Re: Torchwood Trailer ("Children fo Earth")


<pbowles@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:8915a1a9-da14-4a58-a61a-617f62227793@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 8 Feb, 05:23, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:5a02eef4-b68b-42f2-8e06-d791da066ac5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





> On 7 Feb, 18:57, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>>news:fc781c09-a68a-42d2-8556-6e6dcffe3068@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > On 7 Feb, 18:03, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> "Andrew" <thecr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> >>news:2009020717304416807-thecroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> > On 2009-02-07 00:01:52 +0000, "Agamemnon"
>> >> > <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> > said:

>> >> >> "Monsieur Tabernac" <mtaber...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in >> >> >> message
>> >> >>news:vkeoo4tt7r76lk4goduio3ugq39l73ng9m@xxxxxxxxxx

>> >> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiWpVTTP6yI

>> >> >> So this looks like it's a cross between the Sarah Jane, Pied >> >> >> Piper
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> Arcade Game episodes with the aliens that abducted Captain >> >> >> Jack's
>> >> >> brother. Why is RTD using kids as the main plot line on a >> >> >> programme
>> >> >> which
>> >> >> he claims is for adults?

>> >> > Because adults respond protectively to children in danger. As a
>> >> > parent
>> >> > it
>> >> > makes perfect sense to me.

>> >> So it's desperate writing as well as RTD's agenda.

>> > No, no reason to suppose it's either desperate or anything to do >> > with
>> > whatever agenda you've invented for RTD this time. We'll have to >> > wait
>> > to see it in context, but given the way adults tend to respond to
>> > children in danger, it appears that the use of children is there to
>> > give the adult characters a plausible motive for getting involved.

>> > The show is aimed at
>> >> immature teenagers,

>> > I think "immature teenager" is a tautology.

>> > not parents or anyone mature enough to want to be a
>> >> parent, and certainly no one mature enough that you would ask to
>> >> baby-sit
>> >> your kids.

>> > Clearly you didn't get the memo, Aggy. This is Torchwood with,
>> > effectively, a new cast, on a new channel, with what amounts to a >> > new
>> > pilot (and apparently a new, likely recurring, villain). This is
>> > what's known in TV Land as a relaunch. We don't know what audience
>> > it's targeting, or even what its timeslot will be - although the >> > fact
>> > that it includes '***' and a gay kiss scene in the trailer (rather
>> > than just the main episode) suggests that the PR people are making a
>> > deliberate attempt to warn parents that they may find it unsuitable
>> > for children. If we assume it keeps the same timeslot, then it will

>> No. It shows that RTD is aiming it at kids and attempting to make new
>> converts for gaydom.

> "New converts for gaydom"?

>> > probably be targeted at a somewhat older audience than it used to >> > be,

>> No. That wouldn't fit in with RTD's agenda. Convert them while they're
>> young
>> is what he believes.

> No it isn't. Because, you see, RTD doesn't believe people can be
> 'converted' to homosexuality because ... well, because it's not true,
> and RTD is at least moderately sane.

That's just a front.

Ah, so RTD secretly has an agenda to do something ("convert to
gaydom", as you put it) he knows to be impossible in reality? I think
you must have missed the bit where I pointed out he is moderately
sane.

Learn some logic and work it out. RTD knows that people can be converted to gaydom, but in order to conceal his true motives and be allowed to include evangelistic messages in his productions, he pretends you can't be converted.


>> > since BBC One reserves post-watershed for 'adult' programming, while
>> > BBC3 as a channel is explicitly targeted at teenagers and
>> > twentysomethings (although having said that, Being Human is more
>> > mature than most of the channel's content, Torchwood past included).

>> YOU'VE GOT TO BE JOKING!

>> Naked men's arses and porn videos after only two episodes.

> And an actual, intelligently-written story suitable for adults. You

No. Not when it's reason d'etre was to show naked means arses and private
parts.

And yet, it wasn't.

Except it was.


> appear to have missed that while you were trying so desperately to see
> the naked guy's genitalia. You still don't seem able to grasp the

I wasn't trying to do anything. They were inflicted on me.

So how is it no one else noticed?

Everyone noticed. How do you ignore a naked mans arse?


> simple fact that just because "naked arses and porn videos" appear in
> a show in the context of the story being told, that doesn't mean the
> show is just a vehicle for naked arses and porn videos. You accept sex
> scenes with much less relevance to the plot in Life on Mars.

Wrong

So why aren't you complaining about the Life on Mars scenes, then?

Life on Mars was a well written drama series aimed at an adult audience and the scenes of nudity were put there to show realism and formed an insignificant part of the episode in question and did not attract unnecessary attention to themselves. They were not put there to either shock people or attract immature teenage viewers so they can discuss them in the school playground, which is the reason they were placed in Being Human, because it is a poorly written comedy drama and unlike Life on Mars, the plot, story and humour are not enough to get viewers watching.


Phil

.

Loading