www.ditl.org

I am fully aware of how many Doctor Whos are out there. However, right now I am in the middle of watching Farscape for the first time. After I am done, I might watch Doctor Who. The big question is: what should I expect? This is mainly curiousity on my part.

Which should I watch?

McAvoy wrote:The big question is: what should I expect?

That's too broad a question to comprehensively answer - this is a series that been going since TOS, has more episodes and more screentime to it's credit, and was produced continuously for over 25 years. Serials such as An Unearthly Child, The War Games, Pyramids of Mars, The Happiness Patrol, Aliens of London and Amy's Choice are so unlike each other as to be from different series.

As to the other question - "Which should I watch?" - if you ask three different people, you'll get five different answers. While everyone has their favorite Doctor, there's enough goodness about the show in general that there's something about every Doctor to recommend.

I would say that if you're young enough and/or of a preference that awful '60's - '80's Beeb FX will distract you, start with the relaunch. While Eccleston was far from my fave, the entire relaunch contained enough of the arcing, underlying themes that make the best DW great. If you're all of America (as opposed to UK) in the style of TV you like, stick with Tom Baker (the 4th Doctor, original series) or David Tennant (10th) - both widely regarded as the most American-friendly.

According to SF Debris-and I agree with him-there are four basic launching poins for Who.

1. The 2005 revival, made so you didn't have to have watched the old series to understand what was going on, but it helps.

2. Tom Baker as the Fourth. Considered by many the most 'iconic' Doctor, and where most US residents got their start watching Who.

3. Pertwee as the Third Doctor. Still in color, first Doctor to have all his serials still intact.

4. William Hartnell and the First. The beginning, but the first two are in black and white and many of the serials are either missing episodes or just plain lost.

Thats what I meant. Basically where should I start. So 2005 Dr. Who any good?

It's hard to label Who simply good or bad. It's quirky, and how much you enjoy it depends to a great extent on how much you can or want to buy into it and accept it for what it is.

Starting with the modern run is a pretty good way to get into it. If you go earlier you will have to deal with wobbly cardboard sets, and special effects that are anything but special - TOS is seriously high budget cutting edge stuff compared to early Who. There's good stuff there too, but for a modern viewer it can be a bit hard to see past the bad. The modern run has high production values and is a lot more accessible, and there's really nothing you need from the original in terms of backstory.

And if the new series does hook you, you can always check out some of the early stuff later on.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Starting with the modern run is a pretty good way to get into it. If you go earlier you will have to deal with wobbly cardboard sets, and special effects that are anything but special - TOS is seriously high budget cutting edge stuff compared to early Who. There's good stuff there too, but for a modern viewer it can be a bit hard to see past the bad. The modern run has high production values and is a lot more accessible, and there's really nothing you need from the original in terms of backstory.

The other side of the coin is that modern DW, because it's a) a lot shorter and b) single-episode format, feels very rushed compared to the original run, especially the six- or seven-parters. Because they were anything up to four hours long, they had the time to develop the story and guest characters, and because they had to build up to a cliffhanger they didn't suffer as the new series occasionally does with all the action being crammed into the last five or ten minutes.

Indeed, but while you or I may consider that a detriment of the relaunch, to many modern viewers it's an asset.