Am I weird...

[acroyear]

...for feeling like the Christmas Specials should be treated as x00 of the next season rather than x14 of the previous?

E.g., Last of the Time Lords is 3x13.  I personally treat Time Crash as 3x14 and Voyage of the Damned as 4x00.  Similarly, Runaway Bride is 3x00, not 2x14.  It's just not really an epilogue of the previous season to me - it's the prologue to the next.

Comments

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think you're weird for putting the specials with the upcoming seasons instead of the past ones.

But Time Crash should be 4x-01, not 3x14. *grin*

[tully-argyle.livejournal.com]

I agree. I've always viewed the specials as prologues. This is aided by the fact that we see them in December, followed by episodes in January or February. The long break from May to December doesn't make them part of the prior series, to me.

[scaleslea.livejournal.com]

Well, considering that the BBC agrees with you, and it is their program... I don't think that is weird at all.

Doc

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

actually, it doesn't. there's lots of places that mark them as Nx14 rather than (N+1)x00, making it fairly inconsistent. the discussion on the doctor who comm said sometime the beeb marks them NxX.

[scaleslea.livejournal.com]

The last three Christmas Specials have all kicked off the next season. They might not be labeled as episode 0, but they are packaged with that season on the DVDs.

The problem comes with this Christmas' Special and the fact that Season 5 has been pushed out to 2010. It's not Season 4, it's not season 5. It's Doctor Who 2009, which is just specials. So they kept numbering them with the season 4 numbers.

The Christmas invasion was 2.X, Runaway Bride was 3.X, Voyage of the Damned was 4.X. But The Next Doctor can't be 5.X because season 5 was postponed. So they're calling it 4.14.

Doc