![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Doctor Who Episodes 9.1.5-9.2 or rather "Meditation for the Doctor", "Magician's Apprentice", and "The Witch's Familiar".
The problem I had with these was the damn commercial interruptions. Can't help but wonder what it would be like if I wasn't constantly fast-forwarding through commercials every 15 or 10 minutes. As a result of the commercials, some of which were flash-forward previews regarding what will happen next in between commercials, so you don't give up, I found it hard to follow. Not to mention jarring.
Note to television writers producing shows for "commercial" television - out of order narratives or jumpy narratives are hard to follow when you are interrupted by commercials. It interrupts the flow.
I felt I should get that out of the way first. My main issue with Doctor Who, and probably the reason I was never "fannish" about it - is it is geared more towards "horror" than really speculative science fiction/fantasy/adventure. Basically the writer is interested in examining what scares us. This has never had a great deal of appeal for me. I'm not a big fan of horror. I like it, but sparingly. If you aren't a horror fan -- you probably don't like Doctor Who all that much.
Ignoring both of those quibbles? (Because one, let's face isn't the writers fault, he wrote the series for non-commercial television, and two, it's a horror series. Hello. Sort of know that going into it.) It was an interesting series of episodes. Playing around once again with the idea of mercy and war. And enemies vs. friends. The Doctor at the end of it, chooses to save the child who will one day become he's most dreaded enemy, to show mercy, as opposed to the more tempting choice - to kill him.
Hmmm...this seems to be an on-going theme in the items that I've been reading lately. The protagonist is given a chance to kill a horrible enemy who is responsible for mass genocide prior to it happening, or the enemy either rising to power, or making that choice. In both cases, the protagonist makes the choice to either kill the enemy or abandon them to certain death. But it doesn't work. So, in the end they don't give in, and either save the enemy, or don't cause their death.
There's a rather long scene, made longer by commercial interruptions, where the Doctor and Davros (sp?), the creator of the Daleks or Father of the Daleks, chat. Davros is apparently dying and wants to see the sunrise one last time. He wonders if at the end of the day, is he a good man? Did he do the best he could for his people? His people had so many invasions and so many battles that they eventually encased themselves in tanks or machines of warfare as protection. The Doctor wonders much the same thing - is he a good man? Then, in a moment of compassion, the Doctor decides to share his life force with his enemy, so that his enemy can see the sunrise. That moment - gives his enemy the upper hand and the enemy attempts to steal the Doctor's energy, turning himself into a hybrid.
The Master/Missy stops it in time (although that's not exactly clear...), and the Doctor hunts down Clara, only to find a Dalek, which Missy claims killed Clara. (It is in reality, Clara - which is reminiscent of Clara's first appearance on the series, where she was in fact a Darlek. Except this time around she can escape the casing of the Darlek, it's not permanent.) The Doctor figures out that it is Clara, when the Dalek she's inside interrupts her pleas as "Mercy".
"Would you kill me?" The Doctor asks.
"Mercy. Do not kill. Mercy." Clara, the Darlek, responds.
Which gives him pause. How did it learn mercy? And that enables him to find Clara, and motivates him to go back in time to save the child who is to become Davros. To show the child mercy, in the hope that he will somehow remember it and instill it in his creations.
Davros tells the Doctor that his weakness, his fatal flaw is his compassion. Yet in reality it is his compassion that saves Clara and himself.
Overall not bad. Just difficult to follow and bit dull in spaces, partly due to the commercials.
2. New American Television Series
* Scream Queens -- I gave up halfway through, around the 30 minute mark. I'd read good reviews of it. But here's the thing, Ryan Murphy's unique and rather flamboyant (read over the top) brand of cultural satire/parody either works for you or it really doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I didn't find it offensive so much as boring. I didn't care about any of the characters. And I kept wondering why all these rich entitled college kids weren't using smartphones 24/7 like their real life counterparts? In short, I was taken out of the story intermittently by the thought - why aren't they taking pictures of that with their cell phones? Why don't they have their cell phones on them? Clearly Murphy and Falchuck are of my generation and don't seem to realize that everyone under the age of 30, with few exceptions, has a cell phone as a third appendage.
But my main difficulty, was none of the characters was relateable, interesting, charming, or compelling. Not one. I need at least someone to care about and root for. In Glee, I had five people, plus nifty musical numbers. This...I don't even have the musical numbers, just gory death scenes, and seriously who wants that?
* Blindspot --- has potential. My co-worker loves it. I find it a bit boiler-plate, but I admittedly have watched too many tv shows in my life-time. It feels a bit like Orphan Black meets the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. A woman has her memory completely wiped, and her skin covered with tattoos, then she's dumped naked in a duffel bag in the middle of Times Square. The duffel has a tag stating that they should "CAll the FBI". Oh and on her back is the name of a top level FBI agent, Kurt Weller. Apparently each of her tattoos holds a clue to her identity and to various terrorist attacks around the city or country. It's a treasure map of sorts.
So, each episode will be unraveling the mystery behind each individual tattoo. The case of the week is the terrorist or criminal action that the tattoo is a clue to, and the back plot is who is this woman and what does the tattoo and the case reveal about her.
She's clearly a trained fighter, with awesome shooting and kung fu skills. (And has a Navy Seals Special Ops Tattoo hidden under a new tattoo.) We're also shown the man who trained her and did this to her - but no clue if he is a villain or what exactly.
Like I said, it has potential, but it's nothing new or that we haven't seen before, exactly.
3. ) I've finished Grant Morrison's New X-men - which overall, was quite good. Got a bit weak towards the end. And the art was uneven. Morrison, unfortunately, didn't get to choose or keep his pick of the artists, which caused problems. Graphic novels work best if the art remains consistent throughout, and there's a true collaboration between artist and writer. (Which is why the best graphic novels are either written and drawn by the same person or have a collaborative team.)
That said, even though Frank Quitely's run was most likely the best. My favorite part of the series was the Wolverine/Cyclops buddy trip, against Cyclops better judgment (Wolverine basically gets Cyke blind drunk, throws him over his shoulder and dumps him at the facility that he wants him to investigate at his side, as back-up.). This had some of the best character moments of the series.
I honestly don't think male comic book writers handle male/female romantic relationships that well.
Cyke and Wolverine have the best character arcs in this series. Although Wolverine is stretched a bit thin at this point (the character is in literally every single X-men comic book). Cyke hits rock bottom. He loses everything - his wife, his self-esteem, his world-view, his ideology, and his friends. He comes thisclose to permanently leaving the X-men. Actually he does, but 150 years later, a resurrected Jean Grey/Phoenix decides to send a thought message back in time to change his mind - because otherwise the world will blow apart in the distant future. So she pushes him into Emma Frost's arms. This whole story arc, entitled "Here Comes Tomorrow" feels rather contrived. The writer is clearly attempting to justify and sell Scott/Cyke's new love relationship with Emma, even though the love of his life and his wife just died, and keep him on the team. It's not surprising that Hank, Wolverine, Rachel and various other team mates take issue with this development.
I also found the death of Jean Grey rather contrived. I don't think the writers know what to do with the character. They keep killing her off. It's annoying because her relationship with Cyke had finally gotten interesting. Complicated, messy, and interesting. I would have liked to see if they could have worked it out, or worked through it a bit. Serial writers, particularly male serial writers, for some reason or other have problems writing long monogamous romantic relationships. I don't know why. For some reason they find writing battle scenes more interesting. (And we wonder why there are so many wars.)
Anyhow. Now re-reading Joss Whedon and John Cassiday's Astonishing X-men, which is much better than I remembered. Whedon apparently learned something from Grant Morrison's run and insisted on two things - the same artist and team collaborating with him all the way through, and a limited run of about 22 issues or thereabouts. Smart. I wish he was smart about the Buffy comics. (oh well). Whedon made it clear that writers and artists needed to collaborate, and switching the team up, was jarring to everyone involved including the readers.
I'm enjoying Whedon's take more this go-around than I did the last time. In part because I'm not shipping the same characters/relationships that I did back then, and because I'm fascinated by the same character arc and themes that Whedon is fascinated by -- at least when he was writing it.
It helps greatly if you are on the same page as the writer.
The first go-around, I was shipping Wolverine, who Whedon felt had been overdone and couldn't resist poking fun at. And Kitty Pryde with some guy, who I've since forgotten. I can only vaguely picture the character. And his name escapes me. (I think it was Peter something, which can't be right because that was also Colossus first name. I just know he shot knives out of his wrists and had a razor sharp wit and a long duster.) At the time this character, whose name I've forgotten, that I was shipping Shadowcat aka Kitty Pryde with, reminded me of Spike (probably the razor sharp wit and leather jacket), and Colossus reminded me of Angel (the brooding demeanor, thick body, dark hair, and the lack of a neck). And had decided like many other fans that this was evidence that Whedon shipped Bangle over Spuffy. (I've since come to the conclusion this isn't true. And Whedon like most male serial writers could not care less about romantic relationships...and does whatever he thinks will make the characters or plot intriguing or fit his theme. Also, they won't stay together anyhow, because he thinks that's boring. One or the other will be killed off, or something incredibly tragic and angsty. In short, he goes for the relationship that is bound to be the most tragic. The man has read too many Shakespearean tragedies.)
At any rate, these aren't problems now. I tend to agree with Whedon, Wolverine has been overdone and the character stretched far past his limit. (Serial writers have a tendency to do this - when they inherit the characters/story, they decide to re-interpret it to fit whatever theme or plot arc they've dreamed up. Often at the expense of the character. Wolverine is sort of easy to do this with, because there's built in loop-holes. He had memory implants and he's immortal, and dates back to the 1800s. So basically the skies the limit - as long as you write him as the tough badass thug with a heart of gold, you're okay. So to date they've managed to explore every possible cliche, stereotype and angle on that trope that exists.) Whedon kept poking fun at the trope, often with jokes at Wolverine's expense, which I'm finding hilarious now -- but didn't when I first read it. Mainly because I no longer care all that much about Wolverine.
Nor do I care who Kitty Pryde winds up with. For one thing, I already know she's not going to end up with Colossus. In 2015, she was dating Iceman. Whedon just put them together for maximum angst.
This is of course aided by the fact that I can't remember the romantic relationship she was in that I'd been shipping.
All of this just goes to show you how shipping characters/relationships can if you aren't careful get in the way of your overall enjoyment of story arc.
Whedon's take on the X-men is rather interesting. He's exploring the problematic nature of leadership.
And much like Morrison before him, focusing his attention of Cyclops. Actually, the characters who get the most attention during Whedon's arc are Kitty Pryde, Cyclops, Emma Frost, and Hank. And he does an adept job of psychologically breaking down the character of Cyclops then building him up again into a tough badass, take no prisoners, leader that others respect. And..Whedon is good at dialogue. Much better than a lot of comic book writers are, unfortunately.
So far so good.
The problem I had with these was the damn commercial interruptions. Can't help but wonder what it would be like if I wasn't constantly fast-forwarding through commercials every 15 or 10 minutes. As a result of the commercials, some of which were flash-forward previews regarding what will happen next in between commercials, so you don't give up, I found it hard to follow. Not to mention jarring.
Note to television writers producing shows for "commercial" television - out of order narratives or jumpy narratives are hard to follow when you are interrupted by commercials. It interrupts the flow.
I felt I should get that out of the way first. My main issue with Doctor Who, and probably the reason I was never "fannish" about it - is it is geared more towards "horror" than really speculative science fiction/fantasy/adventure. Basically the writer is interested in examining what scares us. This has never had a great deal of appeal for me. I'm not a big fan of horror. I like it, but sparingly. If you aren't a horror fan -- you probably don't like Doctor Who all that much.
Ignoring both of those quibbles? (Because one, let's face isn't the writers fault, he wrote the series for non-commercial television, and two, it's a horror series. Hello. Sort of know that going into it.) It was an interesting series of episodes. Playing around once again with the idea of mercy and war. And enemies vs. friends. The Doctor at the end of it, chooses to save the child who will one day become he's most dreaded enemy, to show mercy, as opposed to the more tempting choice - to kill him.
Hmmm...this seems to be an on-going theme in the items that I've been reading lately. The protagonist is given a chance to kill a horrible enemy who is responsible for mass genocide prior to it happening, or the enemy either rising to power, or making that choice. In both cases, the protagonist makes the choice to either kill the enemy or abandon them to certain death. But it doesn't work. So, in the end they don't give in, and either save the enemy, or don't cause their death.
There's a rather long scene, made longer by commercial interruptions, where the Doctor and Davros (sp?), the creator of the Daleks or Father of the Daleks, chat. Davros is apparently dying and wants to see the sunrise one last time. He wonders if at the end of the day, is he a good man? Did he do the best he could for his people? His people had so many invasions and so many battles that they eventually encased themselves in tanks or machines of warfare as protection. The Doctor wonders much the same thing - is he a good man? Then, in a moment of compassion, the Doctor decides to share his life force with his enemy, so that his enemy can see the sunrise. That moment - gives his enemy the upper hand and the enemy attempts to steal the Doctor's energy, turning himself into a hybrid.
The Master/Missy stops it in time (although that's not exactly clear...), and the Doctor hunts down Clara, only to find a Dalek, which Missy claims killed Clara. (It is in reality, Clara - which is reminiscent of Clara's first appearance on the series, where she was in fact a Darlek. Except this time around she can escape the casing of the Darlek, it's not permanent.) The Doctor figures out that it is Clara, when the Dalek she's inside interrupts her pleas as "Mercy".
"Would you kill me?" The Doctor asks.
"Mercy. Do not kill. Mercy." Clara, the Darlek, responds.
Which gives him pause. How did it learn mercy? And that enables him to find Clara, and motivates him to go back in time to save the child who is to become Davros. To show the child mercy, in the hope that he will somehow remember it and instill it in his creations.
Davros tells the Doctor that his weakness, his fatal flaw is his compassion. Yet in reality it is his compassion that saves Clara and himself.
Overall not bad. Just difficult to follow and bit dull in spaces, partly due to the commercials.
2. New American Television Series
* Scream Queens -- I gave up halfway through, around the 30 minute mark. I'd read good reviews of it. But here's the thing, Ryan Murphy's unique and rather flamboyant (read over the top) brand of cultural satire/parody either works for you or it really doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I didn't find it offensive so much as boring. I didn't care about any of the characters. And I kept wondering why all these rich entitled college kids weren't using smartphones 24/7 like their real life counterparts? In short, I was taken out of the story intermittently by the thought - why aren't they taking pictures of that with their cell phones? Why don't they have their cell phones on them? Clearly Murphy and Falchuck are of my generation and don't seem to realize that everyone under the age of 30, with few exceptions, has a cell phone as a third appendage.
But my main difficulty, was none of the characters was relateable, interesting, charming, or compelling. Not one. I need at least someone to care about and root for. In Glee, I had five people, plus nifty musical numbers. This...I don't even have the musical numbers, just gory death scenes, and seriously who wants that?
* Blindspot --- has potential. My co-worker loves it. I find it a bit boiler-plate, but I admittedly have watched too many tv shows in my life-time. It feels a bit like Orphan Black meets the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. A woman has her memory completely wiped, and her skin covered with tattoos, then she's dumped naked in a duffel bag in the middle of Times Square. The duffel has a tag stating that they should "CAll the FBI". Oh and on her back is the name of a top level FBI agent, Kurt Weller. Apparently each of her tattoos holds a clue to her identity and to various terrorist attacks around the city or country. It's a treasure map of sorts.
So, each episode will be unraveling the mystery behind each individual tattoo. The case of the week is the terrorist or criminal action that the tattoo is a clue to, and the back plot is who is this woman and what does the tattoo and the case reveal about her.
She's clearly a trained fighter, with awesome shooting and kung fu skills. (And has a Navy Seals Special Ops Tattoo hidden under a new tattoo.) We're also shown the man who trained her and did this to her - but no clue if he is a villain or what exactly.
Like I said, it has potential, but it's nothing new or that we haven't seen before, exactly.
3. ) I've finished Grant Morrison's New X-men - which overall, was quite good. Got a bit weak towards the end. And the art was uneven. Morrison, unfortunately, didn't get to choose or keep his pick of the artists, which caused problems. Graphic novels work best if the art remains consistent throughout, and there's a true collaboration between artist and writer. (Which is why the best graphic novels are either written and drawn by the same person or have a collaborative team.)
That said, even though Frank Quitely's run was most likely the best. My favorite part of the series was the Wolverine/Cyclops buddy trip, against Cyclops better judgment (Wolverine basically gets Cyke blind drunk, throws him over his shoulder and dumps him at the facility that he wants him to investigate at his side, as back-up.). This had some of the best character moments of the series.
I honestly don't think male comic book writers handle male/female romantic relationships that well.
Cyke and Wolverine have the best character arcs in this series. Although Wolverine is stretched a bit thin at this point (the character is in literally every single X-men comic book). Cyke hits rock bottom. He loses everything - his wife, his self-esteem, his world-view, his ideology, and his friends. He comes thisclose to permanently leaving the X-men. Actually he does, but 150 years later, a resurrected Jean Grey/Phoenix decides to send a thought message back in time to change his mind - because otherwise the world will blow apart in the distant future. So she pushes him into Emma Frost's arms. This whole story arc, entitled "Here Comes Tomorrow" feels rather contrived. The writer is clearly attempting to justify and sell Scott/Cyke's new love relationship with Emma, even though the love of his life and his wife just died, and keep him on the team. It's not surprising that Hank, Wolverine, Rachel and various other team mates take issue with this development.
I also found the death of Jean Grey rather contrived. I don't think the writers know what to do with the character. They keep killing her off. It's annoying because her relationship with Cyke had finally gotten interesting. Complicated, messy, and interesting. I would have liked to see if they could have worked it out, or worked through it a bit. Serial writers, particularly male serial writers, for some reason or other have problems writing long monogamous romantic relationships. I don't know why. For some reason they find writing battle scenes more interesting. (And we wonder why there are so many wars.)
Anyhow. Now re-reading Joss Whedon and John Cassiday's Astonishing X-men, which is much better than I remembered. Whedon apparently learned something from Grant Morrison's run and insisted on two things - the same artist and team collaborating with him all the way through, and a limited run of about 22 issues or thereabouts. Smart. I wish he was smart about the Buffy comics. (oh well). Whedon made it clear that writers and artists needed to collaborate, and switching the team up, was jarring to everyone involved including the readers.
I'm enjoying Whedon's take more this go-around than I did the last time. In part because I'm not shipping the same characters/relationships that I did back then, and because I'm fascinated by the same character arc and themes that Whedon is fascinated by -- at least when he was writing it.
It helps greatly if you are on the same page as the writer.
The first go-around, I was shipping Wolverine, who Whedon felt had been overdone and couldn't resist poking fun at. And Kitty Pryde with some guy, who I've since forgotten. I can only vaguely picture the character. And his name escapes me. (I think it was Peter something, which can't be right because that was also Colossus first name. I just know he shot knives out of his wrists and had a razor sharp wit and a long duster.) At the time this character, whose name I've forgotten, that I was shipping Shadowcat aka Kitty Pryde with, reminded me of Spike (probably the razor sharp wit and leather jacket), and Colossus reminded me of Angel (the brooding demeanor, thick body, dark hair, and the lack of a neck). And had decided like many other fans that this was evidence that Whedon shipped Bangle over Spuffy. (I've since come to the conclusion this isn't true. And Whedon like most male serial writers could not care less about romantic relationships...and does whatever he thinks will make the characters or plot intriguing or fit his theme. Also, they won't stay together anyhow, because he thinks that's boring. One or the other will be killed off, or something incredibly tragic and angsty. In short, he goes for the relationship that is bound to be the most tragic. The man has read too many Shakespearean tragedies.)
At any rate, these aren't problems now. I tend to agree with Whedon, Wolverine has been overdone and the character stretched far past his limit. (Serial writers have a tendency to do this - when they inherit the characters/story, they decide to re-interpret it to fit whatever theme or plot arc they've dreamed up. Often at the expense of the character. Wolverine is sort of easy to do this with, because there's built in loop-holes. He had memory implants and he's immortal, and dates back to the 1800s. So basically the skies the limit - as long as you write him as the tough badass thug with a heart of gold, you're okay. So to date they've managed to explore every possible cliche, stereotype and angle on that trope that exists.) Whedon kept poking fun at the trope, often with jokes at Wolverine's expense, which I'm finding hilarious now -- but didn't when I first read it. Mainly because I no longer care all that much about Wolverine.
Nor do I care who Kitty Pryde winds up with. For one thing, I already know she's not going to end up with Colossus. In 2015, she was dating Iceman. Whedon just put them together for maximum angst.
This is of course aided by the fact that I can't remember the romantic relationship she was in that I'd been shipping.
All of this just goes to show you how shipping characters/relationships can if you aren't careful get in the way of your overall enjoyment of story arc.
Whedon's take on the X-men is rather interesting. He's exploring the problematic nature of leadership.
And much like Morrison before him, focusing his attention of Cyclops. Actually, the characters who get the most attention during Whedon's arc are Kitty Pryde, Cyclops, Emma Frost, and Hank. And he does an adept job of psychologically breaking down the character of Cyclops then building him up again into a tough badass, take no prisoners, leader that others respect. And..Whedon is good at dialogue. Much better than a lot of comic book writers are, unfortunately.
So far so good.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Thank you for butting in!
Date: 2015-10-03 05:43 pm (UTC)Doctor Who is largely about posing monsters that can be interpreted as metaphors for psychological or sociological dangers--this is horror, and it is something that Doctor Who does reliably every single episode. Science fiction is about posing a speculative question and interpreting that in a scientifically realistic way through fiction, which Doctor Who dabbles in sometimes, but it is not really the point.
Generally the sci-fi elements are a vehicle to get to the 'horror' core (Or at least they are in modern Who. I get the sense that Classic Who probably skewed a bit more to the scifi end, at least sometimes.)
This - is exactly what I was attempting to explain above. Thank you so much for articulating it so well. (Actually, everything you stated above is what I was trying to say.
No quibbles.)
And no worries. Feel free to butt in at any time!
Likewise, Star Wars is not really science fiction (as hard-core scifi fans never tire of pointing out), but uses science fiction trappings to tell a fantasy/space opera/space western story.
I'd agree. Certainly not hard sci-fi. Most science fiction on television and the movies doesn't really qualify as "science-fiction". It's more of a blend. I think "Star Trek" comes closest to speculative science fiction and possibly Battle Star Galatica?
Twilight Zone - at times fit the category of speculative science fiction, although quite a bit of it was horror similar to the modern Doctor Who.
I can't really say anything about old school Doctor Who, because I had no access to it.
I saw two or three episodes when I was 10 or 11 in Pennsylvania in the 1970s. We moved, it was not available.
Re: Thank you for butting in!
Date: 2015-10-04 07:58 am (UTC)And I think if we can agree that the show is fairy tale/horror for 8 year olds, we are probably good. :)
Re: Thank you for butting in!
Date: 2015-10-04 02:07 pm (UTC)For example:
Friend: You do realize that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is marketed to tween girls?
Me: Yes, but it contains adult material and is being analyzed by scholars.
Doctor Who much like BtVS has a fan base of people who are in their 40s, don't have kids, and didn't necessarily watch it as children. I deliberately avoided saying it was a show for children for that reason. A good show is one that is targeted at all demographics and ages not just one.
Compare for example: RL Stine's Goosebumps which is obviously marketed to and for 8 year olds. It's just kids dealing with scary monsters. Or Scooby Doo Where Are? - was a show just for kids. OR Frozen - just for kids.
But Doctor Who deals with broader more adult themes, with layers. It's targeted at everyone from 8-80, hence it's longevity. The television series, Grimm, which involves fairy tale monsters - is for adults, much too scary for kids, although they do watch. Once Upon a Time is marketed towards the whole family, also fairy tale series.
So no, we don't agree that Doctor Who is just a show for 8 year olds. That's Goosebumps. No more than the Muppet Show is for 8 year olds, it's actually very adult.
Re: Thank you for butting in!
Date: 2015-10-04 02:58 pm (UTC)If Doctor Who does not address kids then it’s not Doctor Who. That’s where the 1996 film [starring Paul McGann] went wrong. It was far too grown up and even had one scene of the Doctor at a cocktail party – how boringly dull! Doctor Who is supposed to be a fanatical hero who does amazing things!
-
I agree with absolutely everything you say - but that very first bit about "the children's own program that adults adore" that was a critic's quote on the back of the Doctor Who books. And to be honest, I'm not sure Doctor Who's particular place in the world as ever been summed up better.
Especially "own program" - children do seem to feel a real ownership of this show; that it's somehow theirs and adults are only allowed in if they promise to behave. My little boy gets hugely indignant if he catches me watching Doctor Who without him - never mind I'm making notes on an edit, he's furious. Cos it's HIS program and if it's being watched in HIS house, then he better be in the damn room.
Can't find it in my heart to argue.
-
If you like and enjoy Doctor Who, then Doctor Who is aimed squarely at YOU. Absolutely at YOU. Lovely, wonderful, great-taste-in-telly YOU. And what do YOU (and we love YOU) care about who else its aimed at?
Really, in a way, this whole discussion - about who Who is aimed - isn't FOR you lot. You lot ARE the audience, what could possibly interest YOU (and everyone in Wales sends their love to YOU) in any of this?
It's a discussion for people making the show. It's about a tone and taste - Doctor Who (whatever the composition of the audience) is absolutely a childrens show in terms of its strictures, limits and imperatives. All the talk at meetings is about what the eight-year-olds will think. Cos igniting the imaginations of eight-year-olds is pretty much - no, is EXACTLY - the mission statement.
A side benefit, of course, is that adults are in fact eight-year-olds with increased body-mass and frowning. So of course, THEY'LL watch! Of course they will. Get it right for the eight-year-olds and the adults will follow - nothing is more certain.
It's like - no really, it is - when you go into a restaurant, and you're looking at the menu, and you're being all adult, and you're thinking, ooh, maybe lettuce soup, or a carrot rissotto, or perhaps just a glass of water and slap from the Maitre D ... and your eye drifts (oh, how it drifts) to the children's menu!
Sausage and mash! Burger and fries!! Actual size chocolate pigs!!!
Doctor Who is the children's menu. Like you're ever gonna grow out of that.
PS. There will be people who argue the children's menu is actually the adults menu. Let them. They're not going to be around for long.
-
Calling Dr Who a children's show isn't a definition of the audience, it's a definition of the SHOW. In style, pace, tone, sensibility, Dr Who stories are children's stories. Like Harry Potter, Star Wars, The Hobbit, Narnia, Toy Story, The Incredibles and all gorgeous, magical stuff. Does that mean it's not for adults? Don't be daft, adults love children's stories - just look at that list. Some of the most famous creations in the human history! People who grow out of children's stories are people who never understood them in the first place.
Grown-ups are not excluded from this party. Grown-ups are specifically targetted and invited. There are are generally at least two grown-ups per family, and we want the whole of that family round that telly. And we want each of them secretly thinking this programme is really for THEM.
The children's own programme that adults adore. Never been said better. That's what it is. That's what it says on the tin.
Re: Thank you for butting in!
Date: 2015-10-04 06:34 pm (UTC)There are television series that are for children only, and adults do not want to watch.
(Sesame Street, RL Stine's Goosebumps, Scooby Doo, H&R PuffnStuff, Bear in the Big Blue House, Doria Builds Her Dream House...Spongebob Square Pants (although some adult apparently love that one, so mileage varies). ) And there are movies and television programs that while appropriate for children or written for them, are also written for adults - family programming. Examples include Doctor Who, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (although I'm not sure I'd want a kid under the age of 16 watching S2-6, but that's just me) the Muppet Show (although not so much the most recent iteration, that skews more adult), Star Wars, Star Trek, Once Upon a Time, The Flash...on the movie side Star Wars, The Hobbit (although I think it's too violent for kids under the age of 14), The Avengers (also too violent), The Hunger Games (ditto - far too violent, my brother got into trouble for letting my 10 year old niece see it ), UP (Pixar), Toy Story (1-4)...
I think somethings sort of fall into a gray area. I know people who watched Glee, Supernatural and The Walking Dead with their 6-8 year olds.