![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzAeQr5eRlXe7OkuT4pOTwb_oEVK_PWqa1Qv4LqP1n5cqMIUfXDGUvV0b8ouA-X3uNOImqRoCIgTSKKWXvUNXMiBgl51EQHWLYq2Nu8Spbh_LdiM9d8RDQJFFj9SUD_R96X7B8cg/s400/DW_5x02_The_Beast_Below_028.jpg)
My problem with this is that even though Doctor Who is a family series, and that children are a large part of the viewing audience, that doesn’t mean children must be a component of the narrative. It becomes doubly irritating when you’ve already got a lead character who acts like a kid much of the time anyway. Somebody might argue that they’re used as audience identification figures for younger viewers, to which I say balderdash. For 26 years Doctor Who hummed along quite nicely, rarely making anyone younger than a teenager part of the storyline. Kids, I believe, are perfectly content to watch adults on the tube and in film. They don’t long to see other children involved in these types of adventures. Somebody else might argue that Moffat uses children in order to help adults find their inner child. I can actually buy that more than the former proposed argument, but it needs to be used sparingly and smartly, and hot on the heels of the young Amelia Pond is hardly sparing, and the climax of “The Beast Below,” which hinges on crying children doesn’t strike me as particularly smart.
Read the rest of this episode recap by clicking here and visiting Premium Hollywood.