1 or 5 or 31?
As Luca says below Doctor Who Magazine has mentioned in the past two issues the strangest bit of news (as yet unmentioned on the Doctor Who News Page I note):
The new series of Doctor Who will be produced and promoted as Series One—although, of course it is the 31st series of the programme since it started in November 1963
Now this, to my mind, is utterly bizarre. Okay, I could understand using the terminology of “series one”, “series two” etc (as opposed to “season 27”, “season 28” etc) for the new series because it started again after a 15 year absence and the BBC treated it as a new show, as did the IMDB as did just about anyone who talked about it. And the BBC put out “The Complete First Series” etc etc on DVD.
But rebooting it to “series one” when it should logically be “series five” when there’s been no gap (though series four extended into a series of one-off specials throughout 2009), just because it’s a new Doctor and a new production team seems…odd. It’s as though they don’t want people to notice this is a show that’s been on for five years.
DWM seems to be hedging in using both the internal nomenclature and the historic counting. Luca may yet get his wish to call it Season 31 in Enligtenment.
Posted by Graeme on Tuesday, August 4 at 3:41 pm
7 Comments...
DWM issued an editorial early 2008 along the lines of referring to the current Doctor Whos in the historic counting - a fantastic idea which Kasterborous had already adopted.
Very rare will you see us refer to Series 3, or the new series 1 - for instance, since mid 2007 we’ve been referring to the series as a single ongoing body of work and referring instead to “the 2007 run” rather than “series 3” while at the same time calling it Season 29.
Long term, it’s best all round, certainly with the Moffat era “resetting” the counter.
I wonder what else will get reset…?
Posted by Christian Cawley on 08/04 at 07:03 PM
Note that the DWM editorial does state “With Season 31 just around the corner”, which is actually what I was referring to in my previous blog entry, rather than the bit from Gallifrey Guardian that you quote above.
Whether that is a bit of cheekiness on DWM Editor Tom Spilsbury’s part or genuinely something he will continue to do as editor remains to be seen - but I can believe the latter given that one of his apparent edicts is just to refer to the show as “Doctor Who” and not “Classic Who” or “New Series” etc.
I agree though, any branding of the first 2010 season as “Series One” is a little odd…..
Posted by Luca on 08/04 at 10:12 PM
Well I think of the upcoming 2010 series as Series 5 and that’s what I’m going to continue to call it no matter what anyone else says!!!!
(Well, unless Matt Smith turns out to be crap, in which case I’ll probably have some other choice phrase…..)
:D
Posted by Julie on 08/05 at 12:20 PM
I can understand series 5 and 31, but series 1?
When David Tennant began gracing our presence back in 2006 as a regenerated Time Lord, it was series 2. Granted, as pointed out, his tenure was with the same team from series 1, but they could have promoted it as his first series.
Even before David announced his intention to depart, the media was citing the 2010 series as series 5. And even when Matt Smith was announced as the eleventh Doctor, series 5 was being talked about.
Having next year’s series cited as series 31 is important to maintain the links with the old series. Even Russell T. Davis, back in 2005, said it wasn’t wrong to cite the series as the first or 27th.
But series 1? It’s almost as if we’re being asked to envision a whole new concept for the show, and forget the past.
Like Julie, the 2010 series is series 5. After all, that’s what it’s been cited at for over a year!
Posted by Rachel on 08/05 at 02:58 PM
There’s also the consideration that it *could* be an indication of a couple of things hinted at previously:
*a series split in two by the World Cup - series 1 in spring, series 2 in autumn
*a brand new production in the same way the 2005 series was, with new contracts etc.
DWM reports that The Mill have been awarded a contract for the next series. I don’t know how these things work exactly but I don’t recall any similar reports throughout the 2005-2008 runs.
Posted by Christian Cawley on 08/05 at 03:30 PM
I’m a DW fan b/c of RTD, but if Moffatt’s really the traditionalist he’s made out to be, can you really blame him for wanting to rebrand DW under his stewardship? If he’s a true fanboy, he probably has all kinds of ideas re. how to do a proper reboot of the classic show, so s1 makes sense in that context.
Posted by jimmy on 08/06 at 12:47 AM
Re:Jimmy
While I have no doubt Moffat will put his own stamp on the show (just as Graham Williams, Terence Dicks, JNT and RTD did in their day), I don’t see him treating this as any sort of “reboot” (especially given some of the spoilers that have emerged about Series 5). I don’t see him supporting the renumbering. That’s just BBC internal nonsense. The only reason they restarted the numbering in 2005 was they didn’t want to scare away potential viewers with Series 27. But now that it’s back, and it’s been accepted—along with its history—they could get away with Series 31 if they wanted to. Personally, my intent is to start referring to it as the 2010 season and be done with it, regardless whether the season is split or not (BSG’s 4th season was split by an extremely long gap, yet no one refers to the second half as season 5).
Posted by Alex on 08/20 at 11:37 PM
Post a comment