No. It remit was always "family" not "kids". In the same way that (old) Star Wars movies and Pirates of the Caribbean are "family" films, rather than "kids". If you follow my distinction?
In my opinion, Doctor Who's ability to tackle issues such as those in Dalek, Father's Day, Boomtown, School Reunion, The Girl In The Fireplace, show that the show has actually matured in many ways, rather than become even more 'kiddie'.
In my opinion, the last two series of Doctor Who have had a remarkable ability to discuss the consequences of the Doctor's actions, and while, yes, there have been the odd noticeable lapse (farting Sliveen in WWIII, Love & Monsters [which I very much enjoyed]), I think on the whole, the series has matured some what.
Although not all the scripts are as deep and geeky as I personally would like, I understand the need for accessibility, something which I think the show has achieved, but I feel that now would be the time to get a deeper, longer plot on the go, something that doesn't interfer too much with the accessibility of the show for casual viewers, but something a little more substantial than a key word to look out for (bad wolf or torchwood), subtly building to a shocking cliffhanger at the end of the series
Personally, I would rather have hours of technobabble, a 10 doctor (!) story and Daleks plotting to take over the world with the help of the Master & the Sea Devils, but I realise that Doctor Who is currently so popular because it is accessible to the masses, and to change that too much could well lead it back down the path to cancellation again.
Hats off to David Tennant for delivering such a likeable performance as the Doctor, and for Christopher Eccleston for doing the job well enough to put Doctor Who back on the map. As a straight male bloke, neither of them particularly float my boat (neither did Billy for that matter, although Martha looks rather tasty), however, I'm a huge fan of Tennant because for me, he is the Doctor, and exactly how I would imagine him to behave (although he could be doing with a pot of my mum's home made soup to put a little more meat on his bones!).
In my opinion, Doctor Who's ability to tackle issues such as those in Dalek, Father's Day, Boomtown, School Reunion, The Girl In The Fireplace, show that the show has actually matured in many ways, rather than become even more 'kiddie'.
In my opinion, the last two series of Doctor Who have had a remarkable ability to discuss the consequences of the Doctor's actions, and while, yes, there have been the odd noticeable lapse (farting Sliveen in WWIII, Love & Monsters [which I very much enjoyed]), I think on the whole, the series has matured some what.
Although not all the scripts are as deep and geeky as I personally would like, I understand the need for accessibility, something which I think the show has achieved, but I feel that now would be the time to get a deeper, longer plot on the go, something that doesn't interfer too much with the accessibility of the show for casual viewers, but something a little more substantial than a key word to look out for (bad wolf or torchwood), subtly building to a shocking cliffhanger at the end of the series
Personally, I would rather have hours of technobabble, a 10 doctor (!) story and Daleks plotting to take over the world with the help of the Master & the Sea Devils, but I realise that Doctor Who is currently so popular because it is accessible to the masses, and to change that too much could well lead it back down the path to cancellation again.
Hats off to David Tennant for delivering such a likeable performance as the Doctor, and for Christopher Eccleston for doing the job well enough to put Doctor Who back on the map. As a straight male bloke, neither of them particularly float my boat (neither did Billy for that matter, although Martha looks rather tasty), however, I'm a huge fan of Tennant because for me, he is the Doctor, and exactly how I would imagine him to behave (although he could be doing with a pot of my mum's home made soup to put a little more meat on his bones!).
I agree. The show has become more applicable to the modern day audience, in a form where everyone, even most children, can understand it. If it goes too much towards the style of the classic series (villains, characters etc) then it would become more estranged to the audience and figures would go down.
Although I don't think there's anything wrong with dropping the odd reference to classic series events or canon - such as the 'parenthood' revelation, Gallifrey, Skaro, Daemos, Draconia, Kaleds and so forth.
I'm also looking forward to seeing the 'other' door in the TARDIS, and even more so to see the 'other' door being opened.
Anyways - yes, sometimes its a tad childish in some of the stories but most of the time its a plot device to further our thoughts about the Doctor and Rose's "couldn't care less" attitude, which was touched on several times throughout the second series.
Day by day, I'm being convinced that The Master is going to return in Series 3. I'm trying to remember if there was a 'Master' rumour made by some newspaper or website that has been denied by the BBC...
In my opinion, Doctor Who's ability to tackle issues such as those in Dalek, Father's Day, Boomtown, School Reunion, The Girl In The Fireplace, show that the show has actually matured in many ways, rather than become even more 'kiddie'.
Agreed, magik, but at the same time, seems like Who has rather a split personality. Either it's something well written and intelligent, like all the episodes you mentioned (tho I didn't love Boomtown), or they're rubbish like New Earth, Fear Her, and Love & Monsters.
I watch the Doctor Dances or Fathers Day or Girl in the Fireplace, and then I watch Love & Monsters and think, gods, is this the same show? I don't understand how they could possibly haved GITF and L&M in the same series, it's beyond me.
I think that's my problem --- I know they can make cracking stuff, they just don't.
Agreed, magik, but at the same time, seems like Who has rather a split personality. Either it's something well written and intelligent, like all the episodes you mentioned (tho I didn't love Boomtown), or they're rubbish like New Earth, Fear Her, and Love & Monsters.
I watch the Doctor Dances or Fathers Day or Girl in the Fireplace, and then I watch Love & Monsters and think, gods, is this the same show? I don't understand how they could possibly haved GITF and L&M in the same series, it's beyond me.
I think that's my problem --- I know they can make cracking stuff, they just don't.
Quite right Stormy Daze, it does appear to have a bit of a split personality, possibly due to the number of different writers involved. I'm all for something different (the idea of a Doctor Who story from the perspective of someone else like Love & Monsters, or that recent Torchwood episode with the boy who gets run over at the beginning of the episode), but I think that the idea was let down by the actual script. While there were a few witty lines etc. they weren't nearly as well done as the likes of The Girl In The Fireplace. I didn't particularly like Boom Town itself either, but I thought that it definitely touched on an interesting concept.
Fear Her was my least favourite episode of Series 2, I was practically cringing (and nearly hiding behind the sofa) at the end when the Doctor was running with the Olympic torch. And again, the premise of Fear Her was imaginative, and if they had done it in a Who Framed Roger Rabbit kind of way, rather than just as a suggestion that didn't really go anywhere, it could have been a lot better.
I have reasonable liked some of the new Dr Who stuff while being completely irritated by some of the bad writing andf over-reliance of Billie.
My question is - Do you think it is a progarmme mainly aimed at women?
I see so many comments about Dr Who saying how much they loved the Rose Tyler character, how sexy Tennant or Ecclesclake was, how much they enjoy the romance side of stuff. Now without being sexist they all sound like comments made mainly by ladies.
I haven't EVER heard any male fans or non-fans saying that they prefered the show to concentrate on Rose instead of the Doctor, or ever say that they wished there was more chemistry between the characters... Most of the chaps I have spoken to (a wide range) care more about the writing, the excitement and the Doctor himself. Surely the show called Dr Who should centred on the Doctor and not an ugly spotty Chav like Rose?
Some people say that Dr Who is childrens progamme,but I mainly think its for an all rounder audience,like male-female and all ages.
The show has become more applicable to the modern day audience,
Do agree, but not sure that's a good thing. Today's "modern day audience" appears to have a majority with the collective intelligence of a Waltham launderette! Dawn of the Chav... possibly followed by "Day" and "Land"... it'll end in tears, I tells ya!
Do agree, but not sure that's a good thing. Today's "modern day audience" appears to have a majority with the collective intelligence of a Waltham launderette! Dawn of the Chav... possibly followed by "Day" and "Land"... it'll end in tears, I tells ya!
Actually, when I come to think about it, not many 'chavs' that I know actually watch the show....
Quite right Stormy Daze, it does appear to have a bit of a split personality, possibly due to the number of different writers involved. I'm all for something different (the idea of a Doctor Who story from the perspective of someone else like Love & Monsters, or that recent Torchwood episode with the boy who gets run over at the beginning of the episode), but I think that the idea was let down by the actual script. While there were a few witty lines etc. they weren't nearly as well done as the likes of The Girl In The Fireplace. I didn't particularly like Boom Town itself either, but I thought that it definitely touched on an interesting concept.
Fear Her was my least favourite episode of Series 2, I was practically cringing (and nearly hiding behind the sofa) at the end when the Doctor was running with the Olympic torch. And again, the premise of Fear Her was imaginative, and if they had done it in a Who Framed Roger Rabbit kind of way, rather than just as a suggestion that didn't really go anywhere, it could have been a lot better.
Fear Her was bad. I'm a huge fan of Sofa Foam (that's what I call Matthew Graham because of my favourite quote from him), because I'm such a big fan of Life on Mars. But I thought I was going to get sick from the episode, it was so bad.
I think Love & Monster was much worse. I have never seen such a bad episode of Doctor Who in 40 years worth of TV -- and mark you, I watched the Colin Baker years.
Surely the show called Dr Who should centred on the Doctor and not an ugly spotty Chav like Rose?
Your argument interested me until that line. :rolleyes:
Anyhoo, what new Who is a perfectly aimed "family" series that appeals to a surprisingly wide demographic of people, hence its soap sized ratings.
Viewers expectations have changed greatly over the last 20 years people wont watch some 2D show with no character development and plastic bimbo-like companions. Look at the likes of BSG, X-Files and Buffy etc to see the modern direction of Sci-Fi drama and compare that to Star Trek which perfectly enscapulated what happens when a series fails to engage beyond the geeks locked in their bedrooms.
That was the old series major failing in the end, it become so obsessed about continuity and fandom opinion its excluded millions of its old followers. In may ways it saw the light in its final series with the Doctors character being developed and the introduction of Ace as a non-screaming companion who actually had a bit of story to tell. Alas it was to late by that time.
Guys will in a group take the macho "all guns blazing line" but in reality they are as interested in story as anyone else, one reason why I rated Superman Returns as the worst movie I'd seen in 2006 becuase character, story and acting were three things missing from that movie.
Guys will in a group take the macho "all guns blazing line" but in reality they are as interested in story as anyone else, one reason why I rated Superman Returns as the worst movie I'd seen in 2006 becuase character, story and acting were three things missing from that movie.
Apart from one or two exceptions, those three things were also missing from S2 of Who. The other shows you mention: X-Files, BSG, Buffy and Trek fare extremely well on those counts - why DW can't achieve similar depth and quality, whilst still appealing to its audience, I can't fathom! Incompetence? Laziness? Disinterest?
I'm certainly interested in good stories, and good character development and good acting - one reason why I rated DW as the worst show of 2006 (after TW, but that goes without saying), because, with very few exceptions, good character development, good stories and good acting were three things lacking in that series.
Hopefully, with S3, these areas will be improved upon - not too much to ask, is it? It is, isn't it? It's too much?
Comments
Or The Doctor in a horrific Time Loop at a Matalan store where he is destined to follow the same path again and again :yawn:
Ah, I see you've been reading the scripts for Season 3
He's rumbled you Ember1...
In my opinion, the last two series of Doctor Who have had a remarkable ability to discuss the consequences of the Doctor's actions, and while, yes, there have been the odd noticeable lapse (farting Sliveen in WWIII, Love & Monsters [which I very much enjoyed]), I think on the whole, the series has matured some what.
Although not all the scripts are as deep and geeky as I personally would like, I understand the need for accessibility, something which I think the show has achieved, but I feel that now would be the time to get a deeper, longer plot on the go, something that doesn't interfer too much with the accessibility of the show for casual viewers, but something a little more substantial than a key word to look out for (bad wolf or torchwood), subtly building to a shocking cliffhanger at the end of the series
Personally, I would rather have hours of technobabble, a 10 doctor (!) story and Daleks plotting to take over the world with the help of the Master & the Sea Devils, but I realise that Doctor Who is currently so popular because it is accessible to the masses, and to change that too much could well lead it back down the path to cancellation again.
Hats off to David Tennant for delivering such a likeable performance as the Doctor, and for Christopher Eccleston for doing the job well enough to put Doctor Who back on the map. As a straight male bloke, neither of them particularly float my boat (neither did Billy for that matter, although Martha looks rather tasty), however, I'm a huge fan of Tennant because for me, he is the Doctor, and exactly how I would imagine him to behave (although he could be doing with a pot of my mum's home made soup to put a little more meat on his bones!).
I agree. The show has become more applicable to the modern day audience, in a form where everyone, even most children, can understand it. If it goes too much towards the style of the classic series (villains, characters etc) then it would become more estranged to the audience and figures would go down.
Although I don't think there's anything wrong with dropping the odd reference to classic series events or canon - such as the 'parenthood' revelation, Gallifrey, Skaro, Daemos, Draconia, Kaleds and so forth.
I'm also looking forward to seeing the 'other' door in the TARDIS, and even more so to see the 'other' door being opened.
Anyways - yes, sometimes its a tad childish in some of the stories but most of the time its a plot device to further our thoughts about the Doctor and Rose's "couldn't care less" attitude, which was touched on several times throughout the second series.
Day by day, I'm being convinced that The Master is going to return in Series 3. I'm trying to remember if there was a 'Master' rumour made by some newspaper or website that has been denied by the BBC...
Agreed, magik, but at the same time, seems like Who has rather a split personality. Either it's something well written and intelligent, like all the episodes you mentioned (tho I didn't love Boomtown), or they're rubbish like New Earth, Fear Her, and Love & Monsters.
I watch the Doctor Dances or Fathers Day or Girl in the Fireplace, and then I watch Love & Monsters and think, gods, is this the same show? I don't understand how they could possibly haved GITF and L&M in the same series, it's beyond me.
I think that's my problem --- I know they can make cracking stuff, they just don't.
Quite right Stormy Daze, it does appear to have a bit of a split personality, possibly due to the number of different writers involved. I'm all for something different (the idea of a Doctor Who story from the perspective of someone else like Love & Monsters, or that recent Torchwood episode with the boy who gets run over at the beginning of the episode), but I think that the idea was let down by the actual script. While there were a few witty lines etc. they weren't nearly as well done as the likes of The Girl In The Fireplace. I didn't particularly like Boom Town itself either, but I thought that it definitely touched on an interesting concept.
Fear Her was my least favourite episode of Series 2, I was practically cringing (and nearly hiding behind the sofa) at the end when the Doctor was running with the Olympic torch. And again, the premise of Fear Her was imaginative, and if they had done it in a Who Framed Roger Rabbit kind of way, rather than just as a suggestion that didn't really go anywhere, it could have been a lot better.
Excellent. It's good to see Dr Who is still getting 105% of its own viewing figures...
Actually, when I come to think about it, not many 'chavs' that I know actually watch the show....
That goes without saying, but also for men and women
Fear Her was bad. I'm a huge fan of Sofa Foam (that's what I call Matthew Graham because of my favourite quote from him), because I'm such a big fan of Life on Mars. But I thought I was going to get sick from the episode, it was so bad.
I think Love & Monster was much worse. I have never seen such a bad episode of Doctor Who in 40 years worth of TV -- and mark you, I watched the Colin Baker years.
Your argument interested me until that line. :rolleyes:
Anyhoo, what new Who is a perfectly aimed "family" series that appeals to a surprisingly wide demographic of people, hence its soap sized ratings.
Viewers expectations have changed greatly over the last 20 years people wont watch some 2D show with no character development and plastic bimbo-like companions. Look at the likes of BSG, X-Files and Buffy etc to see the modern direction of Sci-Fi drama and compare that to Star Trek which perfectly enscapulated what happens when a series fails to engage beyond the geeks locked in their bedrooms.
That was the old series major failing in the end, it become so obsessed about continuity and fandom opinion its excluded millions of its old followers. In may ways it saw the light in its final series with the Doctors character being developed and the introduction of Ace as a non-screaming companion who actually had a bit of story to tell. Alas it was to late by that time.
Guys will in a group take the macho "all guns blazing line" but in reality they are as interested in story as anyone else, one reason why I rated Superman Returns as the worst movie I'd seen in 2006 becuase character, story and acting were three things missing from that movie.
I'm certainly interested in good stories, and good character development and good acting - one reason why I rated DW as the worst show of 2006 (after TW, but that goes without saying), because, with very few exceptions, good character development, good stories and good acting were three things lacking in that series.
Hopefully, with S3, these areas will be improved upon - not too much to ask, is it? It is, isn't it? It's too much?