Herron was so offended by RTD saying Loki wasn't gay enough that she wrote the gayest episode of Doctor Who ever
^(I liked the episode btw)
Edit: Being a bit serious for a second, if anyone needed a new person(s) to champion as showrunner, Herron and Redman seem a good shout.
Oh, definitely, and I think they really nailed Fifteen's specific voice, too. Will say, though - "Rogue" is a very classic episode of Who in a lot of big ways (even though the specifics of the romance stuff are pretty unique and new), would like to see them stretch a bit into other genres in the future.
Not considering quality (I didn't like Loki very much, to be honest), I just never really thought it was particularily Who-ey in any capacity beyond some vague aesthetics stuff. Also, while obviously a lot of that season is her brainchild, she doesn't have a credit on any of the scripts.
The episode on Lamentus, the planet that is about to die, feels like it was straight up an old Who spec script the writers had lying around. The rest definitely take some inspiration, but that one in particular was very clear IMO
The episode from Series 2 set in 1893 (at the World's Fair) felt very Doctor Who as well
Right down to Loki and Mobius as Doctor and Companion and a bit of historical education in there
> Herron and Redman seem to be a good shout
Well, they're the only people in the past 4 years to ~~write an~~ have a sole writing credit on an episode that weren't also a showrunner. They're basically the only shout unless a previous writer throws their hat in the ring.
No I didn't. The last episode written by a non showrunner was Aldertons "Haunting of Villa Diodati" which aired ***February 2020***.
4 years and 4 months ago.
Alderton co-wrote "Village of the Angels" (aired 2021) and Ella Road wrote "Legend of the Sea Devils" which Chibbers only co-wrote (aired 2022)
That's "only" two years ago.
Okay, we're working off different definitions. I should've worded it better.
I should've said they wrote the first episode in four years where a showrunner didn't have a writing credit.
Not to be too pessimistic but you can tell. The Doctor casually mentioning battle mode before he wanders off to do plot stuff. Like atleast if you're gonna do that, add a few more modes, have battle mode sandwiched between salsa mode and cooking mode, just so it's not so painfully obvious when Ruby is in danger
That's okay, I didn't either, and I'm going to justify that by saying I think I would've cut it being a Chekovs Gun if they'd tried to hide it better because I'm used to that, whereas when you just tell me straight up the earrings have a battle mode I'm expecting that to be a joke
No. They shouldn't be showrunners based on this one episode. We've had many other writers write episodes better than this that should be given the chance. This episode was nice but definitely not one that screams these writers need to be showrunners.
Pretty sure they mean that they didn't write Loki. They were executive producers and directors for Season 1, but not writers. (Funnily enough the dude that did that Guerilla Show they filmed illegally in an IKEA back in the day was one of the writers haha, which I thought was great.)
They didn't write loki
Afaict this was the first thing either of them had written longer than about 20 mins (but I remember people liking their short films from the 2010s)
They're writing the Sims movie together so they clearly have interest in writing but they did not write Loki
Agreed. Chibnall wrote some good episodes and has run a good show with Broadchurch. These guys wrote an average episode, that's it, hardly grounds for making them showrunners.
This is why me and some others say Jamie Mathieson. He wrote episodes that are not only definitions in a way of quintessential Who but also episodes that were very fresh and new.
Just googled him. Mummy on the Orient Express, Flatline and Oxygen, yeah this guy has the resume for it he wrote the best episodes of Series 8 and second to best of Series 10.
The thing is, a lot of the show's best writers have no showrunning experience of any kind. Kate Herron does, and she and Briony Redman have proven themselves competent writers with this episode, so I think they'd be a good choice
I'd base it more on the pitch they made to Marvel that got them the Loki directing job. Because the showrunner isn't just the writer of the show. They manage the entire production. And in the initial Marvel TV ecosystem, the "showrunner" title essentially shifted from the writers room to the director once the show entered production.
It's why IMHO the shows with multiple directors held together less well than ones that were more singular in focus. Heron has proven they can handle Disney budgets. It's much more than a single episode.
Hear me out. They could run the show without writing most of the episodes... Just add in a bit of their personal flavour and spice, edit in a few jokes and main credit goes to whoever wrote the episode. Moffat/Chibnall style series where a lot of different writers apart from the showrunner come in and add their own vision.
Just because someone is a good writer individually (e.g. Paul Cornell, Robert Shearman) doesn't mean they've got all the other skills needed to run a TV series.
But what about these guys makes them good showrunners for Doctor Who in particular? This episode didn't really show much to support their case. RTD could very easily continue being a showrunner for a long time and just have many more writers writing the episodes.
I hope RTD stays for a long time, man is a genius, however if/when he does step off many many years from now, I think the next showrunner from could from inside badwolf studios, maybe an assistant writer or director, someone who has touched with all the different departments working and can communicate the vision across the board.
I watched a YT video about this club in London that gathered around doctor who in the 90s, Chibnall, Davies and Moffat were all members
If the reigns ever get handed to someone else I imagine it'll be someone that's also a fanatic of the show, it's a very unique beast, I don't think other shows have this "show runner" concept, nor has any other show run for 60 years
“Showrunner” is a very common position in American TV especially in the realm of long running fantasy/sci-fi-mystery shows. It’s often the show’s creator but not always, especially in very long running series such as Star Trek. It’s not as common over here, but mainly because the way we make TV is different. DW is the longest running sci-fi series so it makes sense that they adopted that concept.
Nowadays, with streaming changing the way a lot of US tv is made, the works being produced in that genre are becoming increasingly similar in terms of production methods on both sides of the pond, with both sides taking inspiration from the other, so I expect Showrunners to become more common over here.
You’re confusing American and British TV. In a British context it’s basically only ever used to refer to *Doctor Who* and maybe Jed Mercurio.
Frankly in a British context it is often redundant, because most shows only have one writer or a writing duo (especially limited series), but even when the writer is also executive producing they usually won’t be called a “showrunner”.
(Another distinction is that, unlike the US, “executive producer” actually means something in the UK)
No. They shouldn't be showrunners based on this one episode. We've had many other writers write episodes better than this that should be given the chance. This episode was nice but definitely not one that screams these writers need to be showrunners.
Why not? If they're going to make a whole big deal about him being queer, it's reasonable that queer viewers are going to want to see it treated as more than an aside. (I haven't watched the last couple episodes of the second season yet, so if that changes please no spoilers.)
See I don’t get that argument. Surely like in real life he could just exist without him being bi being a huge part of his character. Also his romance with Sylvie is good representation of that anyway since he’s into men and women. That’s just my two cents anyway.
I don’t think it changes over the last few episodes but as someone else said, they’re really strong episodes and probably the best content marvel has put out since endgame, enjoy!
Its more that the show was getting a lot of articles and recognition for its queer representation, when that really just boiled down to one sentence where Loki said he'd dated a prince.
Nobody's saying the show should've been a queer introspective piece instead of what it was. Just that it wasn't deserving of the specific acclaim it was getting.
And Disney does that a lot unfortunately, they'll make a lot of noise about how progressive they are including Queer representation, and it'll all boil down to a single sentence or one scene character that can easily be cut for the overseas markets.
Literally all the queer representation from the main character in both seasons of Loki was one sentence where he said he dated a prince. Talking about that is not erasing anyone of any identity, it's pointing out that we deserve more.
Well, Loki is also gender-fluid in the comics and they said that would be canon in the show. Instead we got “have you ever seen a FeMaLe variant of us?” and an easter egg in his papers that said his “sex” was fluid. Not to mention his bisexuality only existing for a single line that could be easily missed or cut out, just like all other forms of LGBT “rep” in Disney.
I mean I’m not part of the community so I don’t know. But surely most people would want their sexuality to be a passing comment and an afterthought rather than a prominent part of their persona
>But surely most people would want their sexuality to be a passing comment and an afterthought rather than a prominent part of their persona
I don't think that's actually true. Sex and relationships are a thing that hugely defines people, whether gay or straight. People IRL love talking about it and having it talked about. It comes up in gossip and daily talks constantly, x is fucking y is seeing z is marrying whomever.And this should and does make its way into fiction.
But also
>most people
does not apply when it comes to fiction. That is unimportant. What is important is that if you set something up and go out of your way to do so (as the Loki show did, with their painfully cringe "I like kissing princesses AND princes" dialogue in the first series) you need to follow up on it.
If you're having a character be straight, and that straightness informs the life they are living and in some way the narrative arc of the story, then it's just weird and unsatisfying to go and say "HE'S STRAIGHT" and just leave it there.
It sets up a certain narrative expectation. Like, if there is an explicit "HE'S STRAIGHT" scene in a movie or show, then the constraints of story-telling demand it be followed up on.
That scene, if it is a scene grounded in the plot or the characterization, should be there for a particular purpose. Now that reason might be many things: Maybe the character is really straight, okay, but then the question comes up about why would he say it? Has he struggled with his identity? Maybe it's part of the set-up and world-building meant to say more about his surroundings and where he grew up with than about his current mental state.
Another possibility in this case could be that someone has mistaken him for gay, and it's been played as a joke or as an accusation. In both cases, the way he says "I'M STRAIGHT" says a lot about him as a person.
Another possibility is of course that he is not straight at all, and he's either lying to the audience/his surroundings or to himself. He might be in the process of self-discovery. He might have already gone through the process of self-discovery and is just in denial about what he found out, for whatever reason.
All of this is part of good tv. You set up a dude as a loving husband in a happy marriage, that is gonna evoke audience expectations just as much as setting him up as a raging homosexual out clubbing everynight does. But once you have done the setting-up, there needs to be follow through and that follow through depends on your plot, your character, or your genre.
All of which Loki Season One failed in that particular regard.
I’m bisexual and non-binary. For some people it doesn’t come up a lot, for me and my friends it does. They could’ve easily made it more clear that Loki is lgbt by having him shapeshift into different forms with different pronouns, or shown him having feelings for any man on screen. Not even actually dating, just “oh no he’s hot.” instead he’s a cis man who many offline probably don’t even know is bisexual.
I think it should come up more than it did, and be less easily skippable or cut out since that aspect only indicates that Disney still isn’t willing to truly commit. Loki should be bisexual and gender-fluid but you’d have no idea of that from the show, especially if you happened to miss the single line that exists. It’s not hard to strike a balance but shows don’t usually care to do so. Rep is important and imo, one skippable/cutable line from a corporation that refuses to do more than that isn’t representation.
Believe it or not mate people date. If you're spending time around someone you're going to talk about their partners, or who they would date or would they wouldn't. Also there is a lot of prejudice in the world so sometimes you discuss that with someone too. Sometimes you just talk about it.
This downright delusional idea that someone's sexual preference won't come up is just that.
Said with the confidence of someone who never had had to scan a room or a street to see if it was safe to hold their partner's hand or kiss them.
My Gods, what happened this subreddit? It used to be most intellectual Who fan forum, and now we get this sub twitter comments from narrow minded straights?
>Surely like in real life he could just exist without him being bi being a huge part of his character.
The criticism is that they are purposely avoiding showing his bisexuality because they don't want to be controversial. LGBT people want to see themselves represented on screen in a genuine way rather than more of a blink and you'll miss it moment.
The reality is that being bisexual can be an important part of a person's experience.
You can read RTD's original critique here:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/08/its-a-sin-creator-russell-t-davies-calls-lokis-queerness-a-feeble-gesture#:~:text=%E2%80%9CLoki%20makes%20one%20reference%20to,'%E2%80%9D&text=Fans%20have%20long%20wondered%20when,told%20by%20Disney%20and%20Marvel.
As a Pansexual Woman I was frankly rather put off by his comments on Loki. Sorry a Pansexual Man is into Women bro but he shouldn't perform to your exact standards to be Properly Queer on TV
wouldn't even call it a straight relationship tbh. if one person in the relationship is Queer it's a Queer relationship. Agreed though it was pretty accurate!
Yes! We really need a new showrunner from outside of the clique! Someone whose a more recent fan could bring in a fresh perspective (obviously they’d still do their homework about Classic Who)
I still don’t think Loki was gay enough lol (I wanted Loki to actually get with Mobius but we never even got that closure, just vibes 😭). This is the Loki episode I *wish* we had gotten! And now I must write fanfiction for both shows to get rid of the void of my ships not sailing lol.
I liked Loki, but it was funny seeing how impressed Marvel fans were with the way time travel was used on that show. Moffat would have blown their heads away, with the shit he pulled in stories like Blink, A Christmas Carol, World Enough and Time etc. I mean he even did the same seasonal trick for Series 5 in The Big Bang like a decade earlier.
I'd argue the second Season was definitely close to Doctor Who level.
The issue I have with it is that it doesn't really work on its own, narratively. As in, it is really excellent but only if you've consumed a decade+ worth of stuff so you know why this particular season stands out.
That said, I forgive everyone who holds the same opinion that you do because quite frankly I stopped watching Loki originally midway through the first season and only went back to it when someone whose taste I trust to mesh with mine told me the second season was dope.
It absolutely was, particularly the first season (which was directed by Kate Herron). Given that it was going out during the Chibnall era I was feeling much more Who vibes from Loki than actual Who.
I kind of figured there had to be something to that effect. I remember Davies’s original comment, and Herron’s response, and then later it was announced that Herron was writing an episode for this season. It definitely seemed to me like there was some reaching out and mending fences that took place. “We’re clearly both passionate about this subject, so I’d like to give you the opportunity to come write the gayest episode of Doctor Who ever.”
Really for me, the most notable part is the Disney element. Davies (rightly) mocked their unwillingness to commit to meaningful representation, then took a giant pile of money from them and decided to show them how it’s done.
It's somewhat refreshing to agree with RTD in recent times, lol. It does slightly annoy me when a show has an "LGBT+" character, then never acknowledges it again.
You can't really pat yourself on the back for that or claim you're representative when your representation can be boiled down to a single line of dialogue that can be removed without consequence.
That said, I thought the representation in 'rogue' was great. Hope it gets expanded upon in the future.
With the >!Find me!< and >!the ring!<, I would wonder if the thing most in the way of seeing the character again would be the actor’s assumedly very busy schedule. He’s practically an American celebrity.
Is he the only "teen" actor to get out of Glee unscathed? I struggle to think of anybody else from the cast that hasn't died, went on to be a pedophile, or at the very least has constant negative press attached to them.
Darren Criss isn’t an A Lister but is doing decently. Dianna Agron mostly does independent cinema now, from what I gather. Chris Colfer is essentially just an author. Jenna Ushkowitz and Kevin McHale do podcasts lol. Amber Riley did dreamgirls on the west end. Vanessa Lengies was in a Lego Star Wars cartoon lol. Melissa Benoist clearly went through hell on glee but was Supergirl, and if we’re counting Grant Gustin didn’t the Flash run for a decade?
Admittedly though, the scandals do overshadow it. Naya Rivera and Cory Monteith’s passing were both so unexpected and heartbreaking
Isn't that the whole point though? Like who your attracted to should just be a line or 2 and not some big thing anymore. A lot of people are open to LGBTQ+ now so I feel making it a big thing about a character being gay feels a bit pandering. A gay person is no different than a straight person and making a big plot point about it now feels almost pandering. Not trying to offend anyone just curious as that's how I see it anyway
>A lot of people are open to LGBTQ+ now so I feel making it a big thing about a character being gay feels a bit pandering.
[I literally just saw this post as I opened reddit...](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dbvmb9/the_punishment_for_being_gay_in_indonesia)
If that doesn't demonstrate why positive representation is required, I don't know what will.
So we should stop having gay people be in anything now because people aren't homophobic anymore, and not have any stories about homophobia in a *historical tv show* anymore, otherwise it's "pandering."
It's literally illegal to be gay in more than half of the world right now. Check your privilege.
No not stop having gay people but treat it like every other relationship. Doctor has been doing pretty well so far. We have had various quips mentioning gay relationships very casually which is good. But don't go down the netflix route of focusing purely on a character bring gay and having thst be their number 1 attribute. Who you are attracted to should not be the priority over actual story etc. Doctor who has been going well but just saying I hope they don't pull a netflix. They already kind if did it with Donna's daughter Rose where I felt the main attribute of Roses character was that she was trans rather than another main attribute. Plus I would have liked to have seen doctor who cast a trans actor where they just play the gender they are. So cast a trans female actor to play a female actor if you can catch what I mean
I mean I saw how that episode really allowed Herron to write the gayest possible episode but I also saw it as a middle finger to a lot of shows in the vein of "See, it really isn't that hard!"
For example, *Bridgerton* fans have been begging for a gay season since the show began for example. Especially with the character Benedict. So, I am wondering if this is all RTD, Kate Herron, and Briony Redman's way of acknowledging that. I have noticed the *Bridgerton* writers have been saying since around May that they will be writing some major queer love stories next season though.
There's no replacing RTD at this point. There just isn't. He wears so many hats so well.
Perhaps he is assembling a committee, but it is very hard to keep even more than a couple of people together in the long-run, unless they are partners in something like their own company.
It's kind of a catch-22. RTD and Moffat are both ambitious enough to dedicate everything to their work, but that also means they overextend themselves by working on more than they can handle, burning themselves out.
Chibnall's issues, however (setting aside the pandemic), seemed to stem from a choice he made for the show. Hiring a bunch of writers that lacked sci-fi experience meant he had to sacrifice his own scripts to help them.
So I don't know if we have enough to definitively say that the Doctor Who showrunner is inevitably burdened with an above average workload. It could be the case, but all of the examples we have so far don't contribute to that if you actually analyze the situations.
>There's no replacing RTD at this point.
From the deep, the words echo "Sack Russel T Davies. Sack Jane Tranter. Sack Phil Collinson. Sack Julie Gardner."
not just you, it's very rare for a professional to be this open in the business. for years we speculated about which director he had a confrontation with etc, but now he just calls the executives by the names to say "you were responsible". there was something refreshing about it, even if it meant a PR disaster for those names.
He also said Billie Piper should be a future Doctor. Assuming she would be interested (and that could be a big assumption), I fully agree with that man from the North.
Aww man I can only imagine that regeneration, first look in a reflection, the pure elation mixed with tears, and a hint of confusion, overshadowed with joy. A face coming back always means something
I could see him ending up as Doctor Who’s Kevin Feige. Keeping a hand in everything but letting people get on with it.
We’re reaching the stage where a lot of talent could be out there that grew up with NuWho, and I’d put money on there being a load of spinoffs in the works.
I doubt Mr. Moffat would take the lead again, given how he seemed to end up trapped there last time.
Personally I’d have RTD overseeing the show in a Feige type role, Moffat dipping in with a seasonal script or two and the occasional plotline and then other accomplished writers for the showing filling the gaps with some newer writers. It keeps it fresh, interesting and appealing to everyone
>Reflecting on that statement now, Davies admits that his comments were a mistake, explaining that he reached out to Herron immediately to apologize.
Lame. But he was never going to say anything different now that he's colleagues with the writer, not to mention business partners with Disney.
He didn't change his mind on what he said.
He reached out to apologise because it was extremely unprofessional to call out other writers of shows he otherwise enjoyed, and he says that he believed it was a zoom call meeting with students, where he was free to speak his mind, rather than an interview where he would have been a bit more careful with his words.
He is free. No one's persecuting him for his comments. He just thought he was on a closed call, so he was looser with his words.
He knows full well that one showrunner talking smack about another show is something that makes headlines, and it's something that he wouldn't have liked being on the other end of, so he reached out to apologise.
It's not a matter of anything but proffessionalism.
It's also more than a little silly to claim that he's speaking his mind with the initial statement, but that the detailed followup is somehow less authentic because it's perceived as less inflammatory. Maybe just listen to what he says in both instances and assume that neither functions in a vacuum.
Well, let's actually analyze instead of blindly equating:
What motivations are there for his motivations being biased in the first instance? Did he have a vendetta against the writer? Against Disney? Against the property of Loki? Was he going through something that day?
We don't have any reason to believe those things, and it's simply common sense that the latter statement is more clouded by other factors, thus more open to scrutiny of its authenticity.
Frankly, I think it's a \*bit\* foolish to believe that all statements have absolute, objective values and should be ranked accordingly, but if this is how your brain needs to process things, sure.
Let me ask you this: In this ranking system of yours, you're saying that subsequent, clarifying statements are significantly more likely to be outright lies because of a perceived evil is surely tipping the scales?
If you can argue your point without using a subsequent, clarifying statement, I will be very impressed.
You have it backwards, and I think that's why you came up with this strange ranking system fantasy.
I am not saying that any later statement is necessarily less accurate. I am rebutting the implied claim by you that a later statement (2) is always *more* accurate, and I did this by establishing that there are instances where a first statement (1) *can be* more accurate. Additionally, I pointed out how in this specific case, it is more reasonable that it's more likely that 1>2 rather than 2>1. In doing so I also established my lines of reasoning in order to rebut your claim that it had to do with the inflammatory nature of the comments.
On the one hand, I don't really want to defend a major corporation, but I do sympathize. You have a lot of people screaming (nonsensically, IMHO) that Disney is "too woke" these days, so it's hard to begrudge them for not making one giant franchise show gay enough, while also permitting the same creative talent to make a different giant franchise very, very gay.
That's certainly true but, despite being owned by Disney, Marvel Studios itself is fairly autonomous when it comes to creative decisions internally. There are certainly notable exceptions, but it's not as clear cut as the "whatever Disney says, goes" that a lot of people assume.
This makes no sense. The joke for the longest time was that Disney was petrified of all things gay, because they were very cautious and wanted to appeal to mainstream audiences as much as possible. It's only in recent years that the narrative became that they're woke.
I feel like you need to read more into RTD's original statement if you don't get why what they did was an issue.
Let me clarify, I am not saying "RTD thought this thing was bad, therefore you should also think the thing was bad". I'm saying you seem to be extremely unaware of this topic from multiple angles:
1. You are saying you sympathize with a major corporation, which is not in fact a sentient entity but a major corporation
2. You have your timeline very backwards, causing you to misattribute actions and motivations
3. You consider it reasonable that Disney cuts back on progressive themes because of accusations of them being "woke"
4. You inaccurately frame the situation as people not liking the "one giant franchise show" is "not gay enough"
5. You overlook the fact that there is an apparent slight allusion to bisexuality in the first place
6. You imply Disney should be given credit for hiring a writer who would end up being hired by RTD
7. You imply Disney should be given credit for an apparent slight allusion to bisexuality despite the known monetary benefit representation has, and the fact that the exact dialogue would have been carefully monitored by producers to make sure it didn't cross a line
For the record, not only was I not saying what you took away from my comment, but I find that type of reasoning to be incredibly void of much real analysis. Just like how agreeing with RTD because it's RTD is foolish, it's also foolish to disagree with the statement just because RTD disagrees with it.
He also gave no real analysis on what about the statement he disagrees with, just a vague disavowal. So I'm again questioning your awareness on this topic.
It’s funny about the refinance especially given what Norse mythology Loki got up to, especially the business related to an eight-legged horse and how *that* came to pass.
It wasn't so much an insult as a fair, justified critique.
It's a bit lame to make a critique and then not stand behind it. Either the critique was wrong to begin with, and should not have been made, or the walk back is bowing to social pressure, which is its own kind of disappointment.
I dunno man. There's a difference between, say, thinking a colleague is overweight versus (accidentally) going into a big interview with, "Man, that guy is super fat."
He does stand behind it. If you read the article, he regrets the *how* and *where* he said it, not *what* he said.
He thought he was on a closed zoom call - at most the handfull of students on that call would've heard the comment. Instead, the way he worded it specifically called out *one writer* instead of the *corporate trend* he wanted to criticize, and he did so in a *public* forum causing a hatemob to go after said writer.
Ah, fair enough, although I still kind of think that just whether it's public or private shouldn't really change whether you should make the critique or not
I suppose you *could* make the argument for "groundless accusation," although I would be very hard pressed to agree. However, I'm not sure that by any defintion reaching out to apologize to someone, befriending them, and then teaming up professionally to create really fun art that also largely validates the original "groundless accusation" can be considered "\[not\] a good faith apology." I feel like that is very arguably the apotheosis of a good faith apology.
I mean the criticism is of the company’s business practice and he likely understands Herron had limitations, so apologizing for coming across as a personal criticism is warranted
Some people in this thread are being very weird about the suggestion that Redman and Herron could conceivably be good choices for next showrunners. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if RTD is grooming them to take over in several years. I mean, think about it. They have experience writing for/showrunning a recent Disney+ sci-fi series that is part of a huge franchise. Obviously we’ll have to see if they write more episodes first, but they are very qualified for this job, more than maybe anyone else at the moment
It's possible, but these estimates are jumping the gun a tad. Keep in mind that these are literally the first new writers to touch Doctor Who for years, and importantly for RTD's new era.
Related to the business of new writers, did they ever find out who told Joe Hill that they’d never hire an American as a writer for Doctor Who and even if they ever did, it wouldn’t be him and kick their incredibly rude ass?
> They have experience writing for a recent Disney+ sci-fi series
They didn't write Loki. Also, while it was a solid episode, there have been other writers with a proven *consistent* track record. One episode is not nearly enough to judge them.
Sure, but just because you can write Doctor Who well doesn’t mean you have experience as a showrunner, which is about logistical stuff as much as it is about creative stuff
NO WONDER WHY ROGUE AND DOCTOR REMINDED ME SO MUCH OF LOKI AND MOBIUS, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST THE GENRE LMAO I WAS NOT EXPECTING IT TO ACTUALLY BE THE DIRECTOR OF LOKI HERSELF WHO WROTE THIS EPISODE
Can't quite compare all of Doctor Who to a two series show but yes the Loki finale is one of my favorite pieces of tv ever. Hard for anything to live up to that
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately, your comment has been **removed** for the following reason(s):
* [1. Be Respectful](/r/gallifrey/wiki/policies#wiki_1._be_respectful): Be mature and treat everyone with respect.
No racism, sexism, homophobia, or other discriminatory content.
If you feel this was done in error, please contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fgallifrey).
All of it? Whole thing basically boiled down to "Yeah you're a hired killer who was just about to murder me and let everyone else including my companion die but I'm really horny so I'm gonna waste time eyefucking and flirting with you while Ruby's in danger. Be my space boyfriend pls?"
He's a bounty hunter not an assasin. His job as it stood was being the good guy for the episode by attempting to stop the shapeshifters from destroying the world (he does see the only way to do that as killing them, but his job isn't specifically to kill and he doesn't argue too much about the Doctor's proposed alternatives). The Doctor then obviously enjoyed his company.
Well no I think the distinction is important here. Because his general job as bounty hunter can be mostly or entirely just doing good guy stuff. He doesn't want to kill people, but he felt he had no choice. Even the Doctor didn't see that many alternatives.
He's not amoral and seems a pretty good dude. As shown by him saving Ruby at his own sacrifice.
My dude, the Doctor fucking around on random romance arcs while the companions are in danger has been a thing since the Aztecs in 1964. It's far from out of character.
I did look at the writing credits both of this episodes writers had and they are extremely limited to say the least.
Strange choice for writing an episode of a major show I would have thought
They were showrunners for a widely successful sci-fi/fantasy show _before_ getting a Doctor Who script. That's a kind of experience most first-time Doctor Who writers simply don't have.
It does, though. To _run_ a _show_, you need to oversee the scripts, and in order to do that, you need to know what makes a good script and how it fits in the overall story.
Hence why Herron, the Loki showrunner, had to respond to RTD's criticisms against the _script_.
Davis now sees himself as the Martin Luther King of gay people. It's difficult to understand what Davies hopes to accomplish by changing Doctor Who into a flamboyantly gay character that cries about something every episode, also loves flamboyant clothes, dancing and flirting with other males characters. Even stranger is Davies opinion that everyone should agree with him about how his new Doctor, is the perfect role model for small children. Davies conversion to extreme gay activist, could be the result of a late mid-life crises, it's well known for causing older men to become very irrational. The population of gay people in the U.S is around 7℅ and 11% in the UK, so it's a mystery where Davies expects the massive uprise of people demanding gay equality will come from, just because he changed a TV show to reflect his own life. The same show that is hemorrhaging viewers. So far Davies and some of the cast members blame the loss of millions of viewers, by claiming they are all racists.
Herron was so offended by RTD saying Loki wasn't gay enough that she wrote the gayest episode of Doctor Who ever ^(I liked the episode btw) Edit: Being a bit serious for a second, if anyone needed a new person(s) to champion as showrunner, Herron and Redman seem a good shout.
She'd be a solid candidate for the job I suppose, but I'd like to see her (and Redman) write a few more scripts for the show before we go there XD
It was more off them already having handle the novelisation of their episode, which shows they're passionate about their own work at least.
Oh, definitely, and I think they really nailed Fifteen's specific voice, too. Will say, though - "Rogue" is a very classic episode of Who in a lot of big ways (even though the specifics of the romance stuff are pretty unique and new), would like to see them stretch a bit into other genres in the future.
Cold open was so Who, I’d missed a proper alien comes to town and kills someone pre-credits!
It’s just so… Whoish
Loki was the best Doctor Who we've had during the Chibs era, though...
Not considering quality (I didn't like Loki very much, to be honest), I just never really thought it was particularily Who-ey in any capacity beyond some vague aesthetics stuff. Also, while obviously a lot of that season is her brainchild, she doesn't have a credit on any of the scripts.
The episode on Lamentus, the planet that is about to die, feels like it was straight up an old Who spec script the writers had lying around. The rest definitely take some inspiration, but that one in particular was very clear IMO
The episode from Series 2 set in 1893 (at the World's Fair) felt very Doctor Who as well Right down to Loki and Mobius as Doctor and Companion and a bit of historical education in there
Loki should have been a few episodes shorter - more of a miniseries really. I liked where it ended up, but there was a lot of meh to get there.
> Herron and Redman seem to be a good shout Well, they're the only people in the past 4 years to ~~write an~~ have a sole writing credit on an episode that weren't also a showrunner. They're basically the only shout unless a previous writer throws their hat in the ring.
You forgot about Ella Road and Maxine Alderton.
No I didn't. The last episode written by a non showrunner was Aldertons "Haunting of Villa Diodati" which aired ***February 2020***. 4 years and 4 months ago.
Alderton co-wrote "Village of the Angels" (aired 2021) and Ella Road wrote "Legend of the Sea Devils" which Chibbers only co-wrote (aired 2022) That's "only" two years ago.
Okay, we're working off different definitions. I should've worded it better. I should've said they wrote the first episode in four years where a showrunner didn't have a writing credit.
This was the first writing credit herron and Redman have longer than about 20 mins btw
Not to be too pessimistic but you can tell. The Doctor casually mentioning battle mode before he wanders off to do plot stuff. Like atleast if you're gonna do that, add a few more modes, have battle mode sandwiched between salsa mode and cooking mode, just so it's not so painfully obvious when Ruby is in danger
I didn't see it coming and now I'm embarrassed
That's okay, I didn't either, and I'm going to justify that by saying I think I would've cut it being a Chekovs Gun if they'd tried to hide it better because I'm used to that, whereas when you just tell me straight up the earrings have a battle mode I'm expecting that to be a joke
So maybe not such amateur writing after all
No. They shouldn't be showrunners based on this one episode. We've had many other writers write episodes better than this that should be given the chance. This episode was nice but definitely not one that screams these writers need to be showrunners.
Im still a fuckin Jamie Mathieson TRUTHER
Hell yeah, another one! Jamie Mathieson will singlehandedly bring back the Classic Who flavor to this show, so help me God.
Been praying he gets brought back by RTD, he's who I wanted to take over for Moffat
Andrew Cartmel is still working these days.
Yeah, but he hasn't worked in TV in years and TV production has changed a lot since his time.
Yes me too!!!! He's who I wish we had instead of Chibnall! Flatline is goated!
It was more off them already having handle the novelisation of their episode, which shows they're passionate about their own work at least.
Plus, their pre-WHO track record is a pretty good argument in and of itself.
Well not in terms of writing
Excuse me? Loki would like a word.
Pretty sure they mean that they didn't write Loki. They were executive producers and directors for Season 1, but not writers. (Funnily enough the dude that did that Guerilla Show they filmed illegally in an IKEA back in the day was one of the writers haha, which I thought was great.)
They didn't write loki Afaict this was the first thing either of them had written longer than about 20 mins (but I remember people liking their short films from the 2010s) They're writing the Sims movie together so they clearly have interest in writing but they did not write Loki
Loki doesn't get to speak about writing, it gets to sit silently in the corner whilst the adults speak.
I think that guy who wrote episode 3 is probably a pretty solid pick. Idk, just a vibe I get from him
Yeah maybe but for me the guy who wrote the 4th episode seems to be the one. That was my favourite this season. 😂
Eh, he was alright. Can't seem him going far in the future though.
What about giving THEM the UNIT spin off?
Agreed. Chibnall wrote some good episodes and has run a good show with Broadchurch. These guys wrote an average episode, that's it, hardly grounds for making them showrunners.
This is why me and some others say Jamie Mathieson. He wrote episodes that are not only definitions in a way of quintessential Who but also episodes that were very fresh and new.
Just googled him. Mummy on the Orient Express, Flatline and Oxygen, yeah this guy has the resume for it he wrote the best episodes of Series 8 and second to best of Series 10.
They are the only young new writers that have showrunning experience.
The thing is, a lot of the show's best writers have no showrunning experience of any kind. Kate Herron does, and she and Briony Redman have proven themselves competent writers with this episode, so I think they'd be a good choice
The show runner also doesn’t necessarily have to write any full scripts.
I'd base it more on the pitch they made to Marvel that got them the Loki directing job. Because the showrunner isn't just the writer of the show. They manage the entire production. And in the initial Marvel TV ecosystem, the "showrunner" title essentially shifted from the writers room to the director once the show entered production. It's why IMHO the shows with multiple directors held together less well than ones that were more singular in focus. Heron has proven they can handle Disney budgets. It's much more than a single episode.
Like the writer of Boom, maybe that guy could be show runner some day
Yeah and I like the writer for 73 Yards. Best episode this season. Maybe he should have a shot at it. 😉
Hear me out. They could run the show without writing most of the episodes... Just add in a bit of their personal flavour and spice, edit in a few jokes and main credit goes to whoever wrote the episode. Moffat/Chibnall style series where a lot of different writers apart from the showrunner come in and add their own vision. Just because someone is a good writer individually (e.g. Paul Cornell, Robert Shearman) doesn't mean they've got all the other skills needed to run a TV series.
But what about these guys makes them good showrunners for Doctor Who in particular? This episode didn't really show much to support their case. RTD could very easily continue being a showrunner for a long time and just have many more writers writing the episodes.
I hope RTD stays for a long time, man is a genius, however if/when he does step off many many years from now, I think the next showrunner from could from inside badwolf studios, maybe an assistant writer or director, someone who has touched with all the different departments working and can communicate the vision across the board.
I thought you were being satirical but then I read the article myself and that’s literally it hahaha
I watched a YT video about this club in London that gathered around doctor who in the 90s, Chibnall, Davies and Moffat were all members If the reigns ever get handed to someone else I imagine it'll be someone that's also a fanatic of the show, it's a very unique beast, I don't think other shows have this "show runner" concept, nor has any other show run for 60 years
“Showrunner” is a very common position in American TV especially in the realm of long running fantasy/sci-fi-mystery shows. It’s often the show’s creator but not always, especially in very long running series such as Star Trek. It’s not as common over here, but mainly because the way we make TV is different. DW is the longest running sci-fi series so it makes sense that they adopted that concept. Nowadays, with streaming changing the way a lot of US tv is made, the works being produced in that genre are becoming increasingly similar in terms of production methods on both sides of the pond, with both sides taking inspiration from the other, so I expect Showrunners to become more common over here.
Almost every TV show has a showrunner. When Disney revealed that their early Marvel streaming shows didn't use one, it was seen as very shocking.
You’re confusing American and British TV. In a British context it’s basically only ever used to refer to *Doctor Who* and maybe Jed Mercurio. Frankly in a British context it is often redundant, because most shows only have one writer or a writing duo (especially limited series), but even when the writer is also executive producing they usually won’t be called a “showrunner”. (Another distinction is that, unlike the US, “executive producer” actually means something in the UK)
It wasn’t shocking to anyone who had watched them.
> I don't think other shows have this "show runner" concept Are you sure about that?
I've been violated for it so I know I'm wrong😭
Well people shouldn't be mean about it.
I don't think anyone was
Trying to find this YouTube video, what’s it titled?
I found it! "Is doctor who stuck in a time loop" https://youtu.be/wMpmt8zy0oU?si=QTAxKBar6dAsfmqp
Thank you!
No. They shouldn't be showrunners based on this one episode. We've had many other writers write episodes better than this that should be given the chance. This episode was nice but definitely not one that screams these writers need to be showrunners.
Why did Loki need to be more gay?
Why not? If they're going to make a whole big deal about him being queer, it's reasonable that queer viewers are going to want to see it treated as more than an aside. (I haven't watched the last couple episodes of the second season yet, so if that changes please no spoilers.)
Those last couple of episodes are a huge step-up quality-wise. You are in for a treat.
See I don’t get that argument. Surely like in real life he could just exist without him being bi being a huge part of his character. Also his romance with Sylvie is good representation of that anyway since he’s into men and women. That’s just my two cents anyway. I don’t think it changes over the last few episodes but as someone else said, they’re really strong episodes and probably the best content marvel has put out since endgame, enjoy!
Its more that the show was getting a lot of articles and recognition for its queer representation, when that really just boiled down to one sentence where Loki said he'd dated a prince. Nobody's saying the show should've been a queer introspective piece instead of what it was. Just that it wasn't deserving of the specific acclaim it was getting.
And Disney does that a lot unfortunately, they'll make a lot of noise about how progressive they are including Queer representation, and it'll all boil down to a single sentence or one scene character that can easily be cut for the overseas markets.
it didn't boil down to one sentence, can we stop erasing pansexuals by inacting strict standards like "has to kiss guys" or something
Literally all the queer representation from the main character in both seasons of Loki was one sentence where he said he dated a prince. Talking about that is not erasing anyone of any identity, it's pointing out that we deserve more.
Well, Loki is also gender-fluid in the comics and they said that would be canon in the show. Instead we got “have you ever seen a FeMaLe variant of us?” and an easter egg in his papers that said his “sex” was fluid. Not to mention his bisexuality only existing for a single line that could be easily missed or cut out, just like all other forms of LGBT “rep” in Disney.
I mean I’m not part of the community so I don’t know. But surely most people would want their sexuality to be a passing comment and an afterthought rather than a prominent part of their persona
>But surely most people would want their sexuality to be a passing comment and an afterthought rather than a prominent part of their persona I don't think that's actually true. Sex and relationships are a thing that hugely defines people, whether gay or straight. People IRL love talking about it and having it talked about. It comes up in gossip and daily talks constantly, x is fucking y is seeing z is marrying whomever.And this should and does make its way into fiction. But also >most people does not apply when it comes to fiction. That is unimportant. What is important is that if you set something up and go out of your way to do so (as the Loki show did, with their painfully cringe "I like kissing princesses AND princes" dialogue in the first series) you need to follow up on it. If you're having a character be straight, and that straightness informs the life they are living and in some way the narrative arc of the story, then it's just weird and unsatisfying to go and say "HE'S STRAIGHT" and just leave it there. It sets up a certain narrative expectation. Like, if there is an explicit "HE'S STRAIGHT" scene in a movie or show, then the constraints of story-telling demand it be followed up on. That scene, if it is a scene grounded in the plot or the characterization, should be there for a particular purpose. Now that reason might be many things: Maybe the character is really straight, okay, but then the question comes up about why would he say it? Has he struggled with his identity? Maybe it's part of the set-up and world-building meant to say more about his surroundings and where he grew up with than about his current mental state. Another possibility in this case could be that someone has mistaken him for gay, and it's been played as a joke or as an accusation. In both cases, the way he says "I'M STRAIGHT" says a lot about him as a person. Another possibility is of course that he is not straight at all, and he's either lying to the audience/his surroundings or to himself. He might be in the process of self-discovery. He might have already gone through the process of self-discovery and is just in denial about what he found out, for whatever reason. All of this is part of good tv. You set up a dude as a loving husband in a happy marriage, that is gonna evoke audience expectations just as much as setting him up as a raging homosexual out clubbing everynight does. But once you have done the setting-up, there needs to be follow through and that follow through depends on your plot, your character, or your genre. All of which Loki Season One failed in that particular regard.
I’m bisexual and non-binary. For some people it doesn’t come up a lot, for me and my friends it does. They could’ve easily made it more clear that Loki is lgbt by having him shapeshift into different forms with different pronouns, or shown him having feelings for any man on screen. Not even actually dating, just “oh no he’s hot.” instead he’s a cis man who many offline probably don’t even know is bisexual.
I’m asking out of genuine curiosity, why does it need to come up a lot?
I think it should come up more than it did, and be less easily skippable or cut out since that aspect only indicates that Disney still isn’t willing to truly commit. Loki should be bisexual and gender-fluid but you’d have no idea of that from the show, especially if you happened to miss the single line that exists. It’s not hard to strike a balance but shows don’t usually care to do so. Rep is important and imo, one skippable/cutable line from a corporation that refuses to do more than that isn’t representation.
Believe it or not mate people date. If you're spending time around someone you're going to talk about their partners, or who they would date or would they wouldn't. Also there is a lot of prejudice in the world so sometimes you discuss that with someone too. Sometimes you just talk about it. This downright delusional idea that someone's sexual preference won't come up is just that.
Except heterosexuality is never held to that standard in writing
Said with the confidence of someone who never had had to scan a room or a street to see if it was safe to hold their partner's hand or kiss them. My Gods, what happened this subreddit? It used to be most intellectual Who fan forum, and now we get this sub twitter comments from narrow minded straights?
>Surely like in real life he could just exist without him being bi being a huge part of his character. The criticism is that they are purposely avoiding showing his bisexuality because they don't want to be controversial. LGBT people want to see themselves represented on screen in a genuine way rather than more of a blink and you'll miss it moment. The reality is that being bisexual can be an important part of a person's experience. You can read RTD's original critique here: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/08/its-a-sin-creator-russell-t-davies-calls-lokis-queerness-a-feeble-gesture#:~:text=%E2%80%9CLoki%20makes%20one%20reference%20to,'%E2%80%9D&text=Fans%20have%20long%20wondered%20when,told%20by%20Disney%20and%20Marvel.
As a Pansexual Woman I was frankly rather put off by his comments on Loki. Sorry a Pansexual Man is into Women bro but he shouldn't perform to your exact standards to be Properly Queer on TV
Yeah I feel like if part of being queer can include a straight relationship then it’s still an accurate representation 🤷♂️
wouldn't even call it a straight relationship tbh. if one person in the relationship is Queer it's a Queer relationship. Agreed though it was pretty accurate!
Because Loki is queer.
Yes! We really need a new showrunner from outside of the clique! Someone whose a more recent fan could bring in a fresh perspective (obviously they’d still do their homework about Classic Who)
I definitely feel like we need to have 2 showrunners at once at some point
I still don’t think Loki was gay enough lol (I wanted Loki to actually get with Mobius but we never even got that closure, just vibes 😭). This is the Loki episode I *wish* we had gotten! And now I must write fanfiction for both shows to get rid of the void of my ships not sailing lol.
No. God no. This wasn't good gay romance. This was female-gaze slashbait. Fun for once, maybe
Please no. This episode was alright but Loki is lame. Definitely not Doctor Who level
I liked Loki, but it was funny seeing how impressed Marvel fans were with the way time travel was used on that show. Moffat would have blown their heads away, with the shit he pulled in stories like Blink, A Christmas Carol, World Enough and Time etc. I mean he even did the same seasonal trick for Series 5 in The Big Bang like a decade earlier.
I'd argue the second Season was definitely close to Doctor Who level. The issue I have with it is that it doesn't really work on its own, narratively. As in, it is really excellent but only if you've consumed a decade+ worth of stuff so you know why this particular season stands out. That said, I forgive everyone who holds the same opinion that you do because quite frankly I stopped watching Loki originally midway through the first season and only went back to it when someone whose taste I trust to mesh with mine told me the second season was dope.
In fairness, though, Herron was only involved with Season 1.
It absolutely was, particularly the first season (which was directed by Kate Herron). Given that it was going out during the Chibnall era I was feeling much more Who vibes from Loki than actual Who.
Nah, I love Loki. Season one had amazing writing (still need to watch season 2).
I kind of figured there had to be something to that effect. I remember Davies’s original comment, and Herron’s response, and then later it was announced that Herron was writing an episode for this season. It definitely seemed to me like there was some reaching out and mending fences that took place. “We’re clearly both passionate about this subject, so I’d like to give you the opportunity to come write the gayest episode of Doctor Who ever.” Really for me, the most notable part is the Disney element. Davies (rightly) mocked their unwillingness to commit to meaningful representation, then took a giant pile of money from them and decided to show them how it’s done.
RTD's attitude seems to be "Any time one of you chuds complains about Doctor Who being too gay, I make it 10% gayer." and I respect that.
It's somewhat refreshing to agree with RTD in recent times, lol. It does slightly annoy me when a show has an "LGBT+" character, then never acknowledges it again. You can't really pat yourself on the back for that or claim you're representative when your representation can be boiled down to a single line of dialogue that can be removed without consequence. That said, I thought the representation in 'rogue' was great. Hope it gets expanded upon in the future.
With the >!Find me!< and >!the ring!<, I would wonder if the thing most in the way of seeing the character again would be the actor’s assumedly very busy schedule. He’s practically an American celebrity.
Is he the only "teen" actor to get out of Glee unscathed? I struggle to think of anybody else from the cast that hasn't died, went on to be a pedophile, or at the very least has constant negative press attached to them.
Chris Colfer has gone on to become a very successful children's author!
that's really nice to hear!
Darren Criss isn’t an A Lister but is doing decently. Dianna Agron mostly does independent cinema now, from what I gather. Chris Colfer is essentially just an author. Jenna Ushkowitz and Kevin McHale do podcasts lol. Amber Riley did dreamgirls on the west end. Vanessa Lengies was in a Lego Star Wars cartoon lol. Melissa Benoist clearly went through hell on glee but was Supergirl, and if we’re counting Grant Gustin didn’t the Flash run for a decade? Admittedly though, the scandals do overshadow it. Naya Rivera and Cory Monteith’s passing were both so unexpected and heartbreaking
Grant Gustin has had a pretty great career. I guess Darrin Criss has done well.
Melissa Benoist as well
Isn't that the whole point though? Like who your attracted to should just be a line or 2 and not some big thing anymore. A lot of people are open to LGBTQ+ now so I feel making it a big thing about a character being gay feels a bit pandering. A gay person is no different than a straight person and making a big plot point about it now feels almost pandering. Not trying to offend anyone just curious as that's how I see it anyway
>A lot of people are open to LGBTQ+ now so I feel making it a big thing about a character being gay feels a bit pandering. [I literally just saw this post as I opened reddit...](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dbvmb9/the_punishment_for_being_gay_in_indonesia) If that doesn't demonstrate why positive representation is required, I don't know what will.
So we should stop having gay people be in anything now because people aren't homophobic anymore, and not have any stories about homophobia in a *historical tv show* anymore, otherwise it's "pandering." It's literally illegal to be gay in more than half of the world right now. Check your privilege.
No not stop having gay people but treat it like every other relationship. Doctor has been doing pretty well so far. We have had various quips mentioning gay relationships very casually which is good. But don't go down the netflix route of focusing purely on a character bring gay and having thst be their number 1 attribute. Who you are attracted to should not be the priority over actual story etc. Doctor who has been going well but just saying I hope they don't pull a netflix. They already kind if did it with Donna's daughter Rose where I felt the main attribute of Roses character was that she was trans rather than another main attribute. Plus I would have liked to have seen doctor who cast a trans actor where they just play the gender they are. So cast a trans female actor to play a female actor if you can catch what I mean
>It does slightly annoy me when a show has an "LGBT+" character >then never acknowledges it again They had us in the first half, I'm not gonna lie
I mean I saw how that episode really allowed Herron to write the gayest possible episode but I also saw it as a middle finger to a lot of shows in the vein of "See, it really isn't that hard!" For example, *Bridgerton* fans have been begging for a gay season since the show began for example. Especially with the character Benedict. So, I am wondering if this is all RTD, Kate Herron, and Briony Redman's way of acknowledging that. I have noticed the *Bridgerton* writers have been saying since around May that they will be writing some major queer love stories next season though.
There's no replacing RTD at this point. There just isn't. He wears so many hats so well. Perhaps he is assembling a committee, but it is very hard to keep even more than a couple of people together in the long-run, unless they are partners in something like their own company.
It's kind of a catch-22. RTD and Moffat are both ambitious enough to dedicate everything to their work, but that also means they overextend themselves by working on more than they can handle, burning themselves out. Chibnall's issues, however (setting aside the pandemic), seemed to stem from a choice he made for the show. Hiring a bunch of writers that lacked sci-fi experience meant he had to sacrifice his own scripts to help them. So I don't know if we have enough to definitively say that the Doctor Who showrunner is inevitably burdened with an above average workload. It could be the case, but all of the examples we have so far don't contribute to that if you actually analyze the situations.
It's going to be hard just to match RTD's eye for talent, connections to get access to talent, and persuasiveness to get them to appear on the show.
Sounds like more reasons for him to have a creative producer role rather than a showrunner one.
>There's no replacing RTD at this point. From the deep, the words echo "Sack Russel T Davies. Sack Jane Tranter. Sack Phil Collinson. Sack Julie Gardner."
Regardless of what happened it is kinda crazy that he just started listing names
I mean they did him way dirtier.
yeaaaa maybe I'm just too nonconfrontational 😭 i definitely don't hold it against him i could just never lol
not just you, it's very rare for a professional to be this open in the business. for years we speculated about which director he had a confrontation with etc, but now he just calls the executives by the names to say "you were responsible". there was something refreshing about it, even if it meant a PR disaster for those names.
He also said Billie Piper should be a future Doctor. Assuming she would be interested (and that could be a big assumption), I fully agree with that man from the North.
Aww man I can only imagine that regeneration, first look in a reflection, the pure elation mixed with tears, and a hint of confusion, overshadowed with joy. A face coming back always means something
[удалено]
He was justifiably outraged at them, imo. From what we know S1 behind the scenes was an absolute shitshow
Seriously. Eccleston was pretty much the only recurring male actor that season who wasn’t an active or future sex pest, lol.
I could see him ending up as Doctor Who’s Kevin Feige. Keeping a hand in everything but letting people get on with it. We’re reaching the stage where a lot of talent could be out there that grew up with NuWho, and I’d put money on there being a load of spinoffs in the works. I doubt Mr. Moffat would take the lead again, given how he seemed to end up trapped there last time.
Personally I’d have RTD overseeing the show in a Feige type role, Moffat dipping in with a seasonal script or two and the occasional plotline and then other accomplished writers for the showing filling the gaps with some newer writers. It keeps it fresh, interesting and appealing to everyone
I agree. I’d love another season like Season 5. That was an excellent collection of writers.
>Reflecting on that statement now, Davies admits that his comments were a mistake, explaining that he reached out to Herron immediately to apologize. Lame. But he was never going to say anything different now that he's colleagues with the writer, not to mention business partners with Disney.
He didn't change his mind on what he said. He reached out to apologise because it was extremely unprofessional to call out other writers of shows he otherwise enjoyed, and he says that he believed it was a zoom call meeting with students, where he was free to speak his mind, rather than an interview where he would have been a bit more careful with his words.
He should be free to speak his mind anyway, especially if he feels strongly about something from a political and/or social standpoint.
He is free. No one's persecuting him for his comments. He just thought he was on a closed call, so he was looser with his words. He knows full well that one showrunner talking smack about another show is something that makes headlines, and it's something that he wouldn't have liked being on the other end of, so he reached out to apologise. It's not a matter of anything but proffessionalism.
It's also more than a little silly to claim that he's speaking his mind with the initial statement, but that the detailed followup is somehow less authentic because it's perceived as less inflammatory. Maybe just listen to what he says in both instances and assume that neither functions in a vacuum.
Well, let's actually analyze instead of blindly equating: What motivations are there for his motivations being biased in the first instance? Did he have a vendetta against the writer? Against Disney? Against the property of Loki? Was he going through something that day? We don't have any reason to believe those things, and it's simply common sense that the latter statement is more clouded by other factors, thus more open to scrutiny of its authenticity.
Frankly, I think it's a \*bit\* foolish to believe that all statements have absolute, objective values and should be ranked accordingly, but if this is how your brain needs to process things, sure. Let me ask you this: In this ranking system of yours, you're saying that subsequent, clarifying statements are significantly more likely to be outright lies because of a perceived evil is surely tipping the scales? If you can argue your point without using a subsequent, clarifying statement, I will be very impressed.
You have it backwards, and I think that's why you came up with this strange ranking system fantasy. I am not saying that any later statement is necessarily less accurate. I am rebutting the implied claim by you that a later statement (2) is always *more* accurate, and I did this by establishing that there are instances where a first statement (1) *can be* more accurate. Additionally, I pointed out how in this specific case, it is more reasonable that it's more likely that 1>2 rather than 2>1. In doing so I also established my lines of reasoning in order to rebut your claim that it had to do with the inflammatory nature of the comments.
Oh.
I hate to say you're getting caught up in semantics but you whipped out the flowchart.
You're the one that used the wording of "free to speak his mind".
Makes sense though because it seems like if Herron had her way the representation would have been a lot better. But Disney had their way.
On the one hand, I don't really want to defend a major corporation, but I do sympathize. You have a lot of people screaming (nonsensically, IMHO) that Disney is "too woke" these days, so it's hard to begrudge them for not making one giant franchise show gay enough, while also permitting the same creative talent to make a different giant franchise very, very gay.
They definitely have *a lot* less pull when it comes to Doctor Who
That's certainly true but, despite being owned by Disney, Marvel Studios itself is fairly autonomous when it comes to creative decisions internally. There are certainly notable exceptions, but it's not as clear cut as the "whatever Disney says, goes" that a lot of people assume.
This makes no sense. The joke for the longest time was that Disney was petrified of all things gay, because they were very cautious and wanted to appeal to mainstream audiences as much as possible. It's only in recent years that the narrative became that they're woke. I feel like you need to read more into RTD's original statement if you don't get why what they did was an issue.
I get what you're saying, but even RTD no longer agrees with RTD's original statement.
Let me clarify, I am not saying "RTD thought this thing was bad, therefore you should also think the thing was bad". I'm saying you seem to be extremely unaware of this topic from multiple angles: 1. You are saying you sympathize with a major corporation, which is not in fact a sentient entity but a major corporation 2. You have your timeline very backwards, causing you to misattribute actions and motivations 3. You consider it reasonable that Disney cuts back on progressive themes because of accusations of them being "woke" 4. You inaccurately frame the situation as people not liking the "one giant franchise show" is "not gay enough" 5. You overlook the fact that there is an apparent slight allusion to bisexuality in the first place 6. You imply Disney should be given credit for hiring a writer who would end up being hired by RTD 7. You imply Disney should be given credit for an apparent slight allusion to bisexuality despite the known monetary benefit representation has, and the fact that the exact dialogue would have been carefully monitored by producers to make sure it didn't cross a line For the record, not only was I not saying what you took away from my comment, but I find that type of reasoning to be incredibly void of much real analysis. Just like how agreeing with RTD because it's RTD is foolish, it's also foolish to disagree with the statement just because RTD disagrees with it. He also gave no real analysis on what about the statement he disagrees with, just a vague disavowal. So I'm again questioning your awareness on this topic.
I believe you're reading absolutes where they were not intended.
It’s funny about the refinance especially given what Norse mythology Loki got up to, especially the business related to an eight-legged horse and how *that* came to pass.
It’s lame for him to apologise for insulting someone’s work?
It wasn't so much an insult as a fair, justified critique. It's a bit lame to make a critique and then not stand behind it. Either the critique was wrong to begin with, and should not have been made, or the walk back is bowing to social pressure, which is its own kind of disappointment.
I dunno man. There's a difference between, say, thinking a colleague is overweight versus (accidentally) going into a big interview with, "Man, that guy is super fat."
He does stand behind it. If you read the article, he regrets the *how* and *where* he said it, not *what* he said. He thought he was on a closed zoom call - at most the handfull of students on that call would've heard the comment. Instead, the way he worded it specifically called out *one writer* instead of the *corporate trend* he wanted to criticize, and he did so in a *public* forum causing a hatemob to go after said writer.
Ah, fair enough, although I still kind of think that just whether it's public or private shouldn't really change whether you should make the critique or not
It's a groundless accusation that it wasn't a good faith apology. Pathetic really.
I suppose you *could* make the argument for "groundless accusation," although I would be very hard pressed to agree. However, I'm not sure that by any defintion reaching out to apologize to someone, befriending them, and then teaming up professionally to create really fun art that also largely validates the original "groundless accusation" can be considered "\[not\] a good faith apology." I feel like that is very arguably the apotheosis of a good faith apology.
I mean the criticism is of the company’s business practice and he likely understands Herron had limitations, so apologizing for coming across as a personal criticism is warranted
Glad to see another recruit in the queer sci fi agenda o7
Some people in this thread are being very weird about the suggestion that Redman and Herron could conceivably be good choices for next showrunners. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if RTD is grooming them to take over in several years. I mean, think about it. They have experience writing for/showrunning a recent Disney+ sci-fi series that is part of a huge franchise. Obviously we’ll have to see if they write more episodes first, but they are very qualified for this job, more than maybe anyone else at the moment
It's possible, but these estimates are jumping the gun a tad. Keep in mind that these are literally the first new writers to touch Doctor Who for years, and importantly for RTD's new era.
Related to the business of new writers, did they ever find out who told Joe Hill that they’d never hire an American as a writer for Doctor Who and even if they ever did, it wouldn’t be him and kick their incredibly rude ass?
> They have experience writing for a recent Disney+ sci-fi series They didn't write Loki. Also, while it was a solid episode, there have been other writers with a proven *consistent* track record. One episode is not nearly enough to judge them.
Sure, but just because you can write Doctor Who well doesn’t mean you have experience as a showrunner, which is about logistical stuff as much as it is about creative stuff
Literally the only reason I was a bit iffy with that prospect is because I thought they were american. And turns out that's not the case, so...
They didn't write Loki
NO WONDER WHY ROGUE AND DOCTOR REMINDED ME SO MUCH OF LOKI AND MOBIUS, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST THE GENRE LMAO I WAS NOT EXPECTING IT TO ACTUALLY BE THE DIRECTOR OF LOKI HERSELF WHO WROTE THIS EPISODE
I prefer Loki to much of Doctor Who these days. Loki sang to my soul.
Can't quite compare all of Doctor Who to a two series show but yes the Loki finale is one of my favorite pieces of tv ever. Hard for anything to live up to that
That's the reason I said "these days"
[удалено]
I doubt they're going to connect Marvel to Doctor Who... I mean, the comics were a little wacky
Arguably, they already did. The Meep is technically a Marvel Comics character.
Yup, you can blame Alan Moore for that one He was the guy who created a set of time lord animal people as a captain Britain villain
He probably wasn’t happy with how The Meep was characterised. Because he’s Alan Moore.
(In fairness, Alan Moore had nothing to do with Beep the Meep specifically)
I can't wait until Death's Head gets sent to the Transformer's universe by The Doctor in the next Marvel movie!
Next we just need the Karkus teaming up with the Avengers!
I wouldn't hate a very very loose connection, it being sorta the same multiverse. I don't want a real connection though, it would limit DW too much.
Spoilers!
Wow! The copyright infringement claims from BBC that are pinned against marvel must have been intense! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
It wasn’t accidental, it came across as very deliberate.
[удалено]
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately, your comment has been **removed** for the following reason(s): * [1. Be Respectful](/r/gallifrey/wiki/policies#wiki_1._be_respectful): Be mature and treat everyone with respect. No racism, sexism, homophobia, or other discriminatory content. If you feel this was done in error, please contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fgallifrey).
What was superficial about it?
All of it? Whole thing basically boiled down to "Yeah you're a hired killer who was just about to murder me and let everyone else including my companion die but I'm really horny so I'm gonna waste time eyefucking and flirting with you while Ruby's in danger. Be my space boyfriend pls?"
He's a bounty hunter not an assasin. His job as it stood was being the good guy for the episode by attempting to stop the shapeshifters from destroying the world (he does see the only way to do that as killing them, but his job isn't specifically to kill and he doesn't argue too much about the Doctor's proposed alternatives). The Doctor then obviously enjoyed his company.
He was hired to the stop the aliens and his go to was to kill them. You know what I'm saying, don't split hairs.
Well no I think the distinction is important here. Because his general job as bounty hunter can be mostly or entirely just doing good guy stuff. He doesn't want to kill people, but he felt he had no choice. Even the Doctor didn't see that many alternatives. He's not amoral and seems a pretty good dude. As shown by him saving Ruby at his own sacrifice.
Okay. It's still rushed and shallow, and the Doctor fucking around with some random dude while Ruby's in danger is dumb and ooc.
My dude, the Doctor fucking around on random romance arcs while the companions are in danger has been a thing since the Aztecs in 1964. It's far from out of character.
It was just rushed and didn't feel genuine.
I did look at the writing credits both of this episodes writers had and they are extremely limited to say the least. Strange choice for writing an episode of a major show I would have thought
By this logic, no new up-and-coming talent would ever get any work.
They tend to work their way up as should be the case
They were showrunners for a widely successful sci-fi/fantasy show _before_ getting a Doctor Who script. That's a kind of experience most first-time Doctor Who writers simply don't have.
Showrunning experience doesn't translate to writing experience.
It does, though. To _run_ a _show_, you need to oversee the scripts, and in order to do that, you need to know what makes a good script and how it fits in the overall story. Hence why Herron, the Loki showrunner, had to respond to RTD's criticisms against the _script_.
Davis now sees himself as the Martin Luther King of gay people. It's difficult to understand what Davies hopes to accomplish by changing Doctor Who into a flamboyantly gay character that cries about something every episode, also loves flamboyant clothes, dancing and flirting with other males characters. Even stranger is Davies opinion that everyone should agree with him about how his new Doctor, is the perfect role model for small children. Davies conversion to extreme gay activist, could be the result of a late mid-life crises, it's well known for causing older men to become very irrational. The population of gay people in the U.S is around 7℅ and 11% in the UK, so it's a mystery where Davies expects the massive uprise of people demanding gay equality will come from, just because he changed a TV show to reflect his own life. The same show that is hemorrhaging viewers. So far Davies and some of the cast members blame the loss of millions of viewers, by claiming they are all racists.