the question because I wanted to understand why you're claiming what you said and what your evidence of it is. I don't see the evidence that you do.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

The statistics are not only of Dr. Who's viewers, but of the viewers of all shows/movies/etc. They are corroborated by criteria, establishing target audiences - sf viewers who prefer caucasian casts vs the ones who prefer minority casts, etc, etc.

But I see you've realized this can be done - vis a vis your edit.
Why did you even ask the question, Alidar?

I asked the question because I wanted to understand why you're claiming what you said and what your evidence of it is. I don't see the evidence that you do.

Despite the fact that you used the exact same procedure (applied to a few isolated data points) to try and prove the contrary?
Seems like you understand the theory just fine. You just dislike the results; as such, you try to deny them, without foundation.


I even gave above a rough description of the procedure used in audience measurements:
"-'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."
The results are corroborated, giving a target audience for cast - and types of show, etc.

And, while you didn't use anything close to a statistically representative sample, the marketing departments do use such a sample - which results in accurate predictions of viewerships for different shows.

Have you seen the latest viewership numbers for Dr. Who? The target viewership decisions for the show were spot on.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Despite the fact that you used the exact same procedure (applied to a few isolated data points) to try and prove the contrary?

I didn't try to prove anything. You're the one making the assertion.

My view is that choosing an actor of the same race as a majority of the audience because the audience is more likely to empathize with that actor (something you supported earlier) is abhorrent. I also think the show benefits from diversity both because it makes the entire viewing audience feel more included and because it raises additional storytelling options not previously available.

You were the one who claimed that viewership statistics support the theory that the audience wants a white only cast. Furthermore, while you acknowledged that viewership statistics have to be controlled for other factors, you implied that it was possible to do just that. I'm waiting for your argument with supporting evidence controlled for precisely those factors in favor of your proposition.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Alidar Jarok

I already posted my view:
"Dr. Who is both product and art. Indeed, most of art is both product and art.

As product, acting ability and how many viewers are attracted are highly relevant criteria for selecting the actors.

As art, the director can artistically prefer a caucasian cast or a minority cast. And these preferences have EQUAL artistic validity.

Just because you prefer minority casts does not mean this is an artistically superior choice (beyond the confines of your own brain), making all other art 'boring'.

And just because you prefer minority casts most definitely does NOT mean that politically correctly discriminating against caucasians is the correct and proper thing to do or in any way less racist."


And I supported my view sufficiently.
With FAR more and better grounded arguments (that you pretend not to see, playing 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil') than you supported your view with:
You came up with no argument beyond an transparent attempt at doctoring data and politically correct slogans; and you apparently think that asking me for even more arguments constitute an argument for your position (it doesn't).

Apropos your position, I'm curious. What arguments do you have for supporting your following dictum:
"My view is that choosing an actor of the same race as a majority of the audience because the audience is more likely to empathize with that actor (something you supported earlier) is abhorrent."
Apparently, for you, NOT discriminating is abhorrent. WOW.