I used a single episode because I didn’t want to write a book. I didn’t use it because it was convenient, but because, again, it is an episode which is usually pointed to as an example of good Doctor Who writing.
It doesn’t state that it’s consistent with the whole show, just that one episode.
That is the main thrust of my text, but I suppose you could miss that.
using it as an example of why “the issues highlighted are good because it’s also present in an episode people consider good” falls apart,
I’m using it as an example of “the issues highlighted by the video aren’t necessarily bad, as they feature prominently in […]”
Saying that “the show was always inconsistent” is not an argument against why the show has declined.
And I am not doing that either (how can you argue against ‘why’, for that matter?). I’m pointing out that inconsistency, so far, hasn’t prevented DW from being popular. It is your right to think that it is bad, but your opinion proves nothing.
That being said, there’s a difference between throwaway lines being inconsistent and entire plots built on changing the lore being inconsistent.
Perhaps, but the latter kind of inconsistency is still common in DW history and the viewership still doesn’t find it a major problem.
One simply can’t flip from struggling with a simple task to being amazing at an advanced task and going back to struggling with the simple task for the rest of the series with it not being addressed.
Perhaps you should look up how dyspraxia works in reality before you lecture on it, because that is simply what one can. And don’t lecture to me, regardless.
But saying that other characters in Blink aren’t sufficiently characterized.
What I am saying is that all characters don’t need massive amounts of characterisation.
a storyline that is composed almost ENTIRELY out of contrivances or out of astronomical contrivances that are specifically tied to arcs is lazy writing, and should be called out.
I should demand that you give an example of a DW storyline that isn’t heavily contrived, but never mind.
But, have you called out Aliens of London/World War Three/Boom Town? The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit? (which, by the way, contains one of the most mind-boggling lore changes in DW history) The End of Time 1/2? The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang? The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon? The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People? All of these are popular DW storylines (except maybe the first), and all of them rely on plot contrivances. Apparently plot contrivances as such do not turn DW fans off.
Name one major companion outside of the three we have right now that have a low amount of characterization to the point where even after a full season, there is still not a clear understanding of their drives.
Susan Foreman. I would say that she is remembered.
I apologize for how blunt I’m going to be here, but simply stating that the Nazis were not white supremacists is simply, stupid.
Possibly. Or, as in my case, it could be a writing mistake. There was supposed to be a ‘simply’, as in “they weren’t simply White Supremacists”, there, but it disappeared between draft and article. My apologies.
The point remains that the Nazis didn’t always direct hate towards non-white people: as with the Indians in the example, they weren’t beyond recruiting them and fighting alongside them as brothers in arms, and an Indian man in an SS uniform would not provoke them to violence. And the Nazis discriminated heavily against some white people as well.
Finally to suggest it’s bigoted to “single out” the one era with a woman in it is foolish.
Is it, though? When most of the points of criticism apply equally to other eras, but only the Whittaker/Chibnall era is attacked in this way (and it wasn’t always the current era, but somehow this kind of video was rare or non-existing as long as the Doctor was male).
It’s making the show like it once was. When it was popular.
The show is mostly the way it was, and it is still popular. Not at its most popular, but still popular.
