Suicide(s), priest gang rape gag, GTA reference - really suitable for family viewing?
I loved Extremis but I'm not sure I'd say it fully qualifies as a show for all the family.
Anyone else got thoughts on this?
No. I don't think anyone other than an adult would have perceived those things from watching the show.
Welcome to MovieChat Martoto!
I'm waiting for the next Points of View show to see if anyone thought it odd.
Glad to hear you didn't :)
Thanks
Historically, Points Of View have never upheld or broadcast complaints of what people might perceive. Unless a real person or a section of society is in danger of being defamed or misrepresented in some way.
Even Mary Whitehouse was smart enough never to rail against innuendo because the viewer is doing the work of taking offense and therefore cannot blame the show.
It could be said that scientists are likely to commit suicide if presented with facts that they live within a simulation - a concept which already exists and which hasn't shown many, if any, scientists to take their own lives.
shareSimulations don't commit, cannot commit suicide. Nardole and Bill were alive after they "died".
Crucially , the audience did not "view" any suicides.
When suicide is alluded to, it is to condemn it outright.
The iniquities of murder, conquest and extermination are fixtures of Dr Who which have divided audiences since its conception.
I agree it's a topical show which sparks conversation around some topics which are, or were, considered controversial during its run but existentialism and determination could mess with a particular mindset's understanding of the universe in the eyes of some.
In this easily offended world we now have to share with the perpetually peeved I expected a person or two to show up stamping their feet at this episode.
I loved it personally but I thought there'd be some who didn't for the reasons I've pointed out.
Yes there are people, fans or otherwise, who would complain about the propriety of its content or style as a matter of course.
shareI don't know how much experience you've had on the Doctor Who boards when they were on IMDb Martoto but even simple things like Bill's name, or being black and/or a lesbian had people saying that the show was now dead to them.
I was hoping that something a bit headier would at least have them show up with an opinion about something which is worth talking about (Even if I disagreed with them).
Why would you hope that the nutters who plagued IMDb would come and say things you don't agree with?
Why does prejudice and paranoia deserve undue prominence on the agenda, even if one is prepared to denounce it?
I need to have my ideas and mindset challenged in order to either correct my thinking or work towards having others question theirs.
It's always nice to agree with someone but disagreement is an important part of many conversations.
Baiting people's prejudices is not an authentic conversation or method of challenging your own mindset.
Prove that assertion.
shareGood grief.
So you like arguing with people with ostensibly the same mindset then.
Why would the attitudes someone who you acknowledge is easily offended, or keen to adopt the position of offended, be worthwhile in validating or enhancing your own mindset?
Once you start being anxious about the impressions of people whose attitudes you don't agree with and are prepared to change your mindset purely to assuage their personal issues, then you are starting down the path of homogenised mediocrity.
From what you said earlier, and in spite of the thread title and OP, your mindset appears to be to take everything in proportion and not allow knee-jerkism to prompt you to isolate supposedly controversial content. Which is not really controversial, just not traditionally mainstream.
So why would you believe there is value in people who actively seek to blow things out of proportion challenging your "mindset"?
True.
I'm a sceptic though and am always open to being wrong in my assertions.
It's done me fine so far in life.
Me too.
Not inviting prejudice to affect my perceptions is one of the important aspects of that process though.
I'm quite the opposite in that regards.
Having as many positions as possible present to my mind and sifting through them with the best of my epistemology ability grants me the ability to not only verify or amend my outlook(s) on certain subjects but offers me the insight to empathise with those who are steadfast in their assertions and are unable to do so by their own volition.
The entire process is worthwhile (And fun too sometimes!)