As does: "an orange by itself is an orange, and a sausage by itself is a sausage...but if you put an orange, a sausage and a TOMATO next to each other, you have a piano inside a strawberry
Series 1 - 4 + Specials I Dont Fancey sticking a series 1 with matt smith on the end of them or a sereis 31?!?!??!
Whereas I have all my DVDs on shelves, in transmission order, and having two shelves full of Doctor Who stories and then four boxes claiming to be 'series 1, 2, 3 & 4' just looks ridiculous. At least series 31 would be accurate.
The final figures for "The End Of Time" will be around twelve MILLION viewers; the Original Series DVDs sell in the tens of THOUSANDS.
So as far as 99.5% of the audience is concerned what happened before 2005 is completely irrelevant.
Why would Old Who be irrelevant? Surely if you really enjoy a series with a central character who one way or another has been around for decades, why wouldn't you want to know more? You see the Daleks or Cybermen, don't you think 'what are they? He knows them, they know him, they must have met before, I wonder where and why?'
It sounds like deciding to support a football team but deciding prior to you going nothing matters, so you don't care about the high and low points in its history; you'd be going around in a vacuum knowing only part of the story and missing out on so much.
Why would Old Who be irrelevant? Surely if you really enjoy a series with a central character who one way or another has been around for decades, why wouldn't you want to know more?
Because it's a TV show. Most viewers turn it on to spend an entertaining 45 minutes, 13 times a year, and that's the extent of their committment.
So you own the abysmal Doctor Who relaunch then? How odd.
Not really. I'm a completist, like most people who are into a particular hobby. I have a collector's mentality: it might be crap, but I have to own it.
Why would Old Who be irrelevant? Surely if you really enjoy a series with a central character who one way or another has been around for decades, why wouldn't you want to know more? You see the Daleks or Cybermen, don't you think 'what are they? He knows them, they know him, they must have met before, I wonder where and why?'
It sounds like deciding to support a football team but deciding prior to you going nothing matters, so you don't care about the high and low points in its history; you'd be going around in a vacuum knowing only part of the story and missing out on so much.
Actually having read the article in DWM (and isn't it scary that both the current Doctor and companion is younger than that magazine) now I understand why it may well be marketed as Doctor 11's season 1. It's about the people who produce the goods saying that series/season 5 is an ageing franchise. Though the clapperboards said season one the read through said season 31.
Actually having read the article in DWM (and isn't it scary that both the current Doctor and companion is younger than that magazine) now I understand why it may well be marketed as Doctor 11's season 1. It's about the people who produce the goods saying that series/season 5 is an ageing franchise. Though the clapperboards said season one the read through said season 31.
We won't know for definite until the summer when the new series boxset is released, but I for one would be amazed if it is marketed as series 'one'. As the final part of "End of Time" made clear, this new series will be a clear continuation and is inextricably linked to the last series.
I suspect this is all a fuss about nothing and a clever ruse by Moffat to get people talking about his new series (and he has certainly succeeded).
I have a media center pc hooked up to my telly. The episodes from series 1-5 from the new series are labelled under "Doctor Who (2005)", since this is a technically different show to "Doctor Who". I expect the next series to be labelled as season 1 of "Doctor Who (2010)".
But this is just because of my weird mentality that means I organise everything according to data on thetvdb.com, so I fully understand other people may have trouble adjusting to a new labelling method based on other organisational mentalities.
Of course, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
Okay, there's a lot of confusion in this thread so lets go to what Moffat actually says in DWM:
He was at a meeting with the marketing guys who were whining about 'series 5' being "an ageing brand". Moffat basically told 'em off, saying 'series 5' is a lie, "it's Series Thirty-One of Doctor Who, and it's Series One of Matt Smith's Doctor," he said. I'm sure we'll all agree that's factually correct.
He goes on to say "I have no problem calling it Series Thirty-One. In fact, I'd rather call it Series Thirty-One, because that means it's immortal. It's an incredible achievement to have that number of shows and that level of success. It's become a slight issue for me over the years, that people like to pretend it only got good in 2005. That is not true. It was already a phenomenon and every single huge, iconic success in Doctor Who was in place by about 1970. So we should honour our past, because that's where the sonic screwdriver and regeneration and the Doctor and police box and the TARDIS all come from. The absolute bones of this show were made a long, long time ago."
So there you have it. Moffat wants it to be series 31, the marketing guys, who want to shift a few extra DVDs, are calling series 1.
Comments
As does: "an orange by itself is an orange, and a sausage by itself is a sausage...but if you put an orange, a sausage and a TOMATO next to each other, you have a piano inside a strawberry
next to my tv i got all my whouniverse dvds sets
Series 1 - 4 + Specials I Dont Fancey sticking a series 1 with matt smith on the end of them or a sereis 31?!?!??!
Regards,
Cypher
Whereas I have all my DVDs on shelves, in transmission order, and having two shelves full of Doctor Who stories and then four boxes claiming to be 'series 1, 2, 3 & 4' just looks ridiculous. At least series 31 would be accurate.
Why would Old Who be irrelevant? Surely if you really enjoy a series with a central character who one way or another has been around for decades, why wouldn't you want to know more? You see the Daleks or Cybermen, don't you think 'what are they? He knows them, they know him, they must have met before, I wonder where and why?'
It sounds like deciding to support a football team but deciding prior to you going nothing matters, so you don't care about the high and low points in its history; you'd be going around in a vacuum knowing only part of the story and missing out on so much.
Because it's a TV show. Most viewers turn it on to spend an entertaining 45 minutes, 13 times a year, and that's the extent of their committment.
I'm not even sure it counts as a sentence and it's none descript at that.
Considering how few ever make it to Series 5 he should consider it exciting!
Totally agree. Just baffling. Then surely series 31 is much more exciting?
Yup, his comments make perfect sense (and seem logically accurate) to me.
There we go.
It might be a bit confusing trying to order Series 1 of Doctor Who off Amazon in the future however ha ha
We won't know for definite until the summer when the new series boxset is released, but I for one would be amazed if it is marketed as series 'one'. As the final part of "End of Time" made clear, this new series will be a clear continuation and is inextricably linked to the last series.
I suspect this is all a fuss about nothing and a clever ruse by Moffat to get people talking about his new series (and he has certainly succeeded).
Yep, thats about sums it up for me as well. Not really sure what the fuss is about? It can be called Keith for all I care.
I have a media center pc hooked up to my telly. The episodes from series 1-5 from the new series are labelled under "Doctor Who (2005)", since this is a technically different show to "Doctor Who". I expect the next series to be labelled as season 1 of "Doctor Who (2010)".
But this is just because of my weird mentality that means I organise everything according to data on thetvdb.com, so I fully understand other people may have trouble adjusting to a new labelling method based on other organisational mentalities.
Of course, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
It's the 31st season/series of a TV show called Doctor Who. It also happens to be the first season/series of DW made with Matt Smith as the lead.
Simple logic to me.
Wrong. Moffat is exclusively calling it "series 31" at read throughs.
He was at a meeting with the marketing guys who were whining about 'series 5' being "an ageing brand". Moffat basically told 'em off, saying 'series 5' is a lie, "it's Series Thirty-One of Doctor Who, and it's Series One of Matt Smith's Doctor," he said. I'm sure we'll all agree that's factually correct.
He goes on to say "I have no problem calling it Series Thirty-One. In fact, I'd rather call it Series Thirty-One, because that means it's immortal. It's an incredible achievement to have that number of shows and that level of success. It's become a slight issue for me over the years, that people like to pretend it only got good in 2005. That is not true. It was already a phenomenon and every single huge, iconic success in Doctor Who was in place by about 1970. So we should honour our past, because that's where the sonic screwdriver and regeneration and the Doctor and police box and the TARDIS all come from. The absolute bones of this show were made a long, long time ago."
So there you have it. Moffat wants it to be series 31, the marketing guys, who want to shift a few extra DVDs, are calling series 1.