 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 23, 2013 - 2:07 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
With the way this series is intertwining back story and plot devices makes me want to watch the entire series from the start even more.
That is exactly what happened to me! Back in April, I wrote this over at maintitles.net:
"....my first encounter with DOCTOR WHO was in the mid 80's. We had a cable television package in our house at the time, with access to Super Channel and Sky Channel. One of these channels occasionally showed old WHO serials. I think it was mostly the Tom Baker years, because I remember his attire and curly hair. I remember tuning in briefly, but it didn't connect with me. Too 'cheap' production values with cardboardy props and whatnot. So I brushed it off as too silly for my taste, even as a young kid, and never visited the franchise again.
Fastforward to 2005, when the series was rebooted. I decided to give it another chance, and after a couple of episodes and getting used to the tone, I was intrigued. I've been following the series ever since, and now I consider myself a fan of the new version.
This recent re-discovery of the franchise has prompted an interest in the earlier years as well. Maybe I should give those a second chance too, now that I'm older and wiser? So I've considered starting at the beginning, with the first season in 1963 and 1964."
Since I posted this, I've now come to season 6 (the second doctor) and am slowly working my way through it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 23, 2013 - 6:08 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jehannum
(Member)
|
Television series, films, comic books, books, video games etc. -- how is DOCTOR WHO not a franchise?
The 50 minute long thing you watch each week, which is the subject of this thread, is a television programme. It is not a franchise. A franchise is a business model which is licensed to multiple businesses. Doctor Who is not a business model; it's a character, a concept, a particular design of spaceship. Comic books, video games etc. are simply licensed products.
I don't like the use of the word 'franchise' with cherished TV programmes. To me it's a word, probably an Americanism in this usage, redolent of business - moneymaking, suits, adding machines: the last thing I want to think about when discussing the creative aspects of a TV show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 24, 2013 - 5:11 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Heath
(Member)
|
Television series, films, comic books, books, video games etc. -- how is DOCTOR WHO not a franchise?
The 50 minute long thing you watch each week, which is the subject of this thread, is a television programme. It is not a franchise. A franchise is a business model which is licensed to multiple businesses. Doctor Who is not a business model; it's a character, a concept, a particular design of spaceship. Comic books, video games etc. are simply licensed products.
I don't like the use of the word 'franchise' with cherished TV programmes. To me it's a word, probably an Americanism in this usage, redolent of business - moneymaking, suits, adding machines: the last thing I want to think about when discussing the creative aspects of a TV show.
Completely agree with all of that. I find the word to be quite creepy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My rankings:
The Doctor: 1. The 10th Doctor (hands down for me); 2. The 9th Doctor (it took a little while before I warmed up to him, but he won me over); and 3. The 11th Doctor. I am less fond of the Matt Smith era, not so much because of Smith's performance, but because of the way the Doctor has been written. There are too many episodes where Smith's Doctor is too passive and reacts to what is going on, as opposed to taking a more active role in driving the story. I also don't care for the episodes where the 11th Doctor is woefully ignorant of Earth's cultures and technology. This is someone who is supposed to have a vast array of knowledge of endless planets, cultures, and species, and who is supposed to have taken a very special interest in Earth, but who then appears to be clueless about basic things. He is also snarky, and can be downright rude to many people, whereas the other two doctors seem to have a genuine love for humanity, its flaws and all.
Companions: 1. Rose Tyler (hands down again); 2. Donna Noble (she had her moments, but Rose was superior in every way.); 3. Martha Jones (her unrequited love for the Doctor got annoying and creepy, and her personality changed radically between series); 4. Amy Pond (annoying. 'nuff said). I haven't seen the current series yet, as I am waiting for it to appear on Netflix, so it is unfair for me to judge the latest companion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 24, 2013 - 12:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
My rankings:
The Doctor: 1. The 10th Doctor (hands down for me); 2. The 9th Doctor (it took a little while before I warmed up to him, but he won me over); and 3. The 11th Doctor. I am less fond of the Matt Smith era, not so much because of Smith's performance, but because of the way the Doctor has been written. There are too many episodes where Smith's Doctor is too passive and reacts to what is going on, as opposed to taking a more active role in driving the story. I also don't care for the episodes where the 11th Doctor is woefully ignorant of Earth's cultures and technology. This is someone who is supposed to have a vast array of knowledge of endless planets, cultures, and species, and who is supposed to have taken a very special interest in Earth, but who then appears to be clueless about basic things. He is also snarky, and can be downright rude to many people, whereas the other two doctors seem to have a genuine love for humanity, its flaws and all.
Companions: 1. Rose Tyler (hands down again); 2. Donna Noble (she had her moments, but Rose was superior in every way.); 3. Martha Jones (her unrequited love for the Doctor got annoying and creepy, and her personality changed radically between series); 4. Amy Pond (annoying. 'nuff said). I haven't seen the current series yet, as I am waiting for it to appear on Netflix, so it is unfair for me to judge the latest companion.
Cool, Michael, we seem to share a similar taste on both of those things. Matt Smith is too whimsical and all-over-the-place for me, even though I've warmed to him somewhat over the last couple of seasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
