Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Toxic fandom
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:27:07 +1200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <v4bf3r$1hamb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <xn0omx117aluw5y001@post.eweka.nl> <xn0omyukbc4ii80002@post.eweka.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:27:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="409b3effc27ad8b4936bc3850f61e40b";
	logging-data="1616587"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19xKJyVlXWsEFQ8908d9MigGk1CAXhpgec="
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/QaIneMDtSojcD3UM4DrI43dU+E=
Bytes: 3928

On 2024-06-11 23:42:39 +0000, Blueshirt said:
> Your Name wrote:
>> On 2024-06-11 19:26:32 +0000, Blueshirt said:
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <xn0omxhmdara3wn005@post.eweka.nl>,
>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Timeless Child is going nowhere, you'd want to start
>>>>> getting used to it... move on.
>>>> 
>>>> The Timeless Child deserved to be rubbished!
>>> 
>>> Yes it did. BUT... it was still part of the show.
>>> 
>>> The McCoy era deserved to be rubbished, BUT... it was still
>>> part of the show.
>>> 
>>> Like any long running TV show Doctor Who has been good,
>>> average and bad... that's the way it goes. But even so, it's
>>> ALL Doctor Who.
>> 
>> Yes and no.
>> 
>> Although "reboots" do usually re-use the same or similar names
>> and are echnically in the same franchise, they are in reality
>> completely different shows. The most obvious example being
>> "Battlestar Galactica" - there's the real Glen Larson original
>> version, then the horrible "Galactica 1980" version, and then
>> there's the awful Moore-Ron "reboot" version. (There is also a
>> planned movie version which will be different again, and an
>> even sillier planned movie that will somehow supposedly link
>> the two very different versions while ignoring "Galactica
>> 1980").
>> 
>> The problem with Doctor Who is that the main character's
>> ability to regenerate so they can replace the actor, makes it
>> harder to spot the "reboot" attempts.  The gender-swapping and
>> now race-swapping are two of the more blatant "reboot"
>> attempts within Doctor Who franchise, mainly to appease the
>> Politically Correct / Equality brigade ... because as we all
>> "know", there were never any female nor black actors on TV
>> shows before about 2010,  :-\
>> 
>> "Reboots" are never a good idea, and simply a sign that the
>> creator doesn't really know what to do. Another term covering
>> a simialr sudden change is often "jumping ths shark", named
>> after an episode of the US sitcom "Happy Days" when they
>> decided to make big changes to the format becauser they had
>> run out of sensibly fitting ideas.
> 
> I know the eras of Doctor Who are vastly different but I don't
> look at Doctor Who post 2005 (or 2023 onwards even) as reboots
> per se, as the Doctor numbering continues... so for me they are
> just jumping on points for potential new fans.
> 
> Had RTD in 2005 started again with a new First Doctor, then yes,
> I would have viewed that as a full reboot. But as it was,
> calling Christopher Eccleston the Ninth Doctor meant us older
> fans of the show could just envisage it as a continuation.

The Doctor numbering continues mainly because that's a fan-based thing 
.... has the numbering ever been mentioned in-show??

The season numbering has definitely restarted twice at 1 again.



> Battlestar Galactica OTOH... no, we won't even go there!!! :-(