Talk:Doctor Who
 |
Archives: #1 |
|---|
U.S. broadcasts of classic Doctor Who[[edit source]]
"By the late 1970s, however, the series was firmly entrenched in the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which would air the show repeatedly over the next three decades and air the revived series after 2004."
I'd argue that this is incorrect. As an American who spent the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s living next to several large, metropolitan areas in California and New York, I don't think I saw any Doctor Who episodes aired on PBS except for during the era of the Fourth Doctor in the 1970s. I grew up viewing a lot of public broadcasting and I don't recall seeing any other incarnation of The Doctor. And PBS definitely didn't air the revived series (which should say 2005, not 2004). Of course, every U.S. PBS TV station is somewhat independent and can devise their own schedules from a selection of programs. But I don't think it can be said that the show was "firmly entrenched" in the U.S. and definitely didn't air solidly for three decades.Liz99 ☎ 18:21, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the poster who questions how widespread the show was in America. I do recall my parents turning it on when I was around 5 (1980's) in Montana. And, in the late 1990's I saw it on Iowa PBS, but the Nebraska Station did not carry it.
PBS is very piecemeal. It is a very loose set of affiliates. Programs can vary widely between states and stations. I can see the argument that it was one, somewhere, in the States for 30 years. That seems reasonable, but it is not the same thing as saying it was widespread for 30 years. I am sure some areas were very loyal supporters of the show.
A quick glance looked like the words hadn't really been changed.
For me personally, I didn't have a sense of the show until Sci-Fi/BBC America put a more traditional ad campaign out. I will admit that my experience can't be assumed to be the norm, I am not sure that the show was everywhere in the states prior to the internet and social media.
As someone who is also a fan of Red Dwarf, I always felt as a kid more like an anime collector than someone just watching shows. Before the internet, streaming, and social media apps begin a fan of a foreign show could be a fairly lonely process. It is so much easier to get access to episodes and fandoms now. Danatblair ☎ 09:23, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
In the wiki article it says that the 2005 revival is 'the more popular' major production period. This is not true. In the 70's, the classic series had very similar (in some cases higher) viewing figures.
what would an anime look like?[[edit source]]
ever wander what it would look like if it were an anime well i found this <<video removed per Tardis:Video policy>> but it's reilly...reilly?– The preceding unsigned comment was added by David olvera (talk • contribs) .
Well i think the art style would change as the Doctor regenerates - so he's William Hartnell with one art style and Ben and Polly have the same artstyle, then his face shines with light, and now he's Patrick Troughton but with a completely diff. artstyle and Ben and Polly have also changed artstyle. (Yes this even counts the movie, it would have yet another artstyle, and even the NuWho Doctors\companions.) Torchwood could use 10th or 9th's artstyle, and Sarah Jane Adventures could have a similiar artstyle to 3rd and 4th's artstyles. --Kaiko Mikkusu ☎ 17:22, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Per Tardis:Discussion policy, this conversation is not appropriate for an article talk page. Please take this discussion to Howling:The Howling. Shambala108 ☎ 17:28, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Missing episodes re-screened[[edit source]]
Don't know if you already know this but you might find it cool anyway: <removed per Tardis:Video policy> --DCLM ☎ 13:42, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Please note that per Tardis:Video policy, only admins can upload videos, and we never allow links to videos off-site. Shambala108 ☎ 14:47, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
Sentence deleted[[edit source]]
I have deleted the statement "It is currently the more popular iteration" from the intro section as meaningless, irrelevant to the topic at hand, and unproven and unsourced. When the revival runs 26 seasons, then maybe a comparison is possible. I'm leaving this note here as some folks may revert my edit as being done by an IP but I wanted to explain why the sentence doesn't belong. 68.146.70.124talk to me 20:50, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
Gaiman[[edit source]]
- "Production of the first Matt Smith episodes commenced in July 2009. Writers recruited for the new season included Richard Curtis (co-creator of Blackadder and writer of Four Weddings and a Funeral) and Toby Whithouse (creator of Being Human). Noted fantasy writer Neil Gaiman was rumoured to be involved in the new season. These rumours proved to be incorrect, but he did end up penning The Doctor's Wife the following series."
Technically wasn't Gaiman involved in writing The Doctor's Wife during series 5, but had his script pushed back to series 6 and rewritten? -- Tybort (talk page) 23:22, October 28, 2017 (UTC)
Rotating picture[[edit source]]
I wanted to know if it would be possible to have a rotating picture for the Doctor Who title image instead of simply the original one, like the ones on pages like the Doctor and the Master. I feel it would be more fitting to have all of the different versions appear. Thoughts? --DCLM ☎ 23:30, April 26, 2019 (UTC)
Is this page for the TV series or the franchise as a whole?[[edit source]]
It seems to be about both at once. For example, the "Wilderness Years" section talks about the VNAs and Big Finish and whatnot, but it's in the category "television overviews", and the lede calls it both a "television series" and "multimedia franchise". Shouldn't we really have one page for the franchise as a whole and another for the TV show, just as we have pages for other areas of the universe, such as Main Range and BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures? NightmareofEden ☎ 21:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this should be split into Doctor Who (series) and Doctor Who (franchise). Aquanafrahudy 📢 13:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've already been using the Doctor Who (TV series) redirect a lot, but I think for the split to be enacted we'll have to have a Forum thread about it. And if it is decided the split won't go through, a bot can change all the links from Doctor Who (TV series) back to just Doctor Who. 15:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Now that we have the new naming scheme, I think this should should be split to cover those various productions. Instead of just Doctor Who (TV series), we should perhaps have Doctor Who (1963 TV series) (covering the era from 1963-1989), Doctor Who (2005 TV series) (covering the era from 2005 to 2022) and Doctor Who (2023 TV series) (covering the era from 2023), then Doctor Who (franchise) to cover the franchise as a whole. 66 Seconds ☎ 09:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- That idea does have merit, as it would also allow us to create redirects such as Classic Who, terminology I've wanted to see covered for a while. 10:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm all for era pages, but I don't think we can reasonably get out of having a Doctor Who overview. There is a sense in which those three runs, plus the 1996 TV movie, add up to a specific whole not reducible to the broader franchise; it is after all the whole we list at List of Doctor Who television stories. And there is a practical issue with not having such a page, which is that we need a single thing for a bot to change all instances of Doctor Who to, don't we… --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- That idea does have merit, as it would also allow us to create redirects such as Classic Who, terminology I've wanted to see covered for a while. 10:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, in that case can't we just do Doctor Who (TV series) as well? With overviews of the main eras {{main}}'d to pages such as Doctor Who (1963 TV series)? 12:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
