Do you think it will still be on tv by 2023 which will be the 60th aniversury
how long will Doctor who be on tv for
1 of 2
This is a question I genuley ask myself.
The show has now gone on so long (on and off admittedly) that the Doctor is now in his second set of regenerations. My DVD boxet is almost complete to the episodes so far.. I'm in the middle of a rerun of the series up to Season, The Satan Pit.
But after that I'm not sure why I'll have the time to watch again, I have my TNG box set to watch
When do we get to a point when we say, "actually. We've told all the story we can." I know how daft that sounds when we're talking about all of time and space but still
The show has now gone on so long (on and off admittedly) that the Doctor is now in his second set of regenerations. My DVD boxet is almost complete to the episodes so far.. I'm in the middle of a rerun of the series up to Season, The Satan Pit.
But after that I'm not sure why I'll have the time to watch again, I have my TNG box set to watch
When do we get to a point when we say, "actually. We've told all the story we can." I know how daft that sounds when we're talking about all of time and space but still
Originally Posted by bennythedip:
“Be on long after I'm dead. Even if its cancelled it will return at some point in the future.”
“Be on long after I'm dead. Even if its cancelled it will return at some point in the future.”
I think you're right. It's too good a concept to be dropped for good.
The best ideas are always revived, reworked, remade, rebooted, revisited.
Eventually.
If/when Doctor Who ceases production (many years from now), it will return.
Eventually.
Eventually.
If/when Doctor Who ceases production (many years from now), it will return.
Eventually.
The Doctor, the Tardis, the Daleks - they're part of our mythology now. They're referenced in lots of other things; magazine articles about houses that are bigger than they look; the shape of household utensils; people who wear long scarves.
I doubt DW will be on TV continuously, that's too much to expect, but he'll always be revived, like Robin Hood and King Arthur.
I doubt DW will be on TV continuously, that's too much to expect, but he'll always be revived, like Robin Hood and King Arthur.
Originally Posted by GDK:
“The best ideas are always revived, reworked, remade, rebooted, revisited.
Eventually.
If/when Doctor Who ceases production (many years from now), it will return.
Eventually.”
“The best ideas are always revived, reworked, remade, rebooted, revisited.
Eventually.
If/when Doctor Who ceases production (many years from now), it will return.
Eventually.”
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“The Doctor, the Tardis, the Daleks - they're part of our mythology now. They're referenced in lots of other things; magazine articles about houses that are bigger than they look; the shape of household utensils; people who wear long scarves.
I doubt DW will be on TV continuously, that's too much to expect, but he'll always be revived, like Robin Hood and King Arthur.”
“The Doctor, the Tardis, the Daleks - they're part of our mythology now. They're referenced in lots of other things; magazine articles about houses that are bigger than they look; the shape of household utensils; people who wear long scarves.
I doubt DW will be on TV continuously, that's too much to expect, but he'll always be revived, like Robin Hood and King Arthur.
”
The sentiments in your posts about it eventually returning are likely true, but the question is, would you still watch it if it came back as a total reboot - as in we were meeting the doctor for the first time and all established who was nothing to do with the new version?
Obviously RTD could have done such a thing in 2005, but even as someone who hadn't seen the show before then, I think it was a good thing he didn't. You could imagine though, someone in a similar position, where they were tasked with rebooting the show after 10 years or more off air being very tempted.
Not everyone would have the writing tact of RTD to be able to appeal to a whole new audience whilst still pleasing the older viewers, and some might think it just easier to start fresh.
If it were ever the case, even with the Doctor, TARDIS, Daleks, all present, I'm not sure i'd be interested in a completely new version of the doctor separate from the one that has always been.
Out of interest, would any of you who are classic who fans on this forum have watched in 2005 if it had been the case then?
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“The sentiments in your posts about it eventually returning are likely true, but the question is, would you still watch it if it came back as a total reboot - as in we were meeting the doctor for the first time and all established who was nothing to do with the new version?
Obviously RTD could have done such a thing in 2005, but even as someone who hadn't seen the show before then, I think it was a good thing he didn't. You could imagine though, someone in a similar position, where they were tasked with rebooting the show after 10 years or more off air being very tempted.
Not everyone would have the writing tact of RTD to be able to appeal to a whole new audience whilst still pleasing the older viewers, and some might think it just easier to start fresh.
If it were ever the case, even with the Doctor, TARDIS, Daleks, all present, I'm not sure i'd be interested in a completely new version of the doctor separate from the one that has always been.
Out of interest, would any of you who are classic who fans on this forum have watched in 2005 if it had been the case then?”
“The sentiments in your posts about it eventually returning are likely true, but the question is, would you still watch it if it came back as a total reboot - as in we were meeting the doctor for the first time and all established who was nothing to do with the new version?
Obviously RTD could have done such a thing in 2005, but even as someone who hadn't seen the show before then, I think it was a good thing he didn't. You could imagine though, someone in a similar position, where they were tasked with rebooting the show after 10 years or more off air being very tempted.
Not everyone would have the writing tact of RTD to be able to appeal to a whole new audience whilst still pleasing the older viewers, and some might think it just easier to start fresh.
If it were ever the case, even with the Doctor, TARDIS, Daleks, all present, I'm not sure i'd be interested in a completely new version of the doctor separate from the one that has always been.
Out of interest, would any of you who are classic who fans on this forum have watched in 2005 if it had been the case then?”
Possibly not. :P I gave it a go because it was Doctor Who but otherwise I would have quickly wrote it off.
I've always been interested in somebody else taking on the "mantle" of the Doctor and continuing on for him, but in the same TARDIS. The Doctor's always been more of an ideal or an icon than a character and it could make a nice change of pace to see a Doctor who's more inexperienced without having to meddle with the old one.
Hard to say whether I'd watch a total reboot. It might just seem like another Time Lord rather than my Time Lord if there were no connection with what went before. But if it were done well, I think I would watch.
Unless the Doctor were female, then I wouldn't.
Unless the Doctor were female, then I wouldn't.
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“Hard to say whether I'd watch a total reboot. It might just seem like another Time Lord rather than my Time Lord if there were no connection with what went before. But if it were done well, I think I would watch.
Unless the Doctor were female, then I wouldn't.”
“Hard to say whether I'd watch a total reboot. It might just seem like another Time Lord rather than my Time Lord if there were no connection with what went before. But if it were done well, I think I would watch.
Unless the Doctor were female, then I wouldn't.
”
Hopefully the next Doctor will be female then.
Originally Posted by gslam2:
“Hopefully the next Doctor will be female then.”
“Hopefully the next Doctor will be female then.”
You want me to stop watching?
The BBC will make "Doctor Who" as long as there are enough viewers watching to make it
viable. That's all.
It's lasted longer than I thought-when Doctor Who came back in 2005, I thought it could last 7-8 years at most.
viable. That's all.
It's lasted longer than I thought-when Doctor Who came back in 2005, I thought it could last 7-8 years at most.
Originally Posted by Lord Smexy:
“Possibly not. :P I gave it a go because it was Doctor Who but otherwise I would have quickly wrote it off.
I've always been interested in somebody else taking on the "mantle" of the Doctor and continuing on for him, but in the same TARDIS. The Doctor's always been more of an ideal or an icon than a character and it could make a nice change of pace to see a Doctor who's more inexperienced without having to meddle with the old one.”
“Possibly not. :P I gave it a go because it was Doctor Who but otherwise I would have quickly wrote it off.
I've always been interested in somebody else taking on the "mantle" of the Doctor and continuing on for him, but in the same TARDIS. The Doctor's always been more of an ideal or an icon than a character and it could make a nice change of pace to see a Doctor who's more inexperienced without having to meddle with the old one.”
I think both RTD and Moffat have done enough to show his flaws (Davros in journeys end taking the doctor down a peg by pointing out how much death is caused in his name, The doctor effectively sentencing Solomon to his death basically because he didn't like him in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship are just some examples that come to mind), to show that he is a realistic character rather than some sort of perfect idol.
As for someone else taking over from the Doctor, that would almost be as bad as a total reboot for me. An apprentice timelord character as a permanent fixture with the Doctor would be an interesting idea, because it would be a permanent companion who we could really get to know (and who, being a timelord, could change in appearance as much as the show required). You could also still have the usual coming and going human companions, but you'd have a permanent pairing of the Doctor and his timelord friend (plus if it turned out to be a bad idea, they could easily just write the character out).
Someone just taking over from the Doctor would be a big no for me though. As far as I am concerned, if there was no doctor on a permanent basis, it would not be Doctor Who.
There's really no need to replace the Doctor with another character or reboot the series.
The format is flexible enough to just give a new Doctor amnesia for a while and maybe have him accidentally revisit places before his original intervention. Changing the origin of the Daleks (again), for example.
It would be easy enough to put an amnesiac 'novice' Doctor in an altered timeline without having to kill-off the original character or reboot the entire series.
The beauty of Doctor Who is that it can just keep moving forward with a new cast. It makes rebooting redundant.
The format is flexible enough to just give a new Doctor amnesia for a while and maybe have him accidentally revisit places before his original intervention. Changing the origin of the Daleks (again), for example.
It would be easy enough to put an amnesiac 'novice' Doctor in an altered timeline without having to kill-off the original character or reboot the entire series.
The beauty of Doctor Who is that it can just keep moving forward with a new cast. It makes rebooting redundant.
Originally Posted by be more pacific:
“There's really no need to replace the Doctor with another character or reboot the series.
The format is flexible enough to just give a new Doctor amnesia for a while and maybe have him accidentally revisit places before his original intervention. Changing the origin of the Daleks (again), for example.
It would be easy enough to put an amnesiac 'novice' Doctor in an altered timeline without having to kill-off the original character or reboot the entire series.
The beauty of Doctor Who is that it can just keep moving forward with a new cast. It makes rebooting redundant.”
“There's really no need to replace the Doctor with another character or reboot the series.
The format is flexible enough to just give a new Doctor amnesia for a while and maybe have him accidentally revisit places before his original intervention. Changing the origin of the Daleks (again), for example.
It would be easy enough to put an amnesiac 'novice' Doctor in an altered timeline without having to kill-off the original character or reboot the entire series.
The beauty of Doctor Who is that it can just keep moving forward with a new cast. It makes rebooting redundant.”
To me, giving the Doctor amnesia is almost the same as replacing him. People are the sum of there memories and experience, and if the Doctor had no memories then there would be no historical quips and name dropping, no going to a planet and the doctor recognising a race, or drawing on old memories to solve the problem. He wouldn't even automatically be inclined to try because he wouldn't know how good he is at saving people and solving problems, or even that he enjoys travelling. An amnesiac Doctor in a new timeline would effectively be a reboot in all but name.
Plus if your having to start the series with the explanation of his amnesia then that seems more baggage at the start, and a potential turn off for new viewers, than just a continuation. Especially since they'd have no idea what he has supposed to have forgotten.
I really think that RTD got it right in 2005, by positioning it as a continuation, but out of consideration for new fans being very explanatory at the start and then only gradually drip feeding classic who references. It would make the most sense for any future revival to do the same, and it would be what most fans would want/expect, and would likely be the difference between those fans tuning in or not. If that time comes then it would just be down to having the right person in charge of the revival who would be sensible enough to see that.
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“I think both RTD and Moffat have done enough to show his flaws (Davros in journeys end taking the doctor down a peg by pointing out how much death is caused in his name, The doctor effectively sentencing Solomon to his death basically because he didn't like him in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship are just some examples that come to mind), to show that he is a realistic character rather than some sort of perfect idol.”
“I think both RTD and Moffat have done enough to show his flaws (Davros in journeys end taking the doctor down a peg by pointing out how much death is caused in his name, The doctor effectively sentencing Solomon to his death basically because he didn't like him in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship are just some examples that come to mind), to show that he is a realistic character rather than some sort of perfect idol.”
When did I say perfect idol? I was talking about how, when one thinks of the Doctor, they don't tend to think of a specific character so much as they do a concept. It's the whole nature of it.
Originally Posted by Lord Smexy:
“When did I say perfect idol? I was talking about how, when one thinks of the Doctor, they don't tend to think of a specific character so much as they do a concept. It's the whole nature of it.”
“When did I say perfect idol? I was talking about how, when one thinks of the Doctor, they don't tend to think of a specific character so much as they do a concept. It's the whole nature of it.”
Well your actual words were
Originally Posted by Lord Smexy:
“
The Doctor's always been more of an ideal or an icon than a character .”
“
The Doctor's always been more of an ideal or an icon than a character .”
which I'm not trying to argue with you on your perception or opinion, but it's obviously a difference of opinion with my own because I see him as a character as much as any other on tv rather than a concept.
Like I was trying to say earlier, if he were written as some sort of ideal, then I don't think they'd so often show his flaws, or constantly mention how he needs a companion to keep him grounded.
You can't really say 'when one thinks of the Doctor, they don't tend to think of a specific character', because that would be untrue for many people. You can only say that's your perception.
I on the other hand see a character with good and bad, light and dark, specific traits which run through the incarnations, and all in all, a character,not a concept.
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“Well your actual words were
which I'm not trying to argue with you on your perception or opinion, but it's obviously a difference of opinion with my own because I see him as a character rather than a concept.
Like I was trying to say earlier, if he were written as some sort of ideal, then I don't think they'd so often show his flaws, or constantly mention how he needs a companion to keep him grounded.
You can't really say 'when one thinks of the Doctor, they don't tend to think of a specific character', because that would be untrue for many people. You can only say that's your perception.
I on the other hand see a character with good and bad, light and dark, specific traits which run through the incarnations, and all in all, a character,not a concept.”
“Well your actual words were
which I'm not trying to argue with you on your perception or opinion, but it's obviously a difference of opinion with my own because I see him as a character rather than a concept.
Like I was trying to say earlier, if he were written as some sort of ideal, then I don't think they'd so often show his flaws, or constantly mention how he needs a companion to keep him grounded.
You can't really say 'when one thinks of the Doctor, they don't tend to think of a specific character', because that would be untrue for many people. You can only say that's your perception.
I on the other hand see a character with good and bad, light and dark, specific traits which run through the incarnations, and all in all, a character,not a concept.”
You can write a character as an ideal of sorts, and still give them flaws and character traits. There's no written rule that says you can't, or that a character written as a sort of ideal has to be perfect, which you seem to be assuming. All heroes are an ideal to some extent.
As for seeing the character as a concept, people always to
talk about who could play the character next, what he could be like, and so forth, no? Specific regenerations can be a specific character, but overall he's a sort of concept or icon in being a face-changing alien who travels through time and space but with many different incarnations and personalities. People are free to see it differently, but I assume that's how most think because that's how they talk about him.
Each Doctor is essentially a different character to me, but they're all one and the same in concept.
Originally Posted by Lord Smexy:
“You can write a character as an ideal of sorts, and still give them flaws and character traits. There's no written rule that says you can't, or that a character written as a sort of ideal has to be perfect, which you seem to be assuming. All heroes are an ideal to some extent.
As for seeing the character as a concept, people always to
talk about who could play the character next, what he could be like, and so forth, no? Specific regenerations can be a specific character, but overall he's a sort of concept or icon in being a face-changing alien who travels through time and space but with many different incarnations and personalities. People are free to see it differently, but I assume that's how most think because that's how they talk about him.
Each Doctor is essentially a different character to me, but they're all one and the same in concept.”
“You can write a character as an ideal of sorts, and still give them flaws and character traits. There's no written rule that says you can't, or that a character written as a sort of ideal has to be perfect, which you seem to be assuming. All heroes are an ideal to some extent.
As for seeing the character as a concept, people always to
talk about who could play the character next, what he could be like, and so forth, no? Specific regenerations can be a specific character, but overall he's a sort of concept or icon in being a face-changing alien who travels through time and space but with many different incarnations and personalities. People are free to see it differently, but I assume that's how most think because that's how they talk about him.
Each Doctor is essentially a different character to me, but they're all one and the same in concept.”
When people talk about who could play the Doctor next, they also discount people on the basis that they couldn't see them in the role or they are not 'Doctor-y' enough. If everyone thought each incarnation was a different character that wouldn't matter.
I see the same core personality through all of them - wanting to save people, love of travel, adversity to killing, sticking to personal morals etc and feel that regeneration only alters the surface personality - the top layer of how they interact with people, but deep down, and in many traits, he's still recognisable as the doctor.
If the 13th doctor appeared and thought war was good and that he was bored of travelling, people would wonder what was going on and say that's not the doctor - because he is a defined character even though certain top layer emotional traits may alter in each incarnation.
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“When people talk about who could play the Doctor next, they also discount people on the basis that they couldn't see them in the role or they are not 'Doctor-y' enough. If everyone thought each incarnation was a different character that wouldn't matter.
I see the same core personality through all of them - wanting to save people, love of travel, adversity to killing, sticking to personal morals etc and feel that regeneration only alters the surface personality - the top layer of how they interact with people, but deep down, and in many traits, he's still recognisable as the doctor.
If the 13th doctor appeared and thought war was good and that he was bored of travelling, people would wonder what was going on and say that's not the doctor - because he is a defined character even though certain top layer emotional traits may alter in each incarnation.”
“When people talk about who could play the Doctor next, they also discount people on the basis that they couldn't see them in the role or they are not 'Doctor-y' enough. If everyone thought each incarnation was a different character that wouldn't matter.
I see the same core personality through all of them - wanting to save people, love of travel, adversity to killing, sticking to personal morals etc and feel that regeneration only alters the surface personality - the top layer of how they interact with people, but deep down, and in many traits, he's still recognisable as the doctor.
If the 13th doctor appeared and thought war was good and that he was bored of travelling, people would wonder what was going on and say that's not the doctor - because he is a defined character even though certain top layer emotional traits may alter in each incarnation.”
Which fits into the whole ideal part to me. He's always been somebody to aspire to.
I'm not arguing that the Doctor should be perfect and have no character flaws, which seemed to be the initial implication. David Tennant's Doctor comes across as the most "perfect" to me and you know well that I'm not keen on that portrayal. I prefer the less conventionally heroic types like Tom Baker and Peter Capaldi.
You could say the Doctor is crazy, but Pertwee wasn't. You could say he was calm, but Troughton wasn't. You could say he was bubbly, but Hartnell wasn't. You could say he was wise, but Tennant wasn't. There have been some very different characters we've seen as the Doctor, but to me it's all part of an iconic concept or ideal. They all teach about selflessness and bravery and the wonders of the world, and how being a hero isn't about muscles or a great smile. That to me is someone who is presented as many different characters, but is overall an ideal or a symbol.
Originally Posted by Lord Smexy:
“Which fits into the whole ideal part to me. He's always been somebody to aspire to.
I'm not arguing that the Doctor should be perfect and have no character flaws, which seemed to be the initial implication. David Tennant's Doctor comes across as the most "perfect" to me and you know well that I'm not keen on that portrayal. I prefer the less conventionally heroic types like Tom Baker and Peter Capaldi.
You could say the Doctor is crazy, but Pertwee wasn't. You could say he was calm, but Troughton wasn't. You could say he was bubbly, but Hartnell wasn't. You could say he was wise, but Tennant wasn't. There have been some very different characters we've seen as the Doctor, but to me it's all part of an iconic concept or ideal. They all teach about selflessness and bravery and the wonders of the world, and how being a hero isn't about muscles or a great smile. That to me is someone who is presented as many different characters, but is overall an ideal or a symbol.”
“Which fits into the whole ideal part to me. He's always been somebody to aspire to.
I'm not arguing that the Doctor should be perfect and have no character flaws, which seemed to be the initial implication. David Tennant's Doctor comes across as the most "perfect" to me and you know well that I'm not keen on that portrayal. I prefer the less conventionally heroic types like Tom Baker and Peter Capaldi.
You could say the Doctor is crazy, but Pertwee wasn't. You could say he was calm, but Troughton wasn't. You could say he was bubbly, but Hartnell wasn't. You could say he was wise, but Tennant wasn't. There have been some very different characters we've seen as the Doctor, but to me it's all part of an iconic concept or ideal. They all teach about selflessness and bravery and the wonders of the world, and how being a hero isn't about muscles or a great smile. That to me is someone who is presented as many different characters, but is overall an ideal or a symbol.”
I feel like on some level we might be saying the same sort of thing from different angles, as practically everything you say proves the idea of the doctor as a concept are things I would use to say that he is a distinct character, and like I said, the different bubbly/zanny/ serious/grumpy type traits are, to me just surface trait changes that dont alter the clear core character, that for me shines through in all incarantions i've seen.
Obviously you see it differently than I do, and I think we've gone in circles on the same subject enough that we should probably just save us both some time repeating the same things by agreeing to disagree.
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“To me, giving the Doctor amnesia is almost the same as replacing him. People are the sum of there memories and experience, and if the Doctor had no memories then there would be no historical quips and name dropping, no going to a planet and the doctor recognising a race, or drawing on old memories to solve the problem. He wouldn't even automatically be inclined to try because he wouldn't know how good he is at saving people and solving problems, or even that he enjoys travelling. An amnesiac Doctor in a new timeline would effectively be a reboot in all but name.
Plus if your having to start the series with the explanation of his amnesia then that seems more baggage at the start, and a potential turn off for new viewers, than just a continuation. Especially since they'd have no idea what he has supposed to have forgotten.
I really think that RTD got it right in 2005, by positioning it as a continuation, but out of consideration for new fans being very explanatory at the start and then only gradually drip feeding classic who references. It would make the most sense for any future revival to do the same, and it would be what most fans would want/expect, and would likely be the difference between those fans tuning in or not. If that time comes then it would just be down to having the right person in charge of the revival who would be sensible enough to see that.”
“To me, giving the Doctor amnesia is almost the same as replacing him. People are the sum of there memories and experience, and if the Doctor had no memories then there would be no historical quips and name dropping, no going to a planet and the doctor recognising a race, or drawing on old memories to solve the problem. He wouldn't even automatically be inclined to try because he wouldn't know how good he is at saving people and solving problems, or even that he enjoys travelling. An amnesiac Doctor in a new timeline would effectively be a reboot in all but name.
Plus if your having to start the series with the explanation of his amnesia then that seems more baggage at the start, and a potential turn off for new viewers, than just a continuation. Especially since they'd have no idea what he has supposed to have forgotten.
I really think that RTD got it right in 2005, by positioning it as a continuation, but out of consideration for new fans being very explanatory at the start and then only gradually drip feeding classic who references. It would make the most sense for any future revival to do the same, and it would be what most fans would want/expect, and would likely be the difference between those fans tuning in or not. If that time comes then it would just be down to having the right person in charge of the revival who would be sensible enough to see that.”
What about, instead of amnesia during a revival, what if we took a single Series, Series 12, and gave The Doctor one of those Fob Watches where he doesn't know that he is a Time Lord and he is just living a much more mundane life maybe being a detective or a cop here on Earth? It could be a punishment if necessary, much like Pertwee's exile.
1 of 2
