h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Meh. The Black Orchid's okay. Actually theres no episode of Doctor Who I wouldn't watch - although I struggle to keep going with bits of Trial of a Time Lord.

See I remember having this argument about series 1 being the Christopher Eccleston season (I also had an argument about why the regeneration couldn't have taken place between McGann and Eccleston - I still can think of a million ways that it would have be spectacular. But I'm not that fussed now, time has moved on). See I can see marketing reasons why the Eccleston episodes, should be the start of the "new" series... but logically its the same show, and I don't see why it can't be the new series (as happened numerous times in the past with changes in cast/crew/etc in the "old" series). If I'm not mistaken don't Star Trek actually number their episodes starting from the Cage, all the way up the last series a couple of years ago?

See I agree with you about not calling Matt's episodes series 1, but I find it funny that people are now taking issue with it - simply because there are new people who follow it and that they want to keep their continuity...

So its series/season 31 or nothing

I should have said "why it can't be the new series" - and season 27

yes but people arn't stupid
i can understand Eccelstones series being called series 1 as it was the first series of "New Doctor Who" so if Matt smiths is series 1 what is it series one of?

Well to me Moffat calling his era starting with series 1, makes as much sense as RTD starting his era as series 1. But then people will think what they want to

Series one of New New Doctor Who?

Yeah, though technically its, new new new new new new new new new new new new new Doctor Who

I think I read somewhere that Smitty-Moffy-1 is being referred to in production circles as Series 1... I don't really understand why, there's not much danger of it being confused with Troughton's first full year... but in terms of how it's advertised it's still under discussion.

I can see why they might want to pitch it as 'series 1' as it stresses the whole 'fresh new start' aspect as well as possibly lowering expectations.

I think you and I had a discussion re the McGann/Eccleston non-regeneration. Putting it in - even if McGann had been up for it, which I doubt - would have been playing to the fans too much. Imagine: the BBC spends millions making and publicising a brave, bold, NEW version of Doctor Who. The credits roll...

Scene 1: police box flies through space. (New audience: 'So what's that then?') Cut to big room made out of coral. (NA: 'Where's this supposed to be? Is it...?') Man in weird costume staggers into shot shouting technobabble. (NA: 'Is that him? I thought it was the bloke from Cracker.') Fireworks come out of his collar and cuffs and turn him into vaguely similar man now with shorter hair. (NA: 'Huhhhh? This is weird. I don't understand any of it. Let's watch Ant and Dec..') CLICK.

As Rusty said, there's no dramatic point to doing a regeneration if the audience don't feel anything for the Doctor doing the regenerating. 99% of the viewers wouldn't be fussed about a guy they possibly saw for about 50 minutes nine years earlier 'dying'. It would've been playing solely to people like us who would've watched anyway.

I partly agree with you, and I can see RTD's logic (and obviously experience). But a somewhat dramatic start by a strange man getting knocked downn by a train, or such like would certainly be a dramatic beginning, for example. And there are many other possibilities if people would apply a little imagination, rather than going with what has gone before, or similar.

As I said, I'm not so bothered now because we have a Doctor Who that as RTD has said is in "very rude health". I think what RTD with Rose worked very well for the layman/laywoman who had no interest - although when Doctor Who became more Doctor Whoish I know quite a few people who stopped watching - but we still have a huge number of people who do still watch obviously. I just think there were regeneration stories in the great ether of imagination that would have worked just as well with a bit of thought.

"Well to me Moffat calling his era starting with series 1, makes as much sense as RTD starting his era as series 1. But then people will think what they want to"
As the boys from the "Cadmium2" podcast said "Have our producers reached such a stage of egotism that their eras start with series one!"

Does the season one thing really matter? The only people who care know better anyway.

I think if you start with a regeneration story then the focus of the story is inevitably going to be on the Doctor and the companion. 'Rose' the episode struggled to have a decent plot even without the regeneration, it had so much to do in terms of explaining the format of the show. I think you'd want the first episode of a brand new series to show what the programme would usually be about, rather than having a character you don't know that well yet wandering about having mood swings and picking his wardrobe.

There's much, much worse than Black Orchid.

Moffy talks about the whole Series 5/Series 31/Series 1 controversy in the new DWM... basically they've decided to avoid 'Series 5' as a) the merchandisers didn't like it, apparently it sounds 'tired' but more importantly b) it's not true! It's either Series 1 of Matt Smith's Doctor Who or it's Series 31 of Doctor Who full stop. You could argue it's Series 5 since it came back, but then why not say it's Series 25 since they started making it in colour or something like that?

Doesn't really matter anyway. Good episodes aren't mystically going to become rubbish just because the series number is a little eccentric.