See I don't believe you actually give a damm about any of these things.
It's just something to criticise RTD over. If he was doing the opposite you'd criticise him for that.
Spoilers Russell T. Davies Returns to Doctor Who as New Showrunner
- Thread starter Allyn Gibson
- Start date
See I don't believe you actually give a damm about any of these things.
It's just something to criticise RTD over. If he was doing the opposite you'd criticise him for that.
Nope.
In a staggering surprise, someone who grew up watching eighties Who, particularly under Cartmel, grew up with a sort of progressive political outlook and a tendency for reading subtext in media.
In further shocking events, someone who grew up on the council estates of London, getting his arse kicked by racist gangs for his choice of mates, also gives a shit about how various groups are portrayed.
It’s that simple.
I do not think RTD has done a good job, I think he has done an offensively bad job.
I think RTD messaging has been very on he nose for his second time around but I still enjoyed his first season and Gatwa and Ruby Rose as characters. The only really mind bending thing I don't get is why he took Davros out of his chair because he seems to think society thinks most people in wheel chairs are bad people or something? Not sure where he got that idea from.
Also Belinda having a Incel boyfriend really made no sense for the character and feels like it was done just to make a very weak plot, happen.
Also Belinda having a Incel boyfriend really made no sense for the character and feels like it was done just to make a very weak plot, happen.
I don't agree with the decision, but it was because of the way disfigurement is used as a shortcut for someone being evil that's prevalent in all forms of fiction.
But I don't see that. I mean I can only think of two characters off the top of my head. Blofeld and Doctor Strangelove. It ignore Charles Xavier, Ironside,Jason Street, The science guy from the first season of "War of the Worlds" and so on. If anything people in wheelchairs are often shown to victims and or sources of inspiration.
Him, Matt and Capaldi trying to sneak on to the set of an Anniversary special?
Which was also nonsense — the trope exists, but rose up and declined as time wore on. People raise things like Bond, but that’s a confection of its time. Bomd himself was ‘disfigured’ in the books, as were many, perhaps even most of his allies. In the post war period many forms of disability were looked on as more a sign of past heroism or with sympathy. To look at Who, Daleks Invasion of Earth has a wheelchair user as a main protagonist. That’s *very* early on. For every Borad, there is also a Sharaz Jek, and then there’s more complex things like Doctor Judson in Fenric.
The single most problematic portrayal that I can think of was probably RTD’s own John Lumic, who had to be made villainous, along with the new Cybermen, as quickly as possible, to get the story done.
Davros was a genius. Mad and evil, but not because of his life-support system. Which most people read as ‘half dalek’ rather than wheelchair.
The problem is, if you follow the thinking to its logical conclusion, you can’t have the Master (PTSD, mental health, as put into the characters lore by RTD) the Daleks (victims of war, wheelchair users apparently) the Cybermen (only the way they are because of their medicalisation) or basically all the classic Who villains, or any with an element of tragedy.
It also doesn’t extend to able bodied genocide survivors, who may be tortured by our main character, or to people like Al, who was a paper thin cutout of a character who was taken and essentially wired into a machine and mutilated against his will.
It’s all just so… blind and hypocritical. And full of near misses, where with a little bit of work, none of it has to go in, and some of it could have been made to actually work.
Imagine if Shirley had just been a bit more Dortmund. She could have been really interesting.
I would guess that #3 is the most likely as well. Although, I suspect that the show won't look noticeably less expensive and that'll be a surprise to some. As has been reported, lots of the extra Disney budget went into making the show in 4k resolution instead of 2k that it will probably return to post-Disney. It's still going to look really good! And it's really a no brainer for the BBC. They're not going to antagonize their go to DW guy, RTD! So, we might go for a couple years without DW on our screens but get something fairly similar when it does return with RTD running the show, unless he chooses to step away himself.Because he was awesome?
And the ratings still need to be taken in the context of terrestrial ratings in general, wherein I still believe Who does reasonably well comparatively speaking. Is it the ratings behemoth it once was? No, but let's be honest it hasn't been since the first half of Whittaker's first season, and that was a sharp upswing after several seasons of declining ratings under Capaldi.
Setting aside co-production/streaming partnerships I think the BBC has four options.
1. Let the show die. End it and make it clear it's never coming back. Unlikely.
2. Put it on hiatus, and not a year or two's hiatus, make it clear it'll be at least 5 years before it comes back. Possible, but you do have to worry about this being a cancellation by default. One can imagine a scenario whereby in ten years time vague messages about Who's return keep eking out but no one seems to be doing anything. Then it's twenty years....and so on and so forth.
3. Carry on as you are. You keep making the show but accept that it's never going to be as popular as it once was because there's way more competition now. You accept it is a middle ranked show that still attracts millions of viewers (just 3 instead of 7 million) and you tailor your expectations and your budget accordingly. Personally I think this is the way to go. Frankly if you offered me a season every year that was on the whole as entertaining as the last two seasons have been, I'd be happy with that, and you hope the show plays itself back into form/gets lucky with it's casting and finds itself with a new Ten/Donna Eleven/Amy/Rory dynamic and becomes super popular again.
4. The BBC double down. Who is a big show and needs to continue to be seen as a big show. You get a new streaming partner and you throw money at it. Get a name to play the Doctor, maybe get a new showrunner, new writers etc. It's an option for sure, but feels like a case of the gambler's fallacy/sunk cost fallacy (not quite sure which fallacy fits best). It may be that whoever writes the show and whoever is the Doctor, it just can't ever be quite as popular as it once was.
And yes I'm self aware enough to realise that my preference for option three is possibly me just putting my hands over my ears and going "na na na not listening' or being this meme in human form
Except I think things are fine. Not brilliant, not amazing, but certainly fine. I still find the show enjoyable (for the most part). Do I wish RTD was a little less RTD at times sure, have I enjoyed Ncuti's run way more than Whittaker's, absolutely.
If he chooses to leave, then we've probably got a longer hiatus (5 years) with a major rethink and regroup. But I think the ball is in RTD's court.
The first Disney season was subpar while the second was an improvement. Middling in the grand scheme of things but at least an upward trajectory. Likely the next season (now with time to tweak things because the first two were shot before any public reaction) will be yet better.
I think they will move faster than we think. If for no other reason than it does look weird to leave things hanging, and to have a CBeebies show out for tender.
I think they should strongly consider an (a) and (b) team alternating behind the scenes to avoid burnout, rather than one show runner, and they’re gonna need to try a *lot* harder at bringing in and building up new talent.
I think RTD might be over with it though… regardless of fan opinion, including my own, he will have seen the figures, seen the place it’s in, and seen things like the Dead Ringers sketch. I feel sorry for him in that regard.
Though maybe he can work with someone (Moff) to at least wrap it up in a bow next year or even Christmas. I don’t think anyone wants the new hiatus Doctor to be Billie cut and paste onto Ncuti.
I think they should strongly consider an (a) and (b) team alternating behind the scenes to avoid burnout, rather than one show runner, and they’re gonna need to try a *lot* harder at bringing in and building up new talent.
I think RTD might be over with it though… regardless of fan opinion, including my own, he will have seen the figures, seen the place it’s in, and seen things like the Dead Ringers sketch. I feel sorry for him in that regard.
Though maybe he can work with someone (Moff) to at least wrap it up in a bow next year or even Christmas. I don’t think anyone wants the new hiatus Doctor to be Billie cut and paste onto Ncuti.
There are some real-world funding difficulties caused by Disney's late decision, which still hasn't been made yet. Contracts have lapsed, production people let go, etc.
So Disney has to make the decision first before anything moves forward. And if they decide not to renew their agreement (as is expected), then the BBC has to decide what they want to do, funding levels, etc. That all takes time to decide. Then time to implement contractually. Time to hire. Etc.
Guessing it will be about two years minimum before it returns to our screens--best case scenario. Perhaps a Christmas special in Dec 2026 if we're lucky and that would just deal with the Billie Piper thing.
I'm not sure about RTD. I can see what @jaime is saying, but I don't know. I will say, if he leaves, it's his choice and it'll add time to the two year minimum. Another year at least as it'll take time to find and contract the new showrunner and more time for them to get up to speed. But right now I'd expect him to say for awhile. Maybe do less actual writing though.
So Disney has to make the decision first before anything moves forward. And if they decide not to renew their agreement (as is expected), then the BBC has to decide what they want to do, funding levels, etc. That all takes time to decide. Then time to implement contractually. Time to hire. Etc.
Guessing it will be about two years minimum before it returns to our screens--best case scenario. Perhaps a Christmas special in Dec 2026 if we're lucky and that would just deal with the Billie Piper thing.
I'm not sure about RTD. I can see what @jaime is saying, but I don't know. I will say, if he leaves, it's his choice and it'll add time to the two year minimum. Another year at least as it'll take time to find and contract the new showrunner and more time for them to get up to speed. But right now I'd expect him to say for awhile. Maybe do less actual writing though.
Nope. I've read your just asking questions/sealion approach to progressive issues for years.
You don't fool me.
(Emphasis mine): Especially when @jaime completely ignored @CuriousCaitian's lengthy and on point post.
Last edited:
That is frankly bollocks. You can say that about the books, maybe, but disability and disfigurement continue to be used as shorthand for evil in the Bond franchise.
Let's just look at the Daniel Craig films, so we're not even talking about the last 20 years.
2006 Casino Royale - Le Chiffre - scarred eye, weeps blood.
2008 Quantum of Solace - nope, no scarred villain (there is a scarred Bond girl)
2012 Skyfall - Silva has a fake jaw due to cyanide melting some of his face (implausible to say the least)
2015 Spectre - Blofeld scarred face ala the Donald Pleasance Blofeld (waits for argument that Bond is the one who scars him)
2021 No Time to Die - Safin scarred face, Primo missing an eye. Oh and Blofeld again with his scarred face.
Re the last example disability campaigners flagged this, not for the first time.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...disability-campaigners-villains-b1928355.html
I was shorthand if for the sake of presenting the critique in a humourous way, which means I couldn’t realistically go into the nuances of how someone who identifies NB isn’t usually going to have a nice easy appearance to hang that on. Same for the asexuality. Basically I needed a short way to say ‘RTD would use the labels but contradict the meaning’.
I do think that is what he did with Rose’s character (and the Doctors, because one minute the Doctor is non-binary and that’s why Rose is how she is, and the next it’s all the clunky ‘male presenting’ stuff.) and I do think it’s something he does often.
I *also* think it’s takes something away when Rose is presented as a result of Time Lord juju. That stops it representing anyone, and others the character in a strong way — how about a Trans character just being Trans because humans can be? Isn’t that way more useful?
I find it clumsy.
I get that writing characters from all different groups, especially those we maybe aren’t directly from ourselves, is a difficult thing (been doing it a while too) and that’s what’s frustrating about seeing someone who is apparently the top of their field keep fumbling the ball so badly.
Actually I just hadn’t seen the post until now.
You’re just talking Dalek bumps mate. Or you have a very selective memory or confuse me for someone else.
For a start, I waffle endlessly, pontificate and lay down opinions and jokes, but rarely ask questions.
As to my progressive bona fides, well, there’s no sensible way to prove such things, nor do I have to frankly.
People who actually do pay attention know.
Like I said, product of the times and why I mention the books specifically. They have their problems for sure, though are progressive in ways by the standards of the day (as are much of the films) but in terms of scars, disfigurement, and disabled leads/goodies they are waaaaay ahead of where we are now even. Though it’s worth noting that while the films dance hard with the trope, and it has done so *more* lately, it’s also those recent ones that have shown Bond scarred as well.
Safin was a big step back I think for sure, because it wasn’t anything we really told about in relation to the story. It was just to be creepy man in noh mask.
Every time I think you can't get more wrong you surprise me
Safin's scarring was terrible use of the trope yes, but it was plot relevant. He was scarred from the poison used by Mr White (On Blofeld's orders) to wipe out his family when he was a child. So it absolutely was something we were told about in relation to the story.
Every time I think you can't get more wrong you surprise me
Safin's scarring was terrible use of the trope yes, but it was plot relevant. He was scarred from the poison used by Mr White (On Blofeld's orders) to wipe out his family when he was a child. So it absolutely was something we were told about in relation to the story.
It’s been a while since I saw it xD
Ok, so at least that one was plot relevant too.
In which case, we’re back at ‘At least Bond is scarred now too, reflecting the violence of that world’. Without going into the post-war significance of scars, disability, the association of duelling scars with Germans etc etc I think it’s safe to say that even Bond has a little more nuance than some people may credit it with. Leiter was a double amputee when he went to work for the Pinkertons, and Bonds make secretary was a wheelchair user wasn’t he?
I remember one of the Gardner books had a Bond girl who had had a mastectomy, but I believe she turned out to be something else after a twist, so could go either way.
Shorthand: you were lazy, borderline glib, and arguably even guilty of the same kind of misrepresentation you keep accusing RTD of. And clearly only selectively listening.
You're basically just arguing yourself in circles, at this point. Maybe take a break?
