Forum:Season 31 or Series 1, not Series 5 - Steven Moffat

According to Golden Money, there was an interview with Steven Moffat regarding what series 5 is called. Oh, you're not gonna love this! Either Season 31 or series 1 is what it will be called. Why? We don't know. He is it is not the fifth series of anything. Yet, he contradicted himself by even thinking of calling it series 1: it is certainly not series 1 of anything, it's the 31st season of Who and the fifth series of the revived series. But he seems to be against that.

In his choice, it's called either series 31 (season 27, 28, 29, and 30 are series 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the revived series) or series 1 of his era. Calling it series 1 will notably and most likely cause a huge controversy in the Who community, confusing many, messing with new fans (what will they think if there is two series 1 AND a season one of Doctor Who? They will think they're different versions of the same show and set in different continuities.), and making everyone angry.

In my opinion, the best thing to do is lable it: series 5/season 31. How easy and simple is that? And it makes people undersatdn what is going on: fifth of the revived series and 31st of the entire Who series.

His choice will have a dratmic affect on the wiki. What is your personal opinion of his (rather annoying) choice regarding what the series is called? Delton Menace 03:35, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Series 5, definitely. The production team need to stop messing with our heads! 0_o The evil dude. 06:30, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think in SM's head, the RTD show was a direct continuation of the old show, and his show will similarly be a direct continuation of the RTD show. His show will be just as connected to the classic show as it is to the RTD show. This makes him an inheritor to David Whitaker, Dennis Spooner, Terrance Dicks, Robert Holmes, Douglas Adams, Eric Saward, Andrew Cartmel, and the ones I've forgotten, not just to RTD.


 * So, calling it Series 5 doesn't make any sense--that would mean he's just taking over Doctor RTD, not Doctor Who. Season 31 is the ideal way to get it across, but if he can't get away with connecting the three shows into one that way, better to call it Series 1 rather than Series 5.


 * I think the fan community should go with this, call it season 31, and retroactively renumber the RTD show to fit.


 * The only problem with this is that the TV movie has to be season 26-1/2 or something, and the 2009 specials season 30-1/2. (So the EDAs take place during season 26-1/2B? That's getting a little silly....) I kind of wish he'd said 33, but I can live with 31, because I'm happy with losing the old series/new series distinction. --99.8.229.156 07:02, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. This should all just be called series 31 and all the others to be updated the same way to stop confusion. -- Michael Downey 12:29, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone else see a lot of headaches coming on? Surely SM's realised that calling it Series 1 will mess every regular fan up? I agree that it it should be Series 5 or the entire revived show should be reclassified using the seasons.If he wants to have series 1 again, do it from a production standpoint, not a viewers one. Excalibur-117 12:41, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Can anyone cite a source for Moffat's interview? --Tangerineduel 12:43, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

It's in the new DWM -- Michael Downey 12:44, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's either Series 1 or Season 31, what's it gonna be marketed as? "The Complete Thirty-first Season"? "The Complete Second First Series"? Tardis1963 03:47, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is still the complete third first seires, which will be even more confusing. It shoudl be as simple as: Series 5/Season 31. Plan and simple.Delton Menace 05:16, January 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps wait and see how the BBC ends up marketing the series (after all for a time the first and second stories had a variety of titles attributed to them; 100,000 BC / The Tribe of Gum (An Unearthly Child) and The Dead Planet/The Mutants (The Daleks)). --Tangerineduel 13:13, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

What about The Eleventh Doctor (Series One) ? (Just a thought) The Librarian 19:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to just chill and wait to see what really happens before we go making big changes to the site. In all likelihood, the number of the series won't even come into play until we get the first official designs of the DVD releases. DWM is not the bringer of absolute truth. You really want me to cite the number of times DWM has been in error about the future of the programme?  The phrase, "PETER DAVIDSON is THE DOCTOR" leaps to mind.


 * Also, for those of us in a geographic disadvantage for DWM, would you mind exactly quoting the passage in question? My strong suspicion is that the quote will admit of multiple interpretations.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  02:01, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've researched this, I find that there are two places in the magazine where Moffat discusses Series numbering. Once in an interview (which I haven't read) and once in his producer's notes (which I have).  I take it that the former is where the quote on which this thread is based originates.  I'd still like to know what that quote is, precisely.  But in the latter, he definitely doesn't come down on the side of any particular numbering.  In fact, he goes out of his way to poke fun at the whole controversy.  So, on balance, the issue doesn't really manage to say anything definite about the numbering, which may suggest that it's not within his power to choose.  And, let's face it, it probably isn't.  This would seem to be something entirely within the purview of the marketing department.  So, again, we need to wait until the marketing department actually gives us something, like a DVD cover.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  03:15, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Series 5 Volume 1 here we come! Tardis1963 22:32, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

For anyone interested and a fair few are it seems... Steven Moffatt and DWM are quoted below; " How do you number a series of Doctor Who?" he asks, with a mischievous smile. "And I fess up to DWM, the whole 'Series One' thing came about when I had to give a speech to the various licensees, explaining why they should be excited about Doctor Who. The message coming back, before I went into that meeting was that 'Series Five' means an ageing brand'. And it struck me, my God.'Series Five is a very, very, very, boring number. But there are two other numbers you can use - 'Series Thirty-One' or 'Series One'. "It's Series Thirty-One of Doctor Who, and it's Series One of Matt Smith's Doctor," he clarifies. "Those are both real numbers. I submit that 'Series Five of Doctor Who' means absolutely nothing unless you really believe that Matt Smith is the Third Doctor. Everyone knows he's the Eleventh Doctor, so that means that it's definitely not 'Series Five'. Whichever number you choose, 'Series Five' is the one that's flawed But never mind all that, I was saying to them, 'You can't go away saying 'Series Five, ageing brand," cos it's Series Thirty-One - it's epic and immortal!" When I was a kid - when I was an adult, to this day - I always counted it by Doctor. I just knew it was Tom baker's fourth series, or Peter Davison's second series, or whatever."... (Taken from the first of a two-part interview by Tom Spilsbury with Steven Mofat from DWA Issue 427 The Librarian 01:33, January 21, 2010 (UTC)