How To Alienate Your Audience

Me: listening to this video thinking about how I want to use my story to discuss the censorship of knowledge to discuss it's harm and seeming benefits
ad about how article 13 is censoring a shit ton of information in the EU but you can use a VPN to bypass it
Me: "Oh, well that's a bit on the nose, isn't it?" 😂

Some counterpoints to consider; historically, the lampooning of authority figures in popular fiction is one of the main functions of drama. Stage plays going back beyond recorded history have done this. Poking fun at the ruling class is a fundamental part of many art forms.
But more to the point, this episode of Dr. Who is not about Donald Trump. It features a villain who is clearly inspired by Donald Trump, but he's a caricature. The show isn't telling anyone how they should feel or what they should think; it simply includes a satire of a notorious public figure.
The only reason this has been perceived as divisive or too political is due to the powerful cult of personality that has been built up around this particular public figure, to whom many people are so blindly devoted they view any satire based on him as a personal attack against themselves and their own values.
In reality, it's simply a work of fiction using a common device in fiction going back to the greek comedies; poking fun at the ruling class.
The fault lies not with Dr. Who; it lies with regular people who have allowed themselves to be convinced that they are part of this particular individual's in crowd when the reality is, like all wealthy politicians, he is a member of the ruling class and one whose enormous personality and general manner are all too easy to parody.
America History X isn't viewed as propaganda because most people agree that skinheads are bad. If you ask a skinhead they'll probably tell you that film is propaganda.

Well I have a lot of disagreements, especially when you say art doesn't try to say something, it explores ideas. A lot of my favorite works of art do in fact try to have a message about the human condition, and to say that great art cannot come from a specific point of view is reductive.

Endeavor from MHA

I agree with the general point you make, but I think you go just way too far when you say “a real artist is not trying to say anything.” In fact, I think the opposite is very often the case, and could probably list 100 all-time classic novels/films with very specific politically-relevant perspectives and arguments they are making/illustrating/describing (Black Boy, 1984, To Kill a Mockingbird, Huckleberry Fin, Handmaid's Tale, Do the Right Thing, Dr. Strangeglove, All the President's Men, Spotlight, Battle of Algiers, The Great Dictator). In fact, writing often becomes vapid and pointless and forgetable specifically due to writers running away from being “nailed down” to a perspective or argument. One might say this is the big flaw that has kept any single Marvel movie from really becoming a classic. They wink at deeper issues and move on quick, because I assume going deep with the perspective/argument is very difficult to write as it requires actual wisdome and expertise (and they might also skip because they to offend any of the blockbuster audience, or maybe just because they think action sells better). And so none of these films are in the same league as say the HBO Watchmen series (nor the graphic novel of course, which also has numerous pointed perspectives, such as portraying an alternate history where leftist movements in the U.S. were crushed, Nixon ruled four terms, and therefore racism became much more rampant and systemic).

Basically, sometimes the story can be about how good people do good things against bad people doing bad things. And many truly interesting and classic stories do just this. The nuance and sophistication can be about how the good guys figure out and strive to overcome their own obstacles to get it done, about how the immoral people/ideas infiltrate society. In fact, requiring the bad guy to always have some heart can be extremely artificial and sidetracking, in particular, when this character is not the focus of the story or argument that a work of art is making and investigating.

For example, someday someone will probably make a good work of art about how some people found courage and virtue (such as suddenly Mike Pence) to support democracy and stand up against the Jan. 6 coup attempt by GOP members of congress to overthrow a democratic election and install Trump by their personal decree. Now, including a story in that film about how Trump’s dad was mean to him or a bad influence etc., or focusing on some nice things Trump did at different times, could easily turn this film into limpid and unfocused blah that plays more like a lazy documentary than a quality film and work of art. Such stories about Trump could instead be told in a different film/program of it’s own (and would deserve such a treatment).

Also, I think the focus by many on how the Whittaker seasons of Doctor Who were ruined because it’s too “woke” totally misses the point. It was ruined because for most of the episodes, ALL of the story-lines were lazy, especially the sci-fi parts (like the ridiculous final three series 12 episodes)--but also definitely including much of the issue-driven aspects like your example here. If the sci-fi stories were on point, and the characters had a better chemistry, I don’t think people would complain nearly so much about the political stuff. For example, would-be “anti-woke” activists were held in check when complaining about the sometimes clunky LGBT-friendly and feminist storylines (some of the Jack Harkness stuff) from earlier seasons with Tenant and Smith.

And finally, I love your channel and respect your ideas. I really do, this is why I spent the time writing those posts out (though I know the likelihood you'll actually get around to reading them little posts is low :)

Doctor Who is an absolutely incredible show with many fantastic writers and actors, the only exception being this era. Chris Chibnall (the main writer of this era) is disliked by many whovians, including myself, for the very reason you brought up in this video and more. However, the other writers, like Russell T. Davies and Steven Moffat, are heroes of mine and many others. This video has a great point, but I would love to see some positive Doctor Who videos, as some of the other episodes are masterpieces. Maybe try Tennant's era, which is, in my opinion, when it was at it's best. You are my favourite writing channel, thank you for spreading your knowledge!

although its true that just presenting things like in the witcher makes a better story, you need to remember that art affect people.
domestic abuser can use the treath of suicide to emotionally blackmail their partner into staying with them. so showing the baron's suicide may have made for a good story point, there is a chance that real people in real abusive relationship may have stuck in it for more than needed.
remember that your work matters

The last episode involving Jodie Whitaker I skipped to the end where she regenerated, the only good part of the whole era. It had a very biased political approach that was so awful. Chris chibnall cared more about PC propaganda than good writing which is why I'm glad he's not the show runner anymore; he ruined Doctor who.

Dude. This is SO GOOD.

A more nuanced character makes for better drama, but a lot of real life figures aren't that. It's why romanticizing someone like Jeffrey Dahmer to make them more interesting, relatable, and charismatic is enough to disgust even Red Letter Media. Trump's the guy who tore out fistfuls his ex-wife's hair while forcing himself on her, and now her grave is on a neglected patch of his golf course for tax breaks. It might not "feel" real like the Bloody Baron's soap opera, but it's also an honest, impartial description of what happened.

An honest exploration of someone who sets historical precedents in incompetent sociopathy won't feel real. Most of us go through an edgelord reactionary phase because we can't believe things can be so one-sided, only for it to scientifically provably turn out to be the case. Incompetent propaganda is bad in plenty of ways, but there has got to be a better way to achieve decent entertainment than creating dreamy fanfics of real life monsters.

I loved this video. I watch your stuff to really get an idea of what I'm missing in my writing and if I don't get the answer right away, I always get closer to it. For that, I actually have to disagree with this video a bit.

That's not to discredit your point entirely, because having empathy towards one side can help a political point or discussion significantly. However, there are some times that there is just no way to have empathy for a certain thing. An example I have is Get Out (yes, SPOILER ALERT): there is simply no way to have empathy for the Armitage family swapping the brains of black people within people of their own white family. But I'm sure most people who watched the film agree and enjoy the message it brought. Why is that?

They have a reason to be so evil.
The hotel manager in Dr. Who was portrayed as evil, selfish, and so on for no reason other than just to be that. Humoring their point for a minute, they could have shown the reason why he did this is not because he simply is just an a-hole, but because he believes that the only way to run things is with an iron fist and asserting authority. That is to say they could've still shown him as selfish, but they needed to provide a reason for it.

Let's return to Get Out where they clearly wanted you to think one way and did it effectively. The Armitage family didn't swap brains with black people for no reason other than they wanted to because they were secretly r-c-st (sorry for cut, YT is strange with comments now a-days), they did it because they wanted to live life through a black person because they feel too empathetic to them, essentially believing that black people aren't people, but exotic zoo animals. That's a horrible way to think of a race of people, but that's a reason for why they did what they did.

It ties back to your point of "Never say, 'This is bad,' never say, 'This is good.' Simply say, 'This is.'" Get Out still doesn't hold your hands throughout; they don't explicitly tell you, "They think [...] and that's wrong," but they make you feel that it is wrong by saying, "They think [...]." Simply put, it's not empathy you need, but justification. That justification can lead to empathy, or it can make you more disgusted at the opposing side. So in turn, the justification should be based on the contentiousness of a topic. If you're going to discuss why the H-l-ca-st was bad, you're going to want to have the other side's justification be a real but gross and immoral line of thinking. If it's going to be as contentious as ab-rt-on, you're going to want to really have a bone of empathy for both, yet you can still sway the audience one way or another so long as you give them the ability to think for themselves. Politics in writing are like politics in real life: a debate of thought processes. You can prove a point, but you have to know your opponent's arguments first before you can prove them wrong.

I'm open to a discussion about this, I'm still trying to improve as a writer myself and I have yet to really make a piece. A lot of my points here are based on something I'm writing where I simply can't justify the other side, but try to give them reasons for why they do what they do. Granted, this could just be that even though I do try to think for both sides (while I have a political leaning), I'm just not doing it well enough for my writing. Let me know what you think!

My wife doesn’t play many video games but she forced me to only play the Witcher 3 when she was around. The bloody Barron story was amazing

How can you talk about the butcher without mentioning his dead baby? He hit his wife and caused a miscarriage. That baby turned into a monster that if he buries properly will stop being a monster. He loved that baby and regretted its death.

Bruh imagine not playing video games

You can't really address this without considering the deliberate artificial manufacturing of political opinions in modern media. The content does affect responses (and the timing)

Also you don't seem to have grasped quite how bad Trump is. This guy is coherent and well groomed. I haven't seen it but there's also a hint that he might actually have genuinely achieved something (however horrific).

The biggest sin this episode committed was making a giant spider story boring. How do you even do that????

The statement that 13th doctors seasons are too political it both correct and incorrect. Doctor who has been political for a long time but has gone about it in a subtle and well-executed way. The writing for 13 is just too on the nose and speechy and too much like reading an aesops fable. I

See its my opinion that video games have some of the best writing and directing in fiction. God of war, horizon forbidden west, Halo 3. Dont slander video games.

Jodi, Doctor Who, will be retconned out of history

One absolutely beautiful example of this approach on difficult topics is the Licanius Trilogy. Islington brings up a lot of very heavy, pointed topics, especially surrounding religion and philosophy, like fate, justice, consequence for sin, and a god who is not present in the history of a world, and explores these ideas from various perspectives, but ultimately doesn’t shove his opinion down anyone’s throats, instead letting the audience think about it themselves as these characters of differing philosophies argue, fight or work together. Its surely not a perfect series but my favorite parts were always the deep discussions between the characters where we learn about them and their ideas, and get to think about them ourselves.

Chibnall standing on the shoulders of giants is proof of failing upwards.

When a writer has nothing to tell me other than the same liberal hot takes I could have heard by going on Twitter for five seconds with less nuance and slightly even more unhinged, I just sit there in shock that this was the best they could do.

I have sat at a computer for hours on end, editing and reediting, rewriting and reworking lines of simple dialogue to get it as best as I could yet I feel like most modern works of fiction were written and released after one rough draft from people who think it's good enough as it is.

If I wrote any modern doctor who or marvel script, I'd be embarrassed of myself that this was the best I could do.

+TheCloserLook
How To Scare and Tromitize your audience soo had that the Get PTSD!!

The punching bag is a Straw Man. The point of a straw man is to make the opposite position seem strong by taking down a propped up version of the worst traits of its opposition. It is a dirty tactic that ignores the real nuance of the issue being debated.

It's simple. The people who complain about film and TV being "too political" are exactly the same people who misinterpret American History X to be pro neo Nazi, which they like.

The worst part of this whole thing is that the showrunners will think "oh people don't like it because it's a woman", and deprive us of any female doctor ever again. The fact that Chibnall was given the opportunity to write the first female doctor and, instead of carrying the throughline the character has had for the last decades, he decided to write her as a meek, submissive, socially awkward, anxious, hysterical, impulsive, over-emotional character who isn't even taken seriously by the narrative actually disgusts me. We went from Capaldi, who was written as a force of nature made manifest to... this.

I dropped DR.Who after the female Dr and this new goof ball they have casted for the new one

I don't know the whole story about the baron, but the part about him hitting his wife because she cheated is kinda putting the blame on women on abuse, which from my experience isnt usually the case, therefore i wouldn't call it the best example of tackling a controversial topic.

And damn Star Wars - that's the influence for black/white 'propaganda' movies.

films such as this episode remind me of anti-jewish propaganda posters that were pushed by the nazis in the 1930s. They were always betrayed with evil written all over them, down to the very colors.

I recently discovered your channel, and this is my favorite video I've watched yet. The Witcher 3 is one of the greatest stories I've ever experienced, and you absolutely nailed the difference between propaganda and true art and quality storytelling. When media shows that a character who makes a certain mistake, or has a specific weakness, as pure unadulterated evil, all it does is cause more division and hate in the real world. The Witcher (both books and games) as well as ASOIAF do a great job in showing humans as we are. Complicated. We all mistakenly do evil acts of varying degrees throughout our lives, but we shouldn't write people off as a permanent lost cause because of that.
Propaganda is dangerous. Art challenges our mindset in the best of ways.

nuance?

Damn you spent 3 minutes going “I’m not a bigot, I’m not a bigot, I’m just gonna say the word the right wing uses for left wing politics”.

Mmhmm.

I'll get Nord VPN on The Pirate Bay 😅😅😅

For what is a maaaaan, what has he got, I don't remember the rest, so just huuuuums it out

I think the alternate side of this is trying to stay neutral and be so concerned about "showing both sides" that you accidental endorse, normalize, or even glorify toxic and abusive systems, concepts, or people

The BBC is a paedophile hub, they have to have a punching bag to avoid people looking at their morals, classic distraction technique

"he fired the manager because she walked into the room and that mildly annoyed him" yeah this is certain He Who Shall Not Be Named

The writing was just bad. Lectures instead of explorations. Dull and bland characters. Impotent villains.

I think the most tired trope in Hollywood is that if someone (or something) is a total monster, mascaraing countless people, leaving death and destruction in its' wake everywhere it goes, it's still always morally wrong to kill them. The number of super hero shows I've seen where thousands of people keep dying because the hero refuses to kill the villain who keeps doing it. Nowhere in the real world throughout history have heroes operated on this principle.