• Doctor Who V8 -Oswin à bout de souffle
    4,568 replies, posted
Was thinking about starting to watch this. So does everybody just suggest starting from the 2005 revival? Also, is every episode just its own episode with its own story or does each season have a build up and cliffhangers and twists and shit?
[QUOTE=Over-Run;35749908]Was thinking about starting to watch this. So does everybody just suggest starting from the 2005 revival? Also, is every episode just its own episode with its own story or does each season have a build up and cliffhangers and twists and shit?[/QUOTE] I would strongly suggest watching the End of Time special, then continuing to Matt's seasons. Then watch the important Tennant episodes between new seasons (Blink, Evolution of the Daleks, Silence in the Library, Last of the Time Lords, etc). Eccleston was okay, but not great. [editline]Blah[/editline] I see your point in why you'd want to watch them all in order. I was just saying if you get put off by Eccleston's series (as some of my friends were), just skip ahead a little.
No, watch it in order. Every Doctor has important story bits.
[QUOTE=Over-Run;35749908]Was thinking about starting to watch this. So does everybody just suggest starting from the 2005 revival?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;35750540]I would strongly suggest watching the End of Time special, then continuing to Matt's seasons. Then watch the important Tennant episodes between new seasons (Blink, Evolution of the Daleks, Silence in the Library, Last of the Time Lords, etc). Eccleston was okay, but not great.[/QUOTE] I'd recommend starting right from the Eccleston series. Maybe start off by watching a standalone episode or two to see if you like the concept (we could recommend a few of them), but going straight onto Matt Smith's seasons and missing out the others seems a bit like an odd thing to do. Starting from the End of Time episodes would leave you not knowing what was going on, meaning you'd have to go back and watch episodes from an earlier season to understand who the characters were, and those episodes would leave you with similar questions, etcetera etcetera, until you'd have watched all the series backwards. That's just a roundabout way of saying that you should start at the start, not at the middle. That's just my opinion though. I know where Evilcop's coming from, since Matt Smith's seasons are the best so far, but it just seems odd to me to miss out all the other ones. [quote]Also, is every episode just its own episode with its own story or does each season have a build up and cliffhangers and twists and shit?[/quote] The majority of episodes are standalone, with a bit of a plot tying all of them together in each season, with a few two-part episodes here and there, with a two-parter at the end of the season to tie that season up, although there are one or two times where that's not the case.
[QUOTE=Dan2593;35749749]I don't know if I'm retarded but I can't understand this sentence at all. Please rephrase.[/QUOTE] I've don't watch doctor who for it being sci-fi. I watch it because it's awesome. Anybody else?
It's not even sci fi really. It's really soft.
[QUOTE=Jookia;35751213]I've don't watch doctor who for it being sci-fi. I watch it because it's awesome. Anybody else?[/QUOTE] I don't think [I]anyone[/I] watches it just because it's sci-fi, people watch things because they're good, not because they're a certain genre.
I think Steve Moffat is a bit of a wanker for changing the Doctor Who schedule. Honestly I hope they find a much better writer soon, most of the episodes Steve Moffat wrote don't have the excitement factor of Russel Davis's episodes in my opinion. Every episode is very anticlimactic, we hardly ever see any Daleks anymore after they changed into the odd looking ones. I can't say I like Amy and Rory, she's full of her self and Rory is pussy whipped. I'm looking forward to seeing if Steve Moffat learns from his mistakes, the only episode in his series that I like is the one where that green smoke beast steals the TARDIS and he didn't write it. Just my opinion.
[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;35750966]I'd recommend starting right from the Eccleston series. Maybe start off by watching a standalone episode or two to see if you like the concept (we could recommend a few of them), but going straight onto Matt Smith's seasons and missing out the others seems a bit like an odd thing to do. Starting from the End of Time episodes would leave you not knowing what was going on, meaning you'd have to go back and watch episodes from an earlier season to understand who the characters were, and those episodes would leave you with similar questions, etcetera etcetera, until you'd have watched all the series backwards. That's just a roundabout way of saying that you should start at the start, not at the middle. That's just my opinion though. I know where Evilcop's coming from, since Matt Smith's seasons are the best so far, but it just seems odd to me to miss out all the other ones. The majority of episodes are standalone, with a bit of a plot tying all of them together in each season, with a few two-part episodes here and there, with a two-parter at the end of the season to tie that season up, although there are one or two times where that's not the case.[/QUOTE] My point was more that a lot of people are initially put off from Doctor Who because they try starting from the 9th Doctor, who, let's admit it, was a bit boring. He was good in his own regard but nothing amazing. Being a show 40+ years running it's not like they're going to know everything off the bat anyways, so I always tell people to start from there and watch episodes important to the plot when possible.
Are you mad? That's like playing Mass Effect 3, then 1, then 2, not doing any sidequests, and expecting to understand what is going on. Watch everything. Eccleston was good aswell, and he definetally had his great moments. I'm going to call anyone who suggests not watching everything insane.
Eccleston was my favorite. I am very offended you disagree with my opinion. On the internet no less, have you no sympathy?
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;35752763]I think Steve Moffat is a bit of a wanker for changing the Doctor Who schedule. Honestly I hope they find a much better writer soon, most of the episodes Steve Moffat wrote don't have the excitement factor of Russel Davis's episodes in my opinion. Every episode is very anticlimactic, we hardly ever see any Daleks anymore after they changed into the odd looking ones. I can't say I like Amy and Rory, she's full of her self and Rory is pussy whipped. I'm looking forward to seeing if Steve Moffat learns from his mistakes, the only episode in his series that I like is the one where that green smoke beast steals the TARDIS and he didn't write it. Just my opinion.[/QUOTE] He's the head writer so EVERY episode in the series is his idea. The writers just come up with scripts. RTD did it the same way EXCEPT he never told Steven what to write. The schedule change is for our benefit, it's so we have a bigger more worthwhile 2013 anniversary series. Blame the BBC for not letting him just have the budget he wants off the bat. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=evlbzltyr;35751335]I don't think [I]anyone[/I] watches it just because it's sci-fi, people watch things because they're good, not because they're a certain genre.[/QUOTE] This is why his sentence confused me. I've never heard of somebody saying the opposite "Oh yeah I watch Doctor Who not because it's good but because it's Sci-Fi" It's a Fantasy if anything anyway, very weak sci-fi.
[QUOTE=Dan2593;35756348]This is why his sentence confused me. I've never heard of somebody saying the opposite "Oh yeah I watch Doctor Who not because it's good but because it's Sci-Fi" It's a Fantasy if anything anyway, very weak sci-fi.[/QUOTE] No, it's definitely sci-fi.
[QUOTE=Patroclus Rex;35757215]No, it's definitely sci-fi.[/QUOTE] I think it's more of a mixture of science fiction and science fantasy, you can't go all the way and call Doctor Who science fiction, since a lot of it isn't based on real scientific principles. Science Fiction is more the whole Star-Trek / Fringe area, whereas Doctor Who I think is somewhere in between that and the Star Wars side of science.
[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;35757785]I think it's more of a mixture of science fiction and science fantasy, you can't go all the way and call Doctor Who science fiction, since a lot of it isn't based on real scientific principles. Science Fiction is more the whole Star-Trek / Fringe area, whereas Doctor Who I think is somewhere in between that and the Star Wars side of science.[/QUOTE] That sounds enough like a distinction that exists for me to believe you and agree without looking it up. One rating for you sir.
I personally started with Tennant, then went back to Chris. After the 10th Doctor's regeneration, it took a year of hesitation to actually start watching the 11th doctor (Which in hindsight was a stupid idea, because Matt can be better than Tennant sometimes).
[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;35757785]I think it's more of a mixture of science fiction and science fantasy, you can't go all the way and call Doctor Who science fiction, since a lot of it isn't based on real scientific principles. Science Fiction is more the whole Star-Trek / Fringe area, whereas Doctor Who I think is somewhere in between that and the Star Wars side of science.[/QUOTE] I'd actually say that Doctor Who is even softer scifi than Star Wars.
This... I want this to happen. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rpMx7.jpg[/IMG]
He should actually do that for a popularity stunt.
[QUOTE=ironman17;35780439]He should actually do that for a popularity stunt.[/QUOTE] doctor who is a british national icon, stunt... nay it be pride. (please-please-please for this stunt to happen)
I cant see an image or a link, but is this for David Tennant running with the olympic torch in the London Olympics?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35771220]I'd actually say that Doctor Who is even softer scifi than Star Wars.[/QUOTE] Star Wars and Star Trek are pretty much as Sci-Fi as you can get. Stargate SG1 and Atlantis were light hearted sci-fi, that's the only reason most the cast agreed to it. I'd say Doctor Who is on level with Stargate Atlantis in the Sci-Fi department. It has a large mythology but it's never necessary to have an understanding of that.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/JEFN6.jpg[/img]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koLf1_nsH0o&feature=player_embedded#![/media] Moffat's view on the original "cancellation" "It would be like cancelling James Bond just because there has been a bad one!"
[QUOTE=Dan2593;35781561]Star Wars and Star Trek are pretty much as Sci-Fi as you can get. Stargate SG1 and Atlantis were light hearted sci-fi, that's the only reason most the cast agreed to it. I'd say Doctor Who is on level with Stargate Atlantis in the Sci-Fi department. It has a large mythology but it's never necessary to have an understanding of that.[/QUOTE] what star wars is barely scifi at all space opera != scifi [editline]1st May 2012[/editline] rule of thumb: if you can take the same story and characters and put it into a medieval or fantasy setting, it's not scifi
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35787204]rule of thumb: if you can take the same story and characters and put it into a medieval or fantasy setting, it's not scifi[/QUOTE] Well that's not wrong. It's utter bollocks. You can take every Sci-Fi and place it in any setting. Just because it uses fairy tale character types means nothing. Every narrative does, atleast that's the theory. It's wrong. Every theory is. They're just theories. There's hundreds of narrative theories and that's one of the most popular. But how narrative is formed is very little to do with genre. I will always say if something's sci-fi based on the mise-en-scen and thematics. Star Wars is sci-fi. Arguing over what is more sci-fi is a waste of time but let's look at the basics. Star Wars has massive lore based in science-fiction. To me that's hard sci-fi. And that is a MASSIVE lore. But let's look at it more. We could argue till we're blue in the face because media theorists can't define genre themselves. The most popular theory on analysing genre is based on audience. Afterall genre is a system we use to catalogue stories based on content. If I go to 100 people and tell them to define Star Wars I grantee most if not all would say it's Sci-Fi. If I took Hunger Games they'd be split(Drama or Sci-Fi). if I took Alien they'd be split (Horror or Sci-Fi). If I took Doctor Who they'd be split(Drama or Sci-fi). Sci-Fi is often a genre linked to film technology. Is it using the most advanced tech of the time to the highest of it's capabilities? Well Star Wars and Lucas Arts redefined FX and changed the way we post produce films. So yes. You can take any theory pertaining to genre and Star Wars is there pushing the boundary every time. Face it, Star Wars is there with Star Trek in the 'hard sci-fi' section. But as I said. Arguing genre is stoopid.
[QUOTE=Dan2593;35801882]Face it, Star Wars is there with Star Trek in the 'hard sci-fi' section.[/QUOTE] Okay, maybe it has [I]elements[/I] of sci-fi, but you can't say it's hard science fiction, and saying it's anywhere near Star Trek in terms of hard science fiction is ludicrous. Star Trek had a team of people researching and checking with recent news updates and scientific discoveries to ensure that all the stuff going on in the show had at least a vague connection to real science, whereas I'm pretty sure Star Wars never had anything like that going on. Search for a definition of Science Fiction, and you'll come up with something along the lines of "Fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes". Straight off the bat, that means Star Wars isn't particularly science-fiction, hence the "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away". Science fantasy, however, "is a mixed genre within speculative fiction drawing elements from both science fiction and fantasy". That sounds a bit more like Star Wars to me. I mean, the main character in the first three Star Wars films was basically a wizard knight. It wasn't until the Phantom Menace that [I]any[/I] kind of explanation for the Force was given - up until then it had just been a replacement for the word "magic". And it was a terrible explanation, because any explanation was [I]always[/I] going to be terrible. Something about microscopic organisms in the bloodstream..? What? In fact, that's pretty much been the only time any character has tried to explain something in vaguely technical terms in both trilogies that I can remember. Maybe there was a short description of the whole carbonite thing, maybe something about a shield generator in the third film, but other than that? No attempt to link anything in the Star Wars films to anything vaguely scientific. Why? Because Star Wars isn't trying to be realistic, therefore it isn't trying to be particularly science-fiction. It's science fantasy. I mean, you say the lore is heavily based in sci-fi, but that doesn't effect the fact that the than the catholic church shows a greater understanding of complex scientific principles than the script for the Star Wars films. Star Wars is, like Doctor Who, more of a mix of science-fantasy and science-fiction, leaning heavily towards the science-fantasy side. To say it's "hard sci-fi" is just daft. Because it's not. Although I do agree with your first point, about Dain being wrong. Sorry Dain :v:
Yeah the Movies are Space Fantasy, but there are novels and games in the universe that are Sci-Fi Its like a Mix of Both depending on what you're reading/playing.
Australians, ABC 2 is rerunning Doctor Who again. 7:30pm AEST every week night.
Old Who or New Who? because they been playing reruns of New Who at 7:30 PM for months. I love the ABC, they played [U]EVERY (existing) EPISODE[/U] of old Doctor Who before the Reboot started, was a pretty kick-ass way to catch up. It also let me see the doctors I'd never seen before. (most notably the 3th and 7th) [editline]3rd May 2012[/editline] Talking about the third doctor, I found the music for [I]The Sea Devils[/I] on Youtube awhile back. [video=youtube;x3c7GT63SxU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3c7GT63SxU[/video] Even if it sounds silly and dated now, I do love the old music the BBC made for their TV shows. it has a very experimental sound to it, you can here things you wouldn't expect to hear in the 70's and 60's being made using just tape recordings and early analog synthesizers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.