I'm going with "Seb is lying"
along with subsidiary theory
"seb may be a construct of the Mrs., existing only in the Nethersphere (which is remarkably similar to the world people got saved to in the Library) and even the arab boy is only a hologram to influence Danny to self-delete."
Meanwhile his body is in cold storage somewhere, suspended animation, ready to be cyberconverted after his emotions are deleted.
I'm right there with ya, man. I'm on the Webby Wagon, man.
The show seems to have become very 'dark' recently - the Doctor and companion rowing, very 'orrible spider-things, the idea of cremated people being able to feel it happening, etc. Coupled with he later start time, I wonder whether the Beeb are trying to change the target audience demographic.
It almost reminds me of the 6th Doctor's tenure - which ended sooo well.
Ever seen the Oliver! movie? You know, that U Certificate, "family" film which boasts such family-friendly themes as murder, organised street gangs, child exploitation and prostitution? Or how about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which features a character from a nightmare - the Childcatcher - who has haunted me since 1968? And let's not even get started on Roald Dahl's books for children...
Films, book and TV shows for kids can, and do, handle dark, disturbing things. Kids love to be scared witless. And I am, of course, talking about kids of all ages...
It is screened at Peak Time (8 - 9pm) which is pretty much a family time for watching TV.
Doctor Who has always been an adult/child- friendly show!
Kids love to be scared to bits. Let's face it - kids nowadays see far more horror in the playground or on their X-Box games!!!
As many have already pointed out, Dr Who has always been a family show for all ages (and works far better when its more adult IMO - not saying that because I am an adult now but when I was a kid I wanted to be scared!).
I hope Danny stays dead. Otherwise it'll question why the Doctor never went back to rescue Katorina, Adric or Peri (the latter is not married to Brian Blessed. That never happened!)
I agree Abbot! The history of Doctor Who has been that if a companion dies - he/she is DEAD! All this sudden re-invention of bringing the dead back to life is nonsensical.
(Look at the endless Amy & Rory storylines!!)
Even Rose's father HAD to die!
Moffat has got some agenda on bringing back the dead! How many times has Clara died?
Hope this is solved in the finale!!!
I agree Abbot! The history of Doctor Who has been that if a companion dies - he/she is DEAD! All this sudden re-invention of bringing the dead back to life is nonsensical.
(Look at the endless Amy & Rory storylines!!)
Even Rose's father HAD to die!
Moffat has got some agenda on bringing back the dead! How many times has Clara died?
Hope this is solved in the finale!!!
Moffat didn't start this. Grace Holloway died and was then brought back.
Are you serious? I'm loving this more grown up version of the show. Each to their own, I guess. It's certainly different from what we got when Smith was the doctor, but that's what I love about it. Smith was a terrible doctor, and his episodes were too child-orientated for me, but Capaldi and his episodes really appeal to me.
Yes, very! I'm not objecting to it on personal grounds, but on the basis that as a children's/family show, one can reasonably assume there might be five year olds watching (as mentioned by many other people in their threads). After all, the series started its current run with an earlier broadcast time so some of the littler people who started watching would want to stay up and see the rest.
I'm afraid I don't agree with the 'PG' concept. Parental Guidance can only work if the parents are able to establish in advance whether or not the show would be appropriate for their children - this isn't always possible, and as DiscoP mentions, the tone of the series can vary so widely that it's not really possible to judge in advance.
The thing about a lot of the scary things mentioned in the thread - the Childcatcher, Daleks, the Morbius creature, etc. - is that they can be run away from (behind the sofa if necessary). The concept in this episode in particular cannot be evaded in that manner.
I think there is a risk that were the show to continue in a similar vein, it would loose a lot of the early years audience who now make up a significant number of the people watching the show today, and posting on this site. When will the next generation of viewers start watching the show?
If anything Doctor Who has been more like a children's show over the past couple of years than it ever has been IMO. Saying that I was gripped by the last episode
The shows moved from a 5year old behind the sofa while dad laughs at them being scared of a dalek that gets defeated by a stairwell to more of a teen audience upwards, perhaps that was the idea with the SJA to get the younger ones ready for the more mature programming they'd see when they're allowed to stay up till 9pm.
I hope Danny stays dead. Otherwise it'll question why the Doctor never went back to rescue Katorina, Adric or Peri (the latter is not married to Brian Blessed. That never happened!)
To be fair, they have made the point that Danny (and the rest) are still connected to their bodies, and their cleansed minds have actually been put back into their bodies. Just not quite the same way.
For me, the cremation thing was a bit much for children. Doctor Who is MEANT to be scary - I used to watch it from behind the sofa in the 60s, and was astonished to learn that this was the standard viewing position for most kids - but there was something in the cremation/pain thing that was just too uncomfortable. Many kids will have been to cremations of grandparents. Moffat et al needed to make it clear in this episode that dead people weren't in pain after death.
That said, Doctor Who is kiddy-horror and a wise parent will make sure they're watching alongside their kids, or at least wandering in and out. And not getting too freaked out themselves...
Ever seen the Oliver! movie? You know, that U Certificate, "family" film which boasts such family-friendly themes as murder, organised street gangs, child exploitation and prostitution? Or how about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which features a character from a nightmare - the Childcatcher - who has haunted me since 1968? And let's not even get started on Roald Dahl's books for children...
They have mitigating factors though. Oliver! has singing and dancing and is set in the Victorian era; it would be unlikely to get a U if it was set in the present day and wasn't a musical. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is also a musical; the Childcatcher is scary but he would come under 'mild horror/peril'. Neither of them have anything explicit (unlike Watership Down's rabbit-mauling); the bludgeoning that happens in the stage version of Oliver! is hidden from view in the film.
You can have murder, organised street gangs, child exploitation and prostitution in U-rated films (maybe PG).It's just that they'd be dealt with very differently (when I say dealt with, I mean rather glossed over). In Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Frollo has sexual fantasies about Esmerelda and actually sings a song about wanting her 'in that way'!
Also, having a clear moral message helps make a potentially dark film family friendly. Roald Dahl's children's books are dark but they have a moral lesson in them.
That is partly due to the way that series is currently set up. Thinking back to the old days, take the Hinchcliffe era as an example, although the set up and and stories changed the tone of the series was pretty much consistent throughout and people more or less knew what they'd be getting each week. If you look at Forest of the Night and Dark Waters the tone is completely different. If it weren't for the principal characters the episodes could be from two completely separate series. I think this is either a strength or weakness depending on how you view it. It means that there's something for everyone and personally I can usually tell quite early on what sort of episode it will be and I just roll with it. Also I can't think of any other show that could do that so I see it as a strength but I can see that it creates a somewhat disjointed series when viewed as a whole.
I do think there is something odd about the series. People are praising it but everyone seems to name different episodes as being duds; episodes which some people think are the best of the series. In a excellent series, the really standout episodes should be obvious.
I do think there is something odd about the series. People are praising it but everyone seems to name different episodes as being duds; episodes which some people think are the best of the series. In a excellent series, the really standout episodes should be obvious.
I'm not sure which forum you have been reading, but there have been some stand out episodes, and in series' past, the duds are never really agreed upon.
It's not really any different, except we seem to have many more voices now (which is a good thing).
Wasn't everyone complaining that it was too kiddy after In The Forest Of The Night? Personally I hated that one but I love that the show can be so varied and have kids one week and Dark Water the next.... a bit like Twin Dilemma and Caves in reverse...
I'm going with "Seb is lying"
along with subsidiary theory
"seb may be a construct of the Mrs., existing only in the Nethersphere (which is remarkably similar to the world people got saved to in the Library) and even the arab boy is only a hologram to influence Danny to self-delete."
I'd go further and suggest that entire memory was just to influence Danny - we know he's been in the army, and we know he's done some bad things...but something about that whole thing just seemed a little off to me.
They have mitigating factors though. Oliver! has singing and dancing and is set in the Victorian era; it would be unlikely to get a U if it was set in the present day and wasn't a musical. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is also a musical; the Childcatcher is scary but he would come under 'mild horror/peril'. Neither of them have anything explicit (unlike Watership Down's rabbit-mauling); the bludgeoning that happens in the stage version of Oliver! is hidden from view in the film.
You can have murder, organised street gangs, child exploitation and prostitution in U-rated films (maybe PG).It's just that they'd be dealt with very differently (when I say dealt with, I mean rather glossed over). In Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Frollo has sexual fantasies about Esmerelda and actually sings a song about wanting her 'in that way'!
Also, having a clear moral message helps make a potentially dark film family friendly. Roald Dahl's children's books are dark but they have a moral lesson in them.
All of which can be applied to the way dark themes are handled by Doctor Who. Which is exactly the point I was making.
Ever seen the Oliver! movie? You know, that U Certificate, "family" film which boasts such family-friendly themes as murder, organised street gangs, child exploitation and prostitution? Or how about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which features a character from a nightmare - the Childcatcher - who has haunted me since 1968? And let's not even get started on Roald Dahl's books for children...
Films, book and TV shows for kids can, and do, handle dark, disturbing things. Kids love to be scared witless. And I am, of course, talking about kids of all ages...
As an aside, Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay for Chitty...
There is a warning that if anyone thought that this episode was dark it was only an aperitif for what comes in the finale. The dark themes continue.
I will watch it and at least this time will be prepared for it!
I really hope things lighten up a bit in series 9. I don't want to go back to the sometimes cartoonish silliness of 11 but it seems to have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other - a bit of balance would be nice.
As a parent I now do not take it for granted that Doctor Who is child friendly. I know by the trailers/spoilers which episodes will freak my 8 year old out and he is not allowed to watch them. I think it's a pity I have to do that now. It's the psychologically scary ones that I veto. Scary monsters are fine!!
Comments
Meanwhile his body is in cold storage somewhere, suspended animation, ready to be cyberconverted after his emotions are deleted.
I'm right there with ya, man. I'm on the Webby Wagon, man.
You certainly sound like you're on SOMETHING
Ever seen the Oliver! movie? You know, that U Certificate, "family" film which boasts such family-friendly themes as murder, organised street gangs, child exploitation and prostitution? Or how about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which features a character from a nightmare - the Childcatcher - who has haunted me since 1968? And let's not even get started on Roald Dahl's books for children...
Films, book and TV shows for kids can, and do, handle dark, disturbing things. Kids love to be scared witless. And I am, of course, talking about kids of all ages...
Doctor Who has always been an adult/child- friendly show!
Kids love to be scared to bits. Let's face it - kids nowadays see far more horror in the playground or on their X-Box games!!!
I hope Danny stays dead. Otherwise it'll question why the Doctor never went back to rescue Katorina, Adric or Peri (the latter is not married to Brian Blessed. That never happened!)
(Look at the endless Amy & Rory storylines!!)
Even Rose's father HAD to die!
Moffat has got some agenda on bringing back the dead! How many times has Clara died?
Hope this is solved in the finale!!!
Moffat didn't start this. Grace Holloway died and was then brought back.
I'm afraid I don't agree with the 'PG' concept. Parental Guidance can only work if the parents are able to establish in advance whether or not the show would be appropriate for their children - this isn't always possible, and as DiscoP mentions, the tone of the series can vary so widely that it's not really possible to judge in advance.
The thing about a lot of the scary things mentioned in the thread - the Childcatcher, Daleks, the Morbius creature, etc. - is that they can be run away from (behind the sofa if necessary). The concept in this episode in particular cannot be evaded in that manner.
I think there is a risk that were the show to continue in a similar vein, it would loose a lot of the early years audience who now make up a significant number of the people watching the show today, and posting on this site. When will the next generation of viewers start watching the show?
To be fair, they have made the point that Danny (and the rest) are still connected to their bodies, and their cleansed minds have actually been put back into their bodies. Just not quite the same way.
That said, Doctor Who is kiddy-horror and a wise parent will make sure they're watching alongside their kids, or at least wandering in and out. And not getting too freaked out themselves...
They have mitigating factors though. Oliver! has singing and dancing and is set in the Victorian era; it would be unlikely to get a U if it was set in the present day and wasn't a musical. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is also a musical; the Childcatcher is scary but he would come under 'mild horror/peril'. Neither of them have anything explicit (unlike Watership Down's rabbit-mauling); the bludgeoning that happens in the stage version of Oliver! is hidden from view in the film.
You can have murder, organised street gangs, child exploitation and prostitution in U-rated films (maybe PG).It's just that they'd be dealt with very differently (when I say dealt with, I mean rather glossed over). In Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Frollo has sexual fantasies about Esmerelda and actually sings a song about wanting her 'in that way'!
Also, having a clear moral message helps make a potentially dark film family friendly. Roald Dahl's children's books are dark but they have a moral lesson in them.
I do think there is something odd about the series. People are praising it but everyone seems to name different episodes as being duds; episodes which some people think are the best of the series. In a excellent series, the really standout episodes should be obvious.
I'm not sure which forum you have been reading, but there have been some stand out episodes, and in series' past, the duds are never really agreed upon.
It's not really any different, except we seem to have many more voices now (which is a good thing).
They recognise tht there is a younger fan base and hence The Sarah Jane Adventures, made specifically for screening at a younger time.
Roll back 33 years and they did the same thing with K9 and Company tacitly saying that Dr Who needed a child friendly advienture
I'd go further and suggest that entire memory was just to influence Danny - we know he's been in the army, and we know he's done some bad things...but something about that whole thing just seemed a little off to me.
All of which can be applied to the way dark themes are handled by Doctor Who. Which is exactly the point I was making.
As an aside, Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay for Chitty...
I will watch it and at least this time will be prepared for it!
I really hope things lighten up a bit in series 9. I don't want to go back to the sometimes cartoonish silliness of 11 but it seems to have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other - a bit of balance would be nice.
As a parent I now do not take it for granted that Doctor Who is child friendly. I know by the trailers/spoilers which episodes will freak my 8 year old out and he is not allowed to watch them. I think it's a pity I have to do that now. It's the psychologically scary ones that I veto. Scary monsters are fine!!