The Sarah Jane Adventures were everything Dr Who used to be when I was a kid...I enjoyed them more than the RTD Dr Who which is strange as SJA was created by RTD and he did a great job.
They still feel more Dr than any of the new ones. I think due to them being short multi-episode stories. Not overly CGI heavy or run aroundy with some slower bits in them...because of the smaller budget the stories had to be stronger.
This is something JM Straczynski said years ago: US TV sci-fi could get away with thinner story lines because they could 'hide behind' lots of SFX, UK based sci-fi (esp. BBC) had to rely more on story due to the smaller budgets and hence more basic SFX...now Dr Who (and most TV) has access to a lot of CGI then the stories suffer sometimes.
I agree with this. They have relied to much on CGI to try and make episodes more of a Hollywood Blockbuster rather than a BBC Production with a tight budget. It just makes it look terrible IMO.
In the RTD era the special effects used were minimal, this was because of great storylines and ideas they produced. No one needed to be blown away with special effects as they would be hooked to a gripping story.
Now though, the ideas are lousy and they are using too much CGI to try and hide the poor writing and plot lines.
I agree with this. They have relied to much on CGI to try and make episodes more of a Hollywood Blockbuster rather than a BBC Production with a tight budget. It just makes it look terrible IMO.
In the RTD era the special effects used were minimal, this was because of great storylines and ideas they produced. No one needed to be blown away with special effects as they would be hooked to a gripping story.
Now though, the ideas are lousy and they are using too much CGI to try and hide the poor writing and plot lines.
I agree with this. They have relied to much on CGI to try and make episodes more of a Hollywood Blockbuster rather than a BBC Production with a tight budget. It just makes it look terrible IMO.
In the RTD era the special effects used were minimal, this was because of great storylines and ideas they produced. No one needed to be blown away with special effects as they would be hooked to a gripping story.
Now though, the ideas are lousy and they are using too much CGI to try and hide the poor writing and plot lines.
Just my opinion.
Some stories require more special effects than others. Same was true of the RTD era as the Moffat era.
In the RTD era the special effects used were minimal, this was because of great storylines and ideas they produced. No one needed to be blown away with special effects as they would be hooked to a gripping story.
Many RTD era stories could be quite lousy as well, if not more so. Rose-tinted glasses are at work here. Stories like "Gridlock" and the season three finale were full of CGI and dazzling effects, and the quality of the plots there are often hotly debated.
From any objective standpoint, there is NO difference between the two eras other than "this one is the one I grew up with".
If Doctor Who is for children, then why does Moffat keep making incredibly complex storylines that kids will never figure out?
They're only complex if you demand that everything fit into the logical framework that adults have about how the world works. Children are much better at "just going with it" and not thinking through the unexplained consequences.
Many RTD era stories could be quite lousy as well, if not more so. Rose-tinted glasses are at work here. Stories like "Gridlock" and the season three finale were full of CGI and dazzling effects, and the quality of the plots there are often hotly debated.
From any objective standpoint, there is NO difference between the two eras other than "this one is the one I grew up with".
I don't agree - I bought all the box sets from series 1 - 4, but never felt any compulsion to buy the box sets from 5 or 6. I like Matt Smith, but they seem to have lost the art of good storytelling. It's very manic and there are often no good explanations for the way the story ends. For example. in the first episode when they are uploading people's souls, how did the doctor manage to get control of the android "Doctor"?
I don't agree - I bought all the box sets from series 1 - 4, but never felt any compulsion to buy the box sets from 5 or 6. I like Matt Smith, but they seem to have lost the art of good storytelling. It's very manic and there are often no good explanations for the way the story ends. For example. in the first episode when they are uploading people's souls, how did the doctor manage to get control of the android "Doctor"?
The art of storytelling, like when the Daleks were totally annihilated, except, wait! One survived and brought back the entire race, but they all got destroyed, except, one survived! Oh wait, they're gone again, but wait! One survived! the RTD era had a lot of backtracking like that.
I don't agree - I bought all the box sets from series 1 - 4, but never felt any compulsion to buy the box sets from 5 or 6. I like Matt Smith, but they seem to have lost the art of good storytelling. It's very manic and there are often no good explanations for the way the story ends. For example. in the first episode when they are uploading people's souls, how did the doctor manage to get control of the android "Doctor"?
He hacked it. He said he did. He said that while Kizlit liked to hack people, he was old-fashioned and preferred to hack computers.
Even if he didn't say it, I thought it would have been obvious.
I think the only thing I find "childish" is the endings of the episodes. It seems writers can't end a story without the worlds "love" or "compassion" or some other soppy message. I enjoyed the ghost episode up to the bit that the monster wanted to get back to his love on the other side. Isn't any monster just plain evil anymore??!
I think the only thing I find "childish" is the endings of the episodes. It seems writers can't end a story without the worlds "love" or "compassion" or some other soppy message. I enjoyed the ghost episode up to the bit that the monster wanted to get back to his love on the other side. Isn't any monster just plain evil anymore??!
Then again we had quite a few endings that were pretty adult so far - AOTD, ATM, Snowmen and even Bells had an ending that was hardy childish.
Some stories require more special effects than others. Same was true of the RTD era as the Moffat era.
I see your point, but it seems that they can only make an episode good by going all out on CGI as they story lines are just terrible. Although in the RTD era there were some special effects used, the plot lines were terrific and gripping so you didn't notice the CGI.
Again, just my opinion.
They're only complex if you demand that everything fit into the logical framework that adults have about how the world works. Children are much better at "just going with it" and not thinking through the unexplained consequences.
Ok,
It sounds like you're saying that only children will enjoy and understand it and that adults will not enjoy and will not understand it.
Doctor Who is a family drama for all ages. If this is the case then why isn't Doctor Who on CBBC. It has to be suitable and enjoyed by all ages.
It's most influencial audience will always be kids.
Which doesn't make it exclusively a kid's show. It's a family show, and there is a difference.
Same with Merlin, which is why when they made the bizarre decision to repeat old Merlin episodes on CBBC, they either stuck with the crap ones (like the godawful troll episode), or just edited bits out. If you can't show it in it's entirety on a kids channel, it's probably not a kid's show.
Some parts of the show cater more to children, some parts cater more to adults. There's a balance, hence it being a family show. It's not a matter of "is it for kids or adults"? The answer is both.
I don't think the show is childish, save for the odd episode here and there maybe. I did think the tone of "The Rings of Akhaten" would have been more suited for SJA, for example.
I think the only thing I find "childish" is the endings of the episodes. It seems writers can't end a story without the worlds "love" or "compassion" or some other soppy message. I enjoyed the ghost episode up to the bit that the monster wanted to get back to his love on the other side. Isn't any monster just plain evil anymore??!
I do think that the stories could do with more clever resolutions.
They can still use emotions to carry the impact.
The previous episode was very good overall and was a good story in its own right I thought, but I'd agree with you that at the end it appeared that the monster in love emotional ending felt a bit bolted on as an afterthought.
My favourite ending, which I thought delivered an excellent balance between emotion and a clever narrative resolution, was The Girl in the Fireplace.
In this instance the emotional ending added so much more to the satisfying narrative resolution than it would without it.
Probably one of the best endings I've seen in anything let alone in Doctor Who.
Get the balance right between a great narrative resolution together with a strong emotional resolution and you get television magic.
It's most influencial audience will always be kids.
I don't think so. How old would you say that most of Doctor Who fandom is?
I believe that the vast majority of viewers are adults.
What about all the fanbase that carried Doctor Who on when it was in hiatus?
I agree with a poster who said that Doctor Who is for children of all ages.
I'd also say that I think that sometimes adults underestimate how intelligent children can be.
I believe that the writers try to aim the show at viewers in such a way that an 8 year old could comprehend it.
I think that Doctor Who is an example of a television show which is generally very good at telling stories which act on more than one level. You can watch many stories as a fun adventure romp, but there is also the opportunity for you to spot the layered storytelling.
It doesn't matter if RTD or Moffat introduce more sophisticated stoytelling as a subtext to the surface story which entertains, because I believe that this acts in a subliminal manner and they can still enjoy the surface story anyway.
Which is great when it lends itself to the 'rewatchability' factor. So even if say an 8 year old might not catch a story's deeper elements first time around, something makes them want to watch it again. Then when they do, the finer elements and richness of the story may become more apparent to them.
Sometimes certain stories stick with you, and I believe that this is often due to the subtext underneath which somehow works even if you don't consciously notice it at first.
I believe that this would work on children just as it does with adults.
I don't subscribe to the belief that children can't absorb ideas which are carried along with the primary story. In a way their active imaginations may even be more curious than an adults and derive a lot of the richness of the story as most adults would.
If a story is overly complex then I think that it wouldn't make any difference if the viewer is an adult or a child, they would either be able to follow it or they wouldn't.
I think that the main purpose of shows such as Doctor Who to cater to children as well as adults is to deal with subject matter which excites their imagination. Monsters, fantasy, and time travel are probably going to tick those boxes.
So I think they pitch the show to viewers at around about the right level.
I think that if they tried to focus it too much towards very young children it would be a very bad idea and would lose the attention of children themselves, let alone adults.
Think of some Roald Dahl 'children's' stories, they have deeper undercurrents going on which can be appreciated by adults as well as children without being too difficult for children to enjoy.
I think the only thing I find "childish" is the endings of the episodes. It seems writers can't end a story without the worlds "love" or "compassion" or some other soppy message. I enjoyed the ghost episode up to the bit that the monster wanted to get back to his love on the other side. Isn't any monster just plain evil anymore??!
I completely agree.
I think it is due to poor writing though rather than trying to make it childish IMO.
I think the only thing I find "childish" is the endings of the episodes. It seems writers can't end a story without the worlds "love" or "compassion" or some other soppy message. I enjoyed the ghost episode up to the bit that the monster wanted to get back to his love on the other side. Isn't any monster just plain evil anymore??!
Well, a world in which a monster is "just plain evil" and not nuanced is pretty childish isn't it ... Oh, wait a minute, thats the exact opposite of what you think :rolleyes:
Some adults are somewhat resistant to adventure and fun, though.
How are they?
People of all ages has been watching Doctor Who for years, including adults. I think the RTD era was much more adventurous than the Moffat era, and lots of adults enjoyed it then.
I watched 'Rings' with my mates two kids and noted their delight at the market scene and in particular the barking woman. This then turned into quite terror when the 'mummy' was banging its tank, then awe at the planet with a face. When it finished they went off to play 'mummies' in the conservatory, the elder lad standing outside pulling faces through the door.
It reminded me of me and our kid, only we played Autons and Sea Devils, Daleks and Daemons.
Kind of warmed the heart to see history repeating itself (admittedly now with much better resolution). To me, no adult should ever forget that the reason most of us watch Doctor Who now is because we started watching it when we was kids.
'Rings' wasn't my cup of tea but it does appear to be what the kids want!
It's all a bit glass half fullish... is Doctor Who childish or childlike?
People of all ages has been watching Doctor Who for years, including adults. I think the RTD era was much more adventurous than the Moffat era, and lots of adults enjoyed it then.
Moffat vs. RTD has absolutely nothing to do with this. It was about whether children could handle 'complicated' plots. My argument is that what adults consider to be complicated are simple to children, because they can take things at face value, instead of having to fit them into a framework of 'how things work'.
Tell a child that history is collapsing, they won't question what that means, or how it could be happening.
You don't have to dumb things down for kids, and being silly or emotional is not childish.
Comments
I agree with this. They have relied to much on CGI to try and make episodes more of a Hollywood Blockbuster rather than a BBC Production with a tight budget. It just makes it look terrible IMO.
In the RTD era the special effects used were minimal, this was because of great storylines and ideas they produced. No one needed to be blown away with special effects as they would be hooked to a gripping story.
Now though, the ideas are lousy and they are using too much CGI to try and hide the poor writing and plot lines.
Just my opinion.
I agree.
Some stories require more special effects than others. Same was true of the RTD era as the Moffat era.
Many RTD era stories could be quite lousy as well, if not more so. Rose-tinted glasses are at work here. Stories like "Gridlock" and the season three finale were full of CGI and dazzling effects, and the quality of the plots there are often hotly debated.
From any objective standpoint, there is NO difference between the two eras other than "this one is the one I grew up with".
They're only complex if you demand that everything fit into the logical framework that adults have about how the world works. Children are much better at "just going with it" and not thinking through the unexplained consequences.
I don't agree - I bought all the box sets from series 1 - 4, but never felt any compulsion to buy the box sets from 5 or 6. I like Matt Smith, but they seem to have lost the art of good storytelling. It's very manic and there are often no good explanations for the way the story ends. For example. in the first episode when they are uploading people's souls, how did the doctor manage to get control of the android "Doctor"?
The art of storytelling, like when the Daleks were totally annihilated, except, wait! One survived and brought back the entire race, but they all got destroyed, except, one survived! Oh wait, they're gone again, but wait! One survived!
He hacked it. He said he did. He said that while Kizlit liked to hack people, he was old-fashioned and preferred to hack computers.
Even if he didn't say it, I thought it would have been obvious.
Then again we had quite a few endings that were pretty adult so far - AOTD, ATM, Snowmen and even Bells had an ending that was hardy childish.
I see your point, but it seems that they can only make an episode good by going all out on CGI as they story lines are just terrible. Although in the RTD era there were some special effects used, the plot lines were terrific and gripping so you didn't notice the CGI.
Again, just my opinion.
Ok,
It sounds like you're saying that only children will enjoy and understand it and that adults will not enjoy and will not understand it.
Doctor Who is a family drama for all ages. If this is the case then why isn't Doctor Who on CBBC. It has to be suitable and enjoyed by all ages.
It's most influencial audience will always be kids.
Which doesn't make it exclusively a kid's show. It's a family show, and there is a difference.
Same with Merlin, which is why when they made the bizarre decision to repeat old Merlin episodes on CBBC, they either stuck with the crap ones (like the godawful troll episode), or just edited bits out. If you can't show it in it's entirety on a kids channel, it's probably not a kid's show.
Some parts of the show cater more to children, some parts cater more to adults. There's a balance, hence it being a family show. It's not a matter of "is it for kids or adults"? The answer is both.
I don't think the show is childish, save for the odd episode here and there maybe. I did think the tone of "The Rings of Akhaten" would have been more suited for SJA, for example.
I do think that the stories could do with more clever resolutions.
They can still use emotions to carry the impact.
The previous episode was very good overall and was a good story in its own right I thought, but I'd agree with you that at the end it appeared that the monster in love emotional ending felt a bit bolted on as an afterthought.
My favourite ending, which I thought delivered an excellent balance between emotion and a clever narrative resolution, was The Girl in the Fireplace.
In this instance the emotional ending added so much more to the satisfying narrative resolution than it would without it.
Probably one of the best endings I've seen in anything let alone in Doctor Who.
Get the balance right between a great narrative resolution together with a strong emotional resolution and you get television magic.
Absolutely not. In the slightest. Some adults are somewhat resistant to adventure and fun, though.
I don't think so. How old would you say that most of Doctor Who fandom is?
I believe that the vast majority of viewers are adults.
What about all the fanbase that carried Doctor Who on when it was in hiatus?
I agree with a poster who said that Doctor Who is for children of all ages.
I'd also say that I think that sometimes adults underestimate how intelligent children can be.
I believe that the writers try to aim the show at viewers in such a way that an 8 year old could comprehend it.
I think that Doctor Who is an example of a television show which is generally very good at telling stories which act on more than one level. You can watch many stories as a fun adventure romp, but there is also the opportunity for you to spot the layered storytelling.
It doesn't matter if RTD or Moffat introduce more sophisticated stoytelling as a subtext to the surface story which entertains, because I believe that this acts in a subliminal manner and they can still enjoy the surface story anyway.
Which is great when it lends itself to the 'rewatchability' factor. So even if say an 8 year old might not catch a story's deeper elements first time around, something makes them want to watch it again. Then when they do, the finer elements and richness of the story may become more apparent to them.
Sometimes certain stories stick with you, and I believe that this is often due to the subtext underneath which somehow works even if you don't consciously notice it at first.
I believe that this would work on children just as it does with adults.
I don't subscribe to the belief that children can't absorb ideas which are carried along with the primary story. In a way their active imaginations may even be more curious than an adults and derive a lot of the richness of the story as most adults would.
If a story is overly complex then I think that it wouldn't make any difference if the viewer is an adult or a child, they would either be able to follow it or they wouldn't.
I think that the main purpose of shows such as Doctor Who to cater to children as well as adults is to deal with subject matter which excites their imagination. Monsters, fantasy, and time travel are probably going to tick those boxes.
So I think they pitch the show to viewers at around about the right level.
I think that if they tried to focus it too much towards very young children it would be a very bad idea and would lose the attention of children themselves, let alone adults.
Think of some Roald Dahl 'children's' stories, they have deeper undercurrents going on which can be appreciated by adults as well as children without being too difficult for children to enjoy.
I think it is due to poor writing though rather than trying to make it childish IMO.
Since when did constantly referencing the Time Lords make Doctor Who Doctor Who?
And if mentions of Gallifrey are what makes it, then we're only celebrating the 40th anniversary of Doctor Who.
How are they?
People of all ages has been watching Doctor Who for years, including adults. I think the RTD era was much more adventurous than the Moffat era, and lots of adults enjoyed it then.
It reminded me of me and our kid, only we played Autons and Sea Devils, Daleks and Daemons.
Kind of warmed the heart to see history repeating itself (admittedly now with much better resolution). To me, no adult should ever forget that the reason most of us watch Doctor Who now is because we started watching it when we was kids.
'Rings' wasn't my cup of tea but it does appear to be what the kids want!
It's all a bit glass half fullish... is Doctor Who childish or childlike?
Moffat vs. RTD has absolutely nothing to do with this. It was about whether children could handle 'complicated' plots. My argument is that what adults consider to be complicated are simple to children, because they can take things at face value, instead of having to fit them into a framework of 'how things work'.
Tell a child that history is collapsing, they won't question what that means, or how it could be happening.
You don't have to dumb things down for kids, and being silly or emotional is not childish.