The Impacts of Conglomerates within the Media Industries:

Image result for conglomeratesThe media industry is a large one, filled with many people and organisations running the business and project output. A large bulk of our media is released by conglomerate companies. Basically conglomerates are when groups of other smaller companies are bought, managed, and do business with one, or more, larger companies. An Avengers team of businesses if you will.

Image result for fourth estateSome examples include 20th Century Fox as they run Fox News; along with National Geographic and Sky. Or other examples being Sony. In the sense that they have a film division, (Sony Pictures) with an animation studio (Sony Animation) and parts of the company that work on their Play Station consoles.  As a result, many other well-known companies have been known to be bought by conglomerates. Such as Lucas Films and Marvel Studios being brought by Disney; with many of their properties being now owned by Disney, i.e. the Star Wars franchise, and the numerous characters from Marvel comics. Which has benefited both companies greatly, after those properties were bought, tons of money was then poured into projects such The Avengers and Star Wars the Force Awakens; which had tremendous returns from the box office as a result; with both of them reaching the billion dollar mark. So of course, the point of becoming part of a conglomerate is the profit returns; while being given plenty of exposure through adverting, and even merchandise. Case and point being Sony and the Play Station 4 console. As Sony markets a game that’ll be published on their console, alongside the studio that the game developer is working alongside with. Some developers like Naughty Dog Studios have been known to be backed by Sony for the development of games such as The Last of Us.Image result for sale As for merchandise, this would include DVDs, T-shirts and anything sold under the brand name; such the Harry Potter World attraction, which is owned by Warner Brothers. So the exposure, resources and money given to support does benefit the creators involved, guaranteeing larger returns in profit, usually. But does this make things better for the audiences?

media-owned-six-corporationsThat’s debatable for a few reasons. For one thing, they are limited in terms of choices they have in terms of entertainment. To the point that over 90% of the US media is controlled by six different conglomerates; after being controlled by 50 companies in the 80s. General Electric, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. All of them produce forms of media such as movies, TV shows etc; as well as license other companies to produce merchandise of said brand. This being done through the smaller companies that they own/ partnered with. The reason why big budget block busters like Batman, Harry Potter and Marvel’s Cinematic Universe get the most advertisement on film news sites and cinema screens, is because the studios pump loads of money into the production, while pumping more money into the advertisement in order to get more people in cinema seats; increasing the box office result. While the idea of producing a million dollar earning blockbuster and spitting the enormous profit with the third parties assisting, it creates problems for the rest of the industry. Image result for media business menWhy? Because it’s leading small budget productions and their creators having to find lesser known companies to distribute or create a project, because if they can’t get work with the big leagues, then they’re on their own; just ask some no name band starting in their mum’s basement, to maybe getting heard by some big name music executive. That is until they get turned down because to conglomerates, niche audiences are aren’t worth the smaller returns.

In an age where anyone could afford an advanced guitar app or Adobe After Effects, it’s still hard to get hard noticed when you’re a nobody drowned out by the adverts of the brands people know and trust. Thankfully platforms like Netflix and even You Tube have produced many breakout hits on their streaming services. Image result for crowd fundingAnd many film directors, performers and video game developers have used crowd funding sites such as Kick Starter to catapult those creators to success using donations from the public. With games like Mighty No 9 using Kick Starter to fund the game, earning 3 million dollars from online donors; before becoming an example of why crowd funding is looked down by some. But that’s a whole other can of worms for another time. An example of a project crowd funding to then gain success, would be Kung Fury. A parody of 80s action films that started as a crowd funded project meant for You Tube; until gain such a positive response it’s now being hosted on Netflix. Either way, in a world where someone like Justin Bieber can go from a teenager recorded on a crappy camcorder, to a teenager selling out stadium size concerts; many of those creators can get to eventually play with the big leagues after getting more notice and praise through word of mouth. Marc Webb went from directing indie romantic comedies such as 500 Days of Summer, to then direct The Amazing Spider-Man and its sequel with Sony Pictures.

Image result for media news

From the fictional side of the media, to what is meant to be the factual real world events side. When it comes to the news, the main stream news shows and channels end up getting the wider attention; and given the conglomerates they’re partnered with, more resources. With majority of news coming from channels and sites like ABC, NBC, BBC etc. And News Corp owns some of the top newspapers in the UK, North America and Australia. The Sun, The Times and the Wall Street Times being examples. While many outlets have criticized for producing biased news reports, due to reflecting the believes of the higher-ups in the attempt of gaining the attention of those who share similar world views. Sky and Fox news have been accused of having a pro conservative agenda, like the company’s owner Rupert Murdoch. And in the past two years, other left-wing outlets have recently been accused of being biased against the Trump campaign. The reason for any agenda is that it comes back to money, as Anup Shah explains:

“Often, many media institutions survive on advertising fees, which can lead to the media outlet being influenced by various corporate interests. Other times, the ownership interests may affect what is and is not covered. Stories can end up being biased or omitted so as not to offend advertisers or owners.” Shah. A, Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, 2009.

Image result for left wing right wingWith limited options often promoting left-wing articles to appeal to younger audiences repeating back what the government wants the world to know; this has opened the door to the fifth estate. Which is defined as news and opinions outside the main stream news sources. This lead to multiple sites like AMC news, Breitbate.com, Wiki Leaks and many others gaining traction in online hits from updates on the latest Hollywood block buster or news on the politics and world events for example. Not only did this produce more voices in the discussion, but more viewpoints. In a media landscape filled with a majority of left-wing new sources, right-wing publications such as Info Wars have gained millions of views during the 2016 present election alone. Hence why said publications are blamed and shamed for the election of president Donald Trump.

So do conglomerates mean a good thing or a bad thing for the viewers of the world media? At this point it’s hard to tell. On the one hand it gives exposure and resources to multiple talents with in the industry, while also being a struggle to the smaller names and new comers in all form of the media industry. Not to mention how getting your name out involves: either the struggle with the tough, but limited choices. Or find the smaller but unknown people to help get your feet of the ground.  In other words, for consumers who receive products, as well as the ones hoping to contribute in the industry, it’s a double edge sword.

Thank you for your time.

The New Laci Green

I’ve made it clear that I follow the SJW vs anti SJW conflict happening online, and have been vocally against feminism and the politically correct dogma involved. As feminism’s credibility went down the drain as it crumbles under the arrogance. Mainly due to the refusal to accept any decent or criticism when it comes to subjects like: rape culture, the gender wage gap, the influence of the patriarchy and the legitimacy of the dictionary definition of feminism. As the stereotype of a feminist being an ugly, fat bitch with an axe to grind at men slowly becomes the standard image of the movement.

I bring this up as Laci Green is making waves within the anti-SJW community for saying something smart. In her recent video ‘Taking The Red Pill’  (referring to The Matrix, the phrase meaning that finally see the world as flawed or not as perfect as you thought) expressing how many within the social justice movement need to exchange dialogue with detractors; as she has expressed the desire to speak with those does and doesn’t agree with. And after speaking with people like Blaire White and Jeff Holiday, she’s realised that many of the people she has spent years labelling as bigots and misogynist may actually have valid arguments; the unwillingness of feminism to listen to critics by ordering their shut down as a response being one of them.

Seriously, last week if you were to type her name into YouTube, you would find video after video by people like Sargon, Tl;DR and Undooomed calling her an idiot. But now the search results are about her recent video.

I’ll admit I’ve taken jabs at Laci in the past, but I must say I’m actually proud of her, and not just because people like me get to have our ” I bloody told you so” moment. While she hasn’t out right disregarded her beliefs about feminism as a whole while wearing a MAGA hat; but to have someone build bridges after years of name calling is at least worth a thumbs up on her video. And this is coming from a jaded former subscriber of her’s. Granted a debate between and SJW and someone they’ve labelled a bigot….ugh, I mean criticised is not a new thing; Sargon has done that multiple times. But given how it was Laci that threw her gauntlet to Chat with Blaire, and has offered the chance to interact with more people with open arms; that is so good to hear.

You see while this community on YouTube is united against feminism and social justice, it’s very diverse interns of what the people actually believe. You have conservatives like Computing Forever, liberals like The Amazing Atheist, Trump supporters like Naked Ape while Thunderfoot is openly against him and the alt-right. Content creators diverse in world views, but are more than willing to speak and are not afraid of saying: “I think your wrong” and reflect upon the public actions of an individual; type Atheism is Unstoppable onto YouTube to see what i mean. Either way many are cheering for Laci’s some what of a departure from the community that openly practices the opposite.

Naturally this video was going to have responses from both sides. Despite skepticism coming from years of her throwing the race and sex card, it has gained an overwhelming positive response from the anti-sjws; with many like Sargon of Akkad wanting to take Laci’s offer to debate her. And then you have soon to be former allies loosing their shit in the most ridiculously self-awareness lacking display of rage since the EDL response to Lee Rigby’s death. “What’s that? We should open conversations with those who mock our words on a hourly basis? “No! We need to block them out entirely. #Triggered! Traitor!”

Seriously, that’s been her Twitter for the past couple of days or so. While there are numerous channels and Tweets going into melt down; I would like to comment upon the most cited example of this. That being the reactions of Steve Shives. For this who don’t know, Steve is a You Tuber that became well-known back when the skeptic community was the atheist community nearly a decade ago. And everyone loved him, I even subscribed to him at one point. So what happened? Well he went down the same path Laci did back in the early twenty tens. Both were popular You Tubers loved for their smart and entertaining videos. However both downed the feminism kool aid and preaching the gospel of Social Justice; and much like a religious leader, anyone with objections would be thrown out due to being unworthy in the eyes of the course.Image result for laci green meme

Laci produced nonsense about gender spectrums, the oppression of women in the first world and actively spoke for the removal of due process for rape accusations. While Steve bought every feminist taking point that was already rendered bull crap with a kick google search such as rape culture and the wage gap. With his response constantly being to block those with a pin that are standing next to his bubble. I’m serious, go to his Twitter right now and see if you’re blocked….I know right! His openly done so many times to the point that not only is he a meme; and there is even a hashtag. #blockedbysteve.Image result for steve shives memes

Steve, since Laci’s video has been ranting and roaring like a true british salior, as he has been proving Laci right; in the sense that people who share simular world views are more likely to call for the banning of someone, because speaking to them is far too difficult. If your interested Bearing shows the entire Twitter conversation if your intersted, as Steve claims that blocking people and silencing ideas isn’t censorship, but rather a stren showing how someone and their ideas is not exceptable within the wide You Tube comminity that I agree with.

So yes, i am happy over the Laci’s decision to publish the red pill video, and I do hope she keeps to her promise of further talking with anti-SJWs and anti feminist. Not just to finally show her how flawed her statements were, not just to trigger people like Steve by having her buddy up with the people they rant about on a minutely basis. But because discussions have kept this part of You Tube active, how else did you think the term triggered become a meme? Hell the fact that many of the most popular people started making videos during the earliest years of You Tube prove it.

Especially when many have been predicting 2017 to be the year of the death of social justice. Honestly in a time where most the world still believes the Russia gate scandal with Trump despite the found evidence being amounted in the minus digits; and half of my Facebook friends list is planning to vote for a communist Jedi as prime minister on the promise of free shit; that day won’t come in my life time. That said I do agree with some who have claimed Laci’s turn was due to social justice as a financial path on You Tube, is laughable when not on mainstream television. The logic going that, if she can get a big named skeptic You Tuber on a live stream, that user’s subscribers would come to watch her, purely to see what she says next. I don’t personally buy that, however I do see the logic. As sites like Everyday Feminism are shutting down, and social justice propaganda sites such as Buzzfeed, MTV and Jezebel are funded by big companies, who clearly don’t give a fourth of a damn of whether it’s well received. Mind you, You Tube is a site where the most views means you’re the most popular in the sense that a lot of people know your name. How else did you think The Annoying Orange got his own god damn TV show?!

In closing: Laci, as a former subscriber who abandoned you due to your absurd comments, and your refusal to listen back to us; as you blindly believe your own nonsense. I’m glad your finally starting to turn a new leaf, and any direction change from where you were last year, yeah this will do.

Thank you for your time.

Rebooting Hollywood Or The Effects of Hollywood’s Obsession with Remakes:

Image result for hollywood out of ideasAnyone that has been keeping track with mainstream movie news, will know that there is a new version of an already existing franchise or film being released every other month. I even surveyed multiple people, and 84% were aware of this.

Screenshot (11).png
See it here

This brings up discussions of whether Hollywood are out of ideas, and are relying on the safe path of familiarity to fill the producer’s wallets. At the same time, it brings up interest in the relaunch of said popular brand, whether it’d be from the already existing fan base, or the newcomers who have only just heard about the brand. Regardless the modern movie industry has fallen into the habit of relaunching an already popular film or brand; with numerous remakes of popular films already in the works. In March this year, cinema goers had the choice of Kong: Skull Island (the third King Kong reboot) a remake of Beauty and the Beast by Disney, or the live action version of Ghost in the Shell. So what’s the harm? Well before we ask that, we need to know the other important question, what’s the reason for this?

Image result for movie franchisesWell firstly there’s the obvious reason of money. And said money being made through different means, mainly franchises. With a lot of projects being made to set up multiple sequels to be produced, after said film is released and hopefully makes a splash at the box office. Due to the success of Marvel Cinematic Universe by Disney – with the Avengers sealing that franchise’s success back in 2012 – many studios from Warner Brothers, Fox Studios and Sony Pictures have been trying to launch their own attempts of cinematic universe like franchises with multiple sequels and giving multiple characters’ spin offs and cross overs; with properties such Spider-man, X-Men, DC Comics and Ghostbusters being planned and already put in action, all of which are released with further projects in the pipe line. Hence why many of the remakes/ reboots released are of well-known properties that are loved by their fans, and have already been financially successful in the past. Because as the old saying goes: if works once, it’ll work again and again. Image result for spidermanSpider-Man is a good example of this, as Peter Parker is on this second reboot at Marvel Studios. Since 2002 Sony Pictures had made millions on the Spider-Man trilogy with Toby Maguire as the star, with his final putting earning a worldwide gross of $890 million. However due to numerous disagreements with director Sam Rami, the studio and Maguire himself; the franchise had ended, with Sony starting the franchise again with a new crew and cast in The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012 which earned around $262 million. You can see why Disney was keen to make deals with Sony for the character rights, the sequel under performed; making Disney’s version (as seen in Captain America Civil War) the third big screen version of Spider-Man. With Sony planning to produce a spin off for Venom, a popular characters from the comics.

Hell this works for sequels as well, if there are two things Hollywood loves most, is money and familiarity. Hence why a lot of films that make bank at the box office earn sequels, whether they need/ require them or not. Why? Because the predecessor established an audience that gave the their money to see it in theatres, and buy the DVDs. So the logic goes: is that said audience will spend more money on a continuation of something they enjoyed once before. Anyone who knows about the workings of studios, will know that they’ll not put anything in production, unless they know it’ll get asses in seats. But with sequels, BOOM! Audience already established, so put this shit on our release schedule and give the team all our money!

Image result for merchandising spaceballsHowever, there is one other source of money from a big budget reboot of an established brand, merchandising. With the studios making deals with manufactures to make products to generate hype for said rebooted brand. If someone loves a film to the point that they have a shelf solely for the merchandise, then a new version will get said person to by the new products. Whether it’d be: t-shirts, special edition DVDs with hours of bonus features, dress up items, and action figures with almost perfect likenesses to the character they’re meant to portray. Companies such as Hasbro, Mattel, Neca, Lego and Side Show Collectibles have profited heavily on this. As Mark Litwak said on the matter of movie merchandising, it’s a second form of advertisement:

If McDonalds agrees to distribute millions of Roger Rabbit cups to its customers, and spend additional millions of dollars to advertise the promotion, the movie benefits from increased audience awareness. For distributors, promotional campaigns are often the most alluring aspect of a product placement deal”. Litwak M, 2013 ‘Movie Merchandising’.

And his not wrong about the allure of merchandising, especially when aiming to audiences of families, children included; with it also aiming towards adult collectors. With successful franchises such as Star Wars –with products by Kenner and Hasbro – making over $37 billion over the last 40 years before the release of The Force Awakens, the push for merchandising in shops and geek events such as Comic Con makes more sense. Especially when a CNBC article by Javier E. David says that the Comic Con event in San Diego brings in $700 million during the three days of the events.

So while yes, the established geek market is the key market to hit, as many of them will be aware of the relaunched franchise; there is still more demographics to reach. The first is young people, mainly because they would be having the most disposable income, and would be more keen to see a big popcorn blockbuster than a slower drama piece. Image result for remakesI say this as films such as Total Recall, Robocop and Poltergeist were well-respected films with hard R ratings (or 15 in the UK) only to be rebooted as PG-13 (12A in the UK) that meaning anyone around that age range could pay to see the film. The second audience to aim for, being everyone else. Because if a franchise is going to be re-established to the worldwide public, the more audiences viewing the better. It draws attention to something they might not have been aware of beforehand, and if they’re a fan of something in a similar genre; then they may like this. And I do mean the world wide public, going back to Robocop and Total Recall, by the US box office both of them under performed. As both of them struggled to make more than $60 million in the US. When it comes to the world wide audiences: Robocop (2014) made $139 million, while Total recall made $184 million. And these are only two examples in a recurring trend, as Robert Schovo says in his video ‘Too Many Hollywood Reboots? Here’s why’; countries like China only take a small amount of English speaking films to put them in wide release across the country, and as Robert says:

“They’re (cinema distributors) going to go with something that doesn’t get lost in translation. If you ever wondered why the Fast and the Furious movies are so huge – it’s because: men drive car fast, works in any language.” Schovo R, 2016. ‘Too Many Hollywood Reboots? Here’s why’!

Hence why so many examples like this are big expensive action films with explosion filled, exciting, money shots for the trailers; instead of some deep heart-felt rom-com. While (insert franchise here) maybe new to someone else, even if they’ve heard good things about the original from a guy who knows a guy, who knows a guy’s cousin whose seen it. Which also explains the remakes of multiple foreign films such as Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Ring.

Now, we need to ask the important question; what is the effect of Hollywood and the movie industry? Well for one thing the is that there are loads of remakes of well-known films still being produced, with sources stating that between 107 and 116 remakes are in various stages of production by various studios. Screenshot (12).pngWhich shocked the participants in my survey, as 80% were unaware of this. But also Hollywood has fallen into the habit of making films in order to kick starter a franchise using popular characters, in the attempts of building a cinematic universe with sequels, spin offs and crossovers in the vain of making the same money Marvel did with the Avengers. Regardless of the quality of the output, studios will pour money into blockbusters with massive special effects, using recognizable characters. Which will be seen all other the place in terms advertisement: i.e. movie screens, movie news and the internet etc.

But does it work for the studios? Yes, and no. Image result for box officeI mean it has worked for Marvel’s Cinematic Universe due positive word of mouth, and even Warner Brothers’ DC franchise has managed to turn a profit due to successful marketing campaigns. But for the rest of the market, I can be a hit or miss venture. Because all the money in the world being spent on trailers and action figures can’t prevent a film sinking due to one crucial element that can grantee a film success in the world of fandoms and the internet, positive word of mouth. Whether it’d be from the critics on sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, and the responses from audiences. The 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters is a good example, while the film rated well in terms of critical reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, when it came the audience scores, it was rated the lowest rated film within the franchise. I bring this up as the film failed at the box-office only making $128 million at the US box office on a budget of $145 million, with the film failing to break even. And what’s not helping is that smaller productions are given less attention due to being released days or so after a highly anticipated/ advertised film has hit theatres.

Screenshot (13).png
Source: Box Office Mojo

For example, a Will Smith drama from 2015 called: Concussion; only made a total amount of $48 million, in a world where movies are expected to make double their profits, that’s bad enough. But do you know what has released a week before: Star Wars the Force Awakens. That being said, the Indie/ Independent side of the film industry has gained large amounts of attention and influence. With events such as the Sun Dance film festival giving multiple indie productions more attention. Films like Drive and Troll Hunter being good examples of films starting at similar events and earning cult followings in the process. Even directors such as Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson being directors that started on their own and working their way to fame with their own ideas or ones that haven’t been tried yet. With the former having two of his films (Inglorious Bastards and J’Dango Unchained) being nominated for best pictures at the Oscars. This brings a balance between what is being released in cinemas; especially when films like Room and Whiplash end up topping the box office charts when given the attention.

Image result for indie movies

So is this good or bad? Honestly it’s both, as despite it being 50/50 on the quality of the output on the Hollywood reboot craze; it will get new people into franchises they probably wouldn’t have known/ cared about. And of course, actors, writers, producers, manufactures, etc. will have money to put food on the table. Even if we the audiences, will have to put up with the repetition.

Doctor Who: I Can Make a Woman out of You

As a fan of Doctor Who this is a topic I was never going to get away from.

So for those not in the know about Doctor Who; the show features the main character of The Doctor. A Time Lord with the ability to change his face when faced with death; a complete body regeneration if you will. Since this element was introduced to the show in 1966, The Doctor has now regenerated thirteen times, with thirteen actors. Also to keep in mind is that this rule also applies to one of the shows reappearing enemies is The Master; a Time Lord whose main goal is to concur the universe and to gain immortality….as Time Lords can die if their body is too badly damaged; and a Time Lord only has thirteen lives. To fans like me, I know both The Doctor and The Master have now both cheated at this rule; but that’s besides the point.

We are currently in the era of the newest Doctor played by Peter Capaldi from The Thick of It fame. However at the end of his first series, it was revealed that The Master has returned; who was now played by Michelle Gomez. Since then this has sparked debates whether Capaldi’s replacement would or should be a woman; with some fans saying yes, others saying no. So what do i think? I’m split upon the issue, as there are good points and bad points made by both sides. Honestly this blog will most likely be me saying: “The Doctor MAY never be a woman” rather than “The Doctor should never be a woman”.

The first thing I’d like to mention is how many cast members and people from the show have been asked their views. Such as current show runner Steven Moffat expressing how he would pick a woman if she was the right choice. While former companion Catherine Tate to even former Doctor Sylvester McCoy agreeing on that, this may not happen. Speaking on Catherine Tate on the issue she mentioned her thoughts; i couldn’t find the source, so I’m paraphrasing here. Anyway she said: “The core audience of Doctor Who is children, they’re the largest market to appeal to in terms of selling toys and other merchandise”. This isn’t bashing the show at all; a children show can be smart and entertaining for adults to watch; look at examples like Adventure Time, Avatar The Last Air bender and Batman the Animated Series. Either way ” half of that audience is young boys, who want to be The Doctor. So the BBC would need to appeal to that target audience in order to keep the show a float, as that has been keeping the show popular for fifty years now”.

While yes Doctor Who has plenty of female fans; the child fan base of both genders idolize the character in different ways. The boys who want to be The Doctor; while the young girls fall in love with a powerful role model such as him; in the same way a One Direction fan cries in joy over fancying Harry Styles. And yes, this process can work in reverse if you apply it to a show like Kim Possible. Either way for both genders it’s going to be a very awkward transition for them to take. The childhood crush for the girls becomes a woman; while the hero the boys imagine themselves as changing that drastically. What I’m saying is, for a market stand point it’s too risky of a move, and the chances of this change are slim….at least while we still have Capaldi around; unless the BBC are certain that their audience will be fine with this choice; and the show still makes money once Capaldi’s out and the new lady is in. I mean if the show can go well transitioning from the young Matt Smith (Capaldi’s predecessor) to the old man that is Peter Capaldi.

Now all that was whether I feel if it WOULD happen; i looked at the situation from a marketing stand point and thought about it succeeding for the studio. This is my opinion on whether it SHOULD happen or not. My answer is…..sure. I wouldn’t mind the gender change as long as her first episode doesn’t bang this change over the head of the viewers; .e.g there will backlash on message forums if they make a joke over The Doctor now having boobs, or fail to give the actress some dignity without reaching the realms of being juvenile. If this does happen after Capaldi admits his leaving the show, the first question I’ll be asking is whether the new actress can act or not. It’s the same reason i didn’t complain about Smith’s and Capaldi’s ages (Matt Smith is the youngest actor to play the role, while Peter is the oldest Doctor in the new series reboot) I’ll live as long as the choice was right. And given how popular those two were and are; that seems to be the right approach.

I said about how the BBC needs assurance from the fans that this decision is the right one. And I believe recast of The Master (or Missy as she’s being called) is proving that. Many reviews of her first episode where she’s revealed as the character (Death in Heaven) have spoken positively of her performance. And i agree; she’s a fun to watch, charismatic character; who also performs the evil manipulative side very damn well. So why are we OK with Missy but nervous about a female Doctor? Well while she is fun to watch, she keeps the parts of The Master’s character that make him great villain. The Master has always been cruel, scheming and manipulative. All of these elements are present in Gomez’s performance. It’s the same reason why the show has survived with the main role being changed all the time. The Doctor is a person who cares about people, hates violence upon others, and saves people because it’s the right thing. And each actor keep that side of the character into account. It’s literally the same person with a new face; despite the personality changes, the morals and idea of the character is still there.

So why are some people still curious about the gender swap? I think the picture below explains it best.524374_535624756492220_713803353_n As fans we grow attached to the characters we like, but when we grow to like said character for so long, the announcement for the departure of the actor who brought said character life isn’t easy to move on from after so long. Hence why there’s so many people debating about the death of (spoiler alert) the death of Jon Snow in Game of Thrones; people got attached for so long they didn’t want him to leave. Naturally this will put pressure on the new actors of The Doctor, to bring new life to the character, while hoping the fans don’t tear you apart on message boards. And this will be felt on the first woman to take the role. Hell this sort of back lash happened when Matt Smith was announced as David Tennant’s replacement…ANNOUNCED! But as long as Moffat or whoever picks a woman who fits the role of The Doctor, we should be safe. In end that cycle will continue as it did when both Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi were announced to play the role. And as long as this person is a good actress that plays the role right, then i and most fans will be happy that our beloved character is still entertaining us.

Now I want to discuss suggestions of women who i think should be The Doctor:

  1. Haley Atwell. As she’s shown on Agent Carter and the Captain America movies, she’s strong performer who shows her independence with great confidence. Not to mention where well spoken expressions in her performances makes her suitable for a smart character like this one. And she’s expressed interest in playing the role; so that’s a good start.
  2. Lana Parrilla. I know she’s an american actress in a discussion about a British character; but keep in mind this is who I’d like to play The Doctor, not who will. Anyway Lana uses the smartest person in room motivation in Once Upon A Time; and she handles it effortlessly. She’s confident, has a great screen presence, can handle smart ass remarks greatly. Which would work well if given the right companion to have banter with. I can easily see her as the female version of Capaldi’s Doctor.

  3. Helen Mirren
    . OK now  i maybe thinking unrealistically there. At Helen’s age she’ll be able to show the friendlier side of The Doctor, while the rest of acting range will allow the protective, tougher when needed and determined sides of the character. This has worked with the 3rd Doctor and his companion Jo Grant, along with the 6th Doctor in Big Finish’s audio dramas. Making the character a father like figure to the companions, helping them and those around them. They can do the same thing but reverse the genders. Helen has shown she to be a great actress, so she can pull of any one of The Doctor’s personalities easily.
  4. Lura Pulver. I’ve mentioned the confidence of these actors, not just in the way the perform, but how well their characters are. For those who saw Lura in Sherlock, she nails that on the head. She’s shown to portray the resourceful character whose three steps ahead of her enemies. And given how The Doctor isn’t an over powered superhero; this works well in Lura’s favor when playing a character who relies on his brains to live another day. If she can do that role as a villain; she can do it well as a hero.

But that’s may thoughts, what do you think?

If you liked this blog, here are two videos you may find interesting on the topic; both of which are for and against the subject.

Thank you for your time.

Age Ratings- a cinematic choke hold:

In terms of discussions about movies nowadays; on the internet the age ratings is being brought under negative scrutiny, and for some good reasons as well.

So where do we begin? Well one thing that is brought up is how pretty much the majority of films that are released are 12, or as America would call it P-13 (this ranging from 13 year olds to 16 years olds). This ranging from comedies, blockbusters and even horror films are being pressured into meeting that age range. In fact films such as Prometheus, Live Free or Die Hard and the Robocop remake; have been examples of studios lowering the age ranges from NC-17 (the american version of a 18 rating) to PG-13. The main reason of complaint being how all three of these examples are follow ups to franchises that were aimed for adults, and are now alienating their adult audience.

So why do studios do this. Simple; money. Young people such as teenagers have the most disposable income to spend, so movie studios plan to tap that demographic in order for the most amount of seats filled in at the cinema; which will add up with the amount of adults seeing the film. More people in seats, the more profit is made. Not mention the DVD sales. With people seeing the cut down version in cinemas; to then advertise the uncut or rated version of the film on DVD. In order to sale you on the idea of getting more than you thought you were, if you saw the theatre cut when it was out in cinemas. That and certain TV channels won’t air trailers for NC-17 films, nor will certain stores stock their DVDs doesn’t help; especially for the horror and independent movie makers.

Unfortunately this ends up being problematic for the people making the film; said problem being limitonon creative control. Terminator Salvation was an example how a film aiming to be R rated; until Paramount (the studio behind it) had the film trimmed to remove the violence, blood and even a brief scene featuring one of the female characters topless. Same goes with ‘Cursed’ a  2005 horror movie features a similar case where 60% of the film was scraped before post production, and then re-shot for the PG-13 rating. Leaving the film as an absolute mess, and given the 4.9 out of 10 rating on IMDB (International Movie Data Base) it shows.

Not only can this screw up the tone, but also everything else important. The 2009 comedy Fired Up was meant to be an edgy adult comedy in the vain of American Pie. But yet again the studio cut the film down from R to PG-13; bad enough, but from what I’ve heard the best jokes from the film, were left on the cutting room floor, and could only be found the extended DVD release. So well done there Screen Gems. And while we’re on the topic of plans going up in flames; the idea of lowering the age rating equals more people watching and that equals more money, that’s not even that true. The Expendables is a violent throwback to the 80s action films. The first two films were R and both opened at the top of the box office. Meanwhile the third film caved in and became PG-13, you want to know in what box office place that movie ended up in on opening day….fourth. Making it the lowest grossing of the trilogy, Oops.

Plus the whole way films are rated is kinda inconstant. In the sense of one film that can get away with a low rating for doing something more adult, while another film that does a similar act or features similar content is stricken with a higher rating. Let me explain. A 90s thriller called The Cooler was given a NC-17 for showing one of the actress bush after a sex scene featuring the actress in question, meanwhile Basic Instinct (a film released a decade later) was given a R despite featuring Sharon Stone flashing her vagina towards the camera. Given how to big actors like her and Micheal Douglas were staring in the film; the reason why the ratings are different becomes clearer; market appeal.

Disney is also guilty of the same thing. Tarzan features the main villain being hung by the tree from his neck, Lion King the main villain is eaten by Hyenas, Beauty and the Beast the villain in that film falls from a tower to his death. The connection being how these Disney films were rated G (or as we English like to call it U). So given how Disney and over companies run 95% of the US film business, they’ll naturally use the lower rating to get the highest audience possible. Because it always about the money and how much is made.

So in the end what do i want, and how could this method be changed? Well i feel that the rating system should be more relaxed. Allow movie studios to create the films they want to make; and to not censor them down to lower ratings, in the hopes of “reaching a wider audience”. If Wolf of Wall Street and D’jango Unchained can be financial hits with as NC-17s, then so can any other movie. I also feel that there should a short list of feature content: blood, sex, nudity; similar to how video game trailer work. Because a movie like The Avengers can claim to have violence, but so does The Dark Knight; the rating based on content means nothing really. But I’m sure there’s multiple ways to fix this problem, and better ways to do this. So i leave it you.

Before I sign of, I’d like to suggest to good videos on this topic. The first being from GoodBadFlicks:

And the second being from The Chesire Cat Studios podcast:

In any case; thank you for your time.