JO
Ah right, thanks for that however.....
BBC five posted:
Ah right, thanks for that however.....
JR
Is there even any proof David's leaving in Series 4?
Johnny83 posted:
A few names have been bounced around of recent of who would replace Tennant in Series 4.
The one for me & I hope does replace him is John Simm from Life On Mars. He has been great in that series (as have the rest of the cast) and would be great in the Doctor's shoes.
Anyone else agree?
The one for me & I hope does replace him is John Simm from Life On Mars. He has been great in that series (as have the rest of the cast) and would be great in the Doctor's shoes.
Anyone else agree?
Is there even any proof David's leaving in Series 4?
JO
Is there even any proof David's leaving in Series 4?
It hasn't been 100% confirmed but it was reported in some papers & IIRC the TV Times
jrothwell97 posted:
Johnny83 posted:
A few names have been bounced around of recent of who would replace Tennant in Series 4.
The one for me & I hope does replace him is John Simm from Life On Mars. He has been great in that series (as have the rest of the cast) and would be great in the Doctor's shoes.
Anyone else agree?
The one for me & I hope does replace him is John Simm from Life On Mars. He has been great in that series (as have the rest of the cast) and would be great in the Doctor's shoes.
Anyone else agree?
Is there even any proof David's leaving in Series 4?
It hasn't been 100% confirmed but it was reported in some papers & IIRC the TV Times
JO
The problem is a big chunk of today's viewers have either never seen or know about the original series. Plus seeing the large gap I don't see what the problem is with them starting the numbers again
TerryK125 posted:
Is it just me - but I find it vaguely ironic, and annoying, that the "new" Doctor Who builds on the legacy of the original series yet identifies itself as "Series 1", "Series 2" etc.. Surely the real series 1 of Doctor Who was in the black and white days of the 1960s behind the sofa?
The problem is a big chunk of today's viewers have either never seen or know about the original series. Plus seeing the large gap I don't see what the problem is with them starting the numbers again
JO
Fair enough. I think either sets of numbering are valid. For viewers who have watched it for many years then it would be Series 27,28 & 29 however for someone like myself who has never watched Doctor Who before Ecclestone then the upcoming series to me is series 3
saturdaymorning posted:
Well I call them series 27,28 and 29.
Fair enough. I think either sets of numbering are valid. For viewers who have watched it for many years then it would be Series 27,28 & 29 however for someone like myself who has never watched Doctor Who before Ecclestone then the upcoming series to me is series 3
JE
Fair enough. I think either sets of numbering are valid. For viewers who have watched it for many years then it would be Series 27,28 & 29 however for someone like myself who has never watched Doctor Who before Ecclestone then the upcoming series to me is series 3
I agree. I never watched the original Doctor Who series so to me its series 1, 2 and 3.
Jez
Founding member
Johnny83 posted:
saturdaymorning posted:
Well I call them series 27,28 and 29.
Fair enough. I think either sets of numbering are valid. For viewers who have watched it for many years then it would be Series 27,28 & 29 however for someone like myself who has never watched Doctor Who before Ecclestone then the upcoming series to me is series 3
I agree. I never watched the original Doctor Who series so to me its series 1, 2 and 3.
SA
No! 
I haven't seen the 26 series prior to 2005 but I prefer the older ones out of the ones I've seen.The stories were longer,there were more episodes and I prefer the 30 minute length.Also it's more accurate saying 27-9.
I haven't seen the 26 series prior to 2005 but I prefer the older ones out of the ones I've seen.The stories were longer,there were more episodes and I prefer the 30 minute length.Also it's more accurate saying 27-9.
BS
Re: series numbering...
Most traditionally, the UK uses the word "series", whereas the USA/Canada uses the word "season" for each seperate run of any given TV programme.
However, bizarrely, even here in the UK the original 26 years of Dr Who have generally been referred to as " Season 1, 2, 3... (etc)" (in Episode Guides, etc) for pretty much as long as anyone can care to remember.
Speaking as a life-long fan of "The Classic Series" (I was 9 years old when it ended), I would indeed have loved it if the revived version had started counting its seasons/series from 27. But sadly it wasn't to be.
The fact that Eccleston/Tennant runs are " Series 1, 2, 3... (etc)" does however still just about distinguish them from the corresponding Hartnell runs, which were " Season 1, 2, 3 (etc)". So that's sort-of okay.
Most traditionally, the UK uses the word "series", whereas the USA/Canada uses the word "season" for each seperate run of any given TV programme.
However, bizarrely, even here in the UK the original 26 years of Dr Who have generally been referred to as " Season 1, 2, 3... (etc)" (in Episode Guides, etc) for pretty much as long as anyone can care to remember.
Speaking as a life-long fan of "The Classic Series" (I was 9 years old when it ended), I would indeed have loved it if the revived version had started counting its seasons/series from 27. But sadly it wasn't to be.
The fact that Eccleston/Tennant runs are " Series 1, 2, 3... (etc)" does however still just about distinguish them from the corresponding Hartnell runs, which were " Season 1, 2, 3 (etc)". So that's sort-of okay.