Compare and contrast: Dr Who v The Archers

[R4]

Doctor Who is 50 years old. It was recently resurrected by its fanbase; people like Russell T Davis and David Tennant who loved the programme and a child and have bought new life & vigour to the concept, whilst staying loyal to the programme’s history.

The Archers is 60 years old. Its fanbase is ignored whilst those in power trash the concept and ignore the programme’s history.

One lot have got it so right but the other lot have got it so wrong.

Oooh, my two specialist subjects!

It's inspired thinking to compare and contrast them - very probably their greatest fans grew up with both.

But what is to be done? If the SWs have any sense they must be reading the Archers threads here and must realise how dissatisfied long term listeners are....

I'm still certain the plan is to shift TA to 4Extra and concentrate on the "youth" stories. It"ll never work - the youth don't have the skill set right sort of ears for radio drama....

I'm afraid that I have been in the doldrums since DW50. In comparison, TA seems so lightweight and amateur

Hmmm... I could have done with more Ecclestone darkness. The shots of the Time War were a bit underwhelming; I had always imagined global psychic waves and silence. I definitely don't believe that mere human citizens would even know they were involved before they were vaporised.

However, there generally is some ambition on show; as opposed to TA which generally struggles to reach the narrative heights of, oh, Bill and Ben (contemporaneous...) Apart from the magnificent Maurice / Jazzer episode that I've just mentioned on the other thread. It's those tiny, tiny crumbs that keep me going.

Snurk @ Bill and Ben.
Does that mean that Emmurr is Little Weed?

^Was it Bill or was it Ben
Shot their brother's dog just then?^

I did say "generally"....

What did you think of "DW50" Sparkly?

Peggy's cats are called Bill and Ben.