Spoilers! Doctor Who – New Series. New Thread

[Tarka Dal]

Right then Season whatever, series whatever. RTD and Tennant out, Moffat and Smith in.

We start with this…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/newyear/

…and feast like the spoiler-feltching discussants that we are.

Thoughts:

Number 11 has an absolutely brilliant face.
He appears to have an ace fondness for hitting things.
The angels are back and based on their numbers and appearance it looks like it’s the same ones.

Topic

[Jonathan Capps]

If that’s the argument (which, I admit, at least makes some sense) then why not refer to the series by years? It is definitely a problem when the same show as two series 1s in 5 years, no matter what the justification is.

I’d also argue that this hypothetical new viewer would find this new series 1 and then be safe in the knowledge that they’ve started from the beginning and not even bother to seek out the first series 1. Oh, and as they’re browsing around iTunes, they see series 2 and think “cool, another series I’ll download that” and before you know it people have a wholly *different* reason to be angry with New Earth.

If you’re taking a view that your audience are too stupid and fickle to deal with high series numbers, or to be aware of the nature of Doctor Who and it’s rebooting, then you’ve also got to assume that they’re too stupid to deal with a show that has doubled up its series numbers.

[Seb Patrick]

>If that?s the argument (which, I admit, at least makes some sense) then why not refer to the series by years?

Well, because then the same casual viewers won’t have a clue which series represents the start of the aforementioned new era, innit.

[Jonathan Capps]

> Well, because then the same casual viewers won?t have a clue which series represents the start of the aforementioned new era, innit.

Putting aside for a moment that I believe this was YOUR IDEA (or Julian’s, I forget) I can’t see why in the World this would be an issue. Again, this is assuming too much ignorance of these viewers, quite aside from the fact that casual viewers wont give two stuffs about new eras. The only thing they need is a clear indication of how one series relates to any other in the context of Doctor Who not RTD and Moffat.

[Jonathan Capps]

Lot’s o’ lovely pictures from the filming of Richard Curtis’s episode here:

http://blogtorwho.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-series-filming-pics.html

[JamesTC]

Karen seems to love wearing very short skirts, in her interview with Matt in DWM she said it makes her feel sassy, sass on Karen, sass on.

[Jonathan Capps]

> Karen seems to love wearing very short skirts

Not as much as I’d wager Moff loves her wearing short skirts.

[Jonathan Capps]

Meet Andrew Ellard and shake hands with a walking continent of common sense.*

*Disclaimer: quote may be mangled beyond all recognition.

[Andrew]

> Meet Andrew Ellard and shake hands with a walking continent of common sense.

And typos, sadly. Sorry for flow-breaking, but EDITED to make some of the language English:

So far as I can see, every alternative has its merits and faults. It’s perfectly possible to see all sides, since they all have a point.

‘Series One’ obviously has a lot of ‘fresh start’ feel. It does what the new Trek movie did, really – made it sound like its own thing. It’s easy to understand why it has a use, that newcomers don’t feel like they’re behind. (I’m not watching Spooks because I arrived to the party late. If there was a clear ‘fresh start’ moment, I might join up.)

But it’s also messy. As has been pointed out, two series ones within much less than decade is pretty ugly. Some people thought Batman Begins was a prequel rather than a reboot because it was in relatively close proximity to the last of the previous Batman film series. Using ‘series one’ is the opposite – it implies reboot to something that’s actually a continuation. And of something HUGELY popular, not a show that’s losing viewers at it becomes more self-involved.

So calling it series one will encourage some viewers, yes, but it’s not like that was an problematic area. It’s medicating a condition the patient doesn’t suffer from. It’s also not the way the first wave of viewers will come to the show – ‘Series One’ doesn’t appear on-screen. It’s just ‘The One With The New Doctor’, and as such already feels plenty new-start-y in its marketing without some labelling on the paperwork.

And, as has been said searches online get harder now, not easier. In the years to come people will have to do active research before they can be sure what they’re considering paying for is what they want. Which is a barrier to purchase and involvement in an era of download-to-view – a hindrance as much as a help.

The ‘new Doctor, first series’ argument is valid enough. It’s a first, but there’s no rule that says you can’t do something first. Different bosses will make different decisions. Still, I doubt Moffat would do it again if he ended up having to change Docs half-way through his own run…

‘Series Five’ is a clear continuation of the current, modern success. It makes a measure of sense, since you want that audience to follow on. Since, on screen, it just says ‘Doctor Who’, very few will be swayed to watching or not watching based on a series number they won’t see at that point – meanwhile it helps the current downloaders stay on track.

Moff’s argument that it makes no sense to call it Five is spurious, though. This new series isn’t coming after lengthy hiatus, it’s not part of a wholesale reinvention – it’s a continuance of a reinvention. The difference between the ’89 and ’05 shows is going to be much larger than between ’09 and ’10. New leading man is no different than Tennant’s start. New sets don’t matter to newcomers OR returnees. And the argument that ‘everyone knows he’s Doctor 11’ is based on a definition of ‘everyone’ that would make ‘series one’ just as invalid.

That ‘series five’ sounds ‘ageing’ rather than ‘long running and successful’ is pulled out of thin air. While there’s no shortage of tired, flawed fifth series of shows, nobody assumes tiredness and flaws BECAUSE of that number. I’ve never, ever seen that as a default assumption.

‘Series Thirty-One’. Okay, maybe that does sound old. Certainly it’s bewildering for the huge number of New Who fans. It won’t confuse newcomers and it makes sense to classic fans. Only ’05+ fans – generally kids – get baffled by that. But that’s a massive part of the audience and worth paying attention to.

It barely matters for the most part, since it’s easy for fans to talk about ‘Moffat series one’ (no worse than talking about a fifth series and having to differentiate between the 60s one and the present one, anyway), and while it’s on the air it’ll be “Did you see Doctor Who last night?’ anyway. The number barely matters…

…except to the onliners. People searching iTunes, torrents and web resources. And if there’s where it’s seen and matters most, it’s hard to see ‘series one’ as anything other than a dopy decision.

[Nick R]

In lighter news:

http://www.holymoly.com/sites/default/files/imce/doctor-who-facebook-page.jpg

Superb.

“The Master likes this”
“…”

EDIT: The same person’s also done one for the Master! Love his sixth friend…
http://the-hellish-gnome.deviantart.com/art/The-Master-s-Facebook-Page-148491314

[Kris ‘Drivaaar’ Carter]

Epic – I love stuff like that!

[pfm]

I’m sorry but HOW gorgeous does Karen look in the new pics…somebody please…hold me back. :p

[Jonathan Capps]

> somebody please?hold me back. :p

*calls the Police*

[Ben Paddon]

I don’t know what you expect Sting to be able to do.

[Pete Part Three]

Andrew said (in the other thread) “Actually, yeah – Jack?s origin in a Moffat story and Sarah Jane?s in old Who might make them exceptions. (Am I right in thinking Moff?s the only one who knows the truth about Jack?s missing memory?)”

I get the feeling this has, rather aptly, been forgotten about. They’ve dumped so much mystery on Jack (his past on Earth revealed in CofE, that bollcoks about him being the FoB, the immortality thing), that it just seems kind of inconsequential now. A shame, as it was intriguing.

I don’t think we’ll see CJ in Who any more though. If RTD is going to continue with Torchwood, it seems odd to loan him out to Moffat occasionally. Plus, Matt Smith’s Doctor seems a bit more rough and ready, so they probably don’t need the “muscle” in Who any more.

[Andrew]

> I don?t think we?ll see CJ in Who any more though.

I dunno – after The West Wing I think she’s available…

[pfm]

Jack was still an RTD creation even if his first ep, and obviously a lot of his character, was Moffat’s. Though if anyone were to return I think he’d be the most likely. Maybe Matt Smith could appear in the very last SJA or something but I reckon her time in Who itself is over.

[Tarka Dal]

I’d imagine the powers that be would be interested in maintaining the Sarah-Jane link because that audience would flow naturally into Who’s current and future audience. It depends where they take Torchwood as to whether or not the same could be said for Captain Jack.

[Tanya Jones]

I’m sorry to come late to this, but would it make more sense to refer to the new Doctor Who series in terms of volumes as well? So taking the new Who as the starting point (which has been pretty much adopted): Volume 1, series 1-4 (plus specials), then Volume 2, series 1-?

[Seb Patrick]

Works for comics, they’re always bloody renumbering themselves.

[Ridley]

So Doctor Who Volume 2 Series 1 (New Series 5 (Season 31))?

I don’t like that simply because it feels like it glorifies the head writer over the programme.

[pfm]

I really don’t like that he said ‘”series 5″ means nothing’. If he was rebooting the show then fair enough but his first episode follows immediately on from The End of Time Pt.2 which IS technically the last episode of series 4. River Song was created for series 4 and is obviously going to be a major part of Moffat’s tenure. The Weeping Angels from series 3 appear. etc. etc. As far as writers go, only Richard Curtis and Simon Nye are non-returnees from RTD’s era.

It’s the same show as RTD era series’ 1-4.

[Tanya Jones]

>So Doctor Who Volume 2 Series 1 (New Series 5 (Season 31))?

>I don?t like that simply because it feels like it glorifies the head writer over the programme.

Yeah, but they’ve already done that by choosing to reboot the numbering with a new showrunner, haven’t they? The convention alone hasn’t had that effect: it’s simply a response.

[Jo]

>> I don?t think we?ll see CJ in Who any more though.

>I dunno – after The West Wing I think she?s available?

:oD

[Jonathan Capps]

CJ is currently sleeping off her tea on a big cushion.

[Tarka Dal]

I think I’ve a way around all these silly numbering issues. Let’s just call it the best Who.

Disclaimer: Unless it’s like… you know, not.

[ChrisM]

If* there’s an overall theme and/or story arc running through the series I wouldn’t mind the series being named after that rather than numbered. Of course they should keep it suitably vague to avoid spoilers for those buying the DVDs later who never saw the televised version. (The title doesn’t need to be mentioned on the telly. I rarely take note of the series numbering but I always know it’s a new series.)

*That could be a bit ‘if’ though as most Who stories are pretty self contained but there’s usually something. Bad Wolf. Drums. Etc.

[Ben Paddon]

The problem with that is naming the 2005 series “Bad Wolf” on the DVD box set kind of ruins it. We weren’t told about Bad Wolf before the series ran, and it got fans talking and speculating. Granted that’s not something a new viewer is going to care about, but it’s much more fun to pick up on this stuff yourself then it is to have it spelled out for you before you’ve even seen the first episode.

When I introduced Michelle to Doctor Who, she picked up on Bad Wolf and Vote Saxon by herself (the “Vote Saxon” thing was a pretty good find for her, actually – she saw the poster in the background during “Smith and Jones” and remembered seeing it in “Captain Jack Harkness” in Torchwood… even I missed that on the first viewing). She asked me a ton of questions that I refused to answer for her.

[ChrisM]

Point taken. That was just an example off the top of my head, but the concept of naming a series by title should work. Granted it would need to be suitably vague.

[pfm]

How about calling it ‘season 1’. Or ‘The Complete David Tennant Isn’t In It Anymore So Why Bother I’ll Tell You Why It’s Matt Smith Oh And You Can Suck Moffat’s Cock Harder Than Ever Now He’s Showrunner And You Won’t Be Being Gay Because RTD’s Gone Oh And Look It’s The Weeping Angels From That Episode It’s Proper Real Doctor Who Better Than Jekyll Promise – Series 1’

‘The Eleventh Doctor – The Complete First Series’ is more likely.

[JamesTC]

>How about calling it ?season 1?.

We already have one of those, 1963-1964.

[Gwynnie]

Argh, you’re all melting my brain! :P Let’s just go by the Doctors. So we’ve just finished 10 (volumes 1-3) and we’re entering season 11 now. Sure, each season would be a completely different length but it would make sense?

[genericnerdyusername]

I agree.

[ChrisM]

Yeah, I wouldn’t mind that either. A lot of older DVDs are listed by the actor’s name after all. Mind you they tend to be collected by story rather than series, but it would work. Doctor and year.

Oh, whatever. It doesn’t really matter.

Onto something else- I’m interested to see more of the tardis. Ok, I already have a bit with the odd picture here and there but that’s not the same. I wonder if he will actually has to rebuild, moving struts etc, or if it’s just a Tardis healing/regeneration thing, it (or should I say ‘she’) being a living organism and all.

A couple more rooms would be nice too.

[JamesTC]

Why is it so confusing? Just call the 9th Doc series ‘Series 1’, call the 11th ‘Series One’.

[Ian Symes]

WILL EVERYONE STOP TALKING ABOUT SERIES NUMBERING NOW PLEASE

[Seb Patrick]

I’m fairly close to declaring an outright ban.

[Jonathan Capps]

> I?m fairly close to declaring an outright ban.

So long as it immediately follows declaring me the outright winner.

[Pete Part Three]

>Why is it so confusing? Just call the 9th Doc series ?Series 1?, call the 11th ?Series One?.

Yes, I can’t see this causing any confusion at all.

SoundableObject wins. The End.

[Seb Patrick]

STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT.

[Pete Part Three]

Hence “The End”.

[Somebody]

> Yeah, I wouldn?t mind that either. A lot of older DVDs are listed by the actor?s name after all. Mind you they tend to be collected by story rather than series, but it would work. Doctor and year.

There’s about only about three years’ worth of releases left by-story (including a few tricky ones where most, but not ALL, of their episodes are intact). Once they’re done, I’m sure they’ll rerelease them as “Doctor 5, series 1”, etc (since McCoy’s in nearly a quarter of the TVM, they’ll probably bung that in with his last series. Or even, given how short his three series are, just do a “Complete Seventh and Eighth Doctors” set).

[ChrisM]

I’m going to call it Moff-who. Although I’m not suggesting that should be official. Although it would be amusing if it was.

So… the new look of the inside of the tardis then…. (Snigger. Note, to self, try a different angle..)

Is that Tardis ‘healing’ thing something specific to New Who (i.e. like when it heals after colliding with the Titanic. From the little I’ve seen of Old Who, damage required an extensive old school repair job, although that was usually components rather than large bits of the ship’s structure). Slightly off topic I guess but I’m just wondering how the new console room will be explained from an in-world perspective. Not that we probably won’t find out when we see it, but it’s something else to discuss apart from numbering.

[Jonathan Capps]

I think in this case the TARDIS ‘healing’ will be the reason for the console room change, but the fact that it’s been altered so much over the history of the show I think it’s safe to assume that The Doctor can rebuild and move around rooms as he pleases.

[Somebody]

The Fifth Doctor said that they could reconfigure the Tardis interior more-or-less at will in Castrovalva, didn’t he?

[Jonathan Capps]

Ah, yes, that’s what I was thinking of! I knew it’d been mentioned before, but I wasn’t sure if it was in the show or in Big Finish’s fan fiction.

[Seb Patrick]

My guess is that the basic shape/layout are going to be much the same as before, including the round console – but it’ll all get a spruce up, and the coral will all be gone, with an overriding silver/metal finish instead.

[Jonathan Capps]

AND A BIG STAIRCASE.

I’m sure it’ll be lovely, anyway, especially if they manage to create new rooms, corridors.

I wonder if they’ll keep the look secret until transmission of episode 1? I image there’ll be a load of promotional photos soon, but I hope this is saved.

[Ridley]

http://io9.com/5387162/first-glimpse-of-doctor-whos-new-tardis-interior ?

[Somebody]

There were also a couple of partial shots in the trailer:

From beneath the console (incomplete?): http://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/dw9-570×323.jpg

And behind Doctor & River: http://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/dw11-570×323.jpg

[pfm]

I think it would be a great idea to do some more ‘do you wanna come with me?’ style trailers (they’re still the best ever), new Tardis interior included. There’s no real need to keep the look totally secret for episode 1.

Seriously, how psyched did this trailer get everyone??

[Author]

Replies