Douglas Adams and the exterminated Doctor Who adventure
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
The writers justify the change by saying (correctly) that the message is important and that right now is the most important time to say the message. The message became more important than the vehicle that it travelled in so poor story writing is acceptable.
It's like Christian rock music, it's okay and if you are Christian you might enjoy it both for the message and the music but if you just want good music you are likely not going to enjoy it as much as regular "secular" rock.
But there's also rock music that everyone can enjoys which contains (not sure the word to describe it) non obvious but religious-adjacent themes.
People complain about it when it seems to be used as an excuse for a lack other aspects of the show, or it makes everything seem unrealistic because they were more keen on putting it in than actually caring about whether it was realistic or at least made things feel realistic to the viewer.
The OG Jurassic Park had lots of politics and lots of CGI. No-one complained about it, because it was well done. If they had a jerkily animated raptor judo flipping a t-rex for no other reason than the director thought it would be cool to include then people would be saying the CGI was awful.
Is this a joke?
To me both CGI and politics have the same issue which is aging poorly. Nobody thinks The Phantom Menace looks better than A New Hope.
Even ignoring that history loves to repeat itself, plenty of politics in all forms of media has aged excellently, and plenty of politics that haven't aged well are still insightful into the period of the piece.
The stance of "everything is political" itself is extremely tone deaf.
That's why old political writing is good - because the politics has been settled by now, most people won't argue 1984 was unfairly criticizing totalitarianism or Starship Troopers are too hard on fascism.
But new political writing is outrageous for half the people, because they disagree with it.
"Everything is political" is the classic motte-and-bailey fallacy beloved by the most obnoxious politics pushers. The fact that it's impossible to remove all traces of politics from fiction does not excuse subjugating art to ideology. When people complain about "political" works they're complaining about works where the author appears to care more about how you vote than the story.
The dictionary definition of “politics” (as in, what the word actually means) would support the statement that “everything is political” to be at worst a smidge hyperbolic. No motte, no bailey, no rhetorical fallacy.
Thing is, most art has ideology, it’s the weirdo reactionaries that try to pretend otherwise.
Also compare lotr gollum (cgi but with a good actor and good script, with the actor in a motion suit on stage for actors to interact with) to Jar Jar (a tennis ball who actors couldn't interact with). Gollum is arguavly more cgi (both removing the actor and replacing them) but better.
its usually not good though. If it was good they would not market it as Christian. Lots of bands have Christian lyrics without Christian marketing - U2 for example. I suppose that is the equivalent of the SF story with the disguised message.
You will find that SciFi has been mostly social commentary for quite a long time; what tends to throw us is familiarity!
"Uhura" comes from the Swahili word uhuru, meaning "freedom"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyota_Uhura
On Star Trek, Nichols was one of the first Black women featured in a major television series. Her prominent supporting role as a bridge officer was unprecedented.
She was once tempted to leave the series; however, a conversation with Martin Luther King Jr. changed her mind.
And while I'm speaking specifically of Trek, this happens a lot with modern sci-fi. There is so much bad, preachy writing out there. And while that may have always existed to some extent, it wasn't the norm. Now it is the norm and it sucks.
Was it the one where Kirk used "half-breed" as an insult so horrible and hurtful that it would reveal an android as an imposter (in a period where segregation was still legal in the US)?
Was it the one about a long-standing war between two peoples based entirely on the color of their skin?
How about the one with the Nazi planet?
Surely you're not referring to the one with the first interracial kiss - something so political that the network debated censoring it and caused Shatner to intentionally ruin takes of an alternative version?
Are you talking about the one which involved Kirk explicitly promoting contraception and calls out the hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed "pro-life" alien race?
No, perhaps you're thinking of the one involving the torture of the leader of a revolutionary group.
Or the one where they recover cryogenically frozen people from the 20th century and Picard shits on a venture capitalist.
Or the one where an alien race is outcast because they don't conform to gender norms and this is a bad thing.
Or the one where an admiral starts a witch-hunt on board the Enterprise trying to weed out a conspiracy and Picard goes into an anti-fascist rant.
Or the episode of DS9 that takes place during the 1950s where Sisko experiences racial segregation, and Star Trek is a sci-fi story he can't sell about a future he wants to live in.
Or the one that establishes the Bell Riots, a widespread anti-capitalist revolt that takes place among the homeless and immigrant populations.
And the crew kissed aliens aplenty; an interspecies kiss was surely much worse than an interracial kiss to those who were uptight about such things.
It wasn't. Neither NBC nor the producers expressed any concerns over interspecies kisses.
Being entertaining comes before social commentary, period. Modern entertainment is scorned by the public precisely because they do the opposite.
As I said somewhere else in this boondoggle of willful media illiteracy: the people who complain about "there's too much politics in my entertainment", to a person, actually mean "I don't like the point of view that's being expressed by this media". Entertaining isn't objective. People used to pack picnic lunches to go watch a lynching. The thought of that makes me want to puke, but I can't say those people weren't entertained. The thing is, I don't need to appeal to a vague majority without citation to support my thoughts. I can stand on my own statements without throwing in logic fallacies (or junk statistics, I really don't know what you were trying to do there) and accept that, to paraphrase PK Dick , reality cannot be perceived uniformly by all individuals and to pretend as such is folly.
Because apolitical they were not. Like, emphatically. Sometimes they were subtle, other times they were pretty heavy-handed.
Sci-fi has never, ever, been apolitical.
Frankenstein: Political AF. Asimov: So fucking political. Dick: It's nothing BUT politics. Anything in the cyberpunk genre: Why do you still need me to spell this out?
As for current stuff? The Martian has some politics w/ NASA and the cooperation with China, but it's certainly not what the book is about.
And I think you're not engaging with the actual complaint: poor, overly preachy writing is a terrible way to communicate a political point, much less persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
So you're not actually complaining about politics in sci-fi. You're complaining about bad writing in sci-fi.
Also, the idea that "there's politics in the source, but you can enjoy it without engaging with them" is sort of proving my Rage Against the Machine example from my original post (I picked the most overtly political band I could think of for the ad absurdum of it): Just because you don't CARE or agree with the politics, doesn't mean it's not there. I'm not saying you need to like, or engage with the politics in anything, but denying that they exist is...a political act!
As for your refutations of the people I picked, I didn't see you citing an example of a story Asimov had without politics/social commentary (the man was prolific and I haven't ready everything he wrote, I picked him because his best known works are Foundation and Robots series which are both very very political), if you felt The Man in the High Castle and Do Androids... (or Flow my Tears, or A Scanner Darkly) were just "being weird" and not political, again, I think we're just using different definitions of the word.
In H2G2, Adams says that Vogons, the galactic bureaucrats and face of the space government, make the 3rd worst poetry in the Universe. Now if one wanted to, one can make that a silly joke, or one could interpret that as people who are dedicated to maintaining the systems of government are the among least creative creatures in existence . And the weird thing is, somehow, even if one came to the 2nd conclusion, one could still think Adams wasn't making a political statement. Now why am I suddenly thinking about Claude...
Particularly in an office or other "respectable" setting, you've got people who are white, and people who are political.
You've got people who are straight, and people who are political.
You've got executives who are men, and executives who are political.
And so on.
What and whom one chooses to include in stories, and what ones chooses to leave out—and, perhaps even more importantly, what one includes and leaves out without even thinking about it, are, by their very nature, political.
I'm also reminded of the Dungeons and Dragons group I heard about, whose DM made one very simple change to the published adventure path. The players were going through the towns, and finding them filled with women. The other adventurers were women. The blacksmiths were women. Even the prominent goblins in the dungeon were female! The taverns had a couple of men in them, but apart from that, there were seemingly nearly no men in the entire world. The players were convinced there was something deeply sinister going on.
But all that had happened was that the DM reversed the gender of every NPC written into the adventure. An adventure full of men, that no one would have batted an eye at, suddenly caused shock and suspicion when it had exactly the same percentage of women instead.
So: was the original adventure author "political" for the gender ratio they put into it?
And I'm not using "political" any more broadly than conservatives or self-proclaimed centrists do when they say they don't want anything "political" in their games, TV shows, movies, etc.
Because when they say that, 99.9% of the time, what they mean is they want their media to confirm their pre-existing biases, that straight white men are the most important, that straight women are there for their sexual gratification, and other people mostly shouldn't even show up, etc. We've seen this over and over and over again.
And the other part of what they usually say is that they want no politics in their media, just like in the old days.
But, again: it's always been there. They just didn't see it in the old days. They played Wolfenstein and shot Nazis, and didn't see that as "political", but nowadays if you put Nazis as a villain in a video game, half of those same people will scream that they're being preached to.
So if you read all those books you named, and didn't see any politics in them...
...maybe it's because they were simply confirming your pre-existing biases.
Or maybe it's because you didn't have the reading comprehension skills to understand where the politics in them were.
Because science fiction has always been political.
Again, I get it: you don't want to engage in the politics of the writing you like. That's fine. But you don't get to say the politics don't exist in the text.
I promise, the authors you speak of would not respect your analysis of their text (and you're probably fine with that) but your narrower point is...not worth making? Anyone can like or dislike whatever they want for whatever reasons they want, what they can't do is say "that red barn can't actually red because I hate red barns but I like that one, and my analysis is valid". I mean I guess a P.K Dick character could, but I don't think we're ready to have that discussion.
Sci-fi and Speculative fiction, are, always political. Just like how romance is always about love, and mysteries are always about solving a puzzle. You were responding to my point, so I get to set the terms of engagement. Thems the rules of discourse.
I'll just come out and say it, your ability to analyze texts really comes into question when you say CYBERPUNK (of ALL the subgenres) can be anything but political. Again, if you really only want "political" to mean "involving governments" and not the LITERAL definition of the word, I don't know how we can talk to each other because we're speaking different languages (or rather, using language in entirely different ways).
Can you give an example of the old, subtle (that's the word you were looking for, it's a subtle reference/theme) sci-fi show that was a "story with a disguised message" instead of the current "message with a disguised story"? I'm just trying to level set here.
The way the message is being told has changed because the message is incredibly important.
As someone else pointed out: you’re complaining that some media is poorly written and other media is well written.
There are past and current examples of overtly opinionated shows that people love and message-less media that nobody cared about.
Star Trek exists because Gene Roddenberry's military drama was cut for making political statements[0], so he moved the political statements to be in space in the future.
[0] https://collider.com/gene-roddenberry-the-lieutenant-series/
It's just that the way it was political back then agrees with your biases so you don't see it as being political :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shada_(Doctor_Who)
The tie in between Shada and Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective agency is worth noting.
I feel like the animated version filled in gaps I hadn't even realized were there in the old one that just had the voice overs.
If you like classic who, Adams, or both, and haven't seen it buy the blu-ray!
https://whospecialfeatures.fandom.com/wiki/Shada_(2017_Anima...
If you've seen the old VHS version of Shada where Tom Baker narrates the missing pieces, you'll probably enjoy the animated version replacements more.
https://www.primevideo.com/region/na/detail/0RNSB5JYFHDMUJ0U...
Shada | FULL EPISODE with BONUS Animation | Doctor Who: Classic - https://youtu.be/Qt7JdpWXmtE
The channel is https://www.youtube.com/@ClassicDoctorWho
I've been enjoying going through the Tom Baker series... you never forget your first Doctor.
The fan-animated remake is better than the commercially released animated remake, and the guy who did it also redid part of it with early gen AI and that's pretty great, too.
The best part of Shada is how awesome Victoria Burgoyne looked in it. Her career went nowhere, but at least she's here.
Star Trek is in far worse shape these days. According to Riker, this is the first time in decades where there is no TV or movie even in the planning phase.
The ancillary stuff is a lot better however. I hear good things about Star Wars Visions but I haven't seen it.
Star Wars Jedi Survivor was also highly enjoyable.
The big films have been sad except for Rogue One.
But there is some Star Wars stuff that is out there and is really good.
"After years of an unclear future, it seemed as though “Star Trek” finally found a path back to the big screen as “Spider-Man: Homecoming” writers and “Game Night” and “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” filmmakers Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley boarded the film."
https://www.darkhorizons.com/next-star-trek-film-tackles-cor...
But once you have nothing to draw on but nostalgia I think it's time to move on. I liked the Doctor better when they were just an outlaw Time Lord in a stolen car doing good and getting into adventures, and not the eldritch abomination they've become, whose mere name causes the galaxy to shiver in terror. I liked Star Trek better when the humans weren't the most powerful force in the galaxy, one-shotting Borg cubes, but they were an upstart species getting a foothold in a universe bigger, stranger and far more dangerous than they imagine. In both cases, nostalgia leads to a sort of narrative power creep.
Star Wars has the same problem. Everything has to be about the Palpatines versus the Skywalkers. It would have been such a better story if it turned out Rey really was a nobody, if the entire plot had the courage to examine its own mythology from the outside and establish that the universe really is bigger than these two players, but we don't dare subvert tropes when the viewer has the media literacy of a mollusk and can't accept a protagonist who isn't Space Goku.
There's no wonder left to any of it. No mystery, no awe. No sense that the universe is bigger than you can imagine. God forbid something take a risk with the fucking franchise. Maybe we should just let it all die.
This isn't anything to do with "media literacy" - that as a criticism is quite vague, I think. The actual reason is because the two directors were fighting to undo each others' work, and spend hundreds of millions to do so.
But yes, the moon suddenly reappearing in between shots, perfectly fine and identical to before, was very silly
Capaldi was a great actor and it was nice that he got some good scripts (I really liked the one where he was in Doctor Prison, great concept), but his run felt to me like a show running out of ideas.
I didn't watch the Whittaker doctor. Heard it was awful and wasn't surprised. I eventually saw the pilot and it was indeed, awful.
Also implying that the wheels weren't kinda getting loose when 10ant said his final farewell at that (otherwise fairly underrated IMO) episode where the Master was hungry.
Much like the show in the latter years of its first run it collapsed under the weight of its own canon, and writers/showrunners that enthusiastically embraced that canon and alienated the casual audience.
IMO they should never have brought back the Time Lords. That was the genius stroke of the 2005 reboot. Just make the Doctor an intergalactic oddball, let the adventures run from there. What's weird is that Russell Davies was the one who understood this... then when he came back to the show he shoveled nostalgia on top of nostalgia and sank the thing.
I never even watched the Chibnall era so I'm not fully informed but from reading about the Timeless Child arc it just sounds like a show disappearing up its own arse. It's supposed to be a family show, younger kids don't care about that kind of stuff. Just make it fun.
I liked the regular season that followed too. It had good and bad episodes, just like the last time RTD was showrunner, but the good ones were very good.
(I haven't watched the most recent season yet, but that's less because I'm unexcited and more because I want to save it.)
What killed it for good was what came (back) after. Bad decision. Bad precedent set. Bringing the RTD and Tennant gang back was the single most important and devastating mistake ever made on this show.
In all seriousness we clearly have very different taste! I just found the Chibnall episodes boring. I wanted to like them!
I think GGP shares my taste though, based on their comment.
Mr Eccleston was right.
There was also a partial BBC attempt in late 80s/90s that was released on VHS with Tom Baker narrating the missing scenes.