Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Actually I think family programmes are essentially children's TV that appeals to adults. The difference is subtle but important. Remember, Waaay back in 1963 Doctor Who was commissioned by Sydney Newman, who was head of children's drama at the Beeb, and there has been absolutely no evidence that either Russell Davies or Steven Moffatt has wanted to change the target audience since the show was revived in 2005.
|
Indeed, Dr Who was apparently originally commissioned as a way to make history interesting for children (hence the idea of a time traveller having adventures in various times).
Russell Davis actually said something in an interview that I believe backs up your assertion about him not wanting to change the target audience. He was asked whether the Doctor will ever appear in Torchwood. He said that it would not be appropriate for the Doctor to do so, as the Doctor the title character in a show aimed at children.
---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
I think the best way to proving Stephen Fry right or wrong is to compare story lines of shows going back in time. What happens in Eastenders.Corrie now, 10 years ago and 20 years ago? What shows are on at 9pm now, 10 years ago and 20 years ago?
I can't recally exactly but I think they'll show they would be 'adultised' (if that's a word) if anything.
I think Stephen Fry is well wide of the mark here.
|
The problem is that a lot of TV companies see "adult" TV programmes as containing things like sex, nudity, violence, drug taking, drinking (alcohol) and swearing. They go for the shock. This is why soaps are increasingly tending to show things that shock, but are unlikely to happen (e.g. all the soaps have included at least one murderer, yet the average street is unlikely to see a murder).
It is possible to write a good drama that does not break any of the Watershed rules (so can be broadcast in the day), but would still be interesting for adults.