I love SJA precisely because of the old-school Who nostalgia factor. (And also because Elisabeth Sladen is so awesome).

Lisah, Sarah Jane adopted a boy who was born yesterday. Sort of. [link] He was created as an archetype of humanity for some villains to use to learn how to better take over the world. After stopping the villains, Sarah Jane decides to adopt him.

I've heard it referred to as a "grown up Who"

granted, I haven't read a whole lot of articles about it, but I remember an Eccleston interview that gave the strong impression that it was a kids show, and perhaps several others that focused solely on children's reactions to the show. And then there's the Fear Factor on the BBC site.

I don't recall the old Who, but even with the very apparent adult vibes, there is also a... delicateness and avoidance of certain things that I assume is catering to the viewership that is made up of a new generation of kids. Which, while at times I wished they'd cross that invisible line, like I said, I think it's that sensitivity that kept it from Torchwood's freshman failings.

I don't recall the old Who, but even with the very apparent adult vibes, there is also a... delicateness and avoidance of certain things that I assume is catering to the viewership that is made up of a new generation of kids.

It's more of a whole family show, than an adult show. The delicate skirting around things is plain to the adults who enjoy the references, with the tacit understanding that kids who are too young to "get it" won't learn it there. Kids who do "get it", well, they were obviously corrupted by some other source well beforehand.

Family Show. That's it. Good term, that.

Apparantly Stephen Moffat was quoted at Comic-Con that he wants to bring back Who to how he remembers it in his own childhood- scaring the shit out of him.

I think it's a show for everyone. It's well written (mostly) and well acted (usually) and everyone on it seems to love it and have lots of fun making it. I think the genre of "children's tv" is pretty marginalized and comes from this (relatively new) theory that children ARE DELICATE FLOWERS and WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN? and how they shouldn't be exposed to loss or death or fear or unfairness or unpleasantness.

I love reading the Fear Forecast on the BBC site- those kids, even the young ones, love the show and get the show. Kids aren't stupid and can actually be remarkably empathetic and insightful, even when it comes to a TV show.

(I know I'm sort of stating the obvious in this particular community but I think that people denying kids their intelligence and emotional depth is what leads us to the ghettoization of "children's TV.")

I can't think of anything that I wouldn't have let my (imaginary) kids watch in Who, but I wouldn't call it a kids show.

It's no more a kids show than classic Star Trek was and I watched that when I was eight years old. There was nothing there that was overtly inappropriate (other than the occasional shot of a bare-chested Kirk or a little kissy face), the same as Who today.

There was nothing there that was overtly inappropriate

There was that shot of Kirk pulling on his boots...

Which totally goes over any eight-year-old's head, unless they're mighty precocious.

What can I say, my parents slept in separate beds.