Americans, how popular is Doctor Who in America?

[The Borgified Corpse]

You cannot compare Doctor Who to political thrillers aimed at adults, nor even to sci-fi programs like Stargate aimed at adults. If Stargate can be compared to anything, it's Torchwood, but it's certainly not Doctor Who. Again, one is aimed at families and one at adults.

Really, can Doctor Who be compared to any other series on TV in the U.S., the U.K., or any other part of the world? I thought part of the reason why Doctor Who has always stood out is because it's such a unique animal that can only be compared to itself or, in rare cases, its own spin-offs like K-9 & Company or The Sarah Jane Adventures.

To my knowledge, Doctor Who, unlike many other sci-fi series, has not spawned a wave of imitators or informed an entire subgenre. It's not like Star Trek, which established itself as the definitive military spaceship series that shows like Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, & Stargate aspire to/react against (or even some of the non-military spaceship shows like Farscape & Firefly). Nor does Doctor Who fall neatly into a subgenre like paranormal investigations (i.e. Fringe, The Chronicle, Primeval, Sanctuary, Special Unit 2, Torchwood, The X-Files, going all the way back to Kolchak the Night Stalker) or paranormal anthology (i.e. Night Gallery, The Outer Limits, The Twilight Zone). I'm not sure we can thoroughly explain its lack of popularity in the U.S. until we can adequately explain its singular longevity in the U.K.

 

[Starkers]

About the only thing that springs to mind as being inluenced (maybe) by Who would be Sapphire and Steel, although now I think about it there was a kids show called the Labyrinth starring Ron Moody that featured an old guy helping children who were time travelling.

I really don't mean any offence when I say this, but much like with football I kinda hope Americans on the whole never do get Who, and I don't think it'll affect the longevity of the series one way or another.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I really don't mean any offence when I say this, but much like with football I kinda hope Americans on the whole never do get Who, and I don't think it'll affect the longevity of the series one way or another.

Don't be silly we love football, hell we invented it! It's just that crazy soccer we don't care about.

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

I am constantly surprised by the number of Americans who are Dr. Who fanatics. But then again, I tend to hang out with people who enjoy Renaissance festivals (come for the Renaissance, stay for the cleavage), so they're already strange ducks.

 

[Starkers]

I really don't mean any offence when I say this, but much like with football I kinda hope Americans on the whole never do get Who, and I don't think it'll affect the longevity of the series one way or another.

Don't be silly we love football, hell we invented it! It's just that crazy soccer we don't care about.

Touche!

 

[Snaploud]

It's really not been that well known in the U.S., but that's started to change over the last several years (as new Who has been shown on the Sci-Fi Channel and BBC America). Also, the DVD sets are over-priced and confusingly labeled (when trying to figure out chronological order), so it's difficult to get people exposed to older Who.

 

[RoJoHen]

Also, the DVD sets are over-priced and confusingly labeled (when trying to figure out chronological order), so it's difficult to get people exposed to older Who.

This is for damn sure. The Doctor Who box sets costs almost twice as much as any other show I've seen. I love the show, and I was able to get caught up on Netflix, but I refuse to spend $80 on a single season of TV.

The old stuff is REALLY hard to get into because, like you said, they're poorly labeled and don't really make any kind of chronological sense.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ Remember that it costs twice as much for half the episodes.

So really four times as much.

 

[RoJoHen]

True enough. The Doctor Who DVDs are priced insanely high.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I agree on the older stuff too.

The Three Stooges used to be on DVD in random order, four or five shorts per disc, and I never bought them, as much as I love those guys.

When Sony came out with the remastered DVD sets, in chronological order with every short included (at reasonable prices too), I snapped them up.

 

[Sci]

First off:

1. You are avoiding the fact that there are popular fictional American heroes who detest violence and killing as much as the Doctor, and you are citing a lot of irrelevant facts to avoid talking about the fact that America has its own anti-violence heroes.

Yes, but are those "popular fictional American heroes" on primetime American television, garnering blockbuster ratings and success with a science fiction adventure series?

Nope. Instead, they're the subjects of major motion pictures like The Dark Knight and Spider-Man, earning millions of dollars at the American box office, and of successful children's programs such as Batman: The Brave and the Bold.

This is a function of the fact that the American market is more fragmented than the British one. Instead of family programming suitable for both adult sensibilities and children's sensibilities, superheroes with the Doctor's pacifistic morality tend to be seen in programs specifically designed for children. The only place where we see family productions suitable for both adult and child sensibilities is in film.

In other words: You're comparing some fundamentally incomparable productions. There's nothing like Doctor Who on prime time network television, because U.S. prime time TV is almost exclusively geared towards adults.

2. You cannot compare Doctor Who to political thrillers aimed at adults, nor even to sci-fi programs like Stargate aimed at adults. If Stargate can be compared to anything, it's Torchwood, but it's certainly not Doctor Who. Again, one is aimed at families and one at adults.

That's an opinion.

No, it's an obvious fact that Doctor Who is aimed at families -- Moffat and RTD have both said as such -- while shows like 24 are aimed at adults.

If anything, I would class Stargate as family viewing. It has comedy, action, adventure, and is science fiction.

Show me a statement from a production official indicating that it's aimed at families, and I'll buy it.

Star Trek is family viewing.

Star Trek hasn't been as big of a hit as Doctor Who since the early 1990s. When it was as big of a hit, it was during TNG's run -- and we've already established that Picard is very Doctor-ish in his morality, meaning that there was a popular hero with a Doctor-ish aversion to violence on American TV. Since there, there simply weren't any popular ST shows, and there has no ST program in production since 2005. And on top of that, I'm skeptical of the idea that DS9, VOY, and ENT were truly family-oriented -- they struck me as being more adult and teen-oriented. So this becomes a virtually meaningless comparison.

 

[The]

I've said my piece and I'm not changing my opinion.

Ditto.

Are we done yet?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Didn't Stargate start on HBO or Showtime or something like that? It certainly wasn't a family show back then.

 

[Sci]

Didn't Stargate start on HBO or Showtime or something like that? It certainly wasn't a family show back then.

Yeah. In fact, if I remember, the very first episode had a rather long nude scene -- one which ended with the woman being symbolically "raped" by having a Gual'od put in her.

So, yeah, I'd argue against that being family entertainment, too.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Didn't Stargate start on HBO or Showtime or something like that? It certainly wasn't a family show back then.

If you discount that pilot episode that everyone involved seems to be embarassed for and have tried to distance themselves from ever since it certainly evolved into such even if they weren't going out of their way to say they are explicitly creating a "family" show.

 

[Sci]

Didn't Stargate start on HBO or Showtime or something like that? It certainly wasn't a family show back then.

If you discount that pilot episode that everyone involved seems to be embarassed for and have tried to distance themselves from ever since it certainly evolved into such even if they weren't going out of their way to say they are explicitly creating a "family" show.

What elements of the show are characterized as being designed for children rather than adults? What traits of the show mark it as being appropriate for children and curbing the exploration of adult themes?

 

[The]

If you discount that pilot episode that everyone involved seems to be embarassed for and have tried to distance themselves from ever since it certainly evolved into such even if they weren't going out of their way to say they are explicitly creating a "family" show.

What elements of the show are characterized as being designed for children rather than adults? What traits of the show mark it as being appropriate for children and curbing the exploration of adult themes?

He never stated that it was geared towards children. The facts are that the show lacks nudity or sexual themes, which are the only two relative taboos that American television considers so. Everything else is acceptable family viewing by anyone else outside of only the most conservative mindsets.

It's very simple: name one science fiction television series on prime time American television networks that has successfully featured the main hero not thinking with his weapons. MacGuyver? About as close as we can get, since it wasn't science fiction. Otherwise, I don't remember any, myself. I don't know that there has ever been anything like that here. And if there was, it died a quick, anonymous death (i.e. the 1996 FOX tv movie starring Paul McGann) against the juggernaut of US network counter-ratings.

The future may change that. But for now, I am not certain we (as a mass viewing public) are ready for a hero beyond the superficial "cowboys" that rely on force over rationality.

And once again I remind you, it is not a judgment of worth, intellectualism, or morality. It's just the way it has been, and is. We are a nation founded on revolution and struggle. We take pride in our ability to overcome, and to predetermine "good" and "evil". So, when the hero is faced with said evil, why would he not simply kill it?

But, anyway, I know you don't agree. I really want to drop this circular debate, though...

 

[Sci]

If you discount that pilot episode that everyone involved seems to be embarassed for and have tried to distance themselves from ever since it certainly evolved into such even if they weren't going out of their way to say they are explicitly creating a "family" show.

What elements of the show are characterized as being designed for children rather than adults? What traits of the show mark it as being appropriate for children and curbing the exploration of adult themes?

He never stated that it was geared towards children.

Nor did I. I asked what elements make it appropriate for children.

Another way of asking that might be, "What elements mediate the themes that might be too intense or disturbing for child audiences to assimilate without help or without distraction?"

Take "The Waters of Mars," for instance. It's a very dark and very intense story; when we meet the guests, the Doctor declares that every last one of them is about to die and he must let it happen. There's a constant sense of paranoia and doom and gloom that pervades the special, and it ends with a suicide. One of the elements that keeps that story appropriate for children is the presence of Gadget -- for all that Gadget irritated the adults, having a funny robot helped lighten the mood at key points and gave child audience members something to distract them from some very heavy, very adult, themes. It mediated the horror of the story and in doing so kept the episode appropriate for children, even if it was not geared exclusively towards children.

The facts are that the show lacks nudity or sexual themes, which are the only two relative taboos that American television considers so. Everything else is acceptable family viewing by anyone else outside of only the most conservative mindsets.

By that logic, everything on American television that isn't on HBO or Showtime counts as family viewing. And that's just utter nonsense; it renders the term meaningless.

It's very simple: name one science fiction television series on prime time American television networks that has successfully featured the main hero not thinking with his weapons.

And how do you define "not thinking with his weapons?"

MacGuyver? About as close as we can get, since it wasn't science fiction. Otherwise, I don't remember any, myself.

If we're going back that many years: Quantum Leap, obviously.

The future may change that. But for now, I am not certain we (as a mass viewing public) are ready for a hero beyond the superficial "cowboys" that rely on force over rationality.

But, again, it's a bullshit argument from stereotypes. You disregard every single example of such heroes that's presented to you with irrelevant disqualifiers because it violates your prejudice that Americans aren't "ready" for heroes that don't "rely" on force over rationality. (And you haven't defined what that means, either. Does the Doctor rely on force over rationality because he killed Cyberized Torchwood employees in "Army of Ghosts," or because he killed his entire species twice?)

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Didn't Stargate start on HBO or Showtime or something like that? It certainly wasn't a family show back then.

If you discount that pilot episode that everyone involved seems to be embarassed for and have tried to distance themselves from ever since it certainly evolved into such even if they weren't going out of their way to say they are explicitly creating a "family" show.

What elements of the show are characterized as being designed for children rather than adults? What traits of the show mark it as being appropriate for children and curbing the exploration of adult themes?

Because there isn't nudity or a lot of language, the show isn't very dark, the characters work together as a team and extended family. Contrast this with say Battlestar Galactica where the characters are often hurting each other either physically or emotionally, and the show focuses on the dark side of humanity.

I have a seven year old nephew, if he was watching SG-1 with me and his mother walked in I wouldn't feel uncomfortable. It's not that it's designed for children but that it is a family-friendy show IMO.

Doctor Who is distinctive in that it tries to appeal to the children in many ways. In that sense, maybe it's more intended for the whole family to view or whatever. Of course, I think those same concessions are what sometimes keep the show from being taken seriously in some circles.

 

[Sci]

What elements of the show are characterized as being designed for children rather than adults? What traits of the show mark it as being appropriate for children and curbing the exploration of adult themes?

Because there isn't nudity or a lot of language,

It's a basic cable show. Even the most adult of them lack nudity and a lot of language.

the show isn't very dark, the characters work together as a team and extended family.

And that automatically qualifies as family viewing?

Doctor Who is distinctive in that it tries to appeal to the children in many ways. In that sense, maybe it's more intended for the whole family to view or whatever.

Which is exactly my point: Doctor Who has elements designed for children and elements designed for adults. Kids get to watch scary scarecrows march on the heroes; adults get to watch an allegory about the way society militarizes children. Kids get to watch a Dalek look cool in Utah; adults get to watch a meditation on the nature of revenge and war. Gets get to watch a funny robot; adults get to watch a story about the nature of mortality. That's what marks it as family viewing -- it's designed for all age groups simultaneously.

Stargate (post-Showtime, anyway) doesn't strike me as having anything that would be particularly objectionable for children to watch, but it doesn't strike me as having any elements that are for children, either. I wouldn't classify it as family viewing so much as I would an adult- and teen-oriented show that kids may watch but would probably get bored with.

Of course, I think those same concessions are what sometimes keep the show from being taken seriously in some circles.

Oh, almost certainly. But that's pure nonsense -- stories designed for children, or for adults and children simultaneously, or for adults exclusively, are all equally valuable and can all say very important things about life. Having said that, I do think that a lot of people on this forum tend to forget that Doctor Who is for children and adults, not adults.