Is nuWho too complicated for newbies?

[The Borg Queen]

If you think Doctor Who is too complicated to understand, then you probably shouldn't be watching it to begin with.

[Starbreaker]

I didn't have a problem starting with Series 1 of nuWho. Of course, I watch a lot of science fiction to begin with, so it wasn't a huge stretch for me to be able to understand what was going on.

[Guy Gardener]

On the ABC preview, they were interviewing Terry O'Quinn and asked him as an aside since he explained 666 park Avenue so succinctly and well, if he could please explain Lost too as well, while he was on a roll.

Terry chuckled and said "No thank you, that's almost impossible."

[Kelthaz]

Starbreaker wrote:

---

I didn't have a problem starting with Series 1 of nuWho. Of course, I watch a lot of science fiction to begin with, so it wasn't a huge stretch for me to be able to understand what was going on.

Well, yeah, typically people are not going to have trouble starting with Series 1. It's Series 7 that's the problem.

[davejames]

Mr Light wrote:

---

In the RTD era it was pretty viewer friendly, but Moffat episodes are so fast and manic and twisty and confusing I'm astonished this is still considered a family show.

Well the ratings are still pretty strong (both here and overseas), so apparently most families are able to keep up with it.

And even if it DOES take more effort to follow the plot now, the witty characterizations and Smith's nutty Doctor are usually fun and entertaining enough to carry you through an episode anyway.

[Ghost Bones]

The Borg Queen wrote:

---

If you think Doctor Who is too complicated to understand, then you probably shouldn't be watching it to begin with.

Well it's not that is it, it's that it requires too much prior knowledge of what's happened in it before to be easily accessible to new viewers.

[Alidar Jarok]

Aside from River, I don't think there's anything all that complicated right now. River probably deserves watching the River episodes (maybe not the Angel two-parter, I suppose it isn't necessary).

[Brent]

I can't speak for your sister, only myself, but as an American I did not grow up with Doctor Who (plus I was born during the time it was in its hiatus anyways, wasn't alive during it's original run), but I might have seen a re-run ep or two as a kid on PBS, but I had no idea what it was or the back story it had.

I honestly did not really introduced to it until nuWho. I liked what I saw, so I made every effort to learn all about the original run of the show. I was lucky to meet someone at a LANNING event who had all the episodes of the original series, including the audio's and whatnot from the lost episodes. So thanks to that wonderful person, I was able to watch all the old episodes of every Doctor, up to the new series. So I have a good grasp on what Doctor Who is all about, and how it all works. I have to say, comparing nuWho to the old series is a bit more "whacky" and all over the place, it's faster paced that's for sure especially under Moffat. But I'm still able to grasp what is going on, but there has been some really big arcs that were just never that big in the old series. I mean, destroying the whole universe and re-birthing it, that's just really out there. Of course then I am reminded of the old serial where basically the Doctor started the Big Bang in the first place But definitely things move at a faster pace now, than they did then. But also remember the serials of the old series lasted several episodes, so they were longer and more drawn out. I kinda look at the original series like it is more relaxed, and the new series is amped up more, faster paced, on adrenaline.

[MacLeod]

Kelthaz wrote:

---

Doctor Who's overall plot is quite simple, but the individual episodes are bogged down with a pretty bad case of Continuity Lockout. Hopefully next season will start off with a focus on attracting new viewers.

DW isn't exactly losing viewers at a fast rate of knots. It's usually the most watched Drama show in the UK. Sure the BBC would love to have more viewers (what TV station doesn't) but the ratings are still healthy.

A quick look at some of the ratings for DW show on average it looks like the viewing figure is in the 7-8m mark. Based on the overnight figure for "Asylum.... " and the fact that DW usually gets a strong time delayed viewing figure boost it looks like the final figure will easily be within the average viewer mark.

[Phily B]

start with series 1 rather than the eleventh doctor

RTD Who was designed to introduce viewers to the character and concepts

[Iamnotspock]

Just throwing this out there; Has Doctor Who got too complicated?

Also, from another interview;

Steven Moffat wrote:

---

How is Doctor Who seen by the BBC these days?

“I think all of us as fans probably don’t appreciate just how utterly loved Doctor Who is at the BBC, because no show performs like Doctor Who. Alright, there are shows that do slightly better, but not after this number of years, and not shows that sell all over the world. Think how many people have now seen ‘Rose’, that first Christopher Eccleston episode. Never mind who saw it in the first week, or even the first year. People are still watching that for the first time. Just imagine if we were able to add up everybody who eventually, over a period of years, watches an individual episode of Doctor Who, which unlike The X-Factor, unlike EastEnders, unlike any of those shows, continues to exist on your shelf. We’d be the biggest show in the country. One of the biggest shows in the world. If they measured book sales this way we’d be saying, ‘Well, it only counts if it sells on the day!’ Doctor Who carries on gaining new viewers. I’d love to know what percentage of Britain has now seen Christopher Eccleston’s first episode, say, or David Tennant’s first episode. I’m sure it’s way, way over half. That’s what we don’t quite appreciate, especially as television is going to change and we’ll be more like publishers than broadcasters, because the time of transmission is now just the date of publication, isn’t it? You know you can catch it on iPlayer, on iTunes, you know you can see it later… There’s no impetus, or not the same impetus, to see it at the time. And that’s the world in which Doctor Who will triumph. Which is why I got so ratty at the time they were saying our ratings were down when they weren’t. I remember yelling at some journalist, which I shouldn’t have done, saying do you even know that iPlayer isn’t counted in the ratings? You know there’s a whole 2 – 2 ½ million we’re not even allowed to mention, in typical BBC style. The only absolutely verified members of the audience, the only ones who are definitely there, aren’t counted in the ratings! We just use the big guess. But anyway, that’s me ranting on…”

[intrinsical]

Steven Moffat is keenly aware that The Doctor's mythology has gotten too complex and has been undoing a lot of changes that have been introduced over the past 6-7 years.

[Guy Gardener]

Lets be entirely serious here.

Less complex means idiot friendly.

Does that sound like a reward for being so studious?

[PorthosShadow]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

Lets be entirely serious here.

Less complex means idiot friendly.

Does that sound like a reward for being so studious?

I wouldn't put it that way but that's what I was thinking. I'm sick and or tired of TV shows being dumbed down for people who are too lazy to go back and learn something about the mythology. As I wrote earlier in this thread, look it up. If the mythology is too complex for you then try American Idol. That should be right at your IQ level.

[Mr. Adventure]

Well. I'll admit getting a bit lost in all the crack/silence/River/astronaut/eyepatch/etc/etc stuff and I'm not sure how much of it has really been fully answered and addressed.