Stevethulhu
Studiously Indifferent
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2017
- Messages
- 3,491
- Reaction score
- 5,309
Calling a show that started in 2005 new is something I find bizarre. But that’s me.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's all relative, given that the original started in 1963, what else might one call them?Calling a show that started in 2005 new is something I find bizarre. But that’s me.
Doctor Who. It's not exactly rocket science. It's the same show, after all.It's all relative, given that the original started in 1963, what else might one call them?
There was a 17 year hiatus in production and a major format change from 4-6 episode cliffhangers to 60-minute single episodes. Although (and props to the Beeb) they have by and large made a decent fist of retaining a Dr. Who look and feel without it looking dated. The scripts are pretty hit-and-miss, though,[1] although I haven't regularly watched it post-2005.[2]Doctor Who. It's not exactly rocket science. It's the same show, after all.
So? Cold Feet had a similar hiatus and nobody argues that it's a different show. In Who's case this is backed up by them having Sarah Jane Smith as a recurring character.There was a 17 year hiatus in production and a major format change from 4-6 episode cliffhangers to 60-minute single episodes.
I've never even heard of Cold Feet, so I can't really comment on it. Probably didn't make it onto TVNZ's buy list. I suppose you're right, though - the new Red Dwarf isn't really called New anything.So? Cold Feet had a similar hiatus and nobody argues that it's a different show. In Who's case this is backed up by them having Sarah Jane Smith as a recurring character.
It's the same show. And it's not the first time they had shifted from a 25 minute to a 45 minute format. They did that back in the 80s, too.
May the Force be with you , Harry - GandalfI've never even heard of Cold Feet, so I can't really comment on it. Probably didn't make it onto TVNZ's buy list. I suppose you're right, though - the new Red Dwarf isn't really called New anything.
Occasionally I've referred to it as TNG Who. May the force be with you.
It kinda is, but... it kinda isn't? It's the same main character and overall concept, but a lot of things are very distinct, it's not quite a direct link between the two. You could make a solid argument that it's a new show that is just strongly inspired by the old one...Doctor Who. It's not exactly rocket science. It's the same show, after all.
As we've discussed upthread, the bit in 9's last episode - where the Doctor is threatening to build a bomb that will wipe out all of the Daleks but also destroy all life on earth, and the Emperor of the Daleks calls his bluff - does this sort of plot point very well... I'm not sure it would fit with any of the later Doctors though, when they're really past the Time War PTSD.One thing I have noticed about New Who is that the Doctor threatens and postures at bad guys a lot more than in Old Who. I found it a bit jarring when they put lines like that in the scripts. There was a shade of that in the first JW episodes, but I saw more of it in clips from David Tennant and Matt Smith.
If a character hadn't appeared in both shows, you might have a point. But as I said, Sarah Jane Smith is a direct contamination of a character from the 70s. K9, Davros. It's the same show.It kinda is, but... it kinda isn't? It's the same main character and overall concept, but a lot of things are very distinct, it's not quite a direct link between the two. You could make a solid argument that it's a new show that is just strongly inspired by the old one...
Personally I think that for detailed discussion it's usually easier to refer to eras of the show by Doctor, like you'd generally refer to long-running comic books by each creator's run on the series, else you get into ridiculousness quickly.
As we've discussed upthread, the bit in 9's last episode - where the Doctor is threatening to build a bomb that will wipe out all of the Daleks but also destroy all life on earth, and the Emperor of the Daleks calls his bluff - does this sort of plot point very well... I'm not sure it would fit with any of the later Doctors though, when they're really past the Time War PTSD.
As has been noted previously, I'm very much a fan of 9.And 9 not wiping out the Daleks is a direct callback to 4 also choosing to not wipe them out. It’s perhaps 9s most Doctorish moment.
If you watch McCoy's final season and RTD's first, there's a surprising amount in common. Especially in terms if the companion.Doctor Who is the same show, but when it came back there was significant enough retooling of the show that I think it's important to have a way acknowledge the divide. When I use Old Who and New Who, I am not suggesting that they aren't the same show, just that they are significantly different eras of the show.
I do hope someone in their script team queried using "Vor" as the name for the evil totally-not-Google organisation. "Vor is more powerful than some national governments", "Vor sneaks into every corner of modern technology"... it sure does, BBC. It sure does.
Weirdly, I agree. This series opener has been the best Who since Time Heist and Mummy on the Orient Express.Yes
I approve of where this is going.
No more subtle than The Green Death. Or The Sun Makers. Or Daleks, come to think of it. Subtlety is not one if Who's stronger suits.This week's episode was some good running about doing Doctor Who things, but did you GET the SUBTEXT at the end? You might have missed it, they were being VERY SUBTLE about it.
This week's episode was some good running about doing Doctor Who things, but did you GET the SUBTEXT at the end? You might have missed it, they were being VERY SUBTLE about it.
Given the situation it was highlighting i think was - and is - very necessaryI think the beating-you-over-the-head bit right at the end was unnecessary, in that it didn't seem to be giving the audience a lot of credit ("er, yeah, we get it..."). But I'm certainly not opposed to Who being used as a vehicle to say stuff about stuff.
No, no. I like the show, I liked the episode, and I like that the writers clearly have something they want to say, as you say sci-fi has always done it. I'd just rather it had been more integral to the storyline than just an "oh shit!" moment at the end.I don't see any reason why they should be subtle about it given how serious the situation is.
Sci fi has always addressed current issues. You might as well complain about every star trek episode ever.
I enjoyed it. I twas another great episode.
Once the planet was revealed, calling the natives dregs made perfect sense.it was integral to the storyline. The dregs are us! :O
Because Terrance Dicks. Or possibly Robert Holmes, who is the source of a lot of lore. Mostly in the form of the throwaway lines.So I have a question:Why does the Doctor have two hearts?
Because Terrance Dicks. Or possibly Robert Holmes, who is the source of a lot of lore. Mostly in the form of the throwaway lines.