Discussion:
S11E09 It Takes You Away
Add Reply
The True Doctor
2018-12-02 21:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...

Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is shitting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he obviously hates
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was supposed
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's just about
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!

So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.

Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story, Ed Hime,
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to fall for
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than someone's who
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.

What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!

So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and testing
out hypothesis.

Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!

The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?

There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.

How is this supposed to be science fiction?

Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her dildo at
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.

Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.

The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.

Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-shit universe, the shitverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...

So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.

Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the mirror and
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.

Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.

Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not fucking real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he has to be
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.

So the shitverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the shitpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
fucking psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took pleasure
from watching people dying.

Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.

Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!

If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.

That sooner Chibnall and Whittaker go, the better for everyone!
Cancellation would be better than to see them continue.

0/10
The True Doctor
2018-12-02 21:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is shitting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he obviously hates
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was supposed
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's just about
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story, Ed Hime,
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to fall for
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than someone's who
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.
What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!
So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and testing
out hypothesis.
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her dildo at
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-shit universe, the shitverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the mirror and
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.
Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.
Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not fucking real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he has to be
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.
So the shitverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the shitpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
fucking psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took pleasure
from watching people dying.
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
That sooner Chibnall and Whittaker go, the better for everyone!
Cancellation would be better than to see them continue.
0/10
I forgot to mention the talking frog.

Chinball shitting in viewers' faces! That's all he does.
The Doctor
2018-12-03 02:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is s*tting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he obviously hates
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was supposed
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's just about
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story, Ed Hime,
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to fall for
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than someone's who
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.
What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!
So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and testing
out hypothesis.
Chibnall s*ts feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bulls*t out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it s*t. The
s*t is sentient. Let's call it sentient-s*t.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her dildo at
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-s*t, which is also the sentient-s*t.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-s*t created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-s*t universe, the s*tverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-s*t, because
believing in s*t, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Dangerous lot!

Most anti-British!
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally s*t
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the mirror and
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.
Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.
Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not f*king real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he has to be
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.
So the s*tverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the s*tpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
f*king psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took pleasure
from watching people dying.
F*king S*T! The entire story was F*KING S*T!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
That sooner Chibnall and Whittaker go, the better for everyone!
Cancellation would be better than to see them continue.
0/10
I forgot to mention the talking frog.
Chinball s*tting in viewers' faces! That's all he does.
Not really. This whole season is worth forgetting!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
The Doctor
2018-12-03 01:43:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is shitting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he obviously hates
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was supposed
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's just about
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story, Ed Hime,
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to fall for
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than someone's who
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.
What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!
So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and testing
out hypothesis.
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her dildo at
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-shit universe, the shitverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the mirror and
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.
Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.
Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not fucking real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he has to be
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.
So the shitverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the shitpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
fucking psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took pleasure
from watching people dying.
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
That sooner Chibnall and Whittaker go, the better for everyone!
Cancellation would be better than to see them continue.
0/10
Timelash makes for better viewing.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-03 02:50:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 1:40:55 PM UTC-8, The True Doctor wrote:

1
`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
\
]
[
p
o
i
Post by The True Doctor
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
Or why not call in UNIT?
The Doctor
2018-12-03 03:22:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
\
]
[
p
o
i
Post by The True Doctor
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
Or why not call in UNIT?
In Norway?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-03 03:58:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
\
]
[
p
o
i
Post by The True Doctor
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
Or why not call in UNIT?
In Norway?
Isn't UNIT a global organization?
The Doctor
2018-12-03 13:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
\
]
[
p
o
i
Post by The True Doctor
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
Or why not call in UNIT?
In Norway?
Isn't UNIT a global organization?
so?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-03 10:22:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed
It seems quite common in the DW series for the Doctor to not ccheck his/her location before leaving TARDIS!


--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
Post by The True Doctor
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that
I take it you have obtained inside info from your BBC sources saying that CC has ordered that the console room not be shown?


--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
Post by The True Doctor
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that?
Her sonic can do anything!

Then, after that, she
Post by The True Doctor
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
The Great Sheep Revolt?
Post by The True Doctor
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
A clever way to delay revealing info to us!
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means that 13 already knows something of her situation!

Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so would be useful to a BLIND girl!
The Doctor
2018-12-03 13:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed
It seems quite common in the DW series for the Doctor to not ccheck
his/her location before leaving TARDIS!
--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
Post by The True Doctor
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that
I take it you have obtained inside info from your BBC sources saying
that CC has ordered that the console room not be shown?
--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
Post by The True Doctor
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that?
Her sonic can do anything!
Chibnall's dirty mind for us.
Post by Timothy Bruening
Then, after that, she
Post by The True Doctor
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
The Great Sheep Revolt?
Doubt it.
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
A clever way to delay revealing info to us!
As if.
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means that 13
already knows something of her situation!
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so would be useful to a BLIND girl!
Doctor 12? I doubt it.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-03 15:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means that 13
already knows something of her situation!
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so would be
useful to a BLIND girl!
Doctor 12? I doubt it.
Extremis & Pyramid.
The Doctor
2018-12-03 21:31:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means that 13
already knows something of her situation!
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so would be
useful to a BLIND girl!
Doctor 12? I doubt it.
Extremis & Pyramid.
trying to extend the argument.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Daniel60
2018-12-07 14:23:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
In article
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 1:40:55 PM UTC-8, The True
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th
Doctor's sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the
noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means
that 13 already knows something of her situation!
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's
blind. Why does she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The
kind if blindness she has means she can't see any light
unless it's very close up, so why would she need to wear
sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What purpose
does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so
would be useful to a BLIND girl!
Doctor 12? I doubt it.
Extremis & Pyramid.
trying to extend the argument.
No, Tim was just showing you, idiot, that YOU are *WRONG* , idiot!!
--
Daniel
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-07 14:45:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
In article
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 1:40:55 PM UTC-8, The True
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th
Doctor's sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the
noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means
that 13 already knows something of her situation!
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's
blind. Why does she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The
kind if blindness she has means she can't see any light
unless it's very close up, so why would she need to wear
sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What purpose
does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so
would be useful to a BLIND girl!
Doctor 12? I doubt it.
Extremis & Pyramid.
trying to extend the argument.
No, Tim was just showing you, idiot, that YOU are *WRONG* , idiot!!
The True Doctor said that the blind girl had Doctor 12's sunglasses, as in the specific pair worn by Doctor 12!
The Doctor
2018-12-07 16:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
In article
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th
Doctor's sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the
noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means
that 13 already knows something of her situation!
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's
blind. Why does she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The
kind if blindness she has means she can't see any light
unless it's very close up, so why would she need to wear
sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What purpose
does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so
would be useful to a BLIND girl!
Doctor 12? I doubt it.
Extremis & Pyramid.
trying to extend the argument.
No, Tim was just showing you, idiot, that YOU are *WRONG* , idiot!!
The True Doctor said that the blind girl had Doctor 12's sunglasses, as
in the specific pair worn by Doctor 12!
Exactly!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-07 18:46:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
In article
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th
Doctor's sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the
noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means
that 13 already knows something of her situation!
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's
blind. Why does she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The
kind if blindness she has means she can't see any light
unless it's very close up, so why would she need to wear
sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What purpose
does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so
would be useful to a BLIND girl!
Doctor 12? I doubt it.
Extremis & Pyramid.
trying to extend the argument.
No, Tim was just showing you, idiot, that YOU are *WRONG* , idiot!!
The True Doctor said that the blind girl had Doctor 12's sunglasses, as
in the specific pair worn by Doctor 12!
Exactly!
I wonder how she got them?
The Doctor
2018-12-07 20:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
In article
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th
Doctor's sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the
noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means
that 13 already knows something of her situation!
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's
blind. Why does she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The
kind if blindness she has means she can't see any light
unless it's very close up, so why would she need to wear
sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What purpose
does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so
would be useful to a BLIND girl!
Doctor 12? I doubt it.
Extremis & Pyramid.
trying to extend the argument.
No, Tim was just showing you, idiot, that YOU are *WRONG* , idiot!!
The True Doctor said that the blind girl had Doctor 12's sunglasses, as
in the specific pair worn by Doctor 12!
Exactly!
I wonder how she got them?
She already had them.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-04 02:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
\
]
[
p
o
i
u
y
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means that 13
already knows something of her situation!
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so would be
useful to a BLIND girl!
Doctor 12? I doubt it.
You said that the girl had Doctor 12's glasses! I surmise that he gave them to her to enable her to see as per Extremis & Pyramid.
The Doctor
2018-12-04 17:01:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
\
]
[
p
o
i
u
y
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises.
This means that Doctor 12 paid that girl a visit! Which means that 13
already knows something of her situation!
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
Doctor 12's glasses enabled HIM to see when HE was blind, so would be
useful to a BLIND girl!
Doctor 12? I doubt it.
You said that the girl had Doctor 12's glasses! I surmise that he gave
them to her to enable her to see as per Extremis & Pyramid.
I never said anything about 12th Doctor Glasses. Check above.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
e***@hotmail.com
2018-12-03 16:41:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
*****

Sunglasses became a -trope,- if you will for the blind because they felt the sight of their eyes was disturbing to people looking at them.

The blindness is another false track (they seem to be good at throwing those at us with this crew). At first, it looks like she’s blind to make her more helpless in this situation. However, in the end, it turns out she’s the one who realizes the -mother- isn’t really her mother at all. (Yes, The Doctor realizes it, but they don’t believe her.)
%
2018-12-03 16:50:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
*****
Sunglasses became a -trope,- if you will for the blind because they felt the sight of their eyes was disturbing to people looking at them.
The blindness is another false track (they seem to be good at throwing those at us with this crew). At first, it looks like she’s blind to make her more helpless in this situation. However, in the end, it turns out she’s the one who realizes the -mother- isn’t really her mother at all. (Yes, The Doctor realizes it, but they don’t believe her.)
i didn't say it the doctor did ,
and he's right because if my life wasn't ,
better than yours i'd be trying to say ,
bad stuff about you and that's how i know ,
i'm a much better human than you are
*****
I haven’t said anything bad about you. I’m just stating facts; you
are an ignorant deluded fool. It’s time to go back to ignoring you.
You’re not worth anything more!
i told you i'd win and here we have it in writing lets share it
Siri Cruise
2018-12-03 17:06:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Sunglasses became a -trope,- if you will for the blind because they felt the
sight of their eyes was disturbing to people looking at them.
Blind eyes can be uncoordinated and pointing in different directions. That's
disconcerting to sighted people. Even a few sighted people have uncoordinated
eyes which is doubly disconcerting because they can see your initial discomfort.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
An almond doesn't lactate. This post / \
Yet another supercilious snowflake for justice. insults Islam. Mohammed
The Doctor
2018-12-03 21:35:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
*****
Sunglasses became a -trope,- if you will for the blind because they felt
the sight of their eyes was disturbing to people looking at them.
The blindness is another false track (they seem to be good at throwing
those at us with this crew). At first, it looks like she’s blind to
make her more helpless in this situation. However, in the end, it turns
out she’s the one who realizes the -mother- isn’t really her
mother at all. (Yes, The Doctor realizes it, but they don’t believe
her.)
A nit.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-04 02:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
*****
Sunglasses became a -trope,- if you will for the blind because they felt the sight of their eyes was disturbing to people looking at them.
The blindness is another false track (they seem to be good at throwing those at us with this crew). At first, it looks like she’s blind to make her more helpless in this situation. However, in the end, it turns out she’s the one who realizes the -mother- isn’t really her mother at all. (Yes, The Doctor realizes it, but they don’t believe her.)
Could it be that the Solidtrap Mom had directed Dad to leave the girl behind so that she wouldn't discover that Mom was fake?
The Doctor
2018-12-04 17:01:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by The True Doctor
Why the hell is
Post by The True Doctor
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind?
*****
Sunglasses became a -trope,- if you will for the blind because they
felt the sight of their eyes was disturbing to people looking at them.
Post by The True Doctor
The blindness is another false track (they seem to be good at throwing
those at us with this crew). At first, it looks like she’s blind to
make her more helpless in this situation. However, in the end, it turns
out she’s the one who realizes the -mother- isn’t really her
mother at all. (Yes, The Doctor realizes it, but they don’t believe
her.)
it not her.
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Could it be that the Solidtrap Mom had directed Dad to leave the girl
behind so that she wouldn't discover that Mom was fake?
Possible.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-03 15:56:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is shitting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he obviously hates
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was supposed
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's just about
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story, Ed Hime,
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to fall for
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than someone's who
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.
What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!
So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and testing
out hypothesis.
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her dildo at
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-shit universe, the shitverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the mirror and
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.
Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.
Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not fucking real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he has to be
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.
So the shitverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the shitpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
fucking psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took pleasure
from watching people dying.
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
How would you have done it?
The True Doctor
2018-12-03 17:01:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is shitting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he obviously hates
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was supposed
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's just about
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story, Ed Hime,
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to fall for
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than someone's who
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.
What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!
So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and testing
out hypothesis.
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her dildo at
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-shit universe, the shitverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the mirror and
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.
Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.
Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not fucking real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he has to be
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.
So the shitverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the shitpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
fucking psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took pleasure
from watching people dying.
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
How would you have done it?
I wouldn't have written crap like this.

Read "Subspace Encounter" by E. E. Smith which is about traveling from
our universe to another via subspace by means of telepathy (read quantum
resonance with space-time itself, or the fourth and fifth meme) to make
all the calculations for axial rotations needed to get there, and making
contact with the people there and trading with them, while sorting out a
galactic conflict and finding out why space ships are disappearing in
the process. That's how I would have done it. You might want to read
"Subspace Explorers" first, since it continues from that.
The Doctor
2018-12-03 21:29:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is shitting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he obviously hates
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was supposed
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's just about
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story, Ed Hime,
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to fall for
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than someone's who
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.
What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!
So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and testing
out hypothesis.
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her dildo at
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-shit universe, the shitverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the mirror and
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.
Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.
Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not fucking real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he has to be
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.
So the shitverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the shitpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
fucking psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took pleasure
from watching people dying.
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
How would you have done it?
Toss out Chibnall to start with.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-03 21:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is shitting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he obviously hates
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was supposed
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's just about
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story, Ed Hime,
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to fall for
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than someone's who
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.
What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!
So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and testing
out hypothesis.
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her dildo at
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-shit universe, the shitverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the mirror and
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.
Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.
Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not fucking real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he has to be
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.
So the shitverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the shitpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
fucking psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took pleasure
from watching people dying.
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
How would you have done it?
Toss out Chibnall to start with.
Then how would the episode have proceeded? What would have happened in it?
The Doctor
2018-12-03 21:55:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is shitting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he obviously hates
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was supposed
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's just about
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story, Ed Hime,
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to fall for
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than someone's who
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.
What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!
So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and testing
out hypothesis.
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her dildo at
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-shit universe, the shitverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the mirror and
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.
Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.
Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not fucking real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he has to be
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.
So the shitverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the shitpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
fucking psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took pleasure
from watching people dying.
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
How would you have done it?
Toss out Chibnall to start with.
Then how would the episode have proceeded? What would have happened in it?
Better scripts from a better showrunner
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-03 23:52:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even Chibnall
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of dispute...
Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is shitting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he obviously hates
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was supposed
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's just about
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind. Why does
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story, Ed Hime,
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to fall for
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than someone's who
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.
What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!
So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and testing
out hypothesis.
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her dildo at
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-shit universe, the shitverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the mirror and
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.
Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.
Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not fucking real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he has to be
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.
So the shitverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the shitpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
fucking psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took pleasure
from watching people dying.
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
How would you have done it?
Toss out Chibnall to start with.
Then how would the episode have proceeded? What would have happened in it?
Better scripts from a better showrunner
Such as Aggy?
The Doctor
2018-12-04 16:49:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
So Witless--and that aptly describes her character and acting--and the
rest of the Mickey Mouse Club arrive in Norway. But instead of checking
the displays on the TARDIS console to find where the idiot has
landed--the TARDIS interior isn't even shown because it looks like a
pile of crap, with a penis sticking out in the center; and even
Chibnall
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
finally realized that--Witless decides to ingest some soil for the
forest, which tells her not only where she is but how far she is from
the nearest city, or did her dildo tell her that? Then, after that, she
tells everyone that they just missed the sheep wars, by 150 years or
something, where humans and sheep were involved in some kind of
dispute...
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Is any of this supposed to be taken seriously? Chibnall is shitting in
the viewers' faces! Why was he made show runner, when he
obviously hates
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Doctor Who and hates Doctor Who fans even more? And if this was
supposed
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
to be comedy, Whittaker has no comic timing whatsoever. She's
just about
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
the worst actress anyone could have cast in the role. She's 100 times
worse than Mel!
So they find a log cabin in the middle of the forest, after they hear
sounds that seem to be from some kind of monster lurking in the forest.
But thanks to the idiotic background music, which is playing all the
time, you don't realize that these unrealistic electronic sounding
noises are actually separate from the music and not part of it.
Inside the cabin they find a girl who is wearing the 12th Doctor's
sunglasses, hiding in a cupboard because of the noises. Why the hell is
she wearing sunglasses in a cupboard? It turns out she's blind.
Why does
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
she need the sunglasses if she's blind? The kind if blindness she has
means she can't see any light unless it's very close up, so why would
she need to wear sunglasses when she's all by herself indoors? What
purpose does it serve to the plot that she's blind? None whatsoever,
unless it's so Chibnall and the imbecile that wrote this story,
Ed Hime,
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
can scare her with the electronic beast noises from outside which turn
out to be coming from loud speakers. Who can be so stupid as to
fall for
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
that? She's blind so her hearing should be more acute than
someone's who
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
isn't, and she should have realized the noises are stationary.
What stupid and insulting writing Doctor Who has descended to!
So, 30 minutes of totally irrelevant mind numbing soap opera ensues,
with Witless pointing her sonic dildo everywhere and at everyone as if
it were a gun, instead of using her brain, and pulling the entire plot
out of her arse, rather than researching facts, instigating, and
testing
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
out hypothesis.
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again, trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have
been him
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker
knows more
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
than God!
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course--has gone missing and Witless
decides to search for him? Why doesn't she call the police? Yaz is a
police woman (do they call them police women still, police person?) so
why is she letting Witless take the matter into her own hands?
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there,
why, and
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
what it its purpose? Never explained! Whittaker just points her
dildo at
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat,
totally
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this? One of Yads' reviews makes more sense than
this does.
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife? Chibnall's
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Ryan who is with the girl discovers that the bestial noises are just
loud speakers planted in the forest by her father to keep her from
wandering off, as I said earlier. This story is totally sickening, but
it gets worse. Graham's dead wife, Grace also turns out to be in the
sentient-shit universe, the shitverse, ah, that's it, that's what
Whittaker called it...
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs--then go through the
mirror and
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
she comes though the other side and meets her mother.
Mind numbing, badly written, sentimentalist soap opera dominates this
entire section, and makes you want to vomit.
Graham boars the pants of the viewers by attempting to establish if
Grace is real. Of course she's not fucking real and neither is the
girl's mother. Didn't I say Grace would come back as a fake ghost after
epsidoe 1? Why didn't the girl's father just take her to see her mother
earlier? Because all men are evil according to Chibnall, so he
has to be
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
seen torturing her, in order to prove that.
So the shitverse is about to collapse because of everyone being
there--yes I know it doesn't make any sesne--so it sends everyone back
though the mirror to the shitpocket; that's a good name for it, given
that's how Graham describes what it actually smells like; except for
Witless who decides to stay behind to make friends with it? It's a
fucking psychopath that gets pleasure from torturing people by creating
false avatars of their dead loved one, and she's now calling it her
friend? just like psychopaths from the Punjab episode that took
pleasure
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
from watching people dying.
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
Another pile of stinking SJW soap opera and sentiment infested crap
which is not real Doctor Who!
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
How would you have done it?
Toss out Chibnall to start with.
Then how would the episode have proceeded? What would have happened in it?
Better scripts from a better showrunner
Such as Aggy?
Anyone but Chibnall and those who were involved
since 2005. We need a fresh perspective.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-03 18:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again,
I only looked in on this thread out of morbid curiosity to see how you could work a rant about 'political correctness' into the most traditional Dr Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with anything 'PC'. Do you rant about Ford's comment that he and Zaphod had three of the same mothers in Hitchiker's Guide because it's "feminist and transgender crap"?

Is it a good joke now? No, it wasn't a good joke in Hitchhiker's Guide. But there's no agenda behind it.

trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
Post by The True Doctor
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
Yes, I noticed the Zygon lapse.

At least this time Whittaker's Doctor actually behaves like the Doctor - the character in a leadership role who knows something more about the universe she's in than a working class grandfather from Sheffield.
Post by The True Doctor
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course-
Um?

-has gone missing and Witless
Post by The True Doctor
decides to search for him?
You are familiar with the basic premise of Dr Who? That the Doctor goes looking around trying to help people - even when it's not actually any of his/her business.
Post by The True Doctor
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
a) What else would you call a story about a manufactured alternate universe? and b) why do you keep asking this? Dr Who is a fantasy show that has science fiction elements - it's never been science fiction. This is certainly fantasy - it even uses an existing character from superhero comics, Ego the Living Planet (or in this case universe), under an assumed name.
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained!
Once again, have you ever seen Dr Who? Monsters exist to be monsters - it's actually one weakness of this episode in my view that it falls back on the now-overused-in-recent-Who "it's just a misunderstood being that wants to be loved" trope rather than giving us the traditional paper-thin Who villains of yore.

Whittaker just points her dildo at
Post by The True Doctor
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Apparently this one had walked out of a portal from Star Trek.
Post by The True Doctor
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this?
Yes - in fact the premise was rather simple so I'm not sure why you had trouble following it. Alien makes an alternate reality to lure people in because it wants to be loved. Star Trek did basically the same thing as long ago as 1967 (Who Mourns for Adonais?).

This was one of the better episodes this year, and easily the most like traditional Who, but what it absolutely was not was remotely original. If you can't follow this plot watch one of the many things it's cloning.
Post by The True Doctor
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife?
That was a pretty glaring plot hole.

Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but "misandrous" is. Though not one that describes anything in this episode. The dad's a moron, but he's not the only male character - the girl isn't exactly portrayed as the brightest bear-trap in the shed.
Post by The True Doctor
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Even for a fantasist as divorced from reality as yourself, this is a stretch.
Post by The True Doctor
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs
The girl wasn't given much characterisation because she was only a plot device - abandoned to give the Doctor and co. A Clue that something was amiss. The Graham/Grace scenes showed that Hime was extremely good at characterisation where it was actually relevant to the plot.
Post by The True Doctor
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
This was an episode entirely devoid of moral messages beyond, perhaps, "don't make friends with the lonely kid because it might destroy the universe".

On reflection, that's probably a bad message to send...
Post by The True Doctor
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
True, but I keep hoping you can do better. However many reviews you post, though, they all seem to suffer from this.
The True Doctor
2018-12-03 20:35:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall shits feminist and transgender crap in the viewers' faces
again,
I only looked in on this thread out of morbid curiosity to see how you could work a rant about 'political correctness' into the most traditional Dr
Traditional? There was nothing traditional about this episode, unless
you call being 100 times worse than the writing of the Sylvester McCoy
era that.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see the TVM) and one
mother (as seen in The End of Time), so where do seven grandmothers come
from?
Post by p***@conservation.org
you rant about Ford's comment that he and Zaphod had three of the same mothers in Hitchiker's Guide because it's "feminist and transgender crap"?
Doctor Who is not Hitchhikers. The Doctor had just one mother and one
father, and therefore no more than two grandmothers, unless Chibnall is
implying both sets of the Doctor's grandparents were lesbians, and even
then the numbers still don't add up.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Is it a good joke now? No, it wasn't a good joke in Hitchhiker's Guide. But there's no agenda behind it.
Chibnall could have made far better jokes, jokes which were actually
funny, but instead he resorts to sexism and racism and prejudice against
two patent babies with a mother and a father.

If he was trying to make a point about the Doctor being manufactures
from the DNA of 7 different grandmothers, then it is not something to
laugh off with a sexist one liner.
Post by p***@conservation.org
trampling over canon, by having Witless claim she had 7
Post by The True Doctor
grandmothers, and one of them telling her, though it would have been him
at the time, about Zygons. The Doctor didn't have a clue about Zygons
until the fourth Doctor encountered them. He didn't even have a clue
what Dalek's were in his first incarnation, and now Whittaker knows more
than God!
Yes, I noticed the Zygon lapse.
At least this time Whittaker's Doctor actually behaves like the Doctor
She does nothing of the kind. All she does is point her dildo at
everything like a gun and threaten and bully people. That isn't the
Doctor. The Doctor uses their brain to work things out and get out of
trouble, not a magic wand.
Post by p***@conservation.org
- the character in a leadership role who knows something more about the universe she's in than a working class grandfather from Sheffield.
What? Whittaker couldn't lead a moth to a flame. She's got no air of
authority about her whatsoever. And the Doctor isn't supposed to know
more about the universe than God, which is what this episode is implying.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course-
Um?
There was no reason in story that she needed to be blind. She was there
to fill an sexist and racist SJW quota.
Post by p***@conservation.org
-has gone missing and Witless
Post by The True Doctor
decides to search for him?
You are familiar with the basic premise of Dr Who? That the Doctor goes looking around trying to help people - even when it's not actually any of his/her business.
No, that is NOT the basic premise of Doctor Who. The Doctor is not
Superman, nor Batman. He doesn't go around looking for people to save
and saving them, and in fact hates having to do that, as seen with the
First Doctor. He goes around exploring the universe looking for
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business, and
refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are threatened.

The Doctor's reaction to someone they didn't know going missing would be
to tell the people looking for him to call the police.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
There's a mirror in the bedroom which doesn't show Graham's
reflection... Witless points her dildo at it and instantly pulls some
nonsensical bullshit out of thin air as to what it is and where it came
from. As to why it's there no damned explanation is ever given. There's
a pocket world behind it which forms when the universe is in danger?
What sort of bollocks is this? WHY? And it's a gateway to another
universe made by something beginning with S. Let's call it shit. The
shit is sentient. Let's call it sentient-shit.
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
a) What else would you call a story about a manufactured alternate universe?
This wasn't a story about a manufactured alien universe. It was a story
about a pervert getting their kicks from impersonating other people's
departed loved ones, and Whittaker sending out the wrong moral messages
and trying to justify this pervert's perversions.
Post by p***@conservation.org
and b) why do you keep asking this? Dr Who is a fantasy show that has science fiction elements - it's never been science fiction. This is
Doctor Who is a science fiction show. Fantasy has no place in it. Keep
your Hobbitses and Orcses to Middle Earth where they belong.
Post by p***@conservation.org
certainly fantasy - it even uses an existing character from superhero comics, Ego the Living Planet (or in this case universe), under an assumed name.
This isn't a living universe, it's a pervert. Of all the people in
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who has lost his
wife, to prey on?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Inside the mirror there is a monster... What is it doing there, why, and
what it its purpose? Never explained!
Once again, have you ever seen Dr Who? Monsters exist to be monsters -
This series isn't Doctor Who. Doctor Whore is what it's been reduced to.
Post by p***@conservation.org
it's actually one weakness of this episode in my view that it falls back on the now-overused-in-recent-Who "it's just a misunderstood being that wants to be loved" trope rather than giving us the traditional paper-thin Who villains of yore.
It just wants to be loved... That's what all perverts claim after being
caught praying on their victims and deceiving everyone about it.

You can see exactly where this is all leading. First Chibnall and his
kind attempt to sanitize and justify homosexuality, and then the next
thing that follows from their evil agenda, is to sanitize and justify
child molestation, and the perverts that carry it out, because they've
all been misunderstood and they were born that way, it's natural for
them to have the desires they do, and they are no different from your or me.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Whittaker just points her dildo at
Post by The True Doctor
it at arm's length and pretends it is gun. Brilliant role model for
children, pretend your dildo is a gun; and then more mind numbing
boredom ensues, as the piss-monster--Graham says it smelled of piss, so
that's what we'll call it--emerges to be yet another non-threat, totally
unconnected with the non-existent plot.
Apparently this one had walked out of a portal from Star Trek.
Post by The True Doctor
Then, Witless, Yaz, and Graham with trying to find the way back find
another mirror which leads to an exact copy of the log cabin in a
universe created by the sentient-shit, which is also the sentient-shit.
Is anyone following this?
Yes - in fact the premise was rather simple so I'm not sure why you had trouble following it. Alien makes an alternate reality to lure people in because it wants to be loved. Star Trek did basically the same thing as long
It's a pervert luring children away by offering them sweets; getting
them to do what it wants and taking its kicks from them by deceit.
That's what the premise and the metaphor is.
Post by p***@conservation.org
ago as 1967 (Who Mourns for Adonais?).
In Who Mourns for Adonais, Apollo reveled himself as what he was from
the beginning.
Post by p***@conservation.org
This was one of the better episodes this year, and easily the most like traditional Who, but what it absolutely was not was remotely original. If you can't follow this plot watch one of the many things it's cloning.
This was the worst episode of the series so far, and the one with the
lowest ratings, and had absolutely nothing remotely to do with
traditional Doctor Who. Even Sylvester McCoy's series at it's worst was
better than this.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The girl's father turns out to be in this sentient-shit created log
cabin, along with her mother who is supposed to be dead. Why has he
abandoned his daughter in order to be with his dead wife?
That was a pretty glaring plot hole.
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but "misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or not.
Post by p***@conservation.org
not one that describes anything in this episode. The dad's a moron, but he's not the only male character - the girl isn't exactly portrayed as the brightest bear-trap in the shed.
The dad is made to torture his daughter and leave her alone at home
because he represents Chibnall's contempt for white heterosexual men.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
So, it's another recycled story brief, yet again, the same one as the
one from the Cyber-rubbish where the Master was turned into a woman and
the last ever--as far as we know at the time of writing--Christmas
special. Dead people are brought back to life by sentient-shit, because
believing in shit, is like believing in God! That's that's the message
Chibnall and Ed Hime are trying to convey.
Even for a fantasist as divorced from reality as yourself, this is a stretch.
The only fantasists here and you and Chibnall.

Chibnall and the pervert Hime have turned Whittaker into God, and God
into a female frog that perves on deceiving people into thinking their
loved ones are still alive. This pervert isn't like Apollo from Star
Trek who reveals who he is so that people can worship him in the open
and express their love for him, without any misrepresentation or deceit
on his part.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs
The girl wasn't given much characterisation because she was only a plot device - abandoned to give the Doctor and co. A Clue that something was amiss.
What was amiss was bad parenting, which is none of the Doctor's
business. It's the business of the authorities.
The Graham/Grace scenes showed that Hime was extremely good at
characterisation where it was actually relevant to the plot.

WHAT? You don't have a clue what characterization is and neither does
Hime. This was SOAP OPERA! the most simplistic form of writing ever
devised.

The way you do characterisation is to show how a character evolves by
reacting to situations differently because of them using what they have
learned from previous experiences that they have been seen dealing with
before. With a soap opera the characters remain exactly the same no
matter what happens to them, always and exactly the same stale
stereotype, that learns nothing. Telling someone you love them is not
characterization. Doing something motivated by you love, such as
rescuing someone, and going though everything that entails, at the risk
of your own life, and them realizing you love, is.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
This was an episode entirely devoid of moral messages beyond, perhaps, "don't make friends with the lonely kid because it might destroy the universe".
Yes, it was devoid of moral messages, because it was full of immoral
ones like Whittaker befriending a pervert that should have been punished.
Post by p***@conservation.org
On reflection, that's probably a bad message to send...
Post by The True Doctor
If you thought the writing for the McCoy era was bad, this takes the
biscuit.
True, but I keep hoping you can do better. However many reviews you post, though, they all seem to suffer from this.
You are once again showing your inability to comprehend English.
e***@hotmail.com
2018-12-03 23:15:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No, that is NOT the basic premise of Doctor Who. The Doctor is not
Superman, nor Batman. He doesn't go around looking for people to save
and saving them, and in fact hates having to do that, as seen with the
First Doctor. He goes around exploring the universe looking for
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business, and
refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are threatened.
*****
There was a Tom Baker episode where the TARDIS materializes inside two starships that have become fused together. While exploring, his companion (I think Romana, but I’m not sure)) says to him; -Doctor, do you think we ought to interfere?- To which Tom Baker has the perfect Doctor response; -Interfere? Of course we’ll interfere. Always do what you’re best at!-

There is also Peter Capaldi’s first episode where he looks at his new face in a rippled mirror and says, to the tramp in the alley he’s been talking to; -Do you ever wonder, where the faces come from?- In a later episode, at a key turning point, he has an ephiny (sp?) -Now I know why I chose this face! It’s to remind me. I’m the Doctor, and I help people!-
%
2018-12-03 23:23:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
No, that is NOT the basic premise of Doctor Who. The Doctor is not
Superman, nor Batman. He doesn't go around looking for people to save
and saving them, and in fact hates having to do that, as seen with the
First Doctor. He goes around exploring the universe looking for
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business, and
refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are threatened.
*****
There was a Tom Baker episode where the TARDIS materializes inside two starships that have become fused together. While exploring, his companion (I think Romana, but I’m not sure)) says to him; -Doctor, do you think we ought to interfere?- To which Tom Baker has the perfect Doctor response; -Interfere? Of course we’ll interfere. Always do what you’re best at!-
There is also Peter Capaldi’s first episode where he looks at his new face in a rippled mirror and says, to the tramp in the alley he’s been talking to; -Do you ever wonder, where the faces come from?- In a later episode, at a key turning point, he has an ephiny (sp?) -Now I know why I chose this face! It’s to remind me. I’m the Doctor, and I help people!-
there's the ed the head i know , all mouth
The True Doctor
2018-12-04 00:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
No, that is NOT the basic premise of Doctor Who. The Doctor is not
Superman, nor Batman. He doesn't go around looking for people to save
and saving them, and in fact hates having to do that, as seen with the
First Doctor. He goes around exploring the universe looking for
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business, and
refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are threatened.
*****
There was a Tom Baker episode where the TARDIS materializes inside two starships that have become fused together. While exploring, his companion (I think Romana, but I’m not sure)) says to him; -Doctor, do you think we ought to interfere?- To which Tom Baker has the perfect Doctor response; -Interfere? Of course we’ll interfere. Always do what you’re best at!-
That was supposed to be a joke. The Doctor wanted to explore and see
what was happening, not go around saving people and changing history.
Post by The True Doctor
There is also Peter Capaldi’s first episode where he looks at his new face in a rippled mirror and says, to the tramp in the alley he’s been talking to; -Do you ever wonder, where the faces come from?- In a later episode, at a key turning point, he has an ephiny (sp?) -Now I know why I chose this face! It’s to remind me. I’m the Doctor, and I help people!-
And then the ratings plunged because the Doctor was turned into
something he wasn't, and the series became a joke when he got Bill and
Nardole killed by playing superheroes with Missy.

When the White Guardian asked the Doctor to help him he initially
refused, until he couldn't because he had been entrapped. He only
intervened in Earth's affairs when called to do so by UNIT, otherwise he
stayed in his lab trying to fix the TARDIS.

The Doctor did not actively engage is seeking out trouble-spots in the
universe so that he could interfere with what was happening, like the
idiot 12th Doctor did in last year's Cyberrubbish.

In this episode there was no initial threat that the authorities
couldn't have dealt with.
The Doctor
2018-12-04 16:58:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by The True Doctor
No, that is NOT the basic premise of Doctor Who. The Doctor is not
Superman, nor Batman. He doesn't go around looking for people to save
and saving them, and in fact hates having to do that, as seen with the
First Doctor. He goes around exploring the universe looking for
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business, and
refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are threatened.
*****
There was a Tom Baker episode where the TARDIS materializes inside two
starships that have become fused together. While exploring, his
companion (I think Romana, but I’m not sure)) says to him; -Doctor, do
you think we ought to interfere?- To which Tom Baker has the perfect
Doctor response; -Interfere? Of course we’ll interfere. Always do what
you’re best at!-
That was supposed to be a joke. The Doctor wanted to explore and see
what was happening, not go around saving people and changing history.
Post by The True Doctor
There is also Peter Capaldi’s first episode where he looks at his
new face in a rippled mirror and says, to the tramp in the alley he’s
been talking to; -Do you ever wonder, where the faces come from?- In a
later episode, at a key turning point, he has an ephiny (sp?) -Now I
know why I chose this face! It’s to remind me. I’m the Doctor, and I
help people!-
And then the ratings plunged because the Doctor was turned into
something he wasn't, and the series became a joke when he got Bill and
Nardole killed by playing superheroes with Missy.
Well people like Mike McKeown are going "Crisi ? What crisi?"


They ignore the facts of dissidents around them.
Post by e***@hotmail.com
When the White Guardian asked the Doctor to help him he initially
refused, until he couldn't because he had been entrapped. He only
intervened in Earth's affairs when called to do so by UNIT, otherwise he
stayed in his lab trying to fix the TARDIS.
The Doctor did not actively engage is seeking out trouble-spots in the
universe so that he could interfere with what was happening, like the
idiot 12th Doctor did in last year's Cyberrubbish.
In this episode there was no initial threat that the authorities
couldn't have dealt with.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-04 01:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see the TVM) and one
mother (as seen in The End of Time), so where do seven grandmothers come
from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The question is, how on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
Post by The True Doctor
Doctor Who is not Hitchhikers. The Doctor had just one mother and one
father, and therefore no more than two grandmothers, unless Chibnall is
implying both sets of the Doctor's grandparents were lesbians, and even
then the numbers still don't add up.
In The Expanse the lead character was described as being raised on a commune where he had eight parents. If you want to take the comment more seriously than it was intended, you can always imagine one of the Doctor's parents (or both) were part of a similar arrangement.

Possibly The Expanse is just being sexist and racist in some undefined way, however.
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall could have made far better jokes, jokes which were actually
funny, but instead he resorts to sexism and racism and prejudice against
two patent babies with a mother and a father.
I must have missed all the prejudice against Ryan, Yaz, Graham, the kid in the episode, and - oh yes - every other character in Dr Who.

Do you take the Sontarans to be evidence of prejudice against two-parent babies because they're all clones? Or sexist because they're all male?

Hmm, actually Dr Who has a suspicious number of all-male villainous races, including Sontarans, Daleks and others. One of the monster races is even called the "CyberMEN" and any females converted are turned male. Dr Who has evidently been blatantly "misandrystic" since at least 1966.
Post by The True Doctor
If he was trying to make a point about the Doctor being manufactures
from the DNA of 7 different grandmothers, then it is not something to
laugh off with a sexist one liner.
You don't quite get how heredity works, do you Aggy? There's typically an intermediate stage between an individual and their grandparents.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
At least this time Whittaker's Doctor actually behaves like the Doctor
She does nothing of the kind. All she does is point her dildo at
everything like a gun and threaten and bully people. That isn't the
Doctor.
Have you watched Dr Who since 1977? This pretty much describes the character's portrayal since Tom Baker got the part.

The Doctor uses their brain to work things out and get out of
Post by The True Doctor
trouble, not a magic wand.
So, you haven't watched the series since 1977. Spouting technobabble has been treated as a substitute for actually working things out for decades - it's one of the reasons I described this as a very traditional episode.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
- the character in a leadership role who knows something more about the universe she's in than a working class grandfather from Sheffield.
What? Whittaker couldn't lead a moth to a flame.
She doesn't need to in this episode. The moths make their own way.

She's got no air of
Post by The True Doctor
authority about her whatsoever. And the Doctor isn't supposed to know
more about the universe than God, which is what this episode is implying.
How? She knows a story about a particular alien - another device that's been used many times before - and about 'anti-spaces'. If any character knows more than God, it's the huge plot issue that the alien universe is supposedly so cut off from the real one that it needs the Doctor to tell it about it, and can't interact with it in any way - and yet it somehow knows every single detail of Grace's life with Graham in order to reconstruct her.

Given you're so big on exposition to explain irrelevant things, I'd have expected you to pick up on the exposition that actually is needed - such as suggesting it was able to read minds to obtain info it can't otherwise obtain.

Well, actually, I'm not very surprised - your analytic skills are too poor for you to actually seriously analyse plot issues, and you've never given the impression of being particularly bright so I doubt you'd see anything other than the most superficial issues.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course-
Um?
There was no reason in story that she needed to be blind. She was there
to fill an sexist and racist SJW quota.
There was a very vague story reason for her to be blind - apparently whatever the Sokitract or whatever it was called used to create the replicas was a visual effect, so the blind girl wasn't taken in. It just didn't matter to the plot that she wasn't taken in. It also provided a plausible way for her to be unable to describe what the 'monster' looked like.

No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much mattered to the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than 'why doesn't she think it odd that she's never seen the monster?'. But that doesn't make it a sexist or racist and I still don't understand the connection.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
-has gone missing and Witless
Post by The True Doctor
decides to search for him?
You are familiar with the basic premise of Dr Who? That the Doctor goes looking around trying to help people - even when it's not actually any of his/her business.
No, that is NOT the basic premise of Doctor Who. The Doctor is not
Superman, nor Batman. He doesn't go around looking for people to save
and saving them, and in fact hates having to do that, as seen with the
First Doctor.
Oh, you mean you haven't seen the show since 1963. Sorry Ignis Fatuus, I've been thinking the new screen name was Agamemnon's.

He goes around exploring the universe looking for
Post by The True Doctor
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business, and
refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are threatened.
Ah yes, I remember now that that was the plot of Marco Polo. Nothing to do with trying to prevent an assassination on an unrelated third party. The Keys of Marinus wasn't about a do-gooder effort to find a way to restore law and order. The Sensorites had nothing to do with the crew arriving and getting involved in rescuing a human crew when the Doctor and companions weren't at any risk whatsoever.

Sorry, I just remembered - all that's untrue and those stories were about those things after all.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
a) What else would you call a story about a manufactured alternate universe?
This wasn't a story about a manufactured alien universe. It was a story
about a pervert getting their kicks from impersonating other people's
departed loved ones,
No it wasn't, but if it were they still did it in a manufactured alien universe. There's nothing that prevents sci-fi from telling stories with messages beyond the surface trappings, and that's often seen as the point. Battlestar Galactica's revival was about a terrorist threat, Star Trek was a morality play, The Expanse is about political conflict and the marginalisation of smaller powers, and so on and so forth.

and Whittaker sending out the wrong moral messages
Post by The True Doctor
and trying to justify this pervert's perversions.
Post by p***@conservation.org
and b) why do you keep asking this? Dr Who is a fantasy show that has science fiction elements - it's never been science fiction. This is
Doctor Who is a science fiction show. Fantasy has no place in it. Keep
your Hobbitses and Orcses to Middle Earth where they belong.
Fantasy doesn't mean high fantasy and magic. Would you describe things like superhero comics as science fiction rather than fantasy?

If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been treated as, effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and this very story has a character ripped from Marvel as its 'villain'.
Post by The True Doctor
This isn't a living universe, it's a pervert.
It isn't, but if it were why can't it be both? Ego can be a living planet and a megalomaniac simultaneously.

Of all the people in
Post by The True Doctor
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who has lost his
wife, to prey on?
It wanted company and the man losing his wife gave it an opportunity for it to create a lure. This was explained in the episode.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
ago as 1967 (Who Mourns for Adonais?).
In Who Mourns for Adonais, Apollo reveled himself as what he was from
the beginning.
He was Apollo - a known character to the people he wanted to love him, and so being open about it was the way to lure them. The motivation and the story is exactly the same.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
This was one of the better episodes this year, and easily the most like traditional Who, but what it absolutely was not was remotely original. If you can't follow this plot watch one of the many things it's cloning.
This was the worst episode of the series so far,
Have you already forgotten The Tsurananga Conundrum?

In fairness, I pretty much had - I needed to look back through the episode list to remember which the worst episode was. Other than this, the Rosa Parks and the Punjab episodes, this has not been a very memorable season. That's still three more memorable episodes than pretty much the entirety of the Moffatt era other than the anniversary special.

and the one with the
Post by The True Doctor
lowest ratings,
Remember how ratings work these days, Aggy. Consolidated ratings don't necessarily bear a direct relation to overnights, and we don't have overnights for this one yet. In any case ratings don't indicate how well people liked this episode - they indicate how well people liked the previous one and so how likely they are to tune in a week later.

Low ratings for this episode, especially overnight, just shows that people didn't like The Witchfinders, which is understandable.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but "misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or not.
Why not just use the existing word that serves the same purpose?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs
The girl wasn't given much characterisation because she was only a plot device - abandoned to give the Doctor and co. A Clue that something was amiss.
What was amiss was bad parenting, which is none of the Doctor's
business. It's the business of the authorities.
How are the authorities going to bring charges against a conscious universe?
Post by The True Doctor
The Graham/Grace scenes showed that Hime was extremely good at
characterisation where it was actually relevant to the plot.
WHAT? You don't have a clue what characterization is and neither does
Hime. This was SOAP OPERA! the most simplistic form of writing ever
devised.
The way you do characterisation is to show how a character evolves by
reacting to situations differently because of them using what they have
learned from previous experiences that they have been seen dealing with
before.
Characterisation isn't character development, and you can hardly hail Who historically for character development. It's gone for 50 years without giving its lead character any real motivation and the only way it portrays changes in the character's personality is by changing the actor.

No, there's no character development in this episode to speak of - and nor is there really any reason to expect it, least of all from a child who has a rather minor role. That doesn't make the presentation of the characters poor - and there's at least the minimal development that Graham comes to accept the alien Grace isn't real.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
This was an episode entirely devoid of moral messages beyond, perhaps, "don't make friends with the lonely kid because it might destroy the universe".
Yes, it was devoid of moral messages, because it was full of immoral
ones like Whittaker befriending a pervert that should have been punished.
Even if one accepts your ludicrous interpretation, it was abandoned and completely cut off from the universe and quite possibly destroyed in the process. How is that not punishment for an entity whose entire motivation was trying to obtain company?

Would you argue that solitary confinement is not a punishment for a pervert?
The True Doctor
2018-12-04 03:35:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see the TVM) and one
mother (as seen in The End of Time), so where do seven grandmothers come
from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The question is, how on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
It's pandering to a feminist agenda, and feminism is a form of
chauvinistic bigotry against men.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Doctor Who is not Hitchhikers. The Doctor had just one mother and one
father, and therefore no more than two grandmothers, unless Chibnall is
implying both sets of the Doctor's grandparents were lesbians, and even
then the numbers still don't add up.
In The Expanse the lead character was described as being raised on a commune where he had eight parents. If you want to take the comment more seriously than it was intended, you can always imagine one of the Doctor's parents (or both) were part of a similar arrangement.
The TVM clearly states the Doctor had a father, not fathers, who took
him out walking in the country and they enjoyed each other's company.
The End of Time shows the Doctor's mother, not mothers, and more or less
implies she's his last surviving relative.

The Doctor was not raised in a commune. But of course given that
Chibnall is raving mad left-winger, you can see that he supports
communism. The fool is too stupid to realize that these left wing
agendas were created by the communists to make everyone else weak, so
that when they decided to invade and take over the West there will be no
resistance. It's not what the Russians themselves actually believe or
are taught to believe, or actually practice themselves, which makes it
totally laughable that some like Jeremy Corbyn supports them. He and
Chibnall are either totally stupid or plants. The entire philosophy of
political correctness is to destroy our national identity and our unity
so that the Russians or any other foreign power can enslave us, and the
stupids who think with their cunts, not their brains, always fall for it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Possibly The Expanse is just being sexist and racist in some undefined way, however.
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall could have made far better jokes, jokes which were actually
funny, but instead he resorts to sexism and racism and prejudice against
two patent babies with a mother and a father.
I must have missed all the prejudice against Ryan, Yaz, Graham, the kid in the episode, and - oh yes - every other character in Dr Who.
Oh, yes... Ryan whose father left him. This shows Chibnall's clear
prejudice against men and two parent nuclear families. But to the left
wingers everything nuclear is deadly and evil.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Do you take the Sontarans to be evidence of prejudice against two-parent babies because they're all clones? Or sexist because they're all male?
Hmm, actually Dr Who has a suspicious number of all-male villainous races, including Sontarans, Daleks and others. One of the monster races is even called the "CyberMEN" and any females converted are turned male. Dr Who has evidently been blatantly "misandrystic" since at least 1966.
It became misandristic when RTD turned women into Cybermen. It is clear
from the differences in male and female brains that women would have not
made very good warriors.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
If he was trying to make a point about the Doctor being manufactures
from the DNA of 7 different grandmothers, then it is not something to
laugh off with a sexist one liner.
You don't quite get how heredity works, do you Aggy? There's typically an intermediate stage between an individual and their grandparents.
What did I say that didn't imply this? The most grandparents anyone can
naturally have is 4. Where did Chibnall get 7 from?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
At least this time Whittaker's Doctor actually behaves like the Doctor
She does nothing of the kind. All she does is point her dildo at
everything like a gun and threaten and bully people. That isn't the
Doctor.
Have you watched Dr Who since 1977? This pretty much describes the character's portrayal since Tom Baker got the part.
No it doesn't.
Post by p***@conservation.org
The Doctor uses their brain to work things out and get out of
Post by The True Doctor
trouble, not a magic wand.
So, you haven't watched the series since 1977. Spouting technobabble has been treated as a substitute for actually working things out for decades - it's one of the reasons I described this as a very traditional episode.
Rubbish. This wasn't technobabble. It was complete and utter idiotic
nonsense used as a substitute for a plot. That is not how technobabble
is supposed to be used and was never used that way in the original series.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
- the character in a leadership role who knows something more about the universe she's in than a working class grandfather from Sheffield.
What? Whittaker couldn't lead a moth to a flame.
She doesn't need to in this episode. The moths make their own way.
She's got no air of
Post by The True Doctor
authority about her whatsoever. And the Doctor isn't supposed to know
more about the universe than God, which is what this episode is implying.
How? She knows a story about a particular alien - another device that's
Why does she know this story? How about showing a story actually develop
for once, instead of it all coming out of Whittaker's arse.
Post by p***@conservation.org
been used many times before - and about 'anti-spaces'. If any character knows more than God, it's the huge plot issue that the alien universe is supposedly so cut off from the real one that it needs the Doctor to tell it about it, and can't interact with it in any way - and yet it somehow knows every single detail of Grace's life with Graham in order to reconstruct her.
It probably read their minds, but it's clearly obvious bad writing to
have to rely on the viewer to come up with an explanation, which is the
writer's job to do. We never even say how far this mirror universe even
extended to, or if it was even a proper universe at all. More bad writing.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Given you're so big on exposition to explain irrelevant things, I'd have expected you to pick up on the exposition that actually is needed - such as suggesting it was able to read minds to obtain info it can't otherwise obtain.
Well, actually, I'm not very surprised - your analytic skills are too poor for you to actually seriously analyse plot issues, and you've never given the impression of being particularly bright so I doubt you'd see anything other than the most superficial issues.
You are an idiotic fool.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The blind girl's father--why did she need to be blind again, oh to fill
a sexist and racist SJW quota of course-
Um?
There was no reason in story that she needed to be blind. She was there
to fill an sexist and racist SJW quota.
There was a very vague story reason for her to be blind - apparently whatever the Sokitract or whatever it was called used to create the replicas was a visual effect, so the blind girl wasn't taken in. It just didn't
What? Her mother had the same voice as her real mother. Grace had the
same voice as the real Grace. There was nothing stopping the girl from
recognizing those voices because she was blind, and her blindness would
have made her more likely to be fooled. If Chibnall had actually read
the Bible, and wasn't a sexist and a racist, he would have known of a
very famous story which shows this. The one where Jacob goes to Isaac
dressed up as Esau by his mother, to receive his brothers blessing and
inheritance, and Isaac being blind by this time is easily fooled into
thinking he is Esau.
Post by p***@conservation.org
matter to the plot that she wasn't taken in. It also provided a plausible way for her to be unable to describe what the 'monster' looked like.
No. It was totally implausible given the story of Jacob and Isaac sets
the precedent otherwise.
Post by p***@conservation.org
No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much mattered to the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than 'why doesn't she think it odd that she's never seen the monster?'. But that doesn't make it a sexist or racist and I still don't understand the connection.
Of course it makes it sexist and racist against blind people.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
-has gone missing and Witless
Post by The True Doctor
decides to search for him?
You are familiar with the basic premise of Dr Who? That the Doctor goes looking around trying to help people - even when it's not actually any of his/her business.
No, that is NOT the basic premise of Doctor Who. The Doctor is not
Superman, nor Batman. He doesn't go around looking for people to save
and saving them, and in fact hates having to do that, as seen with the
First Doctor.
Oh, you mean you haven't seen the show since 1963. Sorry Ignis Fatuus, I've been thinking the new screen name was Agamemnon's.
You are a fool!
Post by p***@conservation.org
He goes around exploring the universe looking for
Post by The True Doctor
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business, and
refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are threatened.
Ah yes, I remember now that that was the plot of Marco Polo. Nothing to do with trying to prevent an assassination on an unrelated third party. The Keys of Marinus wasn't about a do-gooder effort to find a way to restore law and order. The Sensorites had nothing to do with the crew arriving and getting involved in rescuing a human crew when the Doctor and companions weren't at any risk whatsoever.
There is a difference between getting involved for the benefit of the
greater good and running around the universe in order to be do-gooders.
The Goodies already did that one back in 1970 and that was a comedy. Is
this what Doctor Who has been reduced to? Is the only episode of classic
Doctor Who, before JNT ruined it, that Chibnall every watched, the
parody of the Tom Baker title sequence in the Goodies?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Sorry, I just remembered - all that's untrue and those stories were about those things after all.
The entire premise of Doctor Who was that he was fleeing his from his
people along with his granddaughter and therefore wanted to stay under
cover and out of trouble. The name the Doctor wasn't a name he was given
on Gallifrey or took to pretend to be a superhero like Clark Kent, but
was a title he used because he lived in Foreman's abandoned junk yard,
and he didn't know Foreman's first name, so he called himself Doctor
Foreman and Susan, Susan Foreman.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
How is this supposed to be science fiction?
a) What else would you call a story about a manufactured alternate universe?
This wasn't a story about a manufactured alien universe. It was a story
about a pervert getting their kicks from impersonating other people's
departed loved ones,
No it wasn't, but if it were they still did it in a manufactured alien universe. There's nothing that prevents sci-fi from telling stories with messages beyond the surface trappings, and that's often seen as the point.
This wasn't science fiction. It was mind numbing sentimentalistic soap
opera.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Battlestar Galactica's revival was about a terrorist threat, Star Trek was a morality play, The Expanse is about political conflict and the marginalisation of smaller powers, and so on and so forth.
Where as the pile of shit excreted from Chinball is sentimentalistic
soap opera, which is a complete anathema to science fiction, which is
about logic and reason, not sentiment and emotion.
Post by p***@conservation.org
and Whittaker sending out the wrong moral messages
Post by The True Doctor
and trying to justify this pervert's perversions.
Post by p***@conservation.org
and b) why do you keep asking this? Dr Who is a fantasy show that has science fiction elements - it's never been science fiction. This is
Doctor Who is a science fiction show. Fantasy has no place in it. Keep
your Hobbitses and Orcses to Middle Earth where they belong.
Fantasy doesn't mean high fantasy and magic. Would you describe things like superhero comics as science fiction rather than fantasy?
I would call them adventure romances, based mainly on the genre of
mythology. Some elements of science fiction might be present in some of
them, but they are attempts at creating modern mythology, hence the
characters being superheroes in the manner of mythical heroes.
Post by p***@conservation.org
If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been treated as,
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than John Steed is or James Bond
or Sherlock Holmes.
Post by p***@conservation.org
effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and this very story has a character ripped from Marvel as its 'villain'.
And that is exactly who has been wrong with the last 3 series.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
This isn't a living universe, it's a pervert.
It isn't, but if it were why can't it be both? Ego can be a living planet and a megalomaniac simultaneously.
If it's a pervert then it must be treated like on. Whittaker cannot go
befriending it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Of all the people in
Post by The True Doctor
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who has lost his
wife, to prey on?
It wanted company and the man losing his wife gave it an opportunity for it to create a lure. This was explained in the episode.
No it wasn't. Why that man? What about others who have been bereaved?
Where did the mirror come from? Why didn't it try to make contact openly
with humanity. What was it fleeing from anyway? Where did it come from?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
ago as 1967 (Who Mourns for Adonais?).
In Who Mourns for Adonais, Apollo reveled himself as what he was from
the beginning.
He was Apollo - a known character to the people he wanted to love him, and so being open about it was the way to lure them. The motivation and the story is exactly the same.
He was supposed to be the actual Apollo, not someone impersonating
someones memory of him.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
This was one of the better episodes this year, and easily the most like traditional Who, but what it absolutely was not was remotely original. If you can't follow this plot watch one of the many things it's cloning.
This was the worst episode of the series so far,
Have you already forgotten The Tsurananga Conundrum?
This is worse.
Post by p***@conservation.org
In fairness, I pretty much had - I needed to look back through the episode list to remember which the worst episode was. Other than this, the Rosa Parks and the Punjab episodes, this has not been a very memorable season. That's still three more memorable episodes than pretty much the entirety of the Moffatt era other than the anniversary special.
It's been a pile of crap with this episode at the bottom and the
Perverts of the Punjab episode not far from it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
and the one with the
Post by The True Doctor
lowest ratings,
Remember how ratings work these days, Aggy. Consolidated ratings don't necessarily bear a direct relation to overnights, and we don't have overnights for this one yet. In any case ratings don't indicate how well people liked this episode - they indicate how well people liked the previous one and so how likely they are to tune in a week later.
Low ratings for this episode, especially overnight, just shows that people didn't like The Witchfinders, which is understandable.
Here we go again. Do I really need to explain statistics to you once more?

The ratings are an average. They don't count the number of individuals
who watch the episode from start to finish. They measure viewer hours or
minutes in what are roughly 15 minutes intervals. Some of those viewer
minutes are from people watching past the end of Country File, and some
from people watching the start of Strictly. Other people who watch leave
in the middle and others come in in the middle to replace them, but they
are not the same people. Thus if an episode is crap then people will
stop watching before it ends, and the viewing average will go down.

Given that Doctor Who was moved to a day where there is not competition
on the other side and jammed between the BBC highest rating programmed
on that day, which was not the case during Capaldi's tenure, the viewing
figures are actually worse than they look. If this episode had been on a
Saturday it would have only manage 3 million viewers and not the 5
million it actually got, the lowest in the series so far.

People have had enough of Whittaker and the bad writing that has
dominated every episode for the last 3 series.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but "misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or not.
Why not just use the existing word that serves the same purpose?
You still don't understand English do you?

Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out misandry, in
the same way as misogynous is being in the state of wanting to carry out
misogyny. Misandristic means to be actually carrying out misandry, just
like misogynistic means to be carrying out misogyny. Therefore the right
word to use is misandristic.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Ryan and the blind girl--yes, the only thing that gives her any kind of
characterization is the fact that she's blind; Ed Hime is totally shit
at characterization, just like Chinballs
The girl wasn't given much characterisation because she was only a plot device - abandoned to give the Doctor and co. A Clue that something was amiss.
What was amiss was bad parenting, which is none of the Doctor's
business. It's the business of the authorities.
How are the authorities going to bring charges against a conscious universe?
The bad parenting was on the part of the girl's father.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The Graham/Grace scenes showed that Hime was extremely good at
characterisation where it was actually relevant to the plot.
WHAT? You don't have a clue what characterization is and neither does
Hime. This was SOAP OPERA! the most simplistic form of writing ever
devised.
The way you do characterisation is to show how a character evolves by
reacting to situations differently because of them using what they have
learned from previous experiences that they have been seen dealing with
before.
Characterisation isn't character development, and you can hardly hail Who
Where was say was soap opera, not characterization. The blind girl had
no character other than being blind. Brian had no character at all, and
neither does Yaz or Ryan except for being Grace's husband, a police
officer, and someone with dyspraxia. Mind numbing soap opera and nothing
more.
Post by p***@conservation.org
historically for character development. It's gone for 50 years without giving its lead character any real motivation and the only way it portrays changes in the character's personality is by changing the actor.
Hartnell and Troughton's motivation was running away from the Time
Lords. Petrtwee's was fixing the TARDIS so he could go exploring. Tom
Bakers was to go exploring. Davison was soap opera, so I'll give you
that. Colin Baker wanted to kill Peri which effectively killed the show
off, and Sylvester McCoy went around being manipulative. McGann's
character was being lined up to be some sort of romantic poet like Byron
exploring the wonders of the universe before Professor Brian Cox even
took his PhD.

What have Whittaker and Capladi been motivated by? One is portrayed as a
demented old bat that behaves like a housewife that's escaped from a
lunatic asylum, with delusions of godhood; and the other behaved like a
demented old fool, who thinks he's a child pretending to be a superhero.

Eccleston, Tennant, and Smith at least had the Time War and the lost of
the Time Lords to drive them, but then when Moffat brought the Time
Lords back, their sucessors were given no real motivation at all, and
that's when the series was turned into and SJW crapfest.
Post by p***@conservation.org
No, there's no character development in this episode to speak of - and nor is there really any reason to expect it, least of all from a child who has a rather minor role. That doesn't make the presentation of the characters poor - and there's at least the minimal development that Graham comes to accept the alien Grace isn't real.
That's not a development since he's exactly the same person he came in
as. Ryan finally called him grandfather, but there was no reason
whatsoever in anything that transpired between them that was so
important to him so as to make Ryan finally accept that.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Fucking SHIT! The entire story was FUCKING SHIT!, along with the entire
season, sending out entirely the wrong moral messages to viewers and
trying to brainwash them.
This was an episode entirely devoid of moral messages beyond, perhaps, "don't make friends with the lonely kid because it might destroy the universe".
Yes, it was devoid of moral messages, because it was full of immoral
ones like Whittaker befriending a pervert that should have been punished.
Even if one accepts your ludicrous interpretation, it was abandoned and completely cut off from the universe and quite possibly destroyed in the process. How is that not punishment for an entity whose entire motivation was trying to obtain company?
Whittaker should have left it and not made friends with it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Would you argue that solitary confinement is not a punishment for a pervert?
Whittaker gave it what it wanted. That's not the way to treat a pervert.
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-04 05:54:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see the TVM) and one
mother (as seen in The End of Time), so where do seven grandmothers come
from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The question is, how on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
It's pandering to a feminist agenda, and feminism is a form of
chauvinistic bigotry against men.
I must have missed the bit of the feminist agenda that demands excess grandparents.
Post by The True Doctor
The TVM clearly states the Doctor had a father, not fathers,
The TVM didn't think to suggest the Doctor may have had more than one (and we don't know he did). Stating that he had a father isn't incompatible with later writers deciding that that was one of several fathers - especially as the Doctor was talking to humans and so describing his relationships in terms familiar to them. Why would he have said "One of my fathers" when "my father" would suffice?

This is your problem Aggy, you never think things through logically.

who took
Post by The True Doctor
him out walking in the country and they enjoyed each other's company.
The End of Time shows the Doctor's mother, not mothers, and more or less
implies she's his last surviving relative.
We don't know that character is his mother, let alone his only mother. Having one surviving relative doesn't mean he didn't have more now-dead ones.
Post by The True Doctor
The Doctor was not raised in a commune. But of course given that
Chibnall is raving mad left-winger, you can see that he supports
communism.
The name 'communism' is derived from 'commune', not the other way round. Communes don't in any way imply communism - Israel is hardly communist, but has a commune tradition, the kibbutz. So all your fantasy ravings below are of no relevance.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall could have made far better jokes, jokes which were actually
funny, but instead he resorts to sexism and racism and prejudice against
two patent babies with a mother and a father.
I must have missed all the prejudice against Ryan, Yaz, Graham, the kid in the episode, and - oh yes - every other character in Dr Who.
Oh, yes... Ryan whose father left him. This shows Chibnall's clear
prejudice against men and two parent nuclear families.
No, it shows a pandering to stereotypes about black people with absent fathers. It's been pointed out that every significant black character in Dr Who since 2005 has come from a family with an absent father.

It's highly unlikely to be conscious racism, just pandering to what the writers imagine are viewer expectations. And it's not a trend likely to be associated particularly with 'left wingers' - in modern Britain the hard left is only racist towards Jews.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Do you take the Sontarans to be evidence of prejudice against two-parent babies because they're all clones? Or sexist because they're all male?
Hmm, actually Dr Who has a suspicious number of all-male villainous races, including Sontarans, Daleks and others. One of the monster races is even called the "CyberMEN" and any females converted are turned male. Dr Who has evidently been blatantly "misandrystic" since at least 1966.
It became misandristic when RTD turned women into Cybermen. It is clear
from the differences in male and female brains that women would have not
made very good warriors.
Sexist drivel - women are now employed as soldiers in most militaries and are demonstrably as capable as men.

Not that Cybermen are in any way reliant on personal characteristics to be warriors - all they need to do is fire randomly into the air while things explode around them, and sometimes touch people.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
How? She knows a story about a particular alien - another device that's
Why does she know this story?
Granny 5 told her, as you'd have recalled if you hadn't been too busy frothing at the mouth at the idea of 7 grannies.

How about showing a story actually develop
Post by The True Doctor
for once, instead of it all coming out of Whittaker's arse.
These are 45 minute episodes. Story development hasn't been a part of the series since 2005 outside two-parters, and there have been none of those this year.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
been used many times before - and about 'anti-spaces'. If any character knows more than God, it's the huge plot issue that the alien universe is supposedly so cut off from the real one that it needs the Doctor to tell it about it, and can't interact with it in any way - and yet it somehow knows every single detail of Grace's life with Graham in order to reconstruct her.
It probably read their minds, but it's clearly obvious bad writing to
have to rely on the viewer to come up with an explanation, which is the
writer's job to do.
And yet in what was supposed to be a critical review you utterly failed to notice this major plothole until it was brought to your attention, fantasising over a whole bunch of invented conspiracies instead of any of the multiple actual plot problems.

We never even say how far this mirror universe even
Post by The True Doctor
extended to, or if it was even a proper universe at all. More bad writing.
We never saw how far the Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended despite multiple visits. It wasn't relevant to the story any more than it is here, so why does it matter?
Post by The True Doctor
No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much mattered to the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than 'why doesn't she think it odd that she's never seen the monster?'. But that doesn't make it a sexist or racist and I still don't understand the connection.
Of course it makes it sexist and racist against blind people.
Blind people are neither a sex nor a race and the kid was portrayed as a fairly typical if not especially bright kid. So how could it possibly have been either?
Post by The True Doctor
Oh, you mean you haven't seen the show since 1963. Sorry Ignis Fatuus, I've been thinking the new screen name was Agamemnon's.
You are a fool!
Post by p***@conservation.org
He goes around exploring the universe looking for
Post by The True Doctor
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business, and
refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are threatened.
Ah yes, I remember now that that was the plot of Marco Polo. Nothing to do with trying to prevent an assassination on an unrelated third party. The Keys of Marinus wasn't about a do-gooder effort to find a way to restore law and order. The Sensorites had nothing to do with the crew arriving and getting involved in rescuing a human crew when the Doctor and companions weren't at any risk whatsoever.
There is a difference between getting involved for the benefit of the
greater good and running around the universe in order to be do-gooders.
And this Doctor, unlike Tennant, Smith or Capaldi, is the former. Nothing she's done has been concerned with helping anyone other than those she has it in her immediate power to help, and nearly all the stories have been small-scale - a village in Lancashire, a single kid in Norway, a single spacecraft crew, one random individual being hunted by an alien in Sheffield. This is far closer to the approach of classic Who than we've seen since 2005 (although Eccleston's Doctor was also mostly concerned with what was immediately in front of him, what was immediately in front of him was usually threatening to destroy the entire planet. Whittaker's Who is the first for decades in which, if she were to fail, there wouldn't really be any consequences for more than a couple of people).
Post by The True Doctor
The entire premise of Doctor Who was that he was fleeing his from his
people along with his granddaughter and therefore wanted to stay under
cover and out of trouble.
He wasn't given any motivation at all originally - that was a retcon.

The name the Doctor wasn't a name he was given
Post by The True Doctor
on Gallifrey or took to pretend to be a superhero like Clark Kent, but
was a title he used because he lived in Foreman's abandoned junk yard,
and he didn't know Foreman's first name, so he called himself Doctor
Foreman and Susan, Susan Foreman.
He never called himself Dr Foreman at all. He was confused when Ian assumed that was his name and called him Dr Foreman.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Battlestar Galactica's revival was about a terrorist threat, Star Trek was a morality play, The Expanse is about political conflict and the marginalisation of smaller powers, and so on and so forth.
Where as the pile of shit excreted from Chinball is sentimentalistic
soap opera, which is a complete anathema to science fiction, which is
about logic and reason, not sentiment and emotion.
Given your feeble grasp of both logic and reason, I strongly urge you to watch more science fiction.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been treated as,
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than John Steed is or James Bond
or Sherlock Holmes.
Tell that to Moffatt and RTD, or the later writers of the original series.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and this very story has a character ripped from Marvel as its 'villain'.
And that is exactly who has been wrong with the last 3 series.
More than the last three, but why single this one out when it's much less of a superhero show than it was back then? Your unreasoning, seemingly sexism-driven hatred of this season makes no sense when the very things you complain about are things Who has been guiltier of in the past than it is now, including in the classic series.

I don't even know why you hail an imagined ideal of Dr Who as something to aspire to. The series is entertaining, but it's always been a children's fantasy show with bad continuity, gaping plot holes, and in the classic era mostly poor characterisation, weak scripts, terrible acting and questionable 'moral messages' - a black character notoriously acting as a slave in Tomb of the Cybermen, for instance, or the endlessly lampooned screaming-women-in-danger trope.

For most of the world Dr Who is a disposable weekly show - what it has never been is an example of high quality, except in a small number of mostly post-2005 cases.

This season continues that trend and is, ultimately, far too anonymous to warrant any sort of vitriol, as is its lead. Jodie Whittaker is the Peter Davidson of modern Who - she's technically fine in the role and not deserving of special criticism, but it's not very clear that she brings anything to it that any number of other actors or actresses couldn't. If not for the novelty of being the first female incarnation I doubt she'll be considered memorable in future.

Meanwhile, the season has mostly mediocre scripts, the companions other than Graham are repeatedly sidelined and of little interest, and there's less problem with having a moral message than the lack of imagination - three times now we've had exactly the same moral message: "discrimination is bad", treated more clumsily every time.

And yet, it's still better than most of the Moffatt era. Amy and Rory were better characters than Ryan and Yaz, to be sure, and Matt Smith was probably a better Doctor than Whittaker, but the episodes were both forgettable and often overblown with preposterous superheroics, there were no memorable guest stars and few memorable scripts, and Moffatt was bad at basically everything a director needs to be good at, as well as insisting on writing too many of his own stories - which were mostly just retreads of the same one with the same plotholes and focus on action and chases over any kind of logical story progression.
Post by The True Doctor
If it's a pervert then it must be treated like on. Whittaker cannot go
befriending it.
It was a ruse to let her escape. Her last lines about it were "Not sure if it survived or not - oh well". Not exactly a sign she much cares either way, let alone something she'd think of a friend. Her comment 'pity, made a new friend' was just her usual glibness, not a serious comment that she was upset at losing a friend.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Of all the people in
Post by The True Doctor
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who has lost his
wife, to prey on?
It wanted company and the man losing his wife gave it an opportunity for it to create a lure. This was explained in the episode.
No it wasn't. Why that man?
You could ask that about practically any character who's the subject of alien interest in any episode of Dr Who. The story has to involve someone.
Post by The True Doctor
What was it fleeing from anyway? Where did it come from?
Those were both explained in the story. It wasn't fleeing, it was closed off because it was incompatible with the laws of our universe, and it emerged spontaneously.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
ago as 1967 (Who Mourns for Adonais?).
In Who Mourns for Adonais, Apollo reveled himself as what he was from
the beginning.
He was Apollo - a known character to the people he wanted to love him, and so being open about it was the way to lure them. The motivation and the story is exactly the same.
He was supposed to be the actual Apollo, not someone impersonating
someones memory of him.
Irrelevant. He was doing what he needed to lure people and keep them with him - that motivation and behaviour directed towards achieving that goal is the relevant analogy, not his identity.

To use the analogy you insist on, if a pervert lures a child with candy which is actually candy or with a promise of a gift which is a deception, both with the goal of keeping them hostage, the end result is the same and the behaviour as reprehensible whether the lure is honest or deceitful.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
This was one of the better episodes this year, and easily the most like traditional Who, but what it absolutely was not was remotely original. If you can't follow this plot watch one of the many things it's cloning.
This was the worst episode of the series so far,
Have you already forgotten The Tsurananga Conundrum?
This is worse.
No, it isn't. Simply not having the dire guest actor masquerading as a pregnant man makes it better, and then there's the fact that it doesn't confuse Nibbler from Futurama with a Dr Who monster. Or all the other atrocious things about that episode, which is most of them.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
and the one with the
Post by The True Doctor
lowest ratings,
Remember how ratings work these days, Aggy. Consolidated ratings don't necessarily bear a direct relation to overnights, and we don't have overnights for this one yet. In any case ratings don't indicate how well people liked this episode - they indicate how well people liked the previous one and so how likely they are to tune in a week later.
Low ratings for this episode, especially overnight, just shows that people didn't like The Witchfinders, which is understandable.
Here we go again. Do I really need to explain statistics to you once more?
The ratings are an average. They don't count the number of individuals
who watch the episode from start to finish. They measure viewer hours or
minutes in what are roughly 15 minutes intervals. Some of those viewer
minutes are from people watching past the end of Country File, and some
from people watching the start of Strictly. Other people who watch leave
in the middle and others come in in the middle to replace them, but they
are not the same people. Thus if an episode is crap then people will
stop watching before it ends, and the viewing average will go down.
Enough people watched it to the end to complain about the frog.
Post by The True Doctor
Given that Doctor Who was moved to a day where there is not competition
on the other side and jammed between the BBC highest rating programmed
on that day, which was not the case during Capaldi's tenure, the viewing
figures are actually worse than they look. If this episode had been on a
Saturday it would have only manage 3 million viewers and not the 5
million it actually got, the lowest in the series so far.
Whether this is true or not it's irrelevant, since Dr Who has had this timeslot for the entire year. The figures for this episode aren't any worse relative to the timeslot than those for any of the year's other episodes.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but "misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or not.
Why not just use the existing word that serves the same purpose?
You still don't understand English do you?
Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out misandry, in
the same way as misogynous is being in the state of wanting to carry out
misogyny. Misandristic means to be actually carrying out misandry, just
like misogynistic means to be carrying out misogyny. Therefore the right
word to use is misandristic.
"Misandristic" is never the right word to use for the simple reason that, outside your posts, the word doesn't actually exist.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
How are the authorities going to bring charges against a conscious universe?
The bad parenting was on the part of the girl's father.
Who can't be located or charged while he's living in another universe.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
historically for character development. It's gone for 50 years without giving its lead character any real motivation and the only way it portrays changes in the character's personality is by changing the actor.
Hartnell and Troughton's motivation was running away from the Time
Lords.
As Iggy liked to loudly complain, there was no such thing as Time Lords in Hartnell's era. And running away is no motivation for getting involved in other people's business.
Post by The True Doctor
Petrtwee's was fixing the TARDIS so he could go exploring.
which he spent remarkably little time doing while busily hunting alien threats, but I'd agree that this was the one era where the character actually had a meaningful general motivation.

Tom
Post by The True Doctor
Bakers was to go exploring. Davison was soap opera, so I'll give you
that. Colin Baker wanted to kill Peri which effectively killed the show
off, and Sylvester McCoy went around being manipulative. McGann's
character was being lined up to be some sort of romantic poet like Byron
exploring the wonders of the universe before Professor Brian Cox even
took his PhD.
Which basically boils down to what I said - the series has historically had no concept of character development beyond changing actors.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
No, there's no character development in this episode to speak of - and nor is there really any reason to expect it, least of all from a child who has a rather minor role. That doesn't make the presentation of the characters poor - and there's at least the minimal development that Graham comes to accept the alien Grace isn't real.
That's not a development since he's exactly the same person he came in
as. Ryan finally called him grandfather, but there was no reason
whatsoever in anything that transpired between them that was so
important to him so as to make Ryan finally accept that.
Seeing his grief over losing Ryan's mother at 'closer range' seems a reasonable thing to bond over. Soap operatic indeed, but actually plausible.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Even if one accepts your ludicrous interpretation, it was abandoned and completely cut off from the universe and quite possibly destroyed in the process. How is that not punishment for an entity whose entire motivation was trying to obtain company?
Whittaker should have left it and not made friends with it.
She was stuck in its universe - that was the only way she could have left it.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Would you argue that solitary confinement is not a punishment for a pervert?
Whittaker gave it what it wanted. That's not the way to treat a pervert.
She explained to it that it couldn't get what it wanted - that's not giving it what it wanted. It also wasn't a pervert, of course, so that falls flat anyway.
Mike M
2018-12-04 07:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see the TVM) and one
mother (as seen in The End of Time), so where do seven grandmothers come
from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The question is, how
on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
It's pandering to a feminist agenda, and feminism is a form of
chauvinistic bigotry against men.
I must have missed the bit of the feminist agenda that demands excess grandparents.
Post by The True Doctor
The TVM clearly states the Doctor had a father, not fathers,
The TVM didn't think to suggest the Doctor may have had more than one
(and we don't know he did). Stating that he had a father isn't
incompatible with later writers deciding that that was one of several
fathers - especially as the Doctor was talking to humans and so
describing his relationships in terms familiar to them. Why would he have
said "One of my fathers" when "my father" would suffice?
This is your problem Aggy, you never think things through logically.
who took
Post by The True Doctor
him out walking in the country and they enjoyed each other's company.
The End of Time shows the Doctor's mother, not mothers, and more or less
implies she's his last surviving relative.
We don't know that character is his mother, let alone his only mother.
Having one surviving relative doesn't mean he didn't have more now-dead ones.
Post by The True Doctor
The Doctor was not raised in a commune. But of course given that
Chibnall is raving mad left-winger, you can see that he supports
communism.
The name 'communism' is derived from 'commune', not the other way round.
Communes don't in any way imply communism - Israel is hardly communist,
but has a commune tradition, the kibbutz. So all your fantasy ravings
below are of no relevance.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall could have made far better jokes, jokes which were actually
funny, but instead he resorts to sexism and racism and prejudice against
two patent babies with a mother and a father.
I must have missed all the prejudice against Ryan, Yaz, Graham, the kid
in the episode, and - oh yes - every other character in Dr Who.
Oh, yes... Ryan whose father left him. This shows Chibnall's clear
prejudice against men and two parent nuclear families.
No, it shows a pandering to stereotypes about black people with absent
fathers. It's been pointed out that every significant black character in
Dr Who since 2005 has come from a family with an absent father.
It's highly unlikely to be conscious racism, just pandering to what the
writers imagine are viewer expectations. And it's not a trend likely to
be associated particularly with 'left wingers' - in modern Britain the
hard left is only racist towards Jews.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Do you take the Sontarans to be evidence of prejudice against
two-parent babies because they're all clones? Or sexist because they're all male?
Hmm, actually Dr Who has a suspicious number of all-male villainous
races, including Sontarans, Daleks and others. One of the monster races
is even called the "CyberMEN" and any females converted are turned
male. Dr Who has evidently been blatantly "misandrystic" since at least 1966.
It became misandristic when RTD turned women into Cybermen. It is clear
from the differences in male and female brains that women would have not
made very good warriors.
Sexist drivel - women are now employed as soldiers in most militaries and
are demonstrably as capable as men.
Not that Cybermen are in any way reliant on personal characteristics to
be warriors - all they need to do is fire randomly into the air while
things explode around them, and sometimes touch people.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
How? She knows a story about a particular alien - another device that's
Why does she know this story?
Granny 5 told her, as you'd have recalled if you hadn't been too busy
frothing at the mouth at the idea of 7 grannies.
How about showing a story actually develop
Post by The True Doctor
for once, instead of it all coming out of Whittaker's arse.
These are 45 minute episodes. Story development hasn't been a part of the
series since 2005 outside two-parters, and there have been none of those this year.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
been used many times before - and about 'anti-spaces'. If any character
knows more than God, it's the huge plot issue that the alien universe
is supposedly so cut off from the real one that it needs the Doctor to
tell it about it, and can't interact with it in any way - and yet it
somehow knows every single detail of Grace's life with Graham in order
to reconstruct her.
It probably read their minds, but it's clearly obvious bad writing to
have to rely on the viewer to come up with an explanation, which is the
writer's job to do.
And yet in what was supposed to be a critical review you utterly failed
to notice this major plothole until it was brought to your attention,
fantasising over a whole bunch of invented conspiracies instead of any of
the multiple actual plot problems.
We never even say how far this mirror universe even
Post by The True Doctor
extended to, or if it was even a proper universe at all. More bad writing.
We never saw how far the Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended despite
multiple visits. It wasn't relevant to the story any more than it is
here, so why does it matter?
Post by The True Doctor
No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much mattered to
the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than 'why doesn't she think
it odd that she's never seen the monster?'. But that doesn't make it a
sexist or racist and I still don't understand the connection.
Post by The True Doctor
Of course it makes it sexist and racist against blind people.
Blind people are neither a sex nor a race and the kid was portrayed as a
fairly typical if not especially bright kid. So how could it possibly have been either?
Post by The True Doctor
Oh, you mean you haven't seen the show since 1963. Sorry Ignis Fatuus,
I've been thinking the new screen name was Agamemnon's.
Post by The True Doctor
You are a fool!
Post by p***@conservation.org
He goes around exploring the universe looking for
Post by The True Doctor
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business, and
refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are threatened.
Ah yes, I remember now that that was the plot of Marco Polo. Nothing to
do with trying to prevent an assassination on an unrelated third party.
The Keys of Marinus wasn't about a do-gooder effort to find a way to
restore law and order. The Sensorites had nothing to do with the crew
arriving and getting involved in rescuing a human crew when the Doctor
and companions weren't at any risk whatsoever.
There is a difference between getting involved for the benefit of the
greater good and running around the universe in order to be do-gooders.
And this Doctor, unlike Tennant, Smith or Capaldi, is the former. Nothing
she's done has been concerned with helping anyone other than those she
has it in her immediate power to help, and nearly all the stories have
been small-scale - a village in Lancashire, a single kid in Norway, a
single spacecraft crew, one random individual being hunted by an alien in
Sheffield. This is far closer to the approach of classic Who than we've
seen since 2005 (although Eccleston's Doctor was also mostly concerned
with what was immediately in front of him, what was immediately in front
of him was usually threatening to destroy the entire planet. Whittaker's
Who is the first for decades in which, if she were to fail, there
wouldn't really be any consequences for more than a couple of people).
Post by The True Doctor
The entire premise of Doctor Who was that he was fleeing his from his
people along with his granddaughter and therefore wanted to stay under
cover and out of trouble.
He wasn't given any motivation at all originally - that was a retcon.
The name the Doctor wasn't a name he was given
Post by The True Doctor
on Gallifrey or took to pretend to be a superhero like Clark Kent, but
was a title he used because he lived in Foreman's abandoned junk yard,
and he didn't know Foreman's first name, so he called himself Doctor
Foreman and Susan, Susan Foreman.
He never called himself Dr Foreman at all. He was confused when Ian
assumed that was his name and called him Dr Foreman.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Battlestar Galactica's revival was about a terrorist threat, Star Trek
was a morality play, The Expanse is about political conflict and the
marginalisation of smaller powers, and so on and so forth.
Where as the pile of shit excreted from Chinball is sentimentalistic
soap opera, which is a complete anathema to science fiction, which is
about logic and reason, not sentiment and emotion.
Given your feeble grasp of both logic and reason, I strongly urge you to
watch more science fiction.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been treated as,
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than John Steed is or James Bond
or Sherlock Holmes.
Tell that to Moffatt and RTD, or the later writers of the original series.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and this very
story has a character ripped from Marvel as its 'villain'.
And that is exactly who has been wrong with the last 3 series.
More than the last three, but why single this one out when it's much less
of a superhero show than it was back then? Your unreasoning, seemingly
sexism-driven hatred of this season makes no sense when the very things
you complain about are things Who has been guiltier of in the past than
it is now, including in the classic series.
I don't even know why you hail an imagined ideal of Dr Who as something
to aspire to. The series is entertaining, but it's always been a
children's fantasy show with bad continuity, gaping plot holes, and in
the classic era mostly poor characterisation, weak scripts, terrible
acting and questionable 'moral messages' - a black character notoriously
acting as a slave in Tomb of the Cybermen, for instance, or the endlessly
lampooned screaming-women-in-danger trope.
For most of the world Dr Who is a disposable weekly show - what it has
never been is an example of high quality, except in a small number of
mostly post-2005 cases.
This season continues that trend and is, ultimately, far too anonymous to
warrant any sort of vitriol, as is its lead. Jodie Whittaker is the Peter
Davidson of modern Who - she's technically fine in the role and not
deserving of special criticism, but it's not very clear that she brings
anything to it that any number of other actors or actresses couldn't. If
not for the novelty of being the first female incarnation I doubt she'll
be considered memorable in future.
Meanwhile, the season has mostly mediocre scripts, the companions other
than Graham are repeatedly sidelined and of little interest, and there's
less problem with having a moral message than the lack of imagination -
three times now we've had exactly the same moral message: "discrimination
is bad", treated more clumsily every time.
And yet, it's still better than most of the Moffatt era. Amy and Rory
were better characters than Ryan and Yaz, to be sure, and Matt Smith was
probably a better Doctor than Whittaker, but the episodes were both
forgettable and often overblown with preposterous superheroics, there
were no memorable guest stars and few memorable scripts, and Moffatt was
bad at basically everything a director needs to be good at, as well as
insisting on writing too many of his own stories - which were mostly just
retreads of the same one with the same plotholes and focus on action and
chases over any kind of logical story progression.
Post by The True Doctor
If it's a pervert then it must be treated like on. Whittaker cannot go
befriending it.
It was a ruse to let her escape. Her last lines about it were "Not sure
if it survived or not - oh well". Not exactly a sign she much cares
either way, let alone something she'd think of a friend. Her comment
'pity, made a new friend' was just her usual glibness, not a serious
comment that she was upset at losing a friend.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Of all the people in
Post by The True Doctor
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who has lost his
wife, to prey on?
It wanted company and the man losing his wife gave it an opportunity
for it to create a lure. This was explained in the episode.
No it wasn't. Why that man?
You could ask that about practically any character who's the subject of
alien interest in any episode of Dr Who. The story has to involve someone.
Post by The True Doctor
What was it fleeing from anyway? Where did it come from?
Those were both explained in the story. It wasn't fleeing, it was closed
off because it was incompatible with the laws of our universe, and it
emerged spontaneously.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
ago as 1967 (Who Mourns for Adonais?).
In Who Mourns for Adonais, Apollo reveled himself as what he was from
the beginning.
He was Apollo - a known character to the people he wanted to love him,
and so being open about it was the way to lure them. The motivation and
the story is exactly the same.
He was supposed to be the actual Apollo, not someone impersonating
someones memory of him.
Irrelevant. He was doing what he needed to lure people and keep them with
him - that motivation and behaviour directed towards achieving that goal
is the relevant analogy, not his identity.
To use the analogy you insist on, if a pervert lures a child with candy
which is actually candy or with a promise of a gift which is a deception,
both with the goal of keeping them hostage, the end result is the same
and the behaviour as reprehensible whether the lure is honest or deceitful.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
This was one of the better episodes this year, and easily the most
like traditional Who, but what it absolutely was not was remotely
original. If you can't follow this plot watch one of the many things it's cloning.
This was the worst episode of the series so far,
Have you already forgotten The Tsurananga Conundrum?
This is worse.
No, it isn't. Simply not having the dire guest actor masquerading as a
pregnant man makes it better, and then there's the fact that it doesn't
confuse Nibbler from Futurama with a Dr Who monster. Or all the other
atrocious things about that episode, which is most of them.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
and the one with the
Post by The True Doctor
lowest ratings,
Remember how ratings work these days, Aggy. Consolidated ratings don't
necessarily bear a direct relation to overnights, and we don't have
overnights for this one yet. In any case ratings don't indicate how
well people liked this episode - they indicate how well people liked
the previous one and so how likely they are to tune in a week later.
Low ratings for this episode, especially overnight, just shows that
people didn't like The Witchfinders, which is understandable.
Here we go again. Do I really need to explain statistics to you once more?
The ratings are an average. They don't count the number of individuals
who watch the episode from start to finish. They measure viewer hours or
minutes in what are roughly 15 minutes intervals. Some of those viewer
minutes are from people watching past the end of Country File, and some
from people watching the start of Strictly. Other people who watch leave
in the middle and others come in in the middle to replace them, but they
are not the same people. Thus if an episode is crap then people will
stop watching before it ends, and the viewing average will go down.
Enough people watched it to the end to complain about the frog.
Post by The True Doctor
Given that Doctor Who was moved to a day where there is not competition
on the other side and jammed between the BBC highest rating programmed
on that day, which was not the case during Capaldi's tenure, the viewing
figures are actually worse than they look. If this episode had been on a
Saturday it would have only manage 3 million viewers and not the 5
million it actually got, the lowest in the series so far.
Whether this is true or not it's irrelevant, since Dr Who has had this
timeslot for the entire year. The figures for this episode aren't any
worse relative to the timeslot than those for any of the year's other episodes.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but "misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or not.
Why not just use the existing word that serves the same purpose?
You still don't understand English do you?
Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out misandry, in
the same way as misogynous is being in the state of wanting to carry out
misogyny. Misandristic means to be actually carrying out misandry, just
like misogynistic means to be carrying out misogyny. Therefore the right
word to use is misandristic.
"Misandristic" is never the right word to use for the simple reason that,
outside your posts, the word doesn't actually exist.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
How are the authorities going to bring charges against a conscious universe?
The bad parenting was on the part of the girl's father.
Who can't be located or charged while he's living in another universe.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
historically for character development. It's gone for 50 years without
giving its lead character any real motivation and the only way it
portrays changes in the character's personality is by changing the actor.
Hartnell and Troughton's motivation was running away from the Time
Lords.
As Iggy liked to loudly complain, there was no such thing as Time Lords
in Hartnell's era. And running away is no motivation for getting involved
in other people's business.
Post by The True Doctor
Petrtwee's was fixing the TARDIS so he could go exploring.
which he spent remarkably little time doing while busily hunting alien
threats, but I'd agree that this was the one era where the character
actually had a meaningful general motivation.
Tom
Post by The True Doctor
Bakers was to go exploring. Davison was soap opera, so I'll give you
that. Colin Baker wanted to kill Peri which effectively killed the show
off, and Sylvester McCoy went around being manipulative. McGann's
character was being lined up to be some sort of romantic poet like Byron
exploring the wonders of the universe before Professor Brian Cox even
took his PhD.
Which basically boils down to what I said - the series has historically
had no concept of character development beyond changing actors.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
No, there's no character development in this episode to speak of - and
nor is there really any reason to expect it, least of all from a child
who has a rather minor role. That doesn't make the presentation of the
characters poor - and there's at least the minimal development that
Graham comes to accept the alien Grace isn't real.
That's not a development since he's exactly the same person he came in
as. Ryan finally called him grandfather, but there was no reason
whatsoever in anything that transpired between them that was so
important to him so as to make Ryan finally accept that.
Seeing his grief over losing Ryan's mother at 'closer range' seems a
reasonable thing to bond over. Soap operatic indeed, but actually plausible.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Even if one accepts your ludicrous interpretation, it was abandoned and
completely cut off from the universe and quite possibly destroyed in
the process. How is that not punishment for an entity whose entire
motivation was trying to obtain company?
Whittaker should have left it and not made friends with it.
She was stuck in its universe - that was the only way she could have left it.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Would you argue that solitary confinement is not a punishment for a pervert?
Whittaker gave it what it wanted. That's not the way to treat a pervert.
She explained to it that it couldn't get what it wanted - that's not
giving it what it wanted. It also wasn't a pervert, of course, so that falls flat anyway.
Yay - you won a “fool” badge. I’m almost tempted to unkillfile Aggy to see
if you can collect the set (“ignorant, uneducated, deluded fool”, or as the
rest of the world knows it “the set of all humans who aren’t Aggy”).
Almost.

This episode was the closest to real science fiction the show has attempted
in years, and should be applauded for that at the very least. And this
season has turned the scale down from “every week the future of the
Universe - or at least Earth - is threatened”, down to a more human level.
So all in all it’s a win-win. With better character and plot development it
could be full of win. In fact the only thing that really bugged me this
week was the appalling attempt at lip sync on the CGI frog. The story was
actually worthwhile, if not truly original, and unfolded at the right pace.

And I loved the use of the effect of flipping the video when they were in
the mirror universe. The disconcerting effect of seeing faces just slightly
“off” was simple and effective.
--
Save r.a.dw! Killfile Aggy. Killfile Yads. Killfile Tim B. Killfile %.
Discommendation is the only solution.
The Doctor
2018-12-04 17:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see the TVM) and one
mother (as seen in The End of Time), so where do seven grandmothers come
from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The question is, how
on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
It's pandering to a feminist agenda, and feminism is a form of
chauvinistic bigotry against men.
I must have missed the bit of the feminist agenda that demands excess
grandparents.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The TVM clearly states the Doctor had a father, not fathers,
The TVM didn't think to suggest the Doctor may have had more than one
(and we don't know he did). Stating that he had a father isn't
incompatible with later writers deciding that that was one of several
fathers - especially as the Doctor was talking to humans and so
describing his relationships in terms familiar to them. Why would he have
said "One of my fathers" when "my father" would suffice?
This is your problem Aggy, you never think things through logically.
who took
Post by The True Doctor
him out walking in the country and they enjoyed each other's company.
The End of Time shows the Doctor's mother, not mothers, and more or less
implies she's his last surviving relative.
We don't know that character is his mother, let alone his only mother.
Having one surviving relative doesn't mean he didn't have more now-dead ones.
Post by The True Doctor
The Doctor was not raised in a commune. But of course given that
Chibnall is raving mad left-winger, you can see that he supports
communism.
The name 'communism' is derived from 'commune', not the other way round.
Communes don't in any way imply communism - Israel is hardly communist,
but has a commune tradition, the kibbutz. So all your fantasy ravings
below are of no relevance.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall could have made far better jokes, jokes which were actually
funny, but instead he resorts to sexism and racism and prejudice against
two patent babies with a mother and a father.
I must have missed all the prejudice against Ryan, Yaz, Graham, the kid
in the episode, and - oh yes - every other character in Dr Who.
Oh, yes... Ryan whose father left him. This shows Chibnall's clear
prejudice against men and two parent nuclear families.
No, it shows a pandering to stereotypes about black people with absent
fathers. It's been pointed out that every significant black character in
Dr Who since 2005 has come from a family with an absent father.
It's highly unlikely to be conscious racism, just pandering to what the
writers imagine are viewer expectations. And it's not a trend likely to
be associated particularly with 'left wingers' - in modern Britain the
hard left is only racist towards Jews.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Do you take the Sontarans to be evidence of prejudice against
two-parent babies because they're all clones? Or sexist because
they're all male?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Hmm, actually Dr Who has a suspicious number of all-male villainous
races, including Sontarans, Daleks and others. One of the monster races
is even called the "CyberMEN" and any females converted are turned
male. Dr Who has evidently been blatantly "misandrystic" since at
least 1966.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
It became misandristic when RTD turned women into Cybermen. It is clear
from the differences in male and female brains that women would have not
made very good warriors.
Sexist drivel - women are now employed as soldiers in most militaries and
are demonstrably as capable as men.
Not that Cybermen are in any way reliant on personal characteristics to
be warriors - all they need to do is fire randomly into the air while
things explode around them, and sometimes touch people.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
How? She knows a story about a particular alien - another device that's
Why does she know this story?
Granny 5 told her, as you'd have recalled if you hadn't been too busy
frothing at the mouth at the idea of 7 grannies.
How about showing a story actually develop
Post by The True Doctor
for once, instead of it all coming out of Whittaker's arse.
These are 45 minute episodes. Story development hasn't been a part of the
series since 2005 outside two-parters, and there have been none of
those this year.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
been used many times before - and about 'anti-spaces'. If any character
knows more than God, it's the huge plot issue that the alien universe
is supposedly so cut off from the real one that it needs the Doctor to
tell it about it, and can't interact with it in any way - and yet it
somehow knows every single detail of Grace's life with Graham in order
to reconstruct her.
It probably read their minds, but it's clearly obvious bad writing to
have to rely on the viewer to come up with an explanation, which is the
writer's job to do.
And yet in what was supposed to be a critical review you utterly failed
to notice this major plothole until it was brought to your attention,
fantasising over a whole bunch of invented conspiracies instead of any of
the multiple actual plot problems.
We never even say how far this mirror universe even
Post by The True Doctor
extended to, or if it was even a proper universe at all. More bad writing.
We never saw how far the Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended despite
multiple visits. It wasn't relevant to the story any more than it is
here, so why does it matter?
Post by The True Doctor
No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much mattered to
the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than 'why doesn't she think
it odd that she's never seen the monster?'. But that doesn't make it a
sexist or racist and I still don't understand the connection.
Post by The True Doctor
Of course it makes it sexist and racist against blind people.
Blind people are neither a sex nor a race and the kid was portrayed as a
fairly typical if not especially bright kid. So how could it possibly
have been either?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Oh, you mean you haven't seen the show since 1963. Sorry Ignis Fatuus,
I've been thinking the new screen name was Agamemnon's.
Post by The True Doctor
You are a fool!
Post by p***@conservation.org
He goes around exploring the universe looking for
Post by The True Doctor
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business, and
refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are threatened.
Ah yes, I remember now that that was the plot of Marco Polo. Nothing to
do with trying to prevent an assassination on an unrelated third party.
The Keys of Marinus wasn't about a do-gooder effort to find a way to
restore law and order. The Sensorites had nothing to do with the crew
arriving and getting involved in rescuing a human crew when the Doctor
and companions weren't at any risk whatsoever.
There is a difference between getting involved for the benefit of the
greater good and running around the universe in order to be do-gooders.
And this Doctor, unlike Tennant, Smith or Capaldi, is the former. Nothing
she's done has been concerned with helping anyone other than those she
has it in her immediate power to help, and nearly all the stories have
been small-scale - a village in Lancashire, a single kid in Norway, a
single spacecraft crew, one random individual being hunted by an alien in
Sheffield. This is far closer to the approach of classic Who than we've
seen since 2005 (although Eccleston's Doctor was also mostly concerned
with what was immediately in front of him, what was immediately in front
of him was usually threatening to destroy the entire planet. Whittaker's
Who is the first for decades in which, if she were to fail, there
wouldn't really be any consequences for more than a couple of people).
Post by The True Doctor
The entire premise of Doctor Who was that he was fleeing his from his
people along with his granddaughter and therefore wanted to stay under
cover and out of trouble.
He wasn't given any motivation at all originally - that was a retcon.
The name the Doctor wasn't a name he was given
Post by The True Doctor
on Gallifrey or took to pretend to be a superhero like Clark Kent, but
was a title he used because he lived in Foreman's abandoned junk yard,
and he didn't know Foreman's first name, so he called himself Doctor
Foreman and Susan, Susan Foreman.
He never called himself Dr Foreman at all. He was confused when Ian
assumed that was his name and called him Dr Foreman.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Battlestar Galactica's revival was about a terrorist threat, Star Trek
was a morality play, The Expanse is about political conflict and the
marginalisation of smaller powers, and so on and so forth.
Where as the pile of shit excreted from Chinball is sentimentalistic
soap opera, which is a complete anathema to science fiction, which is
about logic and reason, not sentiment and emotion.
Given your feeble grasp of both logic and reason, I strongly urge you to
watch more science fiction.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been treated as,
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than John Steed is or James Bond
or Sherlock Holmes.
Tell that to Moffatt and RTD, or the later writers of the original series.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and this very
story has a character ripped from Marvel as its 'villain'.
And that is exactly who has been wrong with the last 3 series.
More than the last three, but why single this one out when it's much less
of a superhero show than it was back then? Your unreasoning, seemingly
sexism-driven hatred of this season makes no sense when the very things
you complain about are things Who has been guiltier of in the past than
it is now, including in the classic series.
I don't even know why you hail an imagined ideal of Dr Who as something
to aspire to. The series is entertaining, but it's always been a
children's fantasy show with bad continuity, gaping plot holes, and in
the classic era mostly poor characterisation, weak scripts, terrible
acting and questionable 'moral messages' - a black character notoriously
acting as a slave in Tomb of the Cybermen, for instance, or the endlessly
lampooned screaming-women-in-danger trope.
For most of the world Dr Who is a disposable weekly show - what it has
never been is an example of high quality, except in a small number of
mostly post-2005 cases.
This season continues that trend and is, ultimately, far too anonymous to
warrant any sort of vitriol, as is its lead. Jodie Whittaker is the Peter
Davidson of modern Who - she's technically fine in the role and not
deserving of special criticism, but it's not very clear that she brings
anything to it that any number of other actors or actresses couldn't. If
not for the novelty of being the first female incarnation I doubt she'll
be considered memorable in future.
Meanwhile, the season has mostly mediocre scripts, the companions other
than Graham are repeatedly sidelined and of little interest, and there's
less problem with having a moral message than the lack of imagination -
three times now we've had exactly the same moral message: "discrimination
is bad", treated more clumsily every time.
And yet, it's still better than most of the Moffatt era. Amy and Rory
were better characters than Ryan and Yaz, to be sure, and Matt Smith was
probably a better Doctor than Whittaker, but the episodes were both
forgettable and often overblown with preposterous superheroics, there
were no memorable guest stars and few memorable scripts, and Moffatt was
bad at basically everything a director needs to be good at, as well as
insisting on writing too many of his own stories - which were mostly just
retreads of the same one with the same plotholes and focus on action and
chases over any kind of logical story progression.
Post by The True Doctor
If it's a pervert then it must be treated like on. Whittaker cannot go
befriending it.
It was a ruse to let her escape. Her last lines about it were "Not sure
if it survived or not - oh well". Not exactly a sign she much cares
either way, let alone something she'd think of a friend. Her comment
'pity, made a new friend' was just her usual glibness, not a serious
comment that she was upset at losing a friend.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Of all the people in
Post by The True Doctor
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who has lost his
wife, to prey on?
It wanted company and the man losing his wife gave it an opportunity
for it to create a lure. This was explained in the episode.
No it wasn't. Why that man?
You could ask that about practically any character who's the subject of
alien interest in any episode of Dr Who. The story has to involve someone.
Post by The True Doctor
What was it fleeing from anyway? Where did it come from?
Those were both explained in the story. It wasn't fleeing, it was closed
off because it was incompatible with the laws of our universe, and it
emerged spontaneously.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
ago as 1967 (Who Mourns for Adonais?).
In Who Mourns for Adonais, Apollo reveled himself as what he was from
the beginning.
He was Apollo - a known character to the people he wanted to love him,
and so being open about it was the way to lure them. The motivation and
the story is exactly the same.
He was supposed to be the actual Apollo, not someone impersonating
someones memory of him.
Irrelevant. He was doing what he needed to lure people and keep them with
him - that motivation and behaviour directed towards achieving that goal
is the relevant analogy, not his identity.
To use the analogy you insist on, if a pervert lures a child with candy
which is actually candy or with a promise of a gift which is a deception,
both with the goal of keeping them hostage, the end result is the same
and the behaviour as reprehensible whether the lure is honest or deceitful.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
This was one of the better episodes this year, and easily the most
like traditional Who, but what it absolutely was not was remotely
original. If you can't follow this plot watch one of the many
things it's cloning.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
This was the worst episode of the series so far,
Have you already forgotten The Tsurananga Conundrum?
This is worse.
No, it isn't. Simply not having the dire guest actor masquerading as a
pregnant man makes it better, and then there's the fact that it doesn't
confuse Nibbler from Futurama with a Dr Who monster. Or all the other
atrocious things about that episode, which is most of them.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
and the one with the
Post by The True Doctor
lowest ratings,
Remember how ratings work these days, Aggy. Consolidated ratings don't
necessarily bear a direct relation to overnights, and we don't have
overnights for this one yet. In any case ratings don't indicate how
well people liked this episode - they indicate how well people liked
the previous one and so how likely they are to tune in a week later.
Low ratings for this episode, especially overnight, just shows that
people didn't like The Witchfinders, which is understandable.
Here we go again. Do I really need to explain statistics to you once more?
The ratings are an average. They don't count the number of individuals
who watch the episode from start to finish. They measure viewer hours or
minutes in what are roughly 15 minutes intervals. Some of those viewer
minutes are from people watching past the end of Country File, and some
from people watching the start of Strictly. Other people who watch leave
in the middle and others come in in the middle to replace them, but they
are not the same people. Thus if an episode is crap then people will
stop watching before it ends, and the viewing average will go down.
Enough people watched it to the end to complain about the frog.
Post by The True Doctor
Given that Doctor Who was moved to a day where there is not competition
on the other side and jammed between the BBC highest rating programmed
on that day, which was not the case during Capaldi's tenure, the viewing
figures are actually worse than they look. If this episode had been on a
Saturday it would have only manage 3 million viewers and not the 5
million it actually got, the lowest in the series so far.
Whether this is true or not it's irrelevant, since Dr Who has had this
timeslot for the entire year. The figures for this episode aren't any
worse relative to the timeslot than those for any of the year's other
episodes.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but "misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or not.
Why not just use the existing word that serves the same purpose?
You still don't understand English do you?
Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out misandry, in
the same way as misogynous is being in the state of wanting to carry out
misogyny. Misandristic means to be actually carrying out misandry, just
like misogynistic means to be carrying out misogyny. Therefore the right
word to use is misandristic.
"Misandristic" is never the right word to use for the simple reason that,
outside your posts, the word doesn't actually exist.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
How are the authorities going to bring charges against a conscious universe?
The bad parenting was on the part of the girl's father.
Who can't be located or charged while he's living in another universe.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
historically for character development. It's gone for 50 years without
giving its lead character any real motivation and the only way it
portrays changes in the character's personality is by changing the actor.
Hartnell and Troughton's motivation was running away from the Time
Lords.
As Iggy liked to loudly complain, there was no such thing as Time Lords
in Hartnell's era. And running away is no motivation for getting involved
in other people's business.
Post by The True Doctor
Petrtwee's was fixing the TARDIS so he could go exploring.
which he spent remarkably little time doing while busily hunting alien
threats, but I'd agree that this was the one era where the character
actually had a meaningful general motivation.
Tom
Post by The True Doctor
Bakers was to go exploring. Davison was soap opera, so I'll give you
that. Colin Baker wanted to kill Peri which effectively killed the show
off, and Sylvester McCoy went around being manipulative. McGann's
character was being lined up to be some sort of romantic poet like Byron
exploring the wonders of the universe before Professor Brian Cox even
took his PhD.
Which basically boils down to what I said - the series has historically
had no concept of character development beyond changing actors.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
No, there's no character development in this episode to speak of - and
nor is there really any reason to expect it, least of all from a child
who has a rather minor role. That doesn't make the presentation of the
characters poor - and there's at least the minimal development that
Graham comes to accept the alien Grace isn't real.
That's not a development since he's exactly the same person he came in
as. Ryan finally called him grandfather, but there was no reason
whatsoever in anything that transpired between them that was so
important to him so as to make Ryan finally accept that.
Seeing his grief over losing Ryan's mother at 'closer range' seems a
reasonable thing to bond over. Soap operatic indeed, but actually plausible.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Even if one accepts your ludicrous interpretation, it was abandoned and
completely cut off from the universe and quite possibly destroyed in
the process. How is that not punishment for an entity whose entire
motivation was trying to obtain company?
Whittaker should have left it and not made friends with it.
She was stuck in its universe - that was the only way she could have left it.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Would you argue that solitary confinement is not a punishment for a pervert?
Whittaker gave it what it wanted. That's not the way to treat a pervert.
She explained to it that it couldn't get what it wanted - that's not
giving it what it wanted. It also wasn't a pervert, of course, so that
falls flat anyway.
Yay - you won a “fool” badge. I’m almost tempted to unkillfile Aggy to see
if you can collect the set (“ignorant, uneducated, deluded fool”, or as the
rest of the world knows it “the set of all humans who aren’t Aggy”).
Almost.
This episode was the closest to real science fiction the show has attempted
in years, and should be applauded for that at the very least. And this
season has turned the scale down from “every week the future of the
Universe - or at least Earth - is threatened”, down to a more human level.
So all in all it’s a win-win. With better character and plot development it
could be full of win. In fact the only thing that really bugged me this
week was the appalling attempt at lip sync on the CGI frog. The story was
actually worthwhile, if not truly original, and unfolded at the right pace.
And I loved the use of the effect of flipping the video when they were in
the mirror universe. The disconcerting effect of seeing faces just slightly
“off” was simple and effective.
Mike McKeown:" Crisis? What Crisis?"
Post by p***@conservation.org
--
Save r.a.dw! Killfile Aggy. Killfile Yads. Killfile Tim B. Killfile %.
Discommendation is the only solution.
You Mike you want to avoid the obvious crisis in Doctor Who!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
The True Doctor
2018-12-04 09:43:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The True
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with
anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see the
TVM) and one mother (as seen in The End of Time), so where do
seven grandmothers come from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The question
is, how on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
It's pandering to a feminist agenda, and feminism is a form of
chauvinistic bigotry against men.
I must have missed the bit of the feminist agenda that demands excess grandparents.
Grandmothers.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The TVM clearly states the Doctor had a father, not fathers,
The TVM didn't think to suggest the Doctor may have had more than one
(and we don't know he did). Stating that he had a father isn't
incompatible with later writers deciding that that was one of several
fathers - especially as the Doctor was talking to humans and so
describing his relationships in terms familiar to them. Why would he
have said "One of my fathers" when "my father" would suffice?
This is your problem Aggy, you never think things through logically.
You are the one not thinking things out logically.

The TVM established that the Doctor's mother was human. It's explicitly
stated. Therefor of the conception process was any different the Doctor
would have talked about having multiple fathers. A human woman can only
have two grandparents and only requires one man to father her child.

So where do the extra grandmothers come from?
Post by p***@conservation.org
who took
Post by The True Doctor
him out walking in the country and they enjoyed each other's
company. The End of Time shows the Doctor's mother, not mothers,
and more or less implies she's his last surviving relative.
We don't know that character is his mother, let alone his only
mother. Having one surviving relative doesn't mean he didn't have
more now-dead ones.
It has been established from the TVM that the Doctor's mother is human,
therefore he only has one mother.

Talk about Chibnall being sexist. Now you want to turn the Doctor's
mother into a whore and the Doctor into a bastard who doesn't know who
his father is.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The Doctor was not raised in a commune. But of course given that
Chibnall is raving mad left-winger, you can see that he supports
communism.
The name 'communism' is derived from 'commune', not the other way
round. Communes don't in any way imply communism - Israel is hardly
communist, but has a commune tradition, the kibbutz. So all your
fantasy ravings below are of no relevance.
Chibnall supports the loony left which makes him a commie. Having the
Doctor being brought up in a commune is Chibnall's attempt to
indoctrinate people into accepting eventual communist rule by Russia.
And what does communist rule entail? The setting up of communes and the
taking away of free speech and expression, which is the aim of so-called
Political Correctness.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall could have made far better jokes, jokes which were
actually funny, but instead he resorts to sexism and racism and
prejudice against two patent babies with a mother and a
father.
I must have missed all the prejudice against Ryan, Yaz, Graham,
the kid in the episode, and - oh yes - every other character in
Dr Who.
Oh, yes... Ryan whose father left him. This shows Chibnall's clear
prejudice against men and two parent nuclear families.
No, it shows a pandering to stereotypes about black people with
absent fathers. It's been pointed out that every significant black
character in Dr Who since 2005 has come from a family with an absent
father.
So Chibnall is being racist like I said, as well as being sexist.
Post by p***@conservation.org
It's highly unlikely to be conscious racism, just pandering to what
the writers imagine are viewer expectations. And it's not a trend
likely to be associated particularly with 'left wingers' - in modern
Britain the hard left is only racist towards Jews.
The hard left and Chibnall are racist towards everyone, Jews, Blacks,
Whites, you name them. Racism is endemic in the BBC and political
correctness is a form of racism, sexism, and left wing bigotry and
intolerance.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Do you take the Sontarans to be evidence of prejudice against
two-parent babies because they're all clones? Or sexist because
they're all male?
Hmm, actually Dr Who has a suspicious number of all-male
villainous races, including Sontarans, Daleks and others. One of
the monster races is even called the "CyberMEN" and any females
converted are turned male. Dr Who has evidently been blatantly
"misandrystic" since at least 1966.
It became misandristic when RTD turned women into Cybermen. It is
clear from the differences in male and female brains that women
would have not made very good warriors.
Sexist drivel - women are now employed as soldiers in most militaries
and are demonstrably as capable as men.
There are not demonstrably as capable as men, and most are not allowed
in front line combat roles. If you heard there news recently there was
some sort of punch up on a submarine between three men and a woman, and
the woman came off as a total wreck, while the men walked off unperturbed.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Not that Cybermen are in any way reliant on personal characteristics
to be warriors - all they need to do is fire randomly into the air
while things explode around them, and sometimes touch people.
Really. Is that what the taught you when you did your national service?
Fire randomly into the air while things explode around you? Don't make
me laugh.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
How? She knows a story about a particular alien - another device that's
Why does she know this story?
Granny 5 told her, as you'd have recalled if you hadn't been too busy
frothing at the mouth at the idea of 7 grannies.
This show gets more and more ridiculous every episode. The Doctor know
nothing about other life in the universe when he fled from Gallifrey
with Susan. Absolutely nothing; not even about Daleks or Cybermen. The
reason he left was because the Time Lords didn't want him or anyone else
to know anything about the outside world.
Post by p***@conservation.org
How about showing a story actually develop
Post by The True Doctor
for once, instead of it all coming out of Whittaker's arse.
These are 45 minute episodes. Story development hasn't been a part of
the series since 2005 outside two-parters, and there have been none
of those this year.
If Star Trek can develop a story in 45 minutes then so can Doctor Who.
The fact that it can't tell you that the writers are crap.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
been used many times before - and about 'anti-spaces'. If any
character knows more than God, it's the huge plot issue that the
alien universe is supposedly so cut off from the real one that it
needs the Doctor to tell it about it, and can't interact with it
in any way - and yet it somehow knows every single detail of
Grace's life with Graham in order to reconstruct her.
It probably read their minds, but it's clearly obvious bad writing
to have to rely on the viewer to come up with an explanation, which
is the writer's job to do.
And yet in what was supposed to be a critical review you utterly
failed to notice this major plothole until it was brought to your
attention, fantasising over a whole bunch of invented conspiracies
instead of any of the multiple actual plot problems.
The 'plot hole' was so obvious that it wasn't worth mentioning, and
wasn't the biggest problem with the episode, given that the shitverse
was capable of creating anything in our universe with little effort.
Post by p***@conservation.org
We never even say how far this mirror universe even
Post by The True Doctor
extended to, or if it was even a proper universe at all. More bad writing.
We never saw how far the Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended
The Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended to the entire galaxy and beyond.
Post by p***@conservation.org
despite multiple visits. It wasn't relevant to the story any more
than it is here, so why does it matter?
The reason it matters here is because we don't see any further than the
log cabin and the forest and fjords, so it could only have extend that
far and no further, but then it wouldn't really have been a proper
universe observing real laws of physics, and which did the shitverse do
about all the other people living on Earth? Did it recreate them too?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much mattered to
the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than 'why doesn't she
think it odd that she's never seen the monster?'. But that doesn't
make it a sexist or racist and I still don't understand the
connection.
Of course it makes it sexist and racist against blind people.
Blind people are neither a sex nor a race and the kid was portrayed
as a fairly typical if not especially bright kid. So how could it
possibly have been either?
She was a female and she was of the race of her father and mother.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Oh, you mean you haven't seen the show since 1963. Sorry Ignis
Fatuus, I've been thinking the new screen name was Agamemnon's.
You are a fool!
Post by p***@conservation.org
He goes around exploring the universe looking for
Post by The True Doctor
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business,
and refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are
threatened.
Ah yes, I remember now that that was the plot of Marco Polo.
Nothing to do with trying to prevent an assassination on an
unrelated third party. The Keys of Marinus wasn't about a
do-gooder effort to find a way to restore law and order. The
Sensorites had nothing to do with the crew arriving and getting
involved in rescuing a human crew when the Doctor and companions
weren't at any risk whatsoever.
There is a difference between getting involved for the benefit of
the greater good and running around the universe in order to be
do-gooders.
And this Doctor, unlike Tennant, Smith or Capaldi, is the former.
Nothing she's done has been concerned with helping anyone other than
those she has it in her immediate power to help, and nearly all the
stories have been small-scale - a village in Lancashire, a single kid
in Norway, a single spacecraft crew, one random individual being
hunted by an alien in Sheffield. This is far closer to the approach
of classic Who than we've seen since 2005 (although Eccleston's
Doctor was also mostly concerned with what was immediately in front
of him, what was immediately in front of him was usually threatening > to destroy the entire planet. Whittaker's Who is the first for
The real Doctor only got involved with anything that threatened to
destroy the entire planet. He didn't care or concern himself with petty
kitchen since dramas which were of no consequence like Whittaker.
Post by p***@conservation.org
decades in which, if she were to fail, there wouldn't really be any
consequences for more than a couple of people).
So nothing to do with real Doctor Who then.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The entire premise of Doctor Who was that he was fleeing his from
his people along with his granddaughter and therefore wanted to
stay under cover and out of trouble.
He wasn't given any motivation at all originally - that was a
retcon.
It's in the first ever episode and the pilot.
Post by p***@conservation.org
The name the Doctor wasn't a name he was given
Post by The True Doctor
on Gallifrey or took to pretend to be a superhero like Clark Kent,
but was a title he used because he lived in Foreman's abandoned
junk yard, and he didn't know Foreman's first name, so he called
himself Doctor Foreman and Susan, Susan Foreman.
He never called himself Dr Foreman at all. He was confused when Ian
assumed that was his name and called him Dr Foreman.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Battlestar Galactica's revival was about a terrorist threat, Star
Trek was a morality play, The Expanse is about political conflict
and the marginalisation of smaller powers, and so on and so
forth.
Where as the pile of shit excreted from Chinball is
sentimentalistic soap opera, which is a complete anathema to
science fiction, which is about logic and reason, not sentiment and
emotion.
Given your feeble grasp of both logic and reason, I strongly urge you
to watch more science fiction.
Given your feeble grasp of English comprehension I doubt you have any
idea what logic and reason are to begin with.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been treated as,
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than John Steed is or James
Bond or Sherlock Holmes.
Tell that to Moffatt and RTD, or the later writers of the original series.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and this
very story has a character ripped from Marvel as its 'villain'.
And that is exactly who has been wrong with the last 3 series.
More than the last three, but why single this one out when it's much
less of a superhero show than it was back then? Your unreasoning,
Because at least Capaldi could act and had a character. All Whittaker
ever does is point her dildo at everything and pull shit out of her arse
in order to explain everything. She's not even two dimensional, let
alone three.
Post by p***@conservation.org
seemingly sexism-driven hatred of this season makes no sense when the
Yes, the show is sexist and that is a good enough reason to hate it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
very things you complain about are things Who has been guiltier of in
the past than it is now, including in the classic series.
I don't even know why you hail an imagined ideal of Dr Who as
something to aspire to. The series is entertaining, but it's always
been a children's fantasy show with bad continuity, gaping plot
The continuity was perfectly good enough before Moffat and Chibnall
fucked it up in their own stories. And the Sarah Jane Adventures was a
children show, and was far better written than this excrement by Chibnall.
Post by p***@conservation.org
holes, and in the classic era mostly poor characterisation, weak
Wrong. The classic era was full of characterization. Characters changed
and developed. This series has no characterization whatsoever because
its been turned into a soap opera.
Post by p***@conservation.org
scripts, terrible acting and questionable 'moral messages' - a black
Terrible acting? The most terrible acting is that of Whittaker herself,
who is totally unsuitable for the role.
Post by p***@conservation.org
character notoriously acting as a slave in Tomb of the Cybermen, for
instance, or the endlessly lampooned screaming-women-in-danger
trope.
There's nothing wrong with a woman screening when she is in danger.
There should be more of it in this series and then perhaps we might see
some characterization at last.
Post by p***@conservation.org
For most of the world Dr Who is a disposable weekly show - what it
has never been is an example of high quality, except in a small
number of mostly post-2005 cases.
The quality was in the classic series not in the new one.
Post by p***@conservation.org
This season continues that trend and is, ultimately, far too
anonymous to warrant any sort of vitriol, as is its lead. Jodie
Whittaker is the Peter Davidson of modern Who - she's technically
You mean the Sylvester McCoy of modern Who, but that's an even bigger
insult to Sylvester McCoy than he deserves. At least McCoy could act
when he was given decent scrips as seen in the TVM. Whittaker can't act
at all.
Post by p***@conservation.org
fine in the role and not deserving of special criticism, but it's not
very clear that she brings anything to it that any number of other
actors or actresses couldn't. If not for the novelty of being the
first female incarnation I doubt she'll be considered memorable in
future.
Meanwhile, the season has mostly mediocre scripts, the companions
other than Graham are repeatedly sidelined and of little interest,
and there's less problem with having a moral message than the lack of
imagination - three times now we've had exactly the same moral
message: "discrimination is bad", treated more clumsily every time.
And yet, it's still better than most of the Moffatt era. Amy and Rory
The hell isn't.
Post by p***@conservation.org
were better characters than Ryan and Yaz, to be sure, and Matt Smith
was probably a better Doctor than Whittaker, but the episodes were
both forgettable and often overblown with preposterous superheroics,
there were no memorable guest stars and few memorable scripts, and
Moffatt was bad at basically everything a director needs to be good
at, as well as insisting on writing too many of his own stories -
which were mostly just retreads of the same one with the same
plotholes and focus on action and chases over any kind of logical
story progression.
Moffat was fine until the end of series 8 when he turned the Master into
a woman and jumped on the sexist and racist PC bandwagon for series 9
and 10.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
If it's a pervert then it must be treated like on. Whittaker cannot
go befriending it.
It was a ruse to let her escape. Her last lines about it were "Not
sure if it survived or not - oh well". Not exactly a sign she much
Her last lines about it were that she made a new friend of it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
cares either way, let alone something she'd think of a friend. Her
comment 'pity, made a new friend' was just her usual glibness, not a
serious comment that she was upset at losing a friend.
It was a pervert.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Of all the people in
Post by The True Doctor
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who has
lost his wife, to prey on?
It wanted company and the man losing his wife gave it an
opportunity for it to create a lure. This was explained in the
episode.
No it wasn't. Why that man?
You could ask that about practically any character who's the subject
of alien interest in any episode of Dr Who. The story has to involve
someone.
Then why him and not the Prime Minster?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
What was it fleeing from anyway? Where did it come from?
Those were both explained in the story. It wasn't fleeing, it was
closed off because it was incompatible with the laws of our universe,
and it emerged spontaneously.
Is that supposed to make any sense? How can physics be incompatible with
physics?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
ago as 1967 (Who Mourns for Adonais?).
In Who Mourns for Adonais, Apollo reveled himself as what he
was from the beginning.
He was Apollo - a known character to the people he wanted to love
him, and so being open about it was the way to lure them. The
motivation and the story is exactly the same.
He was supposed to be the actual Apollo, not someone impersonating
someones memory of him.
Irrelevant. He was doing what he needed to lure people and keep them
with him - that motivation and behaviour directed towards achieving
that goal is the relevant analogy, not his identity.
He wasn't intent on deception. He made it clear to everyone who he was
from the start.
Post by p***@conservation.org
To use the analogy you insist on, if a pervert lures a child with
candy which is actually candy or with a promise of a gift which is a
deception, both with the goal of keeping them hostage, the end result
is the same and the behaviour as reprehensible whether the lure is
honest or deceitful.
The analogy you are looking of is of the pervert pretending to be
another child on the internet, pretending to be something he wasn't.
Apollo on the other hand was always open about him being a god.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
This was one of the better episodes this year, and easily the
most like traditional Who, but what it absolutely was not was
remotely original. If you can't follow this plot watch one of
the many things it's cloning.
This was the worst episode of the series so far,
Have you already forgotten The Tsurananga Conundrum?
This is worse.
No, it isn't. Simply not having the dire guest actor masquerading as
a pregnant man makes it better, and then there's the fact that it
doesn't confuse Nibbler from Futurama with a Dr Who monster. Or all
the other atrocious things about that episode, which is most of
them.
Have you forgotten the TALKING FROG!!!!!???? THE FUCKING TALKING FROG!
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
and the one with the
Post by The True Doctor
lowest ratings,
Remember how ratings work these days, Aggy. Consolidated ratings
don't necessarily bear a direct relation to overnights, and we
don't have overnights for this one yet. In any case ratings don't
indicate how well people liked this episode - they indicate how
well people liked the previous one and so how likely they are to
tune in a week later.
Low ratings for this episode, especially overnight, just shows
that people didn't like The Witchfinders, which is
understandable.
Here we go again. Do I really need to explain statistics to you once more?
The ratings are an average. They don't count the number of
individuals who watch the episode from start to finish. They
measure viewer hours or minutes in what are roughly 15 minutes
intervals. Some of those viewer minutes are from people watching
past the end of Country File, and some from people watching the
start of Strictly. Other people who watch leave in the middle and
others come in in the middle to replace them, but they are not the
same people. Thus if an episode is crap then people will stop
watching before it ends, and the viewing average will go down.
Enough people watched it to the end to complain about the frog.
Some of them could have just tuned in 10 minutes early for Strictly.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Given that Doctor Who was moved to a day where there is not
competition on the other side and jammed between the BBC highest
rating programmed on that day, which was not the case during
Capaldi's tenure, the viewing figures are actually worse than they
look. If this episode had been on a Saturday it would have only
manage 3 million viewers and not the 5 million it actually got, the
lowest in the series so far.
Whether this is true or not it's irrelevant, since Dr Who has had
this timeslot for the entire year. The figures for this episode
aren't any worse relative to the timeslot than those for any of the
year's other episodes.
This episode is down 3.2 million, or almost half, on the premier.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but "misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or not.
Why not just use the existing word that serves the same purpose?
You still don't understand English do you?
Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out misandry,
in the same way as misogynous is being in the state of wanting to
carry out misogyny. Misandristic means to be actually carrying out
misandry, just like misogynistic means to be carrying out misogyny.
Therefore the right word to use is misandristic.
"Misandristic" is never the right word to use for the simple reason
that, outside your posts, the word doesn't actually exist.
Wrong! You need to learn how to comprehend English properly.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
How are the authorities going to bring charges against a
conscious universe?
The bad parenting was on the part of the girl's father.
Who can't be located or charged while he's living in another
universe.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
historically for character development. It's gone for 50 years
without giving its lead character any real motivation and the
only way it portrays changes in the character's personality is by
changing the actor.
Hartnell and Troughton's motivation was running away from the Time
Lords.
As Iggy liked to loudly complain, there was no such thing as Time
Lords in Hartnell's era. And running away is no motivation for
getting involved in other people's business.
Hartnell never wanted to get involved in other people's business. Watch
the first serial.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Petrtwee's was fixing the TARDIS so he could go exploring.
which he spent remarkably little time doing while busily hunting
alien threats, but I'd agree that this was the one era where the
character actually had a meaningful general motivation.
He was employed by UNIT to advise them on alien threats.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Tom
Post by The True Doctor
Bakers was to go exploring. Davison was soap opera, so I'll give
you that. Colin Baker wanted to kill Peri which effectively killed
the show off, and Sylvester McCoy went around being manipulative.
McGann's character was being lined up to be some sort of romantic
poet like Byron exploring the wonders of the universe before
Professor Brian Cox even took his PhD.
Which basically boils down to what I said - the series has
historically had no concept of character development beyond changing
actors.
Wrong. You saw Leela being educated by the Doctor throughout her time as
companion.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
No, there's no character development in this episode to speak of
- and nor is there really any reason to expect it, least of all
from a child who has a rather minor role. That doesn't make the
presentation of the characters poor - and there's at least the
minimal development that Graham comes to accept the alien Grace
isn't real.
That's not a development since he's exactly the same person he came
in as. Ryan finally called him grandfather, but there was no
reason whatsoever in anything that transpired between them that was
so important to him so as to make Ryan finally accept that.
Seeing his grief over losing Ryan's mother at 'closer range' seems a
reasonable thing to bond over. Soap operatic indeed, but actually
plausible.
Graham didn't show any grief, the writing was that bad, and no reason
was given for the viewer or anyone else to empathize with him since the
character of Grace was developed beyond a soap opera stereotype.
Chibnall doesn't have a clue how to do romance.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Even if one accepts your ludicrous interpretation, it was
abandoned and completely cut off from the universe and quite
possibly destroyed in the process. How is that not punishment for
an entity whose entire motivation was trying to obtain company?
Whittaker should have left it and not made friends with it.
She was stuck in its universe - that was the only way she could have left it.
How could she be stuck when she managed to get back out in the end?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Would you argue that solitary confinement is not a punishment for a pervert?
Whittaker gave it what it wanted. That's not the way to treat a pervert.
She explained to it that it couldn't get what it wanted - that's not
giving it what it wanted. It also wasn't a pervert, of course, so
that falls flat anyway.
It was a pervert and he tried to make friends with it.
The Doctor
2018-12-04 17:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The True
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with
anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see the
TVM) and one mother (as seen in The End of Time), so where do
seven grandmothers come from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The question
is, how on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
It's pandering to a feminist agenda, and feminism is a form of
chauvinistic bigotry against men.
I must have missed the bit of the feminist agenda that demands excess grandparents.
Grandmothers.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The TVM clearly states the Doctor had a father, not fathers,
The TVM didn't think to suggest the Doctor may have had more than one
(and we don't know he did). Stating that he had a father isn't
incompatible with later writers deciding that that was one of several
fathers - especially as the Doctor was talking to humans and so
describing his relationships in terms familiar to them. Why would he
have said "One of my fathers" when "my father" would suffice?
This is your problem Aggy, you never think things through logically.
You are the one not thinking things out logically.
The TVM established that the Doctor's mother was human. It's explicitly
stated. Therefor of the conception process was any different the Doctor
would have talked about having multiple fathers. A human woman can only
have two grandparents and only requires one man to father her child.
So where do the extra grandmothers come from?
Post by p***@conservation.org
who took
Post by The True Doctor
him out walking in the country and they enjoyed each other's
company. The End of Time shows the Doctor's mother, not mothers,
and more or less implies she's his last surviving relative.
We don't know that character is his mother, let alone his only
mother. Having one surviving relative doesn't mean he didn't have
more now-dead ones.
It has been established from the TVM that the Doctor's mother is human,
therefore he only has one mother.
Talk about Chibnall being sexist. Now you want to turn the Doctor's
mother into a whore and the Doctor into a bastard who doesn't know who
his father is.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The Doctor was not raised in a commune. But of course given that
Chibnall is raving mad left-winger, you can see that he supports
communism.
The name 'communism' is derived from 'commune', not the other way
round. Communes don't in any way imply communism - Israel is hardly
communist, but has a commune tradition, the kibbutz. So all your
fantasy ravings below are of no relevance.
Chibnall supports the loony left which makes him a commie. Having the
Doctor being brought up in a commune is Chibnall's attempt to
indoctrinate people into accepting eventual communist rule by Russia.
And what does communist rule entail? The setting up of communes and the
taking away of free speech and expression, which is the aim of so-called
Political Correctness.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall could have made far better jokes, jokes which were
actually funny, but instead he resorts to sexism and racism and
prejudice against two patent babies with a mother and a
father.
I must have missed all the prejudice against Ryan, Yaz, Graham,
the kid in the episode, and - oh yes - every other character in
Dr Who.
Oh, yes... Ryan whose father left him. This shows Chibnall's clear
prejudice against men and two parent nuclear families.
No, it shows a pandering to stereotypes about black people with
absent fathers. It's been pointed out that every significant black
character in Dr Who since 2005 has come from a family with an absent
father.
So Chibnall is being racist like I said, as well as being sexist.
Post by p***@conservation.org
It's highly unlikely to be conscious racism, just pandering to what
the writers imagine are viewer expectations. And it's not a trend
likely to be associated particularly with 'left wingers' - in modern
Britain the hard left is only racist towards Jews.
The hard left and Chibnall are racist towards everyone, Jews, Blacks,
Whites, you name them. Racism is endemic in the BBC and political
correctness is a form of racism, sexism, and left wing bigotry and
intolerance.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Do you take the Sontarans to be evidence of prejudice against
two-parent babies because they're all clones? Or sexist because
they're all male?
Hmm, actually Dr Who has a suspicious number of all-male
villainous races, including Sontarans, Daleks and others. One of
the monster races is even called the "CyberMEN" and any females
converted are turned male. Dr Who has evidently been blatantly
"misandrystic" since at least 1966.
It became misandristic when RTD turned women into Cybermen. It is
clear from the differences in male and female brains that women
would have not made very good warriors.
Sexist drivel - women are now employed as soldiers in most militaries
and are demonstrably as capable as men.
There are not demonstrably as capable as men, and most are not allowed
in front line combat roles. If you heard there news recently there was
some sort of punch up on a submarine between three men and a woman, and
the woman came off as a total wreck, while the men walked off unperturbed.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Not that Cybermen are in any way reliant on personal characteristics
to be warriors - all they need to do is fire randomly into the air
while things explode around them, and sometimes touch people.
Really. Is that what the taught you when you did your national service?
Fire randomly into the air while things explode around you? Don't make
me laugh.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
How? She knows a story about a particular alien - another device that's
Why does she know this story?
Granny 5 told her, as you'd have recalled if you hadn't been too busy
frothing at the mouth at the idea of 7 grannies.
This show gets more and more ridiculous every episode. The Doctor know
nothing about other life in the universe when he fled from Gallifrey
with Susan. Absolutely nothing; not even about Daleks or Cybermen. The
reason he left was because the Time Lords didn't want him or anyone else
to know anything about the outside world.
Post by p***@conservation.org
How about showing a story actually develop
Post by The True Doctor
for once, instead of it all coming out of Whittaker's arse.
These are 45 minute episodes. Story development hasn't been a part of
the series since 2005 outside two-parters, and there have been none
of those this year.
If Star Trek can develop a story in 45 minutes then so can Doctor Who.
The fact that it can't tell you that the writers are crap.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
been used many times before - and about 'anti-spaces'. If any
character knows more than God, it's the huge plot issue that the
alien universe is supposedly so cut off from the real one that it
needs the Doctor to tell it about it, and can't interact with it
in any way - and yet it somehow knows every single detail of
Grace's life with Graham in order to reconstruct her.
It probably read their minds, but it's clearly obvious bad writing
to have to rely on the viewer to come up with an explanation, which
is the writer's job to do.
And yet in what was supposed to be a critical review you utterly
failed to notice this major plothole until it was brought to your
attention, fantasising over a whole bunch of invented conspiracies
instead of any of the multiple actual plot problems.
The 'plot hole' was so obvious that it wasn't worth mentioning, and
wasn't the biggest problem with the episode, given that the shitverse
was capable of creating anything in our universe with little effort.
Post by p***@conservation.org
We never even say how far this mirror universe even
Post by The True Doctor
extended to, or if it was even a proper universe at all. More bad writing.
We never saw how far the Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended
The Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended to the entire galaxy and beyond.
Post by p***@conservation.org
despite multiple visits. It wasn't relevant to the story any more
than it is here, so why does it matter?
The reason it matters here is because we don't see any further than the
log cabin and the forest and fjords, so it could only have extend that
far and no further, but then it wouldn't really have been a proper
universe observing real laws of physics, and which did the shitverse do
about all the other people living on Earth? Did it recreate them too?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much mattered to
the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than 'why doesn't she
think it odd that she's never seen the monster?'. But that doesn't
make it a sexist or racist and I still don't understand the
connection.
Of course it makes it sexist and racist against blind people.
Blind people are neither a sex nor a race and the kid was portrayed
as a fairly typical if not especially bright kid. So how could it
possibly have been either?
She was a female and she was of the race of her father and mother.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Oh, you mean you haven't seen the show since 1963. Sorry Ignis
Fatuus, I've been thinking the new screen name was Agamemnon's.
You are a fool!
Post by p***@conservation.org
He goes around exploring the universe looking for
Post by The True Doctor
something new to see and lean, while minding his own business,
and refuses to interfere unless he or his companions are
threatened.
Ah yes, I remember now that that was the plot of Marco Polo.
Nothing to do with trying to prevent an assassination on an
unrelated third party. The Keys of Marinus wasn't about a
do-gooder effort to find a way to restore law and order. The
Sensorites had nothing to do with the crew arriving and getting
involved in rescuing a human crew when the Doctor and companions
weren't at any risk whatsoever.
There is a difference between getting involved for the benefit of
the greater good and running around the universe in order to be
do-gooders.
And this Doctor, unlike Tennant, Smith or Capaldi, is the former.
Nothing she's done has been concerned with helping anyone other than
those she has it in her immediate power to help, and nearly all the
stories have been small-scale - a village in Lancashire, a single kid
in Norway, a single spacecraft crew, one random individual being
hunted by an alien in Sheffield. This is far closer to the approach
of classic Who than we've seen since 2005 (although Eccleston's
Doctor was also mostly concerned with what was immediately in front
of him, what was immediately in front of him was usually threatening >
to destroy the entire planet. Whittaker's Who is the first for
The real Doctor only got involved with anything that threatened to
destroy the entire planet. He didn't care or concern himself with petty
kitchen since dramas which were of no consequence like Whittaker.
Post by p***@conservation.org
decades in which, if she were to fail, there wouldn't really be any
consequences for more than a couple of people).
So nothing to do with real Doctor Who then.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The entire premise of Doctor Who was that he was fleeing his from
his people along with his granddaughter and therefore wanted to
stay under cover and out of trouble.
He wasn't given any motivation at all originally - that was a
retcon.
It's in the first ever episode and the pilot.
Post by p***@conservation.org
The name the Doctor wasn't a name he was given
Post by The True Doctor
on Gallifrey or took to pretend to be a superhero like Clark Kent,
but was a title he used because he lived in Foreman's abandoned
junk yard, and he didn't know Foreman's first name, so he called
himself Doctor Foreman and Susan, Susan Foreman.
He never called himself Dr Foreman at all. He was confused when Ian
assumed that was his name and called him Dr Foreman.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Battlestar Galactica's revival was about a terrorist threat, Star
Trek was a morality play, The Expanse is about political conflict
and the marginalisation of smaller powers, and so on and so
forth.
Where as the pile of shit excreted from Chinball is
sentimentalistic soap opera, which is a complete anathema to
science fiction, which is about logic and reason, not sentiment and
emotion.
Given your feeble grasp of both logic and reason, I strongly urge you
to watch more science fiction.
Given your feeble grasp of English comprehension I doubt you have any
idea what logic and reason are to begin with.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been treated as,
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than John Steed is or James
Bond or Sherlock Holmes.
Tell that to Moffatt and RTD, or the later writers of the original series.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and this
very story has a character ripped from Marvel as its 'villain'.
And that is exactly who has been wrong with the last 3 series.
More than the last three, but why single this one out when it's much
less of a superhero show than it was back then? Your unreasoning,
Because at least Capaldi could act and had a character. All Whittaker
ever does is point her dildo at everything and pull shit out of her arse
in order to explain everything. She's not even two dimensional, let
alone three.
Post by p***@conservation.org
seemingly sexism-driven hatred of this season makes no sense when the
Yes, the show is sexist and that is a good enough reason to hate it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
very things you complain about are things Who has been guiltier of in
the past than it is now, including in the classic series.
I don't even know why you hail an imagined ideal of Dr Who as
something to aspire to. The series is entertaining, but it's always
been a children's fantasy show with bad continuity, gaping plot
The continuity was perfectly good enough before Moffat and Chibnall
fucked it up in their own stories. And the Sarah Jane Adventures was a
children show, and was far better written than this excrement by Chibnall.
Post by p***@conservation.org
holes, and in the classic era mostly poor characterisation, weak
Wrong. The classic era was full of characterization. Characters changed
and developed. This series has no characterization whatsoever because
its been turned into a soap opera.
Post by p***@conservation.org
scripts, terrible acting and questionable 'moral messages' - a black
Terrible acting? The most terrible acting is that of Whittaker herself,
who is totally unsuitable for the role.
Post by p***@conservation.org
character notoriously acting as a slave in Tomb of the Cybermen, for
instance, or the endlessly lampooned screaming-women-in-danger
trope.
There's nothing wrong with a woman screening when she is in danger.
There should be more of it in this series and then perhaps we might see
some characterization at last.
Post by p***@conservation.org
For most of the world Dr Who is a disposable weekly show - what it
has never been is an example of high quality, except in a small
number of mostly post-2005 cases.
The quality was in the classic series not in the new one.
Post by p***@conservation.org
This season continues that trend and is, ultimately, far too
anonymous to warrant any sort of vitriol, as is its lead. Jodie
Whittaker is the Peter Davidson of modern Who - she's technically
You mean the Sylvester McCoy of modern Who, but that's an even bigger
insult to Sylvester McCoy than he deserves. At least McCoy could act
when he was given decent scrips as seen in the TVM. Whittaker can't act
at all.
Post by p***@conservation.org
fine in the role and not deserving of special criticism, but it's not
very clear that she brings anything to it that any number of other
actors or actresses couldn't. If not for the novelty of being the
first female incarnation I doubt she'll be considered memorable in
future.
Meanwhile, the season has mostly mediocre scripts, the companions
other than Graham are repeatedly sidelined and of little interest,
and there's less problem with having a moral message than the lack of
imagination - three times now we've had exactly the same moral
message: "discrimination is bad", treated more clumsily every time.
And yet, it's still better than most of the Moffatt era. Amy and Rory
The hell isn't.
Post by p***@conservation.org
were better characters than Ryan and Yaz, to be sure, and Matt Smith
was probably a better Doctor than Whittaker, but the episodes were
both forgettable and often overblown with preposterous superheroics,
there were no memorable guest stars and few memorable scripts, and
Moffatt was bad at basically everything a director needs to be good
at, as well as insisting on writing too many of his own stories -
which were mostly just retreads of the same one with the same
plotholes and focus on action and chases over any kind of logical
story progression.
Moffat was fine until the end of series 8 when he turned the Master into
a woman and jumped on the sexist and racist PC bandwagon for series 9
and 10.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
If it's a pervert then it must be treated like on. Whittaker cannot
go befriending it.
It was a ruse to let her escape. Her last lines about it were "Not
sure if it survived or not - oh well". Not exactly a sign she much
Her last lines about it were that she made a new friend of it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
cares either way, let alone something she'd think of a friend. Her
comment 'pity, made a new friend' was just her usual glibness, not a
serious comment that she was upset at losing a friend.
It was a pervert.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Of all the people in
Post by The True Doctor
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who has
lost his wife, to prey on?
It wanted company and the man losing his wife gave it an
opportunity for it to create a lure. This was explained in the
episode.
No it wasn't. Why that man?
You could ask that about practically any character who's the subject
of alien interest in any episode of Dr Who. The story has to involve
someone.
Then why him and not the Prime Minster?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
What was it fleeing from anyway? Where did it come from?
Those were both explained in the story. It wasn't fleeing, it was
closed off because it was incompatible with the laws of our universe,
and it emerged spontaneously.
Is that supposed to make any sense? How can physics be incompatible with
physics?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
ago as 1967 (Who Mourns for Adonais?).
In Who Mourns for Adonais, Apollo reveled himself as what he
was from the beginning.
He was Apollo - a known character to the people he wanted to love
him, and so being open about it was the way to lure them. The
motivation and the story is exactly the same.
He was supposed to be the actual Apollo, not someone impersonating
someones memory of him.
Irrelevant. He was doing what he needed to lure people and keep them
with him - that motivation and behaviour directed towards achieving
that goal is the relevant analogy, not his identity.
He wasn't intent on deception. He made it clear to everyone who he was
from the start.
Post by p***@conservation.org
To use the analogy you insist on, if a pervert lures a child with
candy which is actually candy or with a promise of a gift which is a
deception, both with the goal of keeping them hostage, the end result
is the same and the behaviour as reprehensible whether the lure is
honest or deceitful.
The analogy you are looking of is of the pervert pretending to be
another child on the internet, pretending to be something he wasn't.
Apollo on the other hand was always open about him being a god.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
This was one of the better episodes this year, and easily the
most like traditional Who, but what it absolutely was not was
remotely original. If you can't follow this plot watch one of
the many things it's cloning.
This was the worst episode of the series so far,
Have you already forgotten The Tsurananga Conundrum?
This is worse.
No, it isn't. Simply not having the dire guest actor masquerading as
a pregnant man makes it better, and then there's the fact that it
doesn't confuse Nibbler from Futurama with a Dr Who monster. Or all
the other atrocious things about that episode, which is most of
them.
Have you forgotten the TALKING FROG!!!!!???? THE FUCKING TALKING FROG!
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
and the one with the
Post by The True Doctor
lowest ratings,
Remember how ratings work these days, Aggy. Consolidated ratings
don't necessarily bear a direct relation to overnights, and we
don't have overnights for this one yet. In any case ratings don't
indicate how well people liked this episode - they indicate how
well people liked the previous one and so how likely they are to
tune in a week later.
Low ratings for this episode, especially overnight, just shows
that people didn't like The Witchfinders, which is
understandable.
Here we go again. Do I really need to explain statistics to you once more?
The ratings are an average. They don't count the number of
individuals who watch the episode from start to finish. They
measure viewer hours or minutes in what are roughly 15 minutes
intervals. Some of those viewer minutes are from people watching
past the end of Country File, and some from people watching the
start of Strictly. Other people who watch leave in the middle and
others come in in the middle to replace them, but they are not the
same people. Thus if an episode is crap then people will stop
watching before it ends, and the viewing average will go down.
Enough people watched it to the end to complain about the frog.
Some of them could have just tuned in 10 minutes early for Strictly.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Given that Doctor Who was moved to a day where there is not
competition on the other side and jammed between the BBC highest
rating programmed on that day, which was not the case during
Capaldi's tenure, the viewing figures are actually worse than they
look. If this episode had been on a Saturday it would have only
manage 3 million viewers and not the 5 million it actually got, the
lowest in the series so far.
Whether this is true or not it's irrelevant, since Dr Who has had
this timeslot for the entire year. The figures for this episode
aren't any worse relative to the timeslot than those for any of the
year's other episodes.
This episode is down 3.2 million, or almost half, on the premier.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but "misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or not.
Why not just use the existing word that serves the same purpose?
You still don't understand English do you?
Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out misandry,
in the same way as misogynous is being in the state of wanting to
carry out misogyny. Misandristic means to be actually carrying out
misandry, just like misogynistic means to be carrying out misogyny.
Therefore the right word to use is misandristic.
"Misandristic" is never the right word to use for the simple reason
that, outside your posts, the word doesn't actually exist.
Wrong! You need to learn how to comprehend English properly.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
How are the authorities going to bring charges against a
conscious universe?
The bad parenting was on the part of the girl's father.
Who can't be located or charged while he's living in another
universe.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
historically for character development. It's gone for 50 years
without giving its lead character any real motivation and the
only way it portrays changes in the character's personality is by
changing the actor.
Hartnell and Troughton's motivation was running away from the Time
Lords.
As Iggy liked to loudly complain, there was no such thing as Time
Lords in Hartnell's era. And running away is no motivation for
getting involved in other people's business.
Hartnell never wanted to get involved in other people's business. Watch
the first serial.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Petrtwee's was fixing the TARDIS so he could go exploring.
which he spent remarkably little time doing while busily hunting
alien threats, but I'd agree that this was the one era where the
character actually had a meaningful general motivation.
He was employed by UNIT to advise them on alien threats.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Tom
Post by The True Doctor
Bakers was to go exploring. Davison was soap opera, so I'll give
you that. Colin Baker wanted to kill Peri which effectively killed
the show off, and Sylvester McCoy went around being manipulative.
McGann's character was being lined up to be some sort of romantic
poet like Byron exploring the wonders of the universe before
Professor Brian Cox even took his PhD.
Which basically boils down to what I said - the series has
historically had no concept of character development beyond changing
actors.
Wrong. You saw Leela being educated by the Doctor throughout her time as
companion.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
No, there's no character development in this episode to speak of
- and nor is there really any reason to expect it, least of all
from a child who has a rather minor role. That doesn't make the
presentation of the characters poor - and there's at least the
minimal development that Graham comes to accept the alien Grace
isn't real.
That's not a development since he's exactly the same person he came
in as. Ryan finally called him grandfather, but there was no
reason whatsoever in anything that transpired between them that was
so important to him so as to make Ryan finally accept that.
Seeing his grief over losing Ryan's mother at 'closer range' seems a
reasonable thing to bond over. Soap operatic indeed, but actually
plausible.
Graham didn't show any grief, the writing was that bad, and no reason
was given for the viewer or anyone else to empathize with him since the
character of Grace was developed beyond a soap opera stereotype.
Chibnall doesn't have a clue how to do romance.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Even if one accepts your ludicrous interpretation, it was
abandoned and completely cut off from the universe and quite
possibly destroyed in the process. How is that not punishment for
an entity whose entire motivation was trying to obtain company?
Whittaker should have left it and not made friends with it.
She was stuck in its universe - that was the only way she could have left it.
How could she be stuck when she managed to get back out in the end?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Would you argue that solitary confinement is not a punishment for a pervert?
Whittaker gave it what it wanted. That's not the way to treat a pervert.
She explained to it that it couldn't get what it wanted - that's not
giving it what it wanted. It also wasn't a pervert, of course, so
that falls flat anyway.
It was a pervert and he tried to make friends with it.
Looks like Chibnall is being dictated too!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-04 18:23:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with
anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see the
TVM) and one mother (as seen in The End of Time), so where do
seven grandmothers come from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The question
is, how on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
It's pandering to a feminist agenda, and feminism is a form of
chauvinistic bigotry against men.
I must have missed the bit of the feminist agenda that demands excess grandparents.
Grandmothers.
Who are grandparents. We don't know how many grandfathers the Doctor had.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The TVM clearly states the Doctor had a father, not fathers,
The TVM didn't think to suggest the Doctor may have had more than one
(and we don't know he did). Stating that he had a father isn't
incompatible with later writers deciding that that was one of several
fathers - especially as the Doctor was talking to humans and so
describing his relationships in terms familiar to them. Why would he
have said "One of my fathers" when "my father" would suffice?
This is your problem Aggy, you never think things through logically.
You are the one not thinking things out logically.
The TVM established that the Doctor's mother was human.
Which was a retcon which has since been reversed officially, I believe. Even if it were accepted, he could have had multiple mothers one of whom was human - that might even be an elegant way to get away from the 'half-human' thing.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The Doctor was not raised in a commune. But of course given that
Chibnall is raving mad left-winger, you can see that he supports
communism.
The name 'communism' is derived from 'commune', not the other way
round. Communes don't in any way imply communism - Israel is hardly
communist, but has a commune tradition, the kibbutz. So all your
fantasy ravings below are of no relevance.
Chibnall supports the loony left which makes him a commie.
I've no idea if he does or not, but the 'loony left' in the UK hasn't had anything to do with communism for years. People like Corbyn have no interest at all in who controls the means of production, which is the essence of communism.

Having the
Post by The True Doctor
Doctor being brought up in a commune is Chibnall's attempt to
indoctrinate people into accepting eventual communist rule by Russia.
a) It's not Chibnall's attempt to do anything. No one's said the Doctor was raised in a commune - you asked where multiple grandparents could have come from and I pointed out that a different series had given its lead character a backstory where he was raised in a commune by eight genetic parents. I suggested that it was consequently possible to imagine that one of the Doctor's *parents* (not the Doctor) could have been raised that way if you wanted to take the comment seriously.

b) the script didn't intend the comment to be taken seriously, it was a throwaway joke.

c) None of this has anything to do with Russia/

d) Russia is not in any sense communist.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Oh, yes... Ryan whose father left him. This shows Chibnall's clear
prejudice against men and two parent nuclear families.
No, it shows a pandering to stereotypes about black people with
absent fathers. It's been pointed out that every significant black
character in Dr Who since 2005 has come from a family with an absent
father.
So Chibnall is being racist like I said, as well as being sexist.
No moreso than Moffatt or RTD whose black characters had a similar background. The treatment of those characters makes it pretty clear that none of these people are actively racist, they're just falling back on stereotypes possibly for an American market (I don't actually know whether there even are stereotypes about black single mothers in the UK, but there are in the US).

Also, RTD particularly had a thing about families without both parents - Rose didn't have a father either.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Not that Cybermen are in any way reliant on personal characteristics
to be warriors - all they need to do is fire randomly into the air
while things explode around them, and sometimes touch people.
Really. Is that what the taught you when you did your national service?
National service doesn't exist in the UK, Aggy.
Post by The True Doctor
Fire randomly into the air while things explode around you? Don't make
me laugh.
I said that that's all Cybermen need to do. They could take lessons in accuracy from Imperial Stormtroopers. The point being, Cybermen have always been terrible soldiers.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Granny 5 told her, as you'd have recalled if you hadn't been too busy
frothing at the mouth at the idea of 7 grannies.
This show gets more and more ridiculous every episode. The Doctor know
nothing about other life in the universe when he fled from Gallifrey
with Susan. Absolutely nothing; not even about Daleks or Cybermen.
That was hundreds of years ago in in-universe time, Aggy. You'd expect the Doctor to have learned a few things since. It's also not incompatible with being told bedtime stories about other things in the universe.

We don't know anything about any real alien life in our universe, but that doesn't mean we haven't heard stories about Klingons.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
These are 45 minute episodes. Story development hasn't been a part of
the series since 2005 outside two-parters, and there have been none
of those this year.
If Star Trek can develop a story in 45 minutes then so can Doctor Who.
The fact that it can't tell you that the writers are crap.
And? It may have escaped your notice, but neither I or anyone else has suggested this season is good. It just isn't bad for the reasons you claim it is.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
It probably read their minds, but it's clearly obvious bad writing
to have to rely on the viewer to come up with an explanation, which
is the writer's job to do.
And yet in what was supposed to be a critical review you utterly
failed to notice this major plothole until it was brought to your
attention, fantasising over a whole bunch of invented conspiracies
instead of any of the multiple actual plot problems.
The 'plot hole' was so obvious that it wasn't worth mentioning,
That's never stopped you before.

and
Post by The True Doctor
wasn't the biggest problem with the episode, given that the shitverse
was capable of creating anything in our universe with little effort.
Well done, Aggy. See? When led to a problem you show some ability to think it through - though if you accept the 'read his mind' idea, you can always imagine that it read Erik's mind in order to recreate his house.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
We never even say how far this mirror universe even
Post by The True Doctor
extended to, or if it was even a proper universe at all. More bad writing.
We never saw how far the Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended
The Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended to the entire galaxy and beyond.
That's an assumption, it's not something we were ever told or shown.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
despite multiple visits. It wasn't relevant to the story any more
than it is here, so why does it matter?
The reason it matters here is because we don't see any further than the
log cabin and the forest and fjords, so it could only have extend that
far and no further, but then it wouldn't really have been a proper
universe observing real laws of physics, and which did the shitverse do
about all the other people living on Earth? Did it recreate them too?
A small universe is still a universe. This one was frog-sized.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much mattered to
the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than 'why doesn't she
think it odd that she's never seen the monster?'. But that doesn't
make it a sexist or racist and I still don't understand the
connection.
Of course it makes it sexist and racist against blind people.
Blind people are neither a sex nor a race and the kid was portrayed
as a fairly typical if not especially bright kid. So how could it
possibly have been either?
She was a female and she was of the race of her father and mother.
So? She wasn't portrayed negatively, either as a character or because she was either female or white, so how is that sexist or racist?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
And this Doctor, unlike Tennant, Smith or Capaldi, is the former.
Nothing she's done has been concerned with helping anyone other than
those she has it in her immediate power to help, and nearly all the
stories have been small-scale - a village in Lancashire, a single kid
in Norway, a single spacecraft crew, one random individual being
hunted by an alien in Sheffield. This is far closer to the approach
of classic Who than we've seen since 2005 (although Eccleston's
Doctor was also mostly concerned with what was immediately in front
of him, what was immediately in front of him was usually threatening > to destroy the entire planet. Whittaker's Who is the first for
The real Doctor only got involved with anything that threatened to
destroy the entire planet. He didn't care or concern himself with petty
kitchen since dramas which were of no consequence like Whittaker.
Make up your mind, Aggy - firstly you say he intervened in stories like Marco Polo or The Sensorites, where no one threatened to destroy any planets, because he happened to be in the area (just like Whittaker), and now you say he decides to intervene only when the universe is threatened (like a superhero), apparently simply because it's the opposite of what Whittaker happens to be doing at any given moment. No matter what Whittaker's Doctor does, apparently it's always the reverse of what the male (which of course is what you mean by 'real') Doctors do.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
decades in which, if she were to fail, there wouldn't really be any
consequences for more than a couple of people).
So nothing to do with real Doctor Who then.
No, just like Hartnell had nothing to do with real Dr Who.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been treated as,
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than John Steed is or James
Bond or Sherlock Holmes.
Tell that to Moffatt and RTD, or the later writers of the original series.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and this
very story has a character ripped from Marvel as its 'villain'.
And that is exactly who has been wrong with the last 3 series.
More than the last three, but why single this one out when it's much
less of a superhero show than it was back then? Your unreasoning,
Because at least Capaldi could act and had a character. All Whittaker
ever does is point her dildo at everything and pull shit out of her arse
in order to explain everything. She's not even two dimensional, let
alone three.
You keep saying Whittaker can't act but never explain what gives that impression. She's meant to be playing the Doctor and is playing the Doctor - by definition that is acting. I know nothing about her and haven't seen her in anything else, so don't know how similar that is to her real personality or anything else she's done, so I'm not sure why you're so insistent she can't act. As I say, she seems to be basically a role-filler - she's there in the part but isn't doing anything special or memorable with it.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
seemingly sexism-driven hatred of this season makes no sense when the
Yes, the show is sexist and that is a good enough reason to hate it.
You have no comprehension of the English language.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
very things you complain about are things Who has been guiltier of in
the past than it is now, including in the classic series.
I don't even know why you hail an imagined ideal of Dr Who as
something to aspire to. The series is entertaining, but it's always
been a children's fantasy show with bad continuity, gaping plot
The continuity was perfectly good enough before Moffat and Chibnall
fucked it up in their own stories.
No, it made no sense whatsoever, and not just because of 'half human' retcons.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
holes, and in the classic era mostly poor characterisation, weak
Wrong. The classic era was full of characterization. Characters changed
and developed.
Which ones? Certainly not Ian, Barbara or Susan in the original series. Not 'I have to learn the same lesson every week because it never sticks' Leela. Not Romana. Not the one-dimensional pantomime villains Davros or The Master. Emphatically not any incarnation of The Doctor.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
scripts, terrible acting and questionable 'moral messages' - a black
Terrible acting? The most terrible acting is that of Whittaker herself,
who is totally unsuitable for the role.
Adric. Mel. Peri. Need I go on? You only need to listen to the current crop of Colin Baker or McCoy audios to realise just how badly they performed the same roles in the '80s.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
character notoriously acting as a slave in Tomb of the Cybermen, for
instance, or the endlessly lampooned screaming-women-in-danger
trope.
There's nothing wrong with a woman screening when she is in danger.
Not when it's a natural reaction and men react similarly appropriately. When it's just women screaming week after week it's a different story.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
For most of the world Dr Who is a disposable weekly show - what it
has never been is an example of high quality, except in a small
number of mostly post-2005 cases.
The quality was in the classic series not in the new one.
Neither is high quality, just entertaining to watch (at least ideally).
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
were better characters than Ryan and Yaz, to be sure, and Matt Smith
was probably a better Doctor than Whittaker, but the episodes were
both forgettable and often overblown with preposterous superheroics,
there were no memorable guest stars and few memorable scripts, and
Moffatt was bad at basically everything a director needs to be good
at, as well as insisting on writing too many of his own stories -
which were mostly just retreads of the same one with the same
plotholes and focus on action and chases over any kind of logical
story progression.
Moffat was fine until the end of series 8 when he turned the Master into
a woman and jumped on the sexist and racist PC bandwagon for series 9
and 10.
You're focusing on the wrong thing once more. Missy was a bad and badly-written character - not because she was female, but because Moffatt simply couldn't write the Master. He wrote the character badly for John Simm as well. It was just par for the course for Moffatt - a writer who excelled at action scenes regardless of whether they made the slightest bit of narrative sense (for instance, The Empty Child was hailed as a classic despite the fact that the entirety of the second episode is predicated on something that makes no internal sense whatsoever - the child, it was established, was trying to chase its mother, and yet for the whole of the second episode it was chasing the Doctor and co. whether or not the mother was with them), but who as a director consistently helmed mediocre casting decisions and showed very little talent for writing interesting characters. He couldn't even get the Master right, and the Master is just a pantomime villain.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
If it's a pervert then it must be treated like on. Whittaker cannot
go befriending it.
It was a ruse to let her escape. Her last lines about it were "Not
sure if it survived or not - oh well". Not exactly a sign she much
Her last lines about it were that she made a new friend of it.
See the line I wrote afterwards. She didn't treat it as a friend - what she said was immaterial.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Of all the people in
Post by The True Doctor
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who has
lost his wife, to prey on?
It wanted company and the man losing his wife gave it an
opportunity for it to create a lure. This was explained in the
episode.
No it wasn't. Why that man?
You could ask that about practically any character who's the subject
of alien interest in any episode of Dr Who. The story has to involve
someone.
Then why him and not the Prime Minster?
Why should it be the Prime Minister (of where? Norway?)? It wasn't interested in taking over Norway, or anywhere else.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
What was it fleeing from anyway? Where did it come from?
Those were both explained in the story. It wasn't fleeing, it was
closed off because it was incompatible with the laws of our universe,
and it emerged spontaneously.
Is that supposed to make any sense? How can physics be incompatible with
physics?
Quite easily. Antimatter can't survive naturally alongside matter, but both emerge from the same physics. There are numerous constants whose values could change and be consistent with physics, but which if they did couldn't result in a life-supporting universe. It seems the consciousness was basically a constant that isn't compatible with our universe.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
This is worse.
No, it isn't. Simply not having the dire guest actor masquerading as
a pregnant man makes it better, and then there's the fact that it
doesn't confuse Nibbler from Futurama with a Dr Who monster. Or all
the other atrocious things about that episode, which is most of
them.
Have you forgotten the TALKING FROG!!!!!???? THE FUCKING TALKING FROG!
There are plenty of classic fairy tales involving talking frogs. Not so many involving Nibbler from Futurama dressed up like a cross between a tardigrade and an Adipose.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Given that Doctor Who was moved to a day where there is not
competition on the other side and jammed between the BBC highest
rating programmed on that day, which was not the case during
Capaldi's tenure, the viewing figures are actually worse than they
look. If this episode had been on a Saturday it would have only
manage 3 million viewers and not the 5 million it actually got, the
lowest in the series so far.
Whether this is true or not it's irrelevant, since Dr Who has had
this timeslot for the entire year. The figures for this episode
aren't any worse relative to the timeslot than those for any of the
year's other episodes.
This episode is down 3.2 million, or almost half, on the premier.
But only 0.6 million on the previous episode - the slump happened before this episode.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but "misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or not.
Why not just use the existing word that serves the same purpose?
You still don't understand English do you?
Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out misandry,
in the same way as misogynous is being in the state of wanting to
carry out misogyny. Misandristic means to be actually carrying out
misandry, just like misogynistic means to be carrying out misogyny.
Therefore the right word to use is misandristic.
"Misandristic" is never the right word to use for the simple reason
that, outside your posts, the word doesn't actually exist.
Wrong! You need to learn how to comprehend English properly.
Here's how these words work in English, Aggy:

Misogyny is the state of disliking women. There is no distinction between wanting to dislike women and actually doing so, any more than there is a word like 'racous' for someone who 'wants to be racist'. "Misogynistic" is the adjective for a person or act that exhibits misogyny. A person who meets this criterion, like you, is a "misogynist". There is no such word as "misogynous".

Misandry is the state of disliking men. There is no distinction between wanting to dislike men and actually doing so,any more than there is a word like 'racous' for someone who 'wants to be racist'. "Misandrous" is the adjective for a person or act that exhibits misandry. A person who meets this criterion, as you claim Chibnall is, is a "misandrist".There is no such word as "misandristic".
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
historically for character development. It's gone for 50 years
without giving its lead character any real motivation and the
only way it portrays changes in the character's personality is by
changing the actor.
Hartnell and Troughton's motivation was running away from the Time
Lords.
As Iggy liked to loudly complain, there was no such thing as Time
Lords in Hartnell's era. And running away is no motivation for
getting involved in other people's business.
Hartnell never wanted to get involved in other people's business. Watch
the first serial.
Watch all of the others. That never actually stopped him - and whether he was just looking out for himself and his companions or trying to save the universe was a personality trait that shifted from week to week depending on the needs of the plot. He didn't need to get involved to save history from the Monk, for instance. The notion that there was any real consistency to the character owes more to Iggy's rants than the series.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Petrtwee's was fixing the TARDIS so he could go exploring.
which he spent remarkably little time doing while busily hunting
alien threats, but I'd agree that this was the one era where the
character actually had a meaningful general motivation.
He was employed by UNIT to advise them on alien threats.
'Saving the world from while they look on' is a strange definition of 'advice'.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Tom
Post by The True Doctor
Bakers was to go exploring. Davison was soap opera, so I'll give
you that. Colin Baker wanted to kill Peri which effectively killed
the show off, and Sylvester McCoy went around being manipulative.
McGann's character was being lined up to be some sort of romantic
poet like Byron exploring the wonders of the universe before
Professor Brian Cox even took his PhD.
Which basically boils down to what I said - the series has
historically had no concept of character development beyond changing
actors.
Wrong. You saw Leela being educated by the Doctor throughout her time as
companion.
Leela had Data syndrome. She needed to be told the same thing every time it became relevant to the plot - the character herself never actually exhibited any development, just as Data had to be repeatedly taught the same 'how to be human' lesson every few weeks in TNG.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Even if one accepts your ludicrous interpretation, it was
abandoned and completely cut off from the universe and quite
possibly destroyed in the process. How is that not punishment for
an entity whose entire motivation was trying to obtain company?
Whittaker should have left it and not made friends with it.
She was stuck in its universe - that was the only way she could have left it.
How could she be stuck when she managed to get back out in the end?
She persuaded it to kick her own with its magic frog foot.

A sentence which in itself suggests you're taking this episode much more seriously than it deserves.
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-04 19:49:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Have you forgotten the TALKING FROG!!!!!???? THE FUCKING TALKING FROG!
There are plenty of classic fairy tales involving talking frogs. Not so many involving Nibbler from Futurama dressed up like a cross between a tardigrade and an Adipose.
What would have happened had the Doctor kissed that frog?
The True Doctor
2018-12-04 21:29:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Have you forgotten the TALKING FROG!!!!!???? THE FUCKING TALKING FROG!
There are plenty of classic fairy tales involving talking frogs. Not so many involving Nibbler from Futurama dressed up like a cross between a tardigrade and an Adipose.
What would have happened had the Doctor kissed that frog?
She would probably have caught an STD from it.
The Doctor
2018-12-04 21:58:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10:23:02 AM UTC-8,
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Have you forgotten the TALKING FROG!!!!!???? THE FUCKING TALKING FROG!
There are plenty of classic fairy tales involving talking frogs. Not
so many involving Nibbler from Futurama dressed up like a cross between
a tardigrade and an Adipose.
What would have happened had the Doctor kissed that frog?
She would probably have caught an STD from it.
Ouch.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
The Doctor
2018-12-04 21:49:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10:23:02 AM UTC-8,
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Have you forgotten the TALKING FROG!!!!!???? THE FUCKING TALKING FROG!
There are plenty of classic fairy tales involving talking frogs. Not
so many involving Nibbler from Futurama dressed up like a cross between
a tardigrade and an Adipose.
What would have happened had the Doctor kissed that frog?
Grand one.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
The True Doctor
2018-12-04 21:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:35:38 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:35:43 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with
anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see
the TVM) and one mother (as seen in The End of Time), so
where do seven grandmothers come from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The
question is, how on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
It's pandering to a feminist agenda, and feminism is a form of
chauvinistic bigotry against men.
I must have missed the bit of the feminist agenda that demands excess grandparents.
Grandmothers.
Who are grandparents. We don't know how many grandfathers the Doctor had.
In the context of Chibnall's bigoted female chauvinistic agenda the
remark was sexist and demeaning towards men, implying that they have not
right to grandfathers or male role models, after Chibnall has already
taken one away from them.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
The TVM clearly states the Doctor had a father, not fathers,
The TVM didn't think to suggest the Doctor may have had more than
one (and we don't know he did). Stating that he had a father
isn't incompatible with later writers deciding that that was one
of several fathers - especially as the Doctor was talking to
humans and so describing his relationships in terms familiar to
them. Why would he have said "One of my fathers" when "my father"
would suffice?
This is your problem Aggy, you never think things through
logically.
You are the one not thinking things out logically.
The TVM established that the Doctor's mother was human.
Which was a retcon which has since been reversed officially, I
It was never reversed.
Post by p***@conservation.org
believe. Even if it were accepted, he could have had multiple mothers
one of whom was human - that might even be an elegant way to get away
from the 'half-human' thing.
A human woman would have never agreed to her husband/partner mating with
other women than her.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
The Doctor was not raised in a commune. But of course given
that Chibnall is raving mad left-winger, you can see that he
supports communism.
The name 'communism' is derived from 'commune', not the other
way round. Communes don't in any way imply communism - Israel is
hardly communist, but has a commune tradition, the kibbutz. So
all your fantasy ravings below are of no relevance.
Chibnall supports the loony left which makes him a commie.
I've no idea if he does or not, but the 'loony left' in the UK hasn't
had anything to do with communism for years. People like Corbyn have
no interest at all in who controls the means of production, which is
the essence of communism.
Corbyn is a supporter of Putin who failed to condemn him for the
Salisbury poisonings.

The essence of communism is State Capitalism, and that is what Corbyn
hopes to achieve by nationalizing everything.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Having the
Post by The True Doctor
Doctor being brought up in a commune is Chibnall's attempt to
indoctrinate people into accepting eventual communist rule by
Russia.
a) It's not Chibnall's attempt to do anything. No one's said the
Doctor was raised in a commune - you asked where multiple
grandparents could have come from and I pointed out that a different
series had given its lead character a backstory where he was raised
in a commune by eight genetic parents. I suggested that it was
consequently possible to imagine that one of the Doctor's *parents*
(not the Doctor) could have been raised that way if you wanted to
take the comment seriously.
The TVM and The End of Time preclude multiple parentage.
Post by p***@conservation.org
b) the script didn't intend the comment to be taken seriously, it was a throwaway joke.
It was offensive.
Post by p***@conservation.org
c) None of this has anything to do with Russia/
d) Russia is not in any sense communist.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Oh, yes... Ryan whose father left him. This shows Chibnall's
clear prejudice against men and two parent nuclear families.
No, it shows a pandering to stereotypes about black people with
absent fathers. It's been pointed out that every significant
black character in Dr Who since 2005 has come from a family with
an absent father.
So Chibnall is being racist like I said, as well as being sexist.
No moreso than Moffatt or RTD whose black characters had a similar
background. The treatment of those characters makes it pretty clear
that none of these people are actively racist, they're just falling
back on stereotypes possibly for an American market (I don't actually
know whether there even are stereotypes about black single mothers in
the UK, but there are in the US).
They are being racist not only against black people but against white
people too. That is why the BBC is institutionally racist, because it
thinks two wrongs make a right; being racist against white people to
cancel out it being racist against black people. What it should be doing
instead is allowing black writers and producers to produce their own
programmes for black people, and leaving its racist agenda out of
programmes like Doctor Who whose audience are predominantly white.

You can see the BBC's racism in full force in Troy: Fall of a City which
had no Greek actors in any of the leading roles, and instead cased black
actors to play Greeks who are described by Homer as being blond.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Also, RTD particularly had a thing about families without both
parents - Rose didn't have a father either.
That's the perversion of the loony left for you.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Not that Cybermen are in any way reliant on personal
characteristics to be warriors - all they need to do is fire
randomly into the air while things explode around them, and
sometimes touch people.
Really. Is that what the taught you when you did your national service?
National service doesn't exist in the UK, Aggy.
It was a joke.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Fire randomly into the air while things explode around you? Don't
make me laugh.
I said that that's all Cybermen need to do. They could take lessons
in accuracy from Imperial Stormtroopers. The point being, Cybermen
have always been terrible soldiers.
All the more reason why not to have women in their ranks.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Granny 5 told her, as you'd have recalled if you hadn't been too
busy frothing at the mouth at the idea of 7 grannies.
This show gets more and more ridiculous every episode. The Doctor
know nothing about other life in the universe when he fled from
Gallifrey with Susan. Absolutely nothing; not even about Daleks or
Cybermen.
That was hundreds of years ago in in-universe time, Aggy. You'd
expect the Doctor to have learned a few things since. It's also not
incompatible with being told bedtime stories about other things in
the universe.
What you expect is for the Doctor to only know what we've seen him
learning, given that it was established that he knew nothing from the
beginning. You don't expect Whittaker to keep pulling crap out of her
arse and pointing her dildo all over the place like a gun worse than K9
and his blaster.
Post by p***@conservation.org
We don't know anything about any real alien life in our universe, but
that doesn't mean we haven't heard stories about Klingons.
Klingons are not real. It has been established that the Time Lords knew
practically nothing of life outside of Gallifrey, which was the Doctors
main motivation for leaving. There was no Time Lord National Geographic
channel to tell stories about alien life.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
These are 45 minute episodes. Story development hasn't been a
part of the series since 2005 outside two-parters, and there have
been none of those this year.
If Star Trek can develop a story in 45 minutes then so can Doctor
Who. The fact that it can't tell you that the writers are crap.
And? It may have escaped your notice, but neither I or anyone else
has suggested this season is good. It just isn't bad for the reasons
you claim it is.
It is bad for exactly the reasons I say. Any decent writer can write a
proper story lasting 45 minutes. The writers on Doctor Who can't. They
are shit writers and the reason why they can't writer a 45 minutes story
is because all they have ever written is mind numbing plot-less soap
opera, and not science fiction. Instead of showing plot and story
exposition, all they write is irreverent kitchen sink dialogue, and then
pull made up facts out of Whittaker's arse, which prevents any sort of
meaningful characterization or character development whatsoever, which
is achieved by showing experiences as they happen, not by inserting a
pair of stereotypes, saying that they are in lover, expecting the
audience to care for them (see Perverts of the Punjab). The audience
won't give a fuck because they have not been what they characters are
not showing going though with the characters. It's like watching the
final minutes of Romeo and Juliet and being expected to give a damn,
without knowing what it was all about.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
It probably read their minds, but it's clearly obvious bad
writing to have to rely on the viewer to come up with an
explanation, which is the writer's job to do.
And yet in what was supposed to be a critical review you utterly
failed to notice this major plothole until it was brought to
your attention, fantasising over a whole bunch of invented
conspiracies instead of any of the multiple actual plot
problems.
The 'plot hole' was so obvious that it wasn't worth mentioning,
That's never stopped you before.
and
Post by The True Doctor
wasn't the biggest problem with the episode, given that the
shitverse was capable of creating anything in our universe with
little effort.
Well done, Aggy. See? When led to a problem you show some ability to
think it through - though if you accept the 'read his mind' idea, you
can always imagine that it read Erik's mind in order to recreate his
house.
His house would have only looked real to him if it was based on reading
his mind. To Whittaker and co. who saw something different he never
noticed it would not have looked real. In either cased it means the
shitverse wasn't a real universe, and that's why I called it the
shitverse, because it made no fucking sense whatsoever.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
We never even say how far this mirror universe even
Post by The True Doctor
extended to, or if it was even a proper universe at all. More bad writing.
We never saw how far the Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended
The Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended to the entire galaxy and beyond.
That's an assumption, it's not something we were ever told or shown.
Given that the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta quadrants were all included
that implies the entire galaxy is part of it, as well as something
beyond it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
despite multiple visits. It wasn't relevant to the story any
more than it is here, so why does it matter?
The reason it matters here is because we don't see any further than
the log cabin and the forest and fjords, so it could only have
extend that far and no further, but then it wouldn't really have
been a proper universe observing real laws of physics, and which
did the shitverse do about all the other people living on Earth?
Did it recreate them too?
A small universe is still a universe. This one was frog-sized.
It wasn't a real universe. What did the shitverse Earth rotate around?
How did gravity keep everyone and the atmosphere in place if it only
extended to a forest in Norway?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much
mattered to the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than
'why doesn't she think it odd that she's never seen the
monster?'. But that doesn't make it a sexist or racist and I
still don't understand the connection.
Of course it makes it sexist and racist against blind people.
Blind people are neither a sex nor a race and the kid was
portrayed as a fairly typical if not especially bright kid. So
how could it possibly have been either?
She was a female and she was of the race of her father and mother.
So? She wasn't portrayed negatively, either as a character or because
she was either female or white, so how is that sexist or racist?
She was made to wear sunglasses indoors inside a cupboard. It's
pandering to ignorant sexist and racist stereotypes of blind people.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
And this Doctor, unlike Tennant, Smith or Capaldi, is the
former. Nothing she's done has been concerned with helping anyone
other than those she has it in her immediate power to help, and
nearly all the stories have been small-scale - a village in
Lancashire, a single kid in Norway, a single spacecraft crew, one
random individual being hunted by an alien in Sheffield. This is
far closer to the approach of classic Who than we've seen since
2005 (although Eccleston's Doctor was also mostly concerned with
what was immediately in front of him, what was immediately in
front of him was usually threatening > to destroy the entire
planet. Whittaker's Who is the first for
The real Doctor only got involved with anything that threatened to
destroy the entire planet. He didn't care or concern himself with
petty kitchen since dramas which were of no consequence like
Whittaker.
Make up your mind, Aggy - firstly you say he intervened in stories
like Marco Polo or The Sensorites, where no one threatened to destroy
any planets, because he happened to be in the area (just like
Whittaker), and now you say he decides to intervene only when the
universe is threatened (like a superhero), apparently simply because
Marco Polo was important to the history of Earth. A pair of Norwgen's in
a log cabin are not.

The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than James Bond or Sherlock Holmes
are.
Post by p***@conservation.org
it's the opposite of what Whittaker happens to be doing at any given
moment. No matter what Whittaker's Doctor does, apparently it's
always the reverse of what the male (which of course is what you mean
by 'real') Doctors do.
Whittaker is behaving like a demented old bat that's escaped from a
lunatic asylum. She isn't the Doctor.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
decades in which, if she were to fail, there wouldn't really be
any consequences for more than a couple of people).
So nothing to do with real Doctor Who then.
No, just like Hartnell had nothing to do with real Dr Who.
Hartnell was real Doctor Who.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been
treated as,
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than John Steed is or
James Bond or Sherlock Holmes.
Tell that to Moffatt and RTD, or the later writers of the
original series.
Post by The True Doctor
effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and
this very story has a character ripped from Marvel as its
'villain'.
And that is exactly who has been wrong with the last 3 series.
More than the last three, but why single this one out when it's
much less of a superhero show than it was back then? Your
unreasoning,
Because at least Capaldi could act and had a character. All
Whittaker ever does is point her dildo at everything and pull shit
out of her arse in order to explain everything. She's not even two
dimensional, let alone three.
You keep saying Whittaker can't act but never explain what gives that
impression. She's meant to be playing the Doctor and is playing the
Doctor - by definition that is acting. I know nothing about her and
It's not good acting. Whittaker has not gravitas, no air of authority,
no charisma, no commanding presence, no ability to convey being
knowledgeable, and no ability to communicate clearly. She sounds like an
idiot, and all she does is point her dildo at everything like a gun, and
then pull crap out of her arse, and bully and threaten people and look
weak and like a fraud. That is not the Doctor!
Post by p***@conservation.org
haven't seen her in anything else, so don't know how similar that is
to her real personality or anything else she's done, so I'm not sure
The only characters she has ever played in her entire career is
hysterical northern woman. She was only cast because of nepotism by
Chibnall and is totally unsuitable to play the role.
Post by p***@conservation.org
why you're so insistent she can't act. As I say, she seems to be
basically a role-filler - she's there in the part but isn't doing
anything special or memorable with it.
Because she's a useless actress.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
seemingly sexism-driven hatred of this season makes no sense when the
Yes, the show is sexist and that is a good enough reason to hate it.
You have no comprehension of the English language.
You are the one who has no comprehension as I showed you earlier when
you didn't understand the difference between misandrous and misandristic.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
very things you complain about are things Who has been guiltier
of in the past than it is now, including in the classic series.
I don't even know why you hail an imagined ideal of Dr Who as
something to aspire to. The series is entertaining, but it's
always been a children's fantasy show with bad continuity, gaping
plot
The continuity was perfectly good enough before Moffat and
Chibnall fucked it up in their own stories.
No, it made no sense whatsoever, and not just because of 'half human' retcons.
There was no problem with continuity until Moffat and Chibnall totally
fucked it up.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
holes, and in the classic era mostly poor characterisation, weak
Wrong. The classic era was full of characterization. Characters
changed and developed.
Which ones? Certainly not Ian, Barbara or Susan in the original
Yes Ian, Barbera, and Susan. They were proper characters who changed
through the course of their adventures, not soap opera stereotypes. Read
the Target novelization of The Crusaders by David Whittaker (hopefully
no relation to Witless).
Post by p***@conservation.org
series. Not 'I have to learn the same lesson every week because it
never sticks' Leela. Not Romana. Not the one-dimensional pantomime
villains Davros or The Master. Emphatically not any incarnation of
The Doctor.
Nonsense.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
scripts, terrible acting and questionable 'moral messages' - a black
Terrible acting? The most terrible acting is that of Whittaker
herself, who is totally unsuitable for the role.
Adric. Mel. Peri. Need I go on? You only need to listen to the
current crop of Colin Baker or McCoy audios to realise just how badly
they performed the same roles in the '80s.
Adric, Peri, and even Mel were a thousand times better actors than
Whittaker.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
character notoriously acting as a slave in Tomb of the Cybermen,
for instance, or the endlessly lampooned
screaming-women-in-danger trope.
There's nothing wrong with a woman screening when she is in
danger.
Not when it's a natural reaction and men react similarly
appropriately. When it's just women screaming week after week it's a
different story.
Given that the woman was under threat from an alien menace, then it's
perfectly natural for her to scream, unless of course screaming would
alert it to come nearer.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
For most of the world Dr Who is a disposable weekly show - what
it has never been is an example of high quality, except in a
small number of mostly post-2005 cases.
The quality was in the classic series not in the new one.
Neither is high quality, just entertaining to watch (at least
ideally).
The crap shat out in the last 3 series was no entertaining, and the last
series the least entertaining of all.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
were better characters than Ryan and Yaz, to be sure, and Matt
Smith was probably a better Doctor than Whittaker, but the
episodes were both forgettable and often overblown with
preposterous superheroics, there were no memorable guest stars
and few memorable scripts, and Moffatt was bad at basically
everything a director needs to be good at, as well as insisting
on writing too many of his own stories - which were mostly just
retreads of the same one with the same plotholes and focus on
action and chases over any kind of logical story progression.
Moffat was fine until the end of series 8 when he turned the Master
into a woman and jumped on the sexist and racist PC bandwagon for
series 9 and 10.
You're focusing on the wrong thing once more. Missy was a bad and
badly-written character - not because she was female, but because
Moffatt simply couldn't write the Master. He wrote the character
badly for John Simm as well. It was just par for the course for
Moffatt - a writer who excelled at action scenes regardless of
whether they made the slightest bit of narrative sense (for instance,
The Empty Child was hailed as a classic despite the fact that the
entirety of the second episode is predicated on something that makes
no internal sense whatsoever - the child, it was established, was
trying to chase its mother, and yet for the whole of the second
episode it was chasing the Doctor and co. whether or not the mother
was with them), but who as a director consistently helmed mediocre
casting decisions and showed very little talent for writing
interesting characters. He couldn't even get the Master right, and
the Master is just a pantomime villain.
The Master became a pantomime villain when he was regenerated into a
woman. Jon Simm did a much better job at playing him under Moffat
because he was a man and the character of the Master is that of a man.
If Moffat wanted a female equivalent he should have brought back the Rani.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
If it's a pervert then it must be treated like on. Whittaker
cannot go befriending it.
It was a ruse to let her escape. Her last lines about it were
"Not sure if it survived or not - oh well". Not exactly a sign
she much
Her last lines about it were that she made a new friend of it.
See the line I wrote afterwards. She didn't treat it as a friend -
what she said was immaterial.
She said, I made a friend. So the pervert has become her friend now.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Of all the people in
Post by The True Doctor
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who
has lost his wife, to prey on?
It wanted company and the man losing his wife gave it an
opportunity for it to create a lure. This was explained in
the episode.
No it wasn't. Why that man?
You could ask that about practically any character who's the
subject of alien interest in any episode of Dr Who. The story has
to involve someone.
Then why him and not the Prime Minster?
Why should it be the Prime Minister (of where? Norway?)? It wasn't
interested in taking over Norway, or anywhere else.
Because the Prime Minister is important. You can't have one going
missing. That's the whole point of drama. No one cares about a man going
missing from a log cabin in the middle of nowhere. That's why Euripides
was criticized by the people of Athens and his predecessors regarded as
better playwrights because he dressed up kings like commoners, and
portrayed them as peasants. Oh, and most of all, because he wrote too
many plays about women.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
What was it fleeing from anyway? Where did it come from?
Those were both explained in the story. It wasn't fleeing, it
was closed off because it was incompatible with the laws of our
universe, and it emerged spontaneously.
Is that supposed to make any sense? How can physics be incompatible
with physics?
Quite easily. Antimatter can't survive naturally alongside matter,
but both emerge from the same physics. There are numerous constants
whose values could change and be consistent with physics, but which
if they did couldn't result in a life-supporting universe. It seems
the consciousness was basically a constant that isn't compatible with
our universe.
POPPYCOCK! All the constants in our universe are compatible with our
universe, because that's what it's based on; as are all forms of matter
and anti matter that exist or can come into being in it, otherwise they
wouldn't exist or come into being. Nothing can exist, be created, or
come into being in our universe without complying with the laws of
physics in our universe. So where did the shitverse come from and what
exactly is it? The explanation were were given was pure bullshit.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
This is worse.
No, it isn't. Simply not having the dire guest actor masquerading
as a pregnant man makes it better, and then there's the fact that
it doesn't confuse Nibbler from Futurama with a Dr Who monster.
Or all the other atrocious things about that episode, which is
most of them.
Have you forgotten the TALKING FROG!!!!!???? THE FUCKING TALKING FROG!
There are plenty of classic fairy tales involving talking frogs. Not
so many involving Nibbler from Futurama dressed up like a cross
between a tardigrade and an Adipose.
Doctor Who is not a fucking fairy tale. It's supposed to be science
fiction, not pure fantasy.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Given that Doctor Who was moved to a day where there is not
competition on the other side and jammed between the BBC
highest rating programmed on that day, which was not the case
during Capaldi's tenure, the viewing figures are actually worse
than they look. If this episode had been on a Saturday it would
have only manage 3 million viewers and not the 5 million it
actually got, the lowest in the series so far.
Whether this is true or not it's irrelevant, since Dr Who has
had this timeslot for the entire year. The figures for this
episode aren't any worse relative to the timeslot than those for
any of the year's other episodes.
This episode is down 3.2 million, or almost half, on the premier.
But only 0.6 million on the previous episode - the slump happened before this episode.
It's be biggest percentage slump in ratings of the entire season.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once
again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but
"misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or
not.
Why not just use the existing word that serves the same
purpose?
You still don't understand English do you?
Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out
misandry, in the same way as misogynous is being in the state
of wanting to carry out misogyny. Misandristic means to be
actually carrying out misandry, just like misogynistic means to
be carrying out misogyny. Therefore the right word to use is
misandristic.
"Misandristic" is never the right word to use for the simple
reason that, outside your posts, the word doesn't actually
exist.
Wrong! You need to learn how to comprehend English properly.
Misogyny is the state of disliking women. There is no distinction
between wanting to dislike women and actually doing so, any more than
there is a word like 'racous' for someone who 'wants to be racist'.
"Misogynistic" is the adjective for a person or act that exhibits
misogyny. A person who meets this criterion, like you, is a
"misogynist". There is no such word as "misogynous".
Totally wrong. You have no accurate conception of English grammar, or
grammar of any language. It's too bad a classical education went out of
the window when the bigoted and chauvinistic ideology of political
correctness came along, because then you might have understood.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Misandry is the state of disliking men. There is no distinction
between wanting to dislike men and actually doing so,any more than
WRONG!
Post by p***@conservation.org
there is a word like 'racous' for someone who 'wants to be racist'.
"Misandrous" is the adjective for a person or act that exhibits
misandry. A person who meets this criterion, as you claim Chibnall
is, is a "misandrist".There is no such word as "misandristic".
WRONG!

Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out misandry.

Misandristic means to be actually carrying out misandry.

You really aught to read Plato and start thinking.

And the word is "racious", not "racous", and means exactly that, to want
to be racist. Wanting to be racist is not a crime, but actually being
racist, is. People have the right to freedom of thought, which is
something that political correctness, and the loony left does not
belived in.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
historically for character development. It's gone for 50
years without giving its lead character any real motivation
and the only way it portrays changes in the character's
personality is by changing the actor.
Hartnell and Troughton's motivation was running away from the
Time Lords.
As Iggy liked to loudly complain, there was no such thing as
Time Lords in Hartnell's era. And running away is no motivation
for getting involved in other people's business.
Hartnell never wanted to get involved in other people's business.
Watch the first serial.
Watch all of the others. That never actually stopped him - and
whether he was just looking out for himself and his companions or
trying to save the universe was a personality trait that shifted from
week to week depending on the needs of the plot. He didn't need to
get involved to save history from the Monk, for instance. The notion
that there was any real consistency to the character owes more to
Iggy's rants than the series.
The Monk changing history would have changed his companions fates and
that of the Doctor if he hadn't have intervened, given that it would
have led to a different 1963.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Petrtwee's was fixing the TARDIS so he could go exploring.
which he spent remarkably little time doing while busily hunting
alien threats, but I'd agree that this was the one era where the
character actually had a meaningful general motivation.
He was employed by UNIT to advise them on alien threats.
'Saving the world from while they look on' is a strange definition of 'advice'.
He was given a job by UNIT in return for assistance in getting his
TARDIS working, so he did it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Tom
Post by The True Doctor
Bakers was to go exploring. Davison was soap opera, so I'll
give you that. Colin Baker wanted to kill Peri which
effectively killed the show off, and Sylvester McCoy went
around being manipulative. McGann's character was being lined
up to be some sort of romantic poet like Byron exploring the
wonders of the universe before Professor Brian Cox even took
his PhD.
Which basically boils down to what I said - the series has
historically had no concept of character development beyond
changing actors.
Wrong. You saw Leela being educated by the Doctor throughout her
time as companion.
Leela had Data syndrome. She needed to be told the same thing every
time it became relevant to the plot - the character herself never
actually exhibited any development, just as Data had to be repeatedly
taught the same 'how to be human' lesson every few weeks in TNG.
But their characters still developed and they actual had characters and
something meaningful was done with them, unlike the soap opera rejects
in this series.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Even if one accepts your ludicrous interpretation, it was
abandoned and completely cut off from the universe and quite
possibly destroyed in the process. How is that not punishment
for an entity whose entire motivation was trying to obtain
company?
Whittaker should have left it and not made friends with it.
She was stuck in its universe - that was the only way she could have left it.
How could she be stuck when she managed to get back out in the end?
She persuaded it to kick her own with its magic frog foot.
A sentence which in itself suggests you're taking this episode much
more seriously than it deserves.
It should never have been written. Chibnall should never have been made
showrunner, and Whittaker should never have been cast as the Doctor.
The Doctor
2018-12-04 21:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:35:38 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:35:43 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with
anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see
the TVM) and one mother (as seen in The End of Time), so
where do seven grandmothers come from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The
question is, how on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
It's pandering to a feminist agenda, and feminism is a form of
chauvinistic bigotry against men.
I must have missed the bit of the feminist agenda that demands excess grandparents.
Grandmothers.
Who are grandparents. We don't know how many grandfathers the Doctor had.
In the context of Chibnall's bigoted female chauvinistic agenda the
remark was sexist and demeaning towards men, implying that they have not
right to grandfathers or male role models, after Chibnall has already
taken one away from them.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
The TVM clearly states the Doctor had a father, not fathers,
The TVM didn't think to suggest the Doctor may have had more than
one (and we don't know he did). Stating that he had a father
isn't incompatible with later writers deciding that that was one
of several fathers - especially as the Doctor was talking to
humans and so describing his relationships in terms familiar to
them. Why would he have said "One of my fathers" when "my father"
would suffice?
This is your problem Aggy, you never think things through
logically.
You are the one not thinking things out logically.
The TVM established that the Doctor's mother was human.
Which was a retcon which has since been reversed officially, I
It was never reversed.
Post by p***@conservation.org
believe. Even if it were accepted, he could have had multiple mothers
one of whom was human - that might even be an elegant way to get away
from the 'half-human' thing.
A human woman would have never agreed to her husband/partner mating with
other women than her.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
The Doctor was not raised in a commune. But of course given
that Chibnall is raving mad left-winger, you can see that he
supports communism.
The name 'communism' is derived from 'commune', not the other
way round. Communes don't in any way imply communism - Israel is
hardly communist, but has a commune tradition, the kibbutz. So
all your fantasy ravings below are of no relevance.
Chibnall supports the loony left which makes him a commie.
I've no idea if he does or not, but the 'loony left' in the UK hasn't
had anything to do with communism for years. People like Corbyn have
no interest at all in who controls the means of production, which is
the essence of communism.
Corbyn is a supporter of Putin who failed to condemn him for the
Salisbury poisonings.
The essence of communism is State Capitalism, and that is what Corbyn
hopes to achieve by nationalizing everything.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Having the
Post by The True Doctor
Doctor being brought up in a commune is Chibnall's attempt to
indoctrinate people into accepting eventual communist rule by Russia.
a) It's not Chibnall's attempt to do anything. No one's said the
Doctor was raised in a commune - you asked where multiple
grandparents could have come from and I pointed out that a different
series had given its lead character a backstory where he was raised
in a commune by eight genetic parents. I suggested that it was
consequently possible to imagine that one of the Doctor's *parents*
(not the Doctor) could have been raised that way if you wanted to
take the comment seriously.
The TVM and The End of Time preclude multiple parentage.
Post by p***@conservation.org
b) the script didn't intend the comment to be taken seriously, it was a throwaway joke.
It was offensive.
Post by p***@conservation.org
c) None of this has anything to do with Russia/
d) Russia is not in any sense communist.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Oh, yes... Ryan whose father left him. This shows Chibnall's
clear prejudice against men and two parent nuclear families.
No, it shows a pandering to stereotypes about black people with
absent fathers. It's been pointed out that every significant
black character in Dr Who since 2005 has come from a family with
an absent father.
So Chibnall is being racist like I said, as well as being sexist.
No moreso than Moffatt or RTD whose black characters had a similar
background. The treatment of those characters makes it pretty clear
that none of these people are actively racist, they're just falling
back on stereotypes possibly for an American market (I don't actually
know whether there even are stereotypes about black single mothers in
the UK, but there are in the US).
They are being racist not only against black people but against white
people too. That is why the BBC is institutionally racist, because it
thinks two wrongs make a right; being racist against white people to
cancel out it being racist against black people. What it should be doing
instead is allowing black writers and producers to produce their own
programmes for black people, and leaving its racist agenda out of
programmes like Doctor Who whose audience are predominantly white.
You can see the BBC's racism in full force in Troy: Fall of a City which
had no Greek actors in any of the leading roles, and instead cased black
actors to play Greeks who are described by Homer as being blond.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Also, RTD particularly had a thing about families without both
parents - Rose didn't have a father either.
That's the perversion of the loony left for you.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Not that Cybermen are in any way reliant on personal
characteristics to be warriors - all they need to do is fire
randomly into the air while things explode around them, and
sometimes touch people.
Really. Is that what the taught you when you did your national service?
National service doesn't exist in the UK, Aggy.
It was a joke.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Fire randomly into the air while things explode around you? Don't
make me laugh.
I said that that's all Cybermen need to do. They could take lessons
in accuracy from Imperial Stormtroopers. The point being, Cybermen
have always been terrible soldiers.
All the more reason why not to have women in their ranks.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Granny 5 told her, as you'd have recalled if you hadn't been too
busy frothing at the mouth at the idea of 7 grannies.
This show gets more and more ridiculous every episode. The Doctor
know nothing about other life in the universe when he fled from
Gallifrey with Susan. Absolutely nothing; not even about Daleks or
Cybermen.
That was hundreds of years ago in in-universe time, Aggy. You'd
expect the Doctor to have learned a few things since. It's also not
incompatible with being told bedtime stories about other things in
the universe.
What you expect is for the Doctor to only know what we've seen him
learning, given that it was established that he knew nothing from the
beginning. You don't expect Whittaker to keep pulling crap out of her
arse and pointing her dildo all over the place like a gun worse than K9
and his blaster.
Post by p***@conservation.org
We don't know anything about any real alien life in our universe, but
that doesn't mean we haven't heard stories about Klingons.
Klingons are not real. It has been established that the Time Lords knew
practically nothing of life outside of Gallifrey, which was the Doctors
main motivation for leaving. There was no Time Lord National Geographic
channel to tell stories about alien life.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
These are 45 minute episodes. Story development hasn't been a
part of the series since 2005 outside two-parters, and there have
been none of those this year.
If Star Trek can develop a story in 45 minutes then so can Doctor
Who. The fact that it can't tell you that the writers are crap.
And? It may have escaped your notice, but neither I or anyone else
has suggested this season is good. It just isn't bad for the reasons
you claim it is.
It is bad for exactly the reasons I say. Any decent writer can write a
proper story lasting 45 minutes. The writers on Doctor Who can't. They
are shit writers and the reason why they can't writer a 45 minutes story
is because all they have ever written is mind numbing plot-less soap
opera, and not science fiction. Instead of showing plot and story
exposition, all they write is irreverent kitchen sink dialogue, and then
pull made up facts out of Whittaker's arse, which prevents any sort of
meaningful characterization or character development whatsoever, which
is achieved by showing experiences as they happen, not by inserting a
pair of stereotypes, saying that they are in lover, expecting the
audience to care for them (see Perverts of the Punjab). The audience
won't give a fuck because they have not been what they characters are
not showing going though with the characters. It's like watching the
final minutes of Romeo and Juliet and being expected to give a damn,
without knowing what it was all about.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
It probably read their minds, but it's clearly obvious bad
writing to have to rely on the viewer to come up with an
explanation, which is the writer's job to do.
And yet in what was supposed to be a critical review you utterly
failed to notice this major plothole until it was brought to
your attention, fantasising over a whole bunch of invented
conspiracies instead of any of the multiple actual plot
problems.
The 'plot hole' was so obvious that it wasn't worth mentioning,
That's never stopped you before.
and
Post by The True Doctor
wasn't the biggest problem with the episode, given that the
shitverse was capable of creating anything in our universe with
little effort.
Well done, Aggy. See? When led to a problem you show some ability to
think it through - though if you accept the 'read his mind' idea, you
can always imagine that it read Erik's mind in order to recreate his
house.
His house would have only looked real to him if it was based on reading
his mind. To Whittaker and co. who saw something different he never
noticed it would not have looked real. In either cased it means the
shitverse wasn't a real universe, and that's why I called it the
shitverse, because it made no fucking sense whatsoever.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
We never even say how far this mirror universe even
Post by The True Doctor
extended to, or if it was even a proper universe at all. More bad writing.
We never saw how far the Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended
The Mirror Universe in Star Trek extended to the entire galaxy and beyond.
That's an assumption, it's not something we were ever told or shown.
Given that the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta quadrants were all included
that implies the entire galaxy is part of it, as well as something
beyond it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
despite multiple visits. It wasn't relevant to the story any
more than it is here, so why does it matter?
The reason it matters here is because we don't see any further than
the log cabin and the forest and fjords, so it could only have
extend that far and no further, but then it wouldn't really have
been a proper universe observing real laws of physics, and which
did the shitverse do about all the other people living on Earth?
Did it recreate them too?
A small universe is still a universe. This one was frog-sized.
It wasn't a real universe. What did the shitverse Earth rotate around?
How did gravity keep everyone and the atmosphere in place if it only
extended to a forest in Norway?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much
mattered to the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than
'why doesn't she think it odd that she's never seen the
monster?'. But that doesn't make it a sexist or racist and I
still don't understand the connection.
Of course it makes it sexist and racist against blind people.
Blind people are neither a sex nor a race and the kid was
portrayed as a fairly typical if not especially bright kid. So
how could it possibly have been either?
She was a female and she was of the race of her father and mother.
So? She wasn't portrayed negatively, either as a character or because
she was either female or white, so how is that sexist or racist?
She was made to wear sunglasses indoors inside a cupboard. It's
pandering to ignorant sexist and racist stereotypes of blind people.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
And this Doctor, unlike Tennant, Smith or Capaldi, is the
former. Nothing she's done has been concerned with helping anyone
other than those she has it in her immediate power to help, and
nearly all the stories have been small-scale - a village in
Lancashire, a single kid in Norway, a single spacecraft crew, one
random individual being hunted by an alien in Sheffield. This is
far closer to the approach of classic Who than we've seen since
2005 (although Eccleston's Doctor was also mostly concerned with
what was immediately in front of him, what was immediately in
front of him was usually threatening > to destroy the entire
planet. Whittaker's Who is the first for
The real Doctor only got involved with anything that threatened to
destroy the entire planet. He didn't care or concern himself with
petty kitchen since dramas which were of no consequence like
Whittaker.
Make up your mind, Aggy - firstly you say he intervened in stories
like Marco Polo or The Sensorites, where no one threatened to destroy
any planets, because he happened to be in the area (just like
Whittaker), and now you say he decides to intervene only when the
universe is threatened (like a superhero), apparently simply because
Marco Polo was important to the history of Earth. A pair of Norwgen's in
a log cabin are not.
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than James Bond or Sherlock Holmes
are.
Post by p***@conservation.org
it's the opposite of what Whittaker happens to be doing at any given
moment. No matter what Whittaker's Doctor does, apparently it's
always the reverse of what the male (which of course is what you mean
by 'real') Doctors do.
Whittaker is behaving like a demented old bat that's escaped from a
lunatic asylum. She isn't the Doctor.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
decades in which, if she were to fail, there wouldn't really be
any consequences for more than a couple of people).
So nothing to do with real Doctor Who then.
No, just like Hartnell had nothing to do with real Dr Who.
Hartnell was real Doctor Who.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been
treated as,
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than John Steed is or
James Bond or Sherlock Holmes.
Tell that to Moffatt and RTD, or the later writers of the
original series.
Post by The True Doctor
effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and
this very story has a character ripped from Marvel as its
'villain'.
And that is exactly who has been wrong with the last 3 series.
More than the last three, but why single this one out when it's
much less of a superhero show than it was back then? Your
unreasoning,
Because at least Capaldi could act and had a character. All
Whittaker ever does is point her dildo at everything and pull shit
out of her arse in order to explain everything. She's not even two
dimensional, let alone three.
You keep saying Whittaker can't act but never explain what gives that
impression. She's meant to be playing the Doctor and is playing the
Doctor - by definition that is acting. I know nothing about her and
It's not good acting. Whittaker has not gravitas, no air of authority,
no charisma, no commanding presence, no ability to convey being
knowledgeable, and no ability to communicate clearly. She sounds like an
idiot, and all she does is point her dildo at everything like a gun, and
then pull crap out of her arse, and bully and threaten people and look
weak and like a fraud. That is not the Doctor!
Post by p***@conservation.org
haven't seen her in anything else, so don't know how similar that is
to her real personality or anything else she's done, so I'm not sure
The only characters she has ever played in her entire career is
hysterical northern woman. She was only cast because of nepotism by
Chibnall and is totally unsuitable to play the role.
Post by p***@conservation.org
why you're so insistent she can't act. As I say, she seems to be
basically a role-filler - she's there in the part but isn't doing
anything special or memorable with it.
Because she's a useless actress.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
seemingly sexism-driven hatred of this season makes no sense when the
Yes, the show is sexist and that is a good enough reason to hate it.
You have no comprehension of the English language.
You are the one who has no comprehension as I showed you earlier when
you didn't understand the difference between misandrous and misandristic.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
very things you complain about are things Who has been guiltier
of in the past than it is now, including in the classic series.
I don't even know why you hail an imagined ideal of Dr Who as
something to aspire to. The series is entertaining, but it's
always been a children's fantasy show with bad continuity, gaping
plot
The continuity was perfectly good enough before Moffat and
Chibnall fucked it up in their own stories.
No, it made no sense whatsoever, and not just because of 'half human' retcons.
There was no problem with continuity until Moffat and Chibnall totally
fucked it up.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
holes, and in the classic era mostly poor characterisation, weak
Wrong. The classic era was full of characterization. Characters
changed and developed.
Which ones? Certainly not Ian, Barbara or Susan in the original
Yes Ian, Barbera, and Susan. They were proper characters who changed
through the course of their adventures, not soap opera stereotypes. Read
the Target novelization of The Crusaders by David Whittaker (hopefully
no relation to Witless).
Post by p***@conservation.org
series. Not 'I have to learn the same lesson every week because it
never sticks' Leela. Not Romana. Not the one-dimensional pantomime
villains Davros or The Master. Emphatically not any incarnation of
The Doctor.
Nonsense.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
scripts, terrible acting and questionable 'moral messages' - a black
Terrible acting? The most terrible acting is that of Whittaker
herself, who is totally unsuitable for the role.
Adric. Mel. Peri. Need I go on? You only need to listen to the
current crop of Colin Baker or McCoy audios to realise just how badly
they performed the same roles in the '80s.
Adric, Peri, and even Mel were a thousand times better actors than
Whittaker.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
character notoriously acting as a slave in Tomb of the Cybermen,
for instance, or the endlessly lampooned
screaming-women-in-danger trope.
There's nothing wrong with a woman screening when she is in
danger.
Not when it's a natural reaction and men react similarly
appropriately. When it's just women screaming week after week it's a
different story.
Given that the woman was under threat from an alien menace, then it's
perfectly natural for her to scream, unless of course screaming would
alert it to come nearer.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
For most of the world Dr Who is a disposable weekly show - what
it has never been is an example of high quality, except in a
small number of mostly post-2005 cases.
The quality was in the classic series not in the new one.
Neither is high quality, just entertaining to watch (at least
ideally).
The crap shat out in the last 3 series was no entertaining, and the last
series the least entertaining of all.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
were better characters than Ryan and Yaz, to be sure, and Matt
Smith was probably a better Doctor than Whittaker, but the
episodes were both forgettable and often overblown with
preposterous superheroics, there were no memorable guest stars
and few memorable scripts, and Moffatt was bad at basically
everything a director needs to be good at, as well as insisting
on writing too many of his own stories - which were mostly just
retreads of the same one with the same plotholes and focus on
action and chases over any kind of logical story progression.
Moffat was fine until the end of series 8 when he turned the Master
into a woman and jumped on the sexist and racist PC bandwagon for
series 9 and 10.
You're focusing on the wrong thing once more. Missy was a bad and
badly-written character - not because she was female, but because
Moffatt simply couldn't write the Master. He wrote the character
badly for John Simm as well. It was just par for the course for
Moffatt - a writer who excelled at action scenes regardless of
whether they made the slightest bit of narrative sense (for instance,
The Empty Child was hailed as a classic despite the fact that the
entirety of the second episode is predicated on something that makes
no internal sense whatsoever - the child, it was established, was
trying to chase its mother, and yet for the whole of the second
episode it was chasing the Doctor and co. whether or not the mother
was with them), but who as a director consistently helmed mediocre
casting decisions and showed very little talent for writing
interesting characters. He couldn't even get the Master right, and
the Master is just a pantomime villain.
The Master became a pantomime villain when he was regenerated into a
woman. Jon Simm did a much better job at playing him under Moffat
because he was a man and the character of the Master is that of a man.
If Moffat wanted a female equivalent he should have brought back the Rani.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
If it's a pervert then it must be treated like on. Whittaker
cannot go befriending it.
It was a ruse to let her escape. Her last lines about it were
"Not sure if it survived or not - oh well". Not exactly a sign
she much
Her last lines about it were that she made a new friend of it.
See the line I wrote afterwards. She didn't treat it as a friend -
what she said was immaterial.
She said, I made a friend. So the pervert has become her friend now.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Of all the people in
Post by The True Doctor
creation, why has it picked on a poor Norwegian father who
has lost his wife, to prey on?
It wanted company and the man losing his wife gave it an
opportunity for it to create a lure. This was explained in
the episode.
No it wasn't. Why that man?
You could ask that about practically any character who's the
subject of alien interest in any episode of Dr Who. The story has
to involve someone.
Then why him and not the Prime Minster?
Why should it be the Prime Minister (of where? Norway?)? It wasn't
interested in taking over Norway, or anywhere else.
Because the Prime Minister is important. You can't have one going
missing. That's the whole point of drama. No one cares about a man going
missing from a log cabin in the middle of nowhere. That's why Euripides
was criticized by the people of Athens and his predecessors regarded as
better playwrights because he dressed up kings like commoners, and
portrayed them as peasants. Oh, and most of all, because he wrote too
many plays about women.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
What was it fleeing from anyway? Where did it come from?
Those were both explained in the story. It wasn't fleeing, it
was closed off because it was incompatible with the laws of our
universe, and it emerged spontaneously.
Is that supposed to make any sense? How can physics be incompatible
with physics?
Quite easily. Antimatter can't survive naturally alongside matter,
but both emerge from the same physics. There are numerous constants
whose values could change and be consistent with physics, but which
if they did couldn't result in a life-supporting universe. It seems
the consciousness was basically a constant that isn't compatible with
our universe.
POPPYCOCK! All the constants in our universe are compatible with our
universe, because that's what it's based on; as are all forms of matter
and anti matter that exist or can come into being in it, otherwise they
wouldn't exist or come into being. Nothing can exist, be created, or
come into being in our universe without complying with the laws of
physics in our universe. So where did the shitverse come from and what
exactly is it? The explanation were were given was pure bullshit.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
This is worse.
No, it isn't. Simply not having the dire guest actor masquerading
as a pregnant man makes it better, and then there's the fact that
it doesn't confuse Nibbler from Futurama with a Dr Who monster.
Or all the other atrocious things about that episode, which is
most of them.
Have you forgotten the TALKING FROG!!!!!???? THE FUCKING TALKING FROG!
There are plenty of classic fairy tales involving talking frogs. Not
so many involving Nibbler from Futurama dressed up like a cross
between a tardigrade and an Adipose.
Doctor Who is not a fucking fairy tale. It's supposed to be science
fiction, not pure fantasy.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Given that Doctor Who was moved to a day where there is not
competition on the other side and jammed between the BBC
highest rating programmed on that day, which was not the case
during Capaldi's tenure, the viewing figures are actually worse
than they look. If this episode had been on a Saturday it would
have only manage 3 million viewers and not the 5 million it
actually got, the lowest in the series so far.
Whether this is true or not it's irrelevant, since Dr Who has
had this timeslot for the entire year. The figures for this
episode aren't any worse relative to the timeslot than those for
any of the year's other episodes.
This episode is down 3.2 million, or almost half, on the premier.
But only 0.6 million on the previous episode - the slump happened before this episode.
It's be biggest percentage slump in ratings of the entire season.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall's
Post by The True Doctor
sexist misandristic agenda rears its ugly head once
again.
Remember Aggy, "misandristic" is not a word but
"misandrous" is. Though
Misandristic, since I am using it, is a word; like it or
not.
Why not just use the existing word that serves the same
purpose?
You still don't understand English do you?
Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out
misandry, in the same way as misogynous is being in the state
of wanting to carry out misogyny. Misandristic means to be
actually carrying out misandry, just like misogynistic means to
be carrying out misogyny. Therefore the right word to use is
misandristic.
"Misandristic" is never the right word to use for the simple
reason that, outside your posts, the word doesn't actually
exist.
Wrong! You need to learn how to comprehend English properly.
Misogyny is the state of disliking women. There is no distinction
between wanting to dislike women and actually doing so, any more than
there is a word like 'racous' for someone who 'wants to be racist'.
"Misogynistic" is the adjective for a person or act that exhibits
misogyny. A person who meets this criterion, like you, is a
"misogynist". There is no such word as "misogynous".
Totally wrong. You have no accurate conception of English grammar, or
grammar of any language. It's too bad a classical education went out of
the window when the bigoted and chauvinistic ideology of political
correctness came along, because then you might have understood.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Misandry is the state of disliking men. There is no distinction
between wanting to dislike men and actually doing so,any more than
WRONG!
Post by p***@conservation.org
there is a word like 'racous' for someone who 'wants to be racist'.
"Misandrous" is the adjective for a person or act that exhibits
misandry. A person who meets this criterion, as you claim Chibnall
is, is a "misandrist".There is no such word as "misandristic".
WRONG!
Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out misandry.
Misandristic means to be actually carrying out misandry.
You really aught to read Plato and start thinking.
And the word is "racious", not "racous", and means exactly that, to want
to be racist. Wanting to be racist is not a crime, but actually being
racist, is. People have the right to freedom of thought, which is
something that political correctness, and the loony left does not
belived in.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
historically for character development. It's gone for 50
years without giving its lead character any real motivation
and the only way it portrays changes in the character's
personality is by changing the actor.
Hartnell and Troughton's motivation was running away from the
Time Lords.
As Iggy liked to loudly complain, there was no such thing as
Time Lords in Hartnell's era. And running away is no motivation
for getting involved in other people's business.
Hartnell never wanted to get involved in other people's business.
Watch the first serial.
Watch all of the others. That never actually stopped him - and
whether he was just looking out for himself and his companions or
trying to save the universe was a personality trait that shifted from
week to week depending on the needs of the plot. He didn't need to
get involved to save history from the Monk, for instance. The notion
that there was any real consistency to the character owes more to
Iggy's rants than the series.
The Monk changing history would have changed his companions fates and
that of the Doctor if he hadn't have intervened, given that it would
have led to a different 1963.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Petrtwee's was fixing the TARDIS so he could go exploring.
which he spent remarkably little time doing while busily hunting
alien threats, but I'd agree that this was the one era where the
character actually had a meaningful general motivation.
He was employed by UNIT to advise them on alien threats.
'Saving the world from while they look on' is a strange definition of 'advice'.
He was given a job by UNIT in return for assistance in getting his
TARDIS working, so he did it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Tom
Post by The True Doctor
Bakers was to go exploring. Davison was soap opera, so I'll
give you that. Colin Baker wanted to kill Peri which
effectively killed the show off, and Sylvester McCoy went
around being manipulative. McGann's character was being lined
up to be some sort of romantic poet like Byron exploring the
wonders of the universe before Professor Brian Cox even took
his PhD.
Which basically boils down to what I said - the series has
historically had no concept of character development beyond
changing actors.
Wrong. You saw Leela being educated by the Doctor throughout her
time as companion.
Leela had Data syndrome. She needed to be told the same thing every
time it became relevant to the plot - the character herself never
actually exhibited any development, just as Data had to be repeatedly
taught the same 'how to be human' lesson every few weeks in TNG.
But their characters still developed and they actual had characters and
something meaningful was done with them, unlike the soap opera rejects
in this series.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Even if one accepts your ludicrous interpretation, it was
abandoned and completely cut off from the universe and quite
possibly destroyed in the process. How is that not punishment
for an entity whose entire motivation was trying to obtain
company?
Whittaker should have left it and not made friends with it.
She was stuck in its universe - that was the only way she could have left it.
How could she be stuck when she managed to get back out in the end?
She persuaded it to kick her own with its magic frog foot.
A sentence which in itself suggests you're taking this episode much
more seriously than it deserves.
It should never have been written. Chibnall should never have been made
showrunner, and Whittaker should never have been cast as the Doctor.
Some o the PC idiots do not want to get ti!! Tragic!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-04 23:46:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:35:38 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
Who episode of the season, that had nothing to do with
anything 'PC'. Do
Seven grandmothers? The Doctor only had one father (see
the TVM) and one mother (as seen in The End of Time), so
where do seven grandmothers come from?
A silly joke that's not meant to be overanalysed. The
question is, how on Earth does this become sexist or racist?
It's pandering to a feminist agenda, and feminism is a form of
chauvinistic bigotry against men.
I must have missed the bit of the feminist agenda that demands excess grandparents.
Grandmothers.
Who are grandparents. We don't know how many grandfathers the Doctor had.
In the context of Chibnall's bigoted female chauvinistic agenda the
remark was sexist and demeaning towards men, implying that they have not
right to grandfathers or male role models, after Chibnall has already
taken one away from them.
You mean like the grandfather who happens to be this year's primary companion (and I'd argue often seems to be the main star).
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
believe. Even if it were accepted, he could have had multiple mothers
one of whom was human - that might even be an elegant way to get away
from the 'half-human' thing.
A human woman would have never agreed to her husband/partner mating with
other women than her.
Plenty do in reality. Why wouldn't they in Dr Who?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Having the
Post by The True Doctor
Doctor being brought up in a commune is Chibnall's attempt to
indoctrinate people into accepting eventual communist rule by Russia.
a) It's not Chibnall's attempt to do anything. No one's said the
Doctor was raised in a commune - you asked where multiple
grandparents could have come from and I pointed out that a different
series had given its lead character a backstory where he was raised
in a commune by eight genetic parents. I suggested that it was
consequently possible to imagine that one of the Doctor's *parents*
(not the Doctor) could have been raised that way if you wanted to
take the comment seriously.
The TVM and The End of Time preclude multiple parentage.
No they don't, because the people writing them never thought to add any caveats to the effect "These are the only parents this character has". End of Time still appears to have nothing to do with anything as the character there wasn't confirmed to be his mother - and was a Time Lord in any case, so if she were his mother she wouldn't have been human.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
b) the script didn't intend the comment to be taken seriously, it was a throwaway joke.
It was offensive.
Aggies aren't a demographic the BBC is aware it needs to avoid offending, evidently. It wasn't offensive to anyone reasonable.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
No moreso than Moffatt or RTD whose black characters had a similar
background. The treatment of those characters makes it pretty clear
that none of these people are actively racist, they're just falling
back on stereotypes possibly for an American market (I don't actually
know whether there even are stereotypes about black single mothers in
the UK, but there are in the US).
They are being racist not only against black people but against white
people too. That is why the BBC is institutionally racist, because it
thinks two wrongs make a right; being racist against white people to
cancel out it being racist against black people.
There's no indication of any racism against white people any more than of racism other than crude stereotyping against black people.

What it should be doing
Post by The True Doctor
instead is allowing black writers and producers to produce their own
programmes for black people, and leaving its racist agenda out of
programmes like Doctor Who whose audience are predominantly white.
Segregation is not generally thought of as a non-discriminatory exercise.
Post by The True Doctor
You can see the BBC's racism in full force in Troy: Fall of a City which
had no Greek actors in any of the leading roles,
There have been a great many films and dramas about the Trojan War and classical Greece more generally. Very few produced in the US or UK have ever had Greek actors in the parts. Why is the BBC any more 'racist' (the correct term here is "xenophobic" if you believe it actually reflects aversion to Greeks) than, say, the Hollywood producers of Troy? Or than any other show that hires non-native actors to play any given nationality?

and instead cased black
Post by The True Doctor
actors to play Greeks who are described by Homer as being blond.
Not having seen the series I looked it up, and apparently this is done for two characters. One of those was Zeus. Even if you imagine Homer had some privileged ability to know what Achilles looked like, quite obviously he could have had no idea of the true appearance of a fictional character.

While it's a departure from the source material, every retelling of the Trojan War has departed from the source material. Why is having actors of a different skin colour any worse than removing the gods from the story, as most 20th Century adaptations did, which represents a far more substantive change to the actual narrative?

It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about characters' skin colour and ignoring other deviations that's a sign you're probably just a racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more faithful to Homer than most.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Granny 5 told her, as you'd have recalled if you hadn't been too
busy frothing at the mouth at the idea of 7 grannies.
This show gets more and more ridiculous every episode. The Doctor
know nothing about other life in the universe when he fled from
Gallifrey with Susan. Absolutely nothing; not even about Daleks or
Cybermen.
That was hundreds of years ago in in-universe time, Aggy. You'd
expect the Doctor to have learned a few things since. It's also not
incompatible with being told bedtime stories about other things in
the universe.
What you expect is for the Doctor to only know what we've seen him
learning, given that it was established that he knew nothing from the
beginning.
We haven't seen all, or probably most, of the adventures the Doctor has been on - simply in practical terms we haven't seen hundreds of years' worth of adventures and he probably doesn't time his adventures so that he goes on exactly one a week while the BBC camera crews are in town. That's why there are novels and audio dramas telling stories we've seen nothing of during the series.

The Doctor has always exhibited some knowledge of aliens we haven't seen on screen - why is it now an issue the very first time Whittaker has heard of the thing she's up against, and even then only as a bedtime story?

I've found it frustrating, on the contrary, that she's so far been completely ignorant of everything she's encountered, even though there have been multiple cases where you'd have expected her to have some idea: the race from the first episode was actively expansionist in its time, the Pting thing was well-known to the 26th Century humans, and the aliens last week were long trapped on a planet the Doctor's made a habit of protecting from alien threats.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
We don't know anything about any real alien life in our universe, but
that doesn't mean we haven't heard stories about Klingons.
Klingons are not real.
As far as the Doctor knew, nor was the Solitract.

It has been established that the Time Lords knew
Post by The True Doctor
practically nothing of life outside of Gallifrey, which was the Doctors
main motivation for leaving.
I'm not sure that that has been established; they were isolationist, not ignorant. But even if they were, the way the Doctor describes it the Solitract was a consequence of the birth of the universe rather than an alien entity to be discovered - like antimatter something they knew either did or could exist in principle, but not a stable life-supporting universe.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
These are 45 minute episodes. Story development hasn't been a
part of the series since 2005 outside two-parters, and there have
been none of those this year.
If Star Trek can develop a story in 45 minutes then so can Doctor
Who. The fact that it can't tell you that the writers are crap.
And? It may have escaped your notice, but neither I or anyone else
has suggested this season is good. It just isn't bad for the reasons
you claim it is.
It is bad for exactly the reasons I say. Any decent writer can write a
proper story lasting 45 minutes. The writers on Doctor Who can't.
The episodes have 'proper stories' insofar as they have a beginning, middle and end. What they aren't is heavy on exposition or characterisation.

which
Post by The True Doctor
is achieved by showing experiences as they happen, not by inserting a
pair of stereotypes, saying that they are in lover, expecting the
audience to care for them (see Perverts of the Punjab).
This frequently didn't happen in stories that had multiple 20-minute parts. There were endless cases of things happening off-screen to characters who'd come back and describe them to the Doctor and co., who were often trapped somewhere or in prison as a device to explain why we never got to see the action, and most of the characters were caricatures.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
No, she didn't need to be blind since none of that much
mattered to the plot and there were far bigger plotholes than
'why doesn't she think it odd that she's never seen the
monster?'. But that doesn't make it a sexist or racist and I
still don't understand the connection.
Of course it makes it sexist and racist against blind people.
Blind people are neither a sex nor a race and the kid was
portrayed as a fairly typical if not especially bright kid. So
how could it possibly have been either?
She was a female and she was of the race of her father and mother.
So? She wasn't portrayed negatively, either as a character or because
she was either female or white, so how is that sexist or racist?
She was made to wear sunglasses indoors inside a cupboard. It's
pandering to ignorant sexist and racist stereotypes of blind people.
I'm not aware there are any stereotypes regarding what blind people wear in cupboards.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
If so, Dr Who certainly qualifies. The Doctor has been
treated as,
The Doctor is not a superhero anymore than John Steed is or
James Bond or Sherlock Holmes.
Tell that to Moffatt and RTD, or the later writers of the
original series.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
effectively, a superhero in most recent incarnations, and
this very story has a character ripped from Marvel as its
'villain'.
And that is exactly who has been wrong with the last 3 series.
More than the last three, but why single this one out when it's
much less of a superhero show than it was back then? Your
unreasoning,
Because at least Capaldi could act and had a character. All
Whittaker ever does is point her dildo at everything and pull shit
out of her arse in order to explain everything. She's not even two
dimensional, let alone three.
You keep saying Whittaker can't act but never explain what gives that
impression. She's meant to be playing the Doctor and is playing the
Doctor - by definition that is acting. I know nothing about her and
It's not good acting. Whittaker has not gravitas, no air of authority,
no charisma, no commanding presence, no ability to convey being
knowledgeable, and no ability to communicate clearly.
It may surprise you, but I agree with most of this (I don't have any issue with her ability to communicate clearly), but at least in part I think she suffers from being cast alongside an older and more experienced - and yes, better - actor.

The script does her few favours as it often gives Graham more to do and a greater air of expertise, competence and authority. That she's closer in age to - and is portrayed goofing around with - the younger companions doesn't do much to dispel that impression.

This could simply be because the director is making use of the better actor, but it plays against expectations set by the series' history to have the Doctor overshadowed so frequently by one of her companions. While there have been past seasons that focused on the companion more than the Doctor, those have always shown the Doctor as the leader. That that isn't the case in Whittaker's season I think has at least as much to do with the casting and script around her than it does with her as an actress.

I also sense there's a deliberate effort to portray the character as more human than recent series which have rejoiced in showing off the Doctor as an alien. In general this is a direction I like, but in context given that Whittaker is not the natural leader of the group it does a lot to reduce her authority.

In short, Whittaker isn't a bad actor but the material she's given requires an actively good actor to let her shine, and she's only decent.

All that said, a major reason I described this as the most traditional episode of the year is that it does give Whittaker the leadership role for perhaps the first time and Graham, while still hogging much of the screentime, is portrayed as being much more out of his depth. Whittaker does a much better job at convincing me she's a Doctor in the mould of previous incarnations as a result.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
haven't seen her in anything else, so don't know how similar that is
to her real personality or anything else she's done, so I'm not sure
The only characters she has ever played in her entire career is
hysterical northern woman. She was only cast because of nepotism by
Chibnall and is totally unsuitable to play the role.
As I said, I see her as the Peter Davidson of the modern era. Listen to McCoy or Colin Baker now and, as you said, when given good material they can be actively good. Listen to Peter Davidson now and he's much the same as he always was, because he's an intrinsically mediocre actor whatever his material.

That doesn't mean he wasn't up to the part in his time, just that he wasn't anything special. I see exactly the same in Jodie Whittaker. Of all the actors to play the part since 2005, she's the most anonymous.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
very things you complain about are things Who has been guiltier
of in the past than it is now, including in the classic series.
I don't even know why you hail an imagined ideal of Dr Who as
something to aspire to. The series is entertaining, but it's
always been a children's fantasy show with bad continuity, gaping
plot
The continuity was perfectly good enough before Moffat and
Chibnall fucked it up in their own stories.
No, it made no sense whatsoever, and not just because of 'half human' retcons.
There was no problem with continuity until Moffat and Chibnall totally
fucked it up.
Really? How old was the Doctor again? Several thousand years (Doctor Who and the Silurians), 750 (Pyramids of Mars), 900 (Revelation of the Daleks)...?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
holes, and in the classic era mostly poor characterisation, weak
Wrong. The classic era was full of characterization. Characters
changed and developed.
Which ones? Certainly not Ian, Barbara or Susan in the original
Yes Ian, Barbera, and Susan. They were proper characters who changed
through the course of their adventures, not soap opera stereotypes. Read
the Target novelization of The Crusaders by David Whittaker (hopefully
no relation to Witless).
Susan in particular was a cardboard cutout of a teenager and never developed in the slightest during their adventures - fixing this in novels doesn't change the way she was portrayed on screen.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
scripts, terrible acting and questionable 'moral messages' - a black
Terrible acting? The most terrible acting is that of Whittaker
herself, who is totally unsuitable for the role.
Adric. Mel. Peri. Need I go on? You only need to listen to the
current crop of Colin Baker or McCoy audios to realise just how badly
they performed the same roles in the '80s.
Adric, Peri, and even Mel were a thousand times better actors than
Whittaker.
Maybe they were - unfortunately the actor and actresses playing them were all worse.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
character notoriously acting as a slave in Tomb of the Cybermen,
for instance, or the endlessly lampooned
screaming-women-in-danger trope.
There's nothing wrong with a woman screening when she is in
danger.
Not when it's a natural reaction and men react similarly
appropriately. When it's just women screaming week after week it's a
different story.
Given that the woman was under threat from an alien menace, then it's
perfectly natural for her to scream, unless of course screaming would
alert it to come nearer.
In the same situation it would be perfectly natural for a man to scream, and yet it was always only women screaming.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
For most of the world Dr Who is a disposable weekly show - what
it has never been is an example of high quality, except in a
small number of mostly post-2005 cases.
The quality was in the classic series not in the new one.
Neither is high quality, just entertaining to watch (at least ideally).
The crap shat out in the last 3 series was no entertaining, and the last
series the least entertaining of all.
Unfortunately you're mostly right - except for this season being the worst of the three. I don't even remember anything from the last two clearly except for something involving Cybermen and Bill.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Moffat was fine until the end of series 8 when he turned the Master
into a woman and jumped on the sexist and racist PC bandwagon for
series 9 and 10.
You're focusing on the wrong thing once more. Missy was a bad and
badly-written character - not because she was female, but because
Moffatt simply couldn't write the Master. He wrote the character
badly for John Simm as well. It was just par for the course for
Moffatt - a writer who excelled at action scenes regardless of
whether they made the slightest bit of narrative sense (for instance,
The Empty Child was hailed as a classic despite the fact that the
entirety of the second episode is predicated on something that makes
no internal sense whatsoever - the child, it was established, was
trying to chase its mother, and yet for the whole of the second
episode it was chasing the Doctor and co. whether or not the mother
was with them), but who as a director consistently helmed mediocre
casting decisions and showed very little talent for writing
interesting characters. He couldn't even get the Master right, and
the Master is just a pantomime villain.
The Master became a pantomime villain when he was regenerated into a
woman.
The Master was a pantomime villain before. If Missy had retained that she'd at least have been passable. Instead she was a sexist caricature, basically what you get if you take Mirror Universe Kira and remove anything resembling quality from the writing (I'd also say from the acting, but Nana Visitor already had that covered as she's one of the worst actors ever to have a leading role in a Star Trek series, which is saying something).

Jon Simm did a much better job at playing him under Moffat
Post by The True Doctor
because he was a man and the character of the Master is that of a man.
Once again your misognyny is blinding you to the real problem. A badly-written character doesn't magically become better-written because they're what you deem a more appropriate sex. I find the sex changes to Time Lords a silly idea as well, but not to the extent that it affects my judgment of whether or not the character is portrayed well.

We know Simm can play the Master well because he did so in the RTD era, and the Moffatt use of him was a travesty that completely went against the character's sole historical motivation - keeping himself alive at any cost - for no reason other than a pointless vendetta. There's always been scenery-chewing evil for the sake of scenery-chewing evil about the Master, but Moffatt made it the entire focus of the character without any meaningful motivation - in both the male and female versions.
Post by The True Doctor
If Moffat wanted a female equivalent he should have brought back the Rani.
He might as well have done since the character he ended up with wasn't the Master.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
See the line I wrote afterwards. She didn't treat it as a friend -
what she said was immaterial.
She said, I made a friend. So the pervert has become her friend now.
See above: "What she said was immaterial". If she's not treating it as a friend, it's not a friend. Simple as that. You don't express indifference over whether a friend is dead.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
No it wasn't. Why that man?
You could ask that about practically any character who's the
subject of alien interest in any episode of Dr Who. The story has
to involve someone.
Then why him and not the Prime Minster?
Why should it be the Prime Minister (of where? Norway?)? It wasn't
interested in taking over Norway, or anywhere else.
Because the Prime Minister is important. You can't have one going
missing. That's the whole point of drama. No one cares about a man going
missing from a log cabin in the middle of nowhere. That's why Euripides
was criticized by the people of Athens and his predecessors regarded as
better playwrights because he dressed up kings like commoners, and
portrayed them as peasants. Oh, and most of all, because he wrote too
many plays about women.
Oh, not this again. We are not in ancient Athens, in case you hadn't noticed. We're in an era where the proles make up the bulk of audiences for entertainment, and they enjoy seeing stories about random nobodies like themselves.

Cultural expectations change by society and through time. Shakespeare wrote plays about minor characters: no one in Measure for Measure was of any significance. Dickens and Jane Austen were entirely concerned with people who were completely irrelevant - for Dickens, the less important the better.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Quite easily. Antimatter can't survive naturally alongside matter,
but both emerge from the same physics. There are numerous constants
whose values could change and be consistent with physics, but which
if they did couldn't result in a life-supporting universe. It seems
the consciousness was basically a constant that isn't compatible with
our universe.
POPPYCOCK! All the constants in our universe are compatible with our
universe, because that's what it's based on
The specific values they have are - other ones are feasible. Obviously there are no constants in our universe that can't exist within it - that doesn't imply that other constants are a physical impossibility. Maybe one got hived off into another dimension separated by anti-space...

; as are all forms of matter
Post by The True Doctor
and anti matter that exist or can come into being in it, otherwise they
wouldn't exist or come into being. Nothing can exist, be created, or
come into being in our universe without complying with the laws of
physics in our universe.
No one said anything about not complying with the laws of physics - but the laws of physics allow many things that would lead to our universe being unable to support life.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
There are plenty of classic fairy tales involving talking frogs. Not
so many involving Nibbler from Futurama dressed up like a cross
between a tardigrade and an Adipose.
Doctor Who is not a fucking fairy tale. It's supposed to be science
fiction, not pure fantasy.
It's supposed to be Dr Who, which is as close to pure fantasy as makes no difference. It's never been a series that sticks rigidly to a specific genre label - genres are descriptive, not prescriptive. You can say "Dr Who is sci-fi because it has feature X", but not "Dr Who can't have feature Y because then it wouldn't be sci-fi".
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
This episode is down 3.2 million, or almost half, on the premier.
But only 0.6 million on the previous episode - the slump happened before this episode.
It's be biggest percentage slump in ratings of the entire season.
Only because the ratings were already at their lowest for the previous episode. In terms of the absolute number of viewers, it's lost fewer than episode 2 and about the same as episode 3. It also has an audience appreciation score of 81, exactly the same as the previous episode and higher than the two before that (the lowest value, deservedly, is for the Tsurananga Conundrum).
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Misogyny is the state of disliking women. There is no distinction
between wanting to dislike women and actually doing so, any more than
there is a word like 'racous' for someone who 'wants to be racist'.
"Misogynistic" is the adjective for a person or act that exhibits
misogyny. A person who meets this criterion, like you, is a
"misogynist". There is no such word as "misogynous".
Totally wrong. You have no accurate conception of English grammar, or
grammar of any language.
This isn't a question of grammar, Aggy, it's a question of vocabulary.

It's too bad a classical education went out of
Post by The True Doctor
the window when the bigoted and chauvinistic ideology of political
correctness came along, because then you might have understood.
As far as I can gather from past threads, I'm much the same age as you so would have grown up in a similar educational context.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
there is a word like 'racous' for someone who 'wants to be racist'.
"Misandrous" is the adjective for a person or act that exhibits
misandry. A person who meets this criterion, as you claim Chibnall
is, is a "misandrist".There is no such word as "misandristic".
WRONG!
Misandrous means to be in the state wanting to carry out misandry.
Misandristic means to be actually carrying out misandry.
You really aught to read Plato and start thinking.
Plato was many things, but not an English speaker. Not his fault - the language didn't exist at the time.
Post by The True Doctor
And the word is "racious", not "racous", and means exactly that, to want
to be racist.
Fascinating. Your desire either to prove me wrong or to always be right is so strong that you'll actually take a made-up word and adopt it as your own purely because I say that word doesn't exist.

Wanting to be racist is not a crime, but actually being
Post by The True Doctor
racist, is.
There is no such thing as "wanting to be racist". There is such a thing as a difference between racist sentiments (such as being uncomfortable around black people) and racist actions (i.e. actively discriminating against black people), but there is no linguistic distinction in English between the two. Quite possibly there ought to be, since as you say there is nothing intrinsically wrong about having specific feelings, thoughts or discomforts, but that isn't the way English has developed.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Watch all of the others. That never actually stopped him - and
whether he was just looking out for himself and his companions or
trying to save the universe was a personality trait that shifted from
week to week depending on the needs of the plot. He didn't need to
get involved to save history from the Monk, for instance. The notion
that there was any real consistency to the character owes more to
Iggy's rants than the series.
The Monk changing history would have changed his companions fates and
that of the Doctor if he hadn't have intervened, given that it would
have led to a different 1963.
Which was nowhere given as the Doctor's motivation. And you've so insistently pointed out that everything should be clearly stated by the characters in an episode.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Wrong. You saw Leela being educated by the Doctor throughout her
time as companion.
Leela had Data syndrome. She needed to be told the same thing every
time it became relevant to the plot - the character herself never
actually exhibited any development, just as Data had to be repeatedly
taught the same 'how to be human' lesson every few weeks in TNG.
But their characters still developed
How do they "still develop" when Geordi apparently pressed Data's reset button at the end of every episode and Leela has to be told "threatening people with knives is wrong" at least once a week?

and they actual had characters and
Post by The True Doctor
something meaningful was done with them,
Series like TNG and classic Who pretty much had to have well-drawn characters at the start purely because there was no prospect they would undergo any kind of character development during the series.

There's a reason DS9 had to devote an entire episode to teaching Worf basic leadership skills, after he'd been in the franchise for more than seven years, and TNG randomly decided Troi wanted to get leadership training seven years in after never having expressed any interest whatsoever beforehand, purely because they realised they'd done nothing with the character in the preceding six years.
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-05 00:13:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
While it's a departure from the source material, every retelling of the Trojan War has departed from the source material. Why is having actors of a different skin colour any worse than removing the gods from the story, as most 20th Century adaptations did, which represents a far more substantive change to the actual narrative?
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about characters' skin colour and ignoring other deviations that's a sign you're probably just a racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
The True Doctor
2018-12-05 02:34:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
While it's a departure from the source material, every retelling of the Trojan War has departed from the source material. Why is having actors of a different skin colour any worse than removing the gods from the story, as most 20th Century adaptations did, which represents a far more substantive change to the actual narrative?
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about characters' skin colour and ignoring other deviations that's a sign you're probably just a racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was his
biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally and those
descended from them still are blond, which is why Homer who knew what
people from Thessaly looked like (having traveled around Greece)
depicted Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly stated by
Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other Greeks who had
darker olive colored skin.

It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA analysis that
the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living Greece at the time (1200
BC), especially kings of Thessaly. Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist beyond
measure, as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Athens), and Aeneas (the founder of the Latin civilization, whose
ancestors originated from Italy and Crete). It amounts to cultural
appropriation and it is disgusting, and why the BBC has always been
considered to be racist, and still is. Greek culture is European
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they try to
look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for Koreans to play
Japanese (see Heroes).

If the producers wanted to depict people who were black, then they had
ample opportunity when Memnon the king of Aethiopia and his army arrived
to help the Trojans fight the Greeks (but I expect they were all
depicted as being white; having not watched this pile of crap past the
first episode, which was baldy written, mind numbing, crass, soap opera).

The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from being racist
was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as having a homosexual
affair with his cousin Patroklus, with Briseis in the same same bed,
which is a total abhorrence, which ensured that the few remaining
viewers that were left by the time of that episode almost all stopped
watching and the ratings fell to only 1.3 million.

The entire premise of the Iliad was that friendship and love for ones
family, which has no origin in sexual desire, overcomes the lust for a
woman. Achilles did not sleep with his cousin Patroklus, and this
friendship between two men was used as an example by Plato (see
Symposium) to illustrate that such a friendship is pure and superior to
the love of a woman which is always rooted lust and thus impure in
nature. Achilles would have never let anyone, let alone his own cousin,
lay a hand on Briseis since the reason he refused to no longer fight
against the Trojans in the opening of the story, was because Agamamnnon
took her away from him and he suspected that he had violated her; and
even when Agamemnon gave her back, along with various gifts, and swore
that he had not slept with her, he still refused to fight. It was not
the love for a woman, but only the pure friendship between Achilles and
his cousin that finally motivated him to fight the Torjan's, after
Patroklus was killed by Hektor the son of Priam.

The writer of this series had obviously never read the Ilaid and if he
did has absolutely not even the faintest concept or understanding of its
meaning or premise. The writer was an absolute talent-less and racist
imbecile that doesn't have a clue about literature or how to write.

The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used by Homer
to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where the abduction and
rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless imbecile of a writer turns into
the hero) caused the Achaean's to go to war. It illustrates that they
were not going to war because a woman had been violated, and to bring
her back so Menelaus could fuck her; they went to war because their
country, which they had pure love for, without any connotations of
sexual desire, had been raped and violated when Helen was abducted!

The BBC production Troy: Fall of a City was therefore a pile of fester
sexist and racist shit, excreted from the back orifice of a worthless
writer with a racist, sexist, and homosexual agenda, and illustrates
that PC and SJW agendas destroy the arts and literature because of their
very nature of chauvinism, prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance of others.
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-05 03:36:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
While it's a departure from the source material, every retelling of the Trojan War has departed from the source material. Why is having actors of a different skin colour any worse than removing the gods from the story, as most 20th Century adaptations did, which represents a far more substantive change to the actual narrative?
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about characters' skin colour and ignoring other deviations that's a sign you're probably just a racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was his
biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally and those
descended from them still are blond, which is why Homer who knew what
people from Thessaly looked like (having traveled around Greece)
depicted Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly stated by
Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other Greeks who had
darker olive colored skin.
It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA analysis that
the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living Greece at the time (1200
BC), especially kings of Thessaly. Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist beyond
measure, as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Athens), and Aeneas (the founder of the Latin civilization, whose
ancestors originated from Italy and Crete). It amounts to cultural
appropriation and it is disgusting, and why the BBC has always been
considered to be racist, and still is. Greek culture is European
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they try to
look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for Koreans to play
Japanese (see Heroes).
If the producers wanted to depict people who were black, then they had
ample opportunity when Memnon the king of Aethiopia and his army arrived
to help the Trojans fight the Greeks (but I expect they were all
depicted as being white; having not watched this pile of crap past the
first episode, which was baldy written, mind numbing, crass, soap opera).
The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from being racist
was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as having a homosexual
affair with his cousin Patroklus, with Briseis in the same same bed,
which is a total abhorrence, which ensured that the few remaining
viewers that were left by the time of that episode almost all stopped
watching and the ratings fell to only 1.3 million.
The entire premise of the Iliad was that friendship and love for ones
family, which has no origin in sexual desire, overcomes the lust for a
woman. Achilles did not sleep with his cousin Patroklus, and this
friendship between two men was used as an example by Plato (see
Symposium) to illustrate that such a friendship is pure and superior to
the love of a woman which is always rooted lust and thus impure in
nature. Achilles would have never let anyone, let alone his own cousin,
lay a hand on Briseis since the reason he refused to no longer fight
against the Trojans in the opening of the story, was because Agamamnnon
took her away from him and he suspected that he had violated her; and
even when Agamemnon gave her back, along with various gifts, and swore
that he had not slept with her, he still refused to fight. It was not
the love for a woman, but only the pure friendship between Achilles and
his cousin that finally motivated him to fight the Torjan's, after
Patroklus was killed by Hektor the son of Priam.
The writer of this series had obviously never read the Ilaid and if he
did has absolutely not even the faintest concept or understanding of its
meaning or premise. The writer was an absolute talent-less and racist
imbecile that doesn't have a clue about literature or how to write.
The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used by Homer
to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where the abduction and
rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless imbecile of a writer turns into
the hero) caused the Achaean's to go to war. It illustrates that they
were not going to war because a woman had been violated, and to bring
her back so Menelaus could fuck her; they went to war because their
country, which they had pure love for, without any connotations of
sexual desire, had been raped and violated when Helen was abducted!
The BBC production Troy: Fall of a City was therefore a pile of fester
sexist and racist shit, excreted from the back orifice of a worthless
writer with a racist, sexist, and homosexual agenda, and illustrates
that PC and SJW agendas destroy the arts and literature because of their
very nature of chauvinism, prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance of others.
So, you wouldn't rate it higher than about 6/10, then?
The Doctor
2018-12-05 04:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:46:08 PM UTC-5,
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
While it's a departure from the source material, every retelling of
the Trojan War has departed from the source material. Why is having
actors of a different skin colour any worse than removing the gods from
the story, as most 20th Century adaptations did, which represents a far
more substantive change to the actual narrative?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material with
adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about characters' skin
colour and ignoring other deviations that's a sign you're probably just
a racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more
faithful to Homer than most.
Post by The True Doctor
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with
Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek heroes by
pale Germanic actors racist?
Post by The True Doctor
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was his
biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally and those
descended from them still are blond, which is why Homer who knew what
people from Thessaly looked like (having traveled around Greece)
depicted Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly stated by
Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other Greeks who had
darker olive colored skin.
It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA analysis that
the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living Greece at the time (1200
BC), especially kings of Thessaly. Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist beyond
measure, as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Athens), and Aeneas (the founder of the Latin civilization, whose
ancestors originated from Italy and Crete). It amounts to cultural
appropriation and it is disgusting, and why the BBC has always been
considered to be racist, and still is. Greek culture is European
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they try to
look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for Koreans to play
Japanese (see Heroes).
If the producers wanted to depict people who were black, then they had
ample opportunity when Memnon the king of Aethiopia and his army arrived
to help the Trojans fight the Greeks (but I expect they were all
depicted as being white; having not watched this pile of crap past the
first episode, which was baldy written, mind numbing, crass, soap opera).
The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from being racist
was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as having a homosexual
affair with his cousin Patroklus, with Briseis in the same same bed,
which is a total abhorrence, which ensured that the few remaining
viewers that were left by the time of that episode almost all stopped
watching and the ratings fell to only 1.3 million.
The entire premise of the Iliad was that friendship and love for ones
family, which has no origin in sexual desire, overcomes the lust for a
woman. Achilles did not sleep with his cousin Patroklus, and this
friendship between two men was used as an example by Plato (see
Symposium) to illustrate that such a friendship is pure and superior to
the love of a woman which is always rooted lust and thus impure in
nature. Achilles would have never let anyone, let alone his own cousin,
lay a hand on Briseis since the reason he refused to no longer fight
against the Trojans in the opening of the story, was because Agamamnnon
took her away from him and he suspected that he had violated her; and
even when Agamemnon gave her back, along with various gifts, and swore
that he had not slept with her, he still refused to fight. It was not
the love for a woman, but only the pure friendship between Achilles and
his cousin that finally motivated him to fight the Torjan's, after
Patroklus was killed by Hektor the son of Priam.
The writer of this series had obviously never read the Ilaid and if he
did has absolutely not even the faintest concept or understanding of its
meaning or premise. The writer was an absolute talent-less and racist
imbecile that doesn't have a clue about literature or how to write.
The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used by Homer
to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where the abduction and
rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless imbecile of a writer turns into
the hero) caused the Achaean's to go to war. It illustrates that they
were not going to war because a woman had been violated, and to bring
her back so Menelaus could fuck her; they went to war because their
country, which they had pure love for, without any connotations of
sexual desire, had been raped and violated when Helen was abducted!
The BBC production Troy: Fall of a City was therefore a pile of fester
sexist and racist shit, excreted from the back orifice of a worthless
writer with a racist, sexist, and homosexual agenda, and illustrates
that PC and SJW agendas destroy the arts and literature because of their
very nature of chauvinism, prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance of others.
So, you wouldn't rate it higher than about 6/10, then?
no!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
The True Doctor
2018-12-05 04:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
While it's a departure from the source material, every retelling of the Trojan War has departed from the source material. Why is having actors of a different skin colour any worse than removing the gods from the story, as most 20th Century adaptations did, which represents a far more substantive change to the actual narrative?
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about characters' skin colour and ignoring other deviations that's a sign you're probably just a racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was his
biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally and those
descended from them still are blond, which is why Homer who knew what
people from Thessaly looked like (having traveled around Greece)
depicted Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly stated by
Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other Greeks who had
darker olive colored skin.
It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA analysis that
the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living Greece at the time (1200
BC), especially kings of Thessaly. Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist beyond
measure, as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Athens), and Aeneas (the founder of the Latin civilization, whose
ancestors originated from Italy and Crete). It amounts to cultural
appropriation and it is disgusting, and why the BBC has always been
considered to be racist, and still is. Greek culture is European
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they try to
look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for Koreans to play
Japanese (see Heroes).
If the producers wanted to depict people who were black, then they had
ample opportunity when Memnon the king of Aethiopia and his army arrived
to help the Trojans fight the Greeks (but I expect they were all
depicted as being white; having not watched this pile of crap past the
first episode, which was baldy written, mind numbing, crass, soap opera).
The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from being racist
was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as having a homosexual
affair with his cousin Patroklus, with Briseis in the same same bed,
which is a total abhorrence, which ensured that the few remaining
viewers that were left by the time of that episode almost all stopped
watching and the ratings fell to only 1.3 million.
The entire premise of the Iliad was that friendship and love for ones
family, which has no origin in sexual desire, overcomes the lust for a
woman. Achilles did not sleep with his cousin Patroklus, and this
friendship between two men was used as an example by Plato (see
Symposium) to illustrate that such a friendship is pure and superior to
the love of a woman which is always rooted lust and thus impure in
nature. Achilles would have never let anyone, let alone his own cousin,
lay a hand on Briseis since the reason he refused to no longer fight
against the Trojans in the opening of the story, was because Agamamnnon
took her away from him and he suspected that he had violated her; and
even when Agamemnon gave her back, along with various gifts, and swore
that he had not slept with her, he still refused to fight. It was not
the love for a woman, but only the pure friendship between Achilles and
his cousin that finally motivated him to fight the Torjan's, after
Patroklus was killed by Hektor the son of Priam.
The writer of this series had obviously never read the Ilaid and if he
did has absolutely not even the faintest concept or understanding of its
meaning or premise. The writer was an absolute talent-less and racist
imbecile that doesn't have a clue about literature or how to write.
The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used by Homer
to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where the abduction and
rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless imbecile of a writer turns into
the hero) caused the Achaean's to go to war. It illustrates that they
were not going to war because a woman had been violated, and to bring
her back so Menelaus could fuck her; they went to war because their
country, which they had pure love for, without any connotations of
sexual desire, had been raped and violated when Helen was abducted!
The BBC production Troy: Fall of a City was therefore a pile of fester
sexist and racist shit, excreted from the back orifice of a worthless
writer with a racist, sexist, and homosexual agenda, and illustrates
that PC and SJW agendas destroy the arts and literature because of their
very nature of chauvinism, prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance of others.
So, you wouldn't rate it higher than about 6/10, then?
It gets 0/10 just like all SJW agenda and soap opera driven crap. It was
unwatchable past the first episode.

The movie Troy staring Brad Pitt gets about 5/10. It would have got more
if it hadn't made the rapist Paris into the hero and the person whose
wife he raped, Menelaus into the villain. It's totally disgusting and
immoral. That's PC lunacy for you. So thinking about it again, 4/10.
The Doctor
2018-12-05 16:03:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:46:08 PM UTC-5,
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
While it's a departure from the source material, every retelling of
the Trojan War has departed from the source material. Why is having
actors of a different skin colour any worse than removing the gods from
the story, as most 20th Century adaptations did, which represents a far
more substantive change to the actual narrative?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material with
adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about characters' skin
colour and ignoring other deviations that's a sign you're probably just
a racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more
faithful to Homer than most.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with
Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek heroes by
pale Germanic actors racist?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was his
biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally and those
descended from them still are blond, which is why Homer who knew what
people from Thessaly looked like (having traveled around Greece)
depicted Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly stated by
Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other Greeks who had
darker olive colored skin.
It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA analysis that
the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living Greece at the time (1200
BC), especially kings of Thessaly. Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist beyond
measure, as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Athens), and Aeneas (the founder of the Latin civilization, whose
ancestors originated from Italy and Crete). It amounts to cultural
appropriation and it is disgusting, and why the BBC has always been
considered to be racist, and still is. Greek culture is European
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they try to
look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for Koreans to play
Japanese (see Heroes).
If the producers wanted to depict people who were black, then they had
ample opportunity when Memnon the king of Aethiopia and his army arrived
to help the Trojans fight the Greeks (but I expect they were all
depicted as being white; having not watched this pile of crap past the
first episode, which was baldy written, mind numbing, crass, soap opera).
The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from being racist
was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as having a homosexual
affair with his cousin Patroklus, with Briseis in the same same bed,
which is a total abhorrence, which ensured that the few remaining
viewers that were left by the time of that episode almost all stopped
watching and the ratings fell to only 1.3 million.
The entire premise of the Iliad was that friendship and love for ones
family, which has no origin in sexual desire, overcomes the lust for a
woman. Achilles did not sleep with his cousin Patroklus, and this
friendship between two men was used as an example by Plato (see
Symposium) to illustrate that such a friendship is pure and superior to
the love of a woman which is always rooted lust and thus impure in
nature. Achilles would have never let anyone, let alone his own cousin,
lay a hand on Briseis since the reason he refused to no longer fight
against the Trojans in the opening of the story, was because Agamamnnon
took her away from him and he suspected that he had violated her; and
even when Agamemnon gave her back, along with various gifts, and swore
that he had not slept with her, he still refused to fight. It was not
the love for a woman, but only the pure friendship between Achilles and
his cousin that finally motivated him to fight the Torjan's, after
Patroklus was killed by Hektor the son of Priam.
The writer of this series had obviously never read the Ilaid and if he
did has absolutely not even the faintest concept or understanding of its
meaning or premise. The writer was an absolute talent-less and racist
imbecile that doesn't have a clue about literature or how to write.
The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used by Homer
to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where the abduction and
rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless imbecile of a writer turns into
the hero) caused the Achaean's to go to war. It illustrates that they
were not going to war because a woman had been violated, and to bring
her back so Menelaus could fuck her; they went to war because their
country, which they had pure love for, without any connotations of
sexual desire, had been raped and violated when Helen was abducted!
The BBC production Troy: Fall of a City was therefore a pile of fester
sexist and racist shit, excreted from the back orifice of a worthless
writer with a racist, sexist, and homosexual agenda, and illustrates
that PC and SJW agendas destroy the arts and literature because of their
very nature of chauvinism, prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance of others.
So, you wouldn't rate it higher than about 6/10, then?
It gets 0/10 just like all SJW agenda and soap opera driven crap. It was
unwatchable past the first episode.
The movie Troy staring Brad Pitt gets about 5/10. It would have got more
if it hadn't made the rapist Paris into the hero and the person whose
wife he raped, Menelaus into the villain. It's totally disgusting and
immoral. That's PC lunacy for you. So thinking about it again, 4/10.
P Bwoles fails again!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
The Doctor
2018-12-05 04:10:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:46:08 PM UTC-5,
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
While it's a departure from the source material, every retelling of
the Trojan War has departed from the source material. Why is having
actors of a different skin colour any worse than removing the gods from
the story, as most 20th Century adaptations did, which represents a far
more substantive change to the actual narrative?
Post by p***@conservation.org
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material with
adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about characters' skin
colour and ignoring other deviations that's a sign you're probably just
a racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more
faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with
Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek heroes by
pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was his
biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally and those
descended from them still are blond, which is why Homer who knew what
people from Thessaly looked like (having traveled around Greece)
depicted Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly stated by
Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other Greeks who had
darker olive colored skin.
It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA analysis that
the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living Greece at the time (1200
BC), especially kings of Thessaly. Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist beyond
measure, as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Athens), and Aeneas (the founder of the Latin civilization, whose
ancestors originated from Italy and Crete). It amounts to cultural
appropriation and it is disgusting, and why the BBC has always been
considered to be racist, and still is. Greek culture is European
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they try to
look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for Koreans to play
Japanese (see Heroes).
If the producers wanted to depict people who were black, then they had
ample opportunity when Memnon the king of Aethiopia and his army arrived
to help the Trojans fight the Greeks (but I expect they were all
depicted as being white; having not watched this pile of crap past the
first episode, which was baldy written, mind numbing, crass, soap opera).
The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from being racist
was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as having a homosexual
affair with his cousin Patroklus, with Briseis in the same same bed,
which is a total abhorrence, which ensured that the few remaining
viewers that were left by the time of that episode almost all stopped
watching and the ratings fell to only 1.3 million.
The entire premise of the Iliad was that friendship and love for ones
family, which has no origin in sexual desire, overcomes the lust for a
woman. Achilles did not sleep with his cousin Patroklus, and this
friendship between two men was used as an example by Plato (see
Symposium) to illustrate that such a friendship is pure and superior to
the love of a woman which is always rooted lust and thus impure in
nature. Achilles would have never let anyone, let alone his own cousin,
lay a hand on Briseis since the reason he refused to no longer fight
against the Trojans in the opening of the story, was because Agamamnnon
took her away from him and he suspected that he had violated her; and
even when Agamemnon gave her back, along with various gifts, and swore
that he had not slept with her, he still refused to fight. It was not
the love for a woman, but only the pure friendship between Achilles and
his cousin that finally motivated him to fight the Torjan's, after
Patroklus was killed by Hektor the son of Priam.
The writer of this series had obviously never read the Ilaid and if he
did has absolutely not even the faintest concept or understanding of its
meaning or premise. The writer was an absolute talent-less and racist
imbecile that doesn't have a clue about literature or how to write.
The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used by Homer
to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where the abduction and
rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless imbecile of a writer turns into
the hero) caused the Achaean's to go to war. It illustrates that they
were not going to war because a woman had been violated, and to bring
her back so Menelaus could fuck her; they went to war because their
country, which they had pure love for, without any connotations of
sexual desire, had been raped and violated when Helen was abducted!
The BBC production Troy: Fall of a City was therefore a pile of fester
sexist and racist shit, excreted from the back orifice of a worthless
writer with a racist, sexist, and homosexual agenda, and illustrates
that PC and SJW agendas destroy the arts and literature because of their
very nature of chauvinism, prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance of others.
BBC 1 is gone to trash.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-05 21:36:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about characters' skin colour and ignoring other deviations that's a sign you're probably just a racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was his
biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally and those
descended from them still are blond, which is why Homer who knew what
people from Thessaly looked like (having traveled around Greece)
depicted Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly stated by
Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other Greeks who had
darker olive colored skin.
Yes, we've established that it's not accurate for a black actor to play Achilles. It's also a particularly strange choice when they could have cast a black person as someone whose hair colour was never described.

My question was: why does this matter more than any other inaccuracy? Why do you get so caught up in what characters look like and whether that's faithful to the source material, instead of whether the narrative is? Achilles' hair colour, or indeed skin colour, is of no narrative relevance to anything that happens in the Iliad.

Is it racist that the Disney Hercules had Hera with blonde hair, even though she was portrayed on Greek vases as having brown hair?
Post by The True Doctor
It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA analysis that
the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living Greece at the time (1200
BC), especially kings of Thessaly.
Archaeology and DNA analysis can't conclusively rule out anything of the kind. Only a minority of the people in any society are captured in images or as remains that survived to the present day (and a minority of the latter are ever analysed).

For example there's a letter from Elizabeth I mentioning that there were a lot of black people living in England at the time, but the first image of a black person in a contemporary Elizabethan setting in English art is of a single musician at either the end of her reign or the start of James I's.

Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
Post by The True Doctor
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist beyond
measure,
It's inaccurate. That doesn't make it racist, just miscasting. It wouldn't be racist even if it could be demonstrated that it denied opportunities for marginalised blond white men to play Greek heroes. Racism requires active discrimination.

Again you're using the same false logic as the people you accuse of being 'politically correct', the ones who flare up and insist it's sexist not to consider casting James Bond as a female or racist not to consider casting him as black. It's an established character with a specific ethnicity and sex - you might as well claim it's racist and sexist not to portray a fictional Indian character like Rama as a white woman.

That doesn't mean there never will come a time when we don't see a female or black Bond, but there's no ethical requirement to do so and it isn't discriminatory to continue casting white men for a character created as a white man. Equally, however, if that time comes it won't be an act of discrimination against white men if someone of a different sex or ethnicity does take the role.

as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Post by The True Doctor
Athens),
Remember not to confuse your personal theories with the real world, Aggy. Even if we assume you're a visionary and are correct in your assertions that these Greek deities were based on real people, that isn't a widespread view and there's no reason for the casting directors to be aware of it. Gods can be portrayed however the people casting them wants - the Greeks would have imagined them looking Greek, but there's no reason they have to.

and Aeneas (the founder of the Latin civilization, whose
Post by The True Doctor
ancestors originated from Italy and Crete).
Aeneas' link to Rome was entirely invented by Virgil. He can look however he wants - though given the popular association between him and Rome, once again he's one of the worse choices to recast as black. Why not just go for a character like Odysseus with no particular links to anyone or anywhere else? Ithaca has never been identified with any certainty, although it's widely believed that it's probably the same island presently known by that name in Greece. It's even been pointed out that Homer's description of Odysseus could be taken to indicate that he was black.

It amounts to cultural
Post by The True Doctor
appropriation and it is disgusting,
I can't imagine what could possibly prompt a Greek to imagine the British are guilty of appropriating their culture. You must be losing your marbles.

Greek culture is European
Post by The True Doctor
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they try to
look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for Koreans to play
Japanese (see Heroes).
This makes no sense. Either you're a purist or you aren't. An English-descended Australian is just as inaccurate as Paris Trojan as a black actor is as Achilles.

Looking up the actor's brief Wikipedia biography, the guy who played Achilles is British. British culture has the same links to Greek culture as the rest of Europe. Culture is not defined by skin colour.

If, of course, you're just using 'culture' as a synonym for 'race', then you're back to being racist.
Post by The True Doctor
The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from being racist
was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as having a homosexual
affair with his cousin Patroklus, with Briseis in the same same bed,
which is a total abhorrence, which ensured that the few remaining
viewers that were left by the time of that episode almost all stopped
watching and the ratings fell to only 1.3 million.
You do realise that this is a widespread modern interpretation of their relationship?

There's no way to tell categorically whether it's correct or not, of course, as Homer didn't go into detail regarding sexual activities (including heterosexual ones). But not only is there no reason to rule it out, it's what a modern audience is likely to expect.
Post by The True Doctor
The entire premise of the Iliad was that friendship and love for ones
family, which has no origin in sexual desire, overcomes the lust for a
woman.
Given your loathing for 'soap opera', are you really trying to distil the Illiad into a 'moral message' about something as vacuous as 'love for one's family', like some violent ancient Greek version of the Teletubbies?

Achilles did not sleep with his cousin Patroklus, and this
Post by The True Doctor
friendship between two men was used as an example by Plato (see
Symposium) to illustrate that such a friendship is pure and superior to
the love of a woman which is always rooted lust and thus impure in
nature.
Plato considered them lovers and used a term that, at least as Wikipedia describes it, was reserved for lovers. The reason he considers their relationship superior has nothing to do with the supposed absence of a sexual element:

"In Plato’s Symposium, written c. 385 BC, the speaker Phaedrus holds up Achilles and Patroclus as an example of divinely approved lovers. Phaedrus argues that Aeschylus erred in claiming Achilles was the erastes because Achilles was more beautiful and youthful than Patroclus (characteristics of the eromenos) as well as more noble and skilled in battle (characteristics of the erastes).[15][16] Instead, Phaedrus suggests that Achilles is the eromenos whose reverence of his erastes, Patroclus, was so great that he would be willing to die to avenge him."

Achilles would have never let anyone, let alone his own cousin,
Post by The True Doctor
lay a hand on Briseis since the reason he refused to no longer fight
against the Trojans in the opening of the story, was because Agamamnnon
took her away from him and he suspected that he had violated her; and
even when Agamemnon gave her back, along with various gifts, and swore
that he had not slept with her, he still refused to fight.
I've read the Illiad, Aggy (the Samuel Butler translation, to be precise). This is a mischaracterisation of his motives - the Greeks are unlikely to have had any conception of rape or abuse of a woman if Homer's anything to go by.

Achilles was upset because he considered Briseis his rightful property - he had no interest in getting her back specifically because his dispute with Agamemnon was in seeing the man he considered the inferior fighter - and inferior man - snub him repeatedly although Achilles was the one winning all the fights. The Illiad was about Achilles' pride, it wasn't a morality tale and it certainly had nothing to do with Achilles being some noble hero who refused to see women mistreated.

As Butler tells it, the Greeks actively glorified in the fact that all the heroes were, to put it bluntly, thugs. None of them come out of it looking very noble and Homer actively contrasts the barbarism of the Greeks, who didn't do much but brawl among themselves and boast about who could rack up the most kills with the more civilised nature of Priam and Hector.

Either you have an extremely naive view of the ancient Greek world for someone who's read so much of the source material, or you've been reading sanitised versions addressed to modern sensibilities - if the latter it may be illuminating to read Victorian translations like Butler's and their associated commentary, as despite their reputation the Victorians weren't as prudish as modern authors and they didn't have modern notions about cultural sensitivity.
Post by The True Doctor
The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used by Homer
to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where the abduction and
rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless imbecile of a writer turns into
the hero) caused the Achaean's to go to war. It illustrates that they
were not going to war because a woman had been violated, and to bring
her back so Menelaus could fuck her; they went to war because their
country, which they had pure love for, without any connotations of
sexual desire, had been raped and violated when Helen was abducted!
They went to war because they wanted to be at war and to plunder. The Iliad is full of the Greeks boasting about the other cities they'd ransacked and praising Agamemnon for giving then an opportunity for a punch-up. One thing the Iliad is at pains to make clear is that there was nothing unified about the Greeks and at best a rudimentary sense of shared identity.
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-05 21:43:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:35:43 PM UTC-5, The True
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, The
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about characters' skin colour and ignoring other deviations that's a sign you're probably just a racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was his
biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally and those
descended from them still are blond, which is why Homer who knew what
people from Thessaly looked like (having traveled around Greece)
depicted Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly stated by
Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other Greeks who had
darker olive colored skin.
Yes, we've established that it's not accurate for a black actor to play Achilles. It's also a particularly strange choice when they could have cast a black person as someone whose hair colour was never described.
My question was: why does this matter more than any other inaccuracy? Why do you get so caught up in what characters look like and whether that's faithful to the source material, instead of whether the narrative is? Achilles' hair colour, or indeed skin colour, is of no narrative relevance to anything that happens in the Iliad.
Is it racist that the Disney Hercules had Hera with blonde hair, even though she was portrayed on Greek vases as having brown hair?
Post by The True Doctor
It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA analysis that
the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living Greece at the time (1200
BC), especially kings of Thessaly.
Archaeology and DNA analysis can't conclusively rule out anything of the kind. Only a minority of the people in any society are captured in images or as remains that survived to the present day (and a minority of the latter are ever analysed).
For example there's a letter from Elizabeth I mentioning that there were a lot of black people living in England at the time, but the first image of a black person in a contemporary Elizabethan setting in English art is of a single musician at either the end of her reign or the start of James I's.
Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
Post by The True Doctor
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist beyond
measure,
It's inaccurate. That doesn't make it racist, just miscasting. It wouldn't be racist even if it could be demonstrated that it denied opportunities for marginalised blond white men to play Greek heroes. Racism requires active discrimination.
Again you're using the same false logic as the people you accuse of being 'politically correct', the ones who flare up and insist it's sexist not to consider casting James Bond as a female or racist not to consider casting him as black. It's an established character with a specific ethnicity and sex - you might as well claim it's racist and sexist not to portray a fictional Indian character like Rama as a white woman.
That doesn't mean there never will come a time when we don't see a female or black Bond, but there's no ethical requirement to do so and it isn't discriminatory to continue casting white men for a character created as a white man. Equally, however, if that time comes it won't be an act of discrimination against white men if someone of a different sex or ethnicity does take the role.
as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Post by The True Doctor
Athens),
Remember not to confuse your personal theories with the real world, Aggy. Even if we assume you're a visionary and are correct in your assertions that these Greek deities were based on real people, that isn't a widespread view and there's no reason for the casting directors to be aware of it. Gods can be portrayed however the people casting them wants - the Greeks would have imagined them looking Greek, but there's no reason they have to.
and Aeneas (the founder of the Latin civilization, whose
Post by The True Doctor
ancestors originated from Italy and Crete).
Aeneas' link to Rome was entirely invented by Virgil. He can look however he wants - though given the popular association between him and Rome, once again he's one of the worse choices to recast as black. Why not just go for a character like Odysseus with no particular links to anyone or anywhere else? Ithaca has never been identified with any certainty, although it's widely believed that it's probably the same island presently known by that name in Greece. It's even been pointed out that Homer's description of Odysseus could be taken to indicate that he was black.
It amounts to cultural
Post by The True Doctor
appropriation and it is disgusting,
I can't imagine what could possibly prompt a Greek to imagine the British are guilty of appropriating their culture. You must be losing your marbles.
Greek culture is European
Post by The True Doctor
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they try to
look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for Koreans to play
Japanese (see Heroes).
This makes no sense. Either you're a purist or you aren't. An English-descended Australian is just as inaccurate as Paris Trojan as a black actor is as Achilles.
Looking up the actor's brief Wikipedia biography, the guy who played Achilles is British. British culture has the same links to Greek culture as the rest of Europe. Culture is not defined by skin colour.
If, of course, you're just using 'culture' as a synonym for 'race', then you're back to being racist.
Post by The True Doctor
The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from being racist
was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as having a homosexual
affair with his cousin Patroklus, with Briseis in the same same bed,
which is a total abhorrence, which ensured that the few remaining
viewers that were left by the time of that episode almost all stopped
watching and the ratings fell to only 1.3 million.
You do realise that this is a widespread modern interpretation of their relationship?
There's no way to tell categorically whether it's correct or not, of course, as Homer didn't go into detail regarding sexual activities (including heterosexual ones). But not only is there no reason to rule it out, it's what a modern audience is likely to expect.
Post by The True Doctor
The entire premise of the Iliad was that friendship and love for ones
family, which has no origin in sexual desire, overcomes the lust for a
woman.
Given your loathing for 'soap opera', are you really trying to distil the Illiad into a 'moral message' about something as vacuous as 'love for one's family', like some violent ancient Greek version of the Teletubbies?
Achilles did not sleep with his cousin Patroklus, and this
Post by The True Doctor
friendship between two men was used as an example by Plato (see
Symposium) to illustrate that such a friendship is pure and superior to
the love of a woman which is always rooted lust and thus impure in
nature.
"In Plato’s Symposium, written c. 385 BC, the speaker Phaedrus holds up Achilles and Patroclus as an example of divinely approved lovers. Phaedrus argues that Aeschylus erred in claiming Achilles was the erastes because Achilles was more beautiful and youthful than Patroclus (characteristics of the eromenos) as well as more noble and skilled in battle (characteristics of the erastes).[15][16] Instead, Phaedrus suggests that Achilles is the eromenos whose reverence of his erastes, Patroclus, was so great that he would be willing to die to avenge him."
Achilles would have never let anyone, let alone his own cousin,
Post by The True Doctor
lay a hand on Briseis since the reason he refused to no longer fight
against the Trojans in the opening of the story, was because Agamamnnon
took her away from him and he suspected that he had violated her; and
even when Agamemnon gave her back, along with various gifts, and swore
that he had not slept with her, he still refused to fight.
I've read the Illiad, Aggy (the Samuel Butler translation, to be precise). This is a mischaracterisation of his motives - the Greeks are unlikely to have had any conception of rape or abuse of a woman if Homer's anything to go by.
Achilles was upset because he considered Briseis his rightful property - he had no interest in getting her back specifically because his dispute with Agamemnon was in seeing the man he considered the inferior fighter - and inferior man - snub him repeatedly although Achilles was the one winning all the fights. The Illiad was about Achilles' pride, it wasn't a morality tale and it certainly had nothing to do with Achilles being some noble hero who refused to see women mistreated.
As Butler tells it, the Greeks actively glorified in the fact that all the heroes were, to put it bluntly, thugs. None of them come out of it looking very noble and Homer actively contrasts the barbarism of the Greeks, who didn't do much but brawl among themselves and boast about who could rack up the most kills with the more civilised nature of Priam and Hector.
Either you have an extremely naive view of the ancient Greek world for someone who's read so much of the source material, or you've been reading sanitised versions addressed to modern sensibilities - if the latter it may be illuminating to read Victorian translations like Butler's and their associated commentary, as despite their reputation the Victorians weren't as prudish as modern authors and they didn't have modern notions about cultural sensitivity.
Post by The True Doctor
The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used by Homer
to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where the abduction and
rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless imbecile of a writer turns into
the hero) caused the Achaean's to go to war. It illustrates that they
were not going to war because a woman had been violated, and to bring
her back so Menelaus could fuck her; they went to war because their
country, which they had pure love for, without any connotations of
sexual desire, had been raped and violated when Helen was abducted!
They went to war because they wanted to be at war and to plunder. The Iliad is full of the Greeks boasting about the other cities they'd ransacked and praising Agamemnon for giving then an opportunity for a punch-up. One thing the Iliad is at pains to make clear is that there was nothing unified about the Greeks and at best a rudimentary sense of shared identity.
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2018-12-04/troy-fall-of-a-city-blackwashing-casting-black-actors-greek-myth/
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-05 23:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

I am glad to report that Graham didn't have to die to hear Ryan call him "Granddad". He just had to watch his wife die again!
The Doctor
2018-12-05 23:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I am glad to report that Graham didn't have to die to hear Ryan call him
"Granddad". He just had to watch his wife die again!
That was not Grace.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-06 01:09:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I am glad to report that Graham didn't have to die to hear Ryan call him
"Granddad". He just had to watch his wife die again!
That was not Grace.
It looked & sounded like her, & had her memories!
The Doctor
2018-12-06 02:23:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I am glad to report that Graham didn't have to die to hear Ryan call him
"Granddad". He just had to watch his wife die again!
That was not Grace.
It looked & sounded like her, & had her memories!
But not Grace!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-06 08:23:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Why didn't the Solitract recreate Ryan's Mom to greet him?
The Doctor
2018-12-06 13:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Why didn't the Solitract recreate Ryan's Mom to greet him?
Is Ryan's mum dead?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
Timothy Bruening
2018-12-06 14:55:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Why didn't the Solitract recreate Ryan's Mom to greet him?
Is Ryan's mum dead?
Yes. He mentioned it in an episode.
The Doctor
2018-12-06 21:59:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Why didn't the Solitract recreate Ryan's Mom to greet him?
Is Ryan's mum dead?
Yes. He mentioned it in an episode.
The Woman who Fell to Earth Episode.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2018 and Happy New Year 2019!!
The True Doctor
2018-12-06 00:21:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:46:08 PM UTC-5,
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:29:02 PM UTC-5, The True
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:35:38 PM UTC-5, The
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:35:43 PM UTC-5,
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material
with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about
characters' skin colour and ignoring other deviations that's a
sign you're probably just a racist. From the Wikipedia summary,
this version is actually more faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with
Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek
heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was his
biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally and
those descended from them still are blond, which is why Homer who
knew what people from Thessaly looked like (having traveled around
Greece) depicted Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly
stated by Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other
Greeks who had darker olive colored skin.
Yes, we've established that it's not accurate for a black actor to
play Achilles. It's also a particularly strange choice when they
could have cast a black person as someone whose hair colour was never
described.
They should have not cast any black actors to play and parts other than
that of Aethiopians. Casting black actors to play the parts of
historically white people is as racist as casting white actors to play
the parts of historically black people such as Rose Parks!
Post by p***@conservation.org
My question was: why does this matter more than any other inaccuracy?
See above. IT IS RACIST!
Post by p***@conservation.org
Why do you get so caught up in what characters look like and whether
that's faithful to the source material, instead of whether the
narrative is? Achilles' hair colour, or indeed skin colour, is of no
narrative relevance to anything that happens in the Iliad.
Achilles is described by Homer as being BLOND! Being blond is what what
marks him out from all of the other Greeks who were olive skinned and is
emphasized by Homer over and over and over again.

Portraying Greeks who were never of sub-Saharan African origin using
black actors IS RACIST!

Why didn't Chibnall portray Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King using
Chinese actors if skin colour doesn't matter? It would have achieved
exactly the same effect, so why didn't he?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Is it racist that the Disney Hercules had Hera with blonde hair, even
though she was portrayed on Greek vases as having brown hair?
Hera could have dyed her hair blond, and the depictions of her on vases
are silhouettes. Do you understand what a silhouette is?

Achilles is described as XANTHOS. Do you understand what Xanthos means?
It means blond and light skinned as opposed to the other Achaeans being
Melahrinous or olive skinned. Those are the two historical racial types
in Greece which indicate Greeks' origins, those from northern Greece
being more blond than those from the south who were there longer.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA analysis
that the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living Greece at the
time (1200 BC), especially kings of Thessaly.
Archaeology and DNA analysis can't conclusively rule out anything of
the kind. Only a minority of the people in any society are captured
in images or as remains that survived to the present day (and a
minority of the latter are ever analysed).
For example there's a letter from Elizabeth I mentioning that there
were a lot of black people living in England at the time, but the
No there isn't. We discussed this already after the Witchfinders
episode. The word used refers to Moors and other people from northern
Africa. The Moors and other people of northern Africa were descended
from people of Levantine, Southern Balkan, and Anatolian origins for
over 5000 years. They looked nothing like sub-Saharan Africans and would
have historically been whiter than they are today.

http://www.muchmorocco.com/experiences/people/
Post by p***@conservation.org
first image of a black person in a contemporary Elizabethan setting
in English art is of a single musician at either the end of her reign
or the start of James I's.
This was 3000 years after the Iliad is set at the advent of the African
slave trade, so is in no way representative of the people of ancient
Greece. The people of Greece were racially homogeneous until the 20th
century, just like everyone else from the Balkans and Anatolia.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
Post by The True Doctor
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist
beyond measure,
It's inaccurate. That doesn't make it racist, just miscasting. It
It makes it racist because they are clearly described as being blond,
and historically the population of Greece has homogeneously white until
the 20th century.
Post by p***@conservation.org
wouldn't be racist even if it could be demonstrated that it denied
opportunities for marginalised blond white men to play Greek heroes.
Racism requires active discrimination.
Why didn't Chibnall cast Chinese actors to play Rosa Parks and Martin
Luther King again? Why weren't the other non-white people on the bus
played by Japanese and Korean actors? It would have made no difference
to the story doing so. Why didn't he?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Again you're using the same false logic as the people you accuse of
being 'politically correct', the ones who flare up and insist it's
sexist not to consider casting James Bond as a female or racist not
Have you read any of the James Bond novels? The character of James Bond
is that of a man. Casino Royale makes it impossible for him to be played
by a woman.
Post by p***@conservation.org
to consider casting him as black. It's an established character with
a specific ethnicity and sex - you might as well claim it's racist
and sexist not to portray a fictional Indian character like Rama as a
white woman.
What hell are you babbling on about? Playing Rama as a white woman is
not only racist but blasphemous. Why don't you cast a black woman to
play the prophet Mohamed on screen and see how long you live?
Post by p***@conservation.org
That doesn't mean there never will come a time when we don't see a
female or black Bond, but there's no ethical requirement to do so and
Barbara Broccoli has categorically ruled it out. Read the novels. The
character of James Bond is physically, fundamentally, and
philosophically that of a man. Changing him into a woman would mean the
character would not be James Bond but someone else. Do you want me to
explain the plot of Casino Royale to you?
Post by p***@conservation.org
it isn't discriminatory to continue casting white men for a character
created as a white man. Equally, however, if that time comes it won't
be an act of discrimination against white men if someone of a
different sex or ethnicity does take the role.
While Bond could arguably be played by a black actor given the copious
references to Jamaica as his cover, it would make him too conspicuous,
like labeling him look at me, I'm a spy. Having him being played by a
woman would not be the same character. The novels totally rule it out,
and the movies would make her look like a whore.
Post by p***@conservation.org
as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Post by The True Doctor
Athens),
Remember not to confuse your personal theories with the real world,
Aggy. Even if we assume you're a visionary and are correct in your
assertions that these Greek deities were based on real people, that
isn't a widespread view and there's no reason for the casting
You don't have a clue about ancient history of region do you?

Read Herodotus, Philo and Porphyry. The ancient Greeks always accepted
that their gods were mortal kings/queens who were called gods (theoi or
disposers) because of the benefits they brought to mankind; just like
the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Assyrians, and everyone else at the time,
including the Germans and Gauls. This fact was NEVER questioned! The
gods were always worshiped as ancestors and had the same character
traits as human beings.

You have no understanding of ancient religion whatsoever.
Post by p***@conservation.org
directors to be aware of it. Gods can be portrayed however the people
casting them wants - the Greeks would have imagined them looking
Greek, but there's no reason they have to.
There is no imagining about it it. The ancient Greek gods were Greek
kings, so of course they looked Greek. The ancient Greek, Egyptian,
Germanic, Gaulish, Roman, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Phoenician
religions, and even that of the Hindus, were all forms of ancestor
worship. Their mortal bodies may have died but their spirits were
considered to live on and hold the same positions of power in the
afterlife as they did in real life. Stop thinking like an idiot whose
only conception of religion is Christianity.
Post by p***@conservation.org
and Aeneas (the founder of the Latin civilization, whose
Post by The True Doctor
ancestors originated from Italy and Crete).
Aeneas' link to Rome was entirely invented by Virgil. He can look
BULLSHIT! Aeneas was worshiped as a hero and founding father centuries
before Virgil was even born.
Post by p***@conservation.org
however he wants - though given the popular association between him
and Rome, once again he's one of the worse choices to recast as
black. Why not just go for a character like Odysseus with no
particular links to anyone or anywhere else? Ithaca has never been
Why not just leave Odysseus and other Greeks and Italians as they are
and stop being racist. There was plenty of opportunity to cast a black
actor as Memnon and black actors as his troops who came from Aethiopia;
though these would have looked like Ethiopians of today, not sub-Saharan
Africans who a substantially darker and have different facial
characteristics.
Post by p***@conservation.org
identified with any certainty, although it's widely believed that
it's probably the same island presently known by that name in Greece.
It's even been pointed out that Homer's description of Odysseus could
be taken to indicate that he was black.
More evidence of your complete ceaselessness and lack of understanding
of the Greek language. Odysseus is described as Melahrinos, which means
he was olive skinned.
Post by p***@conservation.org
It amounts to cultural
Post by The True Doctor
appropriation and it is disgusting,
I can't imagine what could possibly prompt a Greek to imagine the
British are guilty of appropriating their culture. You must be losing
your marbles.
The culture was appropriated from Europeans and transferred to Africans
who formed no part of it. Black people, not just Greeks, Italians, even
Russians, Bulgarians, and other Europeans said it was racist too!
Post by p***@conservation.org
Greek culture is European
Post by The True Doctor
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they try
to look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for Koreans to
play Japanese (see Heroes).
This makes no sense. Either you're a purist or you aren't. An
English-descended Australian is just as inaccurate as Paris Trojan as
a black actor is as Achilles.
What the hell are you going on about?

The Australians are English-descended, unless you're talking about
aboriginals.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Looking up the actor's brief Wikipedia biography, the guy who played
Achilles is British. British culture has the same links to Greek
culture as the rest of Europe. Culture is not defined by skin
colour.
They guy is of sub-Saharan African origin, and has no connection
whatsoever with ancient Greek culture, which is what was being
represented. His casting was racist, plain and simple, just as it would
have been racist for Chibnall to have cast a Japanese or Chinese actor
to play Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks.
Post by p***@conservation.org
If, of course, you're just using 'culture' as a synonym for 'race',
then you're back to being racist.
You are the one who is being racist by trying to justify cultural
appropriation.

Why didn't Disney cast a white actor to play Black Panther. Unlike
Achilles he's totally fictitious, so why didn't they?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from being
racist was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as having a
homosexual affair with his cousin Patroklus, with Briseis in the
same same bed, which is a total abhorrence, which ensured that the
few remaining viewers that were left by the time of that episode
almost all stopped watching and the ratings fell to only 1.3
million.
You do realise that this is a widespread modern interpretation of their relationship?
It is a false interpretation only held by the ignorant. Any reading of
the Iliad and of Plato's Symposium will show that this was not only
plainly not the case, but any suggestion of homosexuality is pure slander.
Post by p***@conservation.org
There's no way to tell categorically whether it's correct or not, of
The entire narrative of the Iliad is about friendship which has not root
whatsoever in sexual desire, triumphing over lust and sexual desire.

Have you actually read it? If not, shut the fuck up because you are
making total, complete, and utter fool of yourself.

The friendship between Achilles and Patroklus is cited by Plato as an
example of pure love (love and friendship in Greek being exactly the
same word) which is totally devoid of sexual desire.
Post by p***@conservation.org
course, as Homer didn't go into detail regarding sexual activities
(including heterosexual ones). But not only is there no reason to
rule it out, it's what a modern audience is likely to expect.
Pure poppycock. You've even read the Iliad and don't even remotely
understand what it's actually about. What people expected is for
Achilles and Patroklus to have been close friends bonded together by
family ties. They didn't expect them to commit homosexual incest, or for
Briseis to have been in the same bed with them. Thus they turned off and
the ratings totally collapsed. Achilles refused to have any sexual
activities with Briseis because he believe Agamemnon had slept with her.
That was the reason why he refused to fight any-longer, and he would
have continued refusing to fight or sleep with her for another 9 months,
to see if she had been gotten pregnant. The only thing that made him
fight was because his cousin who was his friend had by been killed
because of him by Hektor. Read the fucking book you ignorant fool!
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The entire premise of the Iliad was that friendship and love for
ones family, which has no origin in sexual desire, overcomes the
lust for a woman.
Given your loathing for 'soap opera', are you really trying to distil
the Illiad into a 'moral message' about something as vacuous as 'love
for one's family', like some violent ancient Greek version of the
Teletubbies?
The Iliad is written as a soap-opera between the gods, in the same style
as Dallas or Dynasty; not mind numbing crap like Coronation Street or
EastEnders. You've not read it so you don't understand a fucking thing
about it, and are therefore in no position to make any claims.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Achilles did not sleep with his cousin Patroklus, and this
Post by The True Doctor
friendship between two men was used as an example by Plato (see
Symposium) to illustrate that such a friendship is pure and
superior to the love of a woman which is always rooted lust and
thus impure in nature.
Plato considered them lovers and used a term that, at least as
Plato considered them FRIENDS and demonstrates this by citing them as an
example of pure friendship which is not influenced by lust or sexual
desire. Filia means both friendship and love in Greek, and has no sexual
connotations when two men are described as filous. That is what the
message of Plato's Symposium was all about. You don't have a clue do you
because you've not read it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Wikipedia describes it, was reserved for lovers. The reason he
Wikipedia is not written by experts let alone ones who speak Greek or
have read Plato or the Iliad.
Post by p***@conservation.org
considers their relationship superior has nothing to do with the
BULLSHIT! That is categorically WRONG and contradicts Plato's actual
argument in his Symposium where the elder primordial Eros (love) who was
not born of a woman and represents love without desire was superior to
Eros (love) who was born of Aphrodite who represents love born from desire.

<<[Symposium 179d] In this manner even the gods give special honor to
zeal and courage in concerns of love (Eros). But Orpheus, son of
Oeagrus, they sent back with failure from Hades, showing him only a
wraith of the woman for whom he came; her real self they would not
bestow, for he was accounted to have gone upon a coward's quest, too
like the minstrel that he was, and to have lacked the spirit to die as
Alcestis did for the sake of love (elder Eros/love without desire), when
he contrived the means of entering Hades alive. Wherefore they laid upon
him the penalty he deserved, and caused him to meet his death

[179e] at the hands of women: whereas Achilles, son of Thetis, they
honored and sent to his place in the Isles of the Blest, because having
learnt from his mother that he would die as surely as he slew Hector,
but if he slew him not, would return home and end his days an aged man,
he bravely chose to go and rescue his lover (elder Eros/love without
desire) Patroclus,>>
Post by p***@conservation.org
Achilles would have never let anyone, let alone his own cousin,
Post by The True Doctor
lay a hand on Briseis since the reason he refused to no longer
fight against the Trojans in the opening of the story, was because
Agamamnnon took her away from him and he suspected that he had
violated her; and even when Agamemnon gave her back, along with
various gifts, and swore that he had not slept with her, he still
refused to fight.
I've read the Illiad, Aggy (the Samuel Butler translation, to be
precise). This is a mischaracterisation of his motives - the Greeks
are unlikely to have had any conception of rape or abuse of a woman
if Homer's anything to go by.
If you've read the Iliad as you claim, then it is clear that you have
not remotely understood it. The ancient Greeks had every conception of
rape. You can see this clearly in the opening paragraphs of Herodotu's
Histories where the who of Greek history is summed up as being about
avenging the abduction and rape of various women.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Achilles was upset because he considered Briseis his rightful
property - he had no interest in getting her back specifically
because his dispute with Agamemnon was in seeing the man he
considered the inferior fighter - and inferior man - snub him
repeatedly although Achilles was the one winning all the fights. The
Illiad was about Achilles' pride, it wasn't a morality tale and it
certainly had nothing to do with Achilles being some noble hero who
refused to see women mistreated.
Achilles refused to fight because of his desire for a woman, and was
only motivated to resume fighting because of his friendship for his
cousin which was not motivate by desire. That sums up the entire plot of
the the Iliad, not just the beginning.
Post by p***@conservation.org
As Butler tells it, the Greeks actively glorified in the fact that
all the heroes were, to put it bluntly, thugs. None of them come out
of it looking very noble and Homer actively contrasts the barbarism
of the Greeks, who didn't do much but brawl among themselves and
boast about who could rack up the most kills with the more civilised
nature of Priam and Hector.
He does nothing of the fucking kind. Greeks and Trojans are treated
equally as being just as barbaric as each other because in those times
that is how everyone behaved, and how people in Arabia still behaved in
the time of Mohammed, and how Mohammed behaved himself in the Koran,
following exactly the same moral codes of hostage taking, selling
captives into slavery or ransoming them, and raping the women, as the
Achaeans and Trojans; the same Trojans who tried to kill Odysseus when
he was sent to them as an envoy to make peace. The Achaeans who took
captured women and distributed them among themselves exactly like
Mohammed did. The Trojans who took Helen and raped her, refusing to
return her to her rightful husband. The Achaeans whose country had been
violated along with Helen who went to war to right that wrong.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Either you have an extremely naive view of the ancient Greek world
for someone who's read so much of the source material, or you've been
reading sanitised versions addressed to modern sensibilities - if the
What is apparent is that instead of actually reading the Iliad all you
have done is read someone's introduction to it and not either read or
understood what the actual text or story actually was about.
Post by p***@conservation.org
latter it may be illuminating to read Victorian translations like
Butler's and their associated commentary, as despite their reputation
It's the same text that I read, which doesn't have a commentary on the
Gutenberg website.
Post by p***@conservation.org
the Victorians weren't as prudish as modern authors and they didn't
have modern notions about cultural sensitivity.
I have no interest in read biased commentaries by Victorian or anyone
else trying to interpret the characters based on their own moral values,
when they don't understand the moral values of the ancient Greeks, or
even the modern ones to begin with.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used by
Homer to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where the
abduction and rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless imbecile of
a writer turns into the hero) caused the Achaean's to go to war. It
illustrates that they were not going to war because a woman had
been violated, and to bring her back so Menelaus could fuck her;
they went to war because their country, which they had pure love
for, without any connotations of sexual desire, had been raped and
violated when Helen was abducted!
They went to war because they wanted to be at war and to plunder. The
They went to war because the Trojans came to Sparta as friends and then
attacked and plundered it, and took away and raped them women.

Paris demonstrated that he Trojans had no honour, which was again
demonstrated by their refusal to give back Helen, whereas Agamemnon
restored his honour by giving back Briseis, but it wasn't enough for
Achilles.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Iliad is full of the Greeks boasting about the other cities they'd
ransacked and praising Agamemnon for giving then an opportunity for a
Yes, the were punishing the Trojans for what they did in Sparta and the
Peloponnese, by doing the same to them.
Post by p***@conservation.org
punch-up. One thing the Iliad is at pains to make clear is that there
was nothing unified about the Greeks and at best a rudimentary sense
of shared identity.
More Bullshit! The Greeks were unified fighting the Trojans by a pact
sworn at the wedding of Helen and Menelaus. The Greeks had honour among
them to honour that pact. Not only did the Greeks have a shared identity
they also shared the same identity as the Trojans by worshiping the same
gods. Teucer who fought in the Trojan War for the Achaens was half
Trojan himself, and his decent owes itself to the fact that the Trojans
had no honour concerning his mother either.

Honour is what distinguishes the Achaeans from the Trojans even to the
end, where Achilles agrees to return the body of Hektor to his father.
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-06 03:50:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:46:08 PM UTC-5,
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:35:38 PM UTC-5, The
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:35:43 PM UTC-5,
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source material
with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung up about
characters' skin colour and ignoring other deviations that's a
sign you're probably just a racist. From the Wikipedia summary,
this version is actually more faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with
Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek
heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was his
biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally and
those descended from them still are blond, which is why Homer who
knew what people from Thessaly looked like (having traveled around
Greece) depicted Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly
stated by Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other
Greeks who had darker olive colored skin.
Yes, we've established that it's not accurate for a black actor to
play Achilles. It's also a particularly strange choice when they
could have cast a black person as someone whose hair colour was never
described.
They should have not cast any black actors to play and parts other than
that of Aethiopians. Casting black actors to play the parts of
historically white people is as racist as casting white actors to play
the parts of historically black people such as Rose Parks!
As I patiently explained to you, Aggy, you're misusing the word "racism". Miscasting, even if it's considered culturally insensitive miscasting, is not racist.

We're also talking about fictional characters, not historical ones. Once again, you may believe they're historical figures for whatever reason, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned the characters of the Trojan War are as historical as James Bond. So they'll be treated as fictional characters in casting decisions - and there is a perceived difference in portraying real characters like Rosa Parks accurately and fictional characters.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
My question was: why does this matter more than any other inaccuracy?
See above. IT IS RACIST!
Why does being racist matter more than any other inaccuracy?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Why do you get so caught up in what characters look like and whether
that's faithful to the source material, instead of whether the
narrative is? Achilles' hair colour, or indeed skin colour, is of no
narrative relevance to anything that happens in the Iliad.
Achilles is described by Homer as being BLOND! Being blond is what what
marks him out from all of the other Greeks who were olive skinned and is
emphasized by Homer over and over and over again.
Yes, yes, we've established that. Once again my question is: why does that matter more than any other inaccuracy? It's of no relevance to the narrative what he looks like. Why don't you froth at the mouth over the fact that versions like Troy remove the gods altogether, despite their significance as characters?
Post by The True Doctor
Why didn't Chibnall portray Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King using
Chinese actors if skin colour doesn't matter? It would have achieved
exactly the same effect, so why didn't he?
How would it have achieved the same effect to portray leaders of the black civil rights movement, in an episode about black civil rights, as Chinese? That's complete and utter drivel.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA analysis
that the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living Greece at the
time (1200 BC), especially kings of Thessaly.
Archaeology and DNA analysis can't conclusively rule out anything of
the kind. Only a minority of the people in any society are captured
in images or as remains that survived to the present day (and a
minority of the latter are ever analysed).
For example there's a letter from Elizabeth I mentioning that there
were a lot of black people living in England at the time, but the
No there isn't. We discussed this already after the Witchfinders
episode. The word used refers to Moors and other people from northern
Africa.
As I explained to you, the word 'blackamoor' referred to black people. It's different from the word 'Moor', which has the meaning you describe. If 'blackamoor' had the meaning you suggest it would just mean "Moor" - why would they have had two similar words for the same thing? Some things just don't stick in your head, do they?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
first image of a black person in a contemporary Elizabethan setting
in English art is of a single musician at either the end of her reign
or the start of James I's.
This was 3000 years after the Iliad is set at the advent of the African
slave trade, so is in no way representative of the people of ancient
Greece.
Why do you bang on about the slave trade all the time? Look on a map - Africa, Asia and Europe are a single landmass and people had legs, mounts and wheeled vehicles as well as seagoing boats sufficient to cross the Mediterranean or English Channel.

There was wide exchange of peoples between regions, and indeed slavery in many cultures that took no account of race, just of whichever side lost a particular war. People found their way exactly the way Memnon and his Ethiopians did (and the Ethiopia of the Iliad was a name for a much broader area of Africa than the modern country - more or less anywhere south of Egypt).

Given that Homer even mentions people coming from "Ethiopia" to what's now the Turkish mainland - in what, when he was writing, was an event supposed to have taken place centuries in the past - why do you have such a hard time imagining there would have been some black people in Greece? All we've established is that Achilles wasn't among them.

The people of Greece were racially homogeneous until the 20th
Post by The True Doctor
century, just like everyone else from the Balkans and Anatolia.
How on Earth were the peoples of Anatolia 'racially homogenous until the 20th Century'? The Turks alone didn't arrive in the region from Central Asia until the 11th Century, and they didn't eradicate the native Mediterranean populations when they arrived.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
Post by The True Doctor
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist
beyond measure,
It's inaccurate. That doesn't make it racist, just miscasting. It
It makes it racist because they are clearly described as being blond,
That doesn't make it racist, just miscasting. Would you have been happier if the actor had dyed his hair blond (and grown some)?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
wouldn't be racist even if it could be demonstrated that it denied
opportunities for marginalised blond white men to play Greek heroes.
Racism requires active discrimination.
Why didn't Chibnall cast Chinese actors to play Rosa Parks and Martin
Luther King again? Why weren't the other non-white people on the bus
played by Japanese and Korean actors? It would have made no difference
to the story doing so. Why didn't he?
It would have made a pretty significant difference in a story specifically about race relations in America.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Again you're using the same false logic as the people you accuse of
being 'politically correct', the ones who flare up and insist it's
sexist not to consider casting James Bond as a female or racist not
Have you read any of the James Bond novels? The character of James Bond
is that of a man. Casino Royale makes it impossible for him to be played
by a woman.
That's my point. So why are you using the same reasoning to decry casting a black man as racist that people agitating for a female James Bond use?

Changing him into a woman would mean the
Post by The True Doctor
character would not be James Bond but someone else. Do you want me to
explain the plot of Casino Royale to you?
And yet, changing Achilles into a black man has no influence whatsoever on who the character is or on the plot. Now do you see the point?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Post by The True Doctor
Athens),
Remember not to confuse your personal theories with the real world,
Aggy. Even if we assume you're a visionary and are correct in your
assertions that these Greek deities were based on real people, that
isn't a widespread view and there's no reason for the casting
You don't have a clue about ancient history of region do you?
Read Herodotus, Philo and Porphyry. The ancient Greeks always accepted
that their gods were mortal kings/queens who were called gods (theoi or
disposers) because of the benefits they brought to mankind; just like
the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Assyrians, and everyone else at the time,
including the Germans and Gauls. This fact was NEVER questioned! The
gods were always worshiped as ancestors and had the same character
traits as human beings.
Even if we accept all this (and the assorted reasons you're wrong were discussed to death years ago), my point is that the majority of people don't. They don't read Herodotus, Philo or Porphyry and as far as they're concerned the gods are completely mythical entities to be treated however the whims of artistic licence demand. Plato et al. were also all very much later than the origins of those myths - even if they had held the beliefs you imagine they had, that was simply a secondary interpretation.

Also, the article I linked to made a good point - the form Greek gods appear in to mortals is not their true form, so they can look like more or less whatever they want. They could cast a bull as Poseidon if they wanted, so casting a black man as Zeus is hardly a stretch.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
directors to be aware of it. Gods can be portrayed however the people
casting them wants - the Greeks would have imagined them looking
Greek, but there's no reason they have to.
There is no imagining about it it. The ancient Greek gods were Greek
kings, so of course they looked Greek. The ancient Greek, Egyptian,
Germanic, Gaulish, Roman, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Phoenician
religions, and even that of the Hindus, were all forms of ancestor
worship. Their mortal bodies may have died but their spirits were
considered to live on and hold the same positions of power in the
afterlife as they did in real life. Stop thinking like an idiot whose
only conception of religion is Christianity.
You're the one who's using Christian reasoning. Christianity and Islam are very unusual religions in that the characters they venerate were genuinely real people. So you're taking that lens and applying it inappropriately to past religions.

Ancestor worship also doesn't mean what you imagine it does. In very few cases are ancestors envisaged as the same discrete individuals they were when alive. Rather they become part of some aggregate spiritual force, or individual unnamed spirits, within an animist tradition. "X is dead, now he's a god/angel etc." is another very modern Christianised way to view the world. It wasn't wholly alien to Greek tradition - after all they had supposedly real kings like Perseus and Dionysus who became demigods on death - but Greeks generally made a distinction between those characters and the major deities.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
however he wants - though given the popular association between him
and Rome, once again he's one of the worse choices to recast as
black. Why not just go for a character like Odysseus with no
particular links to anyone or anywhere else? Ithaca has never been
Why not just leave Odysseus and other Greeks and Italians as they are
and stop being racist. There was plenty of opportunity to cast a black
actor as Memnon and black actors as his troops who came from Aethiopia;
though these would have looked like Ethiopians of today, not sub-Saharan
Africans who a substantially darker and have different facial
characteristics.
As explained, Ethiopia was not the place we now call Ethiopia, any more than Roman Mauretania is modern Mauritania or Roman 'Africa' was an entire continent.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Greek culture is European
Post by The True Doctor
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they try
to look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for Koreans to
play Japanese (see Heroes).
This makes no sense. Either you're a purist or you aren't. An
English-descended Australian is just as inaccurate as Paris Trojan as
a black actor is as Achilles.
What the hell are you going on about?
The Australians are English-descended, unless you're talking about
aboriginals.
Australians are immigrants from various places - I specified English-Australian (based on the surname) in case you decided to invent a story that the actor was of Greek descent.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Looking up the actor's brief Wikipedia biography, the guy who played
Achilles is British. British culture has the same links to Greek
culture as the rest of Europe. Culture is not defined by skin
colour.
They guy is of sub-Saharan African origin,
Racially. That's not the same as culture. The Celtic and Germanic peoples who populated Britain have no racial connection to Greece either.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
If, of course, you're just using 'culture' as a synonym for 'race',
then you're back to being racist.
You are the one who is being racist by trying to justify cultural
appropriation.
Cultural appropriation is not the same thing as racism.
Post by The True Doctor
Why didn't Disney cast a white actor to play Black Panther. Unlike
Achilles he's totally fictitious, so why didn't they?
Because the entire point of making a film about the character was that they could trumpet having an black-led and almost all-black cast as their novel take on superheroes in the marketing spin.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from being
racist was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as having a
homosexual affair with his cousin Patroklus, with Briseis in the
same same bed, which is a total abhorrence, which ensured that the
few remaining viewers that were left by the time of that episode
almost all stopped watching and the ratings fell to only 1.3
million.
You do realise that this is a widespread modern interpretation of their relationship?
It is a false interpretation only held by the ignorant.
Including most scholars who look at it.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
There's no way to tell categorically whether it's correct or not, of
The entire narrative of the Iliad is about friendship which has not root
whatsoever in sexual desire, triumphing over lust and sexual desire.
Have you actually read it? If not, shut the fuck up because you are
making total, complete, and utter fool of yourself.
Yes, I mentioned I'd read it. It barely talks about their relationship and Achilles hardly appears after Agamemnon upsets him - the point is the consequences of Patroclus' death, not the details - sordid or otherwise - of their relationship.

You're inventing things either way to read anything sufficiently specific into it to claim one thing or the other.
Post by The True Doctor
The friendship between Achilles and Patroklus is cited by Plato as an
example of pure love (love and friendship in Greek being exactly the
same word) which is totally devoid of sexual desire.
I see. So when Greeks use that word to refer to relations between men and women, you naturally assume that no sexual desire is involved and they're just good friends?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Wikipedia describes it, was reserved for lovers. The reason he
Wikipedia is not written by experts let alone ones who speak Greek or
have read Plato or the Iliad.
No, but the specific passage I quoted cites sources who presumably have, and it describes the specific Platonic dialogue in detail. 'Filious' is not the word I was referring to.
Post by The True Doctor
<<[Symposium 179d] In this manner even the gods give special honor to
zeal and courage in concerns of love (Eros). But Orpheus, son of
Oeagrus, they sent back with failure from Hades, showing him only a
wraith of the woman for whom he came; her real self they would not
bestow, for he was accounted to have gone upon a coward's quest, too
like the minstrel that he was, and to have lacked the spirit to die as
Alcestis did for the sake of love (elder Eros/love without desire), when
he contrived the means of entering Hades alive. Wherefore they laid upon
him the penalty he deserved, and caused him to meet his death
Orpheus has nothing to do with the Iliad and only shows up as a cameo in the Odyssey.
Post by The True Doctor
[179e] at the hands of women: whereas Achilles, son of Thetis, they
honored and sent to his place in the Isles of the Blest, because having
learnt from his mother that he would die as surely as he slew Hector,
but if he slew him not, would return home and end his days an aged man,
he bravely chose to go and rescue his lover (elder Eros/love without
desire) Patroclus,>>
'Elder Eros' is not 'love without desire' - he is not *just* desire, but that isn't the same thing. What's more Plato asserted that it typically evolved from desire - he even said that gods cannot experience it because they can't desire. Essentially it's love that transcends desire, but desire is a necessary part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_(concept)#Plato

Even if you continue to disagree with all of that it's a sufficiently well-documented understanding of both Plato and the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus, including among the academics who study the subject, that you can hardly hold the director of a TV drama to a higher intellectual standard.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
I've read the Illiad, Aggy (the Samuel Butler translation, to be
precise). This is a mischaracterisation of his motives - the Greeks
are unlikely to have had any conception of rape or abuse of a woman
if Homer's anything to go by.
If you've read the Iliad as you claim, then it is clear that you have
not remotely understood it. The ancient Greeks had every conception of
rape. You can see this clearly in the opening paragraphs of Herodotu's
Histories where the who of Greek history is summed up as being about
avenging the abduction and rape of various women.
Be that as it may, it's no part of Achilles' motivation in the Iliad.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used by
Homer to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where the
abduction and rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless imbecile of
a writer turns into the hero) caused the Achaean's to go to war. It
illustrates that they were not going to war because a woman had
been violated, and to bring her back so Menelaus could fuck her;
they went to war because their country, which they had pure love
for, without any connotations of sexual desire, had been raped and
violated when Helen was abducted!
They went to war because they wanted to be at war and to plunder. The
They went to war because the Trojans came to Sparta as friends and then
attacked and plundered it, and took away and raped them women.
Paris demonstrated that he Trojans had no honour,
Paris demonstrated that Paris had no honour. Through most of the Trojan scenes in the Iliad the Trojans are sick of him and blame him for everything that's happened. He's not exactly hailed as the exemplar of everything Trojans should aspire to be - that's Hector. It's not clear that Helen has much time for him either - she tells him to bugger off and fight at one point.

No, I don't think it's very suitable having Paris portrayed as a hero. I think it comes from a shallow, soap-operatic modern notion that stories have to be focused on the guy with a girlfriend/wife (or girl with a boyfriend/husband) so that 'romance' can be unnecessarily inserted into it.

which was again
Post by The True Doctor
demonstrated by their refusal to give back Helen, whereas Agamemnon
restored his honour by giving back Briseis, but it wasn't enough for
Achilles.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Iliad is full of the Greeks boasting about the other cities they'd
ransacked and praising Agamemnon for giving then an opportunity for a
Yes, the were punishing the Trojans for what they did in Sparta and the
Peloponnese, by doing the same to them.
These were cities unrelated to Troy. It was just a part of life for them. Bored this weekend? Go ransack a city.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
punch-up. One thing the Iliad is at pains to make clear is that there
was nothing unified about the Greeks and at best a rudimentary sense
of shared identity.
More Bullshit! The Greeks were unified fighting the Trojans by a pact
sworn at the wedding of Helen and Menelaus.
Yes, nothing to do with the honour of their nation, a concept they didn't have. It was a code of personal agreements between aristocrats (heroes).
The True Doctor
2018-12-06 23:47:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:34:58 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:46:08 PM UTC-5,
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:43:44 AM UTC-5, The
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:35:38 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:35:43 PM
On 03/12/2018 18:21,
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source
material with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung
up about characters' skin colour and ignoring other
deviations that's a sign you're probably just a racist.
From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more
faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with
Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek
heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was
his biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally
and those descended from them still are blond, which is why
Homer who knew what people from Thessaly looked like (having
traveled around Greece) depicted Achilles as being blond, and
this being repeatedly stated by Homer as being his
distinguishing feature from other Greeks who had darker olive
colored skin.
Yes, we've established that it's not accurate for a black actor
to play Achilles. It's also a particularly strange choice when
they could have cast a black person as someone whose hair colour
was never described.
They should have not cast any black actors to play and parts other
than that of Aethiopians. Casting black actors to play the parts
of historically white people is as racist as casting white actors
to play the parts of historically black people such as Rose Parks!
As I patiently explained to you, Aggy, you're misusing the word
"racism". Miscasting, even if it's considered culturally insensitive
miscasting, is not racist.
We're also talking about fictional characters, not historical ones.
The people who fought in the Trojan War were historical kings and
princes of Greece and Troy. Their descendants lived at the time of Homer
and still ruled or occupied the cities they ruled or founded. There is
nothing anymore fictitious about Achilles than there is about Winston
Churchill, Lord Mountbatten, and Rosa Parks, and their existence was
never questioned. You don't have the faintest clue about ancient
history, literate, culture, or religion, so stop talking about subjects
you know nothing about.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
My question was: why does this matter more than any other
inaccuracy?
See above. IT IS RACIST!
Why does being racist matter more than any other inaccuracy?
Tell that to the Asian Americans calling the casting of white actors to
play Asian characters racist, when there are plenty of Asian actors to
fill those roles. The fact that these people look nothing like the
people they are playing is the most glaringly obvious inaccuracy of all,
as well as being extremely offensice.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Why do you get so caught up in what characters look like and
whether that's faithful to the source material, instead of
whether the narrative is? Achilles' hair colour, or indeed skin
colour, is of no narrative relevance to anything that happens in
the Iliad.
Achilles is described by Homer as being BLOND! Being blond is what
what marks him out from all of the other Greeks who were olive
skinned and is emphasized by Homer over and over and over again.
Yes, yes, we've established that. Once again my question is: why does
that matter more than any other inaccuracy? It's of no relevance to
See above.
Post by p***@conservation.org
the narrative what he looks like.
It is totally relevant to the narrative in distinguishing the
Thessalians who are the only people referred to as Hellenes from the
rest of the Greeks who are referred to as Achaean's or Danaioi and only
later identified as Hellenes. It has everything to do with the cultural
identity of the Greeks as Hellenes and their ancestors' origins from
northern Europe, not sub-Saharan Africa. Stop being racist in your
denials of Greek origns.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Why didn't Chibnall portray Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King
using Chinese actors if skin colour doesn't matter? It would have
achieved exactly the same effect, so why didn't he?
How would it have achieved the same effect to portray leaders of the
black civil rights movement, in an episode about black civil rights,
as Chinese? That's complete and utter drivel.
There's no reason why the Chinese don't deserve civil rights and can not
identify as black as well. If you are willing to ignore Greek cultural
identity then casting a Chinese woman to play Rosa Parks should make no
difference to you. It doesn't change the meaning of the story in any
way, and if a waitress thinks that Yaz is a Mexican I have no doubt
Chibnall fans would not be able to distinguish a Chinese actress from an
actress of mixed race anyway, so it would be less of a distraction than
a black Achilles.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
It can categorically be ruled out by archeology and DNA
analysis that the were no black sub-Saharan Africans living
Greece at the time (1200 BC), especially kings of Thessaly.
Archaeology and DNA analysis can't conclusively rule out anything
of the kind. Only a minority of the people in any society are
captured in images or as remains that survived to the present day
(and a minority of the latter are ever analysed).
For example there's a letter from Elizabeth I mentioning that
there were a lot of black people living in England at the time,
but the
No there isn't. We discussed this already after the Witchfinders
episode. The word used refers to Moors and other people from
northern Africa.
As I explained to you, the word 'blackamoor' referred to black
people. It's different from the word 'Moor', which has the meaning
As I explained to you the word 'blackamoor' ONLY referred to people from
Northern Africa who were of Arab decent, as stated in the official
definition which I posted.
Post by p***@conservation.org
you describe. If 'blackamoor' had the meaning you suggest it would
just mean "Moor" - why would they have had two similar words for the
same thing? Some things just don't stick in your head, do they?
Moor was a specific term for people from Mauritania. Blackamoor was a
general term for all people from northern Africa descended from Arabs
who therefore looked darker than Europeans but lighter skinned and with
different features from sub-Saharan blacks. That is the official
meaning, usage, and definition.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
first image of a black person in a contemporary Elizabethan
setting in English art is of a single musician at either the end
of her reign or the start of James I's.
This was 3000 years after the Iliad is set at the advent of the
African slave trade, so is in no way representative of the people
of ancient Greece.
Why do you bang on about the slave trade all the time? Look on a map
- Africa, Asia and Europe are a single landmass and people had legs,
mounts and wheeled vehicles as well as seagoing boats sufficient to
cross the Mediterranean or English Channel.
You don't have the remotest clue about ancient history. Europe, Asia,
and Africa were already broken up into individual states over 3000 years
ago, and movement or populations between them would have resulted in
war. There were no sub-Saharan Africans in either Europe or Asia except
for a small tribe which has settled near Colchis (Georgia) that was left
behind after a campaign by the Egyptian army, as stated by Herodotus.
Learn some real history for once and stop coming up with pure fiction.

The Greeks and Phoenicians controlled the Mediterraneans sea and all
trade would have been carried out by Greeks and Phoenicians, between
merchants in Europe and merchants in Northern Africa. Trade worked on
the basis of goods filtering from one merchant to another and eventually
to the ports. There was no direct trade from inland locations to ports.
All goods came though trading relays, so even if good were produced in
sub-Saharan Africa, no one in Northern Africa would have seen the people
that made them.

Stop spouting out historical revisionist PC crap trying to justify
racist supremacist ideologies which had no rational credibility whatsoever.
Post by p***@conservation.org
There was wide exchange of peoples between regions, and indeed
NO THERE WAS NOT! You are lying and making it up.
Post by p***@conservation.org
slavery in many cultures that took no account of race, just of
Sub-Saharan Africans were not sold as slaves in either Europe or Asia by
any ancient civilizations as they never went to war with any Sub-Saharan
tribes and took them captive, since there was nothing to gain from doing
so. Stop trying to rewrite history based on modern racist ideology.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Given that Homer even mentions people coming from "Ethiopia" to
what's now the Turkish mainland - in what, when he was writing, was
an event supposed to have taken place centuries in the past - why do
you have such a hard time imagining there would have been some black
people in Greece? All we've established is that Achilles wasn't among
them.
It is stated by Herodotus that there were no black people in either Asia
or Europe except for a tribe of Aethiopians near Colchis, and that was
all. The kings of Greece were not descended from African slaves. There
would have been no sub-Saharan Africans, especially ones from West
Africa in Greece, Asia, or Europe at the time.

Achilles was blond just like all other Thessalians. Slaves if there were
any would have originated from other Greek cities including Troy as is
demonstrated by Homer.
Post by p***@conservation.org
The people of Greece were racially homogeneous until the 20th
Post by The True Doctor
century, just like everyone else from the Balkans and Anatolia.
How on Earth were the peoples of Anatolia 'racially homogenous until
the 20th Century'? The Turks alone didn't arrive in the region from
Central Asia until the 11th Century, and they didn't eradicate the
native Mediterranean populations when they arrived.
Most Turks are actually of Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Arab or indigenous
Anatolian decent. The Turkish tribes which invaded Asia-Minor numbered
very little, and of course they themselves were homogeneous. There were
no sub-Saharan Africans among them.

I suggest you stop making up crap to substantiate racist PC ideology.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Depicting Achilles and Patrlklus as
Post by The True Doctor
black when all the literature describes him as blond is racist
beyond measure,
It's inaccurate. That doesn't make it racist, just miscasting. It
It makes it racist because they are clearly described as being blond,
That doesn't make it racist, just miscasting. Would you have been
happier if the actor had dyed his hair blond (and grown some)?
Achilles was described as having fair skin and blond hair. A blond
European actor should have been cast in the role. Casting a black actor
to play him is racist just like it would be racist to cast a white actor
to play Martin Luther King or Black Panther.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
wouldn't be racist even if it could be demonstrated that it
denied opportunities for marginalised blond white men to play
Greek heroes. Racism requires active discrimination.
Why didn't Chibnall cast Chinese actors to play Rosa Parks and
Martin Luther King again? Why weren't the other non-white people on
the bus played by Japanese and Korean actors? It would have made no
difference to the story doing so. Why didn't he?
It would have made a pretty significant difference in a story
specifically about race relations in America.
It would have made no difference whatsoever to the message since
Japanese and Koreans are not white.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Again you're using the same false logic as the people you accuse
of being 'politically correct', the ones who flare up and insist
it's sexist not to consider casting James Bond as a female or
racist not
Have you read any of the James Bond novels? The character of James
Bond is that of a man. Casino Royale makes it impossible for him to
be played by a woman.
That's my point. So why are you using the same reasoning to decry
casting a black man as racist that people agitating for a female
James Bond use?
I am not opposing the casting of a black man to play James Bond, except
for the fact that he is described as looking like Hoagey Carmichael, but
007 is a code number and James Bond could very well be a made up cover
name. Troy: Fall of a City on the other hand was not set in modern times
but was set in ancient Greece and there were no sub-Saharan Africans
there whatsoever. Achilles was a historical figure. He was always
described as being blond and fair skinned, and portraying him any other
way is as racist as having a Japanese actor play Rosa Parks.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Changing him into a woman would mean the
Post by The True Doctor
character would not be James Bond but someone else. Do you want me
to explain the plot of Casino Royale to you?
And yet, changing Achilles into a black man has no influence
whatsoever on who the character is or on the plot. Now do you see the
point?
There were no sub-Saharan Africans in Greece at the time of Achilles,
and since Troy: Fall of a City is not set in modern times, casting a
black actor to play him is RACIST! Do you not understand that it is
racially offensive to appropriate the historical culture of one race and
attempt to pass it off as that of another? It would make no difference
whatsoever to the character or the plot to cast a white actor to play
Black Panther, why didn't Disney do it, and why aren't you campaigning
for them to do so?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
as is depicting Zeus (a king of Crete), Athena (a queen of
Post by The True Doctor
Athens),
Remember not to confuse your personal theories with the real
world, Aggy. Even if we assume you're a visionary and are correct
in your assertions that these Greek deities were based on real
people, that isn't a widespread view and there's no reason for
the casting
You don't have a clue about ancient history of region do you?
Read Herodotus, Philo and Porphyry. The ancient Greeks always
accepted that their gods were mortal kings/queens who were called
gods (theoi or disposers) because of the benefits they brought to
mankind; just like the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Assyrians, and
everyone else at the time, including the Germans and Gauls. This
fact was NEVER questioned! The gods were always worshiped as
ancestors and had the same character traits as human beings.
Even if we accept all this (and the assorted reasons you're wrong
were discussed to death years ago), my point is that the majority of
You are the one who is wrong. You've never read Herodotus and you've
never read the Iliad apart from a set of notes.
Post by p***@conservation.org
people don't. They don't read Herodotus, Philo or Porphyry and as far
as they're concerned the gods are completely mythical entities to be
treated however the whims of artistic licence demand. Plato et al.
Here you go again trying to justify racism if the form of cultural
appropriation. The ancient Greeks believed that the gods were all former
kings of Greece who were called gods of theoi, because of the benefits
they provided their subjects. This fact is stated categorically by
Herodotus and reinforced by Philo. Porphyry and Eusebius. To every
ancient Greek, Roman, Phoenician, and Egyptian, the gods were deified
kings and they were worshiped as ancestors.
Post by p***@conservation.org
were also all very much later than the origins of those myths - even
if they had held the beliefs you imagine they had, that was simply a
secondary interpretation.
NO! It was the primary interpretation. Nobody not even Homer believed
the gods to be anything else, and this is made perfectly clear in the
Iliad and Odyssey when Homer makes the gods come down in mortal form in
the image and physical presence of the heroes themselves, which would
have been considered an act of blasphemy if the Greeks considered the
god in the way modern (not ancient) Christians consider their god. The
ancient Christians engaged in ancestor worship themselves by worshiping
Christ, a dead Jew as a god.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Also, the article I linked to made a good point - the form Greek gods
appear in to mortals is not their true form, so they can look like
more or less whatever they want. They could cast a bull as Poseidon
if they wanted, so casting a black man as Zeus is hardly a stretch.
I am objecting to a black actor being cast to play Achilles who was a
blond European mortal. The casting amounts to cultural appropriation and
is racist. Casting a black actor to play Zeus is simply ridiculous given
that all the statuary always shows him as being of European decent, and
gives the series even less credibility.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
directors to be aware of it. Gods can be portrayed however the
people casting them wants - the Greeks would have imagined them
looking Greek, but there's no reason they have to.
There is no imagining about it it. The ancient Greek gods were
Greek kings, so of course they looked Greek. The ancient Greek,
Egyptian, Germanic, Gaulish, Roman, Assyrian, Babylonian, and
Phoenician religions, and even that of the Hindus, were all forms
of ancestor worship. Their mortal bodies may have died but their
spirits were considered to live on and hold the same positions of
power in the afterlife as they did in real life. Stop thinking like
an idiot whose only conception of religion is Christianity.
You're the one who's using Christian reasoning. Christianity and
You are the one who is, by denying the fact that the ancient Greek gods
and heroes were real people.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Islam are very unusual religions in that the characters they venerate
were genuinely real people. So you're taking that lens and applying
it inappropriately to past religions.
Characters? You mean the saint's and all that? The Christians were
copying the ancient Greeks and Romans because the early Christians were
polytheists, just like the early Jews. Islam was the first monotheistic
religion, which expressly denies the existence of other gods, and even
then the so-called Satanic Verses show that even Mohammed at first
accepted that Allah had a wife and daughters, and I think even a son.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Ancestor worship also doesn't mean what you imagine it does. In very
It doesn't mean what you think does.
Post by p***@conservation.org
few cases are ancestors envisaged as the same discrete individuals
they were when alive. Rather they become part of some aggregate
Yes they were. Have you watched Gladiator, which actually gets this
right? The ancient Romans and Greece carried statues or dolls of their
deceased family members with them, and worshiped them as a the
Christians do saints, which is where the Christians got the whole idea from.
Post by p***@conservation.org
spiritual force, or individual unnamed spirits, within an animist
NO THEY DID NOT! That is bullshit invented by the Victorians at the same
time they invented Wiccanism and pseudo-Celtic religions which have no
resemblance to any genuine ancient religions.
Post by p***@conservation.org
tradition. "X is dead, now he's a god/angel etc." is another very
modern Christianised way to view the world. It wasn't wholly alien to
Greek tradition - after all they had supposedly real kings like
Perseus and Dionysus who became demigods on death - but Greeks
generally made a distinction between those characters and the major
deities.
Having ordinary ancestors intervene in people's lives runs contrary to
the beliefs of the ancient Romans and Greeks. When an ordinary person
died then they went to the Elysian Fields where they lost all memory of
their past life, therefore they could not simply be conjured up. If
someone did something heroic then they went to live in the halls of
Hades, and no one every escaped from either of these places except for
Herakles and Theseus, and Alcestis didn't technically get that far, so
I've just ruined that play for you if you've not read it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
however he wants - though given the popular association between
him and Rome, once again he's one of the worse choices to recast
as black. Why not just go for a character like Odysseus with no
particular links to anyone or anywhere else? Ithaca has never been
Why not just leave Odysseus and other Greeks and Italians as they
are and stop being racist. There was plenty of opportunity to cast
a black actor as Memnon and black actors as his troops who came
from Aethiopia; though these would have looked like Ethiopians of
today, not sub-Saharan Africans who a substantially darker and have
different facial characteristics.
As explained, Ethiopia was not the place we now call Ethiopia, any
more than Roman Mauretania is modern Mauritania or Roman 'Africa' was
an entire continent.
Ethiopia was where northern Sudan is now, so the people would have been
lighter skinned than any Sub-Saharan African and looked more like very
dark skinned Arabs. Herodotus likened them to the dark skinned people of
southern India.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Greek culture is European
Post by The True Doctor
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they
try to look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for
Koreans to play Japanese (see Heroes).
This makes no sense. Either you're a purist or you aren't. An
English-descended Australian is just as inaccurate as Paris
Trojan as a black actor is as Achilles.
What the hell are you going on about?
The Australians are English-descended, unless you're talking about
aboriginals.
Australians are immigrants from various places - I specified
English-Australian (based on the surname) in case you decided to
invent a story that the actor was of Greek descent.
What the hell are you still raving on abut? What actor?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Looking up the actor's brief Wikipedia biography, the guy who
played Achilles is British. British culture has the same links to
Greek culture as the rest of Europe. Culture is not defined by
skin colour.
They guy is of sub-Saharan African origin,
Racially. That's not the same as culture. The Celtic and Germanic
peoples who populated Britain have no racial connection to Greece
either.
Achilles was not racially from sub-Saharan African and sub Saharan
Africans contributed absolutely nothing directly to ancient-Greek culture.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
If, of course, you're just using 'culture' as a synonym for
'race', then you're back to being racist.
You are the one who is being racist by trying to justify cultural
appropriation.
Cultural appropriation is not the same thing as racism.
It is when black actors are cast to play the parts of historically white
people and while actors are cast to play the parts of historically black
people. The same goes for Asians. Take the argument up with George Takai.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Why didn't Disney cast a white actor to play Black Panther. Unlike
Achilles he's totally fictitious, so why didn't they?
Because the entire point of making a film about the character was
that they could trumpet having an black-led and almost all-black cast
as their novel take on superheroes in the marketing spin.
Oh really, and the fact that the original character was black made no
difference. BULLSHIT! If Disney had cast a white actor to play Black
Panther they would have been called out by everyone as being totally
racist.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
The series was in no way faithful to Homer, and apart from
being racist was even more offensive by depicting Achilles as
having a homosexual affair with his cousin Patroklus, with
Briseis in the same same bed, which is a total abhorrence,
which ensured that the few remaining viewers that were left by
the time of that episode almost all stopped watching and the
ratings fell to only 1.3 million.
You do realise that this is a widespread modern interpretation of their relationship?
It is a false interpretation only held by the ignorant.
Including most scholars who look at it.
Only ignorant scholars motivated by political agendas, who have neither
read nor understood Homer or Plato would come to such a conclusion.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
There's no way to tell categorically whether it's correct or not, of
The entire narrative of the Iliad is about friendship which has not
root whatsoever in sexual desire, triumphing over lust and sexual
desire.
Have you actually read it? If not, shut the fuck up because you
are making total, complete, and utter fool of yourself.
Yes, I mentioned I'd read it. It barely talks about their
relationship and Achilles hardly appears after Agamemnon upsets him -
the point is the consequences of Patroclus' death, not the details -
sordid or otherwise - of their relationship.
WRONG! I doubt you actually read it at all since you've not understood a
word of it. Skimming it at 800 words per minutes isn't reading.

The entire narrative of the Iliad is about love and friendship which has
no root whatsoever in sexual desire, triumphing over lust and sexual
desire. Achilles would not fight because he desired Briseis even when
Agamemnon gave her back to him, but he would fight because he didn't
desire Patroklus. The bond of friendship between him and Patrokuls was
more powerful and purer than the desire he had for Briseis. This is
contrasted with the ordinary Greeks fighting for the love of their
country while their leaders fought to bring back Helen so that Menelaus
could fuck her.
Post by p***@conservation.org
You're inventing things either way to read anything sufficiently
specific into it to claim one thing or the other.
You don't have a clue about the Iliad or any other anceint literature.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The friendship between Achilles and Patroklus is cited by Plato as
an example of pure love (love and friendship in Greek being exactly
the same word) which is totally devoid of sexual desire.
I see. So when Greeks use that word to refer to relations between men
and women, you naturally assume that no sexual desire is involved and
they're just good friends?
EVERYONE assumes that no sexual desire is involved between two men. You
don't have a clue about the Greek language or Greek culture either.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Wikipedia describes it, was reserved for lovers. The reason he
Wikipedia is not written by experts let alone ones who speak Greek
or have read Plato or the Iliad.
No, but the specific passage I quoted cites sources who presumably
have, and it describes the specific Platonic dialogue in detail.
'Filious' is not the word I was referring to.
It was written by people don't have the remotest clue about the Iliad or
Plato based on the inaccurate politically motivated rantings, sophistry,
and dissemblings of Victorian so-called scholars who wanted to justify
homosexuality.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
<<[Symposium 179d] In this manner even the gods give special honor
to zeal and courage in concerns of love (Eros). But Orpheus, son
of Oeagrus, they sent back with failure from Hades, showing him
only a wraith of the woman for whom he came; her real self they
would not bestow, for he was accounted to have gone upon a coward's
quest, too like the minstrel that he was, and to have lacked the
spirit to die as Alcestis did for the sake of love (elder Eros/love
without desire), when he contrived the means of entering Hades
alive. Wherefore they laid upon him the penalty he deserved, and
caused him to meet his death
Orpheus has nothing to do with the Iliad and only shows up as a cameo in the Odyssey.
Orpheus is relevant to Plato's argument differentiating the two forms of
Love, the pure kind which involves no sexual desire, and impure love,
the sexual kind. Orpheus was motivated by the love of a woman which was
impure love. Achilles was motivated by his friendship for his own cousin
Patroklus, which was pure love without any thought of desire.

Just how ignorant are you?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
[179e] at the hands of women: whereas Achilles, son of Thetis,
they honored and sent to his place in the Isles of the Blest,
because having learnt from his mother that he would die as surely
as he slew Hector, but if he slew him not, would return home and
end his days an aged man, he bravely chose to go and rescue his
lover (elder Eros/love without desire) Patroclus,>>
'Elder Eros' is not 'love without desire' - he is not *just* desire,
but that isn't the same thing. What's more Plato asserted that it
typically evolved from desire - he even said that gods cannot
experience it because they can't desire. Essentially it's love that
transcends desire, but desire is a necessary part of it.
Stop trying to dissemble Plato. He expressly states that the Elder Eros
being born out of nothing (Aether) was pure love devoid of sexual
desire. Only the younger Eros, the son of Aphrodite represented sexual
desire because he was born from lust.
Post by p***@conservation.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_(concept)#Plato
Even if you continue to disagree with all of that it's a sufficiently
well-documented understanding of both Plato and the relationship
Unlike you I've actually ready Plato's Symposium and understood it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
between Achilles and Patroclus, including among the academics who
study the subject, that you can hardly hold the director of a TV
drama to a higher intellectual standard.
The view held by academic who have actually read Plato and understood
him is that Achilles' relationship with Patroklus was one of friendship
and love without desired. It's written plain and clear in the passage I
quoted.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
I've read the Illiad, Aggy (the Samuel Butler translation, to be
precise). This is a mischaracterisation of his motives - the
Greeks are unlikely to have had any conception of rape or abuse
of a woman if Homer's anything to go by.
If you've read the Iliad as you claim, then it is clear that you
have not remotely understood it. The ancient Greeks had every
conception of rape. You can see this clearly in the opening
paragraphs of Herodotu's Histories where the who of Greek history
is summed up as being about avenging the abduction and rape of
various women.
Be that as it may, it's no part of Achilles' motivation in the
Iliad.
Achilles went war because of a pact his father Peleus, and all the other
Greeks swore at the wedding of Helen and Menelaus, to punish anyone who
attempted to violate that marriage.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
The story of Achilles, which is the story of the Iliad, is used
by Homer to contrast with the basis of the Trojan War, where
the abduction and rape of Helen by Paris (who the clueless
imbecile of a writer turns into the hero) caused the Achaean's
to go to war. It illustrates that they were not going to war
because a woman had been violated, and to bring her back so
Menelaus could fuck her; they went to war because their
country, which they had pure love for, without any connotations
of sexual desire, had been raped and violated when Helen was
abducted!
They went to war because they wanted to be at war and to plunder. The
They went to war because the Trojans came to Sparta as friends and
then attacked and plundered it, and took away and raped them
women.
Paris demonstrated that he Trojans had no honour,
Paris demonstrated that Paris had no honour. Through most of the
And by acting as their ambassador, demonstrated all Trojans had no
honour, just like his grandfather demonstrated it before him.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Trojan scenes in the Iliad the Trojans are sick of him and blame him
for everything that's happened. He's not exactly hailed as the
Some Trojans are sick of him. Others continue to support him.
Post by p***@conservation.org
exemplar of everything Trojans should aspire to be - that's Hector.
It's not clear that Helen has much time for him either - she tells
him to bugger off and fight at one point.
No, I don't think it's very suitable having Paris portrayed as a
hero. I think it comes from a shallow, soap-operatic modern notion
that stories have to be focused on the guy with a girlfriend/wife (or
It comes from the warped ideology of political correctness, which
preaches supporting the villain because he is being misinterpreted. This
is the same sickening ideology which led Chibnall to have the Doctor
make friends with a pervert and excuse its crimes which it inflicted on
other to get its kicks.
Post by p***@conservation.org
girl with a boyfriend/husband) so that 'romance' can be unnecessarily
inserted into it.
There was a perfectly good romance between Menelaus and Helen which they
could have used. Read Helen by Euripides.

It wasn't the first time she was abducted either. Theseus tried it first
and he ended up in Hades.
Post by p***@conservation.org
which was again
Post by The True Doctor
demonstrated by their refusal to give back Helen, whereas
Agamemnon restored his honour by giving back Briseis, but it wasn't
enough for Achilles.
Iliad is full of the Greeks boasting about the other cities
they'd ransacked and praising Agamemnon for giving then an
opportunity for a
Yes, the were punishing the Trojans for what they did in Sparta and
the Peloponnese, by doing the same to them.
These were cities unrelated to Troy. It was just a part of life for
them. Bored this weekend? Go ransack a city.
Those were vessel cities which provided Troy with supplies and soldiers.
Just how stupid are you? They were given a choice to either support the
Achaeans or be destroyed. So when they remained loyal to Troy, they were
destroy.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
punch-up. One thing the Iliad is at pains to make clear is that
there was nothing unified about the Greeks and at best a
rudimentary sense of shared identity.
More Bullshit! The Greeks were unified fighting the Trojans by a
pact sworn at the wedding of Helen and Menelaus.
Yes, nothing to do with the honour of their nation, a concept they
didn't have. It was a code of personal agreements between aristocrats
(heroes).
The honour of their nation, represented by Helen and the sack of Sparta,
had been violated by the dishonorable Trojans. The treaties between the
kings of all of the city states in Greece were based upon honour as the
best way of keeping the peace. Failing to honour them would have
resulted in all out war between every Greek city state thinking it could
do anything it wanted to anyone other without consequence.

Political correctness has obviously rotted your brain so much that you
can't think logically and rationally.
p***@conservation.org
2018-12-07 05:57:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:34:58 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:46:08 PM UTC-5,
Post by p***@conservation.org
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:43:44 AM UTC-5, The
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:35:38 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:35:43 PM
On 03/12/2018 18:21,
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55 PM
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source
material with adaptations, but if you're only getting hung
up about characters' skin colour and ignoring other
deviations that's a sign you're probably just a racist.
From the Wikipedia summary, this version is actually more
faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned with
Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals of Greek
heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus was
his biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were originally
and those descended from them still are blond, which is why
Homer who knew what people from Thessaly looked like (having
traveled around Greece) depicted Achilles as being blond, and
this being repeatedly stated by Homer as being his
distinguishing feature from other Greeks who had darker olive
colored skin.
Yes, we've established that it's not accurate for a black actor
to play Achilles. It's also a particularly strange choice when
they could have cast a black person as someone whose hair colour
was never described.
They should have not cast any black actors to play and parts other
than that of Aethiopians. Casting black actors to play the parts
of historically white people is as racist as casting white actors
to play the parts of historically black people such as Rose Parks!
As I patiently explained to you, Aggy, you're misusing the word
"racism". Miscasting, even if it's considered culturally insensitive
miscasting, is not racist.
We're also talking about fictional characters, not historical ones.
The people who fought in the Trojan War were historical kings and
princes of Greece and Troy.
So you like to insist. What you continue to miss is that this is not the general view - and so it wouldn't matter even if you were right. To the rest of the world they're mythical characters, and are treated like any other fictional character. Portraying Zeus as black is considered just as legitimate as portraying Norse gods as alien superheroes. Does that become offensive if some nut in Norway decides the Norse gods were once real people?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
My question was: why does this matter more than any other
inaccuracy?
See above. IT IS RACIST!
Why does being racist matter more than any other inaccuracy?
Tell that to the Asian Americans calling the casting of white actors to
play Asian characters racist, when there are plenty of Asian actors to
fill those roles.
It's been a long time since John Wayne was cast as Genghis Khan.

I take it you do understand there's such a thing as context? Casting a white person in an 'Asian' role is not intrinsically racist. It is, however, a type of casting that has been used in a racist way (i.e. to actively avoid casting Asians) in the past, so it draws both suspicion and undesirable parallels.

This is certainly not the case for Greek culture, and it's clear that the producers of this series haven't avoided casting white people. They decided they wanted a black person in a specific role in a mostly white cast. It can be criticised for tokenism or quota-filling, or for being historically inaccurate, but not for being racist.

Contrary to the beliefs of both you and the 'PC lobby' you decry, you do not win arguments by getting increasingly hysterical or vocal about how offended you are. People seem to have forgotten that the most appropriate response to someone whining about being offended is "Sorry, why should I care?"
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Yes, yes, we've established that. Once again my question is: why does
that matter more than any other inaccuracy? It's of no relevance to
See above.
The question remains. You didn't even try and answer it above.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
the narrative what he looks like.
It is totally relevant to the narrative in distinguishing the
Thessalians who are the only people referred to as Hellenes from the
rest of the Greeks who are referred to as Achaean's or Danaioi and only
later identified as Hellenes. It has everything to do with the cultural
identity of the Greeks as Hellenes and their ancestors' origins from
northern Europe, not sub-Saharan Africa.
None of that is of the slightest relevance to the plot of the Iliad. So, no, it doesn't have any impact at all on the narrative.

Stop being racist in your
Post by The True Doctor
denials of Greek origns.
No one's denied anything about Greek origins. Achilles wasn't black in Homer, and if he were real he wasn't black in reality. The article I linked to on the subject had some interesting comments on Zeus and on migration in the ancient world generally, but it was talking complete nonsense when trying to claim Achilles might really have been black.

None of that changes the point that it makes no difference whatsoever to anything that happens in the Iliad whether Achilles was black, white, olive or purple. They could add backstory claiming he was from Alpha Centauri and, while it would be similarly unfaithful to the source material, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the plot. If you'd accept a black James Bond, why not a black Achilles?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Why didn't Chibnall portray Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King
using Chinese actors if skin colour doesn't matter? It would have
achieved exactly the same effect, so why didn't he?
How would it have achieved the same effect to portray leaders of the
black civil rights movement, in an episode about black civil rights,
as Chinese? That's complete and utter drivel.
There's no reason why the Chinese don't deserve civil rights and can not
identify as black as well.
You're either being wilfully ignorant or you really are that stupid. The US black civil rights movement was a specific historical phenomenon, that was deeply rooted in a longstanding social divide between people whose ancestors were slaves living alongside people whose ancestors used to own slaves. Neither the historical phenomenon nor the social context that resulted in it make any sense with Chinese actors.

There's also the pretty blatant social context that this was within living memory and Rosa Parks is an icon to part of the show's audience. Even if Achilles were real, there's vastly more leeway in depicting someone who died centuries before Homer wrote about him 3,000 years ago and whose relevance to anyone is just as part of their cultural canon than there is to someone who's been dead less than 15 years.

If you are willing to ignore Greek cultural
Post by The True Doctor
identity
I think it's pretty safe to say that if the BBC is making a series about Troy, based on the Iliad, and filled with Greek and Trojan characters from that story, it is not ignoring Greek culture. I doubt the series ever claimed its Achilles wasn't Greek.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
For example there's a letter from Elizabeth I mentioning that
there were a lot of black people living in England at the time,
but the
No there isn't. We discussed this already after the Witchfinders
episode. The word used refers to Moors and other people from
northern Africa.
As I explained to you, the word 'blackamoor' referred to black
people. It's different from the word 'Moor', which has the meaning
As I explained to you the word 'blackamoor' ONLY referred to people from
Northern Africa who were of Arab decent, as stated in the official
definition which I posted.
No, you claimed it. I explained you were wrong. That is the meaning of "Moor". You never quite got the hang of how that works, have you - if you say something and it is either shown outright to be untrue or disputed, you have not provided an "official definition" or "explained" anything. You've just made a statement of dubious accuracy (and in most cases, provably false).
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
you describe. If 'blackamoor' had the meaning you suggest it would
just mean "Moor" - why would they have had two similar words for the
same thing? Some things just don't stick in your head, do they?
Moor was a specific term for people from Mauritania.
Mauretania, the Roman province, comprised most of North Africa - everywhere west of Carthage. Modern Mauritania didn't exist until the French consolidated the local territories into a single administrative unit in the 1920s.

Blackamoor was a
Post by The True Doctor
general term for all people from northern Africa descended from Arabs
who therefore looked darker than Europeans but lighter skinned and with
different features from sub-Saharan blacks. That is the official
meaning, usage, and definition.
Not remotely true. In fact the word blackamoor survives in reference to Renaissance-era figurines. Figurines of, you'll no doubt be astonished to learn, black Africans. So will you now claim that as well as having two words for the same people in northern Africa, people in Renaissance Europe called art depicting black people 'blackamoors' but used the word 'blackamoor' to refer to entirely different people?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
first image of a black person in a contemporary Elizabethan
setting in English art is of a single musician at either the end
of her reign or the start of James I's.
This was 3000 years after the Iliad is set at the advent of the
African slave trade, so is in no way representative of the people
of ancient Greece.
Why do you bang on about the slave trade all the time? Look on a map
- Africa, Asia and Europe are a single landmass and people had legs,
mounts and wheeled vehicles as well as seagoing boats sufficient to
cross the Mediterranean or English Channel.
You don't have the remotest clue about ancient history. Europe, Asia,
and Africa were already broken up into individual states over 3000 years
ago, and movement or populations between them would have resulted in
war.
The same way we go to war with France whenever a French person sets foot on UK soil? There wasn't even a concept of passports until the Middle Ages. Borders were porous and states were territorial boundary markers more than centralised entities. And that was just in the medieval period. "States" didn't mean anything like they do now, but at least you're consistent in being completely unable to think of anything in pre-modern terms.
Post by The True Doctor
Stop spouting out historical revisionist PC crap trying to justify
racist supremacist ideologies which had no rational credibility whatsoever.
It's a "racist supremacist ideology" to point out that people can move around? Is it "racist supremacist ideology" to point out that Alexander made it to Afghanistan, or that Roman emissaries visited China? Those are greater distances than between Nubia and Europe.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
slavery in many cultures that took no account of race, just of
Sub-Saharan Africans were not sold as slaves in either Europe or Asia by
any ancient civilizations
The Romans had black people among their slaves. Why aren't you banging on about 'political correctness' in, say, Gladiator if you really believe they didn't?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Given that Homer even mentions people coming from "Ethiopia" to
what's now the Turkish mainland - in what, when he was writing, was
an event supposed to have taken place centuries in the past - why do
you have such a hard time imagining there would have been some black
people in Greece? All we've established is that Achilles wasn't among
them.
It is stated by Herodotus that there were no black people in either Asia
or Europe except for a tribe of Aethiopians near Colchis, and that was
all. The kings of Greece were not descended from African slaves. There
would have been no sub-Saharan Africans, especially ones from West
Africa in Greece, Asia, or Europe at the time.
"Herodotus believed that the Colchians (southern Black Sea area) were introduced to Asia by Egyptian expansion as far as Thrace and Scythia because "they have black skins and curly hair (not that that amounts to much, as other nations have the same)"

http://courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his311/notes/herod.htm

Herodotus himself would have been surprised to hear that, it seems.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
The people of Greece were racially homogeneous until the 20th
Post by The True Doctor
century, just like everyone else from the Balkans and Anatolia.
How on Earth were the peoples of Anatolia 'racially homogenous until
the 20th Century'? The Turks alone didn't arrive in the region from
Central Asia until the 11th Century, and they didn't eradicate the
native Mediterranean populations when they arrived.
Most Turks are actually of Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Arab or indigenous
Anatolian decent.
Which is a non-homogeneous mix right there

The Turkish tribes which invaded Asia-Minor numbered
Post by The True Doctor
very little, and of course they themselves were homogeneous. There were
no sub-Saharan Africans among them.
Who said they were? I was simply illustrating that you were wrong to claim that the people of the region have been homogenous and without any population movement for millennia.
Post by The True Doctor
I suggest you stop making up crap to substantiate racist PC ideology.
You mean it's okay for you to make up crap to substantiate racist ideology, just because you don't call it 'PC'?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
wouldn't be racist even if it could be demonstrated that it
denied opportunities for marginalised blond white men to play
Greek heroes. Racism requires active discrimination.
Why didn't Chibnall cast Chinese actors to play Rosa Parks and
Martin Luther King again? Why weren't the other non-white people on
the bus played by Japanese and Korean actors? It would have made no
difference to the story doing so. Why didn't he?
It would have made a pretty significant difference in a story
specifically about race relations in America.
It would have made no difference whatsoever to the message since
Japanese and Koreans are not white.
See above. It was referencing a specific historical event in a specific historical context specific to conflict between blacks and whites in the US. You wouldn't take a story about the Battle of Hastings and set it in Turkey between Japanese and Huron forces.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Again you're using the same false logic as the people you accuse
of being 'politically correct', the ones who flare up and insist
it's sexist not to consider casting James Bond as a female or
racist not
Have you read any of the James Bond novels? The character of James
Bond is that of a man. Casino Royale makes it impossible for him to
be played by a woman.
That's my point. So why are you using the same reasoning to decry
casting a black man as racist that people agitating for a female
James Bond use?
I am not opposing the casting of a black man to play James Bond, except
for the fact that he is described as looking like Hoagey Carmichael, but
007 is a code number and James Bond could very well be a made up cover
name.
Why would it have to be a cover name? Are you now onto the stage where you suggest that black people invariably have African names?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
And yet, changing Achilles into a black man has no influence
whatsoever on who the character is or on the plot. Now do you see the
point?
There were no sub-Saharan Africans in Greece at the time of Achilles,
and since Troy: Fall of a City is not set in modern times, casting a
black actor to play him is RACIST! Do you not understand that it is
racially offensive to appropriate the historical culture of one race and
attempt to pass it off as that of another?
Do you not understand that showing a single character with a skin colour not mentioned in the source material is not tantamount to attempting to 'pass off' one culture as another? The story and characters are presented as entirely Greek.

It would make no difference
Post by The True Doctor
whatsoever to the character or the plot to cast a white actor to play
Black Panther,
In the specific story told in the film it would have done, since race relations did come into it.

why didn't Disney do it, and why aren't you campaigning
Post by The True Doctor
for them to do so?
Are you really taken in by the notion that media companies actually have some enlightened agenda when they make casting decisions? They made a film about black heroes because it hadn't been done with such a high profile and there was an audience that would buy it. Simple as that. Any time you see 'representing diversity' hailed in any kind of product that's for sale, it's code for 'representing the groups of people we expect to buy our products' - which is why you see so much representation of black, Hispanic and Asian people in American dramas and almost none of Native Americans or Polynesians. Those groups aren't important consumer demographics.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
people don't. They don't read Herodotus, Philo or Porphyry and as far
as they're concerned the gods are completely mythical entities to be
treated however the whims of artistic licence demand. Plato et al.
Here you go again trying to justify racism if the form of cultural
appropriation. The ancient Greeks believed that the gods were all former
kings of Greece
So, which king did Plato think Eros, the one he describes as having two heads, four arms, four legs and two sets of sexual organs, was?

This fact is stated categorically by
Post by The True Doctor
Herodotus and reinforced by Philo. Porphyry and Eusebius.
Where?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
were also all very much later than the origins of those myths - even
if they had held the beliefs you imagine they had, that was simply a
secondary interpretation.
NO! It was the primary interpretation. Nobody not even Homer believed
the gods to be anything else, and this is made perfectly clear in the
Iliad and Odyssey when Homer makes the gods come down in mortal form in
the image and physical presence of the heroes themselves,
The Iliad makes it explicit on multiple occasions that, while they can breed, humans and gods are entirely different types of organism. In the Homeric view, gods were essentially a separate, more powerful species that existed alongside humans.

As memorably quoted from the Iliad by Leonard Nimoy in Civilization IV (a slightly different wording from that in Butler):

"Not at all similar are the race of the immortal gods and the race of men who walk upon the earth."

which would
Post by The True Doctor
have been considered an act of blasphemy if the Greeks considered the
god in the way modern (not ancient) Christians consider their god.
Who said they did consider their god the same way? You're the one drawing parallels by applying a Christianised notion of divinity - in which a religion is founded on an identifiable historical individual - onto a religion for which that was an alien world view.

The
Post by The True Doctor
ancient Christians engaged in ancestor worship themselves by worshiping
Christ, a dead Jew as a god.
That's essentially my point - you're taking the idea of a god that evolved from that tradition and applying it to a culture that had no such background.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Ancestor worship also doesn't mean what you imagine it does. In very
It doesn't mean what you think does.
Post by p***@conservation.org
few cases are ancestors envisaged as the same discrete individuals
they were when alive. Rather they become part of some aggregate
Yes they were. Have you watched Gladiator, which actually gets this
right? The ancient Romans and Greece carried statues or dolls of their
deceased family members with them, and worshiped them as a the
Christians do saints, which is where the Christians got the whole idea from.
I think you're referring to house gods. Those may or may not have been representations of ancestors, but they don't appear to have been identified with any specific known individual and they were believed to have the same sorts of protective powers of typical animist traditions.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
spiritual force, or individual unnamed spirits, within an animist
NO THEY DID NOT! That is bullshit invented by the Victorians at the same
time they invented Wiccanism and pseudo-Celtic religions which have no
resemblance to any genuine ancient religions.
Wiccanism was invented in the 1940s. It's not Victorian.

No one needs to invent any "bullshit". There are ancestor-worshipping religions today with genuinely ancient roots, most prominently Shinto, and their belief systems are as I described. Like many forms of 'ancestor-worship', shrines are established to honour and remember the ancestors and that may confuse outsiders into thinking the individuals are being worshipped as deities, but that isn't the case.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
tradition. "X is dead, now he's a god/angel etc." is another very
modern Christianised way to view the world. It wasn't wholly alien to
Greek tradition - after all they had supposedly real kings like
Perseus and Dionysus who became demigods on death - but Greeks
generally made a distinction between those characters and the major
deities.
Having ordinary ancestors intervene in people's lives runs contrary to
the beliefs of the ancient Romans and Greeks.
And yet that's exactly what the house gods were believed to do, yet you claim they were Roman ancestors.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Greek culture is European
Post by The True Doctor
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as they
try to look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable for
Koreans to play Japanese (see Heroes).
This makes no sense. Either you're a purist or you aren't. An
English-descended Australian is just as inaccurate as Paris
Trojan as a black actor is as Achilles.
What the hell are you going on about?
The Australians are English-descended, unless you're talking about
aboriginals.
Australians are immigrants from various places - I specified
English-Australian (based on the surname) in case you decided to
invent a story that the actor was of Greek descent.
What the hell are you still raving on abut? What actor?
The one portraying Paris, who's just as inappropriate for the role as the one playing Achilles because by your own reasoning he has no known association with Greek culture.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Looking up the actor's brief Wikipedia biography, the guy who
played Achilles is British. British culture has the same links to
Greek culture as the rest of Europe. Culture is not defined by
skin colour.
They guy is of sub-Saharan African origin,
Racially. That's not the same as culture. The Celtic and Germanic
peoples who populated Britain have no racial connection to Greece
either.
Achilles was not racially from sub-Saharan African and sub Saharan
Africans contributed absolutely nothing directly to ancient-Greek culture.
Which is completely immaterial. We're discussing his culture, not his race, at this point. A British actor's culture is British, which owes a lot to Greek culture. The British didn't "contribute anything directly to ancient Greek culture" - quite the reverse - so why don't you object to white British actors playing the parts?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Why didn't Disney cast a white actor to play Black Panther. Unlike
Achilles he's totally fictitious, so why didn't they?
Because the entire point of making a film about the character was
that they could trumpet having an black-led and almost all-black cast
as their novel take on superheroes in the marketing spin.
Oh really, and the fact that the original character was black made no
difference. BULLSHIT! If Disney had cast a white actor to play Black
Panther they would have been called out by everyone as being totally
racist.
They wouldn't have bothered making a film about the character if they were going to cast him as white. There are about a million identikit white Marvel heroes, and nothing about Black Panther's powers or technology can't be done with one of those.
Post by The True Doctor
The entire narrative of the Iliad is about love and friendship which has
no root whatsoever in sexual desire, triumphing over lust and sexual
desire.
The narrative of the Iliad is nothing to do with 'love and friendship'. For the vast majority of it the only significant mortal characters are Diomedes and Hector, neither of whom has any particularly significant relationships other than Hector's with his father (and briefly at the end his wife and child). It's mostly just battle scenes with excessive detail given regarding how each character dies and reciting their lineages. Not much love or friendship to be had there.

Achilles would not fight because he desired Briseis even when
Post by The True Doctor
Agamemnon gave her back to him, but he would fight because he didn't
desire Patroklus. The bond of friendship between him and Patrokuls was
more powerful and purer than the desire he had for Briseis. This is
contrasted with the ordinary Greeks fighting for the love of their
country while their leaders fought to bring back Helen so that Menelaus
could fuck her.
This is utterly garbled and meaningless. Achilles felt slighted by Agamemnon stealing his prize and refused to fight. He repeatedly used this is an excuse to continue to avoid fightng, but the story gives very explicit prominence to his fear of the prophecy that he would soon die - for most of it he refuses to fight out of that fear, which makes his relationship with Patroclus significant because he values revenge for Patroclus over his life.

It has nothing at all to do with any continuing interest in Briseis, who's a characterless device used to create the argument with Agamemnon.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Wikipedia describes it, was reserved for lovers. The reason he
Wikipedia is not written by experts let alone ones who speak Greek
or have read Plato or the Iliad.
No, but the specific passage I quoted cites sources who presumably
have, and it describes the specific Platonic dialogue in detail.
'Filious' is not the word I was referring to.
It was written by people don't have the remotest clue about the Iliad or
Plato based on the inaccurate politically motivated rantings, sophistry,
and dissemblings of Victorian so-called scholars who wanted to justify
homosexuality.
Justifying homosexuality is not high on the list of things the Victorians are famed for.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
<<[Symposium 179d] In this manner even the gods give special honor
to zeal and courage in concerns of love (Eros). But Orpheus, son
of Oeagrus, they sent back with failure from Hades, showing him
only a wraith of the woman for whom he came; her real self they
would not bestow, for he was accounted to have gone upon a coward's
quest, too like the minstrel that he was, and to have lacked the
spirit to die as Alcestis did for the sake of love (elder Eros/love
without desire), when he contrived the means of entering Hades
alive. Wherefore they laid upon him the penalty he deserved, and
caused him to meet his death
Orpheus has nothing to do with the Iliad and only shows up as a cameo in the Odyssey.
Orpheus is relevant to Plato's argument differentiating the two forms of
Love, the pure kind which involves no sexual desire, and impure love,
the sexual kind. Orpheus was motivated by the love of a woman which was
impure love. Achilles was motivated by his friendship for his own cousin
Patroklus, which was pure love without any thought of desire.
That isn't even what the above passage says, let alone what Plato says more broadly. Once again he's saying that sexual desire alone isn't love because it's self-serving - Orpheus wanted a glimpse of Euridyce for his benefit despite knowing the consequences for her. That doesn't at all imply that sexual desire shouldn't be involved - are you imagining that Plato is arguing that a male can't have any sexual desire towards a female he loves?

Yet again you post things that support what I've already said over your unique interpretation.
Post by The True Doctor
Just how ignorant are you?
Apparently much less than you, as I have the ability to comprehend what I read.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
exemplar of everything Trojans should aspire to be - that's Hector.
It's not clear that Helen has much time for him either - she tells
him to bugger off and fight at one point.
No, I don't think it's very suitable having Paris portrayed as a
hero. I think it comes from a shallow, soap-operatic modern notion
that stories have to be focused on the guy with a girlfriend/wife (or
It comes from the warped ideology of political correctness, which
preaches supporting the villain because he is being misinterpreted. This
is the same sickening ideology which led Chibnall to have the Doctor
make friends with a pervert and excuse its crimes which it inflicted on
other to get its kicks.
You're going to find this hard to believe, Aggy, but not every stupid modern trend has its basis in political correctness. Most of it doesn't. Paris has never been considered a 'misunderstood villain'. Modern film convention simply dictates that everything have a 'romantic' component, and generally both a male and a female lead.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
girl with a boyfriend/husband) so that 'romance' can be unnecessarily
inserted into it.
There was a perfectly good romance between Menelaus and Helen which they
could have used. Read Helen by Euripides.
The setting is the Trojan War. Helen and Menelaus aren't in the same room until the end.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
punch-up. One thing the Iliad is at pains to make clear is that
there was nothing unified about the Greeks and at best a
rudimentary sense of shared identity.
More Bullshit! The Greeks were unified fighting the Trojans by a
pact sworn at the wedding of Helen and Menelaus.
Yes, nothing to do with the honour of their nation, a concept they
didn't have. It was a code of personal agreements between aristocrats
(heroes).
The honour of their nation, represented by Helen and the sack of Sparta,
had been violated by the dishonorable Trojans. The treaties between the
kings of all of the city states in Greece were based upon honour as the
best way of keeping the peace. Failing to honour them would have
resulted in all out war between every Greek city state thinking it could
do anything it wanted to anyone other without consequence.
Read the Iliad once again. Plenty of Greeks, at the point after they'd been driven back to their ships, made it clear to Agamemnon that they honoured their agreements to do him a favour - it was a code of personal honour, nothing to do with any sense of shared identity. There was no 'nation'. If they had to sack each other's cities every so often they'd be happy enough to do it.
The True Doctor
2018-12-07 20:05:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 7:21:16 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:34:58 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:46:08 PM UTC-5,
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:29:02 PM UTC-5, The
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:43:44 AM UTC-5,
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:35:38 PM
On 04/12/2018 01:02,
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:35:43 PM
On 03/12/2018 18:21,
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:40:55
It's fine to be a purist about adhering to the source
material with adaptations, but if you're only getting
hung up about characters' skin colour and ignoring
other deviations that's a sign you're probably just a
racist. From the Wikipedia summary, this version is
actually more faithful to Homer than most.
Incidentally, Greeks today are moderately dark-skinned
with Mediterranean features - does that make portrayals
of Greek heroes by pale Germanic actors racist?
Achilles was the son of the king of Thessaly and Patroklus
was his biological cousin. The people of Thessaly were
originally and those descended from them still are blond,
which is why Homer who knew what people from Thessaly
looked like (having traveled around Greece) depicted
Achilles as being blond, and this being repeatedly stated
by Homer as being his distinguishing feature from other
Greeks who had darker olive colored skin.
Yes, we've established that it's not accurate for a black
actor to play Achilles. It's also a particularly strange
choice when they could have cast a black person as someone
whose hair colour was never described.
They should have not cast any black actors to play and parts
other than that of Aethiopians. Casting black actors to play
the parts of historically white people is as racist as casting
white actors to play the parts of historically black people
such as Rose Parks!
As I patiently explained to you, Aggy, you're misusing the word
"racism". Miscasting, even if it's considered culturally
insensitive miscasting, is not racist.
We're also talking about fictional characters, not historical ones.
The people who fought in the Trojan War were historical kings and
princes of Greece and Troy.
So you like to insist. What you continue to miss is that this is not
the general view - and so it wouldn't matter even if you were right.
It is the view of Homer and the view of all of the ancient Greeks and
Romans and the majority of modern Greeks. This is not your culture. Stop
being racist.
Post by p***@conservation.org
To the rest of the world they're mythical characters, and are treated
Being mythical doesn't mean that they were not real.
Post by p***@conservation.org
like any other fictional character. Portraying Zeus as black is
considered just as legitimate as portraying Norse gods as alien
It's not your culture so its racist to portray them in any other way
than they were portrayed by the ancient Greeks.
Post by p***@conservation.org
superheroes. Does that become offensive if some nut in Norway decides
the Norse gods were once real people?
Those super heroes are just people with the same names as the Norse gods
and have nothing historically to do with Norway. They have no part to
play in Norse history and culture. Making the Greek gods and heroes
sub-Saharan Africans and setting them in the context and historical
setting of the Iliad is RACIST! No one would be complaining if the
writer had set Troy: Fall of a City in modern or futuristic times and
represented modern or future society in it. Setting it in historical
times is equivalent to portraying Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King,
Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, and other black historical cultural heroes
with white actors in the historical context came from. IT IS REWRITING
HISTORY AND IS EXTREMELY RACIALLY OFFENSIVE!

If you think cultural appropriation is acceptable they why don't you
portray Kunta Kinte (who is totally fictitious) and some of his
decedents with white actors and set it in Africa? Show his tribal chief
being played by a white actor with blonde hair, and other tribal
members, and the majority can be black. Does it make any difference? Of
course it does. It's exactly what the producers have done with Troy:
Fall of a City, and it is racist and completely intolerable.

How about this as well; cast black actors to play American slave owners
and show them whipping and torturing both black and white slaves. See
the reaction that you will get with your so-called diversity which is
tantamount to racism, because it appropriates one groups culture and
misrepresents it by associating it with another's.

The only way to end racism in film and TV and the media is to stop
engaging in any form of cultural appropriation altogether.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
My question was: why does this matter more than any other
inaccuracy?
See above. IT IS RACIST!
Why does being racist matter more than any other inaccuracy?
Tell that to the Asian Americans calling the casting of white
actors to play Asian characters racist, when there are plenty of
Asian actors to fill those roles.
It's been a long time since John Wayne was cast as Genghis Khan.
I take it you do understand there's such a thing as context? Casting
a white person in an 'Asian' role is not intrinsically racist. It is,
however, a type of casting that has been used in a racist way (i.e.
to actively avoid casting Asians) in the past, so it draws both
suspicion and undesirable parallels.
It is intrinsically racist because there is no shortage of Asian actors
to play the role.
Post by p***@conservation.org
This is certainly not the case for Greek culture, and it's clear that
the producers of this series haven't avoided casting white people.
The have avoided casting Greek actors and instead cast sub-Saharan
African actors in their place. That is cultural appropriation and
therefore is racist.
Post by p***@conservation.org
They decided they wanted a black person in a specific role in a
mostly white cast. It can be criticised for tokenism or
quota-filling, or for being historically inaccurate, but not for
being racist.
It was was racist since there was no shortage of white Greek looking
actors to play the roles, and did not represent Greek culture at the
time, which was not from sub-Saharan Africa. It was an attempt to
re-write Greek history and therefore extremely offensive. There were
Phoenicians, Egyptians, Colchians, and Phrygians that settled in Greece,
but no sub-Saharan Africans. Sub-Saharan Africans are a modern addition
to Greek and European society and go back no further than 400 years.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Contrary to the beliefs of both you and the 'PC lobby' you decry, you
Political correctness is a form of racism, sexism, bigotry, and intolerance.
Post by p***@conservation.org
do not win arguments by getting increasingly hysterical or vocal
about how offended you are. People seem to have forgotten that the
most appropriate response to someone whining about being offended is
"Sorry, why should I care?"
Post by The True Doctor
Yes, yes, we've established that. Once again my question is: why
does that matter more than any other inaccuracy? It's of no
relevance to
See above.
The question remains. You didn't even try and answer it above.
I've already answered your stupidity. See above.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
the narrative what he looks like.
It is totally relevant to the narrative in distinguishing the
Thessalians who are the only people referred to as Hellenes from
the rest of the Greeks who are referred to as Achaean's or Danaioi
and only later identified as Hellenes. It has everything to do with
the cultural identity of the Greeks as Hellenes and their
ancestors' origins from northern Europe, not sub-Saharan Africa.
None of that is of the slightest relevance to the plot of the Iliad.
So, no, it doesn't have any impact at all on the narrative.
All of it is relevant to the plot of the Iliad. Achilles is singled out
from all the other Greeks by being repeatedly described as blond and
fair skinned. Depicting him as a sub-Saharan African when there were no
sub-Saharan Africans in Greece at the time is rewriting history at the
expense of the Greeks and offensive to Greek culture, and therefore is
racist.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Stop being racist in your
Post by The True Doctor
denials of Greek origns.
No one's denied anything about Greek origins. Achilles wasn't black
in Homer, and if he were real he wasn't black in reality. The article
I linked to on the subject had some interesting comments on Zeus and
on migration in the ancient world generally, but it was talking
complete nonsense when trying to claim Achilles might really have
been black.
None of that changes the point that it makes no difference whatsoever
to anything that happens in the Iliad whether Achilles was black,
white, olive or purple. They could add backstory claiming he was from
It makes no difference what happens in Marvel comics if Black Panther is
white. It makes no difference in Roots if Kunta Kinte is white. So why
aren't white actors cast to play them?

They all including Achilles represent a specific culture and their skin
colour distinguishes that culture from others. Casting someone with a
different skin colour and facial features to play them is cultural
appropriation and is therefore racist.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Alpha Centauri and, while it would be similarly unfaithful to the
source material, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to
the plot. If you'd accept a black James Bond, why not a black
Achilles?
There were black people working for the secret service in 1953 when Ian
Flemming wrote his first James Bond novel and the narrative says he
played a Jamaican merchant as his cover. There were no sub-Saharan
Africans in Greece at the time of the Trojan War and there is nothing
connecting the kings of Thessaly who came from northern Europe to
sub-Saharan Africa. Casting a sub-Saharan African to play Achilles is
falsification of history by means of cultural appropriation, and
cultural appropriation is racist.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Why didn't Chibnall portray Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King
using Chinese actors if skin colour doesn't matter? It would
have achieved exactly the same effect, so why didn't he?
How would it have achieved the same effect to portray leaders of
the black civil rights movement, in an episode about black civil
rights, as Chinese? That's complete and utter drivel.
There's no reason why the Chinese don't deserve civil rights and
can not identify as black as well.
You're either being wilfully ignorant or you really are that stupid.
The US black civil rights movement was a specific historical
phenomenon, that was deeply rooted in a longstanding social divide
between people whose ancestors were slaves living alongside people
whose ancestors used to own slaves. Neither the historical phenomenon
nor the social context that resulted in it make any sense with
Chinese actors.
Wrong! If you think that casting a sub-Saharan African to play Achilles
at a time when the people of Thessaly and especially Achilles were blond
with fair skin, makes not difference, then it makes no difference if
Chinese actors play Africans who were taken prisoner and transported to
America to become slaves. You can find lots of Chinese people in Africa
today, lots of white people too, so cast some white people as slaves as
well. Cast some black people as slave masters and British lords
persecuting these slaves. What's stopping you? If Thessalians can be
black then sub-Saharan African slaves can be yellow or white.
Post by p***@conservation.org
There's also the pretty blatant social context that this was within
living memory and Rosa Parks is an icon to part of the show's
audience. Even if Achilles were real, there's vastly more leeway in
depicting someone who died centuries before Homer wrote about him
3,000 years ago and whose relevance to anyone is just as part of
their cultural canon than there is to someone who's been dead less
than 15 years.
If you are willing to ignore Greek cultural
Post by The True Doctor
identity
I think it's pretty safe to say that if the BBC is making a series
about Troy, based on the Iliad, and filled with Greek and Trojan
characters from that story, it is not ignoring Greek culture. I doubt
the series ever claimed its Achilles wasn't Greek.
But not representing Greeks as sub-Saharan Africans in is engaging in
cultural appropriation, which is worse than ignoring Greek culture
altogether. There was nothing stopping them from setting the series in
modern times so as not to be offensive to Greeks, and other Europeans.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
For example there's a letter from Elizabeth I mentioning that
there were a lot of black people living in England at the
time, but the
No there isn't. We discussed this already after the
Witchfinders episode. The word used refers to Moors and other
people from northern Africa.
As I explained to you, the word 'blackamoor' referred to black
people. It's different from the word 'Moor', which has the
meaning
As I explained to you the word 'blackamoor' ONLY referred to people
from Northern Africa who were of Arab decent, as stated in the
official definition which I posted.
No, you claimed it. I explained you were wrong. That is the meaning
of "Moor". You never quite got the hang of how that works, have you -
You don't have a clue of what you are talking about. The Moors were
people from Mauritanian. Blackamoor was used to distinguish other
northern Africans from the actual Moors.
Post by p***@conservation.org
if you say something and it is either shown outright to be untrue or
disputed, you have not provided an "official definition" or
"explained" anything. You've just made a statement of dubious
accuracy (and in most cases, provably false).
I already posted the official definition in the Witchfinders thread
which shows you are wrong.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
you describe. If 'blackamoor' had the meaning you suggest it
would just mean "Moor" - why would they have had two similar
words for the same thing? Some things just don't stick in your
head, do they?
Moor was a specific term for people from Mauritania.
Mauretania, the Roman province, comprised most of North Africa -
everywhere west of Carthage. Modern Mauritania didn't exist until the
French consolidated the local territories into a single
administrative unit in the 1920s.
The people of the Roman prince of Mauritania where white. The people of
Carthage were white. The people of Libya were white? Do you notice a
pattern here? The people of Northern Africa have been of Southern
Balkan, Anatolian, and Levantine decent for over 4000 years. It is
racist to represent them as sub-Saharan Africans.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Blackamoor was a
Post by The True Doctor
general term for all people from northern Africa descended from
Arabs who therefore looked darker than Europeans but lighter
skinned and with different features from sub-Saharan blacks. That
is the official meaning, usage, and definition.
Not remotely true. In fact the word blackamoor survives in reference
to Renaissance-era figurines. Figurines of, you'll no doubt be
Blackamoor figurines belong to the early modern period of art, not the
Renaissance. Using the name retrospectively is sophistry.
Post by p***@conservation.org
astonished to learn, black Africans. So will you now claim that as
well as having two words for the same people in northern Africa,
people in Renaissance Europe called art depicting black people
'blackamoors' but used the word 'blackamoor' to refer to entirely
different people?
Blackamoors referred to the people of northern Africa. We know from DNA
analysis and historical records that these people were of Southern
Balkan, Anatolian, and Levantine decent for over 4000 years.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
first image of a black person in a contemporary Elizabethan
setting in English art is of a single musician at either the
end of her reign or the start of James I's.
This was 3000 years after the Iliad is set at the advent of
the African slave trade, so is in no way representative of the
people of ancient Greece.
Why do you bang on about the slave trade all the time? Look on a
map - Africa, Asia and Europe are a single landmass and people
had legs, mounts and wheeled vehicles as well as seagoing boats
sufficient to cross the Mediterranean or English Channel.
You don't have the remotest clue about ancient history. Europe,
Asia, and Africa were already broken up into individual states over
3000 years ago, and movement or populations between them would have
resulted in war.
The same way we go to war with France whenever a French person sets
foot on UK soil? There wasn't even a concept of passports until the
Middle Ages. Borders were porous and states were territorial boundary
markers more than centralised entities. And that was just in the
medieval period. "States" didn't mean anything like they do now, but
at least you're consistent in being completely unable to think of
anything in pre-modern terms.
You are talking complete and utter shit again. In ancient times borders
existed between city states rather than nation states, and all city
states were walled to keep out foreigners. Migrants would have been
slaughtered at the gate or shot down from the walls if they attempted to
enter a city without being invited, and non-citizens would have had to
camp and sleep outside the city walls if they were foreign merchants
trading with the city. Stop trying to rewrite ancient history with your
racist PC ideology. In those times people would have know the city an
individual came from just by looking at the features on their face. It's
even illustrated by Aristophanes in The Acharnians (or could could have
been another of his plays).
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Stop spouting out historical revisionist PC crap trying to justify
racist supremacist ideologies which had no rational credibility whatsoever.
It's a "racist supremacist ideology" to point out that people can
move around? Is it "racist supremacist ideology" to point out that
It's racist supremacist ideology to attempt to portray migrations which
simply did not ever happen. Ancient city states were racially
homogeneous to the extent that you could recognized where someone was
from just by their facial features. The city states were effectively
self contained tribes.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Alexander made it to Afghanistan, or that Roman emissaries visited
China? Those are greater distances than between Nubia and Europe.
Alexander had the equivalent of trillions of dollars at his disposal,
all the gold in Fort Knox, so he could finance campaigns anywhere in the
known world. People from sub-Saharan Africa how nothing. There was
virtually zero trade with them, and non whatsoever in the Greek world.
Black African figurines and vase paintings only start appearing on Greek
pottery in Egypt in Hellenistic times and not before, indicating that
there was complete isolation of sub-Saharan Africans from Europe. There
would be no reason for a sub-Saharan African to even be in Europe since
the entire mercantile industry in the Mediterranean was contorted by the
Greeks and Phoenicians alone, and thus there wasn't.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
slavery in many cultures that took no account of race, just of
Sub-Saharan Africans were not sold as slaves in either Europe or
Asia by any ancient civilizations
The Romans had black people among their slaves. Why aren't you
No they did not. You are reading revisionist crap. The Romans didn't
even set foot in sub-Saharan Africa until the first century AD and there
wasn't anything there worth taking. There were no sub-Saharan African
Roman provinces.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Given that Homer even mentions people coming from "Ethiopia" to
what's now the Turkish mainland - in what, when he was writing,
was an event supposed to have taken place centuries in the past -
why do you have such a hard time imagining there would have been
some black people in Greece? All we've established is that
Achilles wasn't among them.
It is stated by Herodotus that there were no black people in either
Asia or Europe except for a tribe of Aethiopians near Colchis, and
that was all. The kings of Greece were not descended from African
slaves. There would have been no sub-Saharan Africans, especially
ones from West Africa in Greece, Asia, or Europe at the time.
"Herodotus believed that the Colchians (southern Black Sea area) were
introduced to Asia by Egyptian expansion as far as Thrace and Scythia
because "they have black skins and curly hair (not that that amounts
to much, as other nations have the same)"
http://courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his311/notes/herod.htm
Herodotus himself would have been surprised to hear that, it seems.
More evidence of your total lack of knowledge of history.

"[Herodotus 2.104.1] There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an
Egyptian race. Before I heard any mention of the fact from others, I had
remarked it myself. After the thought had struck me, I made inquiries on
the subject both in Colchis and in Egypt, and I found that the Colchians
had a more distinct recollection of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians
had of them. Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians
to be descended from the army of Sesostris." Sesostris being Seti I.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The people of Greece were racially homogeneous until the 20th
Post by The True Doctor
century, just like everyone else from the Balkans and
Anatolia.
How on Earth were the peoples of Anatolia 'racially homogenous
until the 20th Century'? The Turks alone didn't arrive in the
region from Central Asia until the 11th Century, and they didn't
eradicate the native Mediterranean populations when they
arrived.
Most Turks are actually of Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Arab or
indigenous Anatolian decent.
Which is a non-homogeneous mix right there
They are homogeneously white.
Post by p***@conservation.org
The Turkish tribes which invaded Asia-Minor numbered
Post by The True Doctor
very little, and of course they themselves were homogeneous. There
were no sub-Saharan Africans among them.
Who said they were? I was simply illustrating that you were wrong to
claim that the people of the region have been homogenous and without
any population movement for millennia.
They have been homogeneously white.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
I suggest you stop making up crap to substantiate racist PC
ideology.
You mean it's okay for you to make up crap to substantiate racist
ideology, just because you don't call it 'PC'?
The only racist ideology in this discussion are your clueless
partitioning denials of other peoples racial and cultural identity.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
wouldn't be racist even if it could be demonstrated that it
denied opportunities for marginalised blond white men to
play Greek heroes. Racism requires active discrimination.
Why didn't Chibnall cast Chinese actors to play Rosa Parks and
Martin Luther King again? Why weren't the other non-white
people on the bus played by Japanese and Korean actors? It
would have made no difference to the story doing so. Why didn't
he?
It would have made a pretty significant difference in a story
specifically about race relations in America.
It would have made no difference whatsoever to the message since
Japanese and Koreans are not white.
See above. It was referencing a specific historical event in a
specific historical context specific to conflict between blacks and
whites in the US. You wouldn't take a story about the Battle of
Hastings and set it in Turkey between Japanese and Huron forces.
You wouldn't take a story about the Battle of Hastings and have King
Harold played by a black sub-Saran African actor either, and yet you
think Achilles who was blond and fair skinned can be played by a black
actor in historical context. How much more stupid can you get?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Again you're using the same false logic as the people you
accuse of being 'politically correct', the ones who flare up
and insist it's sexist not to consider casting James Bond as
a female or racist not
Have you read any of the James Bond novels? The character of
James Bond is that of a man. Casino Royale makes it impossible
for him to be played by a woman.
That's my point. So why are you using the same reasoning to
decry casting a black man as racist that people agitating for a
female James Bond use?
I am not opposing the casting of a black man to play James Bond,
except for the fact that he is described as looking like Hoagey
Carmichael, but 007 is a code number and James Bond could very well
be a made up cover name.
Why would it have to be a cover name? Are you now onto the stage
where you suggest that black people invariably have African names?
It has to be a cover name because the James Bond that Fleming describes
looked like Hoagey Carmichael, who in cased you haven figured out yet,
was white. It's better that you just leave James Bond alone and let a
black writer or producer create something different of their own,
instead of a white PC racist appropriating white characters and
transferring them to black people and thus suggesting that black people
have no culture or literary characters of their own that are worth anything.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
And yet, changing Achilles into a black man has no influence
whatsoever on who the character is or on the plot. Now do you see
the point?
There were no sub-Saharan Africans in Greece at the time of
Achilles, and since Troy: Fall of a City is not set in modern
times, casting a black actor to play him is RACIST! Do you not
understand that it is racially offensive to appropriate the
historical culture of one race and attempt to pass it off as that
of another?
Do you not understand that showing a single character with a skin
colour not mentioned in the source material is not tantamount to
attempting to 'pass off' one culture as another? The story and
characters are presented as entirely Greek.
Since the story and the characters are entirely Greek then they should
be represented as Greek. Sub-Saharan African culture has nothing to do
with the Iliad. The Iliad has nothing to do with sub-Saharan African
culture. Stop trying to pass of a sub-Saharan African actor as if he
were a Greek from 1200 BC. It's racist and insulting both to Greek,
European, and African people alike.

Instead let the BBC put an end to institutionally racist ideology and
allow black producers and writers to make programmes about black society
and culture themselves, instead of having white people make programmes
for them that have nothing whatsoever to do with their history or culture.
Post by p***@conservation.org
It would make no difference
Post by The True Doctor
whatsoever to the character or the plot to cast a white actor to
play Black Panther,
In the specific story told in the film it would have done, since race
relations did come into it.
The white actor could have been Russian and dealt with race relations
between Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans. Or he could have been a
Chinese communist played by a white actor.
Post by p***@conservation.org
why didn't Disney do it, and why aren't you campaigning
Post by The True Doctor
for them to do so?
Are you really taken in by the notion that media companies actually
have some enlightened agenda when they make casting decisions? They
made a film about black heroes because it hadn't been done with such
a high profile and there was an audience that would buy it. Simple as
I asked why didn't Disney cast a white actor to play Black Panther, not
why the made the right decision of casting a black actor to play a role
created of a black character.
Post by p***@conservation.org
that. Any time you see 'representing diversity' hailed in any kind of
product that's for sale, it's code for 'representing the groups of
people we expect to buy our products' - which is why you see so much
representation of black, Hispanic and Asian people in American dramas
and almost none of Native Americans or Polynesians. Those groups
aren't important consumer demographics.
All the more reason to have cast a white actor to play Black Panther
then, and made him of Hispanic decent, since Hispanics are the largest
ethnic minority group in the US, and whites from the overwhelming
majority, and thus Disney would have killed two birds with one stone.

Why are you avoiding giving the obvious answer? If Disney had cast a
white or Asian actor to play Black Panther, who was created and
portrayed in Marvel Comic as being black, it would have faced a total
backlash and violence and rioting spreading from the theaters and in the
streets.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
people don't. They don't read Herodotus, Philo or Porphyry and as
far as they're concerned the gods are completely mythical
entities to be treated however the whims of artistic licence
demand. Plato et al.
Here you go again trying to justify racism if the form of cultural
appropriation. The ancient Greeks believed that the gods were all
former kings of Greece
So, which king did Plato think Eros, the one he describes as having
two heads, four arms, four legs and two sets of sexual organs, was?
IMBECILE! Have you actually read Symposium you idiot? Clearly not. That
wasn't the opinion of Plato about what Eros looked like, it was a joke
made by Aristophanes about the origin of mankind as being a mixture of
both sexes and then the men-women splitting into men and women, and
men-men splitting into gay men, and women-women into gay women. This of
course was the original version of the story of Adam and Eve which had
nothing to do with ribs. The Greek word used is plevra or side, not rib.
Post by p***@conservation.org
This fact is stated categorically by
Post by The True Doctor
Herodotus and reinforced by Philo. Porphyry and Eusebius.
Where?
Herodotus Histories book 2, and Perpetration for the Gospel by Eusebius,
somewhere around book 1.9.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
were also all very much later than the origins of those myths -
even if they had held the beliefs you imagine they had, that was
simply a secondary interpretation.
NO! It was the primary interpretation. Nobody not even Homer
believed the gods to be anything else, and this is made perfectly
clear in the Iliad and Odyssey when Homer makes the gods come down
in mortal form in the image and physical presence of the heroes
themselves,
The Iliad makes it explicit on multiple occasions that, while they
can breed, humans and gods are entirely different types of organism.
You are talking CRAP! Achilles was the son of Peleus and the goddess
Thetis, thus gods and mortals were no different biologically. Peleus'
homunculus is what produced Achilles. The only thing that differentiated
the gods and mortals was that the gods became immortal by feasting on
nectar and ambrosia, otherwise they were no different to mortals, and
this is the means by which Herakles became a god.
Post by p***@conservation.org
In the Homeric view, gods were essentially a separate, more powerful
species that existed alongside humans.
You are making this up out of your arse. The gods in the Iliad are
depicted in the manner of a bickering family from a human soap opera,
because they were essentially human, not an alien race. All men were
descended from Phoeoneus the first man, who was the son of Inarchus the
son of the Titan Oceanus; or from Deukalion and Phyrrah the son of
Prometheus and Daughter of Epimethius; with various other gods having
affairs with their offspring.
Post by p***@conservation.org
As memorably quoted from the Iliad by Leonard Nimoy in Civilization
"Not at all similar are the race of the immortal gods and the race of
men who walk upon the earth."
He's talking about moral virtues you ignorant fool. First there was the
golden age, ruled over by Kronos, then the less virtuous silver age
ruled over by Zeus, then the non-virtuous first brazen age, ruled over
by men who did not honour the gods and perished, then the second brazen
age where heroes flourished and honored the gods, and finally the iron
age where man prayed on his fellow man and was driven by lust and greed.
Post by p***@conservation.org
which would
Post by The True Doctor
have been considered an act of blasphemy if the Greeks considered
the god in the way modern (not ancient) Christians consider their
god.
Who said they did consider their god the same way? You're the one
drawing parallels by applying a Christianised notion of divinity - in
which a religion is founded on an identifiable historical individual
- onto a religion for which that was an alien world view.
More evidence of your total cluelessness.

The ancient Greeks considered their gods to be deified human kings who
ruled over them and thus behaved like any other ruler of privileged
individual. You are the one implying modern notions of divinity to them.
To the ancient Greeks they were no different to JR Ewing, or Blake
Carrington; subject to the same passions as mortals, engaging in
intrigue to entertain themselves, and committing serial adultery.
Post by p***@conservation.org
The
Post by The True Doctor
ancient Christians engaged in ancestor worship themselves by
worshiping Christ, a dead Jew as a god.
That's essentially my point - you're taking the idea of a god that
evolved from that tradition and applying it to a culture that had no
such background.
You are talking out of your arse as usual. Ancient Greek and Roman
ancestor worship existed long before Christianity. You are the one
taking Christianity and trying to derive the practices of the ancients
from it. I don't need to, because the practices of the ancients are
written down by them themselves. Herodotus states that the Greek gods
were their own ancestors, and not only the ancient Greeks, but the
Egyptians, and Phoenicians too were ancestor worshipers, as does
everyone who follows him, and those who preceded him. Even the old
testament shows Rebecca? carrying statues of family gods around with her.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Ancestor worship also doesn't mean what you imagine it does. In very
It doesn't mean what you think does.
few cases are ancestors envisaged as the same discrete
individuals they were when alive. Rather they become part of some
aggregate
Yes they were. Have you watched Gladiator, which actually gets
this right? The ancient Romans and Greece carried statues or dolls
of their deceased family members with them, and worshiped them as a
the Christians do saints, which is where the Christians got the
whole idea from.
I think you're referring to house gods. Those may or may not have
been representations of ancestors, but they don't appear to have been
identified with any specific known individual and they were believed
to have the same sorts of protective powers of typical animist
traditions.
They were made in the image of and identified with specific deceased
family members.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
spiritual force, or individual unnamed spirits, within an
animist
NO THEY DID NOT! That is bullshit invented by the Victorians at the
same time they invented Wiccanism and pseudo-Celtic religions which
have no resemblance to any genuine ancient religions.
Wiccanism was invented in the 1940s. It's not Victorian.
Whatever.
Post by p***@conservation.org
No one needs to invent any "bullshit". There are ancestor-worshipping
religions today with genuinely ancient roots, most prominently
Shinto, and their belief systems are as I described. Like many forms
Their belief systems have become corrupted over time.
Post by p***@conservation.org
of 'ancestor-worship', shrines are established to honour and remember
the ancestors and that may confuse outsiders into thinking the
individuals are being worshipped as deities, but that isn't the
case.
They are being worshiped as ancestors. The Arabs at the time of Mohamed
did exactly the same.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
tradition. "X is dead, now he's a god/angel etc." is another
very modern Christianised way to view the world. It wasn't wholly
alien to Greek tradition - after all they had supposedly real
kings like Perseus and Dionysus who became demigods on death -
but Greeks generally made a distinction between those characters
and the major deities.
Having ordinary ancestors intervene in people's lives runs contrary
to the beliefs of the ancient Romans and Greeks.
And yet that's exactly what the house gods were believed to do, yet
you claim they were Roman ancestors.
Of course they were Roman ancestors. They were the deceased family
members of those that worshiped/venerated them.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Greek culture is European
Post by The True Doctor
cultures, therefore Europeans can play Greeks, as long as
they try to look Greek, just like Asians find it acceptable
for Koreans to play Japanese (see Heroes).
This makes no sense. Either you're a purist or you aren't.
An English-descended Australian is just as inaccurate as
Paris Trojan as a black actor is as Achilles.
What the hell are you going on about?
The Australians are English-descended, unless you're talking
about aboriginals.
Australians are immigrants from various places - I specified
English-Australian (based on the surname) in case you decided to
invent a story that the actor was of Greek descent.
What the hell are you still raving on abut? What actor?
The one portraying Paris, who's just as inappropriate for the role as
the one playing Achilles because by your own reasoning he has no
known association with Greek culture.
So you mean the black sub-Saharan African actor playing Paris.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Looking up the actor's brief Wikipedia biography, the guy
who played Achilles is British. British culture has the same
links to Greek culture as the rest of Europe. Culture is not
defined by skin colour.
They guy is of sub-Saharan African origin,
Racially. That's not the same as culture. The Celtic and
Germanic peoples who populated Britain have no racial connection
to Greece either.
Achilles was not racially from sub-Saharan African and sub Saharan
Africans contributed absolutely nothing directly to ancient-Greek culture.
Which is completely immaterial. We're discussing his culture, not his
race, at this point. A British actor's culture is British, which owes
a lot to Greek culture. The British didn't "contribute anything
directly to ancient Greek culture" - quite the reverse - so why don't
you object to white British actors playing the parts?
Do you have to really state the obvious or are you totally stupid?

A white British actor can easily be made to look Greek using makeup.
Having a black actor put on make up to look Greek is as ridiculous as
having a white actor black themselves up to look black. They will never
look convincing.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Why didn't Disney cast a white actor to play Black Panther.
Unlike Achilles he's totally fictitious, so why didn't they?
Because the entire point of making a film about the character
was that they could trumpet having an black-led and almost
all-black cast as their novel take on superheroes in the
marketing spin.
Oh really, and the fact that the original character was black made
no difference. BULLSHIT! If Disney had cast a white actor to play
Black Panther they would have been called out by everyone as being
totally racist.
They wouldn't have bothered making a film about the character if they
were going to cast him as white. There are about a million identikit
white Marvel heroes, and nothing about Black Panther's powers or
technology can't be done with one of those.
Of course it can. Black Panther was based on Tarzan. You know full well
what the real reason was why Disney didn't cast a white actor to play
Black Panther and it had absolutely nothing to do with his powers or
backstory. It was the fact the original character was black, and only a
racist imbecile would cast a white actor to play him.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The entire narrative of the Iliad is about love and friendship
which has no root whatsoever in sexual desire, triumphing over lust
and sexual desire.
The narrative of the Iliad is nothing to do with 'love and
friendship'. For the vast majority of it the only significant mortal
Yes it does. I suggest you read it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
characters are Diomedes and Hector, neither of whom has any
particularly significant relationships other than Hector's with his
father (and briefly at the end his wife and child). It's mostly just
battle scenes with excessive detail given regarding how each
character dies and reciting their lineages. Not much love or
friendship to be had there.
FOOL! Take out the action scenes and what you have is the story of
Achilles. That's why Robert Graves titled his translation "The Wrath of
Achilles", because that is what the story is about.

You've not even read the fist verse, have you?

"Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought
countless ills upon the Achaeans."
Post by p***@conservation.org
Achilles would not fight because he desired Briseis even when
Post by The True Doctor
Agamemnon gave her back to him, but he would fight because he
didn't desire Patroklus. The bond of friendship between him and
Patrokuls was more powerful and purer than the desire he had for
Briseis. This is contrasted with the ordinary Greeks fighting for
the love of their country while their leaders fought to bring back
Helen so that Menelaus could fuck her.
This is utterly garbled and meaningless. Achilles felt slighted by
Agamemnon stealing his prize and refused to fight. He repeatedly used
this is an excuse to continue to avoid fightng, but the story gives
very explicit prominence to his fear of the prophecy that he would
soon die - for most of it he refuses to fight out of that fear, which
makes his relationship with Patroclus significant because he values
revenge for Patroclus over his life.
It has nothing at all to do with any continuing interest in Briseis,
who's a characterless device used to create the argument with
Agamemnon.
You are talking CRAP as usual.

Achilles is slighted because he loves Briseis and Agamemnon decides to
take her from him after he has to return the girl he took for himself to
her father because he angered Apollo. The story is about Achilles
refusing to fight because of his love/lust for a woman, but coming back
to fight because of his love/friendship for his cousin.

If you can't see that, like Plato did, then you are an ignorant FOOL!
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Wikipedia describes it, was reserved for lovers. The reason he
Wikipedia is not written by experts let alone ones who speak
Greek or have read Plato or the Iliad.
No, but the specific passage I quoted cites sources who
presumably have, and it describes the specific Platonic dialogue
in detail. 'Filious' is not the word I was referring to.
It was written by people don't have the remotest clue about the
Iliad or Plato based on the inaccurate politically motivated
rantings, sophistry, and dissemblings of Victorian so-called
scholars who wanted to justify homosexuality.
Justifying homosexuality is not high on the list of things the
Victorians are famed for.
It's what they engaged in and tried to keep hidden.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
<<[Symposium 179d] In this manner even the gods give special
honor to zeal and courage in concerns of love (Eros). But
Orpheus, son of Oeagrus, they sent back with failure from
Hades, showing him only a wraith of the woman for whom he came;
her real self they would not bestow, for he was accounted to
have gone upon a coward's quest, too like the minstrel that he
was, and to have lacked the spirit to die as Alcestis did for
the sake of love (elder Eros/love without desire), when he
contrived the means of entering Hades alive. Wherefore they
laid upon him the penalty he deserved, and caused him to meet
his death
Orpheus has nothing to do with the Iliad and only shows up as a cameo in the Odyssey.
Orpheus is relevant to Plato's argument differentiating the two
forms of Love, the pure kind which involves no sexual desire, and
impure love, the sexual kind. Orpheus was motivated by the love of
a woman which was impure love. Achilles was motivated by his
friendship for his own cousin Patroklus, which was pure love
without any thought of desire.
That isn't even what the above passage says, let alone what Plato
Yes it is.
Post by p***@conservation.org
says more broadly. Once again he's saying that sexual desire alone
isn't love because it's self-serving - Orpheus wanted a glimpse of
Plato is saying from the outset that there are TWO KINDS OF LOVE/EROS;
that which is sexual in nature born from sexual intercourse with
Aphrodite, and that which is pure in nature because it was born without
sexual intercourse.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Euridyce for his benefit despite knowing the consequences for her.
That doesn't at all imply that sexual desire shouldn't be involved -
are you imagining that Plato is arguing that a male can't have any
sexual desire towards a female he loves?
That is exactly Plato's argument precisely. Have you even read his
Symposium? Plato is stating that it is impossible for a man to love a
woman or a woman to love a man without sexual desire being involved;
whereas he states that the only kind of love which has no sexual desire
involved is the love between a man and a man (both of whom being
heterosexual).
Post by p***@conservation.org
Yet again you post things that support what I've already said over
your unique interpretation.
You are talking out of your arse as usual.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Just how ignorant are you?
Apparently much less than you, as I have the ability to comprehend what I read.
You are deluding yourself as you can neither comprehend and clearly have
not either read or understand the source material.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
exemplar of everything Trojans should aspire to be - that's
Hector. It's not clear that Helen has much time for him either -
she tells him to bugger off and fight at one point.
No, I don't think it's very suitable having Paris portrayed as a
hero. I think it comes from a shallow, soap-operatic modern
notion that stories have to be focused on the guy with a
girlfriend/wife (or
It comes from the warped ideology of political correctness, which
preaches supporting the villain because he is being misinterpreted.
This is the same sickening ideology which led Chibnall to have the
Doctor make friends with a pervert and excuse its crimes which it
inflicted on other to get its kicks.
You're going to find this hard to believe, Aggy, but not every stupid
modern trend has its basis in political correctness. Most of it
doesn't. Paris has never been considered a 'misunderstood villain'.
Modern film convention simply dictates that everything have a
'romantic' component, and generally both a male and a female lead.
There was a romantic competent between Helen and Menelaus which they
could have used.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
girl with a boyfriend/husband) so that 'romance' can be
unnecessarily inserted into it.
There was a perfectly good romance between Menelaus and Helen which
they could have used. Read Helen by Euripides.
The setting is the Trojan War. Helen and Menelaus aren't in the same room until the end.
You don't have to have both people in the same room to have