|
Diabolik900 posted:Pretty sure that BBC America is pretty independent from the BBC proper. The BBC only has like a 50% ownership stake and doesn’t/can’t give them any license fee money. And a lot of their programming has little or no connection to the BBC at this point. If someone else is willing to pay more for Doctor Who rights, they’re not gonna turn them down. I think this came out sometime in the early/mid-2000s, when they stopped airing episodes of classic DW (which, to be honest, were just the same three or four Tom Baker stories on an endless loop). When BBCA were asked about why they stopped showing them, they basically said "classic DW got too expensive for us to license" and went on to explain that they weren't actually the BBC's cable channel in America, but rather a completely separate entity. An entity that devolved into an endless loop of other BBC shows like Changing Rooms and Casualty; and then further devolved from there into "we'll air any show, regardless of its country of origin, so long as it has least one person speaking with a British accent". And I'm pretty sure that these days, they aren't even enforcing that slender requirement anymore.
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Vinylshadow posted:I wonder if these posters are from Fifteen's perspective, and that's who Fourteen is reaching out for They're reaching out for the audience, to try and pull them back in after Chibnall's run drove them away 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:Rise in quality - Inferno to Terror of the Autons. Inferno could have been told in half the time and the monster was weak. Couldn't disagree with this more if I tried
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:the weakest story of the season. I'm sorry, but that's going to be The Ambassadors... (*twanng*) OF DEATH
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:I said the weakest episode of the season, not the strongest! As much as I love TAoD, it doesn't compare to Inferno. The Third Doctor struggling against the fascist parallel universe version of his friends as the world ends in firey destruction, or a story where it feels like Liz Shaw keeps escaping and getting recaptured every other episode? Hmmm  (I do like that story, it's just that Inferno is way better)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
Edward Mass posted:Liz Shaw was just a weird choice for a companion. If your companion knows as much as the Doctor does, they can’t ask the questions the audience wants to ask! Pertwee's whole first season was just one big exercise in trial and error, really. They had an idea of what they wanted to do, but they were still working out the bugs, and they hadn't quite settled on the idea of the "UNIT Family" just yet. That's why the Brig isn't necessarily scientifically smart but is otherwise very intelligent (and a bit ruthless, when he feels he has no other choice) during Season 7, only to get dumbed down a fair bit throughout the next three seasons until he's pretty much just comic relief in episodes like The Three Doctors. Liz was the same way; they wanted a companion who was also an intelligent scientist and could hold their own in a conversation with the Doctor...but they also wanted someone who could ask the questions that naturally led to the exposition that the audience needed in order to know what's going on. And, if we're being honest, they wanted a companion that was pretty enough to keep the dads interested, which is why Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, Noted Scientist, was often running around in miniskirts and go-go boots. Since Caroline John decided to leave the show after the first season (due to a combo of being unhappy with how her character was written, and discovering she was pregnant just before filming on Inferno started), they didn't need to dumb Liz down like they eventually would the Brigadier, so they just came up with daffy but lovable Jo Grant instead (who was not any kind of a scientist, so running around in miniskirts and go-go boots was perfectly fitting for her character).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2023 09:19
|
|
|
I don't like RTD's style when it comes to showrunning DW, but I unequivocally agree with his messages of inclusion and diversity. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Oh give me a break already. This is such a deliberately hostile misreading of the entire franchise. Not only that, but as I seem to recall Kirk and co. often took great pains to not violate the Prime Directive. They usually only did so when events forced their hand, like in that one episode where warfare was conducted via computer, with victims voluntary reporting for death after the computer reported the results of an "attack". And even though Kirk found their approach to warfare inhumane and distasteful, as I recall he took no steps to interfere with anything, until the planet's government said "oh shucks, the Enterprise was collateral damage in that last attack and got completely destroyed. Sorry about that Kirk, better send your entire crew down to get killed in our suicide chambers". Kirk didn't just show up on that planet and start imposing his will, and I don't think he did that in any of the other episodes where they encountered cultures with values that he found personally repellent. And by and large, the Doctor has much the same approach, when it comes to only interfering with a planet's culture or government because events force the Doctor's hand (or because it's ruled by a repressive regime that deserves to be toppled).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Do y'all seriously not get that when I'm explaining why conservatives would like a thing, I'm not talking about myself? No, we get that. What we're saying is your hypothesis is very flawed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2023 03:50
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Okay, I'm going to try this one more time: E: On reflection, my repsonse probably came across as more "aggro" than anything else, so I decided to remove it. Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Nov 11, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2023 04:22
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Looks like in the Disney era everyone and their robot dogs will be getting a spinoff or special after all. Certainly has worked out well for Marvel and Star Wars! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
In DW-adjacent news, if you're one of those people who can read the words "Steven Moffat" and "cancel culture dramedy" in the same article about his upcoming new TV show, and still look forward to watching it, well you have my sympathies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
Narsham posted:You've buried the lede: also starring Karen Gillan and Alex Kingston. I'm not surprised that Gillan and Kingston are in the show, considering that their DW characters were A)annoying as gently caress and B)given as much screentime by Moffat as he could possibly manage. I'll also add that I personally think the concept of "cancel culture" is a completely fake thing (mainly made up by aging comedians and right-leaning media personalities who are very "not mad" about people calling them out on their bullshit); so it's not in the least bit surprising to me that Moffat has not only decided to explore this fake idea, but to do it in a show about how it affects the career of a TV presenter who's also a middle-aged white guy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
usenet celeb 1992 posted:He is absolutely getting out in front of something, isn't he Surely not the Steven Moffat who once screamed at Caroline Skinner that she was going to be "erased" from DW history, at a public event the BBC were having?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:The first season and a half of Morning Wars/The Morning Show already did this well enough Yes but it didn't have that special Moffat-y flavor
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
Edward Mass posted:The only show-runners I've ever started a new show because of have been Matt Groening and Seth MacFarlane. Nowadays, I look at who's running a show more out of a sense of "oh, that person's running the show? Now I know not to bother with it"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
At this point in NuWho, the universe has been rewritten like what, three or four times already? Whether someone likes RTD's approach to the show or not (I pretty much don't), arguing about DW "canon" (or whether a character looks radically different from when they first appeared in the classic series), when every season seems to end on a reality-warping threat, is completely pointless.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 05:46
|
|
|
As someone with a close relative who is disabled, I don't mind RTD making this change.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 05:58
|
|
|
Open Source Idiom posted:Speaking as someone with a disability I hate this idea that disabled people can't be villains (or "evil", in Davies' words). That sucks. I get that there's a bigotry inherent to the character -- alterations to human body = scary stories for reactionaries -- but I think the character transcends anything that simplistic by virtue of being the focus of several nuanced and interesting takes over the years. I think meaningful progress is about writing towards nuance and complexity, rather than restricting characters to decorous and contemporary "taste" (again, Davies' words). This thought did occur to me, but I didn't feel I could articulate it properly without sounding like an idiot (or moreso than usual, anyways ). There's a very subtle distinction between "character that's a villain who just happens to be disabled" and "character that's a villain because they are disabled". If RTD felt that distinction might be too subtle for the average TV viewer to grasp (and let's be honest, it probably is), I can understand why he might feel reluctant to have one of the series' major villains be a character that is perceived as being villainous because of their disability. How to fix that while addressing the very good points you raise is something I don't have the answers for, unfortunately, but I definitely can see where you're coming from.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Big Finish did a great job establishing that Davros was evil and immoral long before the assassination attempt that put him in his life support chariot. Unless RTD was planning to adapt that storyline to TV, it basically doesn't exist as far as your average TV viewer is concerned (or your average modern DW fan, if we're being perfectly honest). Warthur posted:Show Davros in two distinct timeframes. This one for pre-bombing is fine. For post-bombing, go with the head in a tube version from Revelation of the Daleks, becaise that takes it out of the realm of any disability anyone is likely to have any time soon. Except that they already had Davros be the Emperor Dalek in Remembrance, so that just takes it back to "he's in a wheelchair" territory again. Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Nov 18, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
Narsham posted:The Mutants does an explicit “ugly is violent and beauty is a higher-order of being” trope. The point of the story must have gone wooshing over your head like a jet fighter, if that's your take on it. The Mutants is a pretty direct satire on colonialism in general, and the British style of colonialism in particular, where people of the colonized areas (in this case, a planet) are treated as subhuman or lesser beings to the colonists. The colonists are even called "Overlords", for goodness' sake! The titular "mutants" are revealed as being a midway point to the natives of the planet ascending to a higher being like caterpillars changing into butterflies, but because the cycle of mutation takes so long, it has been forgotten in their own histories; and the Marshal and other colonizing forces already regarded the natives as lesser beings, so when they start changing into what looks like giant bugs to them, they have even less hesitation about murdering them outright than they already did before. At no point do any of the main good characters act like the titular "mutants" are evil or monstrous (except maybe Jo screams when she first sees one, it's been a while since I watched it); it's all the evil assholes like the Marshal (representing the colonial forces) or Varan (who's an example of colonized natives who try to ingratiate themselves with their oppressors). And IIRC, the "mutants" don't actually do anything violent or take action against anyone, not even their oppressors. It couldn't be any less about "ugly is violent" if it tried. Unless someone was to say "well the Marshal is kind of porky, so clearly fat people are mean and violent", but that'd be an even stranger takeaway from that story.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
In terms of "disfigurement = evil", there's a bit from Malcolm Hulke's novelization of Invasion of the Dinosaurs, where Sarah Jane is being locked up by a bad guy with a big scar on his face, and she cruelly mocks him, asking if he got it in a knife fight or something; and he quietly replies that no, he used to be a firefighter and got it when he had to climb through a broken glass window to rescue a child from a burning house. I always thought that it was a shame that never made it on TV in the original episode, as it would've been a pretty good lesson for kids to not judge people by appearances. Speaking of, there is of course Galaxy 4 from the First Doctor's era, where the monstrous-looking beings are actually kind and helpful, while the "normal" beautiful beings are ruthless and willing to kill everyone else to save themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Canon isn't story, it's background. It's past history. It's what we tabletop wargamers call "fluff". It's stuff that happened prior to the events of whatever current story that you're watching/reading/etc. It can inform the current story, but it most emphatically is not the story itself. Like history (or background, or "fluff"), it's malleable and can be reshaped to suit the whims of whoever's telling the story. A lot of fanboys get their noses out of joint when what they perceive to be rock-solid story foundations are discarded or reshaped by whoever's working on the current version of whatever, because they have made the mistake of assuming that history (or "fluff") can't be retold or discarded by whoever's in charge. Doctor Who having "canon" is laughable. The Time Lords went from near-godlike beings that even the Doctor feared, to stodgy old bureaucrats, to fearsome warriors fighting the Daleks. The Master has changed bodies and personas so many times, sometimes without even being able to regenerate. The universe has been destroyed and rewritten like two or three times since the revival started. Hell, there's even been different causes for what caused the Big Bang to happen, and still other causes for what started up life on Earth itself. To fuss about "canon" at this point is futile. It's better to just ignore the parts you don't like and move on, than it is to argue about what is or isn't canonical in DW.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
Astroman posted:If that's how Davros has evolved to be perceived that's a fair point. But as was said earlier ITT, Davros didn't become disfigured as a result of his evil or hubris. He was hurt in a war. To his own people, he was a hero trying to save them, despite his scars (much like Palpatine in Star Wars, who would be another candidate for revision in that case). He also is portrayed as a genius who overcame his injuries through sheer intellect (designing his life support unit) and continued to participate in his career in science and as a high government official afterwards. He would be a positive portrayal of a disabled person if he wasn't a meglomaniac who decided to betray his own people, get them killed, and then kill his enemies so his creations could become the supreme lifeform--but that had nothing to do with his disability. I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but unfortunately there's nothing any of us can do about RTD's decision. Short of not watching the upcoming season of the show he's helming, anyways (which I was already planning on, but that's more to do with not liking modern DW in general, and especially not liking RTD's "it should be franchised as heavily as Star Wars or Marvel" approach to it). As the cliche goes, it is what it is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
It should also be noted that RTD did mention that he and the production team decided to do this for the Children in Need special, because they knew that children with disabilities or with scars or other disfiguring elements would potentially be watching, and they didn't want them to be feeling like "disabilities/disfigurement= being an evil person" when they're watching what is supposed to be a light-hearted DW special in aid of charity. Yes, he definitely could have handled it differently, but I can at least understand where he was coming from.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
DavidCameronsPig posted:There’s a definite tension here. Dr Who is not Trek. Who is, amongst other things, a historical educational show, a modern day soap opera, and only relatively occasionally a high concept morality play sci-fi show. That’s part of what makes me eyeroll at the ‘What? Black people? In London!?’ commentary. Yeah. There were black people in London. There was always black people in London, going all the way back to it being Londinium. History, as 12 said to Bill, is a whitewash. Who is as good of a format as any to actually educate people. That was one of the original purposes of the show! DW stopped being a "historical educational show" the moment the TARDIS materialized on Skaro in the second story. quote:Treks whole thing of ‘we created magic food dispensers and all humanities problems went away, now we just learn the flute and gently caress magic lightbulbs all day’ is cute, but ultimately childish. As was already pointed out, if that's your take on Star Trek, then you completely misunderstood what it's about. ST was often more of the things you claim DW as being than DW was. And that's including both the "historical educational" bit as well as the "soap opera" bit. quote:Who is at it’s best when it has something to say. Like, the episode about Yaz in the partition of India, which I think was 13s run at it’s best, partly because we don’t get taught about that clusterfuck at school. Don’t hide from it. Explore it. Show black people in the 1300s. Have the companion ask. Have the Doctor explain the history of Black people in the UK. Laugh as the your weird uncle has a facebook meltdown. Things like that was one of the whole points of the show! I disagree, primarily because when DW tries to "say something" it's either completely clueless about its chosen subject, overly preachy and earnest to the point of reaching almost radioactive levels of cringe, or so hamfisted in the approach that it winds up relaying almost the complete opposite of the intended message. There are exceptions of course, such as The Happiness Patrol with its anti-conformity message and Seven's anti-violence speech to the snipers, but they're the exceptions that prove the rule. DW should be focused on telling good stories first, and let the teachable moments happen organically.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
Open Source Idiom posted:I think fiction should have something to say, but it doesn't have to soap box in order to do so. You can just tell stories that are informed by the historical time, or explore that historical context, without being preachy. The biggest impact the original series of Star Trek ever had, was putting a black woman on the bridge of the Enterprise, as an well-trained officer, who possessed a highly important job that she was expertly skilled at...and it was presented to an American audience of the 1960s as no big deal. TOS wasn't a perfect series, to be sure (a large part of that being due to Gene Roddenberry being an absolute horndog when it came to the show's depiction of women), but I think it was far more successful when it just showed Uhura and other people of color in prominent positions inside (or outside) of Starfleet, than in the episodes where they tried to preach to the audience, like the one episode where the two aliens were both half-black and half-white, but on different sides of their body, so of course they were super racist towards each other as a result. DW never really had the "no big deal" thing going on when it came to racism or other important social movements of the times, not for a very long time. There were plenty of moments in the latter category where the Doctor or someone made a preachy speech or what have you, but not many of the former.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
Open Source Idiom posted:I feel like we're largely agreeing. A lot of 60's Doctor Who did try and casually present diverse futures -- to the point where it's considered a typicality of the Troughton era to have a base staffed by a multinational crew -- but they're nearly always diversely White. A few stories try to talk about race in some way or other e.g. explicitly in The Aztecs, Marco Polo, implicitly in The Ark and a few other stories, but usually to ambiguously useful ends. Mid Troughton would have more PoC guest stars (Enemy of The World, Tomb Of The Cybermen) but also White actors who'd been made up to look non-White (Abominable Snowmen, Tomb again), and of course Troughton's playing Ramón Salamander with a Mexican accent. Oh yeah, we're mostly on the same page I'd say. DW really didn't start addressing diversity in its main cast until RTD brought the show back, whereas that was part of Star Trek's remit from the beginning.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
Narsham posted:In a broader sense, there is (and quite rightly) grounds for differences of opinion in terms of representation, not just a concern about depicting a Kaled elite as played by a PoC, but even things like Uhura in Star Trek: TOS as either effective representation, or tokenism in service of a futuristic, white and American-centric dominated "Federation" The claim that Uhura was a "token" minority on the show is laughable. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. himself begged Nichelle Nichols to stay on the show when she was considering leaving it; he told her that Uhura was a positive role model for young black children on American TV, at a time when those role models were few and far between (or, as Whoopi Goldberg said to her mother when seeing Uhura for the first time, "there's a black woman on TV and she ain't no maid"). If one of the key figures of the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s felt that Uhura was a vital positive image for black Americans, claiming she was just a "token" is wildly misunderstanding the context of the era in which the character was created. Not to mention you are also ignoring several other characters who'd appeared on the show, played by people of color, some of whom were Starfleet officers; indeed, during the episode where Kirk is being court-martialed, his superior officer is played by a black man. Think about that: during the 1960s, the lead white character on a TV show is outranked by a character played by a black actor. That would have been unheard of just five or ten years prior to that episode's airing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2023 06:09
|
|
|
So according to this Deadline article, current DW writers will basically no longer be receiving residuals from repeats of the DW episodes they wrote. Instead of receiving a smaller initial fee plus residuals for repeats, they will receive a larger fee up front (but won't get any residuals for repeats). This apparently was part of the deal the BBC and/or Bad Wolf made to get Disney+ as the international streaming partner. Not quite sure how I feel about this, but my gut reaction is that it's not a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:I think you mean which werent legally allowed to strike in solidarity with WGA/SAG-AFTRA. They did, however, have a day of solidarity (or whatever it was called) with their striking US brethren, as a show of support for them. At which, one RTD was present: RTD posted:Davies added that he turned up today to show solidarity with the WGA and predicted that the issues writers face in the U.S. will eventually plague the UK industry. Going to guess that was after the Disney+ was struck, which is, uh, not a great look considering today's news.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
Resdfru posted:Did the Disney deal happen before or after these new Tennant or Ncuti episodes? IIRC, the Disney+ deal was announced shortly after the announcement that RTD was coming back to helm the series again. I forget exactly how much time lapsed between the two but I don't believe it was very much. That's why this particular detail about the writers no longer getting residuals comes across as particularly lovely, because the deal would've had to have been hammered out pretty far in advance. quote:Is there any not speculation about what if any sort of say disney has on the actual show? I don't want the show to stop having London as the center of the universe with everything happening there. Or removing English jokes that go over my head till I look it up. There's no speculation because RTD himself admitted that Disney+ has input into the scripts, he even gave a vague example of them telling him to change a particular scene because it wasn't jolly enough or some such thing. He tried to handwave it away by saying something like "if you're doing a show in the UK these days, you're going to get input from American TV companies all the time", which isn't exactly reassuring.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 04:58
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Oof, that sounds bad. At the time there was a lot of hubbub ITT because people were claiming at first that D+ had no say whatsoever, they were just the international streaming partners and RTD and his production company had full and final say over the entire show. Then it came out that no, they're actually providing part of the show's funding as well, and they'd already asked RTD to change at least one scene, as mentioned previously. Generally, when you contribute to production costs, you have a say in how things are done, and sure enough, D+ is having their say. Like changing a scene because they think it'll be "funnier". Or saying that writers can't receive residuals from repeats of the show.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 05:07
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Given this is RTD Who we're talking about, changing a scene for 'not being jolly enough' is either concerning, or hilariously baffling. If it's a scene that's supposed to be really dark, that sucks but also doesn't quite make sense... but if they looked at Russell T. Davies doing a 'happy ending' scene and decided it wasn't happy enough, what the gently caress are you expecting? Disney only cares about that stuff inasmuch as whether it'll affect movie ticket sales in China (since the Chinese market is one they've desperately been trying to break into; and from what I understand, China has some very restrictive anti-LGBTQ+ laws, to say the least). That's primarily why you've seen them do things like remove or limit characters having any kind of non cis hetero interactions in the Star Wars and Marvel movies. Beyond that, they seemingly don't care if characters in a show are gay or bi or trans or whatnot. And I don't think they're hoping to crack the Chinese market via Doctor Who any time soon. So I wouldn't take that as indicative of RTD having enough pull to demand Disney not make those sorts of changes. Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Nov 28, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 05:27
|
|
|
Resdfru posted:Are there any articles with him talking about the change? I looked but found only the American companies comment. I believe it was from an interview in DW Magazine. quote:Russell: And that’s a good example of Disney notes. They sent us a note on episode one [of the 15th Doctor's first series] that said, “That opening isn’t as much fun as the other episodes.” It was a great note. So I’ve written a new opening – Slippery slope and all that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 05:35
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Man it's too bad they can't make Doctor Who with zero compromises whatsoever like... uh... you know... that era when they did that. This is a frankly staggering level of rationalization. E: I mean "an extra scene that he is apparently proud of". Of course he's "apparently proud" of it. They're giving him money to do the show. What was he supposed to say? "Oh I disagreed with the note completely, and I thought it was a waste of time and money and effort, but I had to do it whether I wanted to or not because they're footing the bill"? Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Nov 28, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I'm not denying anything. It'll be affected for sure. It clearly hasn't happened yet. That's the thing. When someone's paying the money for you to do a show, if they want something changed, you change it, or you don't get to do the show any more. A lot will be riding on how well DW does on D+. If the show's metrics (unknown to us) tank over the next season, you can bet the farm that D+ will be handing RTD and crew a whole bunch more notes all of a sudden. Maxwell Lord posted:It’s worth keeping an eye on but so far, I mean Star Beast felt very RTD Who and not something with the heavy creative hand of Disney in it. What it was, is largely unimportant. It's the fact that Disney, a very problematic company for a lot of people for a lot of reasons, has input into DW, input that is backed by the fact that they're helping finance it. That in itself is enough to make some people very concerned. elf help book posted:Just blame anything you don't like on Disney, very simple and helpful. It's worked for me so far! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 06:17
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Also the episode clearly and forcefully went out of its way to say “Trans women are women, gently caress transphobes” and even if minor elements were a little clumsy it’s obviously not something RTD had to compromise to get by anyone. Well, as I said, I'm pretty sure Disney isn't trying to crack the Chinese market by sending DW over there, so they're probably okay with the show doing that sort of thing for the Western market. Again, a lot will depend on how well the new series does on D+.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 06:21
|
|
|
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure at least one of the people mentioned in that huge wall of spoiler text has said they have zero interest in ever revisiting their particular role, and from what I've read I don't get the impression that the words "unless I get the right script/amount of money" were lurking around unsaid. The other person mentioned is likely tied up due to being cast in a big production on a major streaming service, so I'm guessing their ability to pop up in an episode of DW is very limited, to say the least.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2023 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Fil5000 posted:I didn't think it was RTD he was upset with but one of the directors? HD DAD posted:Yeah he was upset with Keith Boak, who directed Rose and the Slitheen two-parter. Apparently he was a massive rear end in a top hat, but Eccleston may have placed some blame on RTD and crew by proxy for not doing anything about him. MrL_JaKiri posted:And implicitly, and in hindsight, he was upset with Barrowman and the production team allowing Barrowman to be that way on set From a 2018 Radio Times interview with Eccleston: quote:“My relationship with my three immediate superiors – the showrunner, the producer and co-producer – broke down irreparably during the first block of filming and it never recovered,” Eccleston says in the latest issue of Radio Times. quote:“When I left, I gave my word to [then-showrunner] Russell T Davies that I wouldn’t do anything to damage the show,” he says. “But they did things to damage me. I didn’t criticise anybody.” Also (besides just disliking his approach to DW in general), this is part of the reason why I wasn't thrilled to hear RTD was coming back to run the show again, because he's got a pretty clear history of ignoring/tolerating/enabling toxic behavior behind the scenes. Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 1, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2023 21:04
|
|