Forum:Season 31 or Series 1, not Series 5 - Steven Moffat

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Season 31 or Series 1, not Series 5 - Steven Moffat

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

According to Golden Money, there was an interview with Steven Moffat regarding what series 5 is called. Oh, you're not gonna love this! Either Season 31 or series 1 is what it will be called. Why? We don't know. He is it is not the fifth series of anything. Yet, he contradicted himself by even thinking of calling it series 1: it is certainly not series 1 of anything, it's the 31st season of Who and the fifth series of the revived series. But he seems to be against that.

In his choice, it's called either series 31 (season 27, 28, 29, and 30 are series 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the revived series) or series 1 of his era. Calling it series 1 will notably and most likely cause a huge controversy in the Who community, confusing many, messing with new fans (what will they think if there is two series 1 AND a season one of Doctor Who? They will think they're different versions of the same show and set in different continuities.), and making everyone angry.

In my opinion, the best thing to do is lable it: series 5/season 31. How easy and simple is that? And it makes people undersatdn what is going on: fifth of the revived series and 31st of the entire Who series.

His choice will have a dratmic affect on the wiki. What is your personal opinion of his (rather annoying) choice regarding what the series is called? Delton Menace 03:35, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Series 5, definitely. The production team need to stop messing with our heads! 0_o The evil dude. 06:30, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think in SM's head, the RTD show was a direct continuation of the old show, and his show will similarly be a direct continuation of the RTD show. His show will be just as connected to the classic show as it is to the RTD show. This makes him an inheritor to David Whitaker, Dennis Spooner, Terrance Dicks, Robert Holmes, Douglas Adams, Eric Saward, Andrew Cartmel, and the ones I've forgotten, not just to RTD.

So, calling it Series 5 doesn't make any sense--that would mean he's just taking over Doctor RTD, not Doctor Who. Season 31 is the ideal way to get it across, but if he can't get away with connecting the three shows into one that way, better to call it Series 1 rather than Series 5.

I think the fan community should go with this, call it season 31, and retroactively renumber the RTD show to fit.

The only problem with this is that the TV movie has to be season 26-1/2 or something, and the 2009 specials season 30-1/2. (So the EDAs take place during season 26-1/2B? That's getting a little silly....) I kind of wish he'd said 33, but I can live with 31, because I'm happy with losing the old series/new series distinction. --99.8.229.156 07:02, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. This should all just be called series 31 and all the others to be updated the same way to stop confusion. -- Michael Downey 12:29, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone else see a lot of headaches coming on? Surely SM's realised that calling it Series 1 will mess every regular fan up? I agree that it it should be Series 5 or the entire revived show should be reclassified using the seasons.If he wants to have series 1 again, do it from a production standpoint, not a viewers one. Excalibur-117 12:41, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone cite a source for Moffat's interview? --Tangerineduel 12:43, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

It's in the new DWM -- Michael Downey 12:44, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

If it's either Series 1 or Season 31, what's it gonna be marketed as? "The Complete Thirty-first Season"? "The Complete Second First Series"? Tardis1963 03:47, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

But it is still the complete third first seires, which will be even more confusing. It shoudl be as simple as: Series 5/Season 31. Plan and simple.Delton Menace 05:16, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps wait and see how the BBC ends up marketing the series (after all for a time the first and second stories had a variety of titles attributed to them; 100,000 BC / The Tribe of Gum (An Unearthly Child) and The Dead Planet/The Mutants (The Daleks)). --Tangerineduel 13:13, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

What about The Eleventh Doctor (Series One) ? (Just a thought) The Librarian 19:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

We need to just chill and wait to see what really happens before we go making big changes to the site. In all likelihood, the number of the series won't even come into play until we get the first official designs of the DVD releases. DWM is not the bringer of absolute truth. You really want me to cite the number of times DWM has been in error about the future of the programme? The phrase, "PETER DAVIDSON is THE DOCTOR" leaps to mind.

Also, for those of us in a geographic disadvantage for DWM, would you mind exactly quoting the passage in question? My strong suspicion is that the quote will admit of multiple interpretations. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 02:01, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I've researched this, I find that there are two places in the magazine where Moffat discusses Series numbering. Once in an interview (which I haven't read) and once in his producer's notes (which I have). I take it that the former is where the quote on which this thread is based originates. I'd still like to know what that quote is, precisely. But in the latter, he definitely doesn't come down on the side of any particular numbering. In fact, he goes out of his way to poke fun at the whole controversy. So, on balance, the issue doesn't really manage to say anything definite about the numbering, which may suggest that it's not within his power to choose. And, let's face it, it probably isn't. This would seem to be something entirely within the purview of the marketing department. So, again, we need to wait until the marketing department actually gives us something, like a DVD cover. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:15, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Series 5 Volume 1 here we come! Tardis1963 22:32, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

For anyone interested and a fair few are it seems...
Steven Moffatt and DWM are quoted below;
" How do you number a series of Doctor Who?" he asks, with a mischievous smile. "And I fess up to DWM, the whole 'Series One' thing came about when I had to give a speech to the various licensees, explaining why they should be excited about Doctor Who. The message coming back, before I went into that meeting was that 'Series Five' means an ageing brand'. And it struck me, my God.'Series Five is a very, very, very, boring number. But there are two other numbers you can use - 'Series Thirty-One' or 'Series One'.
"It's Series Thirty-One of Doctor Who, and it's Series One of Matt Smith's Doctor," he clarifies. "Those are both real numbers. I submit that 'Series Five of Doctor Who' means absolutely nothing unless you really believe that Matt Smith is the Third Doctor. Everyone knows he's the Eleventh Doctor, so that means that it's definitely not 'Series Five'. Whichever number you choose, 'Series Five' is the one that's flawed But never mind all that, I was saying to them, 'You can't go away saying 'Series Five, ageing brand," cos it's Series Thirty-One - it's epic and immortal!" When I was a kid - when I was an adult, to this day - I always counted it by Doctor. I just knew it was Tom baker's fourth series, or Peter Davison's second series, or whatever."... (Taken from the first of a two-part interview by Tom Spilsbury with Steven Mofat from DWA Issue 427 The Librarian 01:33, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think Steven Moffat is an idiot. First of all he says that there will be no new monsters fromt eh classic series returning. Then he does this does he want to be to most unpopular producer of doctor who of all time. --Catkind121 10:56, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, best writer, but the worst producer. As much as I dislike to admit, he is very stubborn when he wants to be. He doesn't realise he will cause controvery and confussion for newer fans. Delton Menace 13:29, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I kinda like the idea of calling it 'Series 31'. It helps to reinforce that the "old series" and the "new series" are really the same programme. As for being "the most unpopular producer of Doctor Who of all time" - well, he'd have a lot of competition! There were controversial moves made by nearly all of them, which sparked disagreement at the time. I'm starting to look forward more and more to the "Moffat era" :) Spreee 19:44, January 24, 2010 (UTC)Spreee

If you ask me, I think that the next series is being produced as series 1. This is because it is the first series of a new production team. But, in response to The Librarian, that would mean that I personally now count the series as this:

Christopher Ecclestone's Series; David Tennant Series 1; David Tennant Series 2; David Tennant Series 3; David Tennant Special Series; Matt Smith Series 1; Matt Smith Series 2; Matt Smith Series 3. Season 31 would make things a lot easier, though Gallifrey 102 13:04, February 11, 2010 (GMT/UTC)

I have no problem with calling it Season Thirty One. -- Noneofyourbusiness 21:58, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

How about calling it Series 11? or better still Series 21. --Stillnotginger 03:39, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Where do Series 11 and 21 come from???? TemporalSpleen 16:26, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

If the BBC or the new production crew wish to separate themselves from Series' 1 to 5 by recounting from '1' than they might do so by adding a column. i.e. treat series 1 as series 01 and series 4 as 04. Starting again at series 11 is akin to starting a new decade. This way the numbering of the two TV shows would contain a strong distinction without a confusing and frustrating repitition. Assuming all this contraversy began with the BBC deciding that so much at the programme has been changed that it should be considered a whole new run, as they did with the original revival season, starting at number 11 is an option. As for number 21, this is the same concept except that it more strongly resembles the start of the 2nd era of the revival series. --Stillnotginger 17:34, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

FYI, all the behind-the-scenes information shows that it's being produced as Series One (of Matt Smith and this production team).

"Series Five" is nonsense, as Moffat said. BBC Video has never been authoritative anyway, but this is just sad -- they could just have gone "DOCTOR WHO MATT SMITH VOLUME ONE". I'm afraid we'll just have to conclude that the "Series 5" is a major and funny error on the box cover, just like the VHS for Inferno, which listed it as being in black-and-white.

RTD really did make a mess by calling the 2005 series "Series One" (yes, it was RTD, he copped to it in his DWM column -- and apologetically, at that... he could have called it whatever he liked, but he didn't bother until there was already a lot of paperwork with "1" on it).

67.241.25.16 02:25, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

If, on the unlikely occasion that the DVD Release (which seems to be our greatest reference for season naming conventions) does in fact appear as 31, will anything change on the Wiki? Seeing as 27-30 already redirect to RTD's foolish attempt at reinvention, will Season 5/1/31/Fnargh continue RTD's trend or course correct back to 31? Is the DVD release the only convention? Thanks, Smith. 16:28, April 19, 2010 (UTC).

You're all going to love and/or hate this: it appears that we've got confirmed DVD case art, and it is indeed called Series 5. [1] Rob T Firefly 22:16, April 20, 2010 (UTC)