Is the 'new who' (or 'nuwho', however you prefer to write it) label really still relevant to the revived series?. I know when it was first dreamt up it was actually new and therefore appropriate, but now it's 9 years old and there's nothing new about it. No other series would still be referred to as new after such a length of time. I know it's not a huge problem or anything but it just occurred to me how strange it is to still call something new, when in tv terms, it's now quite old. I think the label will seem even more strange the longer the series goes on. Some of the youngest viewers would not have been born when it was revived at this point, and it probably seems stranger still to some of them that the older people refer to it as 'new' when it's been on all their lives.

Obviously people like to be able to differentiate between the classic series and the revived series but at this stage, I think something more of the like 'current who' or similar would be more fitting. thoughts?

Modern Who is more appropriate at this stage - if it needs a label.

Totally agree that in an ideal world it would all just be called doctor who, but it seems the media etc feel the need to differentiate. They're always going to call it something, and the labels seem to stick. Even we on the forum use the labels of 'new who' and 'classic who' all the time to compare and contrast between the two era's also, so although technically not needed, they do come in handy.

I despise the term 'Nu-Who' just because. 'New Who' makes sense in some discussions as you often need to make a clear distinction between the two eras when discussing certain things and show that you aren't talking about the entire fifty years. Maybe Modern Era is now more apt as New Who isn't that New at all anymore.

While I like to view it as one whole I realize it makes sense to separate the two so whatever suits really. Just not 'Nu-who'.

Nu anything is lazy and pretentious. Be it Nu Metal music etc.
I do separate the pre 89 series and the post 2005 one. Despite it being the same program.
I usually call it good and bad (joke.)

21st Century Who for revived and 20th Century Who for original seems apt to me.

Whenever I mention Doctor Who on here, if it's about Doctors 1-8, I say 'Classic' Who, or if I'm on about Doctors 9-12, I say 'New Who'. It's the way I've always done it since I became a member on here nearly 18 months ago.

But if CD93 thinks that saying 'Modern Who' for Docs 9-12 is better, then that's what I'll do. It actually does seem better.

That's how I always differentiate them.
I really don't like terms like "new" and "classic" applied to TV shows because the words have other connotations that are not related to time periods.

Hasn't really got that snap though, has it? I use Classic and New, not because pre-95 is all classic, or post-95 new any more, but just as a simple delineation. Plus in the arts 'Classic' has no other real connotation than 'first time around'. The original, you might say.

The problem with "Classic" and "New" is that some of the new episodes are also "Classic" in the "will be watched forever repeatedly as a favorite" sense of the word. "The Empty Child" serial, "Blink", "Utopia" serial, "The Girl in the Fireplace" and "The Day of The Doctor" all fall into that category in my humble opinion.


I have seen "Modern Era" or "Modern Who" used quite often. I have seen "20th Century Doctor Who" and "21st Century Doctor Who" used.

I like to refer to the 2005-present period as "The Current Revival". While it distinguishes the current time period from the older one(s), it also establishes a direct continuing and running connection between them. Also, it is the most technically correct since the 1996 TV Movie was, technically, the first revival of the series.

When things rhyme, things stick


They could have avoided all this problem if they had only called it Doctor Orange 50 years ago (but hindsight is 20/20)

I refer to it as Nu-Who or New Who quite often, if only to explain something quickly in context - I really don't think it matters and that people are not-picking for reasons to moan.

I tend to refer to Classic Who as, well, Classic Who

Maybe in the years to come we'll end up referring to newer Who as "Vintage Who" or something

NuHu for 05-13, Classic for the times before and after that, right? Right?!

Modernism was created in the early 20th Century but it hasn't changed its name because its not "modern" any more. New Who is just a title, why does it particularly matter what its referred as, its just a way to distinguish the old format to the new. Perhaps if the series got revived again we could call this period "Renaissance Who"

New Who is just easy to write/say in general conversation and discussion, mainly because the two words rhyme (kind of). It's kind of cute.
For the classic show I sometimes say Old Who which is possibly even more lazy.

Yep, just what I was going to say.

The name 20th Century Who would irrefutably encompass the TV film as well. Whereas there is debate as to whether it fits into "Classic Who".

What about waves? Like in music or periods of history?

Classic - 1st Wave
TVM - 2nd Wave
New - 3rd Wave

The TVM is more of a ripple than a wave!

But you could have 'current who' and then you'd have the whole aliteration effect of saying 'current who' and 'classic who', which would also be kind of cute. Not to mention more accurate.

you realise you said classic after 2013 as well as before 2005. Sounds like you think it will be reverted back to be being called classic who this year for some reason. I expect you just made a typing error or worded it wrong but reading it confused me so I had to ask.

Personally, I despise the term "classic" who to reference the older series as not all of it is classic by a long stretch

"Original" and "Modern" who will do.
I'd also accept "first" and "revived" and "pre-renewal" and "renewed" if you ask nicely

I see the suggestion of 'Modern who' is popping up a lot, and while think it has a nice ring to it, the one thing that might be a problem with such a label is that if your calling it 'modern who' then that might seem to suggest that what came before it is must be 'old fashioned who' by default, which wouldn't be a very nice reputation to stick on classic who

"The revived series" would be more apt, IMO.

If differentiating for clarity I personally write C20 and C21 Who. Partly because I just love the fact that the programme still thrives in a new century (indeed millennium) when for so very long it looked like it would be 1963 to 1989 plus 1996.

Ooooh, we could differentiate by M2 and M3.