This is me after having yet another night of no sleep.
This is me wondering why in the hell does my body hate a regular sleep pattern.
This is me just sitting in disbelief that one person is going to need so much coffee to just through the end of his shift that he may as well just eat a jar of Nescafe Gold Blend for the efficacy of getting the whole job done in one fell swoop.
This is going to one of those posts you read on the internet and can’t believe that someone had the nerve to write it and post it on the internet. I am not here to cause controversy or to stir the pot, but I keep seeing the same question being asked over and over in one form or another, but basically, it boils down to this:
If I don’t watch the classic stories of Doctor Who does that make me any less of a fan?
Is Old Who better than New Who?
I am going to lay out my thoughts on this and all I ask of you, the reader, is that you remember EVERYONE has an opinion just like everyone has a butthole. There is nothing you can do to change someone’s opinion just like you can’t change someone’s butthole. That’s probably not a very pretty analogy, but it’s all I have now.
So, the main thing I want to address is the fact that Old and New Who are two different entities. In one respect I can see the way people think that post-2005 Doctor Who is a different series to the classic series.
I want to state something obvious and quite in your face. The name of the programme is Doctor Who. It began in November 1963 and continues to this day. It is all one series with many interconnecting facets that link old and new. So, the labelling of old and new Who should end here and now (hell, it should NEVER have started in the first place). Doctor Who has been an entity for almost 55 years. It holds the record for being the longest-running science fiction TV show EVER… you see, it’s got a world record for being the longest series, it’s ONE SERIES.
So, the next time you think that watching the Post 2005 series is the be all and end all, then I am afraid, you are technically wrong. Quite apart from missing out on over 30 years of great Doctor Who stories, you are missing out on the history of what is only hinted at in the post-2005 series. You can read all the blurbs and quick fix guides to The Daleks or The Cybermen etc, but you will never understand what they are about if you don’t venture back to the 1963/64 serial The Daleks with William Hartnell in the lead role. It doesn’t make you any less of a fan if you chose not to do this, but just imagine if you read Lord of the Rings without reading the Hobbit to get the full story of how Bilbo got the ring. The film may give a ten-second catch up of what happened, but it’s more, so much more than that.
I do understand that early Doctor Who can be quite slow to get through if you aren’t really invested in wanting to watch it. I am a HUGE fan of the older stuff, but trust me, if I am not in the right mood for it, I too can find it quite hard to sit still through 6 episodes of The Mind of Evil with Jon Pertwee, but given a good chance, you’ll be rewarded with a great romp and an adventure that will give you one more story to talk with friends with or to write about.
I really want to emphasise the point that if you choose not to watch the older stories you are less of a fan than someone who has only seen the last Peter Capaldi series. If you dig the Madman in His Box in any of his guises, then you are a Whovian and you are more than welcome in my comments section.
Let me know who your Doctor is or your reasoning to counter my thoughts. Leave a comment or drop me an email using the comment form.