# Teach me about Dr Who



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Ok, so I've ignored Dr Who for most of my life. I tried to watch it on PBS in the 1970s when it was first being imported and it was simply too cheesy for my tastes. Now, 40 years later, it seems like it would be impossible to find a decent jumping on point.

And yet.. at this years Hugos there were no less than THREE episodes nominated for a Hugo. Three. That's a very impressive statistic, and indicates that this is a much better show than the cardboard thing I saw way back when. And I love Steven Moffats writing on other things.

So.... is there a jumping on point for someone who really didn't like the early stuff? Is there a legitimate way to watch these episodes from this jumping on point (Netflix, Hulu, whatever)?

What can you tell a Dr Who novice?


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Go back to the 2005 season - Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor. It's effectively the relaunch of the franchise.

It's available on Netflix.


----------



## debtoine (May 17, 2001)

I was the same way, and worked my way through the Doctor Who (2005) seasons. I think that's a good place to start. They are available on Netflix, I believe.

Toine


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I concur with Tony. I started fresh with the 2005 season, had absolutely no knowledge of the "original series," and I was fine.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

It's still cheesy in that BBC Sci-Fi way that some people seem to enjoy.


----------



## marrone (Oct 11, 2001)

I'll concur as well. I tried to watch some of the old episodes, but it was rather painful.

The new series seems to be a great launching point, and Netflix has it all. I don't feel like I missed a whole lot.
Maybe I'll watch some more of the old stuff eventually, but my tv time is very limited.

It's definitely less cheesy. Has its moments, but overall it's not too cheesy. Jump in and enjoy!

-Mike


----------



## Swirl_Junkie (Mar 11, 2001)

Is there anything that would be too risque or ultra violent for an 11 yr old? I've been meaning to start watching with my kid, and this thread reminded me. He's ok with scary, and he plays mild first person shooters.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I too saw a few episodes of the 70's version as a kid. That pretty much killed ANY desire I have to revisit that character, no matter who has played him since.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

MonsterJoe said:


> It's still cheesy in that BBC Sci-Fi way that some people seem to enjoy.


The new series ? I don't think so.



Alfer said:


> I too saw a few episodes of the 70's version as a kid. That pretty much killed ANY desire I have to revisit that character, no matter who has played him since.


That makes zero sense since it's essentially a new and outstanding show with far more depth than the original.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Alfer said:


> I too saw a few episodes of the 70's version as a kid. That pretty much killed ANY desire I have to revisit that character, no matter who has played him since.


The new show and the old show are very different from a production value standpoint. 
Watch the episode "Blink" which is from season 3 of the new series episode 10 (actually listed as 11 on Netflix) and if you don't like that one you can skip the rest. It's a stand alone episode so you should be able to watch it without seeing what's come before it. It's definitely one of the best that the new series has to offer.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

MonsterJoe said:


> It's still cheesy in that BBC Sci-Fi way that some people seem to enjoy.


I like British comedies and drama, but do not like their Sci-Fi. I tried to watch the first season with Matt Smith and I did not like the cheese. I also tried Torchwood and that was the same. Yes I realize it was a spinoff or something.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> The new series ? I don't think so.


Some of the 'cheesier' moments have to do with the classic characters (like the Daleks) where the show is a bit stuck with the original design to the alien creatures (like the Sontarans). But the story lines, for the most part, aren't too cheesy (well, maybe the Adipose was cheesy).


> That makes zero sense since it's essentially a new and outstanding show with far more depth than the original.


It's Alfer. He isn't happy unless he puts down something that he doesn't like. The new series have been great (well, not a big fan of Matt Smith). There are some great episodes that he has missed due to his stubbornnes. Blink is an awesome episode and is a great place to get the 'feel' of Doctor Who without having to know any backstory.


----------



## bruab (Nov 16, 2001)

Swirl_Junkie said:


> Is there anything that would be too risque or ultra violent for an 11 yr old? I've been meaning to start watching with my kid, and this thread reminded me. He's ok with scary, and he plays mild first person shooters.


 Is he lactose intolerant?


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Hoffer said:


> I like British comedies and drama, but do not like their Sci-Fi. I tried to watch the first season with Matt Smith and I did not like the cheese. I also tried Torchwood and that was the same. Yes I realize it was a spinoff or something.


Go back to Christopher Eccleston or David Tennant. They were great Doctors. Matt Smith just couldn't fill their shoes.


----------



## stark (Dec 31, 2003)

Swirl_Junkie said:


> Is there anything that would be too risque or ultra violent for an 11 yr old? I've been meaning to start watching with my kid, and this thread reminded me. He's ok with scary, and he plays mild first person shooters.


He should be fine. There are some "spooky" episodes, but nothing risque or really violent.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> The new series ? I don't think so.


I'm don't like or dislike the show - so from a completely objective POV, yes - it is. 

Not /quite/ as cheesy as the old one, but BBC Sci-Fi cheesy, for sure.

Now - people like that, I get that...and that's fine...I wasn't making a judgement either way. Just saying it's got the same general mouth-feel.


----------



## Swirl_Junkie (Mar 11, 2001)

bruab said:


> Is he lactose intolerant?


No, but I am.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I'm not sure how the word cheesy is being used here.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Go back to Christopher Eccleston or David Tennant. They were great Doctors. Matt Smith just couldn't fill their shoes.


I think this is absolutely not true. I would put Smith head and shoulders above Tennant as a performer on this show. Tennant was certainly likable, but I think he was a lightweight.

I think the writing has been more hit-and-miss on Smith's run, however.

And anybody who compares the cheese factor of the new series to the old show is on drugs!


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Either this:



TonyTheTiger said:


> Go back to the 2005 season - Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor. It's effectively the relaunch of the franchise.
> 
> It's available on Netflix.


Or this:



Azlen said:


> Watch the episode "Blink" which is from season 3 of the new series episode 10 (actually listed as 11 on Netflix) and if you don't like that one you can skip the rest. It's a stand alone episode so you should be able to watch it without seeing what's come before it. It's definitely one of the best that the new series has to offer.


Disclaimer: I started with Eccleston, but unlike Loadstar, I had enough previous exposure to Doctor Who via fandom and having laid eyes on previous Doctors that I knew the major bits (what the Daleks were, who the Cybermen were, what the Tardis is, etc.).

I liked "Blink" and other Moffat episodes that he wrote under the Davies regime, but I don't like him as a show runner. That is, while I prefer Tennant and Eccleston as Doctors, my problem is not with Matt Smith so much as what he has been asked to do. I prefer more character-driven stories instead of insane puzzly-stuff.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

TonyTheTiger said:


> Go back to the 2005 season - Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor. It's effectively the relaunch of the franchise.
> 
> It's available on Netflix.


This.



murgatroyd said:


> Disclaimer: I started with Eccleston, but unlike Loadstar, I had enough previous exposure to Doctor Who via fandom and having laid eyes on previous Doctors that I knew the major bits (what the Daleks were, who the Cybermen were, what the Tardis is, etc.).


This was me. I had enough previous knowledge to get it but really enjoyed the reboot with Eccleston.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> I liked "Blink" and other Moffat episodes that he wrote under the Davies regime, but I don't like him as a show runner. That is, while I prefer Tennant and Eccleston as Doctors, my problem is not with Matt Smith so much as what he has been asked to do. I prefer more character-driven stories instead of insane puzzly-stuff.


One of the things I really don't like about Moffat's companions is he has made them puzzles to be solved rather than ordinary people that the Doctor has taken them along with him. I like Jenna Louise-Coleman though but could have done without the impossible girl thing.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Azlen said:


> The new show and the old show are very different from a production value standpoint.
> Watch the episode "Blink" which is from season 3 of the new series episode 10 (actually listed as 11 on Netflix) and if you don't like that one you can skip the rest. It's a stand alone episode so you should be able to watch it without seeing what's come before it. It's definitely one of the best that the new series has to offer.


Blink is an excellent episode, but I think it's too far from a normal episode to tell someone that they can base an opinion on the whole series on it.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I've seen every episode of Doctor Who. In fact, I just got done watching the 8th Doctor with Paul McGann for the first time last night as one of the Doctor Who Revisited specials. My first Doctor was Tom Baker as I got into it by watching the PBS reruns of the series. The show eventually cycled back to the first Doctor with William Hartnell until I saw all episodes up to that point. I stuck with it through the Sylvester McCoy series until they stopped airing it.

The original series was absolutely cheesy and the production values were about what you'd expect from a show produced back in the 60's. Still, it was a lot of fun to watch. The 2005 reboot was a huge shot in the arm for the series. I've liked each Doctor from Christoper Eccleston to the current series with Matt Smith. Each actor imparts his own character into the Doctor, which is part of what makes the show so interesting. Production values and storylines have improved dramatically since the original series, although it still gets a bit cheesy from time to time.

I was disappointed to hear that Matt Smith will be leaving the show in favor of a newer, but older, Doctor, played by Peter Capaldi. I hear that the Christmas 2013 special episode will be his last.

If you're interested in seeing what the original series is all about, you might try to see if BBC America is airing any reruns of the Doctor Who Revisited specials. They've been airing about once a month since early this year. Each one focuses on one of the Doctors starting with the first Doctor Who. There's about one hour of interviews and discussions with past cast members and production crew followed by one "classic" episode of Doctor Who featuring that specific Doctor.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Blink is an excellent episode, but I think it's too far from a normal episode to tell someone that they can base an opinion on the whole series on it.


Yes and no. I don't think that liking it means that you will automatically like the rest of the series because it isn't really a doctor centric episode but if you don't like the "wibbly wobbly timey wimey" stuff then you probably won't like the rest of the series. One of the most important things from that episode though is that Carey Mulligan definitely looks better with longer hair.


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

I started with the 9th doctor, and didn't really feel the need to go back to the classic Doctor Who episodes until recently. There were a few things I missed without knowing the history, but nothing that got in the way of my enjoyment. I have just about finished watching the Doctor Who revisited episodes, and have enjoyed learning about the past Doctors. However, after watching an episode of each, I really don't have any desire to try and rewatch any of the classic DW episodes. 

One thing I would suggest, if Ereth plans on watching Torchwood as well, is trying to watch the two series in the sequence that they aired. There is enough cross over of ideas that you lose a little something watching the two series out of sync, as I did.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I would think that the Daleks might freak him out, and although "Blink" is my favorite episode, it could be too intense for your 11-year old son, as scary things happen in the dark.

I remember seeing the first Harry Potter movie where parents brought their younger children, and many had to leave the theatre early with their crying, traumatised children.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

If an 11 year old is traumatized (and not in a good way) by Blink, they wont be ready for the real world in 7 years. We are talking 11, not 7.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Just as an FYI Netflix doesn't have everything unless they've added some Christmas specials since I watched about a year ago. I remember watching them in Netflix order and was completely lost at one point...because as I discovered...no Christmas special. Now, there are some there, but they aren't under the general Doctor Who episodes/seasons so you have to search them out.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> If an 11 year old is traumatized (and not in a good way) by Blink, they wont be ready for the real world in 7 years. We are talking 11, not 7.


Yeah but, Tony, you're a tough guy. 11 year olds are still pre-pubescent, and some boys are naturally more sensitive than you were. That'll be up to Swirl_Junkie to judge his boy's tolerance level. But generally the Dr. Who episodes are fun and silly and suspenseful and adventurous, yet not really written as a kid show. It's written for a mature adult audience.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

Dr Who in produced and marketed in England as a childrens show.

I just have to assume British Children are more mature than their American counterparts.

I never saw kids shows like that growing up.


phox


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

phox_mulder said:


> Dr Who in produced and marketed in England as a childrens show.
> 
> I just have to assume British Children are more mature than their American counterparts.
> 
> ...


Is it really, though? I've always understood the (sadly, now former) Sarah Jane Adventures to be the real children's show in the Doctor Who universe, Torchwood to be the obviously adult show in the universe, and Doctor Who to be right in the middle as more of a 'family' show.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

I miss Rose


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Tom Baker


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Is it really, though? I've always understood the (sadly, now former) Sarah Jane Adventures to be the real children's show in the Doctor Who universe, Torchwood to be the obviously adult show in the universe, and Doctor Who to be right in the middle as more of a 'family' show.


Either last Series, or the one before, when they still did Confidentials, they had a contest for pretty young kids to write mini episode in their school classes, then they had the winners come to the set and they made the episode.

They also showed fan meet-n-greets and there were a whole lot of kids showing up in England, mainly young adults in the US (and some much older).

phox


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Is it really, though? I've always understood the (sadly, now former) Sarah Jane Adventures to be the real children's show in the Doctor Who universe, Torchwood to be the obviously adult show in the universe, and Doctor Who to be right in the middle as more of a 'family' show.


Found this quote attributed to Moffat:

"Everyone by the end of the opening music is a kid! It is watched by more adults than kids, but there is something at its heart, which belongs to children. All the best stuff is children's. You look at a risotto on a menu and you see the children's menu and there's sausage and chips. All the good stuff belongs to children."

I find Grimm's Fairy Tales scarier than anything on Doctor Who.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Ereth, I think you would enjoy this series if you set your expectations properly. Its not a drama like ST:TNG, or Babylon 5. However, there come some very well thought out plot points that make Babylon 5 look like Battlestar Galactica. Think of it in the vein of Buffy. It has its funny moments, and some drama (though Buffy is more dramatic.) Also, you have to just go with it sometimes. Its science fiction, emphasis on the fiction. Just keep in mind that a sonic screwdriver can do just about anything, and the laws of physics are made to be broken. The first episode (Rose) kind of sets the tempo: plastic men. If you're ok with animated plastic, and not thinking about how they move or are there wires, are they cyborgs, or how they communicate, then you'll be fine.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

If I were to pick out a single outstanding episode, my choice would be School Reunion (2005 Who Season 2 episode 3). 

You get a fabulous performance by Tony Head. You have David Tennant. You have the return of Liz Sladen as Sarah Jane. You have K-9. The companions are fun. Just a great solid episode all around.

My favorite Eccleston moment is in "Dalek".


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I just watched the first 2005 episode "Rose". I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I must admit the plastic men made me think I should watch "Westworld" and I was terribly amused that Rose didn't notice how plastic her boyfriend was.

There were a couple of laugh out loud moments and I still have no idea what Rose said just before she made the heroic swing to save the day, but I enjoyed it quite a bit.

I'm not ALWAYS picky about SF. I love "Quark", after all. It felt more like Twilight Zone than Star Trek, but that's ok, I love the Zone.

Oh, and I spent significant time thinking how sad it is that they don't sell that model VW Beetle in America any more, and also that having a black man stuck to the trash can in a clear "********" moment would get so MUCH grief were it done in America.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Ereth said:


> ..and I was terribly amused that Rose didn't notice how plastic her boyfriend was.


This is exactly the sort of thing we pick on as "Campy". And after 50 years, it's just part of the charm of the show.

If this silliness at times amuses you, you'll do fine 

Edit: Also, neither the Autons, nor the Nestene Consciousness are new enemies. So some of their look was sortof a throwback to the original costumes. That happens here and there....


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Well, I do know about Daleks. Robots who plan to take over the universe who are stymied by stairs. Gotta love that.

It always reminded me a bit of "John Carter" because stairs were never invented on Barsoom and everything had ramps (no need for an Americans with Disabilities Act to implement them there) and Barsoomians were confused by stairs, too.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Oh, and the plastic headless boyfriend with cubes for hands smashing everything in sight in a very Japanese Monster Movie mode was actually a laugh out loud moment for me.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Now I really want to go back and watch Eccleston and Tennant again. And the Sarah Jane Adventures.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

So, with all the discussion of various companions and the Doctor being regenerated, I'm wondering if there's any overt discussion of Michael Moorcocks "Eternal Champion" who is always summoned when needed, and who is accompanied by the "Eternal Companion" who may or may not know that he/she is the companion to the Champion. The Champion usually has a cursed weapon of great power.

From a very cursory glance it appears the Doctor might fit, though I don't know enough about the sonic screwdriver yet, but all the other parts seem to be there for him to be an aspect of the Eternal Champion, even if not overtly.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Well, Google is your friend. Moorcock himself wrote a Dr Who novel featuring the 10th Doctor and Jerry Cornelius. Getting Cornelius into the Whoverse (is that a thing?) must've been very interesting, though I confess I prefer the Dancers at the End of Times Jherek Carnelian more. I can almost imagine the Doctor arriving at the End of Time, but the Morphail Effect would make that problematic.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

You! More watching! Less over-analyzing based on one episode! 

You're like a man with a single point on a graph in front of him, who's not only extrapolating a whole line, but also working on fitting a series of curves.

There are only so many themes in the world. There are bound to be similarities to other fiction.

You have more than enough work to do to find the running themes within the series, without polluting the process with running themes from other works of fiction....

<Note, this post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek amusing - apologies if it missed the mark>


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

No, it's funny. I got it immediately.

I just happen to be a big fan of Moorcock and his Eternal Champion concept and see it everywhere. Batman and Robin can even be argued to be aspects. It's just a wild hair thought I had. I have lots of those. It's fun.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Ereth said:


> I just watched the first 2005 episode "Rose". I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I must admit the plastic men made me think I should watch "Westworld" and I was terribly amused that Rose didn't notice how plastic her boyfriend was.


If you enjoyed _Rose_, then I think it's safe to say you'll enjoy Doctor Who. _Rose_ was one of the worst episodes of the regenerated series. Which isn't to say it was bad, but rather that it gets much better.

Also, you might want to consider starting Torchwood Season 1 when you start Doctor Who Season 3. There is very little connection between the series', so you won't miss that much if you don't watch Torchwood. But watching both together adds some minor mystery and recognition that you wouldn't otherwise get.

If you want to be extra spoiler-free, you can watch the episodes the safe way by doing one episode of Doctor Who, followed by one of Torchwood, and alternate.

But really, you only have to be concerned about (spoiler about only which episodes contain the connections, not any details)...



Spoiler



...the finales of seasons 3 and 4 of Doctor Who. Get to the season finale of Torchwood Season 1, watch the season finale of Doctor Who Season 3, then watch the season finale of Torchwood Season 1. Do the same for Torchwood Season 2 and Doctor Who season 4. After that, there are no more connections between the shows.


And again, the connections are extremely minor, so don't force yourself to watch Torchwood thinking you'll be missing something in Doctor Who. This is more of a "if you're gonna be watching Torchwood anyway, you might as well watch it this way" suggestion. It adds a few moments of fun and continuity, but that's it.

Torchwood Season 3 is a mini-series, but it is, in my opinion, by far the best season of Torchwood. Season 4 was the worst season, and was developed in a joint effort by Starz and the BBC. Feel free to watch that if you're a completist. But you're not missing much if you don't. I will admit that I enjoyed the basic premise and how it ended, but I was very unimpressed with the bulk of the storyline up to that point.

Make sure you at least finish watching season 1 of Doctor Who before starting Torchwood, though.

For anyone else who is interested in Doctor Who, but doesn't have Netflix, it's also available for all Amazon Prime members. Amazon has all seasons up through 7A (i.e., all episodes except for the ones that aired this year). And it also has Torchwood seasons 1 - 3.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

*Fun fact:*
The original series of "Doctor Who" preview tapes were kept secret by hiding them in a file labeled "Torchwood" as that is an anagram of "Doctor Who".



> When the first series of Doctor Who was being made, television pirates were desperate to acquire the preview tapes. One of the people in the office had the idea of labeling the tapes with the anagram "Torchwood" rather than "Doctor Who", as a security measure to disguise the tapes when they were delivered from Cardiff to London. Writer Russell T. Davies liked this idea so much that it later inspired him to use it as a title when creating this spin-off series.


----------



## LordXenophon (Sep 4, 2013)

BitbyBlit said:


> And again, the connections are extremely minor, so don't force yourself to watch Torchwood thinking you'll be missing something in Doctor Who. This is more of a "if you're gonna be watching Torchwood anyway, you might as well watch it this way" suggestion. It adds a few moments of fun and continuity, but that's it.


The connections with Sarah Jane Adventures are considerably more frequent. If you're watching both shows, I'd definately reccomend getting an episode guide and watching them in order of first airing. Both shows refer to each other several times, usually explaining something you might find spoily about the other show.

Torchwood doesn't do this so much. They do explain how characters from one show end up on the other, but I can only think of one thing that might be spoily.

To avoid the biggest spoiler, just don't watch the finale of Doctor Who season 4 until you've finished season 2 of Torchwood. I reccomend watching them in the order they aired, which would be seasons 1 and 2 of Doctor Who, season 1 of Torchwood, season 3 of Doctor Who, season 2 of Torchwood, then season 4 of Doctor Who.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Go back to Christopher Eccleston or David Tennant. They were great Doctors. Matt Smith just couldn't fill their shoes.


Funny. Even though I think they made the Doctor too young, I prefer Matt Smith to Tennant.

Start with the 2005 reboot but at some point, go back and find the original 1963 episode An Earthly Child.

Two of the Torchwood seasons sucked - the first and the last. The first season, because the characters were all selfish idiots. The last season could have been great if it had half the episodes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Funny. Even though I think they made the Doctor too young, I prefer Matt Smith to Tennant.


The reason it worked, I think, is that Smith was good (perhaps the best ever) at often conveying a timeless quality to the character. He rarely SEEMED young, even though he LOOKED young.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Ereth said:


> Well, I do know about Daleks. Robots who plan to take over the universe who are stymied by stairs. Gotta love that.
> 
> It always reminded me a bit of "John Carter" because stairs were never invented on Barsoom and everything had ramps (no need for an Americans with Disabilities Act to implement them there) and Barsoomians were confused by stairs, too.


Apparently you really don't know about Daleks. You've obviously never seen episodes where the Daleks could levitate up the stairs or fly. FYI, Daleks are not robots but actual lifeforms housed in a mechanical structure.

And you call yourself a Doctor Who fan...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> If you enjoyed Rose, then I think it's safe to say you'll enjoy Doctor Who. Rose was one of the worst episodes of the regenerated series. Which isn't to say it was bad, but rather that it gets much better.
> .


Wow. Everyone who I have introduced to Who with "Rose" fell in love immediately.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Wow. Everyone who I have introduced to Who with "Rose" fell in love immediately.


Reading this plot summary isn't doing much to convince me to jump on board the Who train just yet. 



Spoiler



The episode opens by showing a day in the life of Rose Tyler, a young woman working in a shop. As she is about to leave work for the day, a security guard stops her and sends her to the basement to deliver money for the lottery to her boss. Unable to locate him in the basement, *she finds herself being chased by mannequins that she initially thinks are university students trying to scare her. She is rescued from them by a mysterious man who introduces himself as "the Doctor". The Doctor tells Rose to get out of the building, as he intends to blow it up to destroy a transmitter on the roof. As Rose leaves, the building explodes in flames behind her.*

The next day, Rose is discussing the explosion with her mother when the Doctor appears at her door. Rose pulls him inside to discuss the explosion. As she is making him a coffee, *the Doctor is attacked by a plastic mannequin arm which had followed Rose home and then let itself in via the cat flap. The Doctor and Rose subdue and deactivate the arm*, and Rose follows the Doctor as he leaves. He tells her that she would be better off forgetting he was there, and disappears into his TARDIS. Unable to let the matter rest, Rose begins investigating the Doctor and meets a man named Clive who has been tracking the Doctor's appearances throughout history. Clive tells Rose the Doctor is dangerous and that if he's there something bad is about to happen. While Rose is talking to Clive, her boyfriend Mickey Smith is kidnapped by a wheelie bin and replaced with a plastic replicant.

The fake Mickey takes Rose to lunch and attempts to question her about the Doctor, but the Doctor shows up and beheads the replicant. The Doctor takes Rose and the plastic head to the TARDIS and attempts to use the head to locate the controlling signal. With the head connected, the TARDIS takes them to the London Eye. The Doctor explains to Rose that he is an alien and the fake Mickey was an Auton, controlled by a signal from the Nestene Consciousness. He shows Rose that he has a vial of anti-plastic that can be used to destroy the Nestene if necessary. Realising that the transmitter is the London Eye itself, Rose and the Doctor descend underneath it to stop the Nestene Consciousness. They find Mickey tied up but alive, and the Doctor speaks to the Nestene Consciousness. He tries to negotiate with it, but the Consciousness blames the Doctor for the destruction of its planet during the Time War. The Consciousness activates all the Autons at Queens Arcade, where several shoppers are shot and killed including Clive. The Doctor is also held down by a pair of Autons, but Rose rescues him and the anti-plastic drops into the vat where the Nestene Consciousness resided.

With the Consciousness dead, the Autons all collapse. The Doctor uses the TARDIS to take Mickey and Rose home. He offers to let Rose travel with him but she initially declines, as she feels an obligation to take care of Mickey and her mother. The Doctor leaves in the TARDIS but reappears a few seconds later, sweetening his offer by telling her that it can travel in time as well as space. Rose finally accepts, kissing Mickey goodbye and running into the TARDIS.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I wonder why someone would feel the need to post in a thread about a show they don't watch and have no intention of ever watching.

Interesting.

Ereth, hope you enjoy the show as much as I have. It's great fun! :up:


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I'm gonna try Blink since so many folks say it's the "best" of the bunch. Hey I'm all for watching fun "new" shows and since some say my hatred of the 60's/70's version shouldn't cloud my judgement, I'm ok with trying out an ep to see what all the fuss is about. 

I have access to Netflix now but couldn't find "Blink" anywhere listed. All it shows is Seasons 1-6??


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> Apparently you really don't know about Daleks. You've obviously never seen episodes where the Daleks could levitate up the stairs or fly.


I had heard they had added that functionality in later years. Kind of like how R2 suddenly got rockets in the prequels.



> FYI, Daleks are not robots but actual lifeforms housed in a mechanical structure.


That I didn't know.



> And you call yourself a Doctor Who fan...


Well, not yet. But I did fall in love with the character of Rose almost instantly.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Alfer said:


> I'm gonna try Blink since so many folks say it's the "best" of the bunch. Hey I'm all for watching fun "new" shows and since some say my hatred of the 60's/70's version shouldn't cloud my judgement, I'm ok with trying out an ep to see what all the fuss is about.
> 
> I have access to Netflix now but couldn't find "Blink" anywhere listed. All it shows is Seasons 1-6??


Season 3, episode 11.

Edit to correct episode number.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think this is absolutely not true. I would put Smith head and shoulders above Tennant as a performer on this show. Tennant was certainly likable, but I think he was a lightweight.


  

I find this kind of comparison non-illuminating when someone makes the general statement and says nothing else. After all, actors are constrained by the material they are given to do and what is asked by them of the directors. Comparing two different actors' performances of _Hamlet_, for instance, the playing field is more level and you have better ground to compare and contrast.

However, a discussion of Eccleston vs. Tennant vs. Smith in their various episodes should wait until Ereth has had a chance to catch up. 

I will say though, that I could understand why people might call Tennant a lightweight after watching Eccleston. Versus Smith, however, my reaction as posted above stands.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> Apparently you really don't know about Daleks. You've obviously never seen episodes where the Daleks could levitate up the stairs or fly. FYI, Daleks are not robots but actual lifeforms housed in a mechanical structure.
> 
> And you call yourself a Doctor Who fan...


What about a thread titled "Teach me about Doctor Who" gave you the impression that he was a big fan who knew all about Daleks?



Ereth said:


> That I didn't know.


You would have learned this along with Rose in a future episode. (I'll give you one guess which one. ) It's not a big spoiler, but as someone new to Who during the regenerated series (save for one random classic episode I had seen before), it was a nice surprise, and would have been nice for you too had people been paying attention to the whole point of this thread.


----------



## sakura panda (Apr 6, 2004)

I've watched Blink (that's the one with the angels, right?) by accident -- my husband was watching the series and I happened to wander in during that episode and stayed -- and haven't watched another one since. He has told me that the rest of them aren't quite like that one, but the next time I inadvertantly caught an episode, it had those angels in it again; I've been too scared to start the series on my own. (While I was intrigued, I really didn't like how scary they were!)

However, this thread is making it sound like overall the series is more fun and that I might actually enjoy it. Now that I'm watching Netflix on my own profile, instead of sharing with my husband, I'll put it in my queue to try later.

Thanks for the thread! :up:


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> However, a discussion of Eccleston vs. Tennant vs. Smith in their various episodes should wait until Ereth has had a chance to catch up.


I'm like a mother with her children. I love them all and they are all special to me in their own way.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Wow. Everyone who I have introduced to Who with "Rose" fell in love immediately.


Maybe I just wasn't used to British television, but I had a "meh" attitude after seeing the first episode. I enjoyed it enough to keep watching, and it slowly grew on me. But for most of the first season, Who was "yet one more sci-fi show" in my mind. It was good, but didn't really stand out from any of the other shows I watched.

Then I got to _The Empty Child_, and that blew me away. Doctor Who jumped up to "top tier sci-fi" in my mind. And the episodes that followed to the end of the first season just kept getting better. By that time, Doctor Who had changed from something that I watched simply because it was something to watch to something for which I impatiently waited.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

LordXenophon said:


> To avoid the biggest spoiler, just don't watch the finale of Doctor Who season 4 until you've finished season 2 of Torchwood. I reccomend watching them in the order they aired, which would be seasons 1 and 2 of Doctor Who, season 1 of Torchwood, season 3 of Doctor Who, season 2 of Torchwood, then season 4 of Doctor Who.


Yeah, that's the way to go. For some reason I was thinking they had aired together, and that's why I was making it a lot more complicated than it actually was.

One more thing I would add is to watch Torchwood Season 3 before the Doctor Who specials that aired between Seasons 4 and 5.

And just in case it's not clear on Netflix, the specials fall into this place in the context of the regular seasons of Doctor Who:

Season 4

The Next Doctor - (This was the Christmas Special, so might be considered part of Season 4 on Netflix. On Amazon Instant Video, it is part of Season 4, but on Blu-ray, it's part of the specials.)

Planet of the Dead

The Waters of Mars

The End of Time Parts 1 and 2

Season 5


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

sakura panda said:


> I've watched *Blink* (that's the one with the angels, right?) by accident -- my husband was watching the series and I happened to wander in during that episode and stayed -- and haven't watched another one since. He has told me that the rest of them aren't quite like that one, but the next time I inadvertantly caught an episode, it had those angels in it again; I've been too scared to start the series on my own. (While I was intrigued, I really didn't like how scary they were!) ... <snip>





BitbyBlit said:


> ... Then I got to *The Empty Child*, and that blew me away. Doctor Who jumped up to "top tier sci-fi" in my mind. And the episodes that followed to the end of the first season just kept getting better. By that time, Doctor Who had changed from something that I watched simply because it was something to watch to something for which I impatiently waited.


In my opinion, "Blink" and "The Empty Child" are perfect examples of Doctor Who episodes which would be way too intense for an 11 year old child to watch. Those episodes would give them nightmares for years after watching, if they could bear to sit through the entire episode.

But, Katie, I'm glad you've decided to give Doctor Who another go, as you will come to learn about his character (and other recurring characters) and the concept of the TARDIS ("it's bigger on the inside") and space and time travel. I began by marathoning my way through the Eccleston and Tennant series after my little brother raved about them (as well as Torchwood) and gave me hints of things to look forward to in both series (e.g. crossover character appearances). :up:


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

getreal said:


> In my opinion, "Blink" and "The Empty Child" are perfect examples of Doctor Who episodes which would be way too intense for an 11 year old child to watch. Those episodes would give them nightmares for years after watching, if they could bear to sit through the entire episode.


I can't remember her exact age, but my daughter started watching doctor who at a young age and never had any problems s being scared. She just turned 13, so I'm guessing she was about 10? I started a thread here titled something like "Doctor Who appropriate for kids" or something like that back before she started watching. When I get to my computer (posting from phone) I'll see if I can find the thread. She may have even been a bit younger than 10.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Alfer said:


> I'm gonna try Blink since so many folks say it's the "best" of the bunch. Hey I'm all for watching fun "new" shows and since some say my hatred of the 60's/70's version shouldn't cloud my judgement, I'm ok with trying out an ep to see what all the fuss is about.
> 
> I have access to Netflix now but couldn't find "Blink" anywhere listed. All it shows is Seasons 1-6??


Make sure that you are looking for it in the current series (Doctor Who 2005) and not the older shows (Doctor Who Classic). The two versions are listed separately on Netflix.


----------



## marrone (Oct 11, 2001)

Swirl_Junkie said:


> Is there anything that would be too risque or ultra violent for an 11 yr old? I've been meaning to start watching with my kid, and this thread reminded me. He's ok with scary, and he plays mild first person shooters.


My 10 year old daughter likes the show, and very gory or scary stuff bothers her, so your kid should be good.

-Mike


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I found the thread I started. She was 4 months away from her 11th b-day.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=464955&highlight=doctor+who+kids


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

I like it a lot. I didn't think I would like the reboot when it first started, either, because I too remember trying to watch it in the oh-so-campy 70s ... which is kind of ironic, since Tom Baker is the guy I automatically think of as the Doctor.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

BitbyBlit said:


> What about a thread titled "Teach me about Doctor Who" gave you the impression that he was a big fan who knew all about Daleks?


My apologies to Ereth. I totally missed that he was the OP. OTOH, my post was in his response to his statement that he knew about Daleks. I was just giving him the facts.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I thought you were making a joke.

I watched the "End of the World" today. I'm too much of a geek, I suppose, but I kept thinking we were at Milliways. Didn't actually enjoy it quite as much as "Rose", but it still had charm.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Oh, I almost forgot. I absolutely loved the Wurlitzer being brought out and identified as an "iPod". Shades of Sleeper!


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I thought you were making a joke.
> 
> I watched the "End of the World" today. I'm too much of a geek, I suppose, but I kept thinking we were at Milliways. Didn't actually enjoy it quite as much as "Rose", but it still had charm.


I had the exact same thought about Milliways . Don't worry-- you'll find that there are certain episodes that are kind of necesary once a person starts travelling with the Doctor. One is 'let's go far in the future and really wow them'. I think most new companions get one in their 2nd or 3rd episode. They are always a bit awkward as the new companion is generally still growing into character. All new companions generally get a 'back in time' episode too...

Far Future episodes:
"End of the World" Rose 2nd ep
"Gridlock" Martha 3rd ep
"Planet of the Ood" Donna 3rd ep (not counting Christmas ep season before)
"The Beast Below" Amy 2nd ep
"The Rings of Akhatan" Clara 2nd ep (or 4th episode all things considered)

Past Episodes:
"The Unquiet Dead" Rose 3rd ep
"The Shakespeare Code" Martha 2nd ep 
"The Fires of Pompeii" Donna 2nd ep
"Victory of the Daleks" Amy 3rd ep
"The Crimson Horror" Clara 6th ep (her 3rd ep, "Cold War" fits too but more recent past)

It's kind of an "Oh my goodness I'm in the future" and "Oh my goodness I'm in the past" kind of effect that they all have to get through and have their moments.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

While Blink is great it is a very "Doctor Lite" episode, you don't really get a feel for him from that one.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> While Blink is great it is a very "Doctor Lite" episode, you don't really get a feel for him from that one.


I agree, but I loved the mysterious way he was depicted in "Blink".

And how could any red-blooded hetero male not fall in love with Sally Sparrow instantly? I would have loved it if she had become one of the Doctor's traveling companions.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> My apologies to Ereth. I totally missed that he was the OP. OTOH, my post was in his response to his statement that he knew about Daleks. I was just giving him the facts.


It would come in handy if there was a way to immediately identify the OP of a thread. I don't know if vBulletin has this feature, but I've seen it on a lot of other forums.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

BitbyBlit said:


> Torchwood Season 3 is a mini-series, but it is, in my opinion, by far the best season of Torchwood ...


To me, it would be worth watching the first two seasons of Torchwood for no other reason than to get to "Children of Earth". I found the mini-series to be one of the most compelling and entertaining things I've ever seen on TV. Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed the other seasons (well, maybe not season 4 so much), but the third season was simply brilliant television.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Well, watched the third episode of the first season, where they go back in time to discover the Gelf are trapped in the gas lines of a morgue.

Maybe it's me, but I'm enjoying each episode less than the one before. If it weren't for the novelty factor of having Charles Dickens in this one, it would have been a pretty banal episode, and a rather boring Call of Chtulhu adventure.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

getreal said:


> I agree, but I loved the mysterious way he was depicted in "Blink".
> 
> And how could any red-blooded hetero male not fall in love with Sally Sparrow instantly? I would have loved it if she had become one of the Doctor's traveling companions.


My beagle puppy is named Sally Sparrow.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Maybe it's me, but I'm enjoying each episode less than the one before. If it weren't for the novelty factor of having Charles Dickens in this one, it would have been a pretty banal episode, and a rather boring Call of Chtulhu adventure.


It's not just you, it was something of a fizzle (and a different writer). If I were ranking all the episodes in that season, it would be soundly at the bottom. So at least you have that behind you... 

Carry on...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Well, watched the third episode of the first season, where they go back in time to discover the Gelf are trapped in the gas lines of a morgue.
> 
> Maybe it's me, but I'm enjoying each episode less than the one before. If it weren't for the novelty factor of having Charles Dickens in this one, it would have been a pretty banal episode, and a rather boring Call of Chtulhu adventure.


You need to just enjoy rather than compare every story and every aspect to another story. Your daily routines must drive you crazy.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> You need to just enjoy rather than compare every story and every aspect to another story. Your daily routines must drive you crazy.


Part of being alive is making connections in your brain. I'm particularly good at it. I make constant connections and comparisons. It's not a conscious thing.

But we've had that discussion before. The idea of "turn your mind off" is alien to me. I can't do it. I have no idea how anybody does. There is no such thing as "just enjoy". It's impossible.

If you expect that, you should probably put the thread on ignore now. It's not going to happen.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Part of being alive is making connections in your brain. I'm particularly good at it. I make constant connections and comparisons. It's not a conscious thing.
> 
> But we've had that discussion before. The idea of "turn your mind off" is alien to me. I can't do it. I have no idea how anybody does. There is no such thing as "just enjoy". It's impossible.
> 
> If you expect that, you should probably put the thread on ignore now. It's not going to happen.


Being closed minded about attempting to enjoy something is a deceit. My mind makes so many connections, it is terrifying. But I don't articulate them all as you obviously do. Articulating a habit makes it more of a habit. But I'd expect someone who is so sure of their brain power would know that. You are refusing to try to live in the moment and enjoy. Don't try to make that the human condition. Being alive doesn't mean living in the past, either.

As for this thread, I encourage everyone to ignore it. You don't want to learn about Doctor Who. You want to show off.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

getreal said:


> In my opinion, "Blink" and "The Empty Child" are perfect examples of Doctor Who episodes which would be way too intense for an 11 year old child to watch. Those episodes would give them nightmares for years after watching, if they could bear to sit through the entire episode.


See, I think it depends on the kid, I was watching stuff "scary" and "intense" at about 8 years old.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Ereth said:


> Well, watched the third episode of the first season, where they go back in time to discover the Gelf are trapped in the gas lines of a morgue.
> 
> Maybe it's me, but I'm enjoying each episode less than the one before. If it weren't for the novelty factor of having Charles Dickens in this one, it would have been a pretty banal episode, and a rather boring Call of Chtulhu adventure.


See, I really enjoyed that episode, I liked the "feel" of it, the way they told the story, in a very "Dickens" style. The visuals, the pacing, it was the first of the new series (I have seen them all), that I went "That was well executed".

The next time that happened for me was Empty Child/Doctor Dances.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> As for this thread, I encourage everyone to ignore it. You don't want to learn about Doctor Who. You want to show off.


IMHO this is uncalled for.

Ereth's watching for the first time. So what if he's not caught up to the current season yet? He has the same right to watch the episodes and give his first impressions of them as anybody else. If you don't want to listen to him talk about it, nobody's forcing you.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Being closed minded about attempting to enjoy something is a deceit. My mind makes so many connections, it is terrifying. But I don't articulate them all as you obviously do. Articulating a habit makes it more of a habit. But I'd expect someone who is so sure of their brain power would know that. You are refusing to try to live in the moment and enjoy. Don't try to make that the human condition. Being alive doesn't mean living in the past, either.
> 
> As for this thread, I encourage everyone to ignore it. You don't want to learn about Doctor Who. You want to show off.


What utter nonsense. You obviously came in here determined to piss in my wheaties. Well, guess what? Nobody cares what you think, least of all me.

The next time you feel like you have the right to tell someone else how to watch a television show, just think about how incredibly arrogant that is, and shut the heck up. I can watch TV however the hell I want, and it's none of your business. You do NOT have the right to tell anybody how to "enjoy" their entertainment.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> You do NOT have the right to tell anybody how to "enjoy" their entertainment.


Actually, it was overshadowed by the gay marriage & civil rights stuff, so you might have missed it. But the Supreme Court last session did indeed affirm Tony's right to tell everybody how to enjoy their entertainment (although the precedent is strictly speaking limited to television, so it's not yet clear if he can tell you how to enjoy movies or music).


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Actually, it was overshadowed by the gay marriage & civil rights stuff, so you might have missed it. But the Supreme Court last session did indeed affirm Tony's right to tell everybody how to enjoy their entertainment (although the precedent is strictly speaking limited to television, so it's not yet clear if he can tell you how to enjoy movies or music).


LOL! Literally laughing out loud here. Thanks, Rob!


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Watch faster!

If you want to over analyse any episodes, Gallifrey Base has a sub forum for every episode http://gallifreybase.com/forum/register.php?do=signup


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Part of being alive is making connections in your brain. I'm particularly good at it. I make constant connections and comparisons. It's not a conscious thing.
> 
> But we've had that discussion before. The idea of "turn your mind off" is alien to me. I can't do it. I have no idea how anybody does. There is no such thing as "just enjoy". It's impossible.


"Willing suspension of disbelief" ? 

Note: "you" in the stuff below means the generic "a person" unless otherwise specified.

In my experience, the difference between surrendering to the moment vs. having your brain turned on too much comes into play most during the process of creating. If the analytical brain (what one of my instructors called "monkey head") is telling you loudly that everything you write is crap, you can't write. You have to give yourself over to the flow of the story, like a surfer catching a wave, and keep everything moving forward. Only later, once the draft is done, do you go back and with your critical head start making connections and refining everything.

But the same thing can come into play during the audience experience. For me, if the super-analytical part of my brain turns on too much, it's a sign that the performance or thing I'm watching isn't working somehow. I'm not caught up in the story, and my brain is bored, so it starts daydreaming and noticing other things, like watching the guy playing trombone taking apart his instrument and cleaning it in the middle of the symphony. Or if I notice something that has too much emphasis -- like the writer's mind seeing where the mystery writer has planted a clue that gives away the ending, it can kick me out of the story.

On the other hand, in the best experiences the "just enjoy" and the "making connections" parts of my brain run in tandem like a well-matched pair of horses pulling a carriage. I still remember reading Patricia McKillip's _Riddle-Master_ books, and figuring out one of the key plot points about twenty pages before the protagonist does. "OMG [main character] doesn't know [X]!" -- and the dramatic tension in the next twenty pages was awesome, because I was trying desperately not to race ahead in the book to find out when he was going to find out.

As you said, though, apart from a few times here and there where I just said "screw it, I'm going to ignore that they just did [stupid thing] and try enjoy the story",

e.g. the part in one of the Indiana Jones movies where everyone 


Spoiler



drops out of the airplane -- when they hit the ground and the physics student part of my brain said "well, they're all dead now, story's over"



I have very little control over how much the analytical brain comes into play.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Just FYI: BBC America (which I realize not everyone has access to) is currently running a series of specials called "The Doctors Revisited" -- the first airing for each Doctor is generally followed by the episode which was discussed in the show. 

This is great if you've already watched Doctor Who (and I do get it -- the title is "Re-visited"). For the New Whovian watching the older doctors, though, it can be a problem. For one thing, all the stuff people talks about is a spoiler for the episode about to follow, and if you are prone to over-analyzing, having all those things just discussed to look out for can really kick the analytical part of your brain into overdrive.

We just watched the episode on the Eighth Doctor, followed by the one-off TV Movie which is the only place the Eighth Doctor appeared (not counting cameos in other episodes I haven't seen yet). It was filmed in 1996 and is set close to New Year's Eve in 1999, in San Francisco. I enjoyed seeing Paul McGann at long last, but as for the story part of the episode, there was absolutely no way I was going to be able to sit back and "just enjoy it". 

First of all, I'm now spoiled by the shows that are set in San Francisco that have been filmed in San Francisco. All sorts of things will set off the "oh, no it isn't!" alarm. There was the TV newscaster that was supposed to be on channel 7 (or maybe channel 5), but the station had a fake call sign (didn't exist at the time; it now belongs to a radio station in Southern California). There was the chase scene, which, as my husband pointed out, was way too flat. 

Add in the fact that you have an American setting but a Brit director and a cheesy soundtrack that reminded me of the seventies, so I had to keep reminding myself that they filmed this in the nineties, and the fact that I was watching it backwards, having seen how the transition to the year 2000 was actually celebrated in the Bay Area, it was just too much weirdness.

Monkey head was in full force, wondering why the prop people hadn't bought any of the silly 2000 glasses (because they didn't exist when the episode was filmed, d'oh!) or what a Doctor Who episode set in America would be like if they had asked Quentin Tarantino to direct it (hey, he did CSI) or the Grateful Dead to do the theme song -- you get the idea. "Just enjoying" the movie wasn't going to happen.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Paul McGann has made no cameos on screen as of yet. They have done audio stories with him and books with his Doctor.

Things like faked call signs don't bother me because I know often that has to do with permissions and such.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Yeah, willing suspension of disbelief is a concept I'm quite familiar with.

But to get attacked here for making an off-hand reference AFTER the show is just a waste of time. Making connections and references is what geeks do.

I'm particularly disappointed because (as Jan knows) I had made a post to my Facebook page the other day about how I'd watched an episode and made an off-hand reference to the Morphail Effect (from the Dancers at the End of Time series which I love) and had a moment of joy because I realized that I was in a place where I likely wouldn't have to explain my references, and wistfully wished that happened more often.

Then here we are a day or so later and someone comes along and complains that I make such references, in my own thread no less! Sorry. It's what I like to do. It's not "showing off", it's "enjoying". That he doesn't get that means we have no common ground.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Langree said:


> Paul McGann has made no cameos on screen as of yet. They have done audio stories with him and books with his Doctor.


Oh, yes, I'm quite aware of the books, but I wasn't sure about the audio stories or any animated stuff. The site where I used to look up those things shut down a while ago. 



Langree said:


> Things like faked call signs don't bother me because I know often that has to do with permissions and such.


Oh, I get it, and I understand why they would want to use a low-numbered station (possible BBC in-joke there). But there aren't many TV stations in the US that start with KK, and we used to have KKHI radio here, so it was not only the wrong call sign for the station shown on screen, it felt more like a radio call sign to me.

If they had used a station number which didn't exist in the area, I could have passed it off more easily as an alternate timeline. The independent stations are far more likely to change their callsigns than the low-numbered stations, too. The combination of a real channel number and the fake call sign just bugged me.



Ereth said:


> I'm particularly disappointed because (as Jan knows) I had made a post to my Facebook page the other day about how I'd watched an episode and made an off-hand reference to the Morphail Effect (from the Dancers at the End of Time series which I love) and had a moment of joy because I realized that I was in a place where I likely wouldn't have to explain my references, and wistfully wished that happened more often.


You've just been spoiled by talking to me. 

(I'm a bit disappointed that someone else beat me to telling you that Moorcook had already sucked Doctor Who into the Multiverse.)


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

murgatroyd said:


> Oh, yes, I'm quite aware of the books, but I wasn't sure about the audio stories or any animated stuff. The site where I used to look up those things shut down a while ago.


Here ya go.

http://www.bigfinish.com/ranges/released/eighth-doctor-adventures


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Episode 8 is a good one ("Father's Day"), and the following 2 ("The Empty Child" and "The Doctor Dances") are really good as well. You will find "The Aliens of London" and "World War Three" to be extremely campy. Part of that is due to the fact that the aliens aren't new ones, and as such, have old 'special effects' that are rather humorous. But once you hit Father's Day, the rest of the episodes work rather well and the show gets a firm foundation. Just have to work your way through to Father's Day, though. Tough it out until you get there.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Agatha is wise.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Agatha Mystery said:


> You will find "The Aliens of London" and "World War Three" to be extremely campy. Part of that is due to the fact that the aliens aren't new ones, and as such, have old 'special effects' that are rather humorous.


Not only that, but those two episodes were *very* juvenile, even for Doctor Who standards. If you don't mind some rather lowbrow, juvenile humor, then you won't mind those two episodes.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I have enjoyed the Doctor Who Revisited and the sample episodes but I won't be revisiting Classic Doctor Who on Netflix. Really to corny for me. The costuming alone was a turnoff with question marks on sweaters, long scarves etc. I did like the frock coat on the 8th doctor but celery and a cricket bat (which would make a decent weapon) really? The BBCA doctors can be silly but are not dressed silly, there have been some moving episodes in the reboot.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

gweempose said:


> It would come in handy if there was a way to immediately identify the OP of a thread. I don't know if vBulletin has this feature, but I've seen it on a lot of other forums.


Just look at the thread title on the forum main page. The OP is listed there.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

I never enjoyed Father's Day ... the way they present "this is what happens when you change the past" is so different than elsewhere in the series and it always seemed silly to me. The first season never took off for me until Captain Jack showed up.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Shakhari said:


> I never enjoyed Father's Day ... the way they present "this is what happens when you change the past" is so different than elsewhere in the series and it always seemed silly to me. The first season never took off for me until Captain Jack showed up.


Ooh...I do love Captain Jack.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Shakhari said:


> I never enjoyed Father's Day ... the way they present "this is what happens when you change the past" is so different than elsewhere in the series and it always seemed silly to me. The first season never took off for me until Captain Jack showed up.


I can't think of any other examples where someone tries to change their own timeline, do you have an example?


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

zordude said:


> I can't think of any other examples where someone tries to change their own timeline, do you have an example?


Marty McFly in "Back to the Future"?


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Just got to Blink last night. Lived up to the hype. Great episode, once you know the show and premise. And yes, those weeping angels would gave many kids nightmares.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Shakhari, you might want to spoilerize your post for Ereth. He isn't there yet and this thread is for him, not for following along the current season.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

uncdrew said:


> Just got to Blink last night. Lived up to the hype. Great episode, once you know the show and premise. And yes, those weeping angels would gave many kids nightmares.


We showed it to our teenaged niece somewhere around 16 years of age, I'd guess at the time. She now has a fear/phobia due to that episode.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

getreal said:


> Marty McFly in "Back to the Future"?


I don't think that is canon in Doctor Who


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Finally had time to test out a Doc episode..."Rose".

All I can say is wow...that was probably one of the least enjoyed bits of TV I've seen in quite a while. Everything about it fell flat. The acting was horrible, the Dr. wasn't funny or appealing at all (reminded me of the lead singer of Men at Work), the special effects were beyond cheesy, the story was just plain dumb (IMO). Seriously, I don't know what the appeal is of that episode. 

I'd give it a "D-".

I'm going to move on to the next episode in the que on netflix to see if the Doc can redeem himself or not.

So far I'm not impressed.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Just look at the thread title on the forum main page. The OP is listed there.


Yes, I realize this. It would just be so much more convenient if the OP was tagged throughout the thread.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Alfer said:


> Finally had time to test out a Doc episode...


Why are you bothering? You're going to hate it, you hate pretty much everything.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not being snarky here. From everything I've seen you post, you have an incredibly narrow range of what you actually like, and based on that, Doctor Who will not even remotely align with that. Now, this may be a little cynical, but the _only_ reason I can imagine you doing so is so that you can post here how much you disliked it.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Everyone claims its some of the best stuff on TV so I'm giving it a try.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Alfer said:


> Everyone claims its some of the best stuff on TV so I'm giving it a try.


Fair enough, but everyone's interests are different. "Everyone" claims Mad Men is some of the best stuff on TV, and I think it's visual Sominex for me; it is some of the dullest television since C-SPAN. "Everyone" claims Arrested Development is the funniest show in the history of history, but I would rather take an icepick to my eyes than watch another minute of that show.

I can tell you that for you, you won't like the show.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I can tell you that for you, you won't like the show.


Agree!

The chances are greater that peace will break out in the Middle East tomorrow. No way, no how Alfer is going to like Doctor Who.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

If Alfer likes Doctor Who, it will make me really second-guess how much I like Doctor Who.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Alfer said:


> Finally had time to test out a Doc episode..."Rose".
> 
> All I can say is wow...that was probably one of the least enjoyed bits of TV I've seen in quite a while. Everything about it fell flat. The acting was horrible, the Dr. wasn't funny or appealing at all (reminded me of the lead singer of Men at Work), the special effects were beyond cheesy, the story was just plain dumb (IMO). Seriously, I don't know what the appeal is of that episode.
> 
> ...


That episode was the first one of the new series and like all "new" shows they are trying to find their stride. Watcha few more episodes.

Here's the Wiki article on Billie Piper ("Rose")


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I just started watching the series "Luther" that aired on BBCA. I just finished the 2nd episode and realized that Paul McGann (aka Doctor Who No. 8) was playing the part of Luther's ex-wife's new boyfriend. I didn't recognize him with short hair and a heavy 5 o'clock shadow.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Shakhari, you might want to spoilerize your post for Ereth. He isn't there yet and this thread is for him, not for following along the current season.


He and I have talked about it in RL, so I didn't think about it when I posted, but you raise a valid point.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Why are you bothering? You're going to hate it, you hate pretty much everything.


Of course he does.

If you follow a recipe for bad results, you get bad results.

I haven't watched Mad Men or Arrested Development or lots of other shows that people say are really good. If I decide to sit down and watch those shows with an "Oh, yeah, show me!" attitude, I'm very likely to come away with a reaction of "meh".

In any case, I am not going to have the same experience as the viewers who watched the shows when they were brand new, watching as they were originally released, knowing nothing about what was going to happen (I don't mean that in the plotwise sense -- I mean, not knowing if the show will be cancelled tomorrow or if it will run for decades).

To give the show a fair chance -- to appreciate it as others have done -- you need to clear your mind of a lot of that outside knowledge, and approach the show as a new creation, and let it unveil itself to you, as a new viewer would have seen it. And you have to be willing to let yourself be pleased by what is good, rather than looking out on purpose for things to nitpick.

As far as I can tell, Alfer is unwilling to do that, so it's practically inevitable that he won't like anything.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

The three parter with The Master is pretty entertaining.


----------



## LordXenophon (Sep 4, 2013)

You really need to have seen most of the new series before you can truly understand most of the episodes these people are talking about. Only a very few episodes really work as stand-alone teasers to get you interested, then you have to go back to Rose and work your way through them in order.

I don't really think of Father's Day as a good starting point for a new viewer, because there were a lot of fan comments about it being more like The Twilight Zone. If that sounds interesting, then go for it.

Here's a few I think work well enough to watch early, meaning the ones with little reference to earlier episodes and plenty to show a new viewer how the genre works:

s01e01 Rose
s01e02 The End of the World
s01e03 The Unquiet Dead
s01e06 Dalek
s01e08 Father's Day
s02e10 Love and Monsters
The Runaway Bride
s03e01 Smith and Jones
s03e10 Blink
Voyage of the Damned
s04e01 Partners in Crime
s04e02 The Fires of Pompeii
s04e07 The Unicorn and the Wasp
Planet of the Dead
The Waters of Mars
s05e01 The Eleventh Hour
s05e02 The Beast Below
The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe

Episodes without series and episode numbers are specials. Notice how many are in series 1. This is because the show is heavily serialized, so it gets harder and harder to find an episode to watch independantly. 

I usually start people with 'Rose', 'The Runaway Bride', 'Voyage of the Damned', 'The Fires of Pompeii' 'The Waters of Mars' or 'The Beast Below'.

The Unquiet Dead is also one of the better ones for a new viewer, because it's the first one set in the past and it features a very recognizable historical figure. Not everyone likes a ghost story, though.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

sieglinde said:


> The BBCA doctors can be silly


BBCA doctors??


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Shakhari said:


> He and I have talked about it in RL, so I didn't think about it when I posted, but you raise a valid point.


Oh, then ignore my comment then. You haven't spoiled it for him (well, you may have, but it happened before your post ). I didn't realize that you two new each other in RL, and would have discussed it.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Oh, then ignore my comment then. You haven't spoiled it for him (well, you may have, but it happened before your post ). I didn't realize that you two new each other in RL, and would have discussed it.


Since about 1978 or so. Shakhari is my oldest real-life friend (oldest in terms of how long I've known him, he's actually a year younger than I).


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

I also assumed that your friend was a woman, by the name. I don't know why, but his username seems feminine to me.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Agatha Mystery said:


> I also assumed that your friend was a woman, by the name. I don't know why, but his username seems feminine to me.


Because it ends in a vowel. In Western Culture, that usually (though not always) indicates a female name.

In fact, it's an obscure X-Men reference from the 1960s, if I remember correctly.

I finished the 2nd half of the aliens crash into London episode. Ended better than I thought it would from the first half, but the promo for "next week" says we are getting Daleks.

I'm beginning to gather that while the 2005 series continues on from the old series, they decided to re-introduce everything so newbies like me could catch up. I guess that's why I'm starting in 2005 and not 2011 or something.

I don't think I ever started a show over 8 years old before. I was kind of hit by what a daunting task that is, and how long it'll be before I get to the Hugo-nominated episodes that started this jaunt earlier tonight.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Ereth said:


> Because it ends in a vowel. In Western Culture, that usually (though not always) indicates a female name.
> 
> In fact, it's an obscure X-Men reference from the 1960s, if I remember correctly.
> 
> ...


At least each series (season) is relatively short compared to a US 21 episode season.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Ereth said:


> I finished the 2nd half of the aliens crash into London episode. Ended better than I thought it would from the first half, but the promo for "next week" says we are getting Daleks.


Since you don't really 'need' the "next week" promo's to rope you into tuning in "next week", I suggest you skip them. They're not generally majorly spoiler, but at times they do ruin minor surprises. Sure, given the next episode is titled "Dalek", a Dalek showing up isn't really going to be a surprise, but the point remains.



Ereth said:


> I'm beginning to gather that while the 2005 series continues on from the old series, they decided to re-introduce everything so newbies like me could catch up. I guess that's why I'm starting in 2005 and not 2011 or something.


More or less, yes. For the most part, everything that we know from watching 25 years of classic Doctor Who, serves as backstory. While knowing it enriches the viewing experience, it's not required to enjoy the show. Some references, some jokes, a collection of enemies, and the occasional plot point draw from the classic series - but none of it is required going in (*). Although sometimes certain actions make a little more sense knowing the Doctor's full past.

(*) There are a few exceptions. The episodes still stand on their own, with their own plot, but are inexorably tied up with the doctors past and aren't quite as special without it.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Watched "Dalek" today. Actually loved that they had the whole stairs thing, and the actual comment about killing machines that are stopped by stairs. I'd been hearing that for years, so to hear it in the episode was an awesome tip of the hat to the fans.

Elevate! Elevate!

Turned out to be a pretty schmaltzy ending, but it was definitely not where I thought they were going, so I enjoyed it quite a bit.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Yeah I love the Elevate part.

You need to watch faster.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

I just watched "Dalek" (last night) too.

I love the American accents.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> I just watched "Dalek" (last night) too.
> 
> I love the American accents.


yeah, they also pronounced a word in a way that Americans wouldn't, but I can't remember what it was off the top of my head.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Agatha Mystery said:


> yeah, they also pronounced a word in a way that Americans wouldn't, but I can't remember what it was off the top of my head.


I guess all the Brits who can do American accents are already working in American television...


----------



## rgr (Feb 21, 2003)

There's a bunch of great infographics at http://blog.visual.ly/doctor-who-infographics/

They have the different doctors, companions, enemies, etc.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Finally had another chance to watch.. watched "The Long Game" today, where the Doctor, Rose, and Adam (whom I had already forgotten) go to the year 200,000.

Best episode yet. Felt like nothing else, just a good SF episode, internally consistent, well plotted. This is probably the first episode where I went "ok, this is good. I could watch this" on it's own, with no attachment to anything else (history, whatever).


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Just FYI -- BBC America is running a series of specials called "The Doctors Revisited". The first airing has a talking-head show about the Doctor (whichever one it is) followed by one of the episodes that is discussed in the show. So if you haven't seen that episode yet, you get big-time spoilers. 

They've caught up to the modern era; the next one due up is Christopher Eccleston's. You might want to record it and save it for later.

Edited to add: the show airs Sep 29th; the episodes following are "Bad Wolf" (S1 Ep 12) and "The Parting of the Ways" (S1 Ep 13).


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

rgr said:


> There's a bunch of great infographics at http://blog.visual.ly/doctor-who-infographics/
> 
> They have the different doctors, companions, enemies, etc.


Five robotic companions? I can only think of K9.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> Five robotic companions? I can only think of K9.


Looks like, based on the icons in that section, they're considering each K-9 iteration as separate. How they got 5 from that, I'm not sure, since there were only 4 K-9's, only three of those ever had any adventures with the Doctor, and only two actually traveled with him.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

The nearly-forgotten Kamelion.


----------



## LordXenophon (Sep 4, 2013)

The 3rd K9 might count. The first we see of it is when Sarah Jane finds the crate in her aunt's house, but we have no idea what happened to it before then. The Doctor may have travelled with it for a while, then crated it back up before giving it to Sarah Jane.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Looks like, based on the icons in that section, they're considering each K-9 iteration as separate. How they got 5 from that, I'm not sure, since there were only 4 K-9's, only three of those ever had any adventures with the Doctor, and only two actually traveled with him.


It is stretching a bit but K-9 Mark IV was in Journeys End. Not really a companion as he was with Sarah Jane at the time. Mark III was in the Five Doctors as well as School Reunion. Like you said, only I and II travelled with him on TV.

But, add Kamelion and you have 5.

It all depends on what you say is a companion.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Any updates, Ereth?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

zordude said:


> Any updates, Ereth?


Got caught up with all the new prime time series and haven't watched an episode in a while. Free time is in short supply of late.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

see the first ad last episode of each season since Ecclestone/Piper arrived...2005 maybe, at the very least.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Over 100 long-lost Doctor Who episodes found by dedicated fans - in Ethiopia


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Take it with a heap of salt until we get an official announcement. It's way too good to be true at the moment, legitimate media reports or no.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

lambertman said:


> Take it with a heap of salt until we get an official announcement. It's way too good to be true at the moment, legitimate media reports or no.


This rumor has been floating around (and repeatedly debunked) for months. This time, however, there seems to be a grain of truth to it. A small grain, but a grain nonetheless. We'll know more tomorrow.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/10...doom-a-history-and-whats-happening-this-week/


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

errika said:


> Doctor Who is a science fiction drama. A British programme produced by the BBC. It is all about the adventure of a Time Lord humanoid alien named Doctor. The doctor works to save civilizations, help ordinary people, and right wrongs.


Hi spammer!


----------

