Why is there so little output from the new Who?

Mr SetaMr Seta Posts: 380
Forum Member
Something that has perplexed me a bit is, why is there so little in the way of episodes per year of Dr Who?

If you compare with an American season they do over 20 shows. It use to be 10 to 11, but now we are talking 7 stories here with Who. If you compare to old Who they did 6 or 7 stories of at least 4 episodes, so lets say 26 to 28, 25 mins compared to 7 50 min stories -that's about half the output!!

Okay, so production standards have gone up in terms of time & cost (may be too much at the expense of other key ingredients), but I come back to this is under half what the yanks can do (& its not as though it costs the BBC a truckload as its their cash cow globally, so the more they make the more profit).

Some might argue the quality would then slip.. maybe that's it, they just don't have the number of stories (or they spend far too long on the stories that passes through) -? I don't know..
-any thoughts?
«134

Comments

  • davrosdodebirddavrosdodebird Posts: 8,692
    Forum Member
    They simply don't have the money and resources, plus the writing structure is so different from american TV - one head writer with individual script writers who have one to two episodes each, where US TV more often then not has a team of writers for the whole season.

    On top of this, the production schedule for who entails 7 - 9 months of shooting at all hours of the day plus all the promotional events tie ins etc that the lead actor is involved with, making the show can be a strain, plus I am sure that the actors want to be able to do more shows other than DW :)
  • PalmerwhoPalmerwho Posts: 1,158
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They simply don't have the money and resources, plus the writing structure is so different from american TV - one head writer with individual script writers who have one to two episodes each, where US TV more often then not has a team of writers for the whole season.

    That an Doctor Who has one standing set, which is normally only used at the start and end of an episode. So they have to film in different locations or build new sets for every episode.

    Plus The Doctor and his companions are in most scenes in an episode whereas US shows tend to be more of an ensemble cast so the workload is not as high.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,229
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cost and time.

    Doesn't one episode of NuWho take 3-4 weeks to film, and cost £1 million?
  • chuffnobblerchuffnobbler Posts: 10,771
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No UK TV show does 20+ episodes a year (except soaps, obviously).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,003
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Grisonaut wrote: »
    Cost and time.

    Doesn't one episode of NuWho take 3-4 weeks to film, and cost £1 million?

    AFAIK it's about 12-14 days for a regular episode and around three weeks for a Christmas special.
  • Sara_PeplowSara_Peplow Posts: 1,579
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Quality not quantity if we get 12 good episodes and a Christmas special. We have a new doctor so 2014 should be a good year for who fans .
  • TributeTribute Posts: 820
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No UK TV show does 20+ episodes a year (except soaps, obviously).

    Actually there are lots of UK TV shows that have 20+ episodes a year.
  • TheSilentFezTheSilentFez Posts: 11,103
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tribute wrote: »
    Actually there are lots of UK TV shows that have 20+ episodes a year.

    Apart from soaps, Waterloo Road and Casualty (which are both bordering on soap, if not a full-blown soap anyway) I can't think of any dramas which have more than 20 episodes per year.
  • F1etchF1etch Posts: 4,100
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The other thing to take into consideration aswell is that American shows HAVE to run from September through to May (the successful popular ones anyway for some reason, I've been told and read why many times but it never seems to sink in and remember...perhaps there is a Silence on the page) and in order to do that you have to have 20+ episodes and a good number of breaks in between (mid season finales etc) to space out the show. It also means you have to pad the show out with a number of filler episodes where no story progression is done and the main arc is never addressed. In the UK we basically cut out the breaks between episodes, cut out the filler and just go with a condensed but good quality run of 10-12 episodes a season.

    If anything Dr Who has more than average for a UK show. I struggle to think of another UK drama series that has that many episodes in it. Most run for 4/6/8 weeks at most. That allows you to get the most out of those shows in terms of viewership because you're not fighting the schedule with other top dramas and shows like happens in the US. You get a quicker turnover of shows and each show can then gets the spotlight on its own.
  • Bruce WayneBruce Wayne Posts: 5,326
    Forum Member
    The average number of episodes of some of the top US shows:
    Breaking Bad - 13
    American Horror Story - 12
    Falling Skies - 10
    The Walking Dead - 13
    Defiance - 12
    Lost Girl - 13
    Orphan Black - 10
  • James_VickJames_Vick Posts: 632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    because the BBC and Moffat don't care about the show anymore
  • Benjamin SiskoBenjamin Sisko Posts: 1,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    James_Vick wrote: »
    because the BBC and Moffat don't care about the show anymore

    Absolute rubbish. Sorry, but that is. If they didn't care, we wouldn't be getting a celebration of ANY kind. Moffat has said himself recently that there "isn't a day where he doesn't think or worry about Doctor Who."
  • Bruce WayneBruce Wayne Posts: 5,326
    Forum Member
    James_Vick wrote: »
    because the BBC and Moffat don't care about the show anymore
    Absolute rubbish. Sorry, but that is. If they didn't care, we wouldn't be getting a celebration of ANY kind. Moffat has said himself recently that there "isn't a day where he doesn't think or worry about Doctor Who."

    BIB That and the amount of money they spent producing a 3D 50th special. That isn't cheap by any means.
  • James_VickJames_Vick Posts: 632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Absolute rubbish. Sorry, but that is. If they didn't care, we wouldn't be getting a celebration of ANY kind. Moffat has said himself recently that there "isn't a day where he doesn't think or worry about Doctor Who."

    oh you mean the 8th year anniversary, yeah cause that's looking so good, oh wait we don't know that its looking good BECAUSE WE STILL HAVEN'T SEEN A F***ING TRAILER AND WE ARE NOW WEEKS AWAY FROM IT :mad:
  • Benjamin SiskoBenjamin Sisko Posts: 1,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    James_Vick wrote: »
    oh you mean the 8th year anniversary, yeah cause that's looking so good, oh wait we don't know that its looking good BECAUSE WE STILL HAVEN'T SEEN A F***ING TRAILER AND WE ARE NOW WEEKS AWAY FROM IT :mad:

    50th*

    And it is looking good, yes. :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,003
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The average number of episodes of some of the top US shows:
    Breaking Bad - 13
    American Horror Story - 12
    Falling Skies - 10
    The Walking Dead - 13
    Defiance - 12
    Lost Girl - 13
    Orphan Black - 10

    Also

    Homeland 12
    Game of Thrones 10

    Though most, if not all of these shows are made by cable TV networks like HBO and Showtime.

    Most American dramas that were created by the major networks like CBS, ABC, FOX do usually have around 22-24 episodes.
  • James_VickJames_Vick Posts: 632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    50th*

    And it is looking good, yes. :)

    8th year anniversary, no classic Doctors, no 50th
  • davrosdodebirddavrosdodebird Posts: 8,692
    Forum Member
    Waaa waaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaa. That is all.
  • Benjamin SiskoBenjamin Sisko Posts: 1,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    James_Vick wrote: »
    8th year anniversary, no classic Doctors, no 50th

    Ah, but how do you know? McGann is still strongly on the cards if this minisode is what they say it is. Davison too as he has a copy of the script. And the inclusion of a Zygon leads me to believe that there will be some pretty major classic involvement.

    Also, even if it is an "8th year anniversary" as you put it, doesn't the fact that they're even doing such a major thing about it prove that they do care about the show and want to publicise it?
  • Bruce WayneBruce Wayne Posts: 5,326
    Forum Member
    James_Vick wrote: »
    8th year anniversary, no classic Doctors, no 50th

    So, you want a 79 year old Tom Baker, a 70 year old Sylvester McCoy, an overweight Colin Baker and a balding Peter Davison in the episode?
  • human naturehuman nature Posts: 13,176
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    James_Vick wrote: »
    8th year anniversary, no classic Doctors, no 50th
    Only a moment ago you were saying "we don't know that its looking good BECAUSE WE STILL HAVEN'T SEEN A F***ING TRAILER AND WE ARE NOW WEEKS AWAY FROM IT" - yet now you claim to know everything about it..?
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    James_Vick wrote: »
    oh you mean the 8th year anniversary, yeah cause that's looking so good, oh wait we don't know that its looking good BECAUSE WE STILL HAVEN'T SEEN A F***ING TRAILER AND WE ARE NOW WEEKS AWAY FROM IT :mad:

    What on Earth has a trailer got to so with your baseless claim that the BBC and/or Moffat don't care about Doctor Who any longer?

    How many of us don't know that the special will be aired on the 23rd? Very few, I expect. How many of us would still be able to watch it, if we hadn't seen any of it beforehand? All of us, I would hope.

    If you believe that all surviving lead actors reprising their roles is the only requirement to celebrate an anniversary - your view is rather skewed.

    We only know about the 50th, what has been visible during two-three outdoor filming scenes. If those three scenes take up the whole 75 minutes, then I may complain. Until then, the precognitive abilities you have developed - may yet fail you.

    If this is the 8th anniversary special, THEN WHERE THE F**K IS BRUNO LANGLEY?!?! :mad:

    #sighontheday
  • Residents FanResidents Fan Posts: 9,204
    Forum Member
    They simply don't have the money and resources, plus the writing structure is so different from american TV - one head writer with individual script writers who have one to two episodes each, where US TV more often then not has a team of writers for the whole season.

    Paul Cornell has suggest DW would benefit from a US
    style "writers room" -it would help in that US cable
    fare, as Bruce Wayne pointed out, usually have 10-13 eps per year, which would be equal to the post-2005 DW's peak output.
  • James_VickJames_Vick Posts: 632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So, you want a 79 year old Tom Baker, a 70 year old Sylvester McCoy, an overweight Colin Baker and a balding Peter Davison in the episode?

    YES!!!!! let's be honest they aren't gonna be around forever so this is really the last change to see them as their Doctors on-screen and if Moffat's left them out then he's gonna have to leave the country because most Whovian's are gonna what his head on a spike outside the Tower of London (or the Doctor Who studios)
  • Bruce WayneBruce Wayne Posts: 5,326
    Forum Member
    James_Vick wrote: »
    YES!!!!! let's be honest they aren't gonna be around forever so this is really the last change to see them as their Doctors on-screen and if Moffat's left them out then he's gonna have to leave the country because most Whovian's are gonna what his head on a spike outside the Tower of London (or the Doctor Who studios)

    IMO, that would make it a disaster! I want to remember the earlier versions of The Doctor as they were when they left. I was disappointed with "The Two Doctors" because Jamie looked so much older then he should have. I was disappointed with "Time Crash" because Peter looked so much older, heavier and balder then he should have and I will definitely be disappointed to see Colin Baker try and squeeze into his costume.
Sign In or Register to comment.