Spoiling in the Gutters?

Those of you of a comics persuasion may be aware of the weekly online news/rumour/gossip column Lying In The Gutters, written by noted comics journalist, upcoming Doctor Who comic writer and Seb Patrick lookalike Rich Johnston. Well, he’s mentioned Dwarf in this week’s column, and if his plot summary is correct, the cat’s out of the bag on what the Earth segments of the three-parter will entail. Pretty large (possible) spoilers in the link and after the jump.

The crew have returned to 21st century Earth, discover they are characters in a TV show that’s about to be cancelled, and decide to track down the people responsible for the show.

This probably doesn’t sound as massive as it might have done a few weeks ago, as bit by bit our guesses have edged towards this. But still. Is this the closest thing to confirmation that we’ve had of the “meta” element that so many people have been guessing at? Is this the whole story, or is there still something to do with parallel universes going on? Is this what the synopses meant by “tracking down those responsible for their creation”? Are Rob and Doug going to appear? What can this possibly mean for the show going forwards, if it is ever to go forwards? Is this one of those LITG rumours that comes to Rich from someone genuinely in the know? Or has he picked it up via guesswork? Or is he completely off the mark, as with his prediction that Paterson Joseph was definitely the Eleventh Doctor? SO MANY QUESTIONS. Three days, twenty-one hours and nine minutes until some of them hopefully possibly maybe start to get answers.

Tags:

83 Responses to Spoiling in the Gutters?

Jump to bottom

  1. that explains that guy whose trying to kill them with bullets that have the characters names on it…

    oh wait no it dont…

    hmm…

  2. I suspect he’s just theorizing like the rest of us. I hope so anyway. I don’t mind a bit of the meta thing, but I’d prefer something not quite as blatant.

  3. I don’t mind this being the case at all for the sake of a good story, as long as it really is an alternate dimension (even if it is OUR dimension) and in the Red Dwarf fictional universe everything remains real, and it was all along.

    Some TV guides have referred to Back to Earth as the “final” adventures of the crew. Where they getting that from then?

  4. if it turns out that in an alternate dimension actors are playing there characters in a tv show called red dwarf im willing to go along with that as it may have some funny results, BUT if it turns out they find out they are in a tv show themselvs i think that would be pretty shambolic but i am not going to judge anything untill i have seen it, i just hope a door is kept open for thr future ….

  5. > Or is he completely off the mark, as with his prediction that Paterson Joseph was definitely the Eleventh Doctor?

    Paterson WAS as close as possible to being the 11th Doctor until the BBC, as discretely as possible, stepped in and told them NOT to cast a black actor (the main reason being the marketability of the show – the papers only like negative stories involving black actors). This, of course, is just guesswork, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if it were true. Seriously, if you think about it for more than a second they were NEVER going to cast a black actor, even if they auditioned some.

    > Some TV guides have referred to Back to Earth as the ?final? adventures of the crew. Where they getting that from then?

    Their bowels? The cast have mentioned the possibility of future Dwarf. If this was the final episode why would they be thinking that way?

  6. >Is this the closest thing to confirmation that we?ve had of the ?meta? element that so many people have been guessing at?

    I think so.

    >Is this the whole story, or is there still something to do with parallel universes going on?

    It’ll be the second option.

    >Is this what the synopses meant by ?tracking down those responsible for their creation??

    Yes.

    >Are Rob and Doug going to appear?

    No, and maybe.

  7. > The cast have mentioned the possibility of future Dwarf. If this was the final episode why would they be thinking that way?

    To swerve us? To preserve the plot/ending? Because they’ve been told to speak optimistically about future shows? Because the movie they all still hope to make is set in a different fictional universe to the TV series, therefore they may expect to make more Dwarf, but this could be the last adventure in the “TV universe” of the show? Simply to throw us off the scent of what is supposed to be a surprise ending that becomes evident at the end of Back to Earth part 3?

    Any number of reasons.

  8. I’m sure that the possibility for future RD projects, as talked about by the cast, is for real. Calling the shows the ‘final adventures’ just seems like an assumption on the part of the press.

    That being said, if this were to be the end of Dwarf, I don’t think we can complain really. If you’d told me a couple of years ago that we’d have a new 3-part special in 2009 I doubt I’d have believed you.

  9. > The cast have mentioned the possibility of future Dwarf. If this was the final episode why would they be thinking that way?

    >To swerve us? To preserve the plot/ending?

    I’d find this unlikely.
    It doesn’t seem to me that that these specials would be commissioned if they were designed to be the last Dwarf ever. Why would anyone bother resurrecting it one more time for that reason? It doesn’t make sense.
    Of *course* they’re hoping that this will lead to more RD (in some form). There’s no guarantee of that happening, but they’re making the specials with that in mind. Otherwise it’s a massively pointless exercise.
    Yes, they (Doug, the cast, the crew who’ve given their time for next to nothing) could be doing it for the love of it. But Dave? All the publicity? The website/promotional events? Nah. Too much effort for something that you’re just going to allow to die.

  10. Why would anyone bother resurrecting it one more time for that reason? It doesn?t make sense.

    There could be a hundred different reasons why it was resurrected. I realise that Doug always has one eye on the film, but there’s no guarantee that that’s why it was resurrected. They could just want to tidy things up a bit after the cliffhanger at the end of VIII.

    But Dave? All the publicity? The website/promotional events? Nah. Too much effort for something that you?re just going to allow to die.

    Not at all. Dave want as high ratings as possible. Dave want the money from their advertisers.

  11. Chris Barrie has been quoted as saying he’s up for a new series, special or movie, implying that RD could continue.

    I suspect they find themselves trapped in an alternate dimension – ours – where RD is a TV show and they can only exist there so long as the show is running. Their being trapped is the foundation of the plot. Finally they manage to escape to their dimension, where RD is ‘real’.

  12. I suspect they find themselves trapped in an alternate dimension – ours – where RD is a TV show and they can only exist there so long as the show is running. Their being trapped is the foundation of the plot. Finally they manage to escape to their dimension, where RD is ?real?.

    This seems increasingly likely to me, yeah.

  13. G&T Admin

    I hadn’t entirely guessed the ‘trapped’ bit – although that makes TOTAL sense – but this is the conclusion I had come to, as well – and every further leak seems to confirm it.

    The great thing about it, if it’s true, is that whilst at first glance the meta stuff felt like it’d destroy the reality of the show, this actually *legitimises* the show instead, and makes it *more* real. Dwarf is a TV show in our dimension – but somewhere in another dimension, it all actually happened…

  14. G&T Admin

    > The great thing about it, if it?s true, is that whilst at first glance the meta stuff felt like it?d destroy the reality of the show, this actually *legitimises* the show instead, and makes it *more* real. Dwarf is a TV show in our dimension – but somewhere in another dimension, it all actually happened?

    I absolutely love this interpretation. There’s a bit in Backwards where Ace and Spanners are giddy at the discovery of an infinite amount of Universes as it means existence is completely just, fair and balanced because every likelihood is played out somewhere… it’s really nice if that sort of theme is included in BtE.

  15. > the papers only like negative stories involving black actors

    Bullshit. The papers generally only like negative stories about anyone. Black or otherwise. That`s what sells.

  16. I only put that because that’s what Danny recently said.

    The fact is they know they can use a wiry pale white guy with crazy hair to sell the show. Using a black guy wouldn’t work well. That’s not me being racist, it’s the media.

  17. > I only put that because that?s what Danny recently said.

    >The fact is they know they can use a wiry pale white guy with crazy hair to sell >the show. Using a black guy wouldn?t work well. That?s not me being racist, it?s >the media.

    Who says it wouldn`t work well? It might actually give the show more publicity.

    I`m not saying that racism doesn`t exist because it does in every country but I think a lot of what is said about the press is nonsense. Danny and Craig, for example, made the front pages because they were involved in newsworthy stories. Not because of their colour.

  18. Much as I hate to say this, I’m getting more of a ‘Who framed Roger Rabbit’ feel to all this as time goes on..

    Bizarre theory perhaps but I cant get it out of my mind…

    It’s pretty clear that at some stage, there’s a TV show/ reality crossover albeit in a probable ‘other’ dimension..
    It’s also clear that someone/something is out to kill them.
    We also know that Katerina is out to replace Rimmer.

    I’m wondering if there is a point in this dimension where TV shows and thus Characters are killed off in a litteral sense, hense the bullets. Is it possible that Katerina has been sent to lure our crew back to her Earth where they will be hunted down and destroyed leaving the crew from her dimension free to replace our lot.

    No, I thought not.

  19. > Paterson WAS as close as possible to being the 11th Doctor until the BBC, as discretely as possible, stepped in and told them NOT to cast a black actor (the main reason being the marketability of the show

    Wow, is that true? Crikey!

    > This, of course, is just guesswork, but it wouldn?t surprise me in the least if it were true.

    Oh. So it’s, erm, bullshit, in fact.

    Because the public assumed Joseph for the role, that proves he was always lined up? And because he didn’t get cast, it has to have been because of his ethnicity? Isn’t that assumption a bit, y’know…?

    > Seriously, if you think about it for more than a second they were NEVER going to cast a black actor, even if they auditioned some.

    Seriously, if you think about it for more than a second, this is a ridiculously sweeping statement based on no measure of experience whatsoever.

    > The fact is they know they can use a wiry pale white guy with crazy hair to sell the show. Using a black guy wouldn?t work well.

    Two fucking words: Will Smith.

    For the record, the ethnicity of our cast members has never, ever been mentioned as an issue during the marketing of Back to Earth. Not once, as far as I’ve heard (and I’ve been pretty tangled up in that stuff). Not by the channel, not by the production, not by the newspapers and magazines who put us on covers and gave us coverage, and not by the journalists who came to the set.

  20. His comments look about right to me- notice that the ray we see in the trailer appears to be making a very red/green/blue hole in space for them to get sucked through, and that the behind the scenes video seemed to show the guys arriving on Earth through a load of TV screens! I think they’re fictional characters.

  21. All this puts me in mind of the introduction to Craig Charles’ Log….where he goes on about an infinite number of universes and that “Somewhere there’s a real Red Dwarf and a real Lister”.

    Wonder if he’ll get a story credit? ;)

  22. This is about as much as I can gather from all we’ve seen so far:

    The whole thing is an elaborate trap. Someone has built this trap by feeding information about the Dwarfers to someone in the alternative universe, who has been told to take this info and create the show. Katerina has been programmed to get the boys into the alternative universe. Once there, if the show is cancelled it means curtains for the boys.

    Of course, all this begs the question – who would want to go to such elaborate lengths to kill the crew??

  23. The TV version of the crew that are about to be got rid of perhaps…

  24. – The TV version of the crew that are about to be got rid of perhaps?

    Not likely if the show was created as THE TRAP. Read my above post again mate, I’m saying that someone from the Dwarfers reality set this trap up. So who would it be and why?

  25. Ah, so you think someone has created a TV show in their image?

    (head explodes)…

  26. And this mysterious person has also… invented Coronation Street? And Craig Charles?

  27. Sounds a little like reaching, to me, but we still know that little that I guess anything is possible…

  28. I do believe that is my photo Rich Johnston has used. I wonder where he got that from! hehe

  29. G&T Admin

    Ah, so you think someone has created a TV show in their image?

    Ah, like Galaxy Quest.

  30. >Ah, like Galaxy Quest.

    And in true Ouroboros style, we come all the way back to the original theory! :-)))

    Even with all this speculation, I still think there’s room for some surprises, Friday-post… or is that, ‘post-Friday’?

  31. G&T Admin

    I would be VERY surprised if we’ve guessed everything. I don’t think we have nearly enough material to cover Part 3, for a start. One would imagine that Doug has…

  32. From initially hating the idea of anything vaguely meta (not in itself, just where RD is concerned), I’m now loving all of this.

    But how entertaining would it be if we were all completely and hideously wrong?
    Not that I think we are, but, still …

  33. I think we have a tad of rightness with large chunk of wrongness but speculation is half the fun…

    So, we have an alternative Earth where everything is controlled by ruthless TV execs who decide to axe Red Dwarf, everything in the media is part of a conspiracy to control the rest of mankind..One thing can save Earth and that’s Dave (Lister)..

    Clearly this is an impossible reality and not in anyway a swipe at the BBC..

  34. Okay:

    Universe A = Red Dwarf universe

    Universe B = alternative universe (possibly our own)

    Someone from universe A (presumably the villain) has set a trap for the Dwarfers. The trap involves them entering universe B and becoming stuck there, only to be eradicated. How will they be eradicated? The villain from universe A has been feeding information on the Dwarfers to someone in universe B, who has gone on to make a TV show out of these ideas. What that person doesn’t know is the villain from universe A intended for this to happen. By creating the Dwarfers as fictional characters in universe B, it somehow affects the fate of the real Dwarfers in universe A BUT ONLY IF they cross over to universe B. Which is where Katerina fits in. The villain of universe A uses Katerina as the means to get the boys to universe B. Once there, the Dwarfers fates are linked to the fate of the fictional television series ‘Red Dwarf’ of universe B. If it gets cancelled, the Dwarfers are finished.

    So…if your brain hasn’t exploded all over your monitor by now, the question that remains is why would someone devise such a ludicrously elaborate plan and why do they want to kill the Dwarfers in the first place??

  35. Well, this is the thing, and this is why I can’t see your theory (nice as it is – and it did make sense the first time) being the case – the Dwarfers don’t have an “arch enemy”. The series has never been about fighting “villains”. I can’t really see that changing now, tbh.

  36. Same here mate. I tried me best with the theory, but the gaping hole is the lack of a major enemy who could be responsible.

    Unless it turns out to be Norman Lovett…

  37. >Universe B = alternative universe (possibly our own)

    Hold on. Why do we have to be Universe B? Let’s just call us Universe 1.

  38. > Hold on. Why do we have to be Universe B? Let?s just call us Universe 1.

    Spooky…I watched that episode last night! That and ‘Bender Should Not Be Allowed On Television’ :)

  39. One thing that I don’t get (that someone may have already mentioned in all these threads)…

    If Red Dwarf is a TV show within the reality of this episode, it stands to reason that Coronation Street is also a TV show within the reality of this episode. However, it doesn’t look like this is the case.

    Coronation Street seems to be “real” within the reality of this episode; i.e the Dwarfers aren’t “interrupting the filming of Coronation Street”, they’re just walking down a street.

    Also, they walk down the famous cobbles and into Rovers Return and the corner shop. Correct me if I’m wrong but they’re not geographically in the same place in reality. One is location and the others are, surely, inside studios.

  40. I’m thinking everything in the alternate universe is based off a tv show. The people wearing gas masks in the trailer are maybe acting like they’re in something like 24. The guy who’s shooting at them could be a parody of a assassin off tv. Hasn’t something called price smashers been mentioned too? That could be a weird game show that involves the crew getting thrown around a department store.

  41. Also, they walk down the famous cobbles and into Rovers Return and the corner shop. Correct me if I?m wrong but they?re not geographically in the same place in reality. One is location and the others are, surely, inside studios.

    They’re all in studios except the outside. Nothing* is in the houses.

    *ie no sets

  42. > For the record, the ethnicity of our cast members has never, ever been mentioned as an issue during the marketing of Back to Earth.

    That’s how it should be. If it had been that would have been pretty disgusting. The casting of a new Doctor is completely different, of course. After Tennant this has become a hugely high-profile role. I often work with a black guy and the first thing he said to me about it was that the BBC would never have a black man as their ‘poster boy’. And that’s exactly the thing, it’s not the fans that would have got worked up if the 11th Doctor had been black (well, most of them…some commenters on OG made it perfectly clear how against the idea they were…), it’s the general Saturday night/redtop audience. Tabloids like The Sun have been very important in drumming up interest in Who over the last few years. How many Who ‘exclusives’ have they had? Loads.

  43. Some black guy you work with telling you the BBC would never cast a black Doctor does not make it true.

  44. No, but it’s plausible. Wouldn’t surpise me in the least.

  45. > I often work with a black guy and the first thing he said to me about it was that the BBC would never have a black man as their ?poster boy?

    I once worked with a producer who said Billie Piper couldn’t act and would be swiftly dumped from Who to avoid her being a drag on the show. One person’s opinion, however related they may consider themselves to be to the issue, doesn’t equal fact. I don’t believe for a single second that if Moffat had wanted him, and everyone on his team felt he worked in the role, Joseph wouldn’t have been cast.

    I think you’re mistaking the general Saturday night red-top audience with the Daily Mail audience. And then mistaking the people backing Who at the BBC for people with no spine. They put one of the the UK’s most prominent and controversial dramatists – a man who’d sent shockwaves with Queer as Folk, and risked vitriol with Second Coming – in charge of a flagship family show, let him fill it with his own subtexts, put him centre stage as the show’s spokesman, and took the flack that followed.

    I find it much easier to believe in deliberately-started false rumours to disguise the true reveal of a new lead actor, to be honest, than the kind of internal attitude you’re talking about. Simply because I’ve never seen anything like the discussions you’re describing.

  46. I don’t think it’s a case of the people at Who not wanting to hire a black actor, but that TPTB at the BBC would not want to court controversy. You can’t avoid the fact that there are racist attitudes out there, including certain tabloids who would be very outspoken about a non-white Doctor. Even some of the more broad-minded viewers would find it hard to accept a Doctor who was not white/male/middle-class.

    Naturally the programme-makers want to hire the best actor for the job, but Who is too much of a big deal to the Beeb for them to stick their necks out for fear of deliberately provoking an adverse reaction.
    I’m not saying that this is absolutely the case, rather that the BBC has always been a very conservative organisation and would most likely ‘play safe’ in this respect.

  47. I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really wish I’d never mentioned Paterson Joseph in the original post, now. This is all Rich Johnston’s fault.

  48. G&T Admin

    Why, when there’s been a lead black female in Who, would they avoid casting a black man in the title role? I don’t get it.

  49. > Why, when there?s been a lead black female in Who, would they avoid casting a black man in the title role? I don?t get it.

    Maybe because The Doctor has always been white and as such to suddenly have him black or asian or female or whatever would just be a publicity stunt and a pointless exercise in political correctness that has no relevance to the story?

    Why is it suddenly racist that a character who has always been white is STILL white? Furthermore, why are we discussing Doctor Who in a thread about Red Dwarf?!

  50. G&T Admin

    AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  51. Maybe because The Doctor has always been white and as such to suddenly have him black or asian or female or whatever would just be a publicity stunt and a pointless exercise in political correctness that has no relevance to the story?

    I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really hope you’re being ironic here.

  52. Look, I don’t see any point in casting a black actor as The Doctor JUST FOR THE SAKE of having a black Doctor. It would be like casting a black actor as James Bond just because there’s never been a black James Bond. You shouldn’t do these things just because it would be politically correct to do so.

  53. Rob Grant on Dimension Jump:

    Red Dwarf does have two black characters in it, and we never make a mention of it, and I think that’s the way it should be. We didn’t hire them for their colour and we don’t make any play of it at all

    I think there may be some some relevance to the discussion there. I can’t really be bothered, to be honest.

  54. Although, completely slapping myself in the face, I could never see the Cat as being white…

  55. > Although, completely slapping myself in the face, I could never see the Cat as being white?

    Right. So, boot on the other foot – if it was decided that the part of The Cat should be re-cast simply because there’s never been a white version of The Cat in Red Dwarf, would that be sufficient reason to do it? Of course it bloody wouldn’t.

  56. >if it was decided that the part of The Cat should be re-cast simply because there?s never been a white version of The Cat in Red Dwarf, would that be sufficient reason to do it?

    If I remember correctly, there were some rumors floating around about Robert Webb being considered for the part.

  57. Rob Grant on Dimension Jump:

    Red Dwarf does have two black characters in it, and we never make a mention of it, and I think that?s the way it should be. We didn?t hire them for their colour and we don?t make any play of it at all

    I think there may be some some relevance to the discussion there. I can?t really be bothered, to be honest.

    Exactly! Skin colour doesn’t even enter into it – they were cast because they were right for the parts. If a black actor was right for the part of The Doctor, they’d cast him. But when a white actor got the part instead, suddenly people start this crap about the programme makers being racist! That they deliberately didn’t cast a black actor. It was simply a case of him not being the right man for the job.

    THAT’S why I object to those people who said it was racist. Casting a black actor just for the sake of being politically correct and pandering to these morons who think it’s racist NOT to cast a black actor is idiotic.

  58. *wanders off, wishing he’d said nothing…*

  59. G&T Admin

    Richey – don’t bother sending that review in.

  60. Why? Am I now being given the cold shoulder because I think a person should be cast because they are the right person for the part instead of them being cast because of the colour of their skin? Paterson Joseph is a bloody good actor but the makers of Doctor Who clearly didn’t think he was right for the part of The Doctor. That’s NOT racism – it is simply choosing the right man for the job.

  61. Another recent case – Samuel L Jackson was cast a Marvel hero and S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Nicky Fury for ‘Iron Man’ and he has signed a deal to appear as Nick Fury again in future movies. Now, in the comic books, Nick Fury has usually been a white character. Was casting Jackson in the role racist against white people? Was he cast simply because he was black? No! He was cast because Marvel studios think he’s the right man to bring the part to the big screen. And based on the majority of Jackson’s work, I’d agree with them.

    They didn’t cast him to be politically correct, to have a black character in their films. THIS is my point. The people accusing the BBC of racism over not casting Paterson Joseph are basically saying that he didn’t get the part because of his skin colour and that a black actor SHOULD get the part. This is crap. A black actor should get the part if he’s the right actor for the part, not because he’s black.

  62. The Ultimate universe version of Nick Fury was a guy modelled on Samuel L. Jackson. Which was written a while before Iron man the film came out. (Which validates your point I guess, I’m just mentioning it out of interest.)

    As for the Doctor Who thing….I’m just not going there…

    I always liked it that colour wasn’t even mentioned in Red Dwarf though. That being said it always made sense to me that the last human alive was a mixed race man. Not that Craig Charles was chosen for that reason. (Neither should he be.) It just seems fitting. Last representative of humanity, not a specific race, etc.

  63. > The Ultimate universe version of Nick Fury was a guy modelled on Samuel L. Jackson

    This, I did not know.

    > Not that Craig Charles was chosen for that reason. (Neither should he be.)

    Right, my point exactly. So why am I getting comments like ‘Don’t send in that review’ just because I said this? What the smeg is going on?

  64. 1. No-one’s saying that a black guy SHOULD be cast purely because they’re black. What most of us are agreed on is that it would be great if it simply weren’t an issue. And personally, I can’t think of ANY actor around that I’d rather play the Doctor than Paterson Joseph. I was incredibly excited when he was linked with the role – as was anyone else who’s seen Neverwhere.

    2. This whole “they won’t cast a black Doctor because the UK is racist” thing is a conspiracy theory of performingmonkey’s that he’s been on with for a while. You may notice that the only person who agrees with him is himself. I think there’s far too much inherent racism in the UK, but I also think we’ve reached a point where it’s not a consideration when casting an actor in the BBC’s top show.

    3. It was you that said that “to suddenly have him black or asian or female or whatever would just be a publicity stunt and a pointless exercise in political correctness that has no relevance to the story”. Which is bollocks. You therefore contradict that post when you say – rightly – that it should be a simple matter of casting the best person for the job. If Paterson had got it, it wouldn’t have been “a pointless exercise in political correctness”, it would have been because he’s fucking perfect for the role.

    4. I don’t know about anyone else, but I find excessive use of the word “political correctness” to be painfully defensive. See Lee, S for more on this. I can’t speak for him but this is probably what inspired Ian’s comment.

    5. What Chris said about Nick Fury.

    Just stop for a moment, take a deep breath, and look at the thread a bit more clearly. You seem to be thinking that “people” have this attitude that the casting of Matt Smith was borne out of racism. Look at it again – no-one’s saying that. No-one’s saying that he SHOULD have been a black actor just so that we could have had a black actor. It’s just performingmonkey. It’s just his way. But he’s not afraid to have people vehemently disagree with him.

  65. G&T Admin

    I can?t speak for him but this is probably what inspired Ian?s comment.

    That and booze.

  66. I think this is less about race and more about frustration that Patterson didn’t get the gig.

    Which is fair enough, but the decision has been made.

  67. Thanks for clarifying Seb.

    Based on what you’ve said, I can see now that my initial post was very badly worded and didn’t really put across the point I was making – almost the opposite of what I meant – while my later posts did and which seems to be everyone elses opinion too (i.e. casting by talent, not by skin colour).

    Basically, I typed before I fucking thought. I’m sorry if I caused any offence to anyone. I think I’ll refrain from posting until after the weekend now.

  68. A Time Lord can change skin colour from a regeneration, using Rassilon as an example, in ‘The Five Doctors’ he was portrayed by a white guy, in ‘Zagreus’ he was portrayed by a black guy.
    Just thought I would add that, within the show it is possible so for the Doctor to change skin colour, I am almost hoping thhe 12th Doctor to have a different skin colour so people having a go about it can be proved wrong by me =)

  69. Also the second incarnation of Rassilon had a part in Red Dwarf, atleast it says that on Wikipedia, can’t think who he played. Oh wait, he was Commander Binks in ‘Holoship’.

  70. If the colour of an actor’s skin is of no relevance, then why do people keep bringing it up? Why were the media so quick to tout Patterson Joseph not as a “potential Doctor” but “potentially the first black Doctor”. (Which is bollocks because there used to be a black doctor in EastEnders, I’ll have you know). ;)

    The problem is that generally there’s a lot of overcompensatory white guilt, especially in the middle classes, who continually have to extol the fact that “it doesn’t make a difference if somebody is black or white”.

    I think it DOES make a difference if a person is black or white, yet it is something to be celebrated, to take pride in. Every single person should be afforded an equal level of respect and humanity, that is not even in question in my mind… yet we’re not “all the same”; we ALL have different cultural backgrounds, upbringings, values, we’re individuals and the colour of your skin (be it as a product of your environment, the result of prejudice, general attitudes) does and SHOULD matter. People are who they are. People think the answer to racism is to just lump us all together as a collective whole, or “ignore” the issue and pretend that it doesn’t exist… the white (or black) elephant in the proverbial room, so to speak.

    When I hear cries that a white character SHOULD be played by a black actor, to me that is positive racism. James Bond is not black, the character is not a black man and has never ever been portrayed as a black man, yet people champion black actors for the role, almost as if to appear extra liberal and accepting. I don’t buy it.

    Imagine if Hollywood planned a new movie of To Kill A Mockingbird, and cast Brad Pitt as Tom Robinson? Bad jokes about Pitt’s acting skills aside, what do you think the reaction would be? Or if Ben Stiller were to announce he was planning to remake Shaft with himself in the lead role? There would be an outcry, yet when the shoe is on the other foot it is perfectly acceptable for a white, middle-class commentator to suggest iconic white characters be portrayed by black actors.

    I am in no way a racist, but I am not so self-righteous as to suggest that it “just doesn’t matter”; it matters so that people of all descents can celebrate and embrace their own rich personal histories and backgrounds without us all getting simply “lumped together”. Prejudice and racial hatred is disgusting; ignorance and righteousness ensures that, when you read the subtext, these liberal wannabes bleated about equality are ensuring anything but.

    To be reminded how ‘we should all treat each other the same, despite the aesthetic differences’ (and by TV critics and media commentators, for Christ’s sake) just fuels the fire that the aesthetic differences exist to begin with.

  71. Oh, and David Jason was treated disgustingly by the media recently. His joke was only offensive on the humour front; it was not racist simply because it had a racial theme. There was no malice, no hatred, just a (probably misjudged) friendly piss-take.

    There is a thin line, it seems, between humour and hatred. It is so easy to be misconstrued for making the most innocent of remarks. Before long, we won’t be able to make jokes about anyone or anything. In the words of Stewart Lee, it really IS “political correctness gone mad”.

  72. When I hear cries that a white character SHOULD be played by a black actor, to me that is positive racism. James Bond is not black, the character is not a black man and has never ever been portrayed as a black man, yet people champion black actors for the role, almost as if to appear extra liberal and accepting. I don?t buy it.

    Imagine if Hollywood planned a new movie of To Kill A Mockingbird, and cast Brad Pitt as Tom Robinson? Bad jokes about Pitt?s acting skills aside, what do you think the reaction would be? Or if Ben Stiller were to announce he was planning to remake Shaft with himself in the lead role? There would be an outcry, yet when the shoe is on the other foot it is perfectly acceptable for a white, middle-class commentator to suggest iconic white characters be portrayed by black actors.

    Oh, come on. You know full well that the examples you cite aren’t in ANY way comparable. The plot of James Bond does not revolve around the man’s skin colour. The plot of To Kill A Mockingbird DOES. It is ABOUT racism. If Tom Robinson isn’t black, THERE IS NO STORY. The same is simply not true of James Bond.

    And you do realise that Stewart Lee was taking the PISS out of people who use the phrase “political correctness gone mad”, right?

    Anyway, look – this debate has gone on long enough. It’s not got anything to do with what the post was about, and I don’t think it’s appropriate for the site. Can we drop it now? Richey was already happy to do so, there’s no need to drag it up again.

  73. This is really starting to bore me now.

  74. >The plot of James Bond does not revolve around the man?s skin colour

    Sorry Seb, but go and read Live and Let Die if you think James Bond can, conceivably be a black man AND respect Ian Fleming’s vision of the character.

  75. Sorry Pete, but go and watch ANY BOND FILM EVER if you think the films are concerned about “respecting Ian Fleming’s vision of the character”.

  76. (also, y’know – not really my point. You honestly can’t say that the entire James Bond canon is about him being of a particular ethnicity, and being surrounded by people of a different ethnicity)

  77. But OH GOD I DID NOT WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN can we just stop it?

  78. >Sorry Pete, but go and watch ANY BOND FILM EVER if you think the films are concerned about ?respecting Ian Fleming?s vision of the character?.

    I had a feeling you would say that. ANY BOND FILM EVER is a bit of an exaggeration, though.

    But let’s not fight on today of all days.

  79. > Oh, come on. You know full well that the examples you cite aren?t in ANY way comparable. The plot of James Bond does not revolve around the man?s skin colour. The plot of To Kill A Mockingbird DOES. It is ABOUT racism. If Tom Robinson isn?t black, THERE IS NO STORY. The same is simply not true of James Bond.

    No, I realised that TKAM/Tom Robinson was too specific which is why I threw in Shaft. Tom couldn’t be played by a white guy, of course, and it was only when trying to think of truly iconic black characters who shouldn’t really be portrayed by a white guy that I realised just how many truly iconic black characters have stories and situations that fully vitally DEPEND on them being black, which is kind of indicative in its own way of attitudes. Just how many truly iconic white characters absolutely DEPEND on them being white?

    > And you do realise that Stewart Lee was taking the PISS out of people who use the phrase ?political correctness gone mad?, right?

    Of course I do.

  80. Nice to know I’m useful.

Jump to top / Jump to 'Recent Comments'

Leave a Reply