Infantilism : Dr Who is not for adults

Steven Moffat responds to the point:

 

"Doctor Who was designed specifically to be a family programme. That's what it's for. It's the junction between the children's programmes and the adults' programmes. It's the one that everybody sits and watches."

 

He added: "It's a rather brilliant idea. Why don't they make a television programme that everybody wants to watch? We should do that more often. It surprised me that it took me until I was 47 to be working on a show like that."

This thread makes it pretty clear that everyone doesn't want to watch it. Obviously if you are watching it with children you would be more pre-disposed to viewing it. Bagpuss or Rosie & Jim would have a similar effect.

Steven Moffat responds to the point:

Actually no, he doesn't. He responds to a point that was never made, but lots of people and media are pretending was so that they can prove it wrong.

This thread makes it pretty clear that everyone doesn't want to watch it. Obviously if you are watching it with children you would be more pre-disposed to viewing it. Bagpuss or Rosie & Jim would have a similar effect.

For sure. It would be a strange world if everyone did enjoy the same thing but I can see his point. It's a family show, like The Two Ronnies. Every age can watch it and get something different from it but at the same time not everyone in Britain will enjoy The Two Ronnies.

On the other hand, when I was a youngster I used to stay up late to watch The Sky at Night because I was fascinated by the subject - even though a lot of it went right over my head as it was definitely not a show created for children. That show is still running late at night so I guess it can work in the other direction, television challenging and inspiring young people!

The test of a good show is if it treats the audience as intelligent - no matter at what age- so Russell Davies' habit of introducing a dues ex machina to solve his stories did start to grate.

If you take the ocupants of the current Big Brother house as a cut section of our current society and compare it to the slice of populous from some of the earlier series and you'll see a vast difference.

 

We have a farmers daughter who is blissfully unaware how complex the real world is and can be seen constantly sucking her thumb.

 

An Australian chuff who is pretty far from world wise and in his own words "Doesn't eat cooking, I have take-a-ways all the time"

 

Someone else who is so desperately unhappy that she's renamed herself with an over-optimistic title and has to display a false ear to ear grin that could only be the love child of the Joker and a horse.

 

Then there is someone who know's she is geniunley intelligent and very perceptive but for some reason, refuses to believe and use it fully and as a result, has bouts of anger, probably rooting from her own lack of abition and achievement.

 

Most noticeable is the fact that real intelligence appears to be more of an un-cherished novelty than commonplace.

 

On this basis, I wholeheartedly agree with Stephen and we've potentially got more chadults is society now than we've ever had.

I think Big Brother has really unleashed a decade of bad TV on the nation. I see Fry's point ashame some people are missing his point.

Love it or shun it, there's no denying BB has been an opportunity for those with a basic grasp of psychology to engage and debate motivations of the actions of the participants.

Before you derail the thread completely with your opinions of weather you like Big Brother or not, I simply used the current collection of participants as a cross section of our current society to compare to those contestants of series one or two and there's a sizable difference in individual attitudes and mannerisms.

Others may understand this and I'm not that gutted that you didn't.

I agree with Fry that Dr Who isn't the best program ever made, but if he doesn't like it why doesn't he just turn over to ITV3 and watch the endless repeats of P.G.Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster?

It certainly has been dumbed down a LOT since the olden days.

I agree with Fry that Dr Who isn't the best program ever made, but if he doesn't like it why doesn't he just turn over to ITV3 and watch the endless repeats of P.G.Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster?

He didn't say that he didn't like it, he just bemoaned the fact that the BBC's flagship shows are essentially childrens' programmes rather than serious adult drama.

He didn't say that he didn't like it, he just bemoaned the fact that the BBC's flagship shows are essentially childrens' programmes rather than serious adult drama.

Or at best, programmes designed to cater for familes as a whole, including the children - and, therefore, not complex or deep enough to satisfy a thoroughly adult taste.

I'm not even sure I agree with him on his concept of a "thoroughly adult taste." (My phrase, not his.) But I do agree that the programmes the BBC appear to be most proud of, are the less complex, less involved, less thoroughly detailed ones.

I agree with Fry that Dr Who isn't the best program ever made, but if he doesn't like it why doesn't he just turn over to ITV3 and watch the endless repeats of P.G.Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster?

Why would he want to watch that? - I doubt he's forgotten it and no doubt he will receive the Royalty cheque whether he watches it or not.

He is too young to play Dr Who, he's going to appeal to the young and not the young at heart, please bring David back ?