Ext User(PErthGUY:Mmv)
14-08-2005, 12:53 AM
The gay question in Doctor Who
I am writing in response to the editor who removed my addition concerning
Russell T. Davies' introduction of a gay/bisexual character. It is fair
comment and criticism to bring up a radical change in a television show that
has been aired on both sides of the Atlantic for decades. These two altered
paragraphs were deleted by a self-elected 'guardian' of Doctor Who, and I
would like to submit them for public approval. Is there anything
inflammatory or personal said against the Doctor Who producer? Is it
suddenly wrong to criticize a move that might injure the credibility of a
great British institution?
The series' taboo was controversially broken in the 1996 Fox television
pilot when the Eighth Doctor was shown kissing companion Grace Holloway.
This development may have been calculated to attract female American
viewers. The 2005 series strongly hinted at a more-than-platonic
relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler. However, another
controversy emerged when male companion Captain Jack Harkness (John
Barrowman) demonstrated bisexual flirtations with both the Doctor and his
companion. During the Ninth Doctor's regeneration story, Harkness places a
kiss full on the Time Lord's lips.
Whereas both Doctor Who producers John Nathan-Turner and Russell T. Davies
have been openly gay, it must be noted that, in ten years of Doctor Who,
Nathan-Turner never incorporated his own lifestyle into a single storyline.
Whether Davies' bold, provocative statement will alienate mainstream Doctor
Who fans remains to be seen.
I guess the difference between JNT and RTD, is that the BBC in 1980s would
never have allowed such content in the show, but after the success of shows
like RTD's Queer as Folk, noone bats an eyelid anymore. There is more
controversy over the 12-rating of the Dalek episode [1] --Tim Pope 20:48, 14
July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and both The Happiness Patrol and The Curse of Fenric had gay themes
(admittedly not blatantly). --Tim Pope 20:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Let me just start off by stating how I viewed the events. This is simply as
background. I didn't see a more-than-platonic relationship between the Ninth
Doctor and Rose Tyler. That is, no part of the show made me think there was
any actual sexual activity between the two. Harkness is a different matter,
of course, though even in this case, only some flirtation seemed to have
actually taken place.
I have no problem whatsoever with the first paragraph given above. In fact,
it may even be worth expanding it to state whether or not this is the first
time on mainstream, prime-time t.v. that an openly bisexual major character
has been portrayed. I suspect not, but at least one of my friends have
stated it is so.
Your second paragraph, however, is much more inflammatory in my opinion.
Presumably by 'lifestyle', you mean homosexuality. Because certainly
Nathan-Turner incorporated large parts of his lifestyle apart from
homosexuality. Additionally, the paragraph reads to me that having a
bisexual character in the show is deeply shocking. I'm not at all sure this
is true and even if it is, it probably shouldn't be, not this far past the
19th century. In any case, you may well not have intended the second
paragraph to read as such (and, let's face it, perhaps nobody else would
find it at all inflaming). Anyway, I think the second paragraph could be
rewritten to be a bit more encyclopedic. --Yamla 21:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I would note that there was no controversy surrounding Jack's introduction
as a bisexual character, unlike what the added paragraph implies. There was
no public outcry; there wasn't even a glimmer of a whisper about that kiss
in The Parting of the Ways - the torture scene in Dalek drew more attention
because of Mediawatch's complaint. So even that first paragraph is
inaccurate. This is editorialising, not encyclopedic. --khaosworks 22:24,
July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Having read your collective assessments, I find it evident that we do have a
controversy on our hands. For the record, I also wrote two editorials in the
Sci-Fi Channel magazine in 1996 and 1997 protesting Paul McGann's romance
with Dr. Grace Holloway -- because it felt unfaithful to the series. I feel
the same is true about this current development. Small wonder why the U.S.
Sci-Fi Channel did not pick up the new series after "viewing several
episodes?" Until the last few episodes with Jack Harkness, my wife and I
could not figure why they would pass up a "sure bet" for the year 2005.
I may only seem part of a Doctor Who minority, but I did notice reviewers on
the Time Meddlers website expressing some qualified doubts as to whether
children should be exposed to gay or bisexual themes. I would not even
object so much to a same-sex relationship portrayed among the supporting
cast, as some may have interpreted from Judson and Millington in the "Curse
of Fenric" screenplay. ("Happiness Patrol" is another matter entirely -- my
wife and I disagree with the Discontinuity Guide on this score! If one goes
looking for gay subtexts, one will find them even where they do not exist!)
But we should categorically draw the line when the Doctor engages in such
behaviour, however fleetingly or ambiguously. Having two men kissing openly
on a "gay theme" series, such as the aforementioned Queer as Folk, is one
thing, but this show is supposed to be Doctor Who! Is he indeed the same
alien portrayed by Pat Troughton or Jon Pertwee?
Russell Davies had a responsibility to all Doctor Who fans -- not just those
receptive to his views. This new wrinkle in the Doctor's character almost
comes across as a "Trojan Horse," wherein Davies slips his agenda into the
Time Lord's persona. I had no quarrel with the Third Doctor's mainstream
liberal arguments (as espoused by Malcolm Hulke, Bob Baker & Dave Martin,
et. al.), although I felt Barry Letts' New Age affectations could undermine
the show's credibility. I loved the series when it took on the fascist right
("Inferno," "The Green Death,") as well as the lunatic fringe ("Operation
Golden Age" and even the ridiculous "Robot.") I believe with Russell T.
Davies as producer, Doctor Who will continue to drift away from the center.
If it is now considered "19th Century" to feel uncomfortable with this new
development, then "hail Victoria!"
--157.182.224.244 17:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It sounds reasonable to discuss this on the article itself. You have
sufficient evidence to convince me that this is controversial for at least
some minority of Doctor Who viewers.
I, like you, disliked when the t.v. movie had the Doctor kiss Grace
Holloway, for the same reasons that you gave. However, given that the line
has been crossed, I found nothing controversial in having two men kiss
openly. More so because the Doctor did not instigate the kiss iirc. However,
I understand that some people may find this difficult to deal with.
However, (and only vaguely relevant to the discussion here), I take issue
with your drawing a line at bisexual themes. Is there any evidence that
these are actually more controversial now than the Third Doctor's liberal
arguments were back then? In other words, this may be more controversial to
you but if they are no more controversial than previous issues were at their
times, is this really worth writing about in an encyclopedia article? That's
a legitimate question for discussion, not a rhetorical question, mind you.
Furthermore, I consider it actually part of the t.v. show's duty to push the
limits of what society in general considers acceptable, and to explore moral
issues. Obviously, this is entirely my opinion.
Finally, thanks for discussing these topics in the appropriate forum rather
than just trying to force your changes on the article. It is refreshing to
see someone at least willing to listen to other points of view, and to back
up their points with sources. --Yamla 17:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The Judson Milligton "interpretation" is that of the author Ian Briggs. RTD
has no responsibilty to fans whatsoever, only to make cracking good
television. If you don't like it, poor you. --Tim Pope 18:09, 15 July 2005
(UTC)
My comment still stands - while the controversy during following the 1996
telemovie was evident (and, as you say there were even editorials in Sci-Fi
Magazine), there is no such "public" flap over Jack aside from some
conversation/argument on some fan sites. I'm challenging this not just on
the idea that it is soapboxing but even more so its lack of notability; the
Mediawatch brouhaha over Dalek we mentioned because they made a very public
complaint, but this one? There's been nary a blip in mainstream media.
Consider this discussion a blip. --157.182.123.51 15:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Still not good enough. --khaosworks 15:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
There is a very vague rumour that Mediawatch has threatened another
complaint but none has surfaced as yet, and given the lapse in time since
the finale, it's unlikely. And even if Mediawatch put in a complaint, it
should go in the show notes for Parting of the Ways, not the main article,
because it's just one watchdog organisation. --khaosworks 00:21, July 16,
2005 (UTC)
On the subject of Mr. Pope's response, his attitude is proof that a majority
of Doctor Who fans (as with any show) cannot stand to have their 'show pony'
criticized. Have Doctor Who fans become so desperate for a new show that
they will accept anything? Since boyhood, I have loved the 'classic' series,
and while the series certainly had to evolve for the new century, I feel it
needed to remain true to its original focus. Russell Davies should not force
the rest of the world to watch something they would find unappealing -- and
that goes for the Slitheens bathroom humour as well. Even if the fans do not
see a gay controversy, there's certainly one in the "real world."
Furthermore, not all of those who dislike intimate gay/bisexual displays are
stereotypical Bush right-wingers. As a self-described progressive, I do not
feel 'poorly' for disliking the controversial gay theme in the new series,
because I believe such things are still against the spirit of Doctor Who's
26 years of broadcast history. Why not have a separate gay-themed
science-fiction show, instead of turning a mainstream series like Doctor Who
into something it was never meant to be? For my part, I will watch the 26
years of 'classic' Doctor Who, and henceforth ignore anything with Russell
Davies' name on it.--157.182.123.51 15:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views - it's an encyclopedia; the fact
remains that there is little to no "gay controversy" to speak of in relation
to Doctor Who. You are entirely entitled to your opinion, but an encylopedia
article isn't the place for editorialising. There are plenty of forums on
which you can air your views, just not here. --khaosworks 15:49, July 18,
2005 (UTC)
Having considered the above, ISTM that
The Doctor Who article itself is so long that it doesn't have room for
something like this.
There was more controversy over the redesign of the TARDIS than sexual
themes in the programme. I did comment to my family that I was surprised
that there were such overtly sexual themes in The Doctor Dances, but nobody
else had noticed them, these things are probably only invisible to those who
already know about them.
There is an element of controversy over any new development in Doctor Who,
although these are in most cases minor.
The papers hardly picked up on this, and although one paper said they
thought that the ninth Doctor was gay, this doesn't seem relevant to the
content of the programme itself.
It's not correct to say that JNT was 'openly' gay. He was quite discreet,
even in his memoirs referring to saying that he would claim he had 'slept
with a person' rather than referring to the gender of the person concerned.
There is probably room for an article on sexuality in Doctor Who, just as
there is probably room also for separate articles on the themes of race,
class and gender (yes, encyclopaedically, without resorting to POV). But to
include analysis at this level would make the main article unwieldy.
DavidFarmbrough 17:23 BST 18 July 2005
That's why I included these remarks in the commentary, rather than to keep
replacing them in the article. Anyway, if any of you are familiar with Denis
Diderot's Encyclopedia, his writings were as much criticism as fact. If you
love something, you should love it enough to criticize. --157.182.225.22
18:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
157.182.123.51, my point was that RTD is making a television program for
primarily the BBC One Saturday evening viewing audience, not for us fans.
There are some things I personally wasn't too keen on in the new series,
such as the many soap opera elements of Rose's family. However, these are
things which make the show acceptable to a modern audience so I just ignore
them and admire the special effects. If the show had remained true to its
original focus, we would not have had a 2005 series, because the majority of
the watching public would not be interested in it. Can you really say on the
whole though, that was not Doctor Who that we loved from 1963 to 1989? --Tim
Pope 17:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Pope, Doctor Who was more than just watching special effects. I look for
much more beyond the surface, which is why I enjoyed the show for its
stories and ideas. Even rather lame ones like "Invisible Enemy" had the
kernels of good ideas. Considering all the years I had to defend the
admittedly dodgy sets and visual gaffes against my big-budget Star Trek &
Babylon 5 mates, I think I have some room to talk. Most of the stories, with
the possible exception of Mark Gatiss's Victorian tale and parts of "Dalek,"
did not feel like Doctor Who in terms of writing quality. In fact, like the
worst of the JNT era, RTD derived much from previous companions and
scenarios. What's the Rose & "Bad Wolf" thing, but a retake on Ace being a
"Wolf of Fenric?" While I agree that some aspects, like the soap opera
touches and the bathroom humor, might be ignored in the series' favor, I
have to draw the line at the gay/bisexual question. If this makes me a
minority, then so be it! --157.182.225.22 18:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious, what _is_ the problem with a bisexual character? Certainly, we
all know there are bisexual people in real life. I presume, then, that the
controversy isn't over the introduction of Jack but rather that Jack kisses
the Doctor (it did not seem to me that the Doctor kissed Jack, mind you). If
the controversy is over the Jack character being bisexual, that would simply
be bigotry. If the problem is that the Doctor really shouldn't have any
level of sexuality, that's reasonable. If the problem is that people are
uncomfortable with the level of sexuality on Doctor Who itself, that's also
reasonable I suppose. The show has historically not dealt with sexual
matters, with only a few exceptions. --Yamla 19:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Mr 157, we are drifting off the point... basically, television viewers are
not the same as they were fifteen years ago, when a gay kiss would indeed
have been controversial. It isn't now. Britain has a ranting tabloid press,
and there was not a murmur. Maybe when aired in USA, there will be
complaints. I don't intend to engage further in this line of discussion as
it's going nowhere. When you find substantial evidence of a controversy,
then reopen this discussion. --Tim Pope 19:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
IMHO: I find nothing wrong with the bisexual kiss in question. It was
initiated by Jack, an alien, recieved with good manners by the Doctor,
another alien, and there was nothing sexual or provocative in the kiss. You
have to remember that Jack's culture is more liberal than ours. It doesn't
automatically make the Doctor gay when he accepts the kiss. He's respecting
Jack's culture, like he respects ours. No-one I know cared - in fact, my
mother found it funny. --Jamdav86 09:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I am writing in response to the editor who removed my addition concerning
Russell T. Davies' introduction of a gay/bisexual character. It is fair
comment and criticism to bring up a radical change in a television show that
has been aired on both sides of the Atlantic for decades. These two altered
paragraphs were deleted by a self-elected 'guardian' of Doctor Who, and I
would like to submit them for public approval. Is there anything
inflammatory or personal said against the Doctor Who producer? Is it
suddenly wrong to criticize a move that might injure the credibility of a
great British institution?
The series' taboo was controversially broken in the 1996 Fox television
pilot when the Eighth Doctor was shown kissing companion Grace Holloway.
This development may have been calculated to attract female American
viewers. The 2005 series strongly hinted at a more-than-platonic
relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler. However, another
controversy emerged when male companion Captain Jack Harkness (John
Barrowman) demonstrated bisexual flirtations with both the Doctor and his
companion. During the Ninth Doctor's regeneration story, Harkness places a
kiss full on the Time Lord's lips.
Whereas both Doctor Who producers John Nathan-Turner and Russell T. Davies
have been openly gay, it must be noted that, in ten years of Doctor Who,
Nathan-Turner never incorporated his own lifestyle into a single storyline.
Whether Davies' bold, provocative statement will alienate mainstream Doctor
Who fans remains to be seen.
I guess the difference between JNT and RTD, is that the BBC in 1980s would
never have allowed such content in the show, but after the success of shows
like RTD's Queer as Folk, noone bats an eyelid anymore. There is more
controversy over the 12-rating of the Dalek episode [1] --Tim Pope 20:48, 14
July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and both The Happiness Patrol and The Curse of Fenric had gay themes
(admittedly not blatantly). --Tim Pope 20:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Let me just start off by stating how I viewed the events. This is simply as
background. I didn't see a more-than-platonic relationship between the Ninth
Doctor and Rose Tyler. That is, no part of the show made me think there was
any actual sexual activity between the two. Harkness is a different matter,
of course, though even in this case, only some flirtation seemed to have
actually taken place.
I have no problem whatsoever with the first paragraph given above. In fact,
it may even be worth expanding it to state whether or not this is the first
time on mainstream, prime-time t.v. that an openly bisexual major character
has been portrayed. I suspect not, but at least one of my friends have
stated it is so.
Your second paragraph, however, is much more inflammatory in my opinion.
Presumably by 'lifestyle', you mean homosexuality. Because certainly
Nathan-Turner incorporated large parts of his lifestyle apart from
homosexuality. Additionally, the paragraph reads to me that having a
bisexual character in the show is deeply shocking. I'm not at all sure this
is true and even if it is, it probably shouldn't be, not this far past the
19th century. In any case, you may well not have intended the second
paragraph to read as such (and, let's face it, perhaps nobody else would
find it at all inflaming). Anyway, I think the second paragraph could be
rewritten to be a bit more encyclopedic. --Yamla 21:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I would note that there was no controversy surrounding Jack's introduction
as a bisexual character, unlike what the added paragraph implies. There was
no public outcry; there wasn't even a glimmer of a whisper about that kiss
in The Parting of the Ways - the torture scene in Dalek drew more attention
because of Mediawatch's complaint. So even that first paragraph is
inaccurate. This is editorialising, not encyclopedic. --khaosworks 22:24,
July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Having read your collective assessments, I find it evident that we do have a
controversy on our hands. For the record, I also wrote two editorials in the
Sci-Fi Channel magazine in 1996 and 1997 protesting Paul McGann's romance
with Dr. Grace Holloway -- because it felt unfaithful to the series. I feel
the same is true about this current development. Small wonder why the U.S.
Sci-Fi Channel did not pick up the new series after "viewing several
episodes?" Until the last few episodes with Jack Harkness, my wife and I
could not figure why they would pass up a "sure bet" for the year 2005.
I may only seem part of a Doctor Who minority, but I did notice reviewers on
the Time Meddlers website expressing some qualified doubts as to whether
children should be exposed to gay or bisexual themes. I would not even
object so much to a same-sex relationship portrayed among the supporting
cast, as some may have interpreted from Judson and Millington in the "Curse
of Fenric" screenplay. ("Happiness Patrol" is another matter entirely -- my
wife and I disagree with the Discontinuity Guide on this score! If one goes
looking for gay subtexts, one will find them even where they do not exist!)
But we should categorically draw the line when the Doctor engages in such
behaviour, however fleetingly or ambiguously. Having two men kissing openly
on a "gay theme" series, such as the aforementioned Queer as Folk, is one
thing, but this show is supposed to be Doctor Who! Is he indeed the same
alien portrayed by Pat Troughton or Jon Pertwee?
Russell Davies had a responsibility to all Doctor Who fans -- not just those
receptive to his views. This new wrinkle in the Doctor's character almost
comes across as a "Trojan Horse," wherein Davies slips his agenda into the
Time Lord's persona. I had no quarrel with the Third Doctor's mainstream
liberal arguments (as espoused by Malcolm Hulke, Bob Baker & Dave Martin,
et. al.), although I felt Barry Letts' New Age affectations could undermine
the show's credibility. I loved the series when it took on the fascist right
("Inferno," "The Green Death,") as well as the lunatic fringe ("Operation
Golden Age" and even the ridiculous "Robot.") I believe with Russell T.
Davies as producer, Doctor Who will continue to drift away from the center.
If it is now considered "19th Century" to feel uncomfortable with this new
development, then "hail Victoria!"
--157.182.224.244 17:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It sounds reasonable to discuss this on the article itself. You have
sufficient evidence to convince me that this is controversial for at least
some minority of Doctor Who viewers.
I, like you, disliked when the t.v. movie had the Doctor kiss Grace
Holloway, for the same reasons that you gave. However, given that the line
has been crossed, I found nothing controversial in having two men kiss
openly. More so because the Doctor did not instigate the kiss iirc. However,
I understand that some people may find this difficult to deal with.
However, (and only vaguely relevant to the discussion here), I take issue
with your drawing a line at bisexual themes. Is there any evidence that
these are actually more controversial now than the Third Doctor's liberal
arguments were back then? In other words, this may be more controversial to
you but if they are no more controversial than previous issues were at their
times, is this really worth writing about in an encyclopedia article? That's
a legitimate question for discussion, not a rhetorical question, mind you.
Furthermore, I consider it actually part of the t.v. show's duty to push the
limits of what society in general considers acceptable, and to explore moral
issues. Obviously, this is entirely my opinion.
Finally, thanks for discussing these topics in the appropriate forum rather
than just trying to force your changes on the article. It is refreshing to
see someone at least willing to listen to other points of view, and to back
up their points with sources. --Yamla 17:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The Judson Milligton "interpretation" is that of the author Ian Briggs. RTD
has no responsibilty to fans whatsoever, only to make cracking good
television. If you don't like it, poor you. --Tim Pope 18:09, 15 July 2005
(UTC)
My comment still stands - while the controversy during following the 1996
telemovie was evident (and, as you say there were even editorials in Sci-Fi
Magazine), there is no such "public" flap over Jack aside from some
conversation/argument on some fan sites. I'm challenging this not just on
the idea that it is soapboxing but even more so its lack of notability; the
Mediawatch brouhaha over Dalek we mentioned because they made a very public
complaint, but this one? There's been nary a blip in mainstream media.
Consider this discussion a blip. --157.182.123.51 15:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Still not good enough. --khaosworks 15:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
There is a very vague rumour that Mediawatch has threatened another
complaint but none has surfaced as yet, and given the lapse in time since
the finale, it's unlikely. And even if Mediawatch put in a complaint, it
should go in the show notes for Parting of the Ways, not the main article,
because it's just one watchdog organisation. --khaosworks 00:21, July 16,
2005 (UTC)
On the subject of Mr. Pope's response, his attitude is proof that a majority
of Doctor Who fans (as with any show) cannot stand to have their 'show pony'
criticized. Have Doctor Who fans become so desperate for a new show that
they will accept anything? Since boyhood, I have loved the 'classic' series,
and while the series certainly had to evolve for the new century, I feel it
needed to remain true to its original focus. Russell Davies should not force
the rest of the world to watch something they would find unappealing -- and
that goes for the Slitheens bathroom humour as well. Even if the fans do not
see a gay controversy, there's certainly one in the "real world."
Furthermore, not all of those who dislike intimate gay/bisexual displays are
stereotypical Bush right-wingers. As a self-described progressive, I do not
feel 'poorly' for disliking the controversial gay theme in the new series,
because I believe such things are still against the spirit of Doctor Who's
26 years of broadcast history. Why not have a separate gay-themed
science-fiction show, instead of turning a mainstream series like Doctor Who
into something it was never meant to be? For my part, I will watch the 26
years of 'classic' Doctor Who, and henceforth ignore anything with Russell
Davies' name on it.--157.182.123.51 15:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views - it's an encyclopedia; the fact
remains that there is little to no "gay controversy" to speak of in relation
to Doctor Who. You are entirely entitled to your opinion, but an encylopedia
article isn't the place for editorialising. There are plenty of forums on
which you can air your views, just not here. --khaosworks 15:49, July 18,
2005 (UTC)
Having considered the above, ISTM that
The Doctor Who article itself is so long that it doesn't have room for
something like this.
There was more controversy over the redesign of the TARDIS than sexual
themes in the programme. I did comment to my family that I was surprised
that there were such overtly sexual themes in The Doctor Dances, but nobody
else had noticed them, these things are probably only invisible to those who
already know about them.
There is an element of controversy over any new development in Doctor Who,
although these are in most cases minor.
The papers hardly picked up on this, and although one paper said they
thought that the ninth Doctor was gay, this doesn't seem relevant to the
content of the programme itself.
It's not correct to say that JNT was 'openly' gay. He was quite discreet,
even in his memoirs referring to saying that he would claim he had 'slept
with a person' rather than referring to the gender of the person concerned.
There is probably room for an article on sexuality in Doctor Who, just as
there is probably room also for separate articles on the themes of race,
class and gender (yes, encyclopaedically, without resorting to POV). But to
include analysis at this level would make the main article unwieldy.
DavidFarmbrough 17:23 BST 18 July 2005
That's why I included these remarks in the commentary, rather than to keep
replacing them in the article. Anyway, if any of you are familiar with Denis
Diderot's Encyclopedia, his writings were as much criticism as fact. If you
love something, you should love it enough to criticize. --157.182.225.22
18:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
157.182.123.51, my point was that RTD is making a television program for
primarily the BBC One Saturday evening viewing audience, not for us fans.
There are some things I personally wasn't too keen on in the new series,
such as the many soap opera elements of Rose's family. However, these are
things which make the show acceptable to a modern audience so I just ignore
them and admire the special effects. If the show had remained true to its
original focus, we would not have had a 2005 series, because the majority of
the watching public would not be interested in it. Can you really say on the
whole though, that was not Doctor Who that we loved from 1963 to 1989? --Tim
Pope 17:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Pope, Doctor Who was more than just watching special effects. I look for
much more beyond the surface, which is why I enjoyed the show for its
stories and ideas. Even rather lame ones like "Invisible Enemy" had the
kernels of good ideas. Considering all the years I had to defend the
admittedly dodgy sets and visual gaffes against my big-budget Star Trek &
Babylon 5 mates, I think I have some room to talk. Most of the stories, with
the possible exception of Mark Gatiss's Victorian tale and parts of "Dalek,"
did not feel like Doctor Who in terms of writing quality. In fact, like the
worst of the JNT era, RTD derived much from previous companions and
scenarios. What's the Rose & "Bad Wolf" thing, but a retake on Ace being a
"Wolf of Fenric?" While I agree that some aspects, like the soap opera
touches and the bathroom humor, might be ignored in the series' favor, I
have to draw the line at the gay/bisexual question. If this makes me a
minority, then so be it! --157.182.225.22 18:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious, what _is_ the problem with a bisexual character? Certainly, we
all know there are bisexual people in real life. I presume, then, that the
controversy isn't over the introduction of Jack but rather that Jack kisses
the Doctor (it did not seem to me that the Doctor kissed Jack, mind you). If
the controversy is over the Jack character being bisexual, that would simply
be bigotry. If the problem is that the Doctor really shouldn't have any
level of sexuality, that's reasonable. If the problem is that people are
uncomfortable with the level of sexuality on Doctor Who itself, that's also
reasonable I suppose. The show has historically not dealt with sexual
matters, with only a few exceptions. --Yamla 19:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Mr 157, we are drifting off the point... basically, television viewers are
not the same as they were fifteen years ago, when a gay kiss would indeed
have been controversial. It isn't now. Britain has a ranting tabloid press,
and there was not a murmur. Maybe when aired in USA, there will be
complaints. I don't intend to engage further in this line of discussion as
it's going nowhere. When you find substantial evidence of a controversy,
then reopen this discussion. --Tim Pope 19:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
IMHO: I find nothing wrong with the bisexual kiss in question. It was
initiated by Jack, an alien, recieved with good manners by the Doctor,
another alien, and there was nothing sexual or provocative in the kiss. You
have to remember that Jack's culture is more liberal than ours. It doesn't
automatically make the Doctor gay when he accepts the kiss. He's respecting
Jack's culture, like he respects ours. No-one I know cared - in fact, my
mother found it funny. --Jamdav86 09:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)