In article <502EEC...@RADW.USENET>, M...@RADW.USENET wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > In article <502DF2...@RADW.USENET>, M...@RADW.USENET wrote:
> > > Your Name wrote:
> >
> > Nope. You're confusing "kids" with 5 year olds, when really it qualifies
> > anything up to about 15 to 18. Doctor Who has always been aimed at the
> > audience of boys aged roughly 8 to 15, just like Star Wars and many other
> > (older) kids' shows / movies.
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong. If every adult fan of Doctor Who stopped
> watching and never tuned in to see it again, the ratings would plummet.
As I said, although it *IS* a kids' show, there's no reason adult's aren't
able to like it too. There are many shows / movies (as well as books)
aimed at kids that adults enjoy watching too, and there's no law that says
they're not allowed to.
> It is a family show. And I don't call 15-18-year-olds 'kids'.
Legally becoming an "adult" is usually when someone turns 16, 18 or 21
(depending on the circumstances), anything under that is still a child /
kid ... although people do try to label everything, so you also get terms
like teenager, tweenager, etc., but that's still under the definiteion of
a child / kid.
> Just because kids like a show, that does not make the show a kids show.
It has nothing to do with what age the person is who likes it (or doesn't
like it). The FACT remains that Doctor Who, and Star Wars, is targetted at
(older) kids - always has been, always will be. The fact that adults also
watch it doesn't suddenly change who the makers were / are aiming it at.
This is from the Tardis.wiki page (not that some people would believe it
even if the makers were telling them to their face):
"Moffat is married to his frequent production partner,
Sue Vertue ... They have two children who are, as of
2010, in the target audience age range of Doctor Who."
His children's ages in 2010 were ten years old and eight years old.
Case closed. You continue believe whatever rubish you want.
> > Fact: It was rubbish as a "Battlestar Galactica" show. It was a
> > completely different show.
>
> A fact is something so obvious that everyone agrees with it, like
> gravity. So, again, you're wrong.
Ron Moore's version being very different is a fact (and blatantly obvious
to anyone with eyes, ears and at least a couple of braincells) and is
correct - enough Ron Moore and others involved making it said so, and it's
the entire reason it's called a "reimaginging".
> > As a completely different show, it should have had it's own name and not
> > stolen the real "Battlestar Galactica" name or screwed up that franchise.
> > Calling Ron Moore's version by a different name ("Warship Gigantica -
> > loosely based on Battlestar Galactica") would have made no difference to
> > the quality, or lack of. It would also have given the new show a better
> > chance with people who disliked the real "Battlestar Galactica".
>
> This is all just your opinion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it,
> mind you.
Nope that's a fact too. There were some people who didn't bother watching
Ron Moore's version when it started because they never liked the original
/ real "Battlestar Galactica". If it had been called something else, they
would have watched it earlier to see if it was any good.