Quote: Mickeza @ June 17 2010, 10:29 PM BSTDoctor Who is aimed at eight year old children
Bollocks.
Doctor Who... Page 556
It's got to be a family show surely.
Exactly. A show for the family.
& eight year old kids pop up in those from time to time.
When I was eight I had a very fetching floppy hat & scarf combo.
Quote: Marc P @ June 18 2010, 12:03 AM BSTBollocks.
I couldn't agree more. If it was aimed at eight year olds it would be on CBBC or nowhere at all. Its existence depends on it *not* being a children's programme.
I am glad that's all settled. It's nice to sort things out isn't it?
Quote: Marc P @ June 17 2010, 10:13 AM BSTWell here's one, as the next chunk is a two parter... do you wait and watch it all in one go??
Surely not Marc? It's written and broadcast as two parts with a cliffhanger. Isn't it your responsibility as viewer to buy into that? 
Quote: Mickeza @ June 17 2010, 10:29 PM BSTI do have one, hence why I can understand what he was saying, "And they're very good children's programmes, don't get me wrong, they're wonderfully written". Fry regularly tweets about enjoying Doctor Who, and saying it's for children isn't a criticism, it's a fact. Here is what the current show runner said when asked this very question;
Interviewer: We've been debating on our site endlessly: Is Doctor Who a kids' program?
Moffat: Yes. Debate over. It's good to fix those things quickly.
Doctor Who is aimed at eight year old children, the reason I enjoy it is because at heart, I'm a big kid. The problem Fry is alluding to is that the BBC are offering very few adult only dramas of a similar quality to Doctor Who. It's like going to the cinema, sometimes I want to see Toy Story 3, other times, The Hurt Locker. The problem is, the BBC aren't showing The Hurt Locker.
Steven Fry didn't mean it was literally for children he meant that it is for children because it isn't adult. It isn't challenging, savoury, ambiguous etc. He likened it to a Chicken McNugget - i.e. baby-food - enjoyable but not nourishing or of quality.
As I said before, it's quite a major 'dis'. I've always thought Fry was overrated, pretentious and unoriginal, but I know he's well liked here.
I described the recent Van Gogh episode as very lowbrow - that's essentially the same criticism he's making, I guess, that the show is more superficial than it needs to be.
This is the only season I've watched all the way through since Eccleston's. I've wanted it to succeed. I believe the casting and acting of Matt smith and Karen Gillan has been inspired but almost everything else has fallen flat for me.
The new titles and theme music are not better, the writing as been mediocre at best and the only genuinely good story was the angels one which is largely a retread of what's gone before.
I expect the last two to be good but Moffatt and his producers will need real help for next year.
I have an 8 year-pld here, and a 9 year-old, and they regularly say they don't understand what's happening in Who. And those are just the bits they realise they don't understand; there's a lot more that goes over their heads without them having any idea that they didn't understand it. Take Blink, for instance. To them, it was a scary programme with monsters that made them lose sleep. They had no idea that there were time paradoxes taking place as a central part of the plot.
Nogget's kids return beaten up from school
"Why did you say we were too thick to get dr Who daddy?"
With Dr Who don't people get classic Brit scifi has a completley diferent energy to most other drama series or US scifi etc. Lost was fantastatically filmed, all the loose ends tied up, every character had their revelation in the last episode. It was also hilariously ernest and pompous.
UK scifi has either done real menace; Edge of Darkness, Blake's 7, Doomwatch briliantly. The sets may have been wooden, the acting wasn't. Where real stories, characters and ideas are infinitely superior to any flash bang FX.
or wonderfully sly cheeky, tongue stuck out good natured weirdness. The Avengers, Sara Jane Adventures, Thunderbirds etc.
Dr Who kinda crosses the boundaries. In the last 2 episdoes it was pretty obvious neither writer gave a shit about the monster. It was a dull device to move a far more interesting and human story. No diferent to Dot's haemorroids or Jack Wooley seeing a ghost.
If you watched the Van Gogh and focussed on that stupid horse parrot thing. And not on a very sad story on the powerlessnes of time travellers, mental illness and the nature of art. The you missed a treat. Like going to the Tate and looking at the toilets.
And psychic paper, phonic poo drivers who cares they're just tools. Like when some one wins on a horse in the Easties so they can do a story on an expensive wedding, or a sheep gets chlamidia in the Archers so thye can introduce the new vet.
Enjoy for what it is. A surreal, light weight, kids TV show for adults, with loads of history and a serious bent.
PLEASE STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT HOW LOST ENDED IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE LOST THREAD. THANK YOU!
I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you just wrote Sooty. This scares me a little.
Quote: chipolata @ June 18 2010, 8:55 AM BSTPLEASE STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT HOW LOST ENDED IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE LOST THREAD. THANK YOU!
Keep up slow coach! Just buy the box set and whack through it this weekend!
Season 6 Lost boxset isn't out till August.
Quote: chipolata @ June 18 2010, 8:57 AM BSTSeason 6 Lost boxset isn't out till August.
It'll be quite a wait for you to discover Hurley was actually an evil ghost, then.
*Decides which Fringe spoiler to reveal first*