Posted on 08/25/2011 8:33:51 AM PDT by Maelstorm
Four years ago, the BBC decided to capitalize on the immense popularity of the long-running Doctor Who series by creating a spin-off called Torchwood.
Whereas Doctor Who is, apart from the intensity of its stories, safe for the whole family, producers said that Torchwood would be “dark, clever, wild, [and] sexy.” "Doctor Who for adults” is what they called it.
As a colleague wrote at the time, a better word to describe the show is “nihilistic” - it’s a judgment that’s reinforced by the show’s newest character.
While Torchwood is certainly dark, it’s rarely, if ever, been all that “clever,” especially when measured against the standard set by Doctor Who and other science fiction classics.
Instead, the show has substituted transgression for originality. Specifically, sexual transgression. The lead character, Captain Jack Harkness, can best be described as an “omni-sexual.” While the rest of his team, all but one of whom were killed, may not have successfully emulated his alien-fighting skills, they did manage to learn from his sexual example: extramarital affairs, same-sex experimentation were all in a day’s work for the Torchwood team.
For the fourth season, entitled “Miracle Day,” the writers ratcheted up the transgression: The newest character, Oswald Jones, is a pedophile. Yes, you heard me correctly.
Jones, played by actor Bill Pullman, is a convicted pedophile-murderer who is released on a technicality. While he’s far from the first pedophile to be depicted on television, he is undoubtedly the first depicted in a way that prompts the audience to root for him.
John Barrowman, the openly-gay actor who plays Harkness, said: “The interesting thing about [having a pedophile man character] that is that the audience is going to be torn, because they’re going to not like him for what he’s done - but they’re gonna like him.”
Let’s be clear, “liking him,” in the sense that Barrowman means is not the same as being able to see past Jones’ horrible crimes and understand that he is also created in the image of God. It’s not the same as believing that even the worst of sinners can repent and be transformed by the power of God.
It’s saying, “he may be a murderous pedophile but, you know what, he’s cool!” That’s not a matter of grace, that’s indifference. It’s a kind of kind of nihilism, where in the absence of moral truth, the kind that Christianity provided the West, we evaluate things by how this make us feel – in this case, whether they are entertaining.
For people who have come of age when what Freud once called “Totems and Taboo” are increasingly subject to revision, it’s hard to entertain people. As they say “been there, done that, got the t-shirt.” So we ratchet up the transgression.
Of course, there are limits: You couldn’t imagine Barrowman substituting “homophobe” for “pedophile” in what he said. After all, some things are beyond the politically correct pale at least.
And, lest we forget, there are people who insist that sex between adults and children can be consensual. Thankfully, public opinion is nowhere near that point. Yet. Because as we’ve seen, yesterday’s unthinkable taboos have a way of becoming today’s “alternative lifestyles.” It is a sad sign that our culture may be dying.
That's the positive side of these threads; the recognition that there is a new flock of good entertainment, free of the pink mafia indoctrination.
I would add Royal Pains, The Mentalist, Burn Notice, Private Affairs, Suits, Blue Bloods, Against the Wall and Warehouse 13 to that list.
Man does not live by SciFi alone.
I think that is the crux of the reader/viewer anger.
Producers assume that perversion is so "normal" now, that they need not mention it. I certainly agree that graphic gay activity is firmly in the territory of advocacy, regardless of how well the writers otherwise deliver entertainment.
No matter how hard the advocates try, I am not going to accept gay perversion in any form as implicitly "normal."
the nutjobs at studios want the public to live with the meme to “assume all are homosexuals” to avoid offense. (of themselves?) Rather than the appropriate everyone is normal.
This is another reason these shows whould have a vchip tax of “H” for homosexual content. This way they can be edited out of the line up.
What will these deviant producers do when peopel can and are avoiding homosexual shows via the ala cart viewing? (DVR, Internet, v-chip)
Plus: Only about half-a-dozen of the priests accused or convicted of abuse have been pedophiles. The vast majority abused male teenagers.
Wasn’t Elizabeth A. Lynn was it?
Didn’t Warehouse 13 add a gay agent? Don’t know for sure, when I read about it, I just quit watching, too many things else to do with my time.
I'm curious, what makes you believe that is going to come to pass? That we're discussing a show on a subscription only channel leads me to believe that it's not going to happen. I read recently that "premium" cable viewership has already shifted from broadcast viewing to a majority of subscribers catching the shows on demand. Since the show is popular, and folks are going to Starz on Demand to watch it, it doesn't seem like your scenario is likely to come to pass.
Too much homo stuff. I found myself channel surfing during that tripe.
Dr. Who has its own problems. It's anti-gun and definitely atheistic/pro-evolution.
At the moment, they are making a show that will be missing some (though not much) key dialogue if they ever tried to air it on basic cable.
As for Oswald, I haven't seen anything yet that would make him sympathetic. He's being used, but he knows that he is and he's taking advantage of it, so, no, I don't feel for him in the slightest.
EXACTLY. That distinction was intentionally created by the homosexual mafia-—because their intent was always to skew statistics and to legalize—like in some European countries—sex between men and teenagers—as young as 12. The homosexuals and communists infiltrated the Catholic Church as documented by Dodd in the School of Darkness.
There is only one purpose—to destroy Christianity and the natural family, the two pillars of Western Society which creates a civil and free society.
For the last 100 years, Communists have been trying to destroy the concept of God and Capitalism. We have seen the results—we are seeing it in England today—that destruction of Christianity and family = Fascism and chaos which fill the void.
The vile Supreme Court Judge Ginsberg has even advocating the legal age be dropped to 12. What they want is their utopian world of no sexual morality so adults can freely have sex with children.
These Communists want to destroy sexual morality in children to destroy all their future relationships and their ability to be a devoted mother and father. They want to have total control of the minds of the children for indoctrination and enslavement.
Why? Because they were perverted during childhood by abuse and that is where their desire was fixated—at the time of their first sexual trauma.
That is why some males rape babies also...and those babies—if they live—will also rape babies and toddlers.
No. I looked her up on Amazon, and it’s not the same writer. I’m away for the summer, or maybe I could find the books. Can’t remember whether I kept them or not.
my understanding is that it will be going to BBC america.
what do you have to prove that? The fact that a tiny faction continues to view a the homosexual show does not make it mainstream.
The fact that the openening had to be diverted from the regular channels to the low end subscription channel speaks volumes.
Today, I heard a news report on the radio that the APA is considering removing “pedophelia” from the phycho disorder column of mental derangement - ala what they did for homosexuality.
And that’s why social conservatives MUST stay vigilant to stop this evil (and more) from becoming mainstream.
You're absolutely right on Covert Affairs.
As for Necessary Roughness not a chance. I have a permanent disdain for anything related to professional "Sports" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) since around 1975 after a "football strike." Never missed it.
Glad you brought that up, because it illustrates a crucial factor. The difference between "in your face" activism pervert content as opposed to the acknowledging that homosexuality has always been with us as a totally private perversion.
I still enjoy Warehouse 13 as entertainment with the addition of the new character.
He is in essence a "don't ask don't tell" character with not even a hint of his lifestyle, other than a relevant explanation as to why he would never hit on a female character in the group.
So long as this respectful distance persists, I have no problem with the change.
The distinction between homonausea and homophobia is lost on the militant perverts.
I think that you misuunderstand the nature of a la carte service, where we would choose the channels we actually want to watch, as opposed to "packages" where I watch perhaps a total of 20 different channels, but am forced to "take" another 180 I couldn't care less about.
There is an Oprah Channel and a Gay Channel which thankfully, are not among the package I chose (to get Scifi and the Military channels, for example.)
I would even pay a small premium for the convenience of not ever even accidentally encountering another Torchwood.
Incidentally, Starz is an odd duck, I do watch it often because it does broadcast classic movies in HD without commercials.
No, I understand a la carte as it pertains to television perfectly. I just didn't see how it was in any way pertinent to this discussion, since premium channels like Starz, the channel in question have always been a la carte. Simply put, if you don't like what's on Starz, don't buy the damned thing.
I also understand that consumers would be disappointed with a la carte programming as the majority of channels in question, while still cable, are advertiser supported. Cable companies pay pennies for these channels, and the cost to consumers in the end is still pennies.
The increase in administrative costs to handle vastly more intricate subscriptions would likely mean that you'd end up paying more for 50 channels than you were previously paying for the whole 120.
Incidentally, Starz is an odd duck, I do watch it often because it does broadcast classic movies in HD without commercials.
Interesting. Anymore I subscribe to the premium services solely for the original content. Although Camelot was a bit of a downer, Starz scored big with me with the Spartacus saga, which I'm eagerly awaiting the next season.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.