An unenlightened Yank needs Doctor Who help...

[DrunkOnEstus]

What it says on the tin. I've never seen one episode of the show, and I feel that my geek credentials are in jeopardy if I don't at least give it a shot. Here in the land of assault rifles and bald eagles, I don't get BBC on my TV programming, which makes this difficult.

But! I'm willing to get DVD sets or something to make this happen. But where do I start? It's my understanding that the show has been rebooted like 5 times over 50 years (citation needed) and I have no idea where to jump in. Is there a favorite version of the show? Are there movies or other primers that make for a better introduction? Has the really old stuff aged well enough to chase it down?

I really want to get into the show, so if any of our members that are more familiar with the show could help me out, that would be just wonderful. Thanks in advance!

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's never been rebooted, they just stopped making it for a while. When it came back, years later, they changed a bunch of stuff, but the continuity is supposed to be the same.

But yeah, has changed naturally over 50 years, various people like various times of it.

 

[Lorpo]

The old stuff probably wont click as much if you havnt seen it as a kid. The 'monsters' from the old episodes are a bit make do in line with the budget they would have had. Except for the darlieks, those fuckers have never really changed and still give me bad dreams. I am going to say start watching them from 2005 onwards which has the last three doctors in them and if you really enjoy them and get the gist of it all look into some of the older doctors.

 

[madwarper]

If you really wanted, you could start at the beginning with the first Doctor, and watch every episode ever...

Personally, I started watching in the mid-90's, but the local PBS channel only showed the episodes of fourth Doctor (Tom Baker), and thus he's my first and favorite.

Then, I remember seeing the made for TV movie... Don't ask me what happened, it was very forgetable.

And, now we have the modern series, which started with Eccleston (9), Tennant (10) and Smith (11).
Eccleston gave a good showing for the Doctor's return to TV, Tennant was incredible, and Smith... sadly, he's not Tennant.

 

[FalloutJack]

Personally, I would recommend at least viewing the fourth Doctor (Tom Baker) at least to understand what the newer Doctors are all getting it from.. See, the bizarrely-funny-yet-highly-intelligent manner of Doctors 9, 10, and 11 stems from that of the jellybaby-eating, extremely-long-scarf-wearing practically madcap-crazy fourth Doctor, whose act was tough to follow-up from (especially with the rather serious Peter Davison).

My preference in the old series kind of goes like this...

4th - Tom Baker (The longest runner and perhaps the icon of Doctor Who in general.)
3rd - Jon Pertwee (A sophisticated gentleman, demonstrating both keen mind and fighting prowess.)
7th - Sylvester McCoy (A funny little man, often wise and a bit random...yet usually on top of thing.)
2nd - Patrick Troughton (A different funny little man with a penchant for sarcastic wit and humor.)
6th - Colin Baker (Unstable and sometimes even confused, but he was the one to run the epic Trial of the Timelord episode.)
1st - William Hartnell (The first, the oldest, relying on wisdom over strength...though also grumpy and irritable.)
5th - Peter Davison (No offense to Peter, mind you, but he's a bit TOO grim and serious, though he had some good episodes.)

Whether or not you go for any of the old series, the new series does not require that you understand anything from the old series. But I would recommend all the Doctors from 9 on, certainly.

 

[MindFragged]

I, too, once felt my geek credentials were threatened by not watching Dr. Who. I've tried at points to get into the latest batch (Eccleston onwards), and failed. I will say however, that some episodes/story arcs are so much better than others. If you're initially disappointed try searching out some of the best ones.

Or ask here for more, there seem to be plenty of people here with advice to offer!

 

[xeyra]

I came into Doctor Who with the 2005 new series without having seen a single episode of any previous series and knowing nothing about it. I guess it was more of a British thing during the previous series and only when it rebooted with the 2005 series did it really reach out more internationally.

Although seeing a few earlier series might help better understand some relationships (when former companions and enemies turn up), I didn't think it necessary, personally, to do it. And the ninth doctor series, with Christopher Eccleston, introduced me just as well to this whole universe that didn't fail to fascinate me for multiple series afterwards (though I haven't followed the 11th doctor as often as I did the 9th and the 10th.

So, unless you really want to see it chronologically, you could simply start with the 2005 series (9th Doctor) and see if you like it enough to want to see more of its previous incarnations.

 

[Sixcess]

A couple of quick notes (I'm assuming you're pretty much entirely unversed in Who so excuse me if I'm telling you something too obvious.)

1. It's all one show. The Doctor regenerates into his new body whenever the lead role is recast, but he's the same man, and past history, plotlines, even the supporting cast sometimes, will carry over from one Doctor to the next. The new series was originally described as a 'reboot', but really is a continuation of the old.

2. Series vs Season: Old or classic Who - i.e. the first 7 Doctors from 1963 to 1989 - is usually referred to by Who fandom as seasons 1 to 26. The new series - from 2005 onward - is referred to as series 1 to 7.

So I'd say if you're entirely new to the show start with series 1 (Eccleston), series 2 (Tennant's first) or series 5 (Smith's first.) Personally I'd suggest series 1, since it was written specifically with new viewers in mind, and because I like Christopher Eccleston's Doctor. But that's entirely a matter of opinion - ask ten Who fans who the best Doctors were and you'll get ten different answers.

If you enjoy the new series then take a look at the older series. I wouldn't recommend starting there, since not only might the relatively low budget be rather jarring, but the style of tv was different then and you really need to get used to the slower pace of some earlier stories - especially if you go all the way back to William Hartnell's Doctor in 1963.

But if you do become a fan I highly recommend checking out the older Doctors. Hartnell is one of favourites, along with McCoy and th great Tom Baker.

 

[BrotherRool]

There's no reason for a new person not to start with the 2005 series, the continuity isn't confusing and it's well liked and respect even by fans of the originals. I think digging in to the originals is what you do when you realise this is something you really love and you want to learn more and see the other doctors.

Before you buy a DVD set though, it might be good advice to find a way to watch the episode Blink. You might not understand everything (but that's part of the fun!) and I agree with the person who suggested it, that if you don't like Blink you probably won't enjoy the rest. It's not necessarily the best episode and it's certainly not a typical episode (time shenanigans are rare and normally they're Doctor centred) but it's both got the crazy fun and the scary (spooky?) that are the two beating hearts of the show

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Starting with the 9th incarnation and going up is a good start for someone, I like the newer stuff as much as the old. Grew up with the 3rd Doctor as my first, you never forget your first Doctor, however he isn't my favorite.

Snip.

4th Tom Baker and 5th Peter Davison are tied for my favorites, I've met Mr Davison too, he was a really awesome guy! But everyone's favorite is different, that said I think the Caves of Androzani is one of the best Doctor Who Stories ever, in my humble opinion.

ask ten Who fans who the best Doctors were and you'll get ten different answers.

If you enjoy the new series then take a look at the older series. I wouldn't recommend starting there, since not only might the relatively low budget be rather jarring, but the style of tv was different then and you really need to get used to the slower pace of some earlier stories - especially if you go all the way back to William Hartnell's Doctor in 1963.

But if you do become a fan I highly recommend checking out the older Doctors. Hartnell is one of favourites, along with McCoy and the great Tom Baker.

This is the best advice I would say, in terms of starting.

I'm liking the fact that I see the people here all have different favorites, it's great. Get six people in a room and you'll have a dozen opinions on something xD.

 

[chinangel]

what I don't understand is why everyone seems to bash Matt Smith. Now, I have only very very recently begun looking at the good doctor, but Matt Smith is charming, cute and funny...so why the hate? if it's strictly because he's not David Tennat, then that's VERY bad reasoning

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

what I don't understand is why everyone seems to bash Matt Smith. Now, I have only very very recently begun looking at the good doctor, but Matt Smith is charming, cute and funny...so why the hate? if it's strictly because he's not David Tennat, then that's VERY bad reasoning

I don't think Matt Smith is particularly bad. However the writing since he came onto the show has degenerated immensely and it seems like 2 out of every 3 episodes seem to be solved by the power of love/friendship/the human spirit.

Anyway, Start with Eccleston. Like has already been said his series was made in mind for new viewers as the show hadn't been on air for about 15 years at that point.

 

[Thaluikhain]

what I don't understand is why everyone seems to bash Matt Smith. Now, I have only very very recently begun looking at the good doctor, but Matt Smith is charming, cute and funny...so why the hate? if it's strictly because he's not David Tennat, then that's VERY bad reasoning

I don't think Matt Smith is particularly bad. However the writing since he came onto the show has degenerated immensely and it seems like 2 out of every 3 episodes seem to be solved by the power of love/friendship/the human spirit.

Well...as annoying as that is, Tennant had a lot of that crap to deal with as well. Jesus Tinkerbell Doctor comes to mind.

Personally, I think Tennant was better as the Doctor, but both have been let down by consistently bad writing.

Cap: who, what, where

 

[RonHiler]

If you really wanted, you could start at the beginning with the first Doctor, and watch every episode ever...

Actually, no you can't.

There are roughly 100 episodes which simply no longer exist. I looked into it earlier this year, and discovered that you can't get some episodes from the 60s and 70s, because they were destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes

This is why I can never watch Dr. Who. I am a bit OCD when it comes to serial shows like this. If I can't watch all of them from the beginning, I'm not going to watch them at all. I have the same problem with comic books

But for someone without my particular affliction, I think jumping in around 2005 is the commonly accepted convention.

 

[bandit0802]

It's on Netflix, separated into Doctor Who starting in '05 and Classic Doctor Who. Just pick a series and run with it.

As far as the hate for Smith, I haven't gotten there yet, but from Yahtzee said ("(everyone spends the episodes) sucking the Doctor's balls and asking for more"). That says to me that Matt Smith's Doctor is written to be without flaw, whereas Eccelston's and Tennant's Doctors (the only ones I've seen) make several mistakes, sometimes out of hubris. They're all-powerful beings who make mistakes and at times come across as smarmy and arrogant. It sounds to me like Smith's (again, haven't seen his episodes) has the same personality without the flaws and is loved by everyone.

Of course, my opinion on Smith is useless until I actually watch those seasons.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you really wanted, you could start at the beginning with the first Doctor, and watch every episode ever...

Actually, no you can't.

There are roughly 100 episodes which simply no longer exist. I looked into it earlier this year, and discovered that you can't get some episodes from the 60s and 70s, because they were destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes

This is why I can never watch Dr. Who. I am a bit OCD when it comes to serial shows like this. If I can't watch all of them from the beginning, I'm not going to watch them at all. I have the same problem with comic books

But for someone without my particular affliction, I think jumping in around 2005 is the commonly accepted convention.

Sorta kinda. IIRC, the sound to all of them exists, and there are reconstructions using still images around. Also, there have been animated version of certain episodes of "The Invasion" and "The Reign of Terror" made.

...

As an aside, does that mean you can't read big universe comics, where they keep on having crossovers and team ups? Like, if you were reading Batman, you'd have to read assorted Bat-Family stuff, and when part of his story is in a superman comic you'd have to read all of those and...

 

[BrotherRool]

As far as the hate for Smith, I haven't gotten there yet, but from Yahtzee said ("(everyone spends the episodes) sucking the Doctor's balls and asking for more"). That says to me that Matt Smith's Doctor is written to be without flaw, whereas Eccelston's and Tennant's Doctors (the only ones I've seen) make several mistakes, sometimes out of hubris. They're all-powerful beings who make mistakes and at times come across as smarmy and arrogant. It sounds to me like Smith's (again, haven't seen his episodes) has the same personality without the flaws and is loved by everyone.

It's not quite that bad, but whilst Tennant and Eccleston has pretty obvious flaws and character arcs, Smith has been the lighter less serious personality that doesn't seem to have any particularly strong driving motivation

 

[Yopaz]

I jumped in on the 2005 episodes just a couple of weeks back and that works fine. It should be available on Netflix (it is here anyway) so just start watching what Netflix got and if you like that you can check out some of the older stuff afterwards.

 

[Sixcess]

so why the hate? if it's strictly because he's not David Tennant, then that's VERY bad reasoning

Never underestimate the zeal of Tennant fans.

Oh alright, that's a little unfair - the same could be said of many Who fans reaction to the successor of their favourite Doctor. It took me a long time to forgive Peter Davison for not being Tom Baker. In hindsight there was more to it than that - the tone of the show shifted as the script editor for most of Davison's tenure liked character conflict and had an exceptionally gloomy worldview, which led to lots of squabbling companions and pointless deaths. I daresay I didn't pick up on all that at the time, but I did feel it was less fun than it used to be.

But other than the "OMG he's not David!!!" factor I think it's down to the writing. Russell T Davies was frequently lambasted for being a bad sci-fi writer (sometimes justified, often not) and for the dodgy ways he resolved his big plotlines (often justified, especially later on.) But against that he had a fantastic grasp of how to write fun, pacy and popular stories and rounded, sympathetic characters - a shameless crowd pleaser, but a very good one.

Steven Moffat is rather less consistent in those respects, and even many of his ardent fans think he's stretched too thin and not as good as when he was the golden boy contributing one standout story per series in RTD's era.

Personally, though I'm not fond of a lot of Moffat's writing, I like Smith. I think his performance is excellent, and more nuanced than Tennant - who got rather predictable toward the end of his run. In any case, as a lifelong fan of the show I'm used to long periods of it not being entirely to my personal taste. One fan's worst ever is another fan's best, which keeps fandom discussions interesting, to say the least.