Hi, TrekBBS Whovians. I have some questions for you all. As someone who likes Sci-Fi television, that is more along the lines of things like Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Dollhouse, Firefly, Fringe, Haven, Star Trek Discovery, DS9, and Voyager, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and Under the Dome, would I enjoy - and should I watch - Doctor Who? Also, if I do watch the series, should I go back to the beginning of the modern era with David Tennant, or start with e upcoming Jodie Whitaker stuff?
A Doctor Who forum is the worst place to ask if you should watch Doctor Who. That said, you should watch Doctor Who. You should ALL watch Doctor Who. Mark
This is a silly poll. You really think anyone in a Doctor Who forum will say no? But on a serious note, the great thing about Doctor Who is you can start with any Doctor and it doesn't matter. Each one is a fresh new start. Ask ten different Whovians and you'll get ten different answers which Doctor who should start with. Personally, I say you should start with The Fourth Doctor but I'm obviously bias.
If you want to start from the modern era Christopher Eccleston was the first new Doctor, for only one season. That's about a year away. Starting with any is fine, and you can always go back, the stories are mostly standalone and arcs season-long. There is some continuity between Doctors, but you can chalk that off to timey wimey stuff if you watch them out of order
I get that fans' first instinct is to say 'Yes' when asked this kind of a question, so I listed the kinds of Sci-Fi I like in order to hopefully influence some thoughtful replies and counter the fanboyism. It might not work, but that was the intent. Eccleston's who I meant, and I'm not sure why I typed David Tennant.
If you do watch past stories out of order, there's a tiny number that reference adventures that were never made, so don't go looking for past references and expecting to find them all.
I would start with the modern era. To be blunt, if you don’t like old tv, cheap sets, wonky special effects, the original run might turn you off. If you like what you see of the modern era, actually, if you love the modern era, then the original run might be fun. The original run is really from a whole other era of tv.
Its nothing like Star Trek. Its completely its own thing. And forget what they may tell you, but the old iteration of the show wasn't devoid or limited in characterization - it was just a little too English about it, basically focusing on the story at hand. That said, start with 2005's first season, and work your way backwards if you like it enough. If not, I'd suggest sticking around the four years, and the Specials years (a half year, if you want).
Doctor Who is pretty solid sci-fi, the only thing that I can imagine that might turn you off would be if you don't like the very obvious, quirky britishness of it. I started on Who at a time where the classic show was rather easy to find. Between Amazon Prime, Netflix and especially Hulu, there were some 600 episodes of classic Who available, and I just so happened to have access to all three services. So I started off watching the new show, and in between episodes and arcs, I would take in a classic Doctor serial. Soon, I found myself watching more of the classic show than the new one. It wasn't so much that I enjoyed it more than new show (I like them both about equally), it was the layers and depth that it added to the character continuity. However, the original series is no longer as readily available, so I would suggest just diving in. Be patient with the first season as the show has definite growing pains. The alien invaders who are constantly farting come to mind as particularly silly. Cassandra, one of my least favorite characters in the entire franchise, debuts in ep.2. And be aware that Mickey really does evolve into an actual, likeable character rather than the silly cartoon character he is in the pilot. But gems like Dalek, The Doctor Dances and Parting of the Ways make the whole journey worth it. Christopher Eccleston nails it.
Of course you should watch it! I started with the modern era and am definitely a nuWho fan. I've seen a few classic stories, and as much as i wanted to LOVE them, it's hard to get into an old school show like that, for me. I was completely surprised that I ended up liking DW. It's definitely not in the same area of interest that I would stick Star Trek or BSG or Firefly. It wasn't really like any show I had ever seen; this weird mix of 90's campy scifi (in a 2005 series!) and soap opera melodrama with a bunch of British people. I started from the beginning and watched in order. The first few episodes of nuWho I had a hard time taking it seriously because it already looked dated at the time, and wasn't even that old! But by the 5th episode when I had gotten over how goofy the show looked and was actually embracing how fun it was, I was hooked. Caught up to the 6th series within a month or two.
I actually went through this with a friend of mine back in 2013. She asked me the same question, and my advice to her was start with Matt Smith's era (Season 5, "The Eleventh Hour"), since it was effectively a reboot of the show. She watched that up through his regeneration, and then before Capaldi appeared she went back and watched Series 1-4 (Eccleston and Tennant). She told me doing it like this was a good approach, because Series 1-4 "felt ike a different show." It's your choice. The simplest thing to do is start with season 1, Eccleston. It's very "Saturday Morning" in feel (I actually liked it less on my rewatch with her than I did when it originally aired...some of those episodes just haven't aged well, even though they aren't that old) but it throws you right in. But starting with season 5 is a viable option.....you just won't know who David Tennant is when you get to the Anniversary episode.
^ I don't know enough about the franchise to know if it's in line with the kinds of TV Sci-Fi that I generally like, which is what I was kind of hoping to figure out through this thread. I think I kind of overestimated Whovians' ability to be objective, though.
A guy has a box that can travel through time and space. He has a couple of humans with him along for the ride. 90% of the time, the destinations are beset by some horror or dystopian menace that the Doctor has to defeat -- androids or ghosts or creatures or something. He has a few recurring enemies that show up every so often (Daleks and Cybermen). Themes include "are humans ready to come face to face with a larger universe?" and "Doctor has issues about about his immortality and things he's done in his past (or future...it's all messed up)," among other things. If that sounds like something you'd enjoy, go for it.
If people really want to dig in, check out season 12 from 1974 (Tom Baker). There are 12 different Doctors; if the newer series Doctors seem too cheesy or mawkish, then looking at "fan favorites" from each of the previous Doctors and work one's way outward to the rest of their perspective eras? Some of their stories have aged better than the modern revival's lot, even though some of the older eras have problems of their own. The fun part is, that with so many different formats and visions by the showrunners of each era, there's plenty to like and plenty to dismiss.
I have another question: If I do decide to watch the series, keeping in mind that I don't care about spoilers for future things and am by and large a "chronology fiend", should I give myself some context for The Doctor's 9th regeneration by watching the DW TV movie and "The Night of the Doctor" before I dive into Eccleston's run?
Not really. Neither production gives any insight to The Ninth Doctor's run, which speaks for itself. Everything you need to know about The Ninth Doctor and so forth is expressed clearly in his season. I say that as a huge fan of The Eighth Doctor, although that's largely due to McGann's long run of audio plays for Big Finish.
Um, no. Paul McGann is a fantastic Doctor, but "Night of the Doctor" is fine if you want to see him. I didn't see the TV movie until 2013 anyway, and I didn't really like it. All you need to know about the 9th Doctor is that he is post-Time War. He's a little damaged, but still zany. The chronology on 9 is wonky. "Rose" suggests he's brand new but it's implied he's travelled for a bit. It's not till the 50th Anniversary that we find out that he's directly post-Timewar.
I actually enjoy the 96 TV movie, but it should not be anyone's introduction to the Doctor Who franchise. We learn no such thing. Moffat for some reason claimed at the time that the Ninth Doctor was newly regenerated in Rose, but RTD has made it very clear that was never his intent. I side with RTD in this matter. Regardless, from a strictly canonical point of view (as much as "canonical" is a concept that matters in Doctor Who) there is nothing in the episode Rose that makes it clear the Ninth Doctor is newly regenerated. And no, the mirror comment doesn't count.
Maybe not strictly canonical, but I remember thinking back in 2005 when I first watched the episode that the mirror comment meant that he was new. Maybe not brand new, but new. And a viewer that just comes to the franchise could easily assume that, knowing little else.