[ SECRET POST #3792 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3792 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #543.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

DA

[(Anonymous)]

The BBC have far greater freedom in creating new characters and shows than the usual corporate creator does. They don't need to crossgendercast established characters to hit their diversity points. Their charter technically encourages them not to, but to go ahead and develop new characters in new shows to achieve representation.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

But, again, that's not really my point. Going out and making new characters in new shows is all well and good. It doesn't stop them from making the Doctor a woman.

The only way that argument makes sense is if you assume that the *only* reason they would make the Doctor a woman is Diversity Points, rather than casting her on the merits. That's basically the necessary assumption there. And it seems like a really weird assumption to make, especially when they haven't actually done it yet and we're not actually able to look at their decision and judge it on the merits.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Nobody was ever cast in any role just on their merits as an actor. Never in the history of acting has that happened.

There is always the projection of an image or a message on the casting director's politics as an integral part of it.

Claiming based on merits is a strawman argument.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

So what criteria do people use to make their casting decisions when they're casting straight white men?

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

What would making the Doctor a woman bring t o the table?

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like this is the better point here. Other than diversity points, what would be so much better about having a female Doctor?

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Why make him yet another white man? Why make him anything?

Why? Because it's a story to tell.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

What could another man possibly bring to the role that hasn't been explored already?

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

But if women are just like men then what does changing him to female inherently do better or differently?

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

You're dodging the question.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

You don't need to believe casting a woman is necessary to believe it's fine.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Sue Perkins.

Re: DA

[thewakokid]

Too be fair, I'm a marvel fan, I am super aware and weary that, yes, sometimes these changes are just for Diversity Points.

Like I can see the argument being made that "Its 2017, its time for a female doctor" and not "Hey, I have a neat idea for a story" or "This actress gave the best performance, let's take this in a new direction". I too am worried about it being the former rather than one of the latter.