How do you want the regeneration limit dealt with?

[Bones2]

What exactly do we need to know? It's a time machine and it's bigger on the inside. I think the lifespan of the lead character is significantly more important than getting more pseuo scientific details on the Tardis, and to compare the two and then say if we're not explaining the Tardis then we needn't bother with the regenerations is extremely fallacious.

 

[VDCNI]

I'm not particularly interested in what's in the Tardis either. Though I suppose at least the Tardis is a fundamental part of the shows format, unlike the regeneration limit!

 

[Thestral]

That's rather a poor comparison, considering the Twilight Zone was an anthology show that (aside from the Narrator) don't share characters or storylines from within the show itself let alone its later incarnations.

What characters or storylines a set of shows feature is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are the same program.

I disagree. If two shows share the same name and the same name, settings, and primary character as a previous show and tends to share those things within the show itself, its a fair question about whether its a continuation or not.

Whereas a show like Rod Serling's Twilight Zone and the early 2000s Zone don't share the one and only thing that even tied the Twilight Zone anthology together - Rod Serling. That's why it's rather a poor example. You'd've been better off with Phase 2, I think.

The Doctor is clearly the same character as was on the show from the 60s to the 80s (and the TV Movie), which is more important for this discussion than whether they're actually the same show.

Except that I was explicitly asked if I viewed DW TOS as being the same program as modern DW.

Granted. But there's no reason that answers the question "should Doctor Who deal with the regeneration limit" since, even if you consider them separate programs, the character of the Doctor is the same.

Man, don't waste your time. He created this personal delusion years ago when Eccleston started.

Is that why the DVD box says "Series One" rather than "Season Twenty-Seven?"

They're two separate programs about the same character. Deal with it.

That actually doesn't necessarily decide it either. Comic books sometimes do this. Consider: The Flash is a comic series that's had two number ones and three different "incarnations," (it was renamed from Flash Comics at issue #104 but kept the numbering) with 350, 247, and 5 (so far) issues. Despite this, The Flash is considered one comic book series

Likewise Green Lantern, which has had 4 number ones and incarnations of 38, 224, 181, and 55 (so far) issues.

 

[Sci]

That's rather a poor comparison, considering the Twilight Zone was an anthology show that (aside from the Narrator) don't share characters or storylines from within the show itself let alone its later incarnations.

What characters or storylines a set of shows feature is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are the same program.

I disagree.

This isn't a matter of disagreement or agreement. It's a matter of fact. Television programs are given legal production numbers that differentiate them from prior productions by law. Doctor Who (1963-1989) is not the same program as Doctor Who (2005-present). The title and characters are irrelevant (especially since characters and titles can change in the course of a program).

If two shows share the same name and the same name, settings, and primary character as a previous show and tends to share those things within the show itself, its a fair question about whether its a continuation or not.

Do you mean "continuation" as in, "the same legal program," or "continuation" in the sense of, "it's set in the same continuity as the original?" Star Trek: The Next Generation is a continuation of ST TOS by the second definition but not the first.

Granted. But there's no reason that answers the question "should Doctor Who deal with the regeneration limit" since, even if you consider them separate programs, the character of the Doctor is the same.

Tell that to USS Bones, then, 'cos he's the one who brought it up.

Man, don't waste your time. He created this personal delusion years ago when Eccleston started.

Is that why the DVD box says "Series One" rather than "Season Twenty-Seven?"

They're two separate programs about the same character. Deal with it.

That actually doesn't necessarily decide it either. Comic books sometimes do this. Consider: The Flash is a comic series that's had two number ones and three different "incarnations," (it was renamed from Flash Comics at issue #104 but kept the numbering) with 350, 247, and 5 (so far) issues. Despite this, The Flash is considered one comic book series

Likewise Green Lantern, which has had 4 number ones and incarnations of 38, 224, 181, and 55 (so far) issues.

Those are all considered separate volumes of those series, however. The principles at work in the comics world are not applicable.

 

[The]

Sci no matter how much you might strain logic and squint at reality, it won't change the concrete fact that Doctor Who is the same show from 1963 to right now. However, don't stop trying to justify your delusion. I am anxious to see how far you will go with your fantasy...

 

[Sci]

Sci no matter how much you might strain logic and squint at reality, it won't change the concrete fact that Doctor Who is the same show from 1963 to right now. However, don't stop trying to justify your delusion. I am anxious to see how far you will go with your fantasy...

And your evidence for this is what? Aside from condescension, I mean.

 

[The]

^"Evidence"? Really? Yeah. Sure. It's called "Doctor Who". It's a tv show you might have heard of. It started in 1963 and continues to this day...

 

[captcalhoun]

exhibit A: Russell T Davies the bloke what oversaw it's return in 2005 said it's the same show.

exhibit B: Steven Moffatt the bloke what's running it now says it's the same show.

do you want me to go through C to Z, wherein we can list references to past stories, reappearances and references to past companions, returning villains and aliens and so forth?

It's. the. same. show. deal with it.

 

[Shatnertage]

I think it is and it isn't the same show, but it's always been a bit of an oddball show from that perspective.

It's definitely in the same (sort of) continuity, as the numerous on-screen references to past adventures, and gratuitously fan-wanky images of past doctors (which my inner fanboy never fails to swoon over, so I'm not complaining at all).

But it's obviously a different production team and, basically, a different show. Eccleston didn't star in Series 27--it was series 1. That says something.

Then again, there were so many changes over the years that the show in season 26 was almost completely different from the show in season 1. The character of the Doctor, the Tardis, and the Daleks might be the only hold-overs.

So I can understand why people would insist that it's the same show, and vice versa. But I don't think anyone should really dig their heels in on this, because there are elements of truth in both positions.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

^ I agree!

I will admit that I have followed Star Trek more closely over the years than Doctor Who, but I do believe I am correct in my understanding that the folks involved in producing Trek have been obsessed with maintaining a continuity in the history, tech, and other "facts" of the Trek Universe over the decades, when compared to the 'more relaxed' way that the internal consistency of history and events have been adhered to in the Doctor's televised adventures.

This is not meant as a 'slap' to Doctor Who, I just mean that my impression has been that Doctor Who fans have not had to suffer with the tremendous weight of battles about continuity and canon that Trek fans can end up arguing over ("Wait! The Enterprise D turbolift used in "These Are the Voyages" had the wrong color carpeting!!!!"). I thought Doctor Who writers and producers were mainly concerned with telling the story and not getting too hung up with details, such that most differences existing within continuity between episodes are more easily accepted with a smile and a nod.

The statement that this is 'not the same show' seems odd to me. Of course it is not the same show, because -technically- different people are directing, acting, writing, and producing (with different production technology) the show compared to Troughton's era (for example). But -by this same definition- many television shows are 'not the same' from season to season, or even episode to episode (Star Trek TOS season one would, by definition, not be the same show as Trek TOS season 3....).

I have seen nothing that contradicts the concept that Matt Smith's Doctor is simply the latest incarnation of the man from Gallifrey that we first saw in that junk yard with his granddaughter Susan, who at one point later wore the crazy long scarf, and then even later travelled with Ace.

I am not sure what the value is in claiming that New Era Who is something set in an alternate universe(?), or a "reboot" (?), etc. The nature of Who makes it so easy to see (for me) this as a simple continuation of what came before. If you don't care for Classic Doctor Who, that is really fine with me, but I do not understand the logic in creating a false barrier between Current and Classic Who. Just seems silly to me.

 

[The]

If you don't care for Classic Doctor Who, that is really fine with me, but I do not understand the logic in creating a false barrier between Current and Classic Who. Just seems silly to me.

 

[Starkers]

"It’s Series Thirty-One of Doctor Who, and it's Series One of Matt Smith's Doctor, Those are both real numbers. I submit that 'Series Five of Doctor Who' means absolutely nothing unless you really believe that Matt Smith is the third Doctor. Everyone knows he's the Eleventh Doctor so that means it’s definitely not 'Series Five'. Whichever number you choose, 'Series Five' is the one that's flawed."
"'Series One' is an exciting sentence. 'Series Thirty-One' is an awe-inspiring sentence. 'Series Five' is a boring sentence - and also a complete lie."
​

So sayeth the Moff...

 

[Shatnertage]

^ Then what's with this?
Doctor Who - Season 5 (2010)

If the people making the show can't even agree on what season it is, why should we?

 

[Sci]

I'm looking at my copies of scripts RTD wrote for Series Four and for the Specials.

Looking, for instance, at the script for "The Waters of Mars," you can clearly see the production number used by BBC Wales for the special. It's very clearly marked, "DOCTOR WHO 4.16." Meaning, legally, it's the 16th episode of the fourth series. Similarly, the script for "The End of Time, Part Two" is marked "DOCTOR WHO 4.18." And, sure enough, when it references a scene from "The Sound of Drums," it says, "FX: LONG FX SHOT, craning up to reveal the mountains of Gallifrey, as Ep.3.12 sc.40."

So, in other words, "The Waters of Mars" is not Episode 30.16. And "The Sound of Drums" was not episode 29.12.

The issue of whether or not DW TOS and nuWho are the same series has nothing to do with the content of the programs. The contents of any two or more programs are irrelevant to the question of whether or not they're considered the same programs. Similarly, this is not a question of quality; quality is irrelevant. Nor does the title make them the same program. If either of those characteristics made two sets of shows the same program, we'd have to conclude that the Get Smart from 1995 which featured Andy Dick was the same program as the classic Get Smart from the 1960s (as it even starred Don Adams as Maxwell Smart again).

Sorry, but clearly the issue is not content or quality. The issue is whether or not they're legally considered the same production.

They're not.

Because "Rose" was episode 1.01, not episode 27.01.

That's really all there is to it.

RTD and Moffat might not agree with the fact that BBC Wales made them separate series, but they did.

If you don't care for Classic Doctor Who, that is really fine with me, but I do not understand the logic in creating a false barrier between Current and Classic Who. Just seems silly to me.

I'm sorry, but even if we set aside the question of whether or not they're legally separate productions -- and that's the only real question, as whether or not they're the same series is a technical issue, not a qualitative issue -- it's just unfair to say that there's any sort of "false" barrier between Current and Classic Who.

Sixteen years is many things, but it is not a false barrier. Sixteen years is a huge and completely natural barrier, even if we set aside the questions of technicality, even if BBC Wales had chosen to produce "Rose" as Episode 27.01. Sixteen years is a completely natural barrier.

 

[The]

It's just sad. How many people do you declare wrong before you start to accept your mistake in this area? I mean, BOTH producers of Doctor Who say the same thing, along with...you know...the entire planet...and you seem to think because it goes against your personal fandom religion, that everyone else is wrong? The conceit is just as ludicrous as it is pathetic.

 

[Shatnertage]

I'm just surprised that 11 people think the show should end when Doc13 dies. Even if it's not still as good as it is right now, I'd like to see it go on, or have the potential to be revived.

And I don't see there being any way that the BBC would end a pretty vibrant and lucrative franchise, just because they need to swap actors again.

 

[Sci]

It's just sad. How many people do you declare wrong before you start to accept your mistake in this area? I mean, BOTH producers of Doctor Who say the same thing, along with...you know...the entire planet...and you seem to think because it goes against your personal fandom religion, that everyone else is wrong? The conceit is just as ludicrous as it is pathetic.

If I'm wrong, surely the BBC will re-designate Series One as Season Twenty-Seven. And apparently Get Smart continued into the 1990s. And The Twilight Zone into the 2000s.

 

[Davros]

If the Master was able to get more regenerations, I do not see any reason the Doctor would not also be able to do so.

 

[DWF]

It's just sad. How many people do you declare wrong before you start to accept your mistake in this area? I mean, BOTH producers of Doctor Who say the same thing, along with...you know...the entire planet...and you seem to think because it goes against your personal fandom religion, that everyone else is wrong? The conceit is just as ludicrous as it is pathetic.

If I'm wrong, surely the BBC will re-designate Series One as Season Twenty-Seven. And apparently Get Smart continued into the 1990s. And The Twilight Zone into the 2000s.

Well season five was produced with season one production codes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_5)

The January 2010 edition featured an interview with Steven Moffat, the new lead writer and executive producer, in which he called Series One "exciting", Series Thirty-One "awe-inspiring" and Series Five "boring and a lie". In the same issue, he jokingly referred to the season as 'series Fnarg', on ongoing joke in subsequent issues. The March edition of Doctor Who Magazine, referring to this as Series Thirty-One, confirmed production codes in the range 1.1 to 1.13.

 

[Sci]

It's just sad. How many people do you declare wrong before you start to accept your mistake in this area? I mean, BOTH producers of Doctor Who say the same thing, along with...you know...the entire planet...and you seem to think because it goes against your personal fandom religion, that everyone else is wrong? The conceit is just as ludicrous as it is pathetic.

If I'm wrong, surely the BBC will re-designate Series One as Season Twenty-Seven. And apparently Get Smart continued into the 1990s. And The Twilight Zone into the 2000s.

Well season five was produced with season one production codes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_5)

The January 2010 edition featured an interview with Steven Moffat, the new lead writer and executive producer, in which he called Series One "exciting", Series Thirty-One "awe-inspiring" and Series Five "boring and a lie". In the same issue, he jokingly referred to the season as 'series Fnarg', on ongoing joke in subsequent issues. The March edition of Doctor Who Magazine, referring to this as Series Thirty-One, confirmed production codes in the range 1.1 to 1.13.

Which means that, apparently, the 2010 Doctor Who was also a separate series, at least at the time it was produced. (I suppose that calling it "Series Five" on the DVD sets means they've switched back to it being the same series as RTD's, but I'm not sure.) Which I thought was really silly, but whatever.