I do like the quote from the Mirror’s Jon Cooper referenced on this page about the last episode:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19778936



The BBC, like most TV channels, dines out almost exclusively on detective and crime dramas when it comes to anything that’s not EastEnders or Holby based these days. They drop in a spot of costumed puffery to keep the Austen and Dickens crown amused, but I do ask where the variety is from time to time. And then along comes a series of Doctor Who - which is an anthology series of stories with a regular central cast. And it just works. And, pitifully, it shows that there is an audience for it that is not well addressed at any other time.

This is the central driving thrust of why I think (and have thought this for a good long while) Doctor Who works quite so well.
It's a childrens television show, that captures the imagination of adults too.
It's no big secret that the show doesn't talk down to either of those demographics.

Mark

Who is, at best, family TV. It’s position in the schedules tells us this, and as you should know, good kids’ TV has to appeal to adults anyway. Who is clearly aimed at all - children and adults alike. If it were not, by Dalek collection would be much diminished

It is interesting to see how Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures slotted around Doctor Who. Torchwood started off being Who with more than just innuendo and gay kissing (the fact that they were able to re-edit it for earlier time slots shows that the “adult” material was superfluous). By Children of Earth, it had matured nicely and we got a “TV event” that showed what could be done if minds were properly focussed. Then the Americans got hold of it. Bah.

SJA went the other direction - it was certainly more child orientated, but the stories were not simplified or held back.They were written so children could understand it without needing an adult present, but with no compromises. It certainly shows that RTD knows how to speak to each audience demographic and have a good yarn spun.

By targeting a family audience it increases audience potential numbers. The time slot it fills is peak viewing so best to maximise the audience. When Doctor Who was first shown it was more family orientated anyway plus tougher rules on what could be broadcast. In the decades since the budgets have increased and global sales have meant little reason to change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When Doctor Who started, it was meant to be educational.

Then the Daleks turned up

Pond

Today's shirt on http://www.teefury.com will be of interest to some, but be quick in your decision cos it'll be gone tomorrow.

How knave

Is there a logic to it I'm missing..?

Eleventh Doctor, two hearts. Makes perfect sense.

I notice that the Doctor has had two heart attacks, or heart failures, in two consecutive regenerations.

D'oh!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B009KJ6DTO

Epic

So for all those that were complaining earlier in this thread about the lack of continuity for the Weeping Angels, did The Angels Take Manhattan do anything to restore your faith in them as a proper bone fide Doctor Who villain?

Mark

I found it interesting that it seems so little is known about the Angels by the Doctor. We never find out where they come from, why they use statues (hiding in plain sight, perhaps) and why they need those fearsome fangs. I found it odd that they seem to be portrayed as killers, yet they only require energy and seem content to lock humans and/or other species into time loops to feed from them. They don't seem to want to kill their victims at the outset.

I never usually like changing the Doctor, yet each one grows on me as the storylines progress. I think the supporting cast helps immensely, so it's going to be interesting to see how they resolve the loss of Rory and Amy when a new companion arrives.

I found them the least scary yet tbh. You'll never beat their first ep.