[chrissybabe]

Really looking forward to having a new companion as Rose was really annoying me during series 2 and I still say the makers should have killed her off instead of moving her into another dimension. Would have been a far more memorable exit.

That was never going to happen because they would fear alienating the children who watch the show. Having her still alive at the end, albeit without the Doctor, meant it wasn't a totally unhappy ending.

[spotg]

Ardal O'Hanlon \o/\o/

[gavnoble]

Originally posted by chrissybabe:
That was never going to happen because they would fear alienating the children who watch the show. Having her still alive at the end, albeit without the Doctor, meant it wasn't a totally unhappy ending.

It owuldn't alienate children at all in my view. The show has killed off companions in the past - twice in the 1960s and once in the 1980s. The one in the 1980s, Adric in Earthshock, was a moment that stuck with me for years about the show until the Beeb started releasing videos of the show.

It would have had a far greater impact if Rose had been killed off and provided a far more meorable ending. Her departure was too overly sentimental for my tastes and I see it as a missed opportunity.

[chrissybabe]

I agree it would have been a greater impact if she had died, as it is I don't think it was a bad ending, the episode itself was brilliant. But Rose dying might have given the current generation a moment to remember like the ones you remember. As a "new" watcher of Doctor Who, ie started watching when it restarted 2 years ago, I don't know about these previous examples so I have no comparison to draw on.

As for alienating children if she died, I'm of a divided opinion. But I think the writers probably thought it was too much of a risk to take, killing off the assistant the kids have looked up to for two series. Maybe it seemed a bit final, and of course they now have the opportunity to one day bring her back, which definitely wouldn't be a good thing imo.

[Gregg Carter]

The thing is, kids are too pampered now. Look at the outrage over the Unquiet Dead episode because it was "too scary for children."

If Rose had been killed, then there'd be some idiot with a bee in their bonnet going on about how it had traumatised little johnny and katie and that is should be taken off the air.

It would probably have worked too.

[chrissybabe]

Exactly my point

[Scott Harwood]

haha considering Dr Who is aimed at 5 year olds now I find it mind boggling that you lot are complaining that one of the main characters wasn't killed.

[shanyi]

Originally posted by gavnoble:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by chrissybabe:
That was never going to happen because they would fear alienating the children who watch the show. Having her still alive at the end, albeit without the Doctor, meant it wasn't a totally unhappy ending.

It owuldn't alienate children at all in my view. The show has killed off companions in the past - twice in the 1960s and once in the 1980s. The one in the 1980s, Adric in Earthshock, was a moment that stuck with me for years about the show until the Beeb started releasing videos of the show.

It would have had a far greater impact if Rose had been killed off and provided a far more meorable ending. Her departure was too overly sentimental for my tastes and I see it as a missed opportunity. </BLOCKQUOTE>

The regeneration of Tom Baker's Doctor in Logopolis was bloody traumatic. Those final moments still reverberate deep in my memory, though that might be because I only watched it yesterday.

[gavnoble]

Originally posted by ScottEvil30:
haha considering Dr Who is aimed at 5 year olds now I find it mind boggling that you lot are complaining that one of the main characters wasn't killed.

I find it just as mind boggling that you still bother coming into the thread when you obviously detest the modern version of the show.

[Scott Harwood]

I enjoy watching you lot lie to yourselves.