The Kids are alright
Recently I had an opportunity to watch the new series of Battlestar Galactica, which I had heard many good things about. Just the mini-series mind you, I haven’t seen any of the regular series.
Despte all of the plaudits it has received, I can’t say I was overly impressed. It was all right, but it didn’t blow me away the way it has with a number of my peers. I found it to be cold, bleak, relatively emotionless and somewhat depressing - which is perhaps understandable given the subject matter, but not really what I look for in a television program.
Worst of all, I think its a shame that the series hasn’t just been updated (that I agree with), it has also been up-graded in terms of the appropriate age group. Its no longer a series for kids, in my view (which makes me really puzzled as to why they brought back the awful character of Boxey, the one element of the 70’s original that didn’t even deserve to exist as an idea). I saw the original Battlestar Galactica for my 6th birthday party in 1978 and loved it. If I had a 6 year old son, I wouldn’t let them watch the new Galactica, at least until they got a few years older and more mature to handle the more mature subject matter.
What’s the connection to Doctor Who? Simply that I’m glad that Doctor Who didn’t go down the same route with its comeback. It came back updated, but the age group has remained the same. Its suitable for viewers of all ages, which is how the series always was, and how I think it always should be. The spectacular success of the new series in the UK and to a lesser extent in Canada, suggests they made the right move.
Posted by John on Monday, May 2 at 2:29 pm
13 Comments...
The success of Battlestar Galactica is probably one of the reasons why the Sci-Fi channel has not picked up the show because the age group that it appeals to would likely (in their opinion) not be impressed by what Doctor Who has to offer. That plus it’s British which is an even bigger barrier.
Posted by Ryan on 05/03 at 03:24 PM
Hello, Luca. Well, as you know, I grew up a Doctor Who fan, and have only liked two of the six new episodes, whereas I adore the new Galactica. I wasn’t overly excited by the miniseries, but the regular Galactica episodes have thrilled me to the point where I have been on the verge of leaping to my feet and cheering for the fictional characters. Different tastes… I actually find different opinions to be refreshing, so I read your comments with great interest. One of the reasons I think I find the new Galactica to be, actually, very hopeful and stirring whereas most of the new Who leaves me cold is my perspective as a viewer. We all bring our emotional baggage to whatever we watch or read, and in the past six or seven years I’ve had some…bizarre twists of fate thrown in my path, and sometimes it has been hard to overcome them. I’ve made it through with the love of the people who care most about me along with my own inner determination to succeed. So, I view Galactica and see people with dwindling resources, the odds against them…and feel a deep kinship. It helps that they don’t have aliens with blue skin or funny heads every week, I think…whereas, although I’ve loved Doctor Who all my life, I tuned in to the “The End of the World” and saw blue aliens, and other strange creatures, and I immediately felt…well, distanced from what was happening on screen. It didn’t engage me in any way.
Does this mean I’ve lost touch with my inner child? Could be…I’m happy now with life, but the darker Galactica, and the more somber episodes of the new Who just seem more honest to me.
Posted by David on 05/03 at 03:46 PM
I’ll have to agree with the comments above. My wife typically hates anything that isn’t dark or sombre in some way. And compared to me she’s had a difficult time growing up. She LOVES Battlestar Galactica (even though she typically hates Sci-Fi) I had high hopes for Doctor Who, that maybe we might be able to watch an episode together for once. But to no avail, she can’t sit 5 minutes into it, it’s just too light hearted. I like the new series, but might like it more if it were just a little more adult. (I actually find the “pre-eccleston” episodes to be darker and less childish than dr who is now)
Posted by Steven R on 05/04 at 03:34 AM
I disagree with Luca, I still think the show could have been aimed at teenagers and adults. The books have shown that it can be done.
Having said that, I love the series as it is. Love it. There are times when I think it’s better than the old series.
Posted by John on 05/04 at 04:13 AM
One of the great joys of the new series is watching it with my 7-year-old son. Yes, if the revival had followed Galactica’s path up into “14+” territory I could still have watched the classic episodes with my son. But it is a much richer experience to be able to share from all 27 seasons. What other story has spanned generations like that?
Doctor Who is refreshing because we can watch and enjoy it together. But it’s also good because there’s so precious little on for kids his age that’s not mind-numbingly stupid or little more than an extended toy commercial. Franklin and Arthur were great, but he’s outgrowing them—and as a parent I watched them more out of loyalty to my son than enjoyment of the show. But Doctor Who does engage all of us at our own levels and gives us a shared family experience we can treasure.
The new Galactica is dark (since we don’t get Space, I’m basing this on watching the miniseries) because it’s taking its premise seriously: what would life be like if you really were the last survivors of a civilisation wiped out by a sneak attack? What would it be like to travel through a universe filled with dangers, wondering if the final attack (and your last stand) was just around the corner? This version has an authenticity the previous incarnation lacked.
But Doctor Who does not have that kind of tragedy at its core—even with the memory of that great war hanging in the background. The Doctor is a character whose curiosity and wanderlust could not rest content with the detatched contemplative life on Gallifrey. That’s a light, adventurous premise. Excitement rather than danger waits around every corner. The universe is not a gauntlet to be run, but a broad expanse of knowledge and experiences to be explored.
I am more than content with the light touch of Season 27. This may not be my favourite Doctor—Pertwee and Davison still top my list—but I’m still enjoying his adventures and looking forward to each new episode.
Posted by PDJ on 05/04 at 07:03 AM
I think we have to distinguish between something being aimed at kids, something being aimed soley at kids, and something aimed solely at teens & adults. What the first really means is that you are aiming things at the entire family, like Doctor Who always has been. The second means you are making it so that won’t appeal to teenagers and adults. The latter means that it won’t appeal to kids at all (or might be something their parents won’t really want them watching). I don’t think the latter two have ever applied to Doctor Who as a tv series.
As such I don’t think that that the show isn’t aimed at teenagers and adults - its just been made to also appeal to kids and indeed, the entire family. Its aimed at everyone, which I think is how it always has been, and frankly, always should be. Unless someone can suggest good reasons why it would be a good idea to deliberately lose much of our audience….....
Posted by Luca on 05/04 at 03:50 PM
“Unless someone can suggest good reasons why it would be a good idea to deliberately lose much of our audience….....”
Because the books did it successfully.
On the other hand, I’m not an expert in television, the producers are the experts, and they’ve made an awesome show.
I don’t know if I’d enjoy the show as much if it was aimed at a different audience. I don’t know if I’d have it any different than it is. But I find it weird that you’re rejecting outright any other possibility.
Posted by John on 05/04 at 04:02 PM
Hey John, The big difference here is that the books were a niche product aimed at a small of a tiny subset of the tv audience for Doctor Who. The books were great but they were an offshoot of the series, not the series itself. Proving that a books line can survive by selling (at their height) 25000-30000 copies doesn’t relate in any way to making a successful tv series. Apples and oranges.
Posted by Mike on 05/04 at 10:33 PM
In the latest Doctor Who Magazine the former editor of the New Adventures Rebecca Levene (no relation to John Levene!) said that the new series (she was talking about The Unquiet Dead in particular) is how we remember Doctor Who as being when we were children but in our hearts knew it wasn’t. I think it’s actually the opposite. In our heads we knew it wasn’t really THAT good but in our hearts it was. Which is why we are still talking about it and still watching those episodes now.
Posted by Ryan on 05/05 at 12:24 AM
In terms of BSG ... start watching the series. I became a lot more positive about it when it went to series. The mini-series/movie was epic. But it’s harder to keep the whole thing epic every week ... but they did it. And you start to get into a lot of emotion, and character. A lot of it is a complete head-game. And it’s certainly not a kid’s show. This is television that is too good for television. Outside of what is on HBO, I don’t think there is that much on the box that compete with BSG.
Oh and Boxy ... not sure if this is a spoiler ... but we see a glimpse of him occasionally, but normally only in a crowd, and I’m not sure if he even opens his mouth more than once in the first 13 episodes.
Nick
Posted by Nicholas Fitzpatrick on 05/05 at 01:20 PM
These commentaries are very interesting! Luca, your final thought in your recent reply was particularly thought provoking. I was not suggesting, and would never suggest, that Doctor Who or and other show be made in such a way as to deliberately lose part of its audience. Good luck to the new Doctor Who, and I hope it is a huge success. All I can comment on upon, as a viewer, is if the new series appeals to me or not. So far, I’ve disliked the majority of it. Steven R. suggested that the old show is less childish than the new version, and I think he hit on a key word: “childish.” The old show could be childlike, but there is a difference between that and childish. It’s embarrassing (for me) to watch some scenes in the new show, whereas even the worst moments of the old series had a certain verve and charm. It really is just a matter of taste.
Posted by David on 05/06 at 09:48 PM
I love the new series and find it a bit surprising that anyone would find the new Who series not “dark” enough—it’s full of animated corpses, shrieking time-devouring beasties, disgusting aliens, murderous Daleks, and even genuinely touching personal tragedy.
But, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer (another favorite) the new series is very high energy and full of jokes, with a spirit of fun, even when the world’s about to end. It’s dark—but it’s not SOMBER.
Some people don’t like that, I suppose.
Posted by McJulie on 05/25 at 04:13 AM
I search for blog like this long time.You website is very good!I will come next time!
Kasino Online
Posted by Kasino Online on 08/07 at 06:15 AM
Post a comment