Spoilers Russell T. Davies Returns to Doctor Who as New Showrunner

[Haggis and tatties]

I loved GB growing up, and was *more* than happy to give the 2016 film a chance. (I even managed to get liked or retweeted by Paul Feig for saying as much bizarrely.) But it managed to be… more problematic than a film made in the eighties. A *lot*. And terrible in a bunch of ways.
The biggest problem it has is that the people making it were only aware of ‘Ghostbusters! The Paranormal comedy from the team that brought you Stripes and Meatballs! With your favourite SNL performers!’ Which is always only half the story with GB, especially on a worldwide scale.
That and elements of a marketing campaign that did not know which way to turn, encouraged support that involved denigrating the original to imply watching the new one was almost a moral imperative, and the cameos, and the leaks and…

It was awful. And very much a prototype for the mistakes we would later see follow in stuff like RTD2 tbh.
An existing fan base is something to build on, not intentionally alienate for clicks and giggles whilst still also trying to nostalgia bait.

It is quite a strange phenomena these days, as if something fails then it is 100% the fault of the fans, and not the movies or shows makers, just those ungrateful fans, which of course only helps to bring said fans and their wallets back for the next thing. lol

 

[Starkers]

The Live +7 numbers for TWB are all out now and interestingly it's done (slightly) better than S2/15 overall. 3.57 average vs 3.23 (Excluding the Xmas Special to give a fairer picture.)

Should the series future be in reaching an older audience only?

Also, Barb are listing the Live +28 figures now too, so next week we'll start seeing those. Davies claims that it keeps picking up viewers so we'll see how valid that is.

Interesting to note that even as recently as a few days ago the Beeb were still trailing this and pointing viewers towards iPlayer. They don't do that with everything,

 

[Steve Roby]

On the subject of "they made my favourite show WOKE!"... if something had a break between periods of production, many of the people who were kids in the original era and are adults when the new version comes along don't realize that as kids they completely missed a lot of what was in those shows back then, and they never stopped watching them through kids' eyes. Then the new version starts and suddenly they're watching through adult eyes, and instead of seeing the older version in a new light, they clutch their security blankets and proclaim that some horrible change has happened.

It's not just something that happens with woke. With both Doctor Who and Star Trek, a lot of people reject new developments because there was a status quo when the old series ended and that status quo was always there. The Doctor always had two hearts and was a Gallifreyan Time Lord with a limit of 13 regenerations or whatever. All of those were things that were made up along the way, not part of the core concept. Same deal with Spock and Michael Burnham. We know he never had a human stepsister! Well, his parents came as a surprise, his fiancee came as a surprise, his half-brother came as a surprise, his trip to Romulus for unification activities came as a surprise... but you can't have any more surprises after the point where a particular fan came in and assumed all of those were how things always were. Then, as a slight twist, there's the fans who came in with TNG and didn't watch TOS and insist Star Trek has always been like TNG and must always be like TNG, especially in ways TOS wasn't.

 

[jaime]

On the subject of "they made my favourite show WOKE!"... if something had a break between periods of production, many of the people who were kids in the original era and are adults when the new version comes along don't realize that as kids they completely missed a lot of what was in those shows back then, and they never stopped watching them through kids' eyes. Then the new version starts and suddenly they're watching through adult eyes, and instead of seeing the older version in a new light, they clutch their security blankets and proclaim that some horrible change has happened.

It's not just something that happens with woke. With both Doctor Who and Star Trek, a lot of people reject new developments because there was a status quo when the old series ended and that status quo was always there. The Doctor always had two hearts and was a Gallifreyan Time Lord with a limit of 13 regenerations or whatever. All of those were things that were made up along the way, not part of the core concept. Same deal with Spock and Michael Burnham. We know he never had a human stepsister! Well, his parents came as a surprise, his fiancee came as a surprise, his half-brother came as a surprise, his trip to Romulus for unification activities came as a surprise... but you can't have any more surprises after the point where a particular fan came in and assumed all of those were how things always were. Then, as a slight twist, there's the fans who came in with TNG and didn't watch TOS and insist Star Trek has always been like TNG and must always be like TNG, especially in ways TOS wasn't.

Which is a valid way of looking at it all.
But at the same time, Who fans in particular are the kind that stuck around and analysed the show to death for years — whether that’s the obvious stuff like ‘Green Death was about Ecology’ or the more esoteric ‘Ace gives Kara the water touched by the red moon as a reference to menstruation and her own latent sapphic sexuality’ kind of reading.
The show was making jokes about that *on screen* with stuff like the guard on Glitz’s ship in Dragonfire.

The problem (well… one of them) is conflating something like a quasi-right wing YT grifter comment, with those of long term fans, or indeed Peter Davison. That way the criticism gets mischaracterised and waved away by looking at the first of those, and lumps the second two in with it.

However, if some is literally saying ‘they made it woke!’ and isn’t really expounding on that short hand, then sure.

 

[jaime]

What's the other half? Serious question. I was 21 or 22 when the original came out, so i didn't pay attention to things like the cartoons. I was barely aware there was such a thing as a Ghostbusters fandom until 2016.

Kids like me xD
To us it was a *bit* funny, but also serious and an adventure. The GBs were heroes. It was more like Indiana Jones. Especially when to us the Real GB cartoon was as much a part of it, and the comics (particularly in the UK) and all that went with that.
We’re also likely to have enjoyed GB II in 89, because we in some ways were its target audience.

It’s why Afterlife landed much better than 2016.

But it’s also why I (and others) were excited for 2016, basically until we saw it.

(Edit: for reference, I was about 5 for the original. I’ve had this convo before with someone older than me, and it was interesting, because neither of us had ever considered that the other side existed, as it were.)

 

[jaime]

I adore the original film but man it's not really a kids movie (except it is, but also it isn't)

Smoking, drinking, Venkman's borderline harassment of Dana (thankfully redeemed by the fact that when possessed Dana offers herself on a plate he finally acts like a gentleman) the blow job gag!

Most of this probably went over 14 year old me's head at the time. But then there was GB2 and the cartoon which were more child friendly (I mean this was a time when even Robocop got a cartoon series and a range of toys!).

To be honest I was never much of a fan of the sequel and I was a smidgen too old (but weirdly too young) for the cartoon.

The backlash over the all female cast in 2016 was insane. It isn't a great film, but it has a decent cast and whilst a mess it was enjoyable enough. Since then we've had two, again enjoyable, films, both of which have far more in common with Stranger Things than the original Ghostbusters though.

Which does make me wonder, and this links to Who as well, has the franchise changed, or is it that the fans have changed? Because I'm seeing references to Who being too progressive, too intent on message episodes around environmental issues or capitalism, posts that new Doctors are too different to what came before and I wonder if the show is really as different as people think it is?

The Pertwee era leaned into environmental issues a fair bit, and for an apparently small c conservative doctor, the third Doctor was quite the anti-authoritarian. Look at the Sun Makers, a diatribe against capitalism and taxation, or The Happiness Patrol or The Curse of Fenric's political stances. As for modern Doctors being too dissimilar to their predecessors it's a good job the BBC didn't adhere to this back in the day or we'd just have a series of Hartnell clones.

On the progressive side of things it's important to note that popular BBC shows like Call the Midwife/Silent Witness etc lean heavily into storylines that involve progressive issues (and pretty much always have) without seeing a huge tail off in ratings. Though both get fewer viewers than they did but this is in line with terrestrial viewing in general. The point being that on the whole viewers don't turn those shows off because disability or gay rights or environmental issues are addressed.

Of course you might argue the show is just clunkier around it's messaging these days, and you could argue that sometimes the change between Doctors is too radical (take both Colin and Capaldi, though at least Capaldi got time to soften the edges of his abrasive Doctor) I wouldn't completely write either of those arguments off. I certainly liked late era Capaldi way more than early era Capaldi.

Vis a vis Ghostbusters, don’t forget there was a TV edit, and in the context of eighties movies, GB and Venkman are nowhere near sleazy and half of that goes over our heads. Even the ‘why is he carrying tranquilisers’ stuff that kicked up when 2016 came out just looks like ‘oh, Americans keep that stuff in their medicine drawers’ based on basically ever other film. Consider ‘sleeping with Prince Valium’ in Beetlejuice.

 

[jaime]

Agreed, Doctor Who has always been progressive and qualified as being "woke" long before that term in that context became en vogue. And for all the whining about modern Who being "a bunch of PSAs" classic Who had quite a bit to say about the world and politics of the time. The next logical argument, I imagine is someone is going to claim DW was more subtle about its messaging in the past and is now bashing people over the head with its morals, but my response to that would be the Thor "is it, though?" meme. The only time I've felt Doctor Who was a bit too obviously "on the soapbox" as it were was Whittaker's cautionary tale against global warming, which I blame on that being a really poorly written episode in general.

Oh there’s a lot more. The Whitaker era does it a *lot*. But more importantly, the production team — well RTD — will be on YouTube to bang whatever drum he thought he was going for, most recently with Pete McTighe on a ‘show’ hosted by possibly a transsexual, possibly a drag queen, and someone I think may be non-binary. Which is also going to be off putting for small c conservatives, or middle of the road parents (and send the right wingers into actually froth) a bit at least.
It really isn’t subtle, which limits its audience, and nobbles the use of any allegory being used.

 

[CuriousCaitian]

Oh there’s a lot more. The Whitaker era does it a *lot*. But more importantly, the production team — well RTD — will be on YouTube to bang whatever drum he thought he was going for, most recently with Pete McTighe on a ‘show’ hosted by possibly a transsexual, possibly a drag queen, and someone I think may be non-binary. Which is also going to be off putting for small c conservatives, or middle of the road parents (and send the right wingers into actually froth) a bit at least.
It really isn’t subtle, which limits its audience, and nobbles the use of any allegory being used.

Wait. Hold on.

At a time like this, with trans and enby people under such attack in the US, UK and elsewhere, you want to be subtle, so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of "moderate" conservatives, because apparently that's just how important a demographic they are?

How subtle, then, given trans and enby people just existing and talking about it with a guy who includes us in his show, apparently isn't? Just vaguely allude, in a way that can easily be explained away or edited out should someone object? Outcast-style allegory so clumsy and ill-defined and timid it barely registers as much of anything?

I have my issues with RTD2, but the man's tireless allyship when we need it most sure as hell ain't one of them.

 

[jaime]

Wait. Hold on.

At a time like this, with trans and enby people under such attack in the US, UK and elsewhere, you want to be subtle, so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of "moderate" conservatives, because apparently that's just how important a demographic they are?

How subtle, then, given trans and enby people just existing and talking about it with a guy who includes us in his show, apparently isn't? Just vaguely allude, in a way that can easily be explained away or edited out should someone object? Outcast-style allegory so clumsy and ill-defined and timid it barely registers as much of anything?

I have my issues with RTD2, but the man's tireless allyship when we need it most sure as hell ain't one of them.

Thats a bit of an interpretation of what I am saying.

Not ‘moderate conservatives’.
Small c conservatives. As in ‘not political’.
And they *aren’t* being included in the show. (And I think he messed up with Rose Noble tbh, not because she was trans, but because it was done so poorly.)
They are being used in the sort-of-after show and as a social media thing. Basically, it feels done ‘for engagement’.
They aren’t ’talking about it’ at all.

I don’t necessarily ‘want’ anything, vis a vis this sort-of-weird-blue-Peter-but-only-Who thing either.
My comments about subtlety are for the main show — and do not include not having gay or trans characters. They do include having less on-the-nose writing and less demonisation of pretty much any currently existing group in present day real life. (Except Nazis. Thats ok. But whether Who should touch WW2 or can do a good job of it is a whole other question xD)

I do think that when one of the reasons why the audience numbers are down is because Who is getting a reputation as ‘that LGBQT programme made by the LGBQT for the LGBQT’ and not as something made for a family or general audience anymore, then maybe sticking a cis het presenter on alongside the others might be a good step. Especially as part of the reason why that is happening is because of how the show is marketed these days.

Thats not *at any point* me saying ‘ooh we can’t have their sort on the tellybox!’ thats me being aware of how things are understood by general audiences, and how inclusivity stops being that when it starts excluding.
If you’re some middle of the road mum trying to keep an eye on what little Johnny and Jemima are watching, it’s quite possible you’re going to think maybe Who isn’t suitable for them, and not just because the monsters are scary anymore.
Thats an important audience gone.

In the interests of full disclosure, I may notice these things more because I remember being called homophobic slurs and bashed around a bit for reading (technically I can probably end the sentence there…) my Doctor Who books and Magazines in school, because it was seen as ‘Gay’ back then in the nineties to an extent.
In fact, I probably experienced more of that sort of thing when reading Who stuff than when I was dying my hair, paining my nails, wearing lipstick et al. But hey, thats the school days right? (And I only dyed my hair whilst still at school. Auburn if I recall.)
Light homophobia from the repressed lads who think Doctor Who Magazine is gay, while they trade issues of Men’s Health and Body Building mags…
It’s ironic that I’m cis-het and at least two of my bullies later came out.

British TV incidentally, is full of representation.

Who should maybe be a safe space for all. But hey, RTD opened the door for all sorts of stuff, and sometimes that works sometimes it doesn’t. (By which I mean that sexuality in general, het or homo or pan, really wasn’t much of an overt thing until he was running the show. No Hanky Panky in the Tardis.)

Edit: and the thing I was saying ‘wasn’t subtle’ in my post was the way in which they are currently chasing a modern LGBT audience — which needn’t be any sort of problem, and I certainly wouldn’t consider making the show open to all a problem, but it becomes one when you focus too hard on one demographic to the detriment of others without a care in the world.
It does amaze me atm how some people (not you, nor anyone here that I know of) will laud behaviour from RTD that if it were a straight man, and straight coded, would get him ‘put on hiatus’ as the BBC might say.
But that is almost a separate thing.

Anyway, I certainly didn’t intend offence — I rarely do, and hope I have made my stance a little clearer.

 

[Mr Awe]

It's pretty well documented that online discussions, blogosphere, etc. have become more conservative in recent years. So, not really surprised that online criticisms of both Trek and DW are now that it's too woke. However, I'd say that DW has been particularly hamfisted with its messaging (i.e., not well written) more recently.

So, a bit of both. Changing of fans (particularly online) and differences in storytelling quality.

 

[jaime]

It's pretty well documented that online discussions, blogosphere, etc. have become more conservative in recent years. So, not really surprised that online criticisms of both Trek and DW are now that it's too woke. However, I'd say that DW has been particularly hamfisted with its messaging (i.e., not well written) more recently.

So, a bit of both. Changing of fans (particularly online) and differences in storytelling quality.

Definitely a bit of both — it’s silly to think Doctor Who was never ‘progressive’ and hasn’t always had an appeal to the LGBQT members of the audience (even before it had more letters) and completely ahistorical.
But it’s also wilfully blind not to recognise how far its pendulum has swung, and how… messy, and yes hamfisted, chasing that has become. To not recognise that that comes with its own, increasingly large, problems. To pretend the show and its surrounding promotion is just the same as it ever was in those regards is just as silly and ahistorical.
And the show itself increasingly trips into being borderline offensive about the executives aims at times.
(I am thinking of things like the sperm and egg death scene particularly here. I don’t recall any villains in Who history who were so… well, had racial/sexual/gender stereotypes as integral parts of their character and their villainy, and then we’ve had two clumsy ones two years in a row. Maybe L’Hisen Chang in Talons, so far as race is concerned, but the less said about that element the better perhaps. Perhaps something from the sixties I am not so familiar with.)

I wonder if we will have much of a fandom left unless people recognise that and maybe come together again, and if perhaps the show itself could find the right balance again that may help.

 

[CuriousCaitian]

Thats a bit of an interpretation of what I am saying.

Not ‘moderate conservatives’.
Small c conservatives. As in ‘not political’.
And they *aren’t* being included in the show. (And I think he messed up with Rose Noble tbh, not because she was trans, but because it was done so poorly.)
They are being used in the sort-of-after show and as a social media thing. Basically, it feels done ‘for engagement’.
They aren’t ’talking about it’ at all.

I don’t necessarily ‘want’ anything, vis a vis this sort-of-weird-blue-Peter-but-only-Who thing either.
My comments about subtlety are for the main show — and do not include not having gay or trans characters. They do include having less on-the-nose writing and less demonisation of pretty much any currently existing group in present day real life. (Except Nazis. Thats ok. But whether Who should touch WW2 or can do a good job of it is a whole other question xD)

I do think that when one of the reasons why the audience numbers are down is because Who is getting a reputation as ‘that LGBQT programme made by the LGBQT for the LGBQT’ and not as something made for a family or general audience anymore, then maybe sticking a cis het presenter on alongside the others might be a good step. Especially as part of the reason why that is happening is because of how the show is marketed these days.

Thats not *at any point* me saying ‘ooh we can’t have their sort on the tellybox!’ thats me being aware of how things are understood by general audiences, and how inclusivity stops being that when it starts excluding.
If you’re some middle of the road mum trying to keep an eye on what little Johnny and Jemima are watching, it’s quite possible you’re going to think maybe Who isn’t suitable for them, and not just because the monsters are scary anymore.
Thats an important audience gone.

In the interests of full disclosure, I may notice these things more because I remember being called homophobic slurs and bashed around a bit for reading (technically I can probably end the sentence there…) my Doctor Who books and Magazines in school, because it was seen as ‘Gay’ back then in the nineties to an extent.
In fact, I probably experienced more of that sort of thing when reading Who stuff than when I was dying my hair, paining my nails, wearing lipstick et al. But hey, thats the school days right? (And I only dyed my hair whilst still at school. Auburn if I recall.)
Light homophobia from the repressed lads who think Doctor Who Magazine is gay, while they trade issues of Men’s Health and Body Building mags…
It’s ironic that I’m cis-het and at least two of my bullies later came out.

British TV incidentally, is full of representation.

Who should maybe be a safe space for all. But hey, RTD opened the door for all sorts of stuff, and sometimes that works sometimes it doesn’t. (By which I mean that sexuality in general, het or homo or pan, really wasn’t much of an overt thing until he was running the show. No Hanky Panky in the Tardis.)

Edit: and the thing I was saying ‘wasn’t subtle’ in my post was the way in which they are currently chasing a modern LGBT audience — which needn’t be any sort of problem, and I certainly wouldn’t consider making the show open to all a problem, but it becomes one when you focus too hard on one demographic to the detriment of others without a care in the world.
It does amaze me atm how some people (not you, nor anyone here that I know of) will laud behaviour from RTD that if it were a straight man, and straight coded, would get him ‘put on hiatus’ as the BBC might say.
But that is almost a separate thing.

Anyway, I certainly didn’t intend offence — I rarely do, and hope I have made my stance a little clearer.

That...is a remarkable amount of words to, as far as I can tell, say litte more than "play it safe".

Don't risk offending anyone, especially not those who might think trans+ people icky and uncomfortable, because it drives ratings down. That's dangerously close to the "go woke, go broke" thinking that's toxifying so many things, and causing a lot of creative stagnation. Just look at Hollywood.

I'm not in the best of mindsets, right now, for a number of reasons, the current horrible state of things for trans+ folk in the UK among them, and that is undoubtedly affecting my perceptions and reactions, and I apologise if I'm coming across as harsh as a result. That said, that Who is "chasing LGBT+ viewers to the exclusion and alienation of others" is a perception very few here seem to share. It suggests I'm not the only one here who needs to be mindful of how they might be filtering things.

Who's apparent decline comes down to a number of factors, for me, and translating a well-intentioned if somewhat clumsy approach to LGBT+ inclusion, and addressing LGBT+ themes, as such a major one seems off-track to me, and risks being perceived as in bad faith.

 

[bdub76]

Who's apparent decline comes down to a number of factors, for me, and translating a well-intentioned if somewhat clumsy approach to LGBT+ inclusion, and addressing LGBT+ themes, as such a major one seems off-track to me, and risks being perceived as in bad faith.

It's not pulling in good audience numbers.

If it had good viewing numbers, Disney wouldn't have dumped Doctor Who after the contract expired, and Doctor Who conventions wouldn't be experiencing a drop in attendance. It's losing both its hardcore fans as well as its casual fans. It's not working.

And I haven't even seen the latest spin-off, which seems to be receiving bad reviews, so I can't be bothered to find it alternative ways. I'll wait for it to show up on Disney+, and assuming I'm not watching something better, I'll give it a chance.

My gut feeling is that it's failing because of a combination of bad storytelling and progressive themes that limit its viewing audience. And I can clearly see how much worse the storytelling is today but watching some Matt Smith episodes. It was much better then.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

My gut feeling is that it's failing because of...progressive themes that limit its viewing audience.

NO.

Just stop.

 

[jaime]

That...is a remarkable amount of words to, as far as I can tell, say litte more than "play it safe".

Don't risk offending anyone, especially not those who might think trans+ people icky and uncomfortable, because it drives ratings down. That's dangerously close to the "go woke, go broke" thinking that's toxifying so many things, and causing a lot of creative stagnation. Just look at Hollywood.

I'm not in the best of mindsets, right now, for a number of reasons, the current horrible state of things for trans+ folk in the UK among them, and that is undoubtedly affecting my perceptions and reactions, and I apologise if I'm coming across as harsh as a result. That said, that Who is "chasing LGBT+ viewers to the exclusion and alienation of others" is a perception very few here seem to share. It suggests I'm not the only one here who needs to be mindful of how they might be filtering things.

Who's apparent decline comes down to a number of factors, for me, and translating a well-intentioned if somewhat clumsy approach to LGBT+ inclusion, and addressing LGBT+ themes, as such a major one seems off-track to me, and risks being perceived as in bad faith.

It’s cool, like I said with my ‘full disclosure’ bit, our own situations are going to play into how we see things.
And I hope you see that I am not saying anything quite so hard or far reaching as what it may seem.
As to how many people think the show (and more so it’s team) are reaching, there’s quite a few older fans out there on YT and what have you that — whilst I may not always agree with all their views — are very much of that opinion.

As to ‘playing it safe’… well, firstly, whilst our media *can* help shape the world, it’s not its only purpose. And the ones that are aiming hard for that probably aren’t the family shows. (They go soft for a reason.)
In Who terms, back when we had Torchwood, that was the one that could go further on things because of its intended audience.
The main show is a family show — once upon a time, het relationships only had a baring when they wanted to get a companion out of the Tardis, and they were very far from integral to the plot.
I could be wrong, but I think Bellboy and Flowerchild had the shows first actual snog. 25 years into the run.

I guess something also affecting how I see these things is how far my opinion of RTD has slipped over the years, especially recently. I question his motives.

 

[jaime]

It's not pulling in good audience numbers.

If it had good viewing numbers, Disney wouldn't have dumped Doctor Who after the contract expired, and Doctor Who conventions wouldn't be experiencing a drop in attendance. It's losing both its hardcore fans as well as its casual fans. It's not working.

And I haven't even seen the latest spin-off, which seems to be receiving bad reviews, so I can't be bothered to find it alternative ways. I'll wait for it to show up on Disney+, and assuming I'm not watching something better, I'll give it a chance.

My gut feeling is that it's failing because of a combination of bad storytelling and progressive themes that limit its viewing audience. And I can clearly see how much worse the storytelling is today but watching some Matt Smith episodes. It was much better then.

It’s not the themes themselves. It’s how they are done, and how they are sold in the media.
British TV has pretty much always been more ‘progressive’ than USTV, especially regarding homosexuality, so audiences don’t really mind that.
They do mind being preached at or feeling belittled.
And at times recently, the show, but particularly the promotion of the show, has managed to do that for some of the audience.

Barely anyone gave a shite about Bills sexuality not so long ago — but retrospectively she’s been unfairly pulled into what’s been going on in the more recent hamfisted attempts, for example.

 

[CuriousCaitian]

It’s cool, like I said with my ‘full disclosure’ bit, our own situations are going to play into how we see things.
And I hope you see that I am not saying anything quite so hard or far reaching as what it may seem.
As to how many people think the show (and more so it’s team) are reaching, there’s quite a few older fans out there on YT and what have you that — whilst I may not always agree with all their views — are very much of that opinion.

As to ‘playing it safe’… well, firstly, whilst our media *can* help shape the world, it’s not its only purpose. And the ones that are aiming hard for that probably aren’t the family shows. (They go soft for a reason.)
In Who terms, back when we had Torchwood, that was the one that could go further on things because of its intended audience.
The main show is a family show — once upon a time, het relationships only had a baring when they wanted to get a companion out of the Tardis, and they were very far from integral to the plot.
I could be wrong, but I think Bellboy and Flowerchild had the shows first actual snog. 25 years into the run.

I guess something also affecting how I see these things is how far my opinion of RTD has slipped over the years, especially recently. I question his motives.

Youtube is the land of outrage-farmers and click-baiters, so take everything seen there with a huge pinch of salt. They should definitely not be taken as any kind of basis for wider opinion or perceptions, and it depresses me how often people do just that.

And, again, veering dangerously close to the bad faith rhetoric used by the likes of Youtube rage-baiters. "Family" is not a direct synonym for "soft", for the same reason that "for children" is not a direct synonym for "saccharine with fart jokes". It's not that famly and children's media can't handle difficult or sensitive subjects, it's how they handle them. And I really don't think LBGT+ people and relationships are a sensitve subject that needs to be tiptoed around, especially if you're aren't doing the same with heteronormative ones. It feels like a double-standard.

I do think Who's approach to relationships in general post-revival has been dubious, though. Does the Doctor really need to be romancing so many of their companions? Not convinced. Then again, I also think Who doesn't handle violence and darkness all that well, but there we're fully into the realm of the subjective.

 

[jaime]

Youtube is the land of outrage-farmers and click-baiters, so take everything seen there with a huge pinch of salt. They should definitely not be taken as any kind of basis for wider opinion or perceptions, and it depresses me how often people do just that.

And, again, veering dangerously close to the bad faith rhetoric used by the likes of Youtube rage-baiters. "Family" is not a direct synonym for "soft", for the same reason that "for children" is not a direct synonym for "saccharine with fart jokes". It's not that famly and children's media can't handle difficult or sensitive subjects, it's how they handle them. And I really don't think LBGT+ people and relationships are a sensitve subject that needs to be tiptoed around, especially if you're aren't doing the same with heteronormative ones. It feels like a double-standard.

I do think Who's approach to relationships in general post-revival has been dubious, though. Does the Doctor really need to be romancing so many of their companions? Not convinced. Then again, I also think Who doesn't handle violence and darkness all that well, but there we're fully into the realm of the subjective.

Regarding YouTubers, it’s a contingent of British fans on some channels who… well, they’re grumpy old men too, but there’s no doubting they’re in for the Who, and somehow ended up with the politics, rather than the other way around.

Family shows do (or should) go softer on some subjects, and be aware of their audience, but that’s where the power and beauty of a well used allegory comes in.
Basically I agree — it’s *how* they’re handled.
And I def agree that it would be a double standard, regarding LGBT characters.
One of the reasons Bill was so good was because that wasn’t her defining feature (in fact, the way she brings it up only for no one to be fussed was a decent running joke) but just part of the mix. She was written and acted not as some identity polemic. She was treated exactly the same as Clara essentially — her relationships mined for drama and comedy. And to give her a happy ending when her character had been through so very much.
So it can be done well, without falling into double standards.

Which goes to your last point, which I also agree with. Though it’s not so much companions (even River can be read as *not a romance* so much as two people forced into acting one out by circumstance and with little to no agency over any of it) as… well, everyone particularly when RTD is overall in charge. Ten and Fifteen are… questionable in that regard for sure. It’s a NuWho problem.

And going into that a little, I was thinking that all over today — I think there’s maybe *one* het relationship across all of NuWho that was shown to be alright, and had something of a happy ending, and even the Ponds nearly got divorced and ended up trapped in New York. Consider the silly pairing off of Mickey and Martha that just feels… like someone putting away their leftovers. Donna and her husband aren’t exactly terrible, if a bit of a non-event.
I think Rory may also stand alone as one of the few overtly identified straight male characters of any note who didn’t turn out to be an idiot or a villain or both. Danny Pink as well actually. There is certainly none in either of RTDs run.
Ah! Graham. I suffered from Chibnall blindness for a moment there. Jury is kind of out on Ryan and Dan.

But does Who need any of that? And if it does, why do certain of its recent era’s handle it so so badly?
(Edit: I am jumping topic a bit here, but when I reread it I wasn’t being clear. ‘ Does Who need a focus on any kind of romantic/sexual relationship?’ Is this bit above. This bit below is me being a bit… annoyed at how they are handling LGBTQ stuff specifically, not asking if it needs it as some separate thing. Basically, if we can have Rory/Amy and Clara/Danny, then we absoulutely should also have Bill/Pilot.)
RTD2 seems to be using the whole thing as a way to drum up interest — like a corporate sandwich in Pride colours to get attention. Or hide behind at times, from criticism of the show, and from criticism of some of the individuals involved in it.
It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.