|
Post by timeywimeyding on Jun 17, 2010 19:17:06 GMT
Apologies if you've seen this before This is about Stephen Fry, an entertainer and writer you will no doubt have seen a lot of if you live this side of the pond, having criticised British TV for being too childish & non-adult orientated, giving Doctor Who as a specific example. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10326761.stmRelevant extracts: The QI host said BBC shows Merlin and Doctor Who were "wonderfully written" but "not for adults". Doctor Who writer Steven Moffat defended the show, saying it was "very high quality" and aimed at a family audience of both adults and children. He said: "The only drama the BBC will boast about are Merlin and Doctor Who, which are fine but they're children's programmes. They're not for adults.
"And they're very good children's programmes, don't get me wrong, they're wonderfully written... but they are not for adults.
"They are like a chicken nugget. Every now and again we all like it. Every now and again." Anyone got any thoughts on this? What's your opinion on the whole 'children's programme' stuff? Is Doctor Who best described as a children's programme which adults can enjoy? Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by clocketpatch on Jun 17, 2010 21:54:20 GMT
Didn't Stephen Fry write an episode for Who only to have Rusty turn it down for being too cerebral... and then Fear Her happened (which I quite like, but apparently I'm the only one).
Me thinks someone might have a bit of the bitterness.
That said, isn't Fry a ginormous fan? And he does say it's a good show, a kid's show, kind of patronizing, but I'm thinking it just comes out the wrong way.
His quote at the end on what good adult drama should be though straight up makes me laugh BECAUSE THAT'S PRETTY MUCH HOW I DESCRIBE WHO TO PEOPLE WHO WILL LISTEN!!
lol
|
|
|
Post by Stripes on Jun 17, 2010 22:08:50 GMT
I like Fear Her. One of the episodes that got me hooked on the show. First monster to scare me.
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jun 18, 2010 15:52:08 GMT
The UK has a different idea of what a "children's program" is, and once I began to understand that (I still don't to a large extent), and heard Moffat confirm that he does consider DW a children's program, I looked back over all of it since 2005 and realized, yes, the people making this consider it to be for children. Americans wouldn't put all that violence and horror into a children's program, but it's done in a sort of Grimm's fairy tales way. When the aliens aren't totally human-looking, they're talking Earth animals, and of course children love talking animals. Then there's all the magic. Even the very un-technical sort of science fiction in classic Who is avoided. If they turned down Fry's script for being too "cerebral", that fits with all this.
It all starts with episode two, and those blue aliens, and I didn't get what they were about, until I realized that they were meant to be cute and amusing to kids. All this explains why I've liked new DW less and less with each season. When the Time Lords in End of Time consulted an actual soothsayer with a crystal ball... that might have been the last straw for me. DW is another Harry Potter now, and as popular as Harry Potter is with adults, no one claims it's not for children.
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jun 19, 2010 3:15:46 GMT
I've thought about whether to delete the above post, which is pretty sour and repeats some things I've said before. I may be giving offence to those who like DW as it is, and I didn't want to. I've decided to leave the posts as it is, since iot mat say something worthwhile. I just can't tell until I've slept and come back to it.
|
|
|
Post by jjpor on Jun 20, 2010 22:35:14 GMT
I think it's fair comment, Magnus, and I can see where you're coming from. I'll get back to the points you make in a mo! Regarding Stephen Fry, I think the things he says in the article are fair comment too. I have been simultaneously amused and appalled by some of the responses to it I've seen in various more, er, fannish, shall we say corners of the internet (not here, I hasten to add! , which seems to come down to "we used to think you were a cool dude Stephen Fry because you were kind of British and funny and eccentric, but now you've dared to express an opinion that is unpopular with fandom so you are dead to us! Stone the heretic! Burn him! Burn him!" etc etc. You know the kind of people I'm talking about... Okay, my take on Frygate: He is indeed on record as something of a Who fan, and has some involvement with things like Death Comes to Time and that script of his he never finished. So, I don't think he says what he says out of malice or bitterness. I think he's maybe a little naive to expect "highbrow" sort of television to be as heavily promoted or produced as popular sort of programmes like Who, perhaps. I think his basic point, though, is a sound one; that in the past couple of decades, maybe, what might be termed "serious" television has died something of a death over here. The BBC and ITV used to produce some very high-quality "serious" drama and documentaries, and now they don't, to the same extent. Sure, there is the BBC4 "Culture with a capital C" sort of ghetto, and there are still some decent wildlife documentaries coming out, but for the most part... I mean, look at the quality of most modern day documentaries made by British television, compared to those made fifteen or twenty years ago. Most of them are, to be honest, p*ss-poor; entertaining rather than educational, just a step up from the kind of "Secret Weapons of WW2"-type rubbish they show on the History Channel. Now, this is all the result of an unavoidable process whereby television audiences have fragmented due to things like digital TV and even the likes of the BBC are now expected to compete on a value-for-money basis with the independent channels. So, Stephen Fry complaining about it isn't going to set the clock back, and there are still some "serious" things of the kind he obviously prefers being made, but on a much smaller scale and confined to niche channels. But yeah, I think his basic point is sound, assuming you think there's any value in the idea of "Capital C Culture" (and that's a valid debate in itself). Personally, I'd rather watch Doctor Who. ;D This was what Moffat had to say: www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s7/doctor-who/news/a228748/moffat-dismisses-stephen-fry-criticism.htmlThe dig about Twitter, btw, is because Fry is quite famous over hear for his enthusiastic use of said site and the large following he has there. And kudos to the Moff for this: www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s7/doctor-who/news/a229420/moffat-who-treatment-was-shameful.htmlRegarding Magnus's points, I think this goes back to what we've discussed in the past about perceptions of Doctor Who differing on either side of the Atlantic. In the States, it was, if I understand correctly, something of a "cult" show, shown on obscure channels at strange hours and developing a following of hardcore SF fans. Whereas, in the UK, at least during the 60s and 70s, it was much more mainstream, a genuinely popular sort of programme, much as NuWho is today. Moreover, while the Beeb might have regarded it as a children's programme for administrative purposes, audiences were different in those days. With only three television channels (two, before BBC2 came along, and not many people watched that as it was regarded as kind of arty and highbrow), and probably just as importantly, usually only one TV per house, the whole family tended to watch telly together. So programmes like Doctor Who were, as Moffat says in the linked piece, intended for viewers of all ages to watch and enjoy together. Hence stuff like good-looking girl companions being included "for the dads" (deplorable, but it was the 70s), and Bob Holmes's famous claim that he pitched his stories at the "intelligent fourteen-year-old" demographic. The same was true of contemporary comedy and entertainment programmes. Also, arguably, children's television in those days didn't patronise its target audience as much as modern day equivalents do (Bob Holmes certainly didn't!) So, it was a different age. In the 80s, Who became more self-consciously a "cult" sort of series, made by and for SF fans, and this was undoubtedly a contributing factor in its declining audiences and eventual status as something of a joke in the mainstream press, making it easy for the BBC to discard it. In the meantime, the numbers of TV sets per household increased and, somewhat later, UK television channels began to proliferate, leading to the current situation where there are numerous channels, each with what would be a tiny viewer share by 70s standards, and where the whole family tends not to sit down to watch TV together. So now TV shows and even whole channels cater for niche demographics, and things that might be enjoyed by either youngsters or adults are rarely now suitable for both groups to watch. Which is why NuWho is something of an oddity, because it does have that sort of broad appeal. Arguably so do its only serious rivals in the TV ratings, the soap operas and the numerous celebrity and non-celebrity talent contests shown on both main channels. Arguably the latter are some sort of effort to recreate the singing and dancing "entertainment" sort of programmes so popular in the 70s. So, I suppose the question is this; do we want NuWho to be as it is now, a very popular flagship series with a wide appeal and a broad demographic, even if the price is that in order to maintain that demographic it includes elements that those of us approaching it from the perspective of SF fans might find objectionable? Or do we want it to be a niche "cult" sort of show with impeccable science fiction credentials but a smaller audience and hence less access to funding etc and more vulnerable to BBC cuts etc? Which is really what happened to it in the 80s. It is, as so many of these things are, a trade-off and a matter of personal preference. So, er, that's my 2p's worth anyway...I went on for a bit there, didn't I? ;D
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jun 21, 2010 2:11:25 GMT
For now (my housing situation is heating up) I'll just say... I don't think continuity references and the show being done as science fiction in the 80s contributed at all to its decline. As I understand it, ratings were good up through Davison, then dropped, and this was when the quality dropped. The BBC started interfering, pressuring them to make DW more "light entertainment" and possibly more of a children's show (it certainly seems more for kids in seasons 23, 24, and much of 25). As soon as JNT etc. started to sneak more serious content in, in s26, DW was cancelled.
I'm very sorry to hear that more serious television has been disappearing over there in the same way that it has here. I really did hope that the UK was a sort of haven for everything we're losing in this country.
I'd have bet money that R Holmes did not see his version of DW as being a children's show at all. As for your question, about choosing DW as solid SF or mass entertainment for kids and families not interested in SF, I think you can guess which side I choose... I think the ratings for Hinchcliffe/Holmes show you can do DW as SF and get great ratings.
|
|
|
Post by merrythemad on Jun 21, 2010 13:18:25 GMT
WOW hold the phone there Magnus, Americans can would and DO put all that violence into children's programs (I know I'm a mom) and worse than that they add sex even to innocent shows. Ben Ten, ICarly, Wizards of Waverly Place,Winx Club, Tru Jackson, heck even Fairly Oddparents. Not only are there NOT children's primetime shows (nope not even FAMILY) prime time shows, the shows that are written for children over say, four ARE extremely violent and horrific and VERY sexual.
As for the rest, we've had this discussion a milloin times and while I disagree, I respect your opinion and concede you DO valid points and have good reasons to feel the way you do.
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jun 26, 2010 7:15:43 GMT
I'm not sure what you're mad about, merry. I wasn't complaining about violence, American or British, and never mentioned sex. My only issue was whether DW classic and NuWho are meant for children primarily, or adults. Certain extreme moments in newer DW have made the issue confusing for me, making it harder to decide. My biggest example is from Army of Ghosts/Doomsday, when Yvonne Hartman was being led in to be hacked to bits in seconds by unimaginably sharp, efficient knives, down to her brain, to be turned into a Cyberman. Another is the grandma who won't stay dead, from Unquiet Dead. That first one is deeply and genuinely disturbing to me. That means it was effective, but it confuses the issue of who the intended audience is. I'm probably about as out of touch as it's possible to be with American children's programming, so I guess I went out on a limb when I said Americans would only film a moment like that for adults. If that was wrong, I just made a mistake. I didn't expect to offend, and I'm sorry.
Also, I admitted that I was repeating myself to some extent. As for my point of view on this being, I don't know, worn out and irritating (yes, I'm reading that into it, which may also be a mistake), actually, I had put a bookmark in the subject, and planned to go into it for real, later. Dr Who has meant a lot to me, and lately some thoughts have been coming together as to why, and why the changes affect me the way they do. I suppose that I don't have a place to bring that up now. Maybe the main thing is for me to work it out for myself, anyway.
I know you were trying very hard to be civil, and thanks very much. I just wish I hadn't said something that made you need to be civil... I knew I was choosing the wrong night to speak.
|
|
|
Post by Abbyromana on Jun 27, 2010 19:23:11 GMT
I find it odd that Fry would anything against DW, considering that he's been invited by Moffatt to write an episode of DW for next season.
|
|