It’s a Sin creator Russell T. Davies has revealed the one scene he refused to write.
The Channel 4/HBO drama revisits the AIDS crisis in 1980s London, following a group of young gay friends as the disease begins to claim lives around them, and eventually, their own. Davies now tells The Hollywood Reporter that when he pitched the show, one network didn’t like the idea of treating AIDS as a creeping menace.
“I was told at one channel,” Davies explained, “‘What if its start is on an AIDS ward in say, 1990 or 1992, with the machines and people dying, and then went, ’10 years earlier…” I thought that was unbelievably crass and literally refused to do it.”
Related: Elton John confronted Russell T. Davies over ‘It’s a Sin.’ Now, Davies tell us what he had to say…
Davies went on to explain that he resisted any attempt to add the scene, even as an experiment. “My producer said, ‘I know you don’t like that scene. If you just type it out, if you just type one page of that, it might get made,'” Davies recalls. “I’d rather die than type that page. It’s the wrong way to tell it. There was a lot of nonsense like that. Then you just wait for the right commissioner. In my experiences, all the bosses will leave their jobs every two or three years. So just sit still and the right person will enter the seat again. Heads of department changed and I got [It’s a Sin] commissioned five years later.”
Lucky for us, Channel 4 eventually green-lit the show, with HBO offering distribution in the United States. In the same interview, Davies reiterates that he will not write a follow-up season to It’s a Sin; rather, the story is completely told in five episodes. Davies also addressed the proposed reboot of Queer as Folk for American streaming service Peacock. He says he is not involved in development of the show, but has offered notes and suggestions as an informal consultant.
ShiningSex
AMAZING SERIES!!! ONE OF THE BEST ABOUT THE EPIDEMIC. SADLY TODAY’S YOUTH (MAINLY) DON’T CARE ABOUT SAFE SEX BECAUSE OF THE MEDICATIONS OUT THERE NOW.
CONSIDER THE OTHER CRAP YOU CAN STILL GET THAT LASTS FOR LIFE DEARS.
IGNORANT PEOPLE.
AGAIN, THE SERIES IS GREAT AND ALL SHOULD WATCH IT!!!
Joe Dalmas
Like I’m sure you were wearing condoms in the 60’s, gramps! You’re the ignorant one. Medications are 100% effective in preventing HIV and since in order to get them you have to have a full STD panel every 3 months, you’re less likely than ever to get any infections as long as you follow the protocol. Get educated.
Raphael
@Joe Dalmas, are you serious!? You’re completely misinformed! No medication can guarantee 100% effectiveness against HIV, also, there’s a ton of other STDs which we don’t have premedications to. You are exactly the reason why we have more and more young people getting infected.
renzinthewoods
“Grandpa” here. Also a nurse. We are seeing increasing numbers id drug resistant strains of the classic STDs…all because of individuals who are sexually irresponsible believing that there’s always a treatment available. Full disclosure, almost all of my patients are heterosexuals. In addition to syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, Herpes (no cure), Hepatitis, and HIV…there’s always the possibility of the next big STD as well as untreatable, drug resistant varieties of the existing infections. My straight laced younger brother who is about to turn 50, successfully fought HPV tonsil cancer last year…meaning he performed oral sex on an infected woman nearly 30 years ago and set the stage for his cancer. Being sexually responsible means practicing safer sex still.
Kangol2
@JoeDalmas, AIDS’ history stretches from 1981 through today. No one knew the disease existed before 1981, even though it has been dated back to before then. So ShiningSex and most other people who were alive and sexual might have worn condoms during the 1980s and 1990s, up through today, if they were concerned about HIV and AIDS. Also, they are highly effective, and certainly more so than not wearing them. With the advent of PrEP and PEP, people now have more options. But condoms still do work if used properly.
judysdad
As one who was roughly the same age as the characters in the series at the same time AIDS appeared on the scene (though I was in S.F.), I found the series brilliant. Well done, Russell T. Davies!
I say this in spite of the fact that neither I nor my partner hung out with any flaming twinkies like Richie and his crowd, most of whom were very stereotypical. Jill was the heart and soul of the story, and there were definitely many women like her around at that time. Bravo, Rita Rockett!
The real Bruce
ShiningSex is right on about safe sex and the series too. I made it through the AIDS crisis with my partner(so glad we had each other!), but we lost many friends. And in spite of all the medications and “protocol”, Joe, NOTHING is 100%! As for “gramps”, he lived to tell about it, as I have. Will you survive, kid?
zephyr69
I enjoyed the movie. But I was disappointed at the end. Not to give away the ending, I knew a few guys who did exactly what he did when they found out they had AIDS. Very disgusting and inconsiderate. That’s how my roommate at the time died.
James26
I don’t get this. A network wanted the initial scene to be a hospital ward in 1992 and then to cut back to tell the story as of 1981. Everything is the same, except for that one scene in the beginning. Why is this such a hugely terrible thing? I mean, if I were making this and if I had unlimited artistic leeway, I wouldn’t lead off with that 1992 scene. But is it really so terrible and “crass” that it was worth tanking the entire project?
Bob Amsel
Russell Davies was right to stick to his guns and show how AIDS progressed over time and how his characters were all affected by it over a ten-year-span (as all of us who lived through that era painfully know). I also admire Russell’s honesty and frankness throughout, even exploring Ritchie’s less than honorable actions. (I knew men who acted the same.)