Peace man:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4523852.stm

What are your views on this Jimboc? Good to see you again after my long absence on the forums! Should DW dabble in politics or raising issues such as this? After all isn't the BBC supposed to be impartial?

I am all for it myself as it gives it much more of an edge and hopefully give folk something to think about too.

Hi Black Guardian,

I'm all for a show raising questions and making people think about ideas.
Just as long as it doesn't spoonfeed it's audience with a patronising sledgehammer approach.

Quite! I am not into being told the moral of this story is...I would rather people made their own conclusions.

IF Russel Grant continues to go down this road ... tis the end of Dr Who

This type of thing happened in the Vicar of Dibly the last couple of special episodes ... and quite frankly, its a major turn off (as in ... switch off )

I hate the American shows and their 'messages' - do we really have to go down that same route too?

Hi BG - hope all is well, and that White G isn't giving you too much grief.

Personally I'm all for some thought-provoking TV. Not in a patronising or brain-dead way - just something to think about.

People make mistakes - and that includes PMs, so for Harriet to cock-up should not be beyond belief. Bloody hell, Thatcher did!

There is an argument that subjective issues do not have any place in programmes such as Doctor Who. Personally I think they've always been there. Taxation in The Sunmakers springs to mind, as does racism in many Dalek stories.

And let's not forget the matter-of-fact way that sexuality was dealt with this year - something I thought was handled brilliantly.

I trust RTD to do any of this with his usual intelligence.

As long as there's plenty of explosions and nasty aliens too!

Think what I was trying to put across was I am all for topical issues being mentioned within any drama..including Who..that generates any form of debate or discussion. Like you and several other posters I don't like being told the moral of this story is or that everyone should think along the same lines and agree with the message being put across. After all we can make our own minds up..

Personally, I don't feel that Drama shows - especially in the genre of Dr Who - (ie .. many children watch as its in theory, for children first) should have messages regarding the subjects of war, sexuality, etc.

If Russel wants to write Drama for that specific purpose, then fine - but I don't think the place for hidden messages is in what is basically a programme for children

Children are quite sophisticated creatures these days and are surrounded by images and information regarding real life events...be it war, sexuality etc...

Drama whilst creating fictional scenarios has sometimes to be shrouded in some truth in order to make it more credible to the audience.

It isn't a programme for children - as much as it isn't a programme for adults. It's a programme for everyone.

There was no hidden message - it was quite open. And handled honestly.

Its not?

Silly me - I always thought it predominately created for children.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I am sure no-one is using the programme as a platform to promote anything but at the same time it is impossible not to mention certain issues which people, regardless of age or gender will come across in any newspaper or news bulletin.

Yes, me too.
I don't mind subtle digs here and there, but I would hate being preached to, like some sort of moral summarisation of the sort you might find at the end of Jerry Springer's moral thought of the day after his show.

I think they did it pretty well in the last series with little references to the '45 minutes' to deploy weapons, and the occasional other references littered around such as in the first Auton invasion story, or the Unquiet Dead. It's great when it's dropped in like that so you'd hardly notice.

I like as much ambiguity as possible, but enough little references now and again to make me think.
I quite like the idea of moral questions being more of a backdrop that maybe makes you think of real-life events and question the world around you without necessarily giving you easy answers on a plate, and the main story being more about the story about the characters.

But that is exactly WHAT this thread is about.

The BBC link mentioned above even clearly contains the text by Russel:


Just remember, the Vicar of Dibley went down like a lead balloon with its moral messages

But he is not saying that everyone who watches the programme has to agree with that message. It is the message he is putting across. Surely if people..whether it is adults or children..think about any issue raised in any programme then as a responsible writer/broadcaster they would hope the viewer will reach their own conclusions.

That is a good point tomorrow.

I just hope it isn't rammed down our throat, and we have an unbelievably schmaltzy, corny ending with them all singing carols.

I hope whatever is done, is done well.
Some of the stuff from the last series I thought was written well....and on other occasions I thought it wasn't done so wel at all.

If RTD is a good enough writer he should be able to write something with skill, without it coming across as though he's lecturing us on morality.

Fingers crossed eh?

Yes but this is where I can see 'tomorrow''s side of things....he shouldn't feel the need to tell us he's going to give us a message of any kind.

A skilful writer should be able to weave things into their writing without needing to explain things so literally.

It's a nice thought, that for the most part I agree with,...but I don't need RTD ramming it down my throat and preaching to the converted.

I like moral quandries and problems set to me...I just hope he isn't just going to try and spoonfeed the kids his beliefs by shouting "Eat it,... eat it you little bastards"

Dirty great spoiler in that article; although it is loosly flagged, I caught it before I realised

Yep

I am a huge admirer of David Tennant ... and would hate to think that RTD jeopardises not only Dr Who, but David's role in Dr Who with his 'personal messages'

I agree with both you. Even if he did try to spoonfeed the kids I think they are far more sophisticated and intelligent than we give the little darlings credit for and they will digest or reject whatever they choose to. My hope is they at least question what is put in front of them rather than just accept it.

Exactly, and that's why I hope RTD's writing matures a little bit now in the next series.
That was one area I thought he was seriously lacking in at times. It often felt at times like he was writing specifically for kids as a priority....as opposed to writing something good as a priority yet also considering his audience to make it suitable.
not respecting them as 'sophisticated creatures' who need to learn to think for themselves, was something I felt RTD was guilty of at times. (Not always, but sometimes)

I've seen several occasions where very good writers always say that it's not a good idea when writing for kids, to try to write drama in a way that they THINK they can try to second guess what kids might like.

I will most probably be lynched as I was when I said this during series one but I much preferred the scripts of Shearman, Moffat and Gatiss which did get them to think for themselves with the themes they explored.

Well yes, but we don't really want people rejecting it if at all possible do we?

In the last series some stuff might have worked for very young kids, but if the older kids feel they're being treated like babies it's not such a good thing.

Kids (I know that sounds patronising speaking about them like this) have gotten used to some pretty mature television over the years, and even the stuff they watch that may be labelled as for children can be a lot darker than the previous series of 'Doctor Who'

I truly believe that RTD can afford to be a bit darker at times.
Sometimes I felt that he was a bit 'soft' at times.

I agree with you that it's better to set questions to them, or any beliefs that are forced on them are going to be very flaky if there is no belief behind the reasoning of them on their part.

I remember the 'Just say no' drugs campaign in the '80s.

Think he relied too much on humour in his scripts which workedat times but more often than not didn't so anything that was in there to make us or the kiddies think was lost in the collective groaning!

I did too.

I think RTD did a pretty decent job of the entire structure of the series though.
Wasn't too keen on the conclusion, I found that rather weak, but I think he did a great job structuring the series.