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

[Ray Hardgrit]

On every site I've seen with user votes, Rogue has been in their bottom 10 for the Disney era...

... but there have only been 21 episodes so that doesn't mean anything.

 

[VDCNI]

(A) ymmv, but that’s how these things work.
(B) probably not, but it doesn’t mean that the episode as presented on screen wasn’t leaning hard into the Bridgerton thing, and there are aspects which depend on at least a passing familiarity.
(C) there are ‘usual quarters’ and there are ‘usual quarters’ and people will put anything into that definition that they don’t agree with, just to shut down disagreement. And it must be truly remarkable a character in Who history that was universally loved without any criticism or bad reaction. Even the Doctor doesn’t get that status usually.

Not really. You went on and on about how bad it was, I wonder why, but the general reaction here was very positive, as per the ratings and similarly on GB. Hence my comment.

But no examples of this required passing familiarity. What a surprise.

Please point to where I said the character was universally loved.

 

[The Wormhole]

I know next to nothing about Bridgerton, and I still enjoyed the hell out of Rogue.

 

[Captaindemotion]

And soap operas are so called because they were seen as the televisual offspring of the gritty stage plays known as kitchen sink dramas.

That’s not correct. It’s because the original ones, originating in the USA, were frequently sponsored by soap manufacturers.

Why Is It Called a “Soap Opera”?

This term for some of our most melodramatic television shows has a surprisingly literal origin.

www.mentalfloss.com

 

[jaime]

Not really. You went on and on about how bad it was, I wonder why, but the general reaction here was very positive, as per the ratings and similarly on GB. Hence my comment.

But no examples of this required passing familiarity. What a surprise.

Please point to where I said the character was universally loved.

Point to where I said that you said he was. Rather than pointing out that such a character would be truly remarkable. (I.e of course there’s going to be criticism — including many like myself who felt it was just Jack 2.0 With 100 Percent Less Barrowman.)

Whenever a character says ‘just like Bridgerton’ would that not imply a passing familiarity would help? Not that it is required, just that it would add to the experience. Then there’s the music. Enjoyable, but also a thing thats very ‘Bridgerton’ and therefore improved if you know that. Otherwise you may just assume anachronism.
Similar for the Eurovision episode to a certain extent. Or over in Big Finish Land, Max Warp. Pastiches and parodies are either dependent on knowledge of what the target is, or at the very least improved by it. All the ‘Bride of Chaotica’ stuff in VOY is helped by a familiarity with 30s SF serials, and would probably be a bit jarring or even annoying to an audience without that. Whereas something like Airplane or Naked Gun still does ok for the most part even with audiences that don’t have the awareness of the cinematic trends at the time. Scary Movie? All have probably dated somewhat hard. I imagine Wayne’s World 2 hasn’t dated well either in that regard.
It’s criticism, observation, not an insult. I am not saying it is bad at being a pastiche, I am saying a parody of a parody is unlikely to work, and Who may not be the place for that kind of thing. Especially depending on the target. One wouldn’t expect a big crossover between Who and Bridgerton fanbases tbh, though it’s certainly possible there’s a decent chunk.

General reaction was positive in the places you have seen it discussed, not so much where I have.
And taking that to the most logical point — you may have liked it, I didn’t like it. Which is, as I say, the nature of these things.

 

[jaime]

That’s not correct. It’s because the original ones, originating in the USA, were frequently sponsored by soap manufacturers.

Why Is It Called a “Soap Opera”?

This term for some of our most melodramatic television shows has a surprisingly literal origin.

www.mentalfloss.com

Interesting. I had heard my version. Guess it’s one of those urban legend type things about media origins.

 

[bdub76]

(A) ymmv, but that’s how these things work.
(B) probably not, but it doesn’t mean that the episode as presented on screen wasn’t leaning hard into the Bridgerton thing, and there are aspects which depend on at least a passing familiarity.
(C) there are ‘usual quarters’ and there are ‘usual quarters’ and people will put anything into that definition that they don’t agree with, just to shut down disagreement. And it must be truly remarkable a character in Who history that was universally loved without any criticism or bad reaction. Even the Doctor doesn’t get that status usually.

If you watch the behind the scenes, the show hired crew from Bridgerton to do this episode. Lots of good information in both of these.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[matthunter]

Written by people who are of a different cultural and linguistic background entirely who model current social trends onto a form it does not entirely suit, and full of somewhat cludgey messaging about a subject that they do not have firsthand experience of, with added sex obsession inserted as ‘spice’.

Every Shakespeare play set in Rome says hello.

 

[jaime]

Every Shakespeare play set in Rome says hello.

Difference being the ones in front of the stage probably didn’t know that much about actual Rome xD (Or huge amounts about Italy in general, since I can only think of one play thats in Rome, but my study days are far enough behind me that there could be loads.)

And I was pointing out what it has in common with a fair chunk of certain Romance sub genres written in the last decade or so. (My favourite clunker in a contemporary set one was someone going to Islington Tube Station. Which doesn’t exist. Whilst speaking something that wasn’t entirely English as spoken anywhere in the British Isles. Would it kill people to open a book or at least google maps? See also: Ireland Holodeck episodes in Voyager, Ireland episodes in Earth:Final Conflict, and that time GRRM wrote an Arthur story in then modern Britain.) Now again, sometimes thats part of the charm — I was quite a big fan of The Parasol Protectorate for instance, and Gail Carriger tries harder than most I think — but other times it is grating, and Who is a different thing again.

The juxtaposition of the silliness with the scale of the threat also didn’t work for me to be honest. Since am now think more about this episode than I have since about half an hour after it finished.

 

[jaime]

If you watch the behind the scenes, the show hired crew from Bridgerton to do this episode. Lots of good information in both of these.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I had forgotten about that. But really it just highlights how *close* to Bridgerton they were aiming. And I really do think that it’s a double edged sword if thinking about the longevity of the episodes. (Which is a given these days in a way it wasn’t in the sixties and seventies, because producers now know about fandom, repeats, are more dependent on international sales, and home media and steaming exist.)

I don’t think I would enjoy any of the mooted ways Who might cross over with Trek, or do Trek pastiche either — though at least it might not date so hard.

 

[bdub76]

I had forgotten about that. But really it just highlights how *close* to Bridgerton they were aiming. And I really do think that it’s a double edged sword if thinking about the longevity of the episodes. (Which is a given these days in a way it wasn’t in the sixties and seventies, because producers now know about fandom, repeats, are more dependent on international sales, and home media and steaming exist.)

I don’t think I would enjoy any of the mooted ways Who might cross over with Trek, or do Trek pastiche either — though at least it might not date so hard.

I feel like streamers these are always about the next thing, rather than the back catalog unless they build new stuff off of it. There are some exceptions like Friends that people will watch over and over again. But a lot of it seems to be create binge worthy content that will maintain subs, rather than content that will age for the long run. Fandom is now another source of revenue for actors through conventions.

 

[jaime]

I feel like streamers these are always about the next thing, rather than the back catalog unless they build new stuff off of it. There are some exceptions like Friends that people will watch over and over again. But a lot of it seems to be create binge worthy content that will maintain subs, rather than content that will age for the long run. Fandom is now another source of revenue for actors through conventions.

Yup.
But the older, legacy fandoms, thats whee you know there’s a good chance that years from now a kid who *wasn’t even born* when the show was made is going to be watching it. And you want as much as possible of it to still be accessible.
It’s why old Trek, with its fairly stilted, classical dialogue and use of culture that has already stood the test of time as set dressing, is going to fare better than modern Trek.
Can you imagine if Darmok had featured Picard explaining the plot of Romancing the Stone as his story, rather than the Epic of Gilgamesh?
(I had to think really hard for something from the time thats already somewhat faded into obscurity there, because already the films and stories we remember are the ones that are standing the test of time lol.)

Bridgerton being staged by the aliens makes some of this episode make sense, but in the future, it’s unlikely people will know what Bridgerton is/was or why it was popular enough for Who to be doing it. And jumping to Austen by itself, or to the actual era, would make it a bit weirder, because the whole thing is through the lens of Bridgerton.

It’s not going to be as weird as Bad Wolf, which prior to Big Brother and Weakest Link making their comebacks would already have needed an accompanying note or parental commentary to explain what those were to get what was going on to any kid watching post about 2010.

Which goes precisely to what you’d saying about streamers focusing on the next big thing, and not worrying about back catalogue — having stuff that is likely to be somewhat evergreen being perhaps a little too dependent on other stuff that won’t be is a risky storytelling choice under those circumstances. Because stuff seems to fade faster now in some ways, than it did when we had VHS. (Willow on Disney Plus springs to mind at this point.)
We’re a petty post modern society, but we’re probably within ten or twenty years of a point where the Cleese and Bron Cameo in City of Death is just a weird scene in a weird serial that does stick out a little bit. At least it isn’t a thing around so much of the episode is built though.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

If you watch the behind the scenes, the show hired crew from Bridgerton to do this episode. Lots of good information in both of these.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

No one is denying the influence Bridgerton had on "Rogue."

What many of us are disputing is that knowing and loving Bridgeton is required to enjoy "Rogue."

 

[bdub76]

No one is denying the influence Bridgerton had on "Rogue."

What many of us are disputing is that knowing and loving Bridgeton is required to enjoy "Rogue."

It's not required. But you'll get more out of it.

It's like reading a Stephen King book, where he makes literary references. You'll still get the story, but you'll get more out of it if you had read those literary references.

 

[CuriousCaitian]

I think assuming that the references and homages are so important is a bit off the mark, and a bit reductive. I have barely any knowledge of Bridgerton, yet thoroughly enjoyed Rogue. I really don't think explicit knowledge of Weakest Link is needed to enjoy Bad Wolf, just knowing it's a quiz show is enough to also understand how the trap works.

The references are added spice, nothing more, a bonus for those who get it, and easy to find out about for those who don't, and want to. I should know, given one of my favourite things to do as a writer is working in references, though I usually try to be more subtle than RTD generally is.

Seriously starting to wonder if these arguments are being made in good faith, as we only seem to be going in circles, and not just on this. Or maybe it's just overthinking. No need to intensely analyse every last detail, especially in Who, and it's certainly possible to enjoy things in multiple ways, on multiple levels, whether originally intended or not.