Reading through this thread I don't see the Classic V Who thing as being some sort of argument about which is best, more about what elements of Classic Who could be brought back to the show. I think the comments so far have been quite polite and well discussed without resorting to the viciousness of the SM V RTD debates for example.

I actually agree with you. I prefer Classic Who as it's what I grew up with but still enjoy the New Who Stuff a lot. As you say, there are classics and duds in both era's of the show.

Off course it's the same show, some posters in the past have provocatively claimed it's not, but they have been proved wrong through through the stories themselves.

I guess there will always be that divide because of the 16 years lay off and people not having watched the old stuff at all.

Are people actually doing that, though, or is it just a case of people giving their opinions? I admit, in my opinion I find Classic Who to be the much better run, and I'm not going to pretend any different, but I'm not saying that it's cold hard fact.

Different perceptions, but for me I can't help feeling a divide between the two runs, though I acknowledge it's all part of the same franchise, continuity and all. From the style of storytelling to the obvious changes in television, they both feel very distinct from each other. But then, digging down into it and splitting the show up into even more pieces, a lot of it is distinct from the other.

I guess the most accurate comparison I can think of is the two Star Wars trilogies. They're both obviously the same franchise, with shared characters, locations, concepts, etc. but they both stand as two distinct trilogies of their own, whether it be style or the type of storytelling employed.

I mean it as no slight on New or Classic Who. I also see a divide between the show and the Big Finish Audios, for example, but I adore both.

I think there all sorts of divides in Doctor Who. I'm sure in the 80's, there were people who saw 60's Who in the same way some people do with Classic Who now and those who thought the 60's was the best and the 80's were all style and gloss and no story.

Plus as said in last post, look at just New Who on it's own. The RTD V Sm debates which I'm sure will reignite and get extended to a RTD V SM V Chibnall Debate when the time comes!

And yes, I do sometimes feel that the Big Finish stories do get frowned on a bit at times. It took me an age to get to listen to them, glad I did though. As with Classic and New Who, there are crackers and slackers but with that many stories, something is gonna be dull!

I'm in the minority but I disagree with killing the "Romance", I think the Romance makes The Doctor Companion relationship more natural and its good writing, its natural to become attached with The Doctor like Nine/Ten/Rose the whole Rose loving The Doctor thing was a result of how far their relationship grew and how long they've been standing by each other. Rose was a companion who didn't want to leave The Doctor to start a new life even with Mickey and The Doctor gave Rose a whole new leash of life.

He gave her Adventure, and the chance to explore the vast wonders of space and meet interesting people and do all sorts of things only possible in movies. Of course Romance would've blossomed at some point I'd be surprised if it didn't as the Series 1/2 strongly showed it.

But after Martha and Donna, The Feelings went away as he was brought back to his senses, he can't love a human, especially since hes a Time Lord it would've never worked. He was just in love with the fact that after the Post Time War trauma after travelling alone for years someone wanted to stay, it was just some silly crush.

Agree 100%. I never watched the classic series maybe the odd one or two but it didn't appeal to me as much as new who seeing Series 1 I got hooked, I loved RTD for it. But I don't understand why people want to try make New Who more into Classic Who, Classic Who has been and gone its done, part of why New Who became successful its because of how it does things differently compared to Classic Who for people of today, for a new younger audience.

Which is what I admire about RTD and Steven Moffat before Series 8 they created their own memories and aliens and nostalgia, they created their own iconic characters and adventures which everyone could enjoy. Its ok to give callbacks or maybe base an episode on Classic Who but don't try to change it into something its not because ultimately it will fail. Although before anyone says anything I respect eberyone's opinion.

How to make New Who as good as Classic Who?

Well, not write it for the fans I think has to be the first thing. I agree that since Series 8, the show has felt more inward facing (I don't agree that started back in 2010) and is now as far away from the general public as it has been since it came back in 2005.

So to combat this, you don't write the show for the fans. Write it for the general public. Have an appealingly written lead (not sure this is the case at present), not make the stories feel too connected (it can put people off) and have less dark, brooding stories - the show's got to be fun and watchable.

The suggestion to have stories connect from one to another is really a bad one if you ask me. The show, like any other, continues off screen and other things happen when we don't see adventures. To limit it to just stories on screen creates a lack of freedom on many fronts.

Ditching the romance side won't work either - it's been part of the show really since 05 and would be a backwards move now. Modern drama is different to drama of the time of Classic Who. I think some people don't quite get this. TV's moved on.

For Doctor Who to survive, it's got to be broadly written. The whole idea of making it like Classic Who will just kill it off quicker if you ask me.

I think we're gonna have to wait for Chibnall to write again for the general public in that respect.

I don't disagree, but as we saw with Chibnall and Broadchurch (a different kind of show I know) he appealed far and wide to the general public. Admittedly, a whodunnit has a broader appeal than sci-fi, but maybe that touch can be applied to Doctor Who.

In my mind, it was either that or when Moffat decided to go, get someone in with no previous input into the show since it came back. A broader perspective is needed for the show, which inevitably when on forums, isn't quite seen by some.

Can't they just do this for the companions, though, rather than with the Doctor? It feels trashy when he's just moving through women like laundry and we're supposed to believe it's special each time, and just something that detracts from him as a character. Romance on TV is usually poorly written and clichéd anyway, and Doctor Who doesn't tend to break ground there.

I kind of liked Amy and Rory's story. I think it should just be kept to the companions if it absolutely has to be there.

So barring Rose and Reinette for Tennant and then River for Smith, the show's hardly been inundated with romance for the Doctor, has it? I think you calling it trashy is just you projecting your feelings onto it. Romance is hardly trashy in TV. I think that's just your feelings being projected onto the show.

As a whole, it's been with the show since 05 and proved popular. Why would you ditch that now?

There was also Astrid and Christina de Souza. If that wasn't romance then I don't know what it was supposed to be, but it wasn't just friendship either.

"I think you calling it trashy is just you projecting your feelings onto it" Yes... I was stating my feelings of it. In my opinion there is an excessive amount of romance shoehorned into fiction as a box to tick rather than something organic and genuine, and I find TV to be the worst culprit for this.

I did suggest keeping the romance with the companions rather than straight out ditching it. The companions are us, the whole thing works a lot better with them to me.

Well, this is where we'll have to disagree. I think the amount we've seen (Doctor or companion) is about right for any show nowadays. I'm not romantic in the slightest and it doesn't bother me that romance is in fiction, it's a part of life that the majority can feel and empathise with.

Oh, and what romance was there with Christina? I remember Astrid now (I like Kylie, don't know why I forgot her) but what was there with Christina? If there was a kiss, that was all. A kiss doesn't necessarily mean romance...

But it does mean something other than just friends, and I find it a pretty silly thing to slap onto the end of the story.

It just gets repetitive and droll when characters always seem to be in love with each other and other sorts of relationships like friendships and families often get shoved aside in their favour.

Well, romance sells better than friendships and family I'm afraid. As I say, I'm not interesrted in romance myself, but I understand that for a good amount of people, it's something that connects and resonates with them. A romantic story has more permutations to it than friends or family can. It offers more storytelling options as a result, especially in a show like Doctor Who which isn't as limited in its scope compared to other dramas.

My take FWIW....'Romance' involving the Doctor is usually just an artistic cul-de-sac. It can't really go anywhere. River Song worked for me as she had some sort of Timelord DNA, and we saw her die in her first story; thought right up to her last, probably, appearance it worked. But generally speaking with the 'serial' nature of the show and who the Doctor is, it can't end well. Fine for it to be hinted at, but there's a danger that you head into Captain Kirk territory. Oh, he loves her....ah, she's not in next week's episode. So...um...Ah. Unless the nature of the show radically changes, there's just nowhere to go really...

Just a little ramble there!

I disagree, I find romance to be a more limiting type of connection as opposed to other types of relationships which open up an entire pool of possibilities. It's part of my exasperation with the excessive use of romance... it rarely goes any further than "Will they; won't they?"

I think of the growing connection between Dedalus and Bloom in James Joyce's Ulysses, Raskolnikov's strained but sympathetic communications with his mother and sister in Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, Miss Havisham's manipulation and eventual guilt over her daughter Estella in Charles Dickens' Great Expectations... I feel like these type of character stories are still interesting today in the way they were done.

The 'will they, won't they?' trope happens again and again because that's what audiences want. You just have to look at the success of rom-coms etc, and they prove how romance works for audiences. It's an extemely relatable thing romance, that's why its used again and again. Why shouldn't a show like Doctor Who try and reflect things like that?

Friendships for me are for the Doctor and companion(s) - I didn't like the Doctor and Rose I admit but totally bought into the Doctor and River (well Matt's Doctor, not Peter's with her) and romance isn't really part of who I am. To see things like that grow and burgeon on screen is a lovely thing. To me, there's only so far friendships go and then inevitably audiences can then want friends to become romantically involved, thus fulfilling it once more.

When it's done well, it's done well, but I do feel like most of the time it's just ticking a box of "requirements" rather than trying something genuine. It's nothing exciting or compelling, it's just there, an attempt at being popular rather than bringing out quality storytelling. One of the unfortunate parts of TV is this whole conformation thing, even more apparent than in movies, and it's part of why I struggle to get into much TV.

But it often is quality storytelling. And being populist is surely a good thing? A show like Doctor Who needs to be populist to survive. It not being so will just kill it off (which is slowly happening at present if you ask me)

Romance for me is the weakest kind of storytelling and is so often done because of its basic nature. Every time there is a man and a woman there is always the need for them to have something more. It's weak storytelling as it usually stops the characters growing and they enter a rut. It is much more difficult and rewarding to not follow the status quo.

Think you're somewhat overstating things there. It's not every time, you know that. Over-egging it like that hardly helps your argument.

You say its weak storytelling and its basic, but isn't that why people like to watch things grow like that? If its basic, its relatable therefore easier to connect with characters. I am not for one moment saying every character needs relationships, but they are there to reflect life's true aspects, one of which is love and relationships. Quite a lot of people are in them, so shouldn't that be reflected?

In Doctor Who, its hardly ever got that much in the way of the show has it? The only one I can think where it was overdone was Clara and Danny in the Caretaker. That was overdone, but elsewhere its all slotted in perfectly and enhanced the story.

My two penneth.

I think casting the Doctor as a romantic lead at the beginning of New Who in 2005 was a great idea and a key reason the show became the hit it did, here and around the world. I think Christopher and David both filled that role brilliantly and delivered incarnations that took the audience on a heady, passionate adventure for five years.

And I guess that's my point. I don't see the romance element necessarily as a 'will they/won't they' situation between the Doctor and his companion (it certainly wasn't that way with Donna).

For me it's more about how the Doctor interacts with the audience. I think that, with David in particular, a whole section of the viewing public fell head of heels in love with his Doctor and actually still is.

For me Matt's Doctor was more eccentric and emotionally closed, much more like a Classic Doctor, and Peter's Doctor even more so. The 12th incarnation feels much more like a Classic Doctor to me. I find a very strong similarity between Peter's Doctor and Tom Baker's Doctor, even down to how they sound.

But my personal feeling is that a Classic style Doctor just isn't hit the mark with a modern TV audience. And I don't feel popularity and quality are mutually exclusive. The show has hit the mark with both since in first came back in 2005. I just don't see anything that makes me feel the quality of the show has increased, only that its popularity is reducing.

I can't really disagree with that. I don't think Matt's Doctor was as closed off as you're making him out to be though. He was and still is immensley popular in the role and hardly had an off-putting and closed off character. A mad professor? Yes, of course and with that comes the tags 'adorkable' and 'geek chic' that I've seen bandied about with him.

Peter on the other hand, an unlikeable lead character. I honestly don't get the thought process behind that decision. It still seems baffling even now as I still don't like him because of his initial problems. His Doctor's still got many problems though, well in my mind anyway and I think that is reducing the show's overall reach with the wider public.

I do have a soft spot for Matt's Doctor. When he was allowed to be funny, I think he was very funny. I actually think Matt's comedic skills were the best of all the Doctor's so far. And on reflection I think my phrasing was perhaps a little harsh. I guess I found the 11th Doctor less accessible, emotionally, than 9 and 10. But part of that was due to the fact that he had two companions on the trot (Amy and then Clara) who weren't created to be ordinary people but characters with an extraordinary tale of their own. And I think it works best when when there is an ordinary person (somelike like us) on board the TARDIS to draw out those more human interactions with the Doctor.

I do agree with your concerns about 12, however, and I do think this could continue to have a negative impact on the show. I guess we will find out in the Spring!