Same here.....but the thing with Doctor Who is that due to it's longtivity....there will come a day that even when they cast an actor in his 50's say....2050.....he will still be the younger than me!!!! Probably because I'll be dead!!!;):D
The actor playing the Doctor is younger than a lot of the
show's fans (including me). Most have been a shock to
some of them.
While I'd like to see an older actor play the Doctor (like
Ian McKellan or Bob Hoskins) it looks like we will be
having youngish-Doctors for the forseeable future. And I
have seen Matt in stuff like "The Ruby in the Smoke", so I'm
looking forward to his tenure.
The actor playing the Doctor is younger than a lot of the
show's fans (including me). Most have been a shock to
some of them.
While I'd like to see an older actor play the Doctor (like
Ian McKellan or Bob Hoskins) it looks like we will be
having youngish-Doctors for the forseeable future. And I
have seen Matt in stuff like "The Ruby in the Smoke", so I'm
looking forward to his tenure.
But considering that it is a childrens' show at heart....Matt will still be older to those current fans too....and one day they will grow up, and the actor then one day maybe 40, and then he will be the same age as them. like I said, we the audience are always going to grow old, but the Doctor will always fleet between looking younger and older, and be an actor of that generation.
But considering that it is a childrens' show at heart....Matt will still be older to those current fans too....and one day they will grow up, and the actor then one day maybe 40, and then he will be the same age as them. like I said, we the audience are always going to grow old, but the Doctor will always fleet between looking younger and older, and be an actor of that generation.
It is not and never has been a childrens show. It has always been aimed at a wide age range, and was always made by the drama department, not the childrens department. The fact is, the new Doctor-however good he may be-is still going to be younger than a huge chunk of the audience who will have difficulty taking him seriously as a result, and that is simply because TV these days has become so youth centric in general. Programme makers need to be reminded that not everyone in their audience is under 25.
Same here.....but the thing with Doctor Who is that due to it's longtivity....there will come a day that even when they cast an actor in his 50's say....2050.....he will still be the younger than me!!!! Probably because I'll be dead!!!;):D
It is not and never has been a childrens show. It has always been aimed at a wide age range, and was always made by the drama department, not the childrens department. The fact is, the new Doctor-however good he may be-is still going to be younger than a huge chunk of the audience who will have difficulty taking him seriously as a result, and that is simply because TV these days has become so youth centric in general. Programme makers need to be reminded that not everyone in their audience is under 25.
It has always been seen as a "family show", but a large
amount of DW's fans are children. In fact, I think the
misconception that DW was exclusively for children might explain some of the ruckus over eps like "The Deadly Assassin"
and "Vengeance on Varos".
As for older people not taking an actor seriously because he's young, I think the reviewers who lauded Daniel Radcliffe's role in Equus might disagree with you.
The thing is, people have complained about the doctor being too young - but erm, surely the idea of regneration isn't to turn into a man who could collapse and die of natural causes at any minute ?!
Some fans (ex-fans, actually) think they own the show. They don't. The BBC does, and they entrusted it to Russell T Davies first, and Steven Moffat now.
Since Moffat considers it a kids show, and is the one making it, it's a kids show.
The thing is, people have complained about the doctor being too young - but erm, surely the idea of regneration isn't to turn into a man who could collapse and die of natural causes at any minute ?!
Yeah, that would be awkward at a press conference.
Some fans (ex-fans, actually) think they own the show. They don't. The BBC does, and they entrusted it to Russell T Davies first, and Steven Moffat now.
Since Moffat considers it a kids show, and is the one making it, it's a kids show.
Moffat can believe what he likes, but it won't change the indisputable fact that most of the audience are adults and that has been true since about 1970. Kids get very excited about new things but get bored very quickly-the playground craze for Who merchandise is already dying down so if they aim the show squarely at kids, it will ultimately fail.
Which would suggest to me that whatever he says, he's perfectly well aware that it isn't a kids' show.
He's perfectly well aware that it isn't just a kids show. Its a show that families can watch together, which means it must have qualities which appeal to kids (gadgets, CGI, slapstick and good storytelling).
Put in some 'for-adults-only' references, moral issues, some 'Spock', dark imagery and elements relative to real life, you have a bang-on fantastic show.
Moffat rightly thinks that its the kids who should get the most out of Doctor Who, not the adults. Officially, they're just the supervisors, who keep the kids safe if something scary happens or if they don't understand...but the huge plus side is that the show can be enjoyed by them too!
Was it Moff or RTD that said it is primarily a kids show?
Anyway I'm 18, so I'm on the boundry of both - can't lose!:D
Moff is on record (I think it was the 1999 feature in
DWM on how to bring back Doctor Who) as saying that
he thinking DW is primarily a kids' show. And from what
I hear of DW fans who know kids who watch the show,
kids love pretending to be the Empty Child and being
chased by Weeping Angels.
He's perfectly well aware that it isn't just a kids show. Its a show that families can watch together, which means it must have qualities which appeal to kids (gadgets, CGI, slapstick and good storytelling).
Put in some 'for-adults-only' references, moral issues, some 'Spock', dark imagery and elements relative to real life, you have a bang-on fantastic show.
Moffat rightly thinks that its the kids who should get the most out of Doctor Who, not the adults. Officially, they're just the supervisors, who keep the kids safe if something scary happens or if they don't understand...but the huge plus side is that the show can be enjoyed by them too!
Why 'rightly'? Why should the kids have any more right to the show than the rest of the audience? Since they don't generally tend to be the ones who pay the licence fee, rather the reverse, I would think...
He's perfectly well aware that it isn't just a kids show. Its a show that families can watch together, which means it must have qualities which appeal to kids (gadgets, CGI, slapstick and good storytelling).
Put in some 'for-adults-only' references, moral issues, some 'Spock', dark imagery and elements relative to real life, you have a bang-on fantastic show.
Moffat rightly thinks that its the kids who should get the most out of Doctor Who, not the adults. Officially, they're just the supervisors, who keep the kids safe if something scary happens or if they don't understand...but the huge plus side is that the show can be enjoyed by them too!
You're right. Some DW fans get a bit embarassed at the
idea of watching a show with a big audience of kids, but
they shouldn't, really.
When the production teams forgot that there were
kids watching DW, you get awful crass stuff like
Lytton getting his hands crushed to bloody pulps,
or Elton Pope saying he has a sexual relationship
with a severed head. :eek:
You're right. Some DW fans get a bit embarassed at the
idea of watching a show with a big audience of kids, but
they shouldn't, really.
When the production teams forgot that there were
kids watching DW, you get awful crass stuff like
Lytton getting his hands crushed to bloody pulps,
or Elton Pope saying he has a sexual relationship
with a severed head. :eek:
The Elton Pope scene was indeed cras. Lytonn's fate, however, was for me a wonderfully dramatic scene. What was wrong with it? Cybermen are monsters, they do monstrous things!
Indeed Matt smith is better, Dr Who was dead to me while Tennant played him. Seen the good reviews and not suprised, knew Matt could do it. Tennant isn't hard to follow at all. :cool:
Indeed Matt smith is better, Dr Who was dead to me while Tennant played him. Seen the good reviews and not suprised, knew Matt could do it. Tennant isn't hard to follow at all. :cool:
I've just seen the BBC America trailer, and his portrayal is already seeming very much more in tune with the earlier Doctors.
It is not and never has been a childrens show. It has always been aimed at a wide age range, and was always made by the drama department, not the childrens department. The fact is, the new Doctor-however good he may be-is still going to be younger than a huge chunk of the audience who will have difficulty taking him seriously as a result, and that is simply because TV these days has become so youth centric in general. Programme makers need to be reminded that not everyone in their audience is under 25.
Moffat can believe what he likes, but it won't change the indisputable fact that most of the audience are adults and that has been true since about 1970. Kids get very excited about new things but get bored very quickly-the playground craze for Who merchandise is already dying down so if they aim the show squarely at kids, it will ultimately fail.
I'm suprised you quoted me Ting...I was beginning to think you had me on ignore, what with never answering the questions I put to you;)
As for what Moff says....well here is the BBC press pack where he talks about what makes Doctor Who what it is:
Steven Moffat: I think it is centrally vital for Doctor Who that at its heart and in its soul it is a children's programme. Not one that excludes adults, but one that welcomes them in. But when Doctor Who is really working, when it really delivers, the entire audience is eight years old – whatever age they started out!
I like your way though Ting, because you change your opinion quite a lot I notice, I mean take this whole it being a childrens' show....first post you say that it not and never has been a childrens' show....although you know full well that when the show started, it was often referred to as one. In fact I have recently read Donald Tosh's interview (i'm sure you know who that is) in the DWM...who funnily enough, tends to also refer it as...then in your second post you change it to that since the 70's the audience has been adult in the majority. So technically, your first argument is incorrect them is it not? As before the 70's it was, therefore it can't have been "never".
Thanks to Newbie for finding this little trailer....it seems that even in the 70's they seemed have a strange assumption that Doctor Who is made for kids, and therefore a useful tool in selling stuff...when really they should have been selling it to the adult audience.
As for the reason's to Matt's casting....again nice assumption...one which I guess musy have been true in the 80's too, after all Davison was the younsgest then, and surounded by a very young group of people....and this is what Moff had to say about what he wanted and why Matt was cast:
had a clear idea, which actually turned out to be the absolute opposite of what we ended up doing – which always happens when you get the casting right. I actually remember at the beginning of the process when I got a little bit cross whilst looking at the list of actors as it was full of people in their twenties. I said to everyone that we couldn't have a Doctor who is 27. My idea was that the person was going to be between 30–40 years old, young enough to run but old enough to look wise. Then, of course, Matt Smith comes through the door and he's odd, angular and strange looking. He doesn't come across as being youthful at all, in the most wonderful way.
Clearly suggesting that he wanted an older Doctor, and had no intention of trying to do what you say that TV now days does.
And as for someone who doesn't know and care about Kids, how can you say for sure that they get excited and then get bored after a while? My niece started watching when she was three years old...Five now...doesn't seem to have lost the magic of what Doctor is about....as for the toys and stuff...well I doubt Doctor Who toys were ever huge sellers...except maybe during Dalek mania....but I can't answer that as I don't know how much fortune they have made, I doubt it isn't any less than what the fortune the books made during the haitus....but again, can't say for sure, although....the fact that the Wii game interest is there, must be because they know that they have a market who is interested. But kids are the future...and if you are a long term fan as you say you are, I'm guessing you watched since you were a kid...and if the show had been aimed solely at adults, I doubt you would be a fan. The best children stories and programmes/films are the ones that allow adults to enter the mind of the child, not exclude them. So when I say it is a childrens' show, I am not saying no adults should watch it, (unlike your suggestion in the past that kids have there own show now) I'm saying that at it's centre, it is aimed at children, and when it does that brilliantly, it catches the attention of the adults too, it makes them feel like they are living their dreams. Just listen to the trailer and what Amy Pond says "when I was a little girl, I used to dream of Time and Space, and then last night, my dream came true!"....basically suggesting that her childhood dream came true. And that is what, as Moff puts it beautifully, is what Doctor Who is about.
I'd hardly say The Moff's stories have thus far been aimed at kids
His have been the most aimed at kids, and the kid inside us adults....I refer to my point about what Amy says in that Trailer. He brings nightmares and dreams of children alive. When we are children, it is then when we are scared of shadows and monsters under the beds, and stutues coming alive. And the reason why we adults have loved that too, is because we are reminded of our fears of childhood, which we as adults know is stupid to do so, but there is a sense of excitment to fear those things. For me, when I watched Blink for the first time, it reminded me of my fear as child of a tree that you used to be at the front of my house, I clearly remember looking out of the letter box, and getting a scared feeling that the tree had a face and it smiled at me. I remember being scared for days. And again pointing to Moff's work again, look at Reinette, she tried to show no fear to the clockwork men, because she said they are nothing more than the nightmares from her childhood, she tries not to be scared and show that she isn't, but she thinks back to the point when she first saw one as a child.
If you want adult fears, look at RTD's work....where most of the time the monster is no more than the human, or even worse the Doctor himself. What child dreams up a human to be a monster, what child wishes their hero to turn into a monster? That is adult.
Why 'rightly'? Why should the kids have any more right to the show than the rest of the audience? Since they don't generally tend to be the ones who pay the licence fee, rather the reverse, I would think...
By that logic, there shouldn't be any children's programmes, no writer in the world should write children's stories...because none of them contribute to the money that is given....the parents pay! Why the hell are the parents not demanding for books and programmes, and films to be solely written for the paying adults?
I like your way though Ting, because you change your opinion quite a lot I notice, I mean take this whole it being a childrens' show....first post you say that it not and never has been a childrens' show....although you know full well that when the show started, it was often referred to as one. In fact I have recently read Donald Tosh's interview (i'm sure you know who that is) in the DWM...who funnily enough, tends to also refer it as...then in your second post you change it to that since the 70's the audience has been adult in the majority. So technically, your first argument is incorrect them is it not? As before the 70's it was, therefore it can't have been "never".
It was never made by the childrens department, always the drama department. The minimum age range they seemed to be aiming for crept upwards from about 1970 onwards.
By that logic, there shouldn't be any children's programmes, no writer in the world should write children's stories...because none of them contribute to the money that is given....the parents pay! Why the hell are the parents not demanding for books and programmes, and films to be solely written for the paying adults?
It was never made by the childrens department, always the drama department. The minimum age range they seemed to be aiming for crept upwards from about 1970 onwards.
An excellent point!
But I never said it was...what I mean is that the ones writing it and making it, thought of the children....they really did think of the children!!! Ofcourse if you had been in charge then I know for sure that no one would think of the children;)
But I never said it was...what I mean is that the ones writing it and making it, thought of the children....they really did think of the children!!! Ofcourse if you had been in charge then I know for sure that no one would think of the children;)
But they also thought of the adults, as do the modern day writers. So they can't have been writing a childrens show. A family show, yes-but not a childrens show!
But they also thought of the adults, as do the modern day writers. So they can't have been writing a childrens show. A family show, yes-but not a childrens show!
It works as a family show yes, the writers don't exclude adults, I never said they did....but they basically have the child's heart and mind and soul in the show...take Moff, in his recent video interview, he said that a scene he has written for an upcoming adventure, he showed to his son, and he told him that it was the most scriest thing ever in Doctor Who. Now what does that tell you...a man, who is in charge of getting the whole family in front of that TV, asks the opinion of a child...not an adult. Harks to my earlier point, something scary for children doesn't mean adults can't be part of it.
It works as a family show yes, the writers don't exclude adults, I never said they did....but they basically have the child's heart and mind and soul in the show
Very poetic, I'm sure. I have no idea what it means but it's undoubtedly very stirring.
...take Moff, in his recent video interview, he said that a scene he has written for an upcoming adventure, he showed to his son, and he told him that it was the most scriest thing ever in Doctor Who. Now what does that tell you...a man, who is in charge of getting the whole family in front of that TV, asks the opinion of a child...not an adult. Harks to my earlier point, something scary for children doesn't mean adults can't be part of it.
It tells me he's obviously bought into modern society's bizarre obsession with children, but I'm hoping it won't have affected his judgment too much. He doesn't usually write down to kids.
Comments
The actor playing the Doctor is younger than a lot of the
show's fans (including me). Most have been a shock to
some of them.
While I'd like to see an older actor play the Doctor (like
Ian McKellan or Bob Hoskins) it looks like we will be
having youngish-Doctors for the forseeable future. And I
have seen Matt in stuff like "The Ruby in the Smoke", so I'm
looking forward to his tenure.
But considering that it is a childrens' show at heart....Matt will still be older to those current fans too....and one day they will grow up, and the actor then one day maybe 40, and then he will be the same age as them. like I said, we the audience are always going to grow old, but the Doctor will always fleet between looking younger and older, and be an actor of that generation.
It is not and never has been a childrens show. It has always been aimed at a wide age range, and was always made by the drama department, not the childrens department. The fact is, the new Doctor-however good he may be-is still going to be younger than a huge chunk of the audience who will have difficulty taking him seriously as a result, and that is simply because TV these days has become so youth centric in general. Programme makers need to be reminded that not everyone in their audience is under 25.
It has always been seen as a "family show", but a large
amount of DW's fans are children. In fact, I think the
misconception that DW was exclusively for children might explain some of the ruckus over eps like "The Deadly Assassin"
and "Vengeance on Varos".
As for older people not taking an actor seriously because he's young, I think the reviewers who lauded Daniel Radcliffe's role in Equus might disagree with you.
Since Moffat considers it a kids show, and is the one making it, it's a kids show.
Yeah, that would be awkward at a press conference.
Moffat can believe what he likes, but it won't change the indisputable fact that most of the audience are adults and that has been true since about 1970. Kids get very excited about new things but get bored very quickly-the playground craze for Who merchandise is already dying down so if they aim the show squarely at kids, it will ultimately fail.
Which would suggest to me that whatever he says, he's perfectly well aware that it isn't a kids' show.
Was it Moff or RTD that said it is primarily a kids show?
Anyway I'm 18, so I'm on the boundry of both - can't lose!:D
He's perfectly well aware that it isn't just a kids show. Its a show that families can watch together, which means it must have qualities which appeal to kids (gadgets, CGI, slapstick and good storytelling).
Put in some 'for-adults-only' references, moral issues, some 'Spock', dark imagery and elements relative to real life, you have a bang-on fantastic show.
Moffat rightly thinks that its the kids who should get the most out of Doctor Who, not the adults. Officially, they're just the supervisors, who keep the kids safe if something scary happens or if they don't understand...but the huge plus side is that the show can be enjoyed by them too!
Moff is on record (I think it was the 1999 feature in
DWM on how to bring back Doctor Who) as saying that
he thinking DW is primarily a kids' show. And from what
I hear of DW fans who know kids who watch the show,
kids love pretending to be the Empty Child and being
chased by Weeping Angels.
Why 'rightly'? Why should the kids have any more right to the show than the rest of the audience? Since they don't generally tend to be the ones who pay the licence fee, rather the reverse, I would think...
You're right. Some DW fans get a bit embarassed at the
idea of watching a show with a big audience of kids, but
they shouldn't, really.
When the production teams forgot that there were
kids watching DW, you get awful crass stuff like
Lytton getting his hands crushed to bloody pulps,
or Elton Pope saying he has a sexual relationship
with a severed head. :eek:
The Elton Pope scene was indeed cras. Lytonn's fate, however, was for me a wonderfully dramatic scene. What was wrong with it? Cybermen are monsters, they do monstrous things!
I've just seen the BBC America trailer, and his portrayal is already seeming very much more in tune with the earlier Doctors.
I'm suprised you quoted me Ting...I was beginning to think you had me on ignore, what with never answering the questions I put to you;)
As for what Moff says....well here is the BBC press pack where he talks about what makes Doctor Who what it is:
I like your way though Ting, because you change your opinion quite a lot I notice, I mean take this whole it being a childrens' show....first post you say that it not and never has been a childrens' show....although you know full well that when the show started, it was often referred to as one. In fact I have recently read Donald Tosh's interview (i'm sure you know who that is) in the DWM...who funnily enough, tends to also refer it as...then in your second post you change it to that since the 70's the audience has been adult in the majority. So technically, your first argument is incorrect them is it not? As before the 70's it was, therefore it can't have been "never".
Thanks to Newbie for finding this little trailer....it seems that even in the 70's they seemed have a strange assumption that Doctor Who is made for kids, and therefore a useful tool in selling stuff...when really they should have been selling it to the adult audience.
As for the reason's to Matt's casting....again nice assumption...one which I guess musy have been true in the 80's too, after all Davison was the younsgest then, and surounded by a very young group of people....and this is what Moff had to say about what he wanted and why Matt was cast:
Clearly suggesting that he wanted an older Doctor, and had no intention of trying to do what you say that TV now days does.
And as for someone who doesn't know and care about Kids, how can you say for sure that they get excited and then get bored after a while? My niece started watching when she was three years old...Five now...doesn't seem to have lost the magic of what Doctor is about....as for the toys and stuff...well I doubt Doctor Who toys were ever huge sellers...except maybe during Dalek mania....but I can't answer that as I don't know how much fortune they have made, I doubt it isn't any less than what the fortune the books made during the haitus....but again, can't say for sure, although....the fact that the Wii game interest is there, must be because they know that they have a market who is interested. But kids are the future...and if you are a long term fan as you say you are, I'm guessing you watched since you were a kid...and if the show had been aimed solely at adults, I doubt you would be a fan. The best children stories and programmes/films are the ones that allow adults to enter the mind of the child, not exclude them. So when I say it is a childrens' show, I am not saying no adults should watch it, (unlike your suggestion in the past that kids have there own show now) I'm saying that at it's centre, it is aimed at children, and when it does that brilliantly, it catches the attention of the adults too, it makes them feel like they are living their dreams. Just listen to the trailer and what Amy Pond says "when I was a little girl, I used to dream of Time and Space, and then last night, my dream came true!"....basically suggesting that her childhood dream came true. And that is what, as Moff puts it beautifully, is what Doctor Who is about.
His have been the most aimed at kids, and the kid inside us adults....I refer to my point about what Amy says in that Trailer. He brings nightmares and dreams of children alive. When we are children, it is then when we are scared of shadows and monsters under the beds, and stutues coming alive. And the reason why we adults have loved that too, is because we are reminded of our fears of childhood, which we as adults know is stupid to do so, but there is a sense of excitment to fear those things. For me, when I watched Blink for the first time, it reminded me of my fear as child of a tree that you used to be at the front of my house, I clearly remember looking out of the letter box, and getting a scared feeling that the tree had a face and it smiled at me. I remember being scared for days. And again pointing to Moff's work again, look at Reinette, she tried to show no fear to the clockwork men, because she said they are nothing more than the nightmares from her childhood, she tries not to be scared and show that she isn't, but she thinks back to the point when she first saw one as a child.
If you want adult fears, look at RTD's work....where most of the time the monster is no more than the human, or even worse the Doctor himself. What child dreams up a human to be a monster, what child wishes their hero to turn into a monster? That is adult.
By that logic, there shouldn't be any children's programmes, no writer in the world should write children's stories...because none of them contribute to the money that is given....the parents pay! Why the hell are the parents not demanding for books and programmes, and films to be solely written for the paying adults?
An excellent point! Quite agree.:)
What do you mean, you weren't serious?
But I never said it was...what I mean is that the ones writing it and making it, thought of the children....they really did think of the children!!! Ofcourse if you had been in charge then I know for sure that no one would think of the children;)
It works as a family show yes, the writers don't exclude adults, I never said they did....but they basically have the child's heart and mind and soul in the show...take Moff, in his recent video interview, he said that a scene he has written for an upcoming adventure, he showed to his son, and he told him that it was the most scriest thing ever in Doctor Who. Now what does that tell you...a man, who is in charge of getting the whole family in front of that TV, asks the opinion of a child...not an adult. Harks to my earlier point, something scary for children doesn't mean adults can't be part of it.
It tells me he's obviously bought into modern society's bizarre obsession with children, but I'm hoping it won't have affected his judgment too much. He doesn't usually write down to kids.