'Doctor Who' Showrunner Russell T. Davies To Return For Next Season (bbc.com) 162
spaceman375 shares a report from the BBC: Screenwriter Russell T Davies is to take charge again of Doctor Who, the sci-fi show he helped revive in 2005. Davies, who was the fantasy drama's showrunner until 2009, will take over when Chris Chibnall departs next year. "I'm beyond excited to be back on my favourite show," said Davies, who resumes his role as the show prepares to mark its 60th anniversary in 2023. One of his first responsibilities will be to decide who takes over the Tardis following Jodie Whittaker's exit. The actress is set to hang up her Sonic Screwdriver after one more six-part series and three 2022 specials.
Davies revived Doctor Who in its current incarnation with Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor and remained for David Tennant's time as the Doctor. Steven Moffatt took over when Matt Smith took on the role, staying to supervise Peter Capaldi's stint as TV's indefatigable Time Lord. The success of Doctor Who's relaunch led Davies to create two spin-off shows, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures.
Davies revived Doctor Who in its current incarnation with Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor and remained for David Tennant's time as the Doctor. Steven Moffatt took over when Matt Smith took on the role, staying to supervise Peter Capaldi's stint as TV's indefatigable Time Lord. The success of Doctor Who's relaunch led Davies to create two spin-off shows, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures.
Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:5, Insightful)
They pretty much wasted Jodie Whittaker, while a decent actress, didn't appear to have much of a chance to show it.
Re:Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:5, Insightful)
I might actually start watching again now that Chris Chibnall is leaving. The series went downhill when Peter Capaldi was the Doctor and went over a cliff with Jodie Whittaker.
Yeah, I understand the actors can only do so much with what the writers give them, but the episodes seemed so much more engaging when David Tennant and Matt Smith were portraying the Doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah? And I liked Capaldi.
The general pattern for me is probably Moffat. I like what he does.
I'll still watch it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too, I like Capaldi. The closest to Jon Pertwee from the classic era, who was also my favourite.
The niggle I had with Capaldi Doctor, was the Clara infatuation. While not a bad companion, she should have died much, much earlier. Somewhere around Dark Water/Death in Heaven. That being said, final penultimate episode of Season 9 was outstanding and would not have been possible without the influence of Clara.
Also agree that Whittaker has been wasted. Hopefully she will come back in a crossover episode or tw
Re: (Score:2)
Clara died of old age in Last Christmas. Then in a twist ending, it was all a dream.
Honestly, get stuffed BBC! that is a dreadful cop out of storytelling.
Re: Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:2)
Re: Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:2)
Re: Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sheen will be hard to get. But his series of episodes would be magnificent. He is a great actor in movies, he is great in series too. Loved his work in 'The Prodigal Son' (cancelled way too soon, BTW).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hardly remember the classic era. I found it scary though. The Zygons were nightmare stuff. at the time And then later you see some of it again and fail to connect with the nightmarishness.
I thought the doctor worked well with Clara.
What do you mean crossover episode, Whitaker is going to stay for season 13.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah? And I liked Capaldi. The general pattern for me is probably Moffat. I like what he does. I'll still watch it though.
I liked Capaldi as well.
I didn't dislike Whittaker. I think she was handed such bad stories that no one could have worked with them.
Re: Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:2)
Call me a pretentious punk kid but I liked the longer story arcs of the Matt Smith seasons more than the one-offs with Eccleston or Capaldi and (sometimes) Tennant. I lost interest during the last Capaldi season when it was one-off after one-off after one-off with no bigger story to tell.
In retrospect that was also my gripe with some of the star trek series too. When there was some structure of a story, like DS9 it was good. When there wasn't it was hit or miss. Sometimes it made you think interesting thoug
Re: (Score:2)
Call me a pretentious punk kid but I liked the longer story arcs of the Matt Smith seasons more than the one-offs with Eccleston or Capaldi and (sometimes) Tennant. I lost interest during the last Capaldi season when it was one-off after one-off after one-off with no bigger story to tell.
In retrospect that was also my gripe with some of the star trek series too. When there was some structure of a story, like DS9 it was good. When there wasn't it was hit or miss. Sometimes it made you think interesting thoughts but sometimes it was just filler material.
Well they had to enact those subspace distortion fields with temporal shifted tachyon subduction effects yaknow. 8^)
I think Capaldi was given pretty weak material as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Is he? [slashdot.org]
Hah! Malicious projection there my creepy friend.
But looks like I have someone obsessed with me - how charming. Please keep it up. I'll keep responding until I get bored with you - Now you are going to have to up your game because the whole pedophile thing that you are creepily obsessed with has about run it's course.
You're gonna expose yourself as a rookie, or just a maladroit subnormal here if you can't do better.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about bad stories. There are general decisions about which direction to take.
Judging from the frequency of excited panting in the doctor's speech there was a deliberate choice to reach a younger audience. The ethnic choices in cast also point to reaching a wider range of companions people can associate with.
The appearance of wokeness can be misleading. There is political correctness in order to be liked by critical peers but his could be more about marketing setting out directions and storywri
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about bad stories. There are general decisions about which direction to take. Judging from the frequency of excited panting in the doctor's speech there was a deliberate choice to reach a younger audience. The ethnic choices in cast also point to reaching a wider range of companions people can associate with.
The appearance of wokeness can be misleading. There is political correctness in order to be liked by critical peers but his could be more about marketing setting out directions and storywriters and actors trying to fill it in.
I give the example of Star Trek, That was a very liberal series. But they weren't heavy handed.
My favorite of the whole ST world was Voyager. Lady Captain Janeway, put in a horrid situation, and works her way out of it without being a victim or blaming some patriarchy. A crew, may of who were women, who were competent, and comfortable in their sexuality. Interracial couples without making any deal about it.
And one big thing is that the Janeway character was allowed to make mistakes, and grow as a per
Re: (Score:2)
I might actually start watching again now that Chris Chibnall is leaving. The series went downhill when Peter Capaldi was the Doctor and went over a cliff with Jodie Whittaker.
Yeah, I understand the actors can only do so much with what the writers give them, but the episodes seemed so much more engaging when David Tennant and Matt Smith were portraying the Doctor.
Before Chibnall, every new Doctor became my new favourite five or six episodes in, even though initially I didn't much like them and was clinging to the last Doctor.
I thought Capaldi was an outstanding Doctor hobbled by mostly bad and terribly uneven writing. Ditto for Jodi Whittaker, and that's perhaps more of a shame. There really needed to be a female Doctor, and Whittaker was an outstanding fit. She really shone in a few episodes; not coincidentally, they were the best written ones. But the whole "three
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To right CaptQuark.
Chinballs totally wrecked the whole show and lost millions in Viewers but even now the BBC and RTD is still saying Chinballs was a success. They have to keep giving out the "tick-Box" praise because they just can't be shown to have done no wrong.
I think that social media gave a distorted impression. That you were either a far right Trumper wingnut, or a member of the Blue haired check box crew.
When in fact, most of us are right near the middle. Given that entertainers skew a bit left, it isn't too surprising that they fell into the woke camp with some directors/producers.
Problem is, just because a person is liberal or conservative shouldn't make them the choice to steer these things. Ability to tell a good story should be a higher priority.
Re: Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your post wasn't too long I'd replace my own sig with it.
Re: (Score:2)
As a German... most Americans are so far right, they scratch the line to Nazi land almost daily.
Even your leftists are right wing nutters by our standards. They're nutty in some other SJW direction that we don't share too, though.
(If you want to see very left but very not SJW, go to any former eastern-European country. Especially rural places. People are just very social and nice, that's about it. So no, SJWdom and being "left" are just as far away from each other than "right" and "left".)
That isn't my point. The shows and movies, were overly influenced by social media. A bunch of loudmouth whiners gained way too much power over entertainment, especially after Trump was elected, they went nuts like the right did after the "Kenyan Terror baby" was re-elected.
Ans some of them got into positions of power in the Studios. And it turns out that the major factor in making good movies is good storytelling. And they didn't have that ability. They had more politics than storytelling skill. There h
Re:Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:5, Interesting)
The characters were mostly badly written and designed. Not really engaging and most of all, inconsistent. Whittaker is a great actress, but the material she was handed didn't allow her to "settle" into the character properly since she had to change direction so often that the average person would've gotten whiplash from the jerking around.
Re: (Score:2)
The characters were mostly badly written and designed. Not really engaging and most of all, inconsistent.
Sounds almost like real people!
Re: (Score:2)
You may be joking, but people are usually consistent. If they are introduced with certain features and limitations, they usually apply to every situation, not just when it's convenient, while suddenly being totally absent when the writer would like them to be able (or unable) to do something.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well, I guess I'm joking. I only find that out afterwards too.
Re: Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:2)
Which is why we seek out something else in out entertainment. Otherwise, every living room in the world would have a mirror where the TV is.
Re: (Score:2)
The characters were mostly badly written and designed. Not really engaging and most of all, inconsistent. Whittaker is a great actress, but the material she was handed didn't allow her to "settle" into the character properly since she had to change direction so often that the average person would've gotten whiplash from the jerking around.
Wittaker did talk complete shite about the series from the start, however. To some extent it's her own fault for defending the terrible writing and direction.
Re: (Score:2)
What should she say? "The writer is a complete tool who doesn't know how to create consistent and credible characters or story lines that match the "vibe" of the show, the doctor's sidekicks are cardbord cutouts without personality and I can't play off them because I don't get anything from them but cues to deliver my infodump for the audience, so fire that dork and get me someone who can write a line that doesn't suck"?
You'll always find that actors will call a show great, even if they know that it stinks.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll always find that actors will call a show great, even if they know that it stinks.
No, no. Of course she is obligated to say good things about the show. The GP is referring to something else. https://www.deviantart.com/tim... [deviantart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Same deal. She wants to keep that engagement. What do you think happens if she craps all over it? People don't watch it and she gets the blame for the whole mess, too.
Re:Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:5, Insightful)
What should she say? "The writer is a complete tool who doesn't know how to create consistent and credible characters or story lines that match the "vibe" of the show,
Well, she didn't have to say
"Very often, we’re only seeing stories being told through the white male gaze. That’s what Doctor Who always celebrated."
Which is just bollocks. What exactly is a black woman's view of the Daleks? Or of the Silurians? How does this sort of bullshit relate to the way in which the Ice Warriors are depicted as developing through time? It's inane and shallow deflection.
Dr Who has certainly always been patriarchal in the literal sense of the word, but the Dr Who universe included things like the Sarah Jane Adventures, and several strong Time Ladies who could (should IMO) have been used as central characters of spin-offs.
Well, anyway. When the main actor and the head writer are proud of not knowing anything about a series they've taken up the lead of, it's hardly surprising that they fail to deliver anything worthwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what she had to say. I didn't read her contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Wittaker did talk complete shite about the series from the start, however. To some extent it's her own fault for defending the terrible writing and direction.
She was probably doing what she was told to do. I heard some of the stuff she said. Sounded like boilerplate empowerment talk.
Re: (Score:2)
The RTD era wasn't really any better though. His characters were 2D and extremely cheezy. The dialogue was terrible and many episodes were so cringe inducing I couldn't watch them. The good ones were the ones he didn't write.
It seems like the BBC just can't get anyone good to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, aside of his urge to always put everything at stake (lots of "end of the world if we don't succeed" plots), and my problem with this trope as something where I can't just suspend the disbelief that they have to fully succeed or else the show is over, I liked most of his ideas. Donna was a character I could enjoy for the most part, especially that her "saving the world" came at a pretty huge price. Torchwood was a bit cheesy, but I guess it has its right to exist, as does Jack. The "Bad Wolf" arc was a
Re: (Score:2)
Whittaker is a great actress, but the material she was handed
Whittaker also didn't necessarily help with some of her interviews: https://www.deviantart.com/tim... [deviantart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said before, actors aren't always free to say what they really think about a subject if they're under contract. It can well be that she was required to push the agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
It can well be that she was required to push the agenda.
Well, if so, I sympathize with her situation. But it is not just that
For example:
Q: If someone actually came up to you and said, "I'm not watching the show anymore because the Doctor is a woman," how would you respond?
A: I suppose I'd say, I think you have some internal issues that need addressing. I wonder if their mothers would be proud of that comment. [Laughs.] Some people are capable of change, but it isn't worth engaging with, necessarily.
Is it no longer fashionable to respond "I'd say -- Give it a chance, and I'll do my best to make the show good"?
Particularly in a show where it has been long established that time lords can change genders.
Re: (Score:2)
My answer would probably be that this isn't a reason to not watch the show. The gender of the Doctor doesn't really matter. I mean, the Master was female first, and some of those shows were absolutely great.
Re: (Score:2)
What I meant is that the Master was female before the Doctor was it. Not that he started out as female.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, and hear me out on this one, just have the Doctor reincarnate into another female body and give him a decent writer this time.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree... Jodie Whittaker seemed to get a rather raw deal in this. I really liked her in Broadchurch, but I can't help but feel the scripts she's been given, overall, for Doctor Who, have been mediocre at best, with all the brow-beating most of them seem to embrace. Somewhat like while I loved both the Moffatt and Chibnall scripts when they *weren't* showrunners, I pretty much hated their seasons *as* showrunners, maybe aside from Capaldi's run. I'm cautiously optimistic that any more NuWho under D
Re:Hopefully they'll have better writers (Score:4, Insightful)
They pretty much wasted Jodie Whittaker, while a decent actress, didn't appear to have much of a chance to show it.
Chibnall went way too woke. And yes, Whittaker was wasted in it.
Clumsy storytelling seems to be a thing these days. I have zero problems if a liberal storyline is on tap, but the Chibnall years were shite as they say.
It was all a dream. (Score:3)
The last few seasons never happened, and will be removed from canon.
We can only hope...
Re: (Score:2)
Get out of my head. I stopped watching after the third Whitaker episode and the summaries I have heard online convinced me Chibnal hates Dr. Who.
It's going to take and "It was all a nightmare" and maybe Patrick Duffy showing up, or a parallel universe to save the show, well that and some great Doctor Who episodes.
Re:It was all a dream. (Score:4, Funny)
Pam wakes up and sees Bobby Ewing under the shower who confesses to her, that he is the Doctor...
Wham everything solved...
Re:It was all a dream. (Score:4, Funny)
Bobby Ewing will be played by Tom Baker.
Re:It was all a dream. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Tom shakes the water off like a dog. He's 87 now, so there's plenty of creases and crevices.
Re: It was all a dream. (Score:2)
Here, have a jelly baby...
Re: It was all a dream. (Score:2)
He can't do that - Bobby's the man from Atlantis :)
Re: (Score:2)
Continuity had never mattered in Who, it's already completely broken so it doesn't really create any constraints.
Re: (Score:2)
The last few seasons never happened, and will be removed from canon.
We can only hope...
Sounds like how they've erased the 2016 Ghostbusters in the new movie.
Thank goodness.
Sci-fi! (Score:2)
Screenwriter Russell T Davies is to take charge again of Doctor Who, the sci-fi show he helped revive in 2005.
Davies, who was the fantasy drama's showrunner until 2009, will take over when Chris Chibnall departs next year.
Dr Who is science fiction, not fantasy. Get it right consistently, BBC!
Re: (Score:2)
Dr Who is science fiction, not fantasy.
As a rule there's not a lot of science in the fiction. As such, it's more fantasy in a sciencey setting.
Re: (Score:2)
What sciency setting?
"In space" or "in the future" doesn't count as science.
It counts as sciency if you imply that the stuff they're doing is being done by scientific means. That doesn't make it actual science though. It's like truth vs. truthiness. And therefore it's still fantasy, because no plausible scientific explanation is actually being posited behind the scenes.
And neither does a police box with some steampunk crap glued to a backlighted milk glass panel.
At the time of the original show the police box was an inspired decision. The interior of the ship was crafted to look "cool" which is what inspired the current, steampunk look, since steampunk is "cool" I guess. If
Re: (Score:2)
It was supposed to be. Pretty cheesy science fiction with a very tenuous grasp on the 'science' part, but science fiction nonetheless.
However, Moffat disagreed on that and a half dozen other things that were pretty obvious about Doctor Who, and when given the reins he went and changed them. To him, the sonic screwdriver was a wand and the Doctor a wizard, and the companions were the stars of the show.
It's been fantasy ever since.
Now just bring Tennant back and we're all set (Score:2)
What more can I say?
Re: Now just bring Tennant back and we're all set (Score:2)
Fan of DW (Score:4, Insightful)
And so (Score:2)
I need a male doctor so he can have a pretty companion.
A female doctor with a bunch of Adrics running around doesn't work.
I gave Whittaker 3 episodes.... (Score:2)
and stopped watching. What a dumpster fire of a show. The companions are boring and the heavy handed PC messaging too much.
Hopefully Davies can get it back on track.
Re: (Score:2)
The companions were no characters but cardboard cutout cue cards. Their "job" was to basically ask the Doctor for an infodump whenever something new and confusing happened. I mean, in the first (or second... I forgot) episode they get implanted some kind of bomb and they quite calmly ask the Doctor what's going on. There isn't confusion, nobody panics or tells the Doctor to get that damn thing out. All they do is stand around in a circle and calmly quiz the Doctor for information so she can spoonfeed the st
Hope its not too late (Score:3)
Jodie Whittaker ... (Score:2)
This is a good move, the problem has not been Jodie Whittaker, it was the lacklustre stories.
The problem is that he wrote a Pen-and-Paper game (Score:2)
Not a TV show.
I was watching Doctor Who for a while and more and more it reminded me of really, really bad Pen and Paper RPG sessions. The characters were like right out of a RPG game. They have traits, we get introduced to their features and limitations, they even have a background story ... which instantly moves where its name suggests, into the background, whenever it gets inconvenient. The same is true for their abilities and disabilities. Instead of trying to act what the character would do in this mom
might watch again once the new team is in place (Score:2)
there is only so many times you can see the current Doctor scrunch her nose in a 'stinky cheese' expression before it gets old.
and the writing is unimaginative. how many times must you go back to the pool of old monsters to fight.
When it operates on multiple levels... (Score:2)
... we get the best writing.
Doctor Who was always a family show and I'd go so far as to say, the primary audience in that family, would be the youngsters.
However, it was also capable of operating on different levels - the adults (or super smart kids), would get the overall message, the cultural nods and clever in-jokes, the younger kids would get scared and hide behind the sofa.
Like many in the UK, I grew up watching Doctor Who and I have my favourite Doctor just pinned in time, as it were. Tom Baker.
When I
Re:Doctor Woke (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem was the ham-fisted approach.
The key problem is that the whole story lines were spoon fed to the audience via info dumps. Time and time again, what happened was that something happened, one of the cardboard cutouts (the doctor's entourage) asked what's going on and the doctor went on an info dump spiel. That's not how the Doctor works.
Part of the appeal of Doctor Who was always that the audience was kept guessing and that we had to figure out things for ourselves, even if that was impossible because we lacked certain information that you only had the second time watching a show. That's part of the appeal that Doctor Who had, the re-watch value. You would watch a show the first time and be kinda confused, but intrigued. And after you've seen it, you watched it again, now with the information, to enjoy the finer details that could have tipped you off if you interpreted them right.
But I guess in an instant gratification world, expecting someone to watch a show twice is asking too much.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was the ham-fisted approach.
You can say that again!
I mostly learned about the latest seasons from Youtube reviews (e.g., The Critical Drinker [youtube.com]).
But for Arachnids in the UK, I just had to see for myself if he exaggerated. At the end, the episode turned into a literal PSA about climate change!
Re: (Score:2)
I try to stay away from YouTube commenters to movies and shows. Since bad news is good news in this business, all they really can do is crap all over everything because that's what people want to see.
Arachnids in the UK was really, really questionable for me. The "humane" way of killing them is having them starve to death instead of ending them quickly, since they for some reason have to kill them and don't find another way out? If those are my only choices, I'd choose the inhumane way. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of watching again, Pluto TV has all the classics for free right now! I don't think they are ondemand, but they are constantly playing at my house and I'm catching a lot of cool episodes I never saw before while expanding my like for several classic doctors that I missed out on.
Re:Doctor Woke (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the main reason is that these authors want to push their message so badly that they have that urge to cram it down the audience's throat. And the audience does not like that.
Having a message in your show is fine. Hell, SciFi has always put today's problems into a future world and shown how other people with practically identical problems solve them. It worked for Star Trek. It even worked for Doctor Who at times. But the order was always entertainment > message.
That's the part they got wrong.
The message may even be a good one. But whenever someone feels the urge to cram his oh so important message down my throat instead of presenting it to me to examine, I have to wonder if the only way people would swallow it is when you cram it down their throats.
Or, rather, whether the author thinks that way and doesn't think it could stand on its own feet.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who predate the video recorder also remember the time when rerun wasn't just a Peanuts character but also what TV networks did routinely. You could watch the same show twice a week. Literally.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry bud, but being respectful of other people and their cultures and trying to avoid things like stereotypes that upset them isn't "woke"
At the end of "Orphan 55", the doctor gives a literal PSA announcement about climate change.
Moreover, the doctor does this while her companions are pointing out that she abandoned a bunch of people to face certain death.
Re:I'm not hopeful (Score:4, Insightful)
That is by itself not yet the problem. The problem is that this then becomes a main theme of the show, whether it fits or not. "Look, I'm black!", "Look, I sit in a wheelchair!". Yes. We got it. We don't care. Give us a show.
Re: (Score:2)
C) The submarine captain was black though none of the rest of the crew were. You what?
Eh? I don't follow. Do blacks only travel in groups? I honestly have no idea what you are getting at here. Perhaps you could elaborate as I feel like I'm missing something.
Re: (Score:2)
To get to be a captain, you need to go through a long career on the subs. We're talking decades. Unless this is a universe where blacks are like albinos in ours, a random and exceedingly rare mutation, if someone from an ethnic group that is already meaningfully present in the population already went through the career pipeline and ended up as a captain, there's going to be more people like him in the pipeline.
I.e. there's going to be more people like him on the sub.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear from the start - I don't care how many black people they show. They could all be black as far as I'm concerned. However.... only 3% of the UK population is black so just how many blacks were you expecting to see on a UK submarine? If it has a compliment of 100 statistically you'd find 3. That means that 1 is well within the normal range.
And even apart from that, I'd imagine there could easily be 2,3,4 more that just haven't been seen in the course of a murder investigation. I mean, I haven't see
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't address anything that I said. I'm not your psychologist nor am I interested the degree of racism involved in your motives. I simply explained why it makes absolutely no sense to have a black captain, especially in a field as incestuous as being a submariner, and have literally no one else of his cultural and ethnic background among the crew.
Like I stated above, if this was guy a genetic aberration on the level of an albino, maybe. But an ethnicity that is clearly present in the population at me
Re: (Score:2)
I'll grant you that I was long winded, but you really didn't see the bit where I said that 3 out of the 100 crew would be black, based on 3% of the UK population being black?
Just to be clear then. 3% of the population are black. So statistically 3% of the submarine crew should be black. 1 out of a crew of 100 being black is well within statistical norms.
I think for simplicity you could just have answered my original question 'Do blacks only travel in groups?' with yes. Because that's what you're suggesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the show you're talking about. But it can all work out, provided it isn't just done to tick off check boxes.
I think the main problem is that they write a script first, then fill in the checkboxes. So the lead becomes female even if that makes no sense, she becomes lesbian even though that has no real relevance to the character or plot and the sub captain gets painted black because tickbox. If there is at least a throwaway line that gives us a reason, or that at the very least comments on him be
Re: (Score:2)
I think the main problem is that they write a script first, then fill in the checkboxes.
In the US its advertisers who must be appeased, and or bean counters. The biggest mistake is thinking the audience counts for much, we don't. Soap companies don't want boycotts, BBC wants to eventually sell its TV abroad. It's all about not making yourself a target by making safe mindless drivel that offends none who can protest it.
Normal everyday people are now considered racist, misogynist, homophobic, prejudiced filth and will be marginalized, until everyone's "special." I have no intention of living
Re: (Score:2)
An all gay cast doesn't matter any more than an all straight cast unless you start making sexuality a topic.
Imagine an all gay cast of, say, Emergency Room. Maybe with the token straight guy. Now what? With the same script, you get about the same show.
The problem starts when you make the fact that your cast is all gay the focus when there's no point in doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't complain about either sexuality of a character. Make her straight, gay, asexual, pansexual or whatever else is currently the big thing. The problem is that this also instantly makes it a topic, no matter whether it has any room in the show.
To return to my favorite female lead, Ripley. It's been a while that I watched the movies, so I don't really remember which sexuality she had. If any. Why? Because it doesn't matter to the movie. Make her gay as far as I'm concerned. But don't suddenly make that a
Re: (Score:2)
In the next action movie have the hero get his guy for all I care. Personally, I always thought that part can actually be fully omitted from an action movie, if I want to see Michael Bay kaboom popcorn cinema, the last thing I need is my kaboom being interrupted with a tacked on, tacky love story.
Re: (Score:2)
In the next action movie have the hero get his guy for all I care. Personally, I always thought that part can actually be fully omitted from an action movie, if I want to see Michael Bay kaboom popcorn cinema, the last thing I need is my kaboom being interrupted with a tacked on, tacky love story.
Carla Pestalozzi? Grace Stamper? Evelyn Johnson? Mikaela Banes?
You are so blind to the presence of straight love interests that you didn't somehow notice that the Michael Bay kaboom films have them. People, includ
Re: (Score:2)
Are you projecting here or what's going on? Can't you accept that some people really simply don't care what sexual orientation someone has?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you accept that some people really simply don't care what sexual orientation someone has?
I can accept some people do, yes.
If you stopped your offended whining, and defensiveness, you'd notice I wasn't actually accusing you of what you claim to not have anyway. I claim you respond rather differently to somewhat peripheral romantic subplots in films differently if it's a gay versus straight relationship. You are more critical of the latter than the former.
Because you *notice* the latter and not the for
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what to tell you. I know that I don't care for relationships in a movie that is not a love story. Whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not, is another thing I don't really care for much.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no ideaI have no idea what to tell you what to tell you.
So you tell me unrelated things things like:
I know that I don't care for relationships in a movie that is not a love story.
Cool story bro.
But it's still clear that you are more irritated for by gay relationships in non love story movies than straight ones. You picked Michael Bay kaboom movies (your words IIRC) by way of example, except many many of them have kinda crappy kinda irrelevant straight relationships which seem to have floated over you
Re: (Score:2)
Look, the only gay relationship that annoys me from time to time is my own. The thing is, I don't care for love stories in my movies. I want something that engages my mind, not tries to pull some heart strings.
I used Michael Bay as an example because he's known for mindless action popcorn movies. To be honest, I don't remember seeing one of them really with full attention. My attention during Michael Bay movies is usually on the gay relationship, you see...
Re: (Score:2)
Look, the only gay relationship that annoys me from time to time is my own.
It seems all relationships in action films annoy you including gay ones.
I used Michael Bay as an example because he's known for mindless action popcorn movies.
Except they do have straight relationships. We are so used to seeing them on screen that they pass most people by much more than gay ones. You appear to not be as immune to that as you believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe whatever you like. It seems it's more important to you to perpetuate your already established ideas of how people have to be than to actually explore how people are.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems it's more important to you to perpetuate your already established ideas of how people have to be than to actually explore how people are.
The only things I know about you are based on your own words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this.
Alien was a great movie. Not because Ripley was a woman. Not despite her being a woman. But because it didn't really matter that she was a woman. It was a great story that happened to have a female lead.
Re: (Score:2)
"Showrunner" as a term is about 30 years old:
https://newtv.org/blog-footer/... [newtv.org].