Doctor What!

[mickd1961]

Not quite sure why you are stressing Mick
Is it because he’s black or gay (not sure he is but I know he played a gay guy in s e x education)

He seems to have a decent grounding as an actor has quite a few accolades so why shouldn’t he play Dr Who?

Don’t understand the level of vitriol coming at him from you or the media,
Calling him a cnut because of his African spelling bit much (and childish) mate

I’d rather someone got a job they were trained in rather than paid millions for getting their tits out like Jordan or all these other women who are always in the media
Imagine what the press would say of them if they were black

Not stressing at all BS and I’m a bit surprised you’re throwing the race card at me.

1/ The reference to his name wasn’t actually aimed at him but more at my penchant for using that particular expletive.

2/ My post was ( I thought ) clearly aimed at the BBC and their descent into box ticking wokeism.

Just as it was obvious that a woman would get the job last time around it was (in my opinion) blindingly obvious that the next announcement would be a black, gay actor.

He may well be a terrific actor BS but it’s the obviousness of this that gets me.

I can think of loads of great actors who could do the job.

Mark Gaitess for example or Reece Shearsmith who add that quirkiness that the best Doctors had.

By the way, I know Gaitess is gay before you point that out.

It’s really just the obviousness of this latest appointment.

It should be remembered as well that the character was supposed to be a white, middle aged man.

Maybe I’m just getting old but when a fictional or real life character is being portrayed in a film or TV show I believe that the origin of that character should be upheld.

[WBA1955]

We have had a black Ann Boleyn, it's only a matter of time before Winston Churchill is played by Morgan Freeman.

[mickd1961]

We have had a black Ann Boleyn, it's only a matter of time before Winston Churchill is played by Morgan Freeman.

I wouldn’t want to see Charles Hawtrey portraying Ghandi or Nicholas Lyndhurst playing Barrack Obama Des.

It’s utter nonsense.

This Wokeism and tokenism is just a complete load of hogwash.

How on earth have we allowed our lives to be so overrun by this Leftie, Liberal nonsense!?

[Albionic68]

Thought the programme had outlived its natural shelf life years ago. For me the debate isn't about whether the good doctor is male, female or something in between.

It's not about whether the good doctor is black, white or whatever shade of brown or even pastel they decide to pixelate on their face either.

For me the debate should centre around whether the BBC considers Doctor Whatever as value for money re the licence fee.

Because the last few times I watched I thought it was utterly vacuous sh ite. Surely to the pro noun deity in the sky they should be able to come up with something better to fill the TV schedule with 😊 .

[Dubbag]

??????
Bit confused about this as well?
I have no understanding about Dr Who....rarely ever had much time for it as a programme as a child...

[Leicesterbaggie]

My major concern is when historical figures are portrayed incorrectly. For example, as '55 has stated, Anne Boleyn being played by a black woman. What is the point? As a retired teacher I worry that young children, who are perhaps not encouraged educationally, would accept that she was black because it was 'on the telly.' Fictional characters, OK to a degree, but I would still prefer it if the character was portrayed as the author intended.

[WBA1955]

I love history but am a stickler for detail. If I start watching a western and the Apache's are wearing feather bonnets, or some settlers have guns that hadn't come into production then, I switch off, as obviously not a lot of research had been done.
Hollywood makes films for entertainment and doesn't rely too much on fact.
As Leicester say's, kids who watch these films have a totally distorted view of history.

[Leicesterbaggie]

I love history but am a stickler for detail. If I start watching a western and the Apache's are wearing feather bonnets, or some settlers have guns that hadn't come into production then, I switch off, as obviously not a lot of research had been done.
Hollywood makes films for entertainment and doesn't rely too much on fact.
As Leicester say's, kids who watch these films have a totally distorted view of history.

We obviously 'sing off the same hymn sheet' on this subject. I, too, get annoyed when historical facts are incorrect. Others on this board, who are fully entitled to their opinions, disagree with me.

[SwedishBaggie]

Saw an episode of ”Grantchester”, set in Cambridgeshire in the 50s.

There was a homo***ual priest, a coloured priest and a woman with a functional disorder. 😊

[Omegstrat6]

Actually quite liked Mick's idea of Charles Hawtrey playing Ghandi- maybe Kenneth Williams could have played Nehru?

Tbh I don't have an issue with people of any ethnicity playing fictional characters whether that be Shakespeare or Dickens or whatever. Even if the story is set in a period or situation where that character would, in reality, almost certainly not be Black/Brown etc This is because the story is more important to me than this element of historical accuracy and things like human emotions/ motivation/ reactions are universally understood. Having said that, there are many fictional characters whose *** is key to their behaviour and so a character like Bond, for example, I could accept being played by someone of colour but not by a woman.

Attempting to make historically accurate tv or movies is different. If you want to include an historical figure you would surely want to get as close to that person as possible and this would surely include physical appearance whether that be fat/thin/bald/bearded/dark/blonde as well as skin colour and you would chose an actor who could not only get close to the character but also be made to look most like them.

In the old days the lack of Black/Brown actors meant white ones were "blacked up" and there are many examples of this beyond AlJolson and all those Native American Indians seen in Westerns (e.g. Jean Simmons's Indian princess in Black Narcissus or Brando's Zapata). All this drew criticism just as today there are those who say that only gay actors should portray gay characters (obviously forgetting a bout the many Hollywood leading men who were in the closet!) and only disabled actors disabled ones. Some people are never happy as English actor David Oyelowo found out when he got criticised by some after his portrayal of Martin Luther King in Selma because of his nationality. Surely, as long as you can get as close to an accurate depiction as possible does it matter? The clue might be in the word-acting!