Needs Help: Recap.Doctor Who

Deadlock Clock: 19th Dec 2012 11:59:00 PM
Total posts: [37]
1 2
26 nrjxll4th Oct 2012 04:11:28 PM , Relationship Status: Not war
Old Man Ho Oh, what exactly is your concern about the "new series" terminology?
27 Drgonzo8th Oct 2012 12:26:38 PM from Somewhere in time and space.
Dr. Gonzo
I also vote to keep the recaps. There are a LOT of Who fans who have only seen the new series and are getting into classic Who, and the episode recaps can provide a valuable tool to find good jumping in points.

As for the numbering system, I'd just set the Moffat episodes to the Eccleston/Tennant era numbering system (NS Sx Ey), since the DVD releases and pretty much everyone else calls the Moffat episodes Series 5-7 anyway.
I don't know where I'm going, but damned if I won't have fun getting there!
[up]I believe his issue was that in British English, "series" can have the same meaning as "season" in American English (i.e. "New series" could refer to the current season resuming for Christmas and in spring). The only substitutes I can think of would be Current, Modern, or Revived series. IIRC I have seen the last one used quite a bit.
It's super effective.
My concern is that the "new series" is not new any more, it's been going for seven years, with none of the original cast and a sizeable turnover of the original crew as well.

The "new series" to me means more the imminent season, not 2005 onwards.

edited 8th Oct '12 4:14:54 PM by OldManHoOh

[up]Honestly, I have to agree. It's not really new anymore after 7 years. I think it should be Classic series for 1963-1989 and maybe the TV Movie (1996), and Revived series for 2005 onwards.
31 Xtifr8th Oct 2012 05:08:52 PM , Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
World's Toughest Milkman
We have precedent. The "New Wave" in popular music was thirty years ago, and the "New Wave" in Science Fiction was half a century ago. I'm not familiar enough with Who fandom to know what sort of terminology is current there, but "it's no longer new" is not necessarily a good argument.

On the other hand, it's not necessarily a bad one either. :)

edited 8th Oct '12 5:09:26 PM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
32 nrjxll8th Oct 2012 08:19:30 PM , Relationship Status: Not war
What my question was meant to get at was the terminology among the fandom - is there any actual confusion between the two different meanings of "new series" going on?
[up]FWIW, On the one Who fansite I've been on (Gallifrey Base), I've seen British and Australian users call the current series nuWho (yeah, no), the New Series, and the Revived Series.
Yes, I think "New Series" is now being used primarily as a shorthand way of distinguishing the 2005-present series from the 1963-1989(1996) series rather than it being shiny and new.
35 crazyrabbits14th Nov 2012 01:57:26 PM from Mississauga, ON, Canada
Getting back on topic, I could go either way in regards to the recaps.

While I agree that some amount of context is good for episode-specific pages (giving a short summary), some of the recaps I've skimmed through are...well, let's just say "too quirky for its own good" is the start of the problems. If I wanted to read a full-on episode recap that's at least partially objective, I'd just go to the DW wiki. I'll probably support a trim if it gets to a crowner.

Clock time.
Lock time.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.

Total posts: 37
1 2