In the old show the Tardis was able to automatically take the form of something that would fit in with its surroundings. So, go to 1800s American Plains, the Tardis turns into a TeePee. Go to 1960s London it turns into a police box.

And way back in episode #1 with Dr. #1 the Tardis broke. It got stuck as a police box.

In the Tom Baker era and a few times after that, they would try to fix the various broken bits of the Tardis. So, that is probaly what your remembering, Baker getting the Tardis's cloak to work for a little while.

Now what they changed the rules to in the new show, I have no idea. But would like enlightenment.

Anyway, regarding actors and rumors: actors are professional ingratiators; they live to make you like them, so they will say anything in interviews if they think it's what you want to hear.

Basically, the time War started because the Daleks wanted to rewrite history and become the dominent species in the universe so they began searching for an ancient Timelord device called the Temporal Displacement Generator that would wipe anything it was used on from existence. They began searching through Time and space for the device in secret and it also transpires that the real reason the daleks wanted the timelords to deliver the Master to them in the TV Movie was so they could probe his mind to see if he knew where the device could be found.

Eventually, the Doctor discovered the dalek plan and went to the Timelords, hoping they would put a stop to the Daleks search but the Timelords refused to get involved. It wasn't until the Daleks destroyed Arcadia (the Fall of Arcadia), which the Doctor tried and failed to stop, that the Time Lords decided to act. So the war began, through time and space TimeLords and daleks battled, as the Daleks searched the universe for the device. They found it on Earth in the 85th Century AD and took it to Skaro where they armed the device...it would change history across the entire universe, leaving Skaro and the Daleks alone as the only sentient species.

In a last, desperate move, the Doctor went to Skaro and battled his way to the location of the Temporal Displacement Generator, but he was too late...once the device was activated, it was impossible to stop and history began changing across the universe.

And so the Doctor realised that the only way to prevent it from changing the entire universe was to connect it to the tardis and use the power of the Time Vortex to localise the effects of the device to Gallifrey, where the device was created. The Doctor knew that if gallifrey was wiped from existence, the device would never exist and a built-in paradox supressor would prevent a never-ending loop...But if Gallifrey had to be sacrificed, then the Doctor would make sure that Skaro went with it, so he managed to set the device to affect those planets only...and so the time war was ended...and the Doctor...his proximity to the Time Vortex had protected him from being wiped from existence, though it did cause him to regenerate.

And that's essentially what i would have done had i been given the chance...except it would be revealed that gallifrey and Skaro hadn't been destroyed...instead they were sent back in time...to before time itself..before the beginning of the universe, frozen, forever....which would allow for a return of the Timelords and Daleks of gallifrey and Skaro respectively, in a future series.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the specials as full-fledged Eighth Doctor episodes, if only to give McGann more screen time and to boost his story count beyond the 1996 TV movie and the Big Finish audio adventures. The big question, though, would obviously be...would Christopher Eccleston return for a regeneration scene into the Ninth Doctor? Here's hoping...

God what a disappointment this show is.

How can such individually fantastic elements (acting, sets, concept) be put together is such an unfulfilling way? The whole show is just massive potential unrealized.

I feel like Charlie Brown with the football.

Also, since there are two ways to count the number of series, it does depend on how you count it. Otherwise we'd be referring to Tennant as the 2nd Doctor rather than the 10th. Although I can't see why people get so worked up about it.

The main difference is quantity! The average U.S. broadcast network show has 22 episodes in a single season and if not cancelled will return for another 22 episode run. Until the last 5 years, a show would not be repeated more than twice until the magical 100 episode mark was reached and the show could then be sold in its entirety for repeats in syndication 5-7 days a week. The reasoning being that no one would watch repeats unless there were enough to view consecutively for several months without having to cycle back through again. If a show was cancelled after a single season or did not make it to 100 episodes it was generally not aired again. The producers of programs realized that to reach the 100 episodes and achieve financial success required that the actors (and often showrunners and writers) were bound by multi year contracts with an opt-out clause by the producer if the show were cancelled. American audiences were taught to expect long runs and that their shows would return about the same time each year for another season. (The original season was 26 episodes, allowing a single repetition of episodes before the next season began)

Compare this with the British system. A show would be financed for a limited run of 6-13 episodes with no guarantee of future seasons. The actors and staff were under no long term commitment if another season was eventually funded nor was the program scheduled to return automatically the next year unless cancelled as was the American practice. (Thus Brit shows having series instead of seasons) A new season might begin in 1 year, 3 years or never. The producer or showrunner would wait until funded or until they felt confident in the scripts produced. This resulted in a system of endless repeats and an average British show achieving the equivalent of a single American season over several series.

This gets me to the crux of my arguement. Why the Hell can't British television grasp the simple concept of a multi-year contract? If you have a talented writer or actor and you think you may have a possible hit, for God's sake hold onto them! It is immensely frustrating to hear that Mr. Tennant and Mr. Davies will be leaving Dr. Who and that the fallow year of 2009 forced on the fans is for naught. Both will be lost regardless of this special arrangement. If not for Dr. Who Mr Tennant would not be in the position he is in now to cherry pick any role he favors. Mr. Davies should likewise be grateful for the rare gift given him. I do think Mr. Davies is a talented man, but my only fear in his departure is a weakening of the show without him in command. I will NOT miss his writing skills as I believe as most do that his episodes are among the weaker of the series.

Another example of this affliction in British television is Ricky Gervais. Although he is an acknowledged comic genius, he cannot manage to come up with more than a dozen episodes for any show he creates. Then I and my fellow countrymen are supposed to bend over backwards to celebrate his genius. Does anyone in Britain think that if an American writer was given an indefinite amount of time to create a script instead of weeks and had not 22 but just 6 to write that the quality would not be the same or better. Take any season of an American show and subtract the weakest half, then compare that to a British show. What if the 1st season of Lost was the entire series? Look at wildly popular shows in Britain like Life on Mars that ran less than 22 episodes in its entirety. What if it ran for 100 episodes or if all the episodes were written and filmed at one time? Do you think there might be filler episodes or episodes not as great as the main? The American Emmy awards changed their rules so that Ricky Gervais would have the chance to win an Emmy. Under previous rules his shows had not qualified as there were less than 13 episodes in a season. Previously shows of 12 or less in a season were considered to be a mini-series or special. The number was changed downwards to 6 so that Mr. Gervais' show Extras would qualify! I believe in quality but I also believe in quantity. If you don't feel the same, ask yourself, "Would I have been as pleased with The Office (UK) if only a single episode was made?" I think the answer is NO and that genius is bore out through the sum of the whole and that artificially lowering the number of the whole to just those few most prized and carefully nursed is chicanery, and that leaving a series after 2 dozen episodes for fear of typcasting or lack of character growth is cowardly as an actor and prevents the evolution of that character as realized by someone who has garnered their abilities to fully give life to a role.

On the other hand - can't wait for RTD to go (fuck off, stupidly written episodes and overly heavy-handed issues-driven moralising! BAH!) and for Catherine Tate to go (buck the trend - have THAT Companion die a horrifying death! Offscreen, obviously - can't traumatise the kids, man) and for Tennant to either be given some decent material or for someone on another channel to write a decent sci-fi show to rival DR WHO with. PRIMEVAL doesn't count.

Not sure what to expect from VOYAGE OF THE DAMNED. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing. Don't like the Doctor's posturing speeches about saving the world, either - would a 900-year old Time Lord be such a fucking egomaniac? Only when RTD has written the dialogue. Who knows.

'Scuse the pun.

Can't. Fucking. Wait.

So, maybe 840 of those 850-ish years were spent in safety. Now he is out in the rough and tumble.

Just a thought.

http://tinyurl.com/yv5btx

Why are you people so fucking lazy?

That said, if Tennant were to leave, you know who I'd love to see take over the part? If we can start tossing out dream names? Timothy Dalton. All these years after being Bond, he looked great in HOT FUZZ and he still exuded his own level of vigor and charm. And he's older now and would make for a bold, more mature than Tennant Doctor as well. Besides it doesn't seem like Dalton's THAT busy with things, so maybe he would be interested in heading over to London to do the show for a short tenure. Hell, I'd love to see him be the Doc for a season or two...

Make it so.

As cool as it would be to have a Hartnell or Troughton type Doctor again, especially with someone the calibre of Patrick Stewart, I'm afraid the days of a "grandfatherly" Doctor have passed long ago.

My take is INTENTIONAL regeneration allows the docs to have a near infinite amount but FORCED (death) has a limit.

I'm not sure if what I stated was fully understood, so I'll attempt to restate. I DO NOT believe British television is better than American television, nor do I believe the obverse. It's comparing apples and oranges. For the international posters I think you'd be horrified at how little non-American entertainment, outside of animation, is viewed by American audiences. The posters on this site are FAR more likely to have some knowledge of British television than the average American.

An observation: Here in the USA there is a strange duality to how British entertainment is viewed. The only place the average American sees British television is on the local PBS station. (public broadcasting partly funded by the government with a mandate to provide "high-quality" entertainment, educational and arts programming, and local content) This is the closest America comes to the BBC model followed by the vast majority of the rest of the world. PBS is watched by perhaps 10% of the population at any one time. Part of the reason for the low viewership is the perceived elitist tone and the showing of British television considered more intellectualy stimulating. Thus on PBS you'll find a HUGE amount of coproductions with the BBC of nature and science shows, (many of which I'm sure are given a new voiceover and shown in Britain and worldwide) newer dramas from the BBC such as Inspector Morse, Agatha Christie and Foyle's War and ENDLESS repeats of As Time Goes By, Are You Being Served and Keeping Up Appearances. If you want to watch an 18 part history of Jazz or the Civil War (American), or if you want to see this week's show about World War II, then PBS is the place for you! There is an undertone of an American inferiority complex seeming to say: "You can be better than you are, You can be British!," or "This is what intelligent people like the British are watching." Theresponse of most Americans is "If this is smart television, then I'd rather be a dumb-ass and watch CSI."

It seems to me that the rest of the world, especially the Commonwealth nations, have a great deal more of British television along with the dreaded low-brow American fare. In the USA BBC America is only available in 14 million homes and according to British posters is a pale imitation of British television. An amusing fact for Brits: On BBC America before most shows there are instructions on how to turn on closed captioning as British accents are unfamiliar and difficult to understand. I doubt there is a similar disclaimer before American television shows internationally.

My post was to highlight a possible reason for American television domination: the sheer amount of programming available and the knowledge that your favorite show will be around for awhile. It is very common for American television shows to run 100+ episodes and constantly have fresh shows, while British shows have no consistency with additional seasons and often run as few as 20 episodes over SEVERAL years. Look at a hugely popular show form Britain such as Coupling. Fans loved the characters and stories and yet were rewarded with a total of approximately 24 episodes over 5 years. Compare thus with an American show like Friends or Seinfeld, each with north of 150 episodes over 9 years! Compare the best 6 episodes of Friends each season with the 6 episodes each series of Coupling and I think you'll see Friends had better episodes. Even if you think some shows went on too long, the beauty of television and dvd sets is that you determine the series run! X-Files ran 9 seasons but I only count 1-7, Frasier ran 10 seasons but I only count 1-7, Will & Grace and That 70's Show ran 8 season but I count onlt 1-7 for each. I don't dicount the whole show for the slide in quality at the end, and if a particular episode is dreadful, I DON'T WATCH IT! Can any British fan of the Office, Extras, Life On Mars, etc. claim that there was no more room for character development or stories to be told? As for the argument the American office is past its prime, I disagree. There have been a few clunkers, but the majority have been excellent.

The best proof I have for my argument is Dr. Who. If asked before the reboot if it should be restarted, the average Brit would probably have said no with a tinge of nostalgia. Consider the current run that would have been aborted if the less is more people had won the argument. Going into its 4th season of the reboot, Dr. Who now has had an extremely long run for a British series and according to numerous sources is still running strong. As far as the vision of a single writer, I have to point out Mr. Davies as an example of the fallacy of this. The episodes he scripted are among the weakest and some of his decisions have been less than well thought out. How many fans loved Ardal O'Hanlan's baby kittens, the rhino headed creatures or reacted with glee at the thought of Catherine Tate as a new companion. When Mr. Davies leaves there is no talk of production ending or the END of WHO. Many such as myself will be grateful for Mr. Davies contribution and look forward to an improved Dr. Who. I believe the showrunner who will replace him now knows what does and doesn't work and will have the freedom to steer the show in that direction even if it doesn't fit with Mr. Davies original plan.

Of Course, I Could Be Wrong.

The other reason, of course, is that Harry Lloyd is in Budapest filming the Saturday night BBC replacement for Who when it's off, the criminally under-rated ROBIN HOOD, in which Harry plays Will Scarlet. After the extremely interesting character developments with the character Alan-A-Dale, they'd be daft not to use Harry to his full potential in Season 3 (although I think Little John is the most under-used actor in the series thus far). And while talking about ROBIN HOOD: can't they just kill off Keith Allen now and cast another, more believable Sheriff of Nottingham? Season 2 has moved this series out of the realms of pantomime: Allen seems unable to move with it.

Back on topic: Harry Lloyd for the Doctor. I'd like to see that. Especially with Lucy Griffiths (Marion) as the new Companion. Mmmmmmmmm.....