Doctor Whom

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby You, sir, name? » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:26 pm UTC

animeHrmIne wrote:
Whelan wrote:I have been informed by my sources that this cast list is a hoax, as the christmas special will be S5EX, rather than S6E0. Also, we're on season 33, or series 6, because of the old Who using seasons and the new one series.

We've just finished season 31, and are starting season 32, I'm pretty sure. The specials were more season 30b than their own season. (Of course, I could be counting wrong. But I have been counting this way since starting the show. MY WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE!!!) *Ahem* It is, however, series 6. OR series 2 if you ask the Moff.

... Doctor Who is as good at numbers as it is at science ...


Doctor Who's science ability, like it's numbers ability, varies with the seasons. Some earlier Pertwee stories were very serious business about it (mostly the Liz Shaw episodes), to the point where it was like an orgy in smart people wearing lab coats.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Diadem » Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:33 am UTC

Whelan wrote:I have been informed by my sources that this cast list is a hoax, as the christmas special will be S5EX, rather than S6E0. Also, we're on season 33, or series 6, because of the old Who using seasons and the new one series.

So far all christmas episodes have always been numbered after the coming season, except the last few, which were special because there was no 2009 season. The numbering is not very consistent, all in all, so it could go either way, but I doubt it'll be S5EX, because if they number if in series 5 it should be numbered S5E14.

Anyway I hope that list is fake. Doctor Who should move away from endlessly repeating previous enemies.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Various Varieties
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:24 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Various Varieties » Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

Cue wrote:To all those theorising the Christmas special...

Spoiler:
Orient Express in space, like the Titanic in space, so don't expect to see any historical figures...

Spoiler:
I like the Orient Express in Space. I like Space Florida. But which is better? There's only one way to find out...
Spoiler:
fiiiiiiight


animeHrmIne wrote:We've just finished season 31, and are starting season 32, I'm pretty sure. The specials were more season 30b than their own season. (Of course, I could be counting wrong. But I have been counting this way since starting the show. MY WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE!!!) *Ahem* It is, however, series 6. OR series 2 if you ask the Moff.

The more important question is: if the series just gone was nicknamed Series Fnarg, what will we call the next one? Fnarg+1? Fnargier? Fnargiest?

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby You, sir, name? » Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:24 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Anyway I hope that list is fake. Doctor Who should move away from endlessly repeating previous enemies.


I don't know, new enemies are usually just shallow monster-of-the-week types with very little back-story or motivation besides "Grrr! I'mma do evil stuff!" Whereas old enemies frequently have well outlined motivation and history (which was possible to outline with 2 hour serials, as opposed to the fast-paced 45 minutes episodes) giving those stories more potential. Granted, -only- recycling old monsters, or specifically -only- recycling the daleks and the cybermen over and over is quite tedious.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
Persephonethinx
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 4:10 am UTC
Location: Missouri, USA
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Persephonethinx » Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:03 pm UTC

You, sir, name? wrote:
Diadem wrote:Anyway I hope that list is fake. Doctor Who should move away from endlessly repeating previous enemies.


I don't know, new enemies are usually just shallow monster-of-the-week types with very little back-story or motivation besides "Grrr! I'mma do evil stuff!" Whereas old enemies frequently have well outlined motivation and history (which was possible to outline with 2 hour serials, as opposed to the fast-paced 45 minutes episodes) giving those stories more potential. Granted, -only- recycling old monsters, or specifically -only- recycling the daleks and the cybermen over and over is quite tedious.


My question is why can't we come up with new monsters with a back story and motivation? The classic monsters had to start somewhere.
"The Universe is big and it's vast and complicated, and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles..." -The Eleventh Doctor

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Jesse » Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:15 pm UTC

Because they had two hours to get teh backstory over, but now we only have 45 minutes, as was just pointed out.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Diadem » Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:07 pm UTC

Well you can always make a story arc over several episodes. That always works well. Or use a christmas special, which are longer than regular episodes. Wait, what do you know, we're talking about a christmas special :)

The problem with these old enemies is that they are pretty dated. Look at the Dalek. They may have been scary in the 70s and 80s, but they are just silly now. Everything about them is dated, the way they talk, move, look, act. To make old enemies interesting you need to radically redesign them, but then you might as well introduce new ones.

I'm not saying old enemies should never ever return. But it would be good to introduce new ones too. And the old ones that do return should be redesigned more. I want to see faster, more agile dalek for example. More in line with how I would think a killer robot looked, not how they imagined they looked in the 70s. They still get to say 'exterminate', of course, but not as they do it now because they can't seem to act without talking to themselves. That's just silly for robots. Make them say it mockingly, tauntingly.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby You, sir, name? » Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:18 pm UTC

The Daleks can be scarier than the new series have rendered them. Nowadays's they're a cartoonish mockery of their former selves.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Magnanimous » Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:29 pm UTC

Fnarg 2: Fnarg Harder?

I think Daleks are pretty terrifying in theory... But I'm generally not scared of anything that can be defeated via circle-strafe.

User avatar
Whelan
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:16 pm UTC
Location: Londonshire.

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Whelan » Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:59 pm UTC

Magnanimous wrote:Fnarg 2: Fnarg Harder?

I think Daleks are pretty terrifying in theory... But I'm generally not scared of anything that can be defeated via circle-strafe.

You've never had a 6" tall one watch you shower..."EXFOLIATE!"
"I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth; I have a horror of blinding people with science"- Richard Dawkins
Weeks wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:And all I get is this tame space dragon. Where's my recognition?!
A tame dragon is its own reward.

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby You, sir, name? » Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:04 pm UTC

Magnanimous wrote:Fnarg 2: Fnarg Harder?

I think Daleks are pretty terrifying in theory... But I'm generally not scared of anything that can be defeated via circle-strafe.


The merits of circle-strafing have been greatly exaggerated, especially against armed and armored opponents who kill you in one shot, ass they need only place a wall or some other large obstacle behind them to defeat the tactic.

WHERE IS YOUR VIDEO GAME LOGIC NOW?!
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Jesse » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:36 am UTC

Also, aren't their heads independent of their bodies, giving them quick 360 degree motion with their plunger guns?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Diadem » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:37 am UTC

I dunno, but somehow I just can't get scared of a robot that has a toilet plunger as an appendix.

But that might just be me.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Doctor Who

Postby SlyReaper » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:02 am UTC

But it also has an egg whisk of death.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Link
Posts: 1407
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:33 am UTC
Location: ᘝᓄᘈᖉᐣ
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Link » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:53 am UTC

Jesse wrote:Also, aren't their heads independent of their bodies, giving them quick 360 degree motion with their plunger guns?

IIRC, they can rotate their abdomen, torso and head sections independently from one another. The torso section contains the gun and the plunger and the head contains the eye stalk. They could be moving north, facing east and shooting south if they wanted to.

As for the series format, I'd like to see it done more along the lines of Season 22 - two episodes per serial, but each episode 45 minutes long. 45 minutes often isn't enough to create a story arc that doesn't seem rushed. It's sufficient if you want to leave an open ending, but if you want to include a back story and a convincing conclusion, you usually need more time. More series could benefit from such a format, but it's especially useful for Doctor Who, where there tends to be a lot more going on than "there's been a murder" or "this patient is dying".

Beyond the Daleks, the Cybermen and the Master, there really haven't been that many truly recurring enemies. I think it's high time they came up with another one. Preferably something elusive and really otherworldly. Something like the Vashta Nerada, but more organised and actually evil rather than just acting on a natural instinct. Daleks and Cybermen are getting old (nearly half a real-life century, actually); high time for something refreshing.

User avatar
Persephonethinx
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 4:10 am UTC
Location: Missouri, USA
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Persephonethinx » Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:49 am UTC

There's also something to be said about the reduced number of cliffhangers. I love a good cliffhanger, and with only 3 two-part episodes a season, there are simply not enough anxiety-inducing episode endings for my liking. I would actually prefer that over Next Time trailers as they often spoil too much.
"The Universe is big and it's vast and complicated, and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles..." -The Eleventh Doctor

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby You, sir, name? » Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:20 am UTC

Persephonethinx wrote:There's also something to be said about the reduced number of cliffhangers. I love a good cliffhanger, and with only 3 two-part episodes a season, there are simply not enough anxiety-inducing episode endings for my liking. I would actually prefer that over Next Time trailers as they often spoil too much.


If modern doctor who has too few of them, classic doctor who had too many of them, ruining the effect. Of course the boulder isn't going to crush them. It sure didn't the last 685 times it fell on the doctor and/or his companion.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Doctor Who

Postby headprogrammingczar » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:32 am UTC

A proper Doctor Who cliffhanger involves someone unrelated to the Doctor, preferably a one-off character, where either outcome will complicate things, but in different ways, or else it involves a personal choice, which isn't very predictable.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby You, sir, name? » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:02 pm UTC

Consider this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD-2htbjNjw

Cut it at 0:40, and you've got the typical classic doctor who cliffhanger.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby phlip » Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

My favourite old-DW cliffhanger anti-climax was that at the end of one episode, the army guys or whoever burst in and point guns at the Doctor, cue credits. Next episode starts with "Oh, Doctor, I didn't realise it was you" and the episode continues.

But yeah, many times watching the old-timey DW episodes would end with me and my father sarcastically talking to each other like "Huh, so the Doctor's dead now. Oh well, the show's had a good run, shame for it to end like that, but that's how it goes."

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

MysteryBall
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:47 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby MysteryBall » Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:56 pm UTC

So I guess I'm the only one who quite enjoys the Daleks reappearing?

Except, you know, when the script is written by Mark Gatiss, Victory of the Daleks was pretty poor IMO.

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby JayDee » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:40 pm UTC

phlip wrote:My favourite old-DW cliffhanger anti-climax was that at the end of one episode, the army guys or whoever burst in and point guns at the Doctor, cue credits. Next episode starts with "Oh, Doctor, I didn't realise it was you" and the episode continues.
That is fantastic. I mean, if the policy is to have a cliffhanger every twenty-five minutes, you gotta have fun with it now and then.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.

User avatar
Persephonethinx
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 4:10 am UTC
Location: Missouri, USA
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Persephonethinx » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Of course, the all time best cliffhanger is where Jon Pertwee warns some guy away from a menacing floor tile. :D
"The Universe is big and it's vast and complicated, and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles..." -The Eleventh Doctor

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Doctor Who

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:17 am UTC

Cue wrote:So I guess I'm the only one who quite enjoys the Daleks reappearing?

Yes.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Doctor Who

Postby charliepanayi » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:24 pm UTC

I don't really mind either way about it, does that count?
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby You, sir, name? » Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:15 am UTC

I secretly like the ambient music during the Fifth doctor era. It's so mellow and synthetic.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
sugarhyped
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:16 am UTC
Location: california

Re: Doctor Who

Postby sugarhyped » Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:12 am UTC

charliepanayi wrote:I don't really mind either way about it, does that count?

No it doesn't.
If he said "Am I the only one who doesn't hate it?" then yes it would count.


Cue wrote:So I guess I'm the only one who quite enjoys the Daleks reappearing?

Except, you know, when the script is written by Mark Gatiss, Victory of the Daleks was pretty poor IMO.


The one dalek episode where every dalek doesn't get erased from existence? I liked that he didn't necessarily win. The robot guy part annoyed me a bit.
I wanted a signature. I don't know what to put here yet.

User avatar
ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

Re: Doctor Who

Postby ConMan » Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:20 am UTC

sugarhyped wrote:
charliepanayi wrote:I don't really mind either way about it, does that count?

No it doesn't.
If he said "Am I the only one who doesn't hate it?" then yes it would count.


Cue wrote:So I guess I'm the only one who quite enjoys the Daleks reappearing?

Except, you know, when the script is written by Mark Gatiss, Victory of the Daleks was pretty poor IMO.


The one dalek episode where every dalek doesn't get erased from existence? I liked that he didn't necessarily win. The robot guy part annoyed me a bit.

I thought that Victory of the Daleks started out well, but the last third of it just went a little too much into the silly realm (I'm sure "spitfires in space" scored rounds of applause when it was written on paper, as did "new Daleks", but neither concept really worked for me). In particular, the motive for the Daleks' deception was, to me, quite clever and reasonably believable. I agree that the fact the Daleks didn't get destroyed "forever" was good, but all that means is that they're out there, probably regrouping for the next season finale.

Spoiler:
Also, not a big fan of the Power Ranger/Ikea Dalek design. I will be interested in how they try to resurrect the entire Dalek race this time, but for once I'd actually *like* for some of the old-style Daleks to have somehow survived for the 5000th time, to have a showdown between the two of them - with the Doctor being forced to choose sides in a "lesser of two evils" situation. Especially assuming that he doesn't find a way to get them to destroy each other so that at least one sides gets to run away to fight another day.
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby keozen » Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:52 pm UTC

The Weeping Angels have been the closest we've had to a "new" reoccurring villain in the new series. They're a good addition if used right. But yeah, a new full on race/species that wasn't (for want of a better term) crap would be nice. Something they can really flesh out.
Image

User avatar
Cytoplasm
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:00 am UTC
Location: EE.UU.(+ Cheese)

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Cytoplasm » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:52 pm UTC

phlip wrote:
Cytoplasm wrote:I don't know if this has been brought up, but if it's true I'm going to be very upset.

One of the commments on that links to this.



Bueno, thank you ^^
¡No tengo miedo a fantasmas!

Spoiler:
Cytoplasm: I have catoragized some of my family into lolcats.
Felstaff: For a drudging Thursday afternoon, that level of cuteness has really made my day. Can... Can I keep you?

Felstaff wrote:
Cytoplasm wrote:shannonigans

<3

User avatar
ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

Re: Doctor Who

Postby ConMan » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:25 am UTC

keozen wrote:The Weeping Angels [...] Something they can really flesh out.

ICWUDT

I was thinking the same. Although technically the Slitheen were the first recurring enemy of the new series, I think. I think they've done their dash now, after appearing in three DW episodes and a few Sarah Jane episodes (including the charity special). And I'd be very happy if they never appeared again (although they're probably more suited for SJA than DW).
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.

User avatar
sugarhyped
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:16 am UTC
Location: california

Re: Doctor Who

Postby sugarhyped » Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:12 am UTC

So I have been getting my sister into Doctor Who by putting on random episodes.

It was my first time watching Fires of Pompeii since TW S3 and since I found out Karen Gillan was in it.
I didn't realize she would be like the main soothsayer. Also Frobisher from TW is in it!! I got excited. I really didn't realize how many people Doctor Who reuses.

I have only re-watched Partners in Crime and Fires of Pompeii recently and am surprised both mentioned planets disappearing. Thats pretty cool. Also Partners in Crime had a car with Atmos.

I need to rewatch things more often. I did do it with season 5 more.
I wanted a signature. I don't know what to put here yet.

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Zarq » Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:51 am UTC

Do you miss a lot if you watch the new series while never having seen the old one?

edit: before I get shunned, I'd like to say the reason I haven't watched any of the old series yet is because I have a problem with watching a series out of order. And that probably won't be possible in the next couple of years. If ever.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
sugarhyped
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:16 am UTC
Location: california

Re: Doctor Who

Postby sugarhyped » Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Zarq wrote:Do you miss a lot if you watch the new series while never having seen the old one?

edit: before I get shunned, I'd like to say the reason I haven't watched any of the old series yet is because I have a problem with watching a series out of order. And that probably won't be possible in the next couple of years. If ever.


I dont know how people who really have watched the old series feel, but I enjoyed watching the new series without feeling left out.

Occasionally I watch a story-line of the old series. There's just so much of it though its hard to choose.... Netflix instant helps.
I wanted a signature. I don't know what to put here yet.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Gelsamel » Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:20 am UTC

Zarq wrote:Do you miss a lot if you watch the new series while never having seen the old one?

edit: before I get shunned, I'd like to say the reason I haven't watched any of the old series yet is because I have a problem with watching a series out of order. And that probably won't be possible in the next couple of years. If ever.


No, that's what I did. While Doctor Who was always interesting it wasn't interesting enough for me to see it over other things and then Season 5 was just like crazy awesome so I watched that. Going back and watching one of the S4 Episodes was just so ridiculously boring in comparison.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Link
Posts: 1407
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:33 am UTC
Location: ᘝᓄᘈᖉᐣ
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Link » Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:31 am UTC

Doctor Who lends itself fairly well to watching individual seasons out of order, and that's true to an even greater extent for jumping right into the new series. In fact, I watched most of the new series completely out of order, and I found it pretty easy to get into. I started watching half-way through Series 4, and I saw Series 3 after that. I then watched Series 1 and 2, and the first half of Series 4. Having gotten really into Doctor Who at that point, I decided to start watching the classic series, jumping in at the start of Season 12. From there on, I've watched it on the correct order, and I'm almost finished now - I only have to watch Season 26 and the TV movie, and then I will have seen every (aired) regular episode of Doctor Who since Robot.

Interestingly, I actually got into Doctor Who after I saw Torchwood: Children of Earth. I had no idea that it was actually the third series or anything, mind! Anyway, a while after I found out it was a spin-off of DW, I saw that the Sci-Fi channel was showing Doctor Who. The first full episode I saw was The Unicorn and the Wasp - which, despite, in my opinion, not being one of the best episodes in all of Who history, was enough to get me hooked.

Anyway, the new series really doesn't reference the old series very much; it's entirely possible to start at Rose without ever having seen an episode of classic Who. That said, for those who liked Series 5 (i.e. the Matt Smith series) but have never seen a classic episode, I'd recommend trying it. Series 5 resembles the classic series in a lot of aspects, although the latter is usually much slower-paced. Even the episodes from the mid-1970s are quite watchable today, provided you ignore the horrible special effects. As an added bonus, the awesomeness of the Fourth Doctor completely outshines any weaknesses in writing and production during that era.

User avatar
MiB24601
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:13 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Doctor Who

Postby MiB24601 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:38 pm UTC

Doctor Who can really be watched in any order. The first episode I watched was actually the Doctor Who TV Movie with Paul McGann back when it came out in 1996. While the episode wasn't amazing, McGann was cool, Sylvester McCoy was interesting*, and the poor writing didn't take away from the fun concepts like Time Lords, the TARDIS and the Doctor's conflict with the Master.

That was why when the series was restarted back in 2005, I decided to watch again. In the intervening years, I had really only seen half a dozen or so stories, with all but one of them being Tom Baker stories. While having knowledge of the old show did make the new series something I went out of my way to pick up, the new series is engaging entirely on it's own. Nostalgia isn't what's making the show worth watching*, the new series is worth watching because of the fun characters and the generally great writing.

* which is odd since I didn't like the Sylvester McCoy episodes when I saw them later.
* Which I think is basically why the show stayed on the air following the mid-Eighties. Having now caught up on much of the old show in the past few years, I just can't find the appeal of those fine original series episodes.
"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

User avatar
sugarhyped
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:16 am UTC
Location: california

Re: Doctor Who

Postby sugarhyped » Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:31 pm UTC

Link wrote:Interestingly, I actually got into Doctor Who after I saw Torchwood: Children of Earth. I had no idea that it was actually the third series or anything, mind! Anyway, a while after I found out it was a spin-off of DW, I saw that the Sci-Fi channel was showing Doctor Who. The first full episode I saw was The Unicorn and the Wasp - which, despite, in my opinion, not being one of the best episodes in all of Who history, was enough to get me hooked.


Me too actually. I found TW season 1 on youtube somehow. It was around the time countrycide was being uploaded. I started watching it and in all the youtube comments people kept referencing doctor who.
I wanted a signature. I don't know what to put here yet.

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Magnanimous » Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:45 pm UTC

I just realized something about how the Weeping Angels were moving on-screen in Flesh and Stone. The angels usually don't move in scenes because the audience counts as an observer... But we're just watching a film running at 30 frames per second. So we're not technically observing them all of the time, and they're moving between each frame of the video when no one's looking at them.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:47 am UTC

Magnanimous wrote:I just realized something about how the Weeping Angels were moving on-screen in Flesh and Stone. The angels usually don't move in scenes because the audience counts as an observer... But we're just watching a film running at 30 frames per second. So we're not technically observing them all of the time, and they're moving between each frame of the video when no one's looking at them.

This is my handwave as well, but I secretly suspect that the producers made a creative mistake and we're covering for them.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests