I don't think there's an issue with Moffat returning fundamentally, but I'd rather new talent gets that chance first. I'd be very happy if he returned like Robert Holmes did with Androzani for a special one-off, but the regular writing team need to be new and fresh or even past writers who still have much to offer like Maxine Alderton, Vinay Patel and Jamie Mathieson. We know what Moffat does with Who. That's the biggest issue here IMO.
Just gotta say, you two are my favourite Doctor Who focused RUclipsrs and whenever you guys collab I'm right on it. I dont usually stick around for hour long Mr. TARDIS vids or the streams because it's a lot, but I love hearing you two bounce off of each other
RTD is in such good form going into this. Moffat has also had some great shows in the last couple of years. They've rediscovered the mojo that perhaps taking the Who helm chips away at with all of these showrunners. The curse of being doctor who showrunner is that at least half of the fandom will be sick to the back teeth of you by the end, no matter how many Midnights you write.
Eh, I don't think so. With Series 13, you have to view it from the other perspective. It's less so that 4 episodes were cut from the season, it's more so that only 6 of them were able to be made. Due to covid, it's a wonder the season was released at all. With Series 14, the reduced episode count of the main show seems to be a trade-off for more episodes for a spin-off
But also, I'll be honest I'm feeling very different about this. To me, Davies doesn't come across as smug or arrogant, but as confident. It's refreshing to hear that someone knows they're good at what they do and aren't anxious about the show going forward. It's bringing me more hope than fear. If Davies were to be unsure about the new era, I'd be scared. Him knowing that he's good and the one for the job fills me with confidence, especially when his latest work really does show how much he's honed in his talent. Further, I don't think he is relying on the 'old guard', as it were, and not trusting new talent. My perspective is that the BBC and Disney want to be assured by the product, and Davies knows that the best way to start eh new era confidently is with old faces who know how to write for the show and captivate audiences. I fully believe that series 14 *will* have old faces and try to bring back old viewers through this, but that series 15 onward will more than likely be bringing in new, fresh faces. I think you're both a little unfair to wait for series 14 to have your opinion on the idea of bringing back the 'aging white guys' to write the show; I think you should consider that it could very well be tactical and that we should only be concerned that this is the new normal for the era if series 15 heads the same way. We'll only truly know where Davies is taking this come 2025 when the show has had a solid start. Or at least, that's my perspective on this.
I think Series 14 should have new blood, Doctor Who is about change, and new blood will help it feel fresh as it should. And I think if Series 14 just goes back to the same group of guys writing the show it will be a huge step backwards from the Chibnall era which increased representation tenfold, and I hope RTD continues that streak, we can't regress.
@@alexhodgkinson6718even if it isn't. Like if you want to have a returning writer or two back then okay but also there should be at least some new talent there too. And preferably I would want the returning writers to be from the last decade - writers like Jamie Mathieson, Sarah Dollard and Maxine Alderton, rather than Moffat - not saying he is bad but he's wrote plenty of episodes, and we know his style, I want to be surprised!
@@friendlyotaku9525 again, I think you need to reread my comment. I'm not arguing for this to be the new normal. I would speak further but I'd just be repeating what I initially said, so please read that
@@alexhodgkinson6718 I know what you said but even Series 14 should at the very least have a mix of talent. The show has to feel different from the get go and RTD has promised it will. That's what I want@
The reliable leaker who leaked Moffat's return a few months back said the writer Sophie Petzal is writing for series 14. I know Russell is someone who usually has a set of people who he loves working with and will multiple times but he can look for new talent as well. I'm going to wait until the series 14 writers are revealed to judge.
It's even worse for autistic and other neurodiverse people like me given the representation of these kind of people in writing, performing and directing is limited to non-existent and it doesn't help we're immediately turned away or have excuses for not being hired thrown at us because people think we're going to be a burden. So when RTD says something like that, I feel like he's being very dismissive of other people's struggles (ladder-hoisting if you will). Then again, he has people like Tracy Ann Oberman and Gareth Roberts in his inner circle and that's a warning sign right there.
I recently binge watched the ten episodes of STAR TREK :Strange New Worlds that were placed direct on RUclips, I was happy and contented despite being inflicted on by the ads. Paramount PLUS sometimes has people subscribing for one month out of the year, to get current. STRANGE NEW WORLDS now has season two dropping. The irony is, STAR TREK as a franchise was hit by the same forces that have fragmented the DOCTOR WHO community. Some fans fight change, some know they should change, and others KNOW they want to live in the future that our better science fiction gives us a glimpse into. I felt i could see a fusion happen between the deep past and the deep future in those ten episodes, that were kind and gentle to established canon. If Russell T. Davis was asked to personally come up with 6 or 8 scripts in a hurry, so a gap could be filled for the interval between Jodie's 13th Doctor leaving, and the arrival of an entirely new Doctor, then maybe at least 4 of those episodes were rough drafts that had been completed to an 80 percentile, each, that had sat around for a bit, gathering dust. RDT has to face this as a question... can he be a good & viable bridge between the past and the future, or is he beginning to take us all back to the 1960s without seeing exactly how both STAR TREK and DOCTOR WHO brought about the better aspects of the 21st Century? It is one thing to visit the past with a time machine, it is another to live out the worst aspects of the past while being in the present. I am hoping that David Tennant flags anything in what he is to be handed that is inherently petty, obnoxious or stupid. A torch is to be passed once again. I am an American, I saw the many of the classic STAR TREK episodes premiere as a teen, in college, I saw most of the the JON PERTWEE episodes and I think RTD has two directions to take this all.
If he is inclined to take everything back to the beginning of Elizabeth II's reign, why stop there? Take it back further in time, have the Good Doctor visit Herbert George Wells as he is in the process of writing his science fiction novella... THE TIME MACHINE. Pluck the man's brain, inside the script, and then look anew at the brilliant lines HARTNELL was often handed. Why stop at the 1960s? Why not hover around the year 1900 in a good way? Now that we have a rough idea about the quality of the scripts David Tennant is to be handed in a very rushed way, HIRE YOUNG WRITERS for Doctor 15.... a.s.a.p .....and pray the impact is like those 10 excellent STRANGE NEW WORLDS episodes i just saw. We all know this ....when RTD is good, he is VERY good.... but 15 needed the gap in his schedule so that he can find his path, his way.
Russel admits he got his biggest break writing because his boss was too drunk and got the chance to write for kids tv, same as Moffat did. The issue he's talking about of people having terrible scripts also just highlights the lack of access to people in the industry or industry training even with stuff like the Writers Room or Screen Skills funding
I wondered what on earth the Victoria and Albert Museum had to do with things. Then I realised he said VNAs not V&A's. I do agree with a lot of the points here. By the way (not being mean, I used to pronounce it wrong too) it's pronounced "gay-tiss" not "gatt-iss". :) I do need some help pronouncing some non-Who actor's names, though, as I've never heard them said aloud.
I would rather Doctor Who spend its Budget on more episodes than on better special effects. I would rather go back to the era of cardboard and janky green screen then be stuck a 5 episode miniseries with movie quality effects.
It's been confirmed that Series 14 will be 8 episodes and a festive special, and because of this it means we will get a series every year so while it is less episodes the show will be on more regularly. Which I'm fine with tbh!
Oh no, Moffat's writing an episode of an RTD show. I'd hate to watch another Blink, or Empty Child, or Silence in the Library, or Girl in the Fireplace.
@@robotx9285 I'm struggling to think of a long story arc I've adored in any Doctor Who, classic or revived. Some pay off, some fall flat, but for me, none shine as bright as the best standalone stories.
I think you missed the point with the Russel interview. He makes a good point that was his real opinion dudes. There is a lot of writers out there that only care about diversity representation. Forcing it in there with no care about the story or continuity. case and point Kathleen Kennedy with star wars rey.
This new era of Doctor Who has filled me with the most doubt I've ever felt about the show. The return of all the previous members of the RTD 1 era Who, Moffat, it feels like its all going backwards.
I understand your reasoning there, but I just feel that the show is at a real low point, certainly in the eyes of many, and I think its a fair way to play it to just reestablish things with proven writers, still mixed in with new talent, and build things from there and hopefully move into a great future where there's exciting new talent. I can't wait myself. I was looking forward to the last era, especially as Jody is from my home town and I was hyped for her, but I've grown to really dislike the last era. Just never felt like the show I've loved since I was a kid in the 80s.
@@JustChrisWillDoTa I feel quite the opposite. The Jodie felt like a breath of fresh air to me. Even as a fan of the McCoy era, it felt like Doctor Who to me. It was flawed, don't get me wrong, but so is every era, including Hinchcliffe. To say "it was a real low point, certainly in the eyes of many" really isn't true. "But the ratings?" Television is a dated medium, especially with all the streaming services taking over in waves, so of course it would be different than the Tennant, Baker or Hartnell years.
@@JustChrisWillDoTa I feel exactly the same way. I was particularly looking forward to Chibnall off the back of Broadchurch, but he managed to kill my love for the show for a long time and this is the first time I've felt excited for more Doctor Who since 2018. RTD is doing an excellent job on building the hype and marketing the show
@@ireallydidntwanttomakeanac575 Exactly! In the interview with Radio Free Skaro Chibnall even talks about viewing figures and how TV has changed, mentioning what matters is the audience share and he points out that has continued to be very good!
Tut tut - complaining about the spelling of Stephen / Steven in the Mirror headline and then have "Doctor Who and IT'S writing talent" in your own headline. "Doctor Who and it is writing talent"????😄😄😄😆💀
This one has always bugged me. An apostrophe can also be possessive, and 'it's' is the only exception. For example, you'd say 'the table's occupants', not 'the tables occupants'. For some reason 'it's' is the only exception to this rule. If it were any other word used in a possessive manner in the title, it'd be fine
@@alexhodgkinson6718 Huh? "It's" is a contraction of "It is" - it's the same as "I'm", "You're", "He's" "She's" "They're" and it is the same use of the apostrophe as "Can't", "Won't" "Shouldn't" etc. Here it should be Its because it is the possessive form of the pronoun (I, you, he, she, it, they > My, yours, his, hers, its, their). There are only two (very common) uses of apostrophes in English - to denote the missing letters in a contraction such as in "it's" and to show possession after nouns (as in "Sarah's house"). If an 's is after a noun it's to show possession. It an apostrophe is after any other type of word it shows a contraction. It isn't really that complicated.
@@literaltruth you literally just contradicted yourself right there. You said what I said, but confused yourself. I *know* it's is a contraction. My point was that in the case of it being possessive, it becomes its, while every other word would still be it's. You're somehow missing my point. In the title of the video, 'it's' is possessive, but because the English language is weird and contradictive at times, 'it's' can't be possessive, and is changed to 'its'. It really isn't that complicated.
@@literaltruth to further explain my point, the correct way to say the title of the video is 'its', but if it were, as per your example, 'Sarahs', it'd be incorrect. Both are possessive, but this is a case where English language gets confusing and part of the reason it's considered one of the hardest languages to learn. I was simply pointing out a commonly known flaw in the language. 'Its' being possessive is a common point of contention in the English language. I didn't know you'd turn it into a damn argument with added snark 🙄
@@alexhodgkinson6718 I just couldn't work out what you were saying. 's is only used for possessives on nouns. "It" isn't a noun, so of course its. doesn't have an apostrophe...you aren't showing possession like with a noun, "its" is the possessive form of a pronoun...why would you expect it to to have an apostrophe? We don't write hi's or he'r (nor, indeed "her's" or "their's" or "our's"...) If it is being used as a noun then it would follow the same rule as everything else - for example "The members of the Adams Family often have striking features such as Uncle Fester's baldness or Cousin It's long hair" There's nothing unique about why its doesn't have an apostrophe and it's does -they are both following very standard patterns. The only very slightly unusual thing is that like their/they're, its/it's are homophones.
@@robotx9285 I know, but even just to see two people talking about this like it's a genuine problem is very refreshing, as opposed to turning on the news and hearing everybody talk about how we're all doomed.
adding to what sam was saying about them being gatekeepers of progressivism in TV, when the league of gentlemen writers were questioned about the transphobic jokes in the show Gatis, among the other writers (all cis), claimed they they believed there was still room to joke about it. this is reminiscent of the current situation, to me
I think they respected him, and Moffat even went on to defend the Timeless Child idea, claiming that Doctor Who's continuity is so complex that stuff like that shouldn't even matter. As to if they were actually "fans" I'm not sure.
They definitely both respect him. They both know how hard being a showrunner is. I may be mistaken but I remember hearing about how RTD spoke about how Chibnall was one of the few guest writers (Moffat being another) that he felt fully confident in their abilities and rarely (if ever) had to adjust their scripts or ask for rewrites and such.
So why are you here, watching and commenting? move along if you’re not interested in what others have to say or if you’re upset because people want the media industry to do better.
I don't think there's an issue with Moffat returning fundamentally, but I'd rather new talent gets that chance first. I'd be very happy if he returned like Robert Holmes did with Androzani for a special one-off, but the regular writing team need to be new and fresh or even past writers who still have much to offer like Maxine Alderton, Vinay Patel and Jamie Mathieson. We know what Moffat does with Who. That's the biggest issue here IMO.
I think the idea is that Davies is bringing reliable talent back to make sure it starts out secure, but after this season we'd be getting new talent
Just gotta say, you two are my favourite Doctor Who focused RUclipsrs and whenever you guys collab I'm right on it. I dont usually stick around for hour long Mr. TARDIS vids or the streams because it's a lot, but I love hearing you two bounce off of each other
RTD is in such good form going into this. Moffat has also had some great shows in the last couple of years. They've rediscovered the mojo that perhaps taking the Who helm chips away at with all of these showrunners.
The curse of being doctor who showrunner is that at least half of the fandom will be sick to the back teeth of you by the end, no matter how many Midnights you write.
Philip Hinchcliffe?
I think the ever-shrinking episode count is the biggest threat to the future of doctor who
Eh, I don't think so.
With Series 13, you have to view it from the other perspective. It's less so that 4 episodes were cut from the season, it's more so that only 6 of them were able to be made. Due to covid, it's a wonder the season was released at all.
With Series 14, the reduced episode count of the main show seems to be a trade-off for more episodes for a spin-off
But also, I'll be honest I'm feeling very different about this. To me, Davies doesn't come across as smug or arrogant, but as confident. It's refreshing to hear that someone knows they're good at what they do and aren't anxious about the show going forward. It's bringing me more hope than fear. If Davies were to be unsure about the new era, I'd be scared. Him knowing that he's good and the one for the job fills me with confidence, especially when his latest work really does show how much he's honed in his talent.
Further, I don't think he is relying on the 'old guard', as it were, and not trusting new talent. My perspective is that the BBC and Disney want to be assured by the product, and Davies knows that the best way to start eh new era confidently is with old faces who know how to write for the show and captivate audiences. I fully believe that series 14 *will* have old faces and try to bring back old viewers through this, but that series 15 onward will more than likely be bringing in new, fresh faces.
I think you're both a little unfair to wait for series 14 to have your opinion on the idea of bringing back the 'aging white guys' to write the show; I think you should consider that it could very well be tactical and that we should only be concerned that this is the new normal for the era if series 15 heads the same way. We'll only truly know where Davies is taking this come 2025 when the show has had a solid start. Or at least, that's my perspective on this.
I think Series 14 should have new blood, Doctor Who is about change, and new blood will help it feel fresh as it should. And I think if Series 14 just goes back to the same group of guys writing the show it will be a huge step backwards from the Chibnall era which increased representation tenfold, and I hope RTD continues that streak, we can't regress.
@@friendlyotaku9525 as I said this would be a problem if it were the norm. I'm not arguing for that.
@@alexhodgkinson6718even if it isn't. Like if you want to have a returning writer or two back then okay but also there should be at least some new talent there too. And preferably I would want the returning writers to be from the last decade - writers like Jamie Mathieson, Sarah Dollard and Maxine Alderton, rather than Moffat - not saying he is bad but he's wrote plenty of episodes, and we know his style, I want to be surprised!
@@friendlyotaku9525 again, I think you need to reread my comment. I'm not arguing for this to be the new normal. I would speak further but I'd just be repeating what I initially said, so please read that
@@alexhodgkinson6718 I know what you said but even Series 14 should at the very least have a mix of talent. The show has to feel different from the get go and RTD has promised it will. That's what I want@
As long as at least 1 new writer is given an episode I see no problem with Moffats return.
Plus I know I like most of his stories.
The reliable leaker who leaked Moffat's return a few months back said the writer Sophie Petzal is writing for series 14. I know Russell is someone who usually has a set of people who he loves working with and will multiple times but he can look for new talent as well. I'm going to wait until the series 14 writers are revealed to judge.
That's much more exciting to me personally if it is true! I'd love her to write Who!
It's insane how entertaining this interview is- I could listen to these guys talk all day
It's even worse for autistic and other neurodiverse people like me given the representation of these kind of people in writing, performing and directing is limited to non-existent and it doesn't help we're immediately turned away or have excuses for not being hired thrown at us because people think we're going to be a burden. So when RTD says something like that, I feel like he's being very dismissive of other people's struggles (ladder-hoisting if you will). Then again, he has people like Tracy Ann Oberman and Gareth Roberts in his inner circle and that's a warning sign right there.
Let's not forget he called fans "Ming Mongs".
I recently binge watched the ten episodes of STAR TREK :Strange New Worlds that were placed direct on RUclips, I was happy and contented despite being inflicted on by the ads. Paramount PLUS sometimes has people subscribing for one month out of the year, to get current. STRANGE NEW WORLDS now has season two dropping. The irony is, STAR TREK as a franchise was hit by the same forces that have fragmented the DOCTOR WHO community. Some fans fight change, some know they should change, and others KNOW they want to live in the future that our better science fiction gives us a glimpse into. I felt i could see a fusion happen between the deep past and the deep future in those ten episodes, that were kind and gentle to established canon. If Russell T. Davis was asked to personally come up with 6 or 8 scripts in a hurry, so a gap could be filled for the interval between Jodie's 13th Doctor leaving, and the arrival of an entirely new Doctor, then maybe at least 4 of those episodes were rough drafts that had been completed to an 80 percentile, each, that had sat around for a bit, gathering dust. RDT has to face this as a question... can he be a good & viable bridge between the past and the future, or is he beginning to take us all back to the 1960s without seeing exactly how both STAR TREK and DOCTOR WHO brought about the better aspects of the 21st Century? It is one thing to visit the past with a time machine, it is another to live out the worst aspects of the past while being in the present. I am hoping that David Tennant flags anything in what he is to be handed that is inherently petty, obnoxious or stupid. A torch is to be passed once again. I am an American, I saw the many of the classic STAR TREK episodes premiere as a teen, in college, I saw most of the the JON PERTWEE episodes and I think RTD has two directions to take this all.
If he is inclined to take everything back to the beginning of Elizabeth II's reign, why stop there? Take it back further in time, have the Good Doctor visit Herbert George Wells as he is in the process of writing his science fiction novella... THE TIME MACHINE. Pluck the man's brain, inside the script, and then look anew at the brilliant lines HARTNELL was often handed. Why stop at the 1960s? Why not hover around the year 1900 in a good way? Now that we have a rough idea about the quality of the scripts David Tennant is to be handed in a very rushed way, HIRE YOUNG WRITERS for Doctor 15.... a.s.a.p .....and pray the impact is like those 10 excellent STRANGE NEW WORLDS episodes i just saw. We all know this ....when RTD is good, he is VERY good.... but 15 needed the gap in his schedule so that he can find his path, his way.
Russel admits he got his biggest break writing because his boss was too drunk and got the chance to write for kids tv, same as Moffat did.
The issue he's talking about of people having terrible scripts also just highlights the lack of access to people in the industry or industry training even with stuff like the Writers Room or Screen Skills funding
I wondered what on earth the Victoria and Albert Museum had to do with things. Then I realised he said VNAs not V&A's. I do agree with a lot of the points here. By the way (not being mean, I used to pronounce it wrong too) it's pronounced "gay-tiss" not "gatt-iss". :) I do need some help pronouncing some non-Who actor's names, though, as I've never heard them said aloud.
An Oedipus complex but for dads is an Electra complex
Love to see my two favorite Doctor Who creators doing a collab
I get the potential issues but this guy sounds seriously depressed
I would rather Doctor Who spend its Budget on more episodes than on better special effects. I would rather go back to the era of cardboard and janky green screen then be stuck a 5 episode miniseries with movie quality effects.
It's been confirmed that Series 14 will be 8 episodes and a festive special, and because of this it means we will get a series every year so while it is less episodes the show will be on more regularly. Which I'm fine with tbh!
To be fair, a big reason for the reduced episode-count isn't budget but just pure manpower.
13-14 episodes a year is *gruelling*.
@@MrTARDIS Exactly. RTD has talked about how demanding it is
@@friendlyotaku9525 So have two teams then. Cost per episode would not be more. How do American shows manage many more episodes per season?
@@MrTARDIS i dont like the davis youtuber
Oh no, Moffat's writing an episode of an RTD show. I'd hate to watch another Blink, or Empty Child, or Silence in the Library, or Girl in the Fireplace.
Indeed. Tediously overated episodes.
He good a standalone episodes and two parters, but he never quite lands the conclusion of serialized arches.
@@robotx9285 I'm struggling to think of a long story arc I've adored in any Doctor Who, classic or revived. Some pay off, some fall flat, but for me, none shine as bright as the best standalone stories.
@robotx9285 I'd disagree on that, I think they were executed decently, as a whole, I think both show runners did equally great jobs.
@richardgale4827 This is actually very true. Either way, I'd say by DW standards he executed the arcs well.
He was right about 73 yards, top. 5 who episodes ever for me
Insert me worrying about Disney's influence over Doctor Who and its ability to keep moving forward.
this is what is known as a self-insert
So… there’s gonna be a Russell T. era with Moffat? This is going to be an ever repeating cycle isn’t it?
I think you missed the point with the Russel interview. He makes a good point that was his real opinion dudes. There is a lot of writers out there that only care about diversity representation. Forcing it in there with no care about the story or continuity. case and point Kathleen Kennedy with star wars rey.
Kathleen Kennedy is not a writer. She’s a producer.
This new era of Doctor Who has filled me with the most doubt I've ever felt about the show.
The return of all the previous members of the RTD 1 era Who, Moffat, it feels like its all going backwards.
I understand your reasoning there, but I just feel that the show is at a real low point, certainly in the eyes of many, and I think its a fair way to play it to just reestablish things with proven writers, still mixed in with new talent, and build things from there and hopefully move into a great future where there's exciting new talent.
I can't wait myself. I was looking forward to the last era, especially as Jody is from my home town and I was hyped for her, but I've grown to really dislike the last era. Just never felt like the show I've loved since I was a kid in the 80s.
@@JustChrisWillDoTa I feel quite the opposite. The Jodie felt like a breath of fresh air to me. Even as a fan of the McCoy era, it felt like Doctor Who to me. It was flawed, don't get me wrong, but so is every era, including Hinchcliffe. To say "it was a real low point, certainly in the eyes of many" really isn't true.
"But the ratings?" Television is a dated medium, especially with all the streaming services taking over in waves, so of course it would be different than the Tennant, Baker or Hartnell years.
@@JustChrisWillDoTa I feel exactly the same way. I was particularly looking forward to Chibnall off the back of Broadchurch, but he managed to kill my love for the show for a long time and this is the first time I've felt excited for more Doctor Who since 2018. RTD is doing an excellent job on building the hype and marketing the show
@@ireallydidntwanttomakeanac575 Exactly! In the interview with Radio Free Skaro Chibnall even talks about viewing figures and how TV has changed, mentioning what matters is the audience share and he points out that has continued to be very good!
Tut tut - complaining about the spelling of Stephen / Steven in the Mirror headline and then have "Doctor Who and IT'S writing talent" in your own headline. "Doctor Who and it is writing talent"????😄😄😄😆💀
This one has always bugged me. An apostrophe can also be possessive, and 'it's' is the only exception. For example, you'd say 'the table's occupants', not 'the tables occupants'. For some reason 'it's' is the only exception to this rule. If it were any other word used in a possessive manner in the title, it'd be fine
@@alexhodgkinson6718 Huh? "It's" is a contraction of "It is" - it's the same as "I'm", "You're", "He's" "She's" "They're" and it is the same use of the apostrophe as "Can't", "Won't" "Shouldn't" etc. Here it should be Its because it is the possessive form of the pronoun (I, you, he, she, it, they > My, yours, his, hers, its, their).
There are only two (very common) uses of apostrophes in English - to denote the missing letters in a contraction such as in "it's" and to show possession after nouns (as in "Sarah's house"). If an 's is after a noun it's to show possession. It an apostrophe is after any other type of word it shows a contraction.
It isn't really that complicated.
@@literaltruth you literally just contradicted yourself right there. You said what I said, but confused yourself. I *know* it's is a contraction. My point was that in the case of it being possessive, it becomes its, while every other word would still be it's.
You're somehow missing my point. In the title of the video, 'it's' is possessive, but because the English language is weird and contradictive at times, 'it's' can't be possessive, and is changed to 'its'.
It really isn't that complicated.
@@literaltruth to further explain my point, the correct way to say the title of the video is 'its', but if it were, as per your example, 'Sarahs', it'd be incorrect. Both are possessive, but this is a case where English language gets confusing and part of the reason it's considered one of the hardest languages to learn.
I was simply pointing out a commonly known flaw in the language. 'Its' being possessive is a common point of contention in the English language. I didn't know you'd turn it into a damn argument with added snark 🙄
@@alexhodgkinson6718 I just couldn't work out what you were saying. 's is only used for possessives on nouns. "It" isn't a noun, so of course its. doesn't have an apostrophe...you aren't showing possession like with a noun, "its" is the possessive form of a pronoun...why would you expect it to to have an apostrophe? We don't write hi's or he'r (nor, indeed "her's" or "their's" or "our's"...)
If it is being used as a noun then it would follow the same rule as everything else - for example "The members of the Adams Family often have striking features such as Uncle Fester's baldness or Cousin It's long hair"
There's nothing unique about why its doesn't have an apostrophe and it's does -they are both following very standard patterns. The only very slightly unusual thing is that like their/they're, its/it's are homophones.
It's nice that society has gotten to a place where were deeply concerned about stuff like this dumb TV show, instead of actual problems..
@@peterkorman77 My point still stands:)
@@peterkorman77 I literally never said it's a bad thing- I literally started my comment by saying: "It's nice that".
Like what you on about society?
This channel only gets around 20k veiws for each video, and that's being generous.
@@robotx9285 I know, but even just to see two people talking about this like it's a genuine problem is very refreshing, as opposed to turning on the news and hearing everybody talk about how we're all doomed.
@@carealoo744 But we are all doomed
adding to what sam was saying about them being gatekeepers of progressivism in TV, when the league of gentlemen writers were questioned about the transphobic jokes in the show Gatis, among the other writers (all cis), claimed they they believed there was still room to joke about it. this is reminiscent of the current situation, to me
So Moffat and RTD are not Chibnall fans?
I think they respected him, and Moffat even went on to defend the Timeless Child idea, claiming that Doctor Who's continuity is so complex that stuff like that shouldn't even matter.
As to if they were actually "fans" I'm not sure.
They definitely both respect him. They both know how hard being a showrunner is.
I may be mistaken but I remember hearing about how RTD spoke about how Chibnall was one of the few guest writers (Moffat being another) that he felt fully confident in their abilities and rarely (if ever) had to adjust their scripts or ask for rewrites and such.
@@tTaseric Okay- Chibnall only wrote one episode though with Russell as showrunner though right? (42)?
@@carealoo744 He also wrote 8 episodes of Torchwood, and was effectively head-writer for the first 2 seasons under Russell.
@@tTaseric Oh right, I completely forgot for a moment lol
Well this is worrying 😔
YAWN.
So why are you here, watching and commenting? move along if you’re not interested in what others have to say or if you’re upset because people want the media industry to do better.
Awwww without his fancy editing and flashy lights little happy clam is falling asleep aww
Young Adults With Narcolepsy?
Silly complaints,... yet I still listened.
I think I hear you saying RTD has betrayed gay people.