★!Acquire Idle Scree Stickers!★🛒www.idlescree.com/store Thank you to all of you who joined us for the live premiere today! Special thanks to Kokally Firehart for being a frequent flyer at these events--and welcome to Wingless Moonstone! We hope you enjoy the ride :D We hope you all enjoyed the bat and switch. Let us know what you think of the message! And if you're interested in more, such as our unscripted Idlechat where we discuss YOUR media suggestions, head on over to our Patreon to hear about the Acolyte's weaknesses and strengths!
I tend to avoid videos with titles like that the "downfall" of this or that show. "Why this show is bad actually" type titles. I don't trust titles like that, ones that try to portray an opinion as fact, instead of opinion.
"The [adverb] [NOUN] of [title]" format ._. It's a format with absolutely 0 quality control -- I could be about to get an insightful look at something or I could get opinions from a presenter who downloaded some transition packs for aesthetics and gets basic simple facts wrong :| Based on which of the two is easier to produced, it's biased pretty heavily in favour of the latter :x Thank you so much for watching and commenting, our lack of "why this show is bad actually" tends to deny us the kind of access to screens that they get, so it means a lot to all of us when people chime in on our videos :) -The Bird
I used to trust some RUclipsrs who were insanely negative, I can remember GamingMagic13 being one of them that I can name off the top of my head. I'll try to never again trust in people like that, no matter who they are.
It's pretty confronting when you realise that RUclipsrs you enjoyed aren't actually engaging as critically with media as you thought. I actually had this awakening moment not with a criticism video, but actually a video of praise. I wont name names but basically it was like "How to make the perfect sequel to [x]" and by explaining what they thought would make a perfect franchise sequel, I realised that they had completely missed all the consistent themes of the previous films. That caused me to reevaluate their criticisms and I found they were likewise shallow and empty. It's wild how easily we get tricked into trust by high view counts and industry vocabulary, and that's why it's important to practice your own critical thinking toolkit and remain vigilant! :x -The Bird
The key thing when bringing politics into a show is to deal with broad themes, rather than specific issues. The daleks may be based on the Nazis, but the themes of fighting racism and hated are pretty timeless, so the daleks still feel relevant today. Imagine if Terry Nation had made the daleks a metaphor for, say, Enoch Powell. His episodes would be a mere historical curiosity, and the daleks would never have gained their iconic pop cultural status. Subtlety is also important. The second Doctor serial The War Games was written by a communist, and while it's easy to see a left-wing message, we aren't beaten over the head with it
I wouldn't say that specificity is always the killer of entertaining story -- the Chibnall climate episode only very vaguely lectures us on man-made disaster but suffers for its weak writing and poor delivery. The 9th Doctor gets a 911 episode about an aircraft crashing into a tower in the city centre and leading to extreme responses by a government of inhuman monsters pretending to be like us -- which is VERY specific to the discourse of the time -- but RTD's writing saves it from being remembered as a failed attempt at political commentary. At worst, people go "oh the farting aliens episode is a bit silly because of the farting aliens." Politics are downstream of our values, which cannot be separated from the art we produce. There is no more or less politics informing any given art, there's just better written and worse written politics :P I think how obvious or how easily accessible the author's politics are through their art actually plays a much smaller role in the quality of the art. At least, that's my observation. Thank you so much for watching and for contributing to the conversation! This is exactly what we make our videos for and we're very grateful that you got something out of it :D -The Bird
The Orphan 55 example is perfect and very much I try to stress so often that people don't seem to understand. Is it bad? Yes, it's bloody awful. Is "wokeness" or "the message" the reason? Hell no!! Personally if someone can't explain to me why something is bad without using the word woke they aren't worth listening to. Hell I might even agree, I think the Acolyte is bad, but if your argument as to why is because it's woke then I already know this conversation won't be productive.
Couldn't agree more. Like we said at the end, critical thinking and analysis empower us to both praise AND criticise on far more substantial grounds. People who rely on thought-terminating cliches like "woke" are either selling the narrative for money, or consume the narrative from these sellers and rob themselves of the ability to engage with art and produce understandings and interpretations. If art is a conversation, then calling something "woke" as a legitimate criticism is sticking your fingers in your ears to guarantee that you'll NEVER understand the strengths, and weaknesses, of what the art has to say. As a lil aside we also just put out an hour-long IdleChat on our Patreon about The Acolyte -- in which we very critically praise and criticise the show in ways we feel are appropriate and substantive. It makes me shudder that people run podcasts of the same length just devoted to looking at screenshots in a discord call and calling things woke and making gagging noises 'n people who don't know any better think they're consuming artistic interpretation or criticism :| I would sooner say Orphan 55 is a terrible episode because of "where's Beni!?" rather than blaming an imaginary 'woke' force that cannot be defined, quantified, understood, or observed independent of anything else; and I'd STILL be doing a better job criticising the material :P Thank you so much for watching and commenting, it means a lot to all of us :D Out of curiosity, what's the worst example of "woke" or "the message" criticism that you've ever heard? There's some pretty low stuff out there; I worry I've only scratched the surface x0x -The Bird
@@idlescree Thanks for reply. Oof I dunno about the worst example, I'd rather not spend enough time thinking about them to figure that out. However I will say the X-Men '97 stuff earlier this year finally crossed the boundary from aggravating in to hilarious. Like I was genuinely in histerics, it was they were parodying themselves. Genuinely me and my mate's typical joke about them would always be to parody them making those same criticisms with the X-Men and there they suddenly were doing it completely unironically and I was just rolling, it was great.
Generally if "woke" is all they can say about it, they are either lying for money or parroting someone who lies for money >_> Representation CAN be done poorly and CAN wreck a production if done poorly, but if they can't talk about what actually went wrong and substantiate it -- if ALL they have is to say "it is woke and therefore" then yeah, illiterate at best or dishonest for money at worst :| Thank you so much for watching and for commenting, I'm so glad the video resonated with you! :) -The Bird
i also just think its rly funny when theyre like 'doctor who is queer now, therefore its bad!' as if the 9th doctor didnt literally get kissed by another man at the end of his season, and also jack harkness in general as a character lol, also other smaller things from early nuwho into 10s run as well (no idea about 11-13s runs, i only saw bits and pieces of theirs) i mean more than anything, aside from the bigotry, it shows how much they either didnt even pay attention to it before, or they never saw it in the first place... but they try so hard to tear it down anyway based entirely on their own ignorance. not that theyd react much better if they _did_ know its been there for a long time, but i dont think ive seen a single one who does know.
For sure, because to admit that this has always been happening destroys the bedrock of all of these paid-liars's narrative: that this all vaguely started with female Ghostbusters in 2016 and/or Captain Marvel in 2019. They can't admit older things did this as well because they would risk trampling on properties that are remembered fondly; and that could create audience opposition. So they have to be dishonest about it to get paid, and then the people watching that learn to uncritically parrot the lie. It's the same reason that the 13th and 15th Doctors have to be "woke" when 9, 10, 11 all kissed men and 12 specifically got on his high horse about gender abolition and blurred the lines of sexuality and gender offhandedly. As an aside, highly recommend watching 11 and 12s runs, they both work better as a binge than as a week-to-week with mid-season break. That was torture, but in binge mode it hides the shortcoming of mystery baiting. With the exception of Series 5, widely considered to be the best on-average series of NuWho to this day. Personally I love S5, S6, S9, S10 -- though 7 isn't half bad and ends with the 50th which is probably the magnum opus of NuWho. S8 isn't bad either, just a slow start. S11-S13 is highly contentious tho :x How about you, what are your favourite Who series/stories? I'll quit the WhoRambling and just say thank you so much for watching, commenting, and contributing to the conversation! That's what we do all of this for :D I'm glad the video resonated with you c: -The Bird
I'd like to take a moment to applaud the choice of footage ov3e "Doctor When (The fugitive doctor, whose place in the timeline is unknown), Doctor Where (73 yards, where the Doctor mysteriously disappears) and Doctor Why (WHAT THE FUCK WAS HE THINKING)"
I was CERTAIN that nobody would notice half the subtle jokes I make for myself in the edits, you're literally the first person ever to comment on something like that and I love you for it
Thanks for staying genuine, guys. I promise there are dozens, hundreds, thousands, _millions_ of people who care about/will recognize they haven't been sincerely interpreting media, and they'll find you one day. Here's my toss of your message in a bottle in hopes of it reaching the shore of more people's islands (not that I'm excluding myself, we all live in a bubble to an extent) that much sooner 📜🏝
Thank you so much for watching and for sharing with us, that really means the world to us! I'm so glad this essay resonated with you, and we're so grateful to people like yourselves who are taking the initiative to share it around. You guys are the fuel that keeps us going!! -The Bird
Great video! Generally, I hold that an author's take on their own art is a good way to refine the meanings that can be found in media, but people shouldn't have to try and get inside their heads to make sense of their works ("death of the author" and all that). But when a bunch on online grifters treat political intentionality as something exclusive to modern media and the greatest if not sole responsible factor for it's perceived inferiority to past works... Yeah no. Plenty of old stuff was very controversial and unsubtle for the people of their time, and to not know better while presenting oneself as a trustworthy analyst shows a monumental lack of diligence. These hacks are bold-faced liars who slander the very franchises they claim to cherish for sake of dragging new media through the mud.
"For the sake of dragging new media through the mud" I think gives them too much credit -- that would hint at some sort of principled stance? They just do it for money. Outrage increases engagement, they are paid to increase platform engagement, they are paid to find outrage. Shameless. Certainly an author's take and opinions on their own art are a HUGE part of interpreting the text through their eyes, but that mainly pertains to understanding how the art ended up a certain way and what motivated decisions externally. How it's interpreted, and how those interpretations are substantiated within the text, are different and equally valid aspects of critical thinking and engaging with art. It's all part of the same conversation; maybe your interpretations are validated via the author's particular view of things which can be definitively stated by the author, or maybe there's so much substance to aspects of the art that the author saying "no" to it simply can't invalidate how present those aspects are in the story and how they engage with audiences. Maybe it's anything in between, or something else entirely. Those discussions and debates are what we live for over here in the Idle Scree dumpster :D Thank you so much for watching, commenting, and contributing your own interpretations to the conversation!! It really means the world to us all to see this resonate with you :) -The Bird
My biggest problem with new who was chibnal's poor writing. I'm excited to see Davies back because I know he can write a good story while adding a message to it that won't feel juxtaposed, which is how chibnal's writing felt to me. The story and the message just haven't meshed and its just made it hard to watch. I'm excited to see Nschuti's (i don't know how to spell his name, I'm sorry, lol) run, I'm looking forward to him as the doctor
Yeah Chibnall's run is full of...uh, choices. Some of which literally defy canon, others just turn the Doctor into a bit of a moron with paper thin values. None of it intentional I'm sure, but yeah it could be pretty rough watching sometimes. The Haunting of Villa Diodati is the ONE episode we get with 13 feeling like THE Doctor we've always known but in her own special way. It's excellent, but a shame that she only got one episode with really punchy characterization :\ -The Bird
@@idlescree i definitely agree! I wanted to see more of Jodie having personality as the doctor but the writing fell flat a lot of the time. Capaldi faced the same problem during his run but was able to work through it because of his incredible talent after years of acting. Jodie always performed well, she was just preforming writing that was all over the place and it comes off a little overwhelmed at times, which isn't to her discredit, just a reflection of very messy and confused writing.
I mean, canon in Doctor Who is something else entirely. Personally, I think something like Broadchurch and even Torchwood (Season 1 included) was in Chris Chibnall’s wheelhouse.
I love that Jinkx was the background for the entire video. A huge middle finger to the beliefs of the people who think the show is spreading "a woke agenda"
We appreciate the kind words, but for the sake of clarification: I (The Bird) edited this one, and your previous comment about the intros was on a video that the Hedgehog edited. Though, per his reply to your comment, he has taken your feedback on board :) You can see in the credits who edits what video, though the Doctor Who vids are always going to be edited by me since the Hedgehog hasn't seen it :x -The Bird
So how would you personally distinguish between media being informed by and reflecting a creator's politics, and media which is compromised by politics taking priority over the narrative? Could you provide examples within Doctor Who? -The Bird
To be fair, "Person ignores all of the evidence in favour of their crazy narrative that they're in too deep to step away from now" is a common Doctor Who plot thread. It would not be out of place :') Thank you so much for watching!! -The Bird
Nice RWBY shout out. Respect. Also the Chibnall Era is ironically a lot like how Disney is in this whole "Culture War" where the Left scrutinizes how "progressive" the company tries to be with BS like The Owl House's shafting and the "First Gay Character" malarkey while the Right takes things like the Lightyear kiss as a serious stance in SJW politics. Mind you, Chibnall's production crew and writing team were more clumsy at worst. I personally feel that Flux and the final specials were the best they had put out since it felt very messy in a energetic way. Especially with how dealing with COVID forced them to get crazy creative. It all just needed that camp that RTD and Moffat excelled as a cherry on top to tie it together. Felt like a love letter to Classic Who directly but felt weird at times when following up on two eras that moved past that style of storytelling.
One day we'll do RWBY videos, I'm just not sure the world is ready to hear what I have to say about it -- both good and bad :0 And yeah, I would largely agree with you on how Chibnall's "progressive" era is hollow and aesthetic-only (regardless of intent, that's what it is) but since grifters and their victims only understand aesthetics and nothing deeper, they mistake sometimes borderline absolutely conservative messaging for progressive 'woke politics.' I've got a LOT of thoughts on the Chibnall era, but I'll save it for now and just agree that clumsy is an apt word for it. Like, people always say "how did The Master destroy Gallifrey when the Dalek army couldn't?" But, uh, I don't think Chibnall realised that in present-Who time Gallifrey is still sealed in a pocket dimension, so really HOW did The Master even get to it????? I think Chib watched Hell Bent, remembered seeing Gallifrey, then forgot that it was only accessible via special circumstances (the very end of all existence, the walls of the universe collapsing, entered via the confessional dial, etc etc). A lot of major lore, character, and plot oversights ._. I fully believe Chibbers is a massive die hard Doctor Who fan but, for reasons we'll get into in an upcoming Star Wars essay, being a fan does not automatically make ANY of us good writers; and can sometimes actively blind us in the process x0x Thank you so much for watching and commenting, the Doctor Who stuff doesn't get as much attention on the channel so it really means the world to us every time someone joins the conversation! :D -The Bird
@@idlescree Frankly, I don't mind them not getting into "politics" politics since, well, a character being not being what society "prefers" is a statement in and of itself. Like I think there's always room for both casual representation and overt representation in storytelling. Some in marginalized group need an escape but some also need a story that sees them in their struggles. I do feel like Flux and the Specials have a sort of energy to them that Season 11 and 12 could've had more of. Manic and campy with a messiness that feels more, hmmmm, honest in a sense. RTD 2.0 might not be perfect but it's clear they're really having a fun with what they're doing. Personally, I kinda feel there's fertile ground with Gallifrey if RTD decides to keep the planet busted but it's people evacuated. The Master would be that high on power to believe he got them all. I mean, a people considered to be powerful in the wider universe are suddenly scattered to the universe's proverbial winds. Mighty humbling right there. Be an interesting constrast to Classic Who. It would also allow the Doctor to seek closure of the Timeless Child which, to me, wasn't too well presented but doesn't "break canon." I've seen fanworks embrace it and run with it. It wouldn't be the first time in the show's history.
The Gallifrey stuff bothers me a tad, especially because of the significance of Gallifrey's role in the story both on a meta-level and on a narrative level. If you haven't seen our video on the 50th, I highly recommend! I think you'll like it :D ruclips.net/video/qwgctgOzwkQ/видео.html Regarding the Timeless Child and Gallifrey, people define "breaking canon" in various ways but there are problems presented in Chibnall's work which aren't officially reconciled. For example, the Ruth Doctor can't possibly have a police box TARDIS because the TARDIS getting stuck as the box is an event which happened on screen in the second episode -- An Unearthly Child Part 2 / The Cave of Skulls. More recently than that, in 2013 we *saw* the First Doctor steal the TARDIS with Susan in a manner consistent with the story as we knew it. It's a small thing but it is a long trend of the era that basic information is just misunderstood or wrong. Gallifrey being back is a lore mistake that Chibnall made. Unless it was rescued from the pocket universe literally off-screen, which is an insane choice to make, then it is still locked safely away. But instead of a Chibbers complaint thread, here's my personal crackpot idea/fan theory to reconcile the major problems: I like to tell myself that ripping Gallifrey out of space and locking it away actually punched an interdimensional hole through the walls of this dimension due to the significant space/time distortion and activity present on Gallifrey. We know from Series 2 that parallel worlds exist. So let's say in this case that Sacha's Master is NOT "our" Master, he is the Master of a parallel world from a parallel Gallifrey which is now accessible via the hole that "our" Gallifrey left behind. This Master never had Missy's development, never sided with The Doctor, and was never hit with "the full blast" to prevent regeneration. That's Chibnall's Master solved. The Timeless Child is not the Doctor, or at least, not "our" Doctor. The Master might not realise he has slipped between worlds. He might not realise that The Timeless Child is the Doctor of his parallel Gallifrey, who is actually the same being as the Ruth Doctor. That reconciles Ruth having a police box TARDIS, it reconciles the discrepancies with the Doctor's role thematically and literally in the world, it reconciles how the Master even had access to a Gallifrey to destroy in the first place, and it doesn't undermine anything in EITHER RTD/Moff OR Chibnall's lore. Heck you could even resolve this "dimensions colliding" plot with a climax that sees OUR Gallifrey returned to the universe from the painting, "plugging the hole" that it left which allowed all of these lore-defying things to leak through. I could take or leave that resolution though, the main appeal of this take is just that it provides explanations for currently unexplainable discrepancies and/or upsetting changes~ -The Bird
Well, that… sounds like a fanfiction you got in your heart. And I don’t mean that disparaging. You could write a fic if you feel that passionately. You seem to have a good idea of storytelling overall. That said, as far as the pocket dimension thing, it does feel like Series 12 implied it was still a pocket universe but more accessible. That’s something I don’t got the spoons for. Now one thing I feel Chibnall could’ve hinted at and something RTD could do to great effect is implied that most Gallifreyians survived. The planet being busted? Fine. But it’d work better if the Time Lords were scattered as a species after escaping the Master’s wrath. The most powerful beings who lorded themselves over time and space not busted down to size. This can even enhance the Timeless Child since the Doctor could take the High Command to task while still helping his hurt peoples. I mean, my main critique of Series 12’s finale was that there should’ve been Rassilon for the Doctor to confront over. They could even explain by proxy how the Master found Gallifrey. I recall Missy claiming she found Gallifrey but… what if she regenerated from Chibnall’s Master? O feels like an extension of Harold Saxon.
Yeah it's just my cope fiction, not actually what I believe/assume happened. I wouldn't be opposed to other explanations; the frustrating thing is just that there is none. The timeline and lore now has added contradictions with no intent to resolve and that just needles me a little. I don't recall any particular lines from S12 that implied it was still in a pocket world, I just remember The Master saying "someone destroyed it, go check" and then the Doctor just flies the TARDIS there and back -- something not possible under the Moff/50th established lore. She also tells the fam she goes back when she's alone, like, easily? As for Missy, I had always interpreted this as a lie. She lies to the Doctor about the coordinates right before faking her death just to hurt him, and after becoming an ally she never gives up this info or is even asked for it. It's not like I necessarily need an answer for all things to enjoy the show, but massive contradictions do affect my appreciation of the fictional universe that the show takes place in. Whatever the resolution, I hope we eventually get a showrunner bold enough to take it on :D -The Bird
Personally, I think that's giving them too much credit. They're not within the system or strengthening the system; the kinds of people we discussed in the video are just leeches sucking the blood out of other people's art via the system :| -The Bird
@@keeb__ To add to this - I've long held that anyone that uses the word 'woke' as an unironic critique is invariably stopping their thought process there and not *normally* willing to dig deeper into the work to figure out what traits make it have the level of quality it has. For me, this season does some things well and other things badly. Space Babies was a naff opener, Devil's Chord's ending let it down - actually, that's a common critique I have for the season. The only one with a *great* ending is Dot and Bubble, because it recontextualises the entire episode up until that point. As for Rogue, it would be bad even if Rogue had been a woman (or if the Doctor had been). The banter was fun, but the romance was rushed, sloppy and kinda forced.
@@Drekal684 Yeah it's a pretty safe bet that someone unironically using thought-terminating language like "woke", and who have a complete inability to substantiate how it affects the text, is either lying for money or parroting someone who lies for money. Like I said in the conclusion, critical thinking and media analysis doesn't just make your praise of media better; it makes your CRITICISMS better too. Growing your media literacy toolkit isn't about ignoring the haters, it's about being able to parse whether they're uncritically hating or are making valid substantiated complaints -- EVEN IF they're complaints that you don't necessarily agree with. On a personal note, it bums me out how Rogue turned out in general because -- while I don't hate it and it's not even my least fav of the season -- its underwhelming results let down the fact that Rogue/15 can portray some real chemistry. I'm also a teeny bit cynical because I think Rogue might be spin-off bait but that's a whole 'nother conversation
im dissapointed how little the doctor who videos get seen because your points are so good!! I havent even watched doctor who and I still take away something meaningful from every video much respect
Thank you so much for the kind words! Alas, RUclips's system doesn't even recommend videos to channel subscribers, so when we stray from The Owl House we are not rewarded for it
My parents were shocked that the new season was woke because there was a gay kiss, and that would never happen with the show that they used to watch before. I guess they forgot about Jack kissing the Doctor. Also they were saying with Rouge "he falls in love too fast with this man!"... you are aware that the doctor used to fall in love and kiss any young woman in like every episode?? I've always said to them that Doctor Who is usually progressive for its time, though it's not always evident now. Thanks for this video!!
Man I'm sorry to hear that. It can really be awkward and uncomfortable when a relative starts falling into these narratives without realising it. Maybe show them this video? I don't really have a dynamite all-in-one solution to offer but at the very least I hope this video conveyed that Doctor Who has always been like this. 9 kissed Jack, 11 kissed Rory, 8 kissed Grace after I think fewer than a couple hours together? 12 is also very vocally gender abolitionist when talking to Bill in "World Enough and Time" -- this is all just stuff that liars profit from lying to people about, and then those people lied to will perpetuate the narrative earnestly. It's the same across all mediums. Portal came out in 2007 and made its hero an Asian woman, with no option to play a male, and she deals with a computer designed to be feminine presenting; and who outwitted and killed all of the male scientific geniuses. That 70's show aired the first EVER gay male-male kiss on network television in the US in 1998 -- and specifically DIDN'T portray it negatively, or as a joke. Hell, even TheCriticalDrinker wrote a book pre-RUclips ft. a strong independent woman who physically overpowers and outsmarts the combat trained men of the story -- you know, before he started lying about media. It's almost a futile effort to attempt to provide a comprehensive list of examples of things that lying con-artists convince people is a new agenda corrupting media. Though it can be a little amusing those con-artists contort themselves to come up with alternate explanations as to why everything pre-Ghostbusters (2016) gets a pass but everything after that doesn't. Unfortunately that gets sad again when you see the real-world affects this has on the people we care about :\ My apologies for the mini-ramble but as you can guess from the video, this stuff really matters to us. Fingers crossed your folks can see through the muck and start vibing with Doctor Who again as we get the Christmas special and Season 2 :D -The Bird
@@idlescree Thank you for your concern, and luckily my parents are slowly improving with their world views. A few years ago they were openly hating transgender people, but a few months ago one of my friends came out as trans and they both accepted her. And I will show them this video :D Thanks again :)
Camp has come and gone with DW, I'm personally more bothered by the fourth wall addresses. I think one of the most compelling things about the Doctor Who world is how, after 60 years, it still holds itself together as this complete fictional universe with history and (though ever-changing) rules. It's at its best when it's telling an immersive gripping story. The nod to the camera and the "just a reminder that none of this is real or matters, don't take it seriously" is really detrimental to that immersion, in my opinion :/ Imagine if "Dalek" ended with the 9th Doctor addressing the camera after his emotional moment with Rose and saying "well it's a good thing we managed to get the rights to use the Daleks from the estate of Terry Nation" :| -The Bird
Wow thank you for this content and explanation of the insanity! Of the mis information of content here on RUclips and other social media your channel is incredibly well done and thoughtful thank you!
Thank you so much! We have a lot to say about Doctor Who, we just have to balance it against the more popular channel topics. If you'd like to see more Doctor Who more often then please do share these videos around to people and spaces which you think would like to hear what we have to say :) You could also check out our new official stickers -- buying just 3x Holo stickers would literally *double* the amount of money this video made, and give us the breathing room to make more without fretting about the view counter :D www.idlescree.com/store Thank you so much for this comment, it's exactly this kind of support which encourages us to keep going! -The Bird
@@idlescree And I very much understand that. I genuinely wish I was the type of person to put long TV video essays on in the background so I could play it on loop to support yall. Glad your channel is doing better with other videos as well! I share your channel with my friends who like doctor who at the very least!! And I will take a look at those stickers, thank you for letting me know :)
I know some people think it's necessary to say "its both sides"/ "regardless of which side you're on" Either because they want to appeal to the other side or because they think it makes them sound more rational and unbiased but...let's be honest it makes no sense If you're trying to appeal to the other side, give examples of it happening on the left...clearly you don't really think it's a both sides thing since you aren't lol
This is actually a really easy one and we parodied some of the """"left"""" creators who do this; namely Lily Orchard. Someone who uses the aesthetic of progressiveness insincerely to make money and create an audience who don't question, only consume. Example provided in the video, elaborated in comment. Done :D This essay was framed through the Doctor Who lens though; and Doctor Who hasn't specifically been milked by """""leftists"""" the way that it has by insincere creators of a more conservative aesthetic. That's why the parody leftist thumbnails aren't about DW. Read the channel names on those parody thumbnails too, if the point wasn't apparent enough o.~ -The Bird
Ima sound dumb, but instead of being too smart to be manipulated, I’m too DUMB to be manipulated. Like legit when I first watched dot & bubble, I didn’t get the racism until it was directly pointed out to me.
Sorry, but when I said anyone I meant ANYONE. There is no "too dumb" to be manipulated -- that's the IDEAL candidate for manipulation. You don't need to be able to read the message of a work for that message to affect you and inform your ideals. I would BEG you not to give yourself a free pass just because you think there's such a thing as too dumb or too media illiterate; because that's EXACTLY the same as thinking you're too smart and it makes you equally as vulnerable. Also, not catching the racism of Dot and Bubble doesn't make you dumb; it's more likely a commentary on what sort of privileges you've enjoyed in your life. A lot of white people didn't interpret the mean jabs as racism until the final scene (and some didn't get it even after) because their lived experience hasn't primed them to be on guard for that kind of thing. But someone who has been a victim of that kind of prejudice is more likely to clock on to those patterns IMMEDIATELY; and that drastically different viewing experience is at the heart of D&B's riveting discourse. So yeah, intelligence and media literacy aren't linear scales of dumb to smart. It's much more complex and no matter how you think of yourself, you should still remain vigilant of the influences in your media diet. Because they WILL influence you. Sorry for the ramble, it's just very important to all of us. Stay safe and keep thinking critically! :D -The Bird
@@pp-wl1tf Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I remember it the WHOLE reason for the extremist plot was because automation was taking jobs away from human workers -- which is ONLY a problem in commodified societies. Moreover, the company's incentive to rely on automation, just like in our world, is that they don't need to pay a wage and therefore increase the bottom line -- something that only exists in a capitalist corporate structure. For an alternative perspective: consider that automation in a hypothetical de-commodified society wouldn't doom us to starve, it would liberate us to live how we choose and pursue our passions without the burden of needing to work for money. The robots are only a problem because people need jobs to survive, which is capitalism. The company chooses robots over people because of the capital incentive. Is there something I'm missing from the episode that provides an alternative explanation or motive for both sides of the story (the company V the people [Charlie]) I'd love to hear it :D - The Bird
Thank you so much!! Our Doctor Who stuff doesn't get a fraction of the views as some of our other stuff, so it really means the world to us when people find and connect with it :D -The Bird
Is it just me or does the Moonbase not feel intentionally pro-war? I could see it being read as pro-war. I think there needs to be more specific wording in order for me to consider it leaning towards The Doctor suggesting war, rather than just defending against evil; otherwise than a self-defense video could be called pro-war. Also "Usually with a scottish accent": as someone watches The Critical Drinker, I feel attacked 💀
Thank you for watching and contributing to the conversation! :D When talking about that pro war line, we're specifically looking into what it's saying about the Doctor's own beliefs and how they're informed by the showrunners. I think "pro-war" is sometimes taken to mean that someone enjoys or wants for war. In this case, we're just talking about how 2 lays out a clear axiomatic principle that those who act against your values MUST be FOUGHT. It's not a statement in defence of anything, it's a statement in opposition to something. While we can conflate the two situationally, the writers made a choice on how to present this character and that choice is what's being analysed. It's in stark contrast to how the NuWho Doctors treat equal threats. Even the 9th Doctor tried to reason with the Dalek in "Dalek", and ofc 12 defeated a major terrorist plot with education and compassion. What I'm hoping to convey here is that the quote itself isn't the only thing informing our call that it's a pro-war stance from the Doctor, it's the context of the time he is saying it in, who he is saying it to (the audience), and the influences that lead him to say it that way (the influences upon the creative team behind it). In stark contrast to post-vietnam and presently-in the war on terror writers RTD and Moffat. Also don't feel attacked! We're criticising people like The Critical Drinker here -- NOT his victims. To that end I would urge you to please either disengage from that brainrot thoughtless outrage-money farm for your own sake OR take a more critical lens to creators like him. Question why he thinks what he thinks, how his job works, and think about how what we said in this video applies to him. Some of the parody thumbnails and titles even reference his tendencies to uncritically praise old media from his childhood while attacking modern media which is doing THE SAME thing that stuff from his childhood did
@@idlescree No problem! It was a good video. If it's any consolation, I don't subscribe to a lot of Critical Drinker's thoughts on media; mostly because I find myself just disengaged from media that doesn't engage me. (For example, tried to get back into DW by watching the first couple episodes of Jodie's season when it came out and they just didn't hook me so I just didn't watch the rest.) I'm probably better off now then I was a few years ago when it came to the certain channels I watched; for instance, used to daily watch The Quaterning and Nerdrotic. Eventually I just ended up unsubscribing because I got so desensitized to the context bad news about franchises and the new thing to be angry about every week that I honestly didn't really care about. Honestly I'm just glad you didn't paint people who enjoy Critical Drinker or criticize things similar to him as far-right, or nazi's. Because I think demeaning people often leads them to be more defensive about changing their mindset and are more likely to grow stronger with their old mindset.
@@sketchsskotch1073 Yeah there's certainly a lot to be said about the psychology behind why people fall for stuff like this and why it's not so easy to pull them out of it. That's a whole 'nother essay though tbh. But I'll always have sympathy for people who are tricked by these goons-for-hire who don't even believe the messages they push to their audience for money. Those people deserve better. I'm happy to hear that you have been disengaging from outrage merchants though. These channels are like the McDonalds of content; even when we know it's garbage, we sometimes still passively consume it as a guilty pleasure or curiosity feed with the assumption that simply understanding what you're getting into is enough to keep you from the affects of consuming too much of it. But even if we know the food is trash objectively, we still get just as fat eating it as the people who think it's a diet :| Tough break trying to get back into DW with Jodie's series! Her showrunner really made a mess of that whole era which nearly ended the show on her final episode. I'm personally waiting on her audio stories so that she can perform the character as written by somebody who writes good -- or as we call it: the 6th Doctor/Colin Baker strategy @0@. Not sure where you stopped with DW, but Series 10 is a self-contained VERY soft reboot that I think is well worth the time. If you want to go further back, Series 5 is more of a reboot than 10 is and Series 5 itself is widely regarded as the best series of NuWho on average to this day. -The Bird
@@idlescree I started DW on Season 5, I kept going until the end of Season 9. I can't entirely remember why, believe it was more just outside circumstances like watching TV less and less; indulging in older shows like Babylon 5 that took its place. Plus I don't remember being too drawn to the initial trailer of Season 10; with seeing the Emoji Robots and this coming off of me still being a bit bitter at Hell's Bent. I might get back into DW starting with the recent David Tennant special. Since I haven't heard anything too bad about Season 1(still think that's a terrible name). Also at least Jodie got the benefit of being able to appear in her regeneration scene, can't exactly say the same for Colin Baker. Though honestly if I had to say one Doctor that benefitted from Audio Books is Paul McGann; man was wasted on just one movie. I've only listened to one audio book, Scherzo.
For sure 8 thrived in audio stories, some of the best! I just call it the 6th Doctor treatment because, unlike 8, 6 had whole seasons of terrible writing which put his character in a pit that the audio stories let him climb out of. Whereas 8 wasn't written terribly, he was just robbed of screen time :x Series 10 is Capaldi's best in my opinion! Highly recommend, the emoji joke is just a 2 second gag in one episode. It makes for a bit of trailer cringe but it's not what that episode or what that series is. The end of series 10 is genuinely ELITE. **Highly** recommend giving S10 a shot. It has some of the most compelling character writing in NuWho -The Bird
The reality is that we live in neither system completely. It's a scale from one to the other, and that makes it really easy to point out that capitalist counties embrace socialist policies like free universal healthcare, or taxes in general. Likewise it's easy to say that unchecked/late stage capitalism produces the kind of terrible outcomes that Doctor Who has commentated on in the past. These are criticisms of the scale leaning so hard on capitalism that all socialist policies, from healthcare to workers rights, are abandoned to the detriment of the working class. It's much more substantive than a "one or the other" equation. There's this narrative that you can either suck it up and deal with the wealthy and powerful taking advantage of you in every regard, OR suffer some horrendous fate in a hellscape -- this narrative is a lie to keep you asking for more or better. But I think what people do is conflate socialism with authoritarianism because of anti-USSR propaganda. It goes without saying, of course, that the USSR was not actually socialist. Doctor Who and other shows like famously socialist Star Trek invite you to imagine a better world by exploring the spectrum of possibilities. I think we're all better off abandoning the lie that this is as good as it gets, especially as it continues to get worse. -The Bird
It's kind of a commentary on the word "woke" itself that I can't really understand what this comment means? o-O Are you laughing at grifting RUclipsrs? Are you laughing at Disney? I genuinely can't tell :0 -The Bird
★!Acquire Idle Scree Stickers!★🛒www.idlescree.com/store
Thank you to all of you who joined us for the live premiere today! Special thanks to Kokally Firehart for being a frequent flyer at these events--and welcome to Wingless Moonstone! We hope you enjoy the ride :D We hope you all enjoyed the bat and switch. Let us know what you think of the message! And if you're interested in more, such as our unscripted Idlechat where we discuss YOUR media suggestions, head on over to our Patreon to hear about the Acolyte's weaknesses and strengths!
I tend to avoid videos with titles like that the "downfall" of this or that show.
"Why this show is bad actually" type titles.
I don't trust titles like that, ones that try to portray an opinion as fact, instead of opinion.
"The [adverb] [NOUN] of [title]" format ._. It's a format with absolutely 0 quality control -- I could be about to get an insightful look at something or I could get opinions from a presenter who downloaded some transition packs for aesthetics and gets basic simple facts wrong :| Based on which of the two is easier to produced, it's biased pretty heavily in favour of the latter :x
Thank you so much for watching and commenting, our lack of "why this show is bad actually" tends to deny us the kind of access to screens that they get, so it means a lot to all of us when people chime in on our videos :)
-The Bird
I used to trust some RUclipsrs who were insanely negative, I can remember GamingMagic13 being one of them that I can name off the top of my head. I'll try to never again trust in people like that, no matter who they are.
It's pretty confronting when you realise that RUclipsrs you enjoyed aren't actually engaging as critically with media as you thought. I actually had this awakening moment not with a criticism video, but actually a video of praise. I wont name names but basically it was like "How to make the perfect sequel to [x]" and by explaining what they thought would make a perfect franchise sequel, I realised that they had completely missed all the consistent themes of the previous films. That caused me to reevaluate their criticisms and I found they were likewise shallow and empty. It's wild how easily we get tricked into trust by high view counts and industry vocabulary, and that's why it's important to practice your own critical thinking toolkit and remain vigilant! :x
-The Bird
The key thing when bringing politics into a show is to deal with broad themes, rather than specific issues. The daleks may be based on the Nazis, but the themes of fighting racism and hated are pretty timeless, so the daleks still feel relevant today. Imagine if Terry Nation had made the daleks a metaphor for, say, Enoch Powell. His episodes would be a mere historical curiosity, and the daleks would never have gained their iconic pop cultural status.
Subtlety is also important. The second Doctor serial The War Games was written by a communist, and while it's easy to see a left-wing message, we aren't beaten over the head with it
I wouldn't say that specificity is always the killer of entertaining story -- the Chibnall climate episode only very vaguely lectures us on man-made disaster but suffers for its weak writing and poor delivery. The 9th Doctor gets a 911 episode about an aircraft crashing into a tower in the city centre and leading to extreme responses by a government of inhuman monsters pretending to be like us -- which is VERY specific to the discourse of the time -- but RTD's writing saves it from being remembered as a failed attempt at political commentary. At worst, people go "oh the farting aliens episode is a bit silly because of the farting aliens."
Politics are downstream of our values, which cannot be separated from the art we produce. There is no more or less politics informing any given art, there's just better written and worse written politics :P I think how obvious or how easily accessible the author's politics are through their art actually plays a much smaller role in the quality of the art. At least, that's my observation.
Thank you so much for watching and for contributing to the conversation! This is exactly what we make our videos for and we're very grateful that you got something out of it :D
-The Bird
The Orphan 55 example is perfect and very much I try to stress so often that people don't seem to understand. Is it bad? Yes, it's bloody awful. Is "wokeness" or "the message" the reason? Hell no!!
Personally if someone can't explain to me why something is bad without using the word woke they aren't worth listening to. Hell I might even agree, I think the Acolyte is bad, but if your argument as to why is because it's woke then I already know this conversation won't be productive.
Couldn't agree more. Like we said at the end, critical thinking and analysis empower us to both praise AND criticise on far more substantial grounds. People who rely on thought-terminating cliches like "woke" are either selling the narrative for money, or consume the narrative from these sellers and rob themselves of the ability to engage with art and produce understandings and interpretations. If art is a conversation, then calling something "woke" as a legitimate criticism is sticking your fingers in your ears to guarantee that you'll NEVER understand the strengths, and weaknesses, of what the art has to say.
As a lil aside we also just put out an hour-long IdleChat on our Patreon about The Acolyte -- in which we very critically praise and criticise the show in ways we feel are appropriate and substantive. It makes me shudder that people run podcasts of the same length just devoted to looking at screenshots in a discord call and calling things woke and making gagging noises 'n people who don't know any better think they're consuming artistic interpretation or criticism :|
I would sooner say Orphan 55 is a terrible episode because of "where's Beni!?" rather than blaming an imaginary 'woke' force that cannot be defined, quantified, understood, or observed independent of anything else; and I'd STILL be doing a better job criticising the material :P
Thank you so much for watching and commenting, it means a lot to all of us :D Out of curiosity, what's the worst example of "woke" or "the message" criticism that you've ever heard? There's some pretty low stuff out there; I worry I've only scratched the surface x0x
-The Bird
@@idlescree Thanks for reply. Oof I dunno about the worst example, I'd rather not spend enough time thinking about them to figure that out. However I will say the X-Men '97 stuff earlier this year finally crossed the boundary from aggravating in to hilarious. Like I was genuinely in histerics, it was they were parodying themselves. Genuinely me and my mate's typical joke about them would always be to parody them making those same criticisms with the X-Men and there they suddenly were doing it completely unironically and I was just rolling, it was great.
I heard a little about the X-97 stuff. Genuinely outstanding levels of grift >_>
-The Bird
Finally I hate it when people dislike on anything for "woke" ideals ESPECIALLY doctor who
Generally if "woke" is all they can say about it, they are either lying for money or parroting someone who lies for money >_> Representation CAN be done poorly and CAN wreck a production if done poorly, but if they can't talk about what actually went wrong and substantiate it -- if ALL they have is to say "it is woke and therefore" then yeah, illiterate at best or dishonest for money at worst :|
Thank you so much for watching and for commenting, I'm so glad the video resonated with you! :)
-The Bird
I really like the new doctor who season, because... doctor actor handsome...
And also many other reasons
Ah yes, the prevailing 61 year old truth of the Doctor Who audience o.~
-The Bird
i also just think its rly funny when theyre like 'doctor who is queer now, therefore its bad!' as if the 9th doctor didnt literally get kissed by another man at the end of his season, and also jack harkness in general as a character lol, also other smaller things from early nuwho into 10s run as well (no idea about 11-13s runs, i only saw bits and pieces of theirs)
i mean more than anything, aside from the bigotry, it shows how much they either didnt even pay attention to it before, or they never saw it in the first place... but they try so hard to tear it down anyway based entirely on their own ignorance. not that theyd react much better if they _did_ know its been there for a long time, but i dont think ive seen a single one who does know.
For sure, because to admit that this has always been happening destroys the bedrock of all of these paid-liars's narrative: that this all vaguely started with female Ghostbusters in 2016 and/or Captain Marvel in 2019. They can't admit older things did this as well because they would risk trampling on properties that are remembered fondly; and that could create audience opposition. So they have to be dishonest about it to get paid, and then the people watching that learn to uncritically parrot the lie.
It's the same reason that the 13th and 15th Doctors have to be "woke" when 9, 10, 11 all kissed men and 12 specifically got on his high horse about gender abolition and blurred the lines of sexuality and gender offhandedly.
As an aside, highly recommend watching 11 and 12s runs, they both work better as a binge than as a week-to-week with mid-season break. That was torture, but in binge mode it hides the shortcoming of mystery baiting. With the exception of Series 5, widely considered to be the best on-average series of NuWho to this day. Personally I love S5, S6, S9, S10 -- though 7 isn't half bad and ends with the 50th which is probably the magnum opus of NuWho. S8 isn't bad either, just a slow start. S11-S13 is highly contentious tho :x
How about you, what are your favourite Who series/stories?
I'll quit the WhoRambling and just say thank you so much for watching, commenting, and contributing to the conversation! That's what we do all of this for :D I'm glad the video resonated with you c:
-The Bird
I'd like to take a moment to applaud the choice of footage ov3e "Doctor When (The fugitive doctor, whose place in the timeline is unknown), Doctor Where (73 yards, where the Doctor mysteriously disappears) and Doctor Why (WHAT THE FUCK WAS HE THINKING)"
I was CERTAIN that nobody would notice half the subtle jokes I make for myself in the edits, you're literally the first person ever to comment on something like that and I love you for it
@idlescree oh yeah, those were good 😂. People really do have this weird vendetta over Rebecca Sugar as a person.
Thanks for staying genuine, guys. I promise there are dozens, hundreds, thousands, _millions_ of people who care about/will recognize they haven't been sincerely interpreting media, and they'll find you one day. Here's my toss of your message in a bottle in hopes of it reaching the shore of more people's islands (not that I'm excluding myself, we all live in a bubble to an extent) that much sooner 📜🏝
Thank you so much for watching and for sharing with us, that really means the world to us! I'm so glad this essay resonated with you, and we're so grateful to people like yourselves who are taking the initiative to share it around. You guys are the fuel that keeps us going!!
-The Bird
Commenting for the algorithm. Great stuff.
It genuinely helps so much. Thank you!
Great video! Generally, I hold that an author's take on their own art is a good way to refine the meanings that can be found in media, but people shouldn't have to try and get inside their heads to make sense of their works ("death of the author" and all that). But when a bunch on online grifters treat political intentionality as something exclusive to modern media and the greatest if not sole responsible factor for it's perceived inferiority to past works... Yeah no. Plenty of old stuff was very controversial and unsubtle for the people of their time, and to not know better while presenting oneself as a trustworthy analyst shows a monumental lack of diligence. These hacks are bold-faced liars who slander the very franchises they claim to cherish for sake of dragging new media through the mud.
"For the sake of dragging new media through the mud" I think gives them too much credit -- that would hint at some sort of principled stance? They just do it for money. Outrage increases engagement, they are paid to increase platform engagement, they are paid to find outrage. Shameless.
Certainly an author's take and opinions on their own art are a HUGE part of interpreting the text through their eyes, but that mainly pertains to understanding how the art ended up a certain way and what motivated decisions externally. How it's interpreted, and how those interpretations are substantiated within the text, are different and equally valid aspects of critical thinking and engaging with art.
It's all part of the same conversation; maybe your interpretations are validated via the author's particular view of things which can be definitively stated by the author, or maybe there's so much substance to aspects of the art that the author saying "no" to it simply can't invalidate how present those aspects are in the story and how they engage with audiences. Maybe it's anything in between, or something else entirely. Those discussions and debates are what we live for over here in the Idle Scree dumpster :D
Thank you so much for watching, commenting, and contributing your own interpretations to the conversation!! It really means the world to us all to see this resonate with you :)
-The Bird
My biggest problem with new who was chibnal's poor writing. I'm excited to see Davies back because I know he can write a good story while adding a message to it that won't feel juxtaposed, which is how chibnal's writing felt to me. The story and the message just haven't meshed and its just made it hard to watch. I'm excited to see Nschuti's (i don't know how to spell his name, I'm sorry, lol) run, I'm looking forward to him as the doctor
Yeah Chibnall's run is full of...uh, choices. Some of which literally defy canon, others just turn the Doctor into a bit of a moron with paper thin values. None of it intentional I'm sure, but yeah it could be pretty rough watching sometimes. The Haunting of Villa Diodati is the ONE episode we get with 13 feeling like THE Doctor we've always known but in her own special way. It's excellent, but a shame that she only got one episode with really punchy characterization :\
-The Bird
@@idlescree i definitely agree! I wanted to see more of Jodie having personality as the doctor but the writing fell flat a lot of the time. Capaldi faced the same problem during his run but was able to work through it because of his incredible talent after years of acting. Jodie always performed well, she was just preforming writing that was all over the place and it comes off a little overwhelmed at times, which isn't to her discredit, just a reflection of very messy and confused writing.
I mean, canon in Doctor Who is something else entirely.
Personally, I think something like Broadchurch and even Torchwood (Season 1 included) was in Chris Chibnall’s wheelhouse.
I love that Jinkx was the background for the entire video.
A huge middle finger to the beliefs of the people who think the show is spreading "a woke agenda"
I'm glad you noticed, you might be the first commenter to take note of the background image :D Thanks for watching, we hope you enjoyed it!
-The Bird
Sorry for a second comment, I just wanted to say you did great on the opening this time around and good job for improving. :D
We appreciate the kind words, but for the sake of clarification: I (The Bird) edited this one, and your previous comment about the intros was on a video that the Hedgehog edited. Though, per his reply to your comment, he has taken your feedback on board :)
You can see in the credits who edits what video, though the Doctor Who vids are always going to be edited by me since the Hedgehog hasn't seen it :x
-The Bird
Our problem is not politics being in media. it's politics taking priority over good writing.
So how would you personally distinguish between media being informed by and reflecting a creator's politics, and media which is compromised by politics taking priority over the narrative? Could you provide examples within Doctor Who?
-The Bird
The video addresses this. Did you watch it?
If there isn’t already, I think there should be an episode about flat earthers, it could be really funny
To be fair, "Person ignores all of the evidence in favour of their crazy narrative that they're in too deep to step away from now" is a common Doctor Who plot thread. It would not be out of place :')
Thank you so much for watching!!
-The Bird
Nice RWBY shout out. Respect.
Also the Chibnall Era is ironically a lot like how Disney is in this whole "Culture War" where the Left scrutinizes how "progressive" the company tries to be with BS like The Owl House's shafting and the "First Gay Character" malarkey while the Right takes things like the Lightyear kiss as a serious stance in SJW politics.
Mind you, Chibnall's production crew and writing team were more clumsy at worst. I personally feel that Flux and the final specials were the best they had put out since it felt very messy in a energetic way. Especially with how dealing with COVID forced them to get crazy creative. It all just needed that camp that RTD and Moffat excelled as a cherry on top to tie it together.
Felt like a love letter to Classic Who directly but felt weird at times when following up on two eras that moved past that style of storytelling.
One day we'll do RWBY videos, I'm just not sure the world is ready to hear what I have to say about it -- both good and bad :0 And yeah, I would largely agree with you on how Chibnall's "progressive" era is hollow and aesthetic-only (regardless of intent, that's what it is) but since grifters and their victims only understand aesthetics and nothing deeper, they mistake sometimes borderline absolutely conservative messaging for progressive 'woke politics.'
I've got a LOT of thoughts on the Chibnall era, but I'll save it for now and just agree that clumsy is an apt word for it. Like, people always say "how did The Master destroy Gallifrey when the Dalek army couldn't?" But, uh, I don't think Chibnall realised that in present-Who time Gallifrey is still sealed in a pocket dimension, so really HOW did The Master even get to it????? I think Chib watched Hell Bent, remembered seeing Gallifrey, then forgot that it was only accessible via special circumstances (the very end of all existence, the walls of the universe collapsing, entered via the confessional dial, etc etc).
A lot of major lore, character, and plot oversights ._. I fully believe Chibbers is a massive die hard Doctor Who fan but, for reasons we'll get into in an upcoming Star Wars essay, being a fan does not automatically make ANY of us good writers; and can sometimes actively blind us in the process x0x
Thank you so much for watching and commenting, the Doctor Who stuff doesn't get as much attention on the channel so it really means the world to us every time someone joins the conversation! :D
-The Bird
@@idlescree Frankly, I don't mind them not getting into "politics" politics since, well, a character being not being what society "prefers" is a statement in and of itself.
Like I think there's always room for both casual representation and overt representation in storytelling. Some in marginalized group need an escape but some also need a story that sees them in their struggles.
I do feel like Flux and the Specials have a sort of energy to them that Season 11 and 12 could've had more of. Manic and campy with a messiness that feels more, hmmmm, honest in a sense. RTD 2.0 might not be perfect but it's clear they're really having a fun with what they're doing.
Personally, I kinda feel there's fertile ground with Gallifrey if RTD decides to keep the planet busted but it's people evacuated. The Master would be that high on power to believe he got them all.
I mean, a people considered to be powerful in the wider universe are suddenly scattered to the universe's proverbial winds. Mighty humbling right there. Be an interesting constrast to Classic Who.
It would also allow the Doctor to seek closure of the Timeless Child which, to me, wasn't too well presented but doesn't "break canon." I've seen fanworks embrace it and run with it. It wouldn't be the first time in the show's history.
The Gallifrey stuff bothers me a tad, especially because of the significance of Gallifrey's role in the story both on a meta-level and on a narrative level. If you haven't seen our video on the 50th, I highly recommend! I think you'll like it :D ruclips.net/video/qwgctgOzwkQ/видео.html
Regarding the Timeless Child and Gallifrey, people define "breaking canon" in various ways but there are problems presented in Chibnall's work which aren't officially reconciled. For example, the Ruth Doctor can't possibly have a police box TARDIS because the TARDIS getting stuck as the box is an event which happened on screen in the second episode -- An Unearthly Child Part 2 / The Cave of Skulls. More recently than that, in 2013 we *saw* the First Doctor steal the TARDIS with Susan in a manner consistent with the story as we knew it. It's a small thing but it is a long trend of the era that basic information is just misunderstood or wrong.
Gallifrey being back is a lore mistake that Chibnall made. Unless it was rescued from the pocket universe literally off-screen, which is an insane choice to make, then it is still locked safely away. But instead of a Chibbers complaint thread, here's my personal crackpot idea/fan theory to reconcile the major problems:
I like to tell myself that ripping Gallifrey out of space and locking it away actually punched an interdimensional hole through the walls of this dimension due to the significant space/time distortion and activity present on Gallifrey. We know from Series 2 that parallel worlds exist. So let's say in this case that Sacha's Master is NOT "our" Master, he is the Master of a parallel world from a parallel Gallifrey which is now accessible via the hole that "our" Gallifrey left behind. This Master never had Missy's development, never sided with The Doctor, and was never hit with "the full blast" to prevent regeneration. That's Chibnall's Master solved.
The Timeless Child is not the Doctor, or at least, not "our" Doctor. The Master might not realise he has slipped between worlds. He might not realise that The Timeless Child is the Doctor of his parallel Gallifrey, who is actually the same being as the Ruth Doctor. That reconciles Ruth having a police box TARDIS, it reconciles the discrepancies with the Doctor's role thematically and literally in the world, it reconciles how the Master even had access to a Gallifrey to destroy in the first place, and it doesn't undermine anything in EITHER RTD/Moff OR Chibnall's lore. Heck you could even resolve this "dimensions colliding" plot with a climax that sees OUR Gallifrey returned to the universe from the painting, "plugging the hole" that it left which allowed all of these lore-defying things to leak through. I could take or leave that resolution though, the main appeal of this take is just that it provides explanations for currently unexplainable discrepancies and/or upsetting changes~
-The Bird
Well, that… sounds like a fanfiction you got in your heart.
And I don’t mean that disparaging. You could write a fic if you feel that passionately. You seem to have a good idea of storytelling overall.
That said, as far as the pocket dimension thing, it does feel like Series 12 implied it was still a pocket universe but more accessible. That’s something I don’t got the spoons for.
Now one thing I feel Chibnall could’ve hinted at and something RTD could do to great effect is implied that most Gallifreyians survived.
The planet being busted? Fine. But it’d work better if the Time Lords were scattered as a species after escaping the Master’s wrath. The most powerful beings who lorded themselves over time and space not busted down to size.
This can even enhance the Timeless Child since the Doctor could take the High Command to task while still helping his hurt peoples. I mean, my main critique of Series 12’s finale was that there should’ve been Rassilon for the Doctor to confront over.
They could even explain by proxy how the Master found Gallifrey. I recall Missy claiming she found Gallifrey but… what if she regenerated from Chibnall’s Master? O feels like an extension of Harold Saxon.
Yeah it's just my cope fiction, not actually what I believe/assume happened. I wouldn't be opposed to other explanations; the frustrating thing is just that there is none. The timeline and lore now has added contradictions with no intent to resolve and that just needles me a little.
I don't recall any particular lines from S12 that implied it was still in a pocket world, I just remember The Master saying "someone destroyed it, go check" and then the Doctor just flies the TARDIS there and back -- something not possible under the Moff/50th established lore. She also tells the fam she goes back when she's alone, like, easily?
As for Missy, I had always interpreted this as a lie. She lies to the Doctor about the coordinates right before faking her death just to hurt him, and after becoming an ally she never gives up this info or is even asked for it.
It's not like I necessarily need an answer for all things to enjoy the show, but massive contradictions do affect my appreciation of the fictional universe that the show takes place in.
Whatever the resolution, I hope we eventually get a showrunner bold enough to take it on :D
-The Bird
Professional complainers like the quatering exist to maintain the system, not question it.
Personally, I think that's giving them too much credit. They're not within the system or strengthening the system; the kinds of people we discussed in the video are just leeches sucking the blood out of other people's art via the system :|
-The Bird
@@idlescree valid, riding a wave of fascist sympathy and appealing to those who feel attacked by diversity by reinforcing their uncritical ideas.
@@keeb__ To add to this - I've long held that anyone that uses the word 'woke' as an unironic critique is invariably stopping their thought process there and not *normally* willing to dig deeper into the work to figure out what traits make it have the level of quality it has.
For me, this season does some things well and other things badly. Space Babies was a naff opener, Devil's Chord's ending let it down - actually, that's a common critique I have for the season. The only one with a *great* ending is Dot and Bubble, because it recontextualises the entire episode up until that point.
As for Rogue, it would be bad even if Rogue had been a woman (or if the Doctor had been). The banter was fun, but the romance was rushed, sloppy and kinda forced.
@@Drekal684 Yeah it's a pretty safe bet that someone unironically using thought-terminating language like "woke", and who have a complete inability to substantiate how it affects the text, is either lying for money or parroting someone who lies for money.
Like I said in the conclusion, critical thinking and media analysis doesn't just make your praise of media better; it makes your CRITICISMS better too. Growing your media literacy toolkit isn't about ignoring the haters, it's about being able to parse whether they're uncritically hating or are making valid substantiated complaints -- EVEN IF they're complaints that you don't necessarily agree with.
On a personal note, it bums me out how Rogue turned out in general because -- while I don't hate it and it's not even my least fav of the season -- its underwhelming results let down the fact that Rogue/15 can portray some real chemistry. I'm also a teeny bit cynical because I think Rogue might be spin-off bait but that's a whole 'nother conversation
im dissapointed how little the doctor who videos get seen because your points are so good!! I havent even watched doctor who and I still take away something meaningful from every video
much respect
Thank you so much for the kind words! Alas, RUclips's system doesn't even recommend videos to channel subscribers, so when we stray from The Owl House we are not rewarded for it
That intro was hilarious 😂😂😂😂
Glad you liked it; we thought we'd throw in a little twist for everyone :D
-The Bird
My parents were shocked that the new season was woke because there was a gay kiss, and that would never happen with the show that they used to watch before. I guess they forgot about Jack kissing the Doctor.
Also they were saying with Rouge "he falls in love too fast with this man!"... you are aware that the doctor used to fall in love and kiss any young woman in like every episode?? I've always said to them that Doctor Who is usually progressive for its time, though it's not always evident now. Thanks for this video!!
Man I'm sorry to hear that. It can really be awkward and uncomfortable when a relative starts falling into these narratives without realising it. Maybe show them this video? I don't really have a dynamite all-in-one solution to offer but at the very least I hope this video conveyed that Doctor Who has always been like this.
9 kissed Jack, 11 kissed Rory, 8 kissed Grace after I think fewer than a couple hours together? 12 is also very vocally gender abolitionist when talking to Bill in "World Enough and Time" -- this is all just stuff that liars profit from lying to people about, and then those people lied to will perpetuate the narrative earnestly.
It's the same across all mediums. Portal came out in 2007 and made its hero an Asian woman, with no option to play a male, and she deals with a computer designed to be feminine presenting; and who outwitted and killed all of the male scientific geniuses. That 70's show aired the first EVER gay male-male kiss on network television in the US in 1998 -- and specifically DIDN'T portray it negatively, or as a joke. Hell, even TheCriticalDrinker wrote a book pre-RUclips ft. a strong independent woman who physically overpowers and outsmarts the combat trained men of the story -- you know, before he started lying about media.
It's almost a futile effort to attempt to provide a comprehensive list of examples of things that lying con-artists convince people is a new agenda corrupting media. Though it can be a little amusing those con-artists contort themselves to come up with alternate explanations as to why everything pre-Ghostbusters (2016) gets a pass but everything after that doesn't. Unfortunately that gets sad again when you see the real-world affects this has on the people we care about :\
My apologies for the mini-ramble but as you can guess from the video, this stuff really matters to us. Fingers crossed your folks can see through the muck and start vibing with Doctor Who again as we get the Christmas special and Season 2 :D
-The Bird
@@idlescree Thank you for your concern, and luckily my parents are slowly improving with their world views. A few years ago they were openly hating transgender people, but a few months ago one of my friends came out as trans and they both accepted her. And I will show them this video :D
Thanks again :)
That's great to hear! :D
-The Bird
Personally i got problems with new Doctor Who season. Mostly because it tries to be campy and meta at the same time, which just doesn't work
Camp has come and gone with DW, I'm personally more bothered by the fourth wall addresses. I think one of the most compelling things about the Doctor Who world is how, after 60 years, it still holds itself together as this complete fictional universe with history and (though ever-changing) rules. It's at its best when it's telling an immersive gripping story. The nod to the camera and the "just a reminder that none of this is real or matters, don't take it seriously" is really detrimental to that immersion, in my opinion :/ Imagine if "Dalek" ended with the 9th Doctor addressing the camera after his emotional moment with Rose and saying "well it's a good thing we managed to get the rights to use the Daleks from the estate of Terry Nation" :|
-The Bird
I think that largely came with those of the Pantheon. Like gods can see through the fourth wall.
Wow thank you for this content and explanation of the insanity!
Of the mis information of content here on RUclips and other social media your channel is incredibly well done and thoughtful thank you!
Thank you, we try really hard!
@@idlescree also IDLE SCREEE!!!!
@@idlescree also do you guys have a discord?
@@coldboltlighting1237 Not yet but it's being considered. We have a Patreon though where we take suggestions for topics!
@@idlescreeplease do! That would be awesome
God I love your doctor who videos. Please don’t stop making them
Thank you so much! We have a lot to say about Doctor Who, we just have to balance it against the more popular channel topics. If you'd like to see more Doctor Who more often then please do share these videos around to people and spaces which you think would like to hear what we have to say :) You could also check out our new official stickers -- buying just 3x Holo stickers would literally *double* the amount of money this video made, and give us the breathing room to make more without fretting about the view counter :D www.idlescree.com/store
Thank you so much for this comment, it's exactly this kind of support which encourages us to keep going!
-The Bird
@@idlescree And I very much understand that. I genuinely wish I was the type of person to put long TV video essays on in the background so I could play it on loop to support yall. Glad your channel is doing better with other videos as well! I share your channel with my friends who like doctor who at the very least!! And I will take a look at those stickers, thank you for letting me know :)
Thank you so much, word of mouth really is the driving force behind this entire platform
I know some people think it's necessary to say "its both sides"/ "regardless of which side you're on"
Either because they want to appeal to the other side or because they think it makes them sound more rational and unbiased but...let's be honest it makes no sense
If you're trying to appeal to the other side, give examples of it happening on the left...clearly you don't really think it's a both sides thing since you aren't lol
This is actually a really easy one and we parodied some of the """"left"""" creators who do this; namely Lily Orchard. Someone who uses the aesthetic of progressiveness insincerely to make money and create an audience who don't question, only consume. Example provided in the video, elaborated in comment. Done :D
This essay was framed through the Doctor Who lens though; and Doctor Who hasn't specifically been milked by """""leftists"""" the way that it has by insincere creators of a more conservative aesthetic. That's why the parody leftist thumbnails aren't about DW. Read the channel names on those parody thumbnails too, if the point wasn't apparent enough o.~
-The Bird
Im surprised by the number of views and comments you guys have... you deserve more....!
Thank you so much, that means a lot to us!
Ima sound dumb, but instead of being too smart to be manipulated, I’m too DUMB to be manipulated. Like legit when I first watched dot & bubble, I didn’t get the racism until it was directly pointed out to me.
Sorry, but when I said anyone I meant ANYONE. There is no "too dumb" to be manipulated -- that's the IDEAL candidate for manipulation. You don't need to be able to read the message of a work for that message to affect you and inform your ideals. I would BEG you not to give yourself a free pass just because you think there's such a thing as too dumb or too media illiterate; because that's EXACTLY the same as thinking you're too smart and it makes you equally as vulnerable.
Also, not catching the racism of Dot and Bubble doesn't make you dumb; it's more likely a commentary on what sort of privileges you've enjoyed in your life. A lot of white people didn't interpret the mean jabs as racism until the final scene (and some didn't get it even after) because their lived experience hasn't primed them to be on guard for that kind of thing. But someone who has been a victim of that kind of prejudice is more likely to clock on to those patterns IMMEDIATELY; and that drastically different viewing experience is at the heart of D&B's riveting discourse.
So yeah, intelligence and media literacy aren't linear scales of dumb to smart. It's much more complex and no matter how you think of yourself, you should still remain vigilant of the influences in your media diet. Because they WILL influence you. Sorry for the ramble, it's just very important to all of us. Stay safe and keep thinking critically! :D
-The Bird
Great video
Thank you so much for watching and for the kind words, it means a lot to all of us :D
-The Bird
Yet again someone misunderstands that Kerblam's message is not directly about capitalism, but automation.
@@pp-wl1tf Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I remember it the WHOLE reason for the extremist plot was because automation was taking jobs away from human workers -- which is ONLY a problem in commodified societies. Moreover, the company's incentive to rely on automation, just like in our world, is that they don't need to pay a wage and therefore increase the bottom line -- something that only exists in a capitalist corporate structure.
For an alternative perspective: consider that automation in a hypothetical de-commodified society wouldn't doom us to starve, it would liberate us to live how we choose and pursue our passions without the burden of needing to work for money.
The robots are only a problem because people need jobs to survive, which is capitalism. The company chooses robots over people because of the capital incentive.
Is there something I'm missing from the episode that provides an alternative explanation or motive for both sides of the story (the company V the people [Charlie]) I'd love to hear it :D
- The Bird
💖😊
=)
Great video ❤
Thank you so much!! Our Doctor Who stuff doesn't get a fraction of the views as some of our other stuff, so it really means the world to us when people find and connect with it :D
-The Bird
Is it just me or does the Moonbase not feel intentionally pro-war? I could see it being read as pro-war. I think there needs to be more specific wording in order for me to consider it leaning towards The Doctor suggesting war, rather than just defending against evil; otherwise than a self-defense video could be called pro-war.
Also "Usually with a scottish accent": as someone watches The Critical Drinker, I feel attacked 💀
Thank you for watching and contributing to the conversation! :D When talking about that pro war line, we're specifically looking into what it's saying about the Doctor's own beliefs and how they're informed by the showrunners.
I think "pro-war" is sometimes taken to mean that someone enjoys or wants for war. In this case, we're just talking about how 2 lays out a clear axiomatic principle that those who act against your values MUST be FOUGHT. It's not a statement in defence of anything, it's a statement in opposition to something. While we can conflate the two situationally, the writers made a choice on how to present this character and that choice is what's being analysed. It's in stark contrast to how the NuWho Doctors treat equal threats. Even the 9th Doctor tried to reason with the Dalek in "Dalek", and ofc 12 defeated a major terrorist plot with education and compassion.
What I'm hoping to convey here is that the quote itself isn't the only thing informing our call that it's a pro-war stance from the Doctor, it's the context of the time he is saying it in, who he is saying it to (the audience), and the influences that lead him to say it that way (the influences upon the creative team behind it). In stark contrast to post-vietnam and presently-in the war on terror writers RTD and Moffat.
Also don't feel attacked! We're criticising people like The Critical Drinker here -- NOT his victims. To that end I would urge you to please either disengage from that brainrot thoughtless outrage-money farm for your own sake OR take a more critical lens to creators like him. Question why he thinks what he thinks, how his job works, and think about how what we said in this video applies to him. Some of the parody thumbnails and titles even reference his tendencies to uncritically praise old media from his childhood while attacking modern media which is doing THE SAME thing that stuff from his childhood did
@@idlescree No problem! It was a good video. If it's any consolation, I don't subscribe to a lot of Critical Drinker's thoughts on media; mostly because I find myself just disengaged from media that doesn't engage me. (For example, tried to get back into DW by watching the first couple episodes of Jodie's season when it came out and they just didn't hook me so I just didn't watch the rest.)
I'm probably better off now then I was a few years ago when it came to the certain channels I watched; for instance, used to daily watch The Quaterning and Nerdrotic. Eventually I just ended up unsubscribing because I got so desensitized to the context bad news about franchises and the new thing to be angry about every week that I honestly didn't really care about.
Honestly I'm just glad you didn't paint people who enjoy Critical Drinker or criticize things similar to him as far-right, or nazi's. Because I think demeaning people often leads them to be more defensive about changing their mindset and are more likely to grow stronger with their old mindset.
@@sketchsskotch1073 Yeah there's certainly a lot to be said about the psychology behind why people fall for stuff like this and why it's not so easy to pull them out of it. That's a whole 'nother essay though tbh. But I'll always have sympathy for people who are tricked by these goons-for-hire who don't even believe the messages they push to their audience for money. Those people deserve better.
I'm happy to hear that you have been disengaging from outrage merchants though. These channels are like the McDonalds of content; even when we know it's garbage, we sometimes still passively consume it as a guilty pleasure or curiosity feed with the assumption that simply understanding what you're getting into is enough to keep you from the affects of consuming too much of it. But even if we know the food is trash objectively, we still get just as fat eating it as the people who think it's a diet :|
Tough break trying to get back into DW with Jodie's series! Her showrunner really made a mess of that whole era which nearly ended the show on her final episode. I'm personally waiting on her audio stories so that she can perform the character as written by somebody who writes good -- or as we call it: the 6th Doctor/Colin Baker strategy @0@.
Not sure where you stopped with DW, but Series 10 is a self-contained VERY soft reboot that I think is well worth the time. If you want to go further back, Series 5 is more of a reboot than 10 is and Series 5 itself is widely regarded as the best series of NuWho on average to this day.
-The Bird
@@idlescree I started DW on Season 5, I kept going until the end of Season 9. I can't entirely remember why, believe it was more just outside circumstances like watching TV less and less; indulging in older shows like Babylon 5 that took its place. Plus I don't remember being too drawn to the initial trailer of Season 10; with seeing the Emoji Robots and this coming off of me still being a bit bitter at Hell's Bent. I might get back into DW starting with the recent David Tennant special. Since I haven't heard anything too bad about Season 1(still think that's a terrible name).
Also at least Jodie got the benefit of being able to appear in her regeneration scene, can't exactly say the same for Colin Baker. Though honestly if I had to say one Doctor that benefitted from Audio Books is Paul McGann; man was wasted on just one movie. I've only listened to one audio book, Scherzo.
For sure 8 thrived in audio stories, some of the best! I just call it the 6th Doctor treatment because, unlike 8, 6 had whole seasons of terrible writing which put his character in a pit that the audio stories let him climb out of. Whereas 8 wasn't written terribly, he was just robbed of screen time :x
Series 10 is Capaldi's best in my opinion! Highly recommend, the emoji joke is just a 2 second gag in one episode. It makes for a bit of trailer cringe but it's not what that episode or what that series is. The end of series 10 is genuinely ELITE. **Highly** recommend giving S10 a shot. It has some of the most compelling character writing in NuWho
-The Bird
If you think capitalism is bad, try living under socialism.
The reality is that we live in neither system completely. It's a scale from one to the other, and that makes it really easy to point out that capitalist counties embrace socialist policies like free universal healthcare, or taxes in general. Likewise it's easy to say that unchecked/late stage capitalism produces the kind of terrible outcomes that Doctor Who has commentated on in the past. These are criticisms of the scale leaning so hard on capitalism that all socialist policies, from healthcare to workers rights, are abandoned to the detriment of the working class. It's much more substantive than a "one or the other" equation.
There's this narrative that you can either suck it up and deal with the wealthy and powerful taking advantage of you in every regard, OR suffer some horrendous fate in a hellscape -- this narrative is a lie to keep you asking for more or better.
But I think what people do is conflate socialism with authoritarianism because of anti-USSR propaganda. It goes without saying, of course, that the USSR was not actually socialist.
Doctor Who and other shows like famously socialist Star Trek invite you to imagine a better world by exploring the spectrum of possibilities. I think we're all better off abandoning the lie that this is as good as it gets, especially as it continues to get worse.
-The Bird
Woke is so so dead it is hilarious. Remember: you did it to yourselves.
It's kind of a commentary on the word "woke" itself that I can't really understand what this comment means? o-O Are you laughing at grifting RUclipsrs? Are you laughing at Disney? I genuinely can't tell :0
-The Bird