Series 7b is really Series 8... anyone else feel like we're being conned?

18911131421

Comments

  • nebogipfelnebogipfel Posts: 8,375
    Forum Member
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    There is no reason for them to.

    Neither is there a reason for them to give a running commentary.


    In fact, it would be better if the likes of Moffat, the writers, JLC, Matt et al said nothing at all.

    It would probably have been better for the BBC not to have rush released their response to Private Eye. It only made things worse when they then had to tell journalists the next day that they had been economical with the truth.

    Cohen was then put on the spot at a BBC event. He said quite clearly that 2012 would consist of only some of the fourteen episodes. He also said Christmas day episodes were important to him. He was vague about what to expect for the anniversary, but that it would be "big". He didn't indicate that we should expect any series 8 in 2013 in addition to the remainder of series seven (it was too early to be sure whether this meant no hope of series 8 in 2013 or not, but don't hold your breath).

    So that all seemed reasonably clear and honest as an early indication.

    It is debatable whether Cohen should have mentioned Moffat's workload as the cause. Moffat clearly didn't like it. But with hindsight there does seem to be an element of truth in it, so Cohen possibly thought he wasn't being too much of a tittle tattle. And it is his channel, after all.

    However, after that we had a number of statements from Cardiff that had the unfortunate combined effect of misleading people to expect, a shift to winter, a straight run for series seven spanning Christmas, extra length episodes in 2012, some or all of series 8 in 2013 and multiple anniversary episodes. So, yes - possibly it would have been better for them to have said nothing. Or, being generous, sought advice on how to say things without being misunderstood quite so often. ;)
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tom Tit wrote: »
    So they shouldn't promote the show? That's a great idea. <rolleyes removed>

    Cut out the rolletyes - most if not all of the complaints and moans lately have been about what SM et al have said in various interviews and conferences. If they simply stuck to the official BBC line (which is probably a simple press release on http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/ ) or simply said nothing then there would be little room for misinterpretation, lying, cheating, false rumour, exaggeration, spin and everything else that they have been accused of lately.

    In other words, the only conduit for information and promotion would be the BBC Press Office, or communication sanctioned by that area. No other speeches or off-the-cuff remarks. Everything cleared beforehand.
  • nebogipfelnebogipfel Posts: 8,375
    Forum Member
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    Cut out the rolletyes - most if not all of the complaints and moans lately have been about what SM et al have said in various interviews and conferences. If they simply stuck to the official BBC line (which is probably a simple press release on http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/ ) or simply said nothing then there would be little room for misinterpretation, lying, cheating, false rumour, exaggeration, spin and everything else that they have been accused of lately.

    In other words, the only conduit for information and promotion would be the BBC Press Office, or communication sanctioned by that area. No other speeches or off-the-cuff remarks. Everything cleared beforehand.

    But it was the BBC Press Office who started the series seven misinformation. Their "fourteen episodes all starring Matt" misled many fans into contacting Private Eye for an apology. The press office then had to admit the fourteen were to be spread across two years and ask the Radio Times to remove "2012" from their posting of the original statement

    The press office do not appear to have been helpful to Moffat. They fanned the flames.

    Cohen then tried to speak clearly on the matter, but that too was spun round by a BBC entertainment journalist (not at the event) who tweeted that Cohen was only joking. Again fans rushed to believe the untrue "only a joke" thing. Did the press office help to clarify things? Not a peep.
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,911
    Forum Member
    Sue_Aitch wrote: »

    WHAT! They've got their feet up? Outrageous behaviour. They should be outside in the cold and rain filming another 200 episodes. :)
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DiscoP wrote: »
    WHAT! They've got their feet up? Outrageous behaviour. They should be outside in the cold and rain filming another 200 episodes. :)

    I like that picture even better than the ones that show Tennant and Matt. It's so Doctorish, somehow. :)
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nebogipfel wrote: »
    But it was the BBC Press Office who started the series seven misinformation. Their "fourteen episodes all starring Matt" misled many fans into contacting Private Eye for an apology. The press office then had to admit the fourteen were to be spread across two years and ask the Radio Times to remove "2012" from their posting of the original statement

    The press office do not appear to have been helpful to Moffat. They fanned the flames.

    Cohen then tried to speak clearly on the matter, but that too was spun round by a BBC entertainment journalist (not at the event) who tweeted that Cohen was only joking. Again fans rushed to believe the untrue "only a joke" thing. Did the press office help to clarify things? Not a peep.

    The point in this case being that the Press Office would/should then be the only communication channel - but it would then pose problems retrospectively when other comments/stories/claims/lies/spin/deceit/misinformation are already out there. Far easier to have done this from the very start in 2005 rather than now. Too much "out there", too much good/bad/indifferent information sloshing around.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 249
    Forum Member
    sebbie3000 wrote: »
    Very good, you can quote mine - I know full well what I was saying, and you have side-stepped the meaning a few times now.

    The whole culture of filming is different. That is why it is different. I did mention that. That was the point of my posts.

    And my initial post - which you misunderstood in the first place - was just an explanation I was providing. You brought me into the debate after that. I think explanations are necessary, not pointless.

    You repeatedly claimed that you didn't bring budgets into it, and I pointed out that you specifically did! If that's not what you meant, then by all means go ahead and clarify what you meant.

    Also, you're just harping back to esoteric statements like "it's a completely different culture" with no specifics at all to try to justify your point. It won't wash.
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,911
    Forum Member
    I like that picture even better than the ones that show Tennant and Matt. It's so Doctorish, somehow. :)

    Yeah I know what you mean. I'd love to be a fly on the wall. I dare say those two have some interesting stories to tell...
  • nebogipfelnebogipfel Posts: 8,375
    Forum Member
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    The point being that the Press Office would/should then be the only communication channel - but it would then pose problems retrospectively when other comments/stories/claims/lies/spin/deceit/misinformation are already out there. Far easier to have done this from the very start in 2005 rather than now. Too much "out there", too much good/bad/indifferent information sloshing around.

    I suspect some of what you suggest has already been done. Moffat deleted his Twitter account last year. One of the origins of peculiar statements (for example he tweeted Cohen had been misquoted. Cohen had not been misquoted.)

    In this case, though, the Press Office created their own problem. Private Eye reported possibly as few as four "special" episodes in 2012. They announced "fourteen episodes" in response. That wasn't a very high quality decision because every scifi/geek news journal and website immediately asked "all in 2012?". The answer was that only "a good chunk" were for 2012 but also (according to BleedingCool), Private Eye were right that four specials had been discussed at one point. (actuality: five regular episodes, plus christmas - and one of those was a late addition to the mix).

    So - at first there is a story (Private Eye gossip), then the Press Office get involved and there are now two stories - Private Eye gossip and the Press Office trying to cover up!

    Granted, things didn't improve much since then. Cohen was on message about "not a full run in 2012" (the Press Office had authorised that message). He only went off piste about "Moffat is busy". A journalist tweeted "possibly joking" without checking his facts (others pounced on this unchecked possibility as being definite fact). BBC News website reported Cohen's words accurately (i.e. ignoring the "only joking" falsehood). Did the Press Office help out by clarifying which journalist was correct? Regardless - we all got to hear what Cohen said in his own words. The BBC News website had reported accurately.

    The Press Office didn't seem to have a strategy to help Moffat.

    Also, we don't really know what was and what wasn't checked over by the Press Office. On the radio 4 Media Show last year (a highly respected media analysis show), a senior BBC insider said the Press Office are notorious for knee-jerk denials and spinning of almost every leak, even when they are palpably true. He said it was a real problem for the BBC that needed sorting out.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    OK, so SM et al can talk, but all must be vetted by the Press Office first. No of-the-cuff comments, no tweeting, no convention speeches unless previously vetted.


    Or the nuclear option - no press releases or promotion at all bar what the BBC sanctions as part of its planned output or planned responses from the Production Team.

    Which is getting silly .....
  • nebogipfelnebogipfel Posts: 8,375
    Forum Member
    I'm afraid that once the facts and actual series of events have been separated from the pure guesswork or wishful thinking of people who want things to have been nicer, the Press Office don't come out of it too well. Cardiff generally and Moffat in particular have said daft things. Cohen made one accurate statement but was misrepresented about it by a BBC journalist and other BBC people on twitter.

    But the thing is - the basic reason they have had trouble giving out news about the schedule since 2011 through to 2014 is because there have been real and actual problems behind the scenes, and journalists have a habit of finding out. I've every sympathy with them. Making TV is not easy. There are bound to be problems. I wish they had used a better communication strategy about it all. But I'm not going to pretend that they had.

    In the meanwhile, the quality of what they have made has been excellent. I'm crossing my fingers for (a) a full series 8 in 2014 and (b) less nonsense from the Press Office and others about whatever they do.
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,911
    Forum Member
    nebogipfel wrote: »
    I suspect some of what you suggest has already been done. Moffat deleted his Twitter account last year. One of the origins of peculiar statements (for example he tweeted Cohen had been misquoted. Cohen had not been misquoted.)

    In this case, though, the Press Office created their own problem. Private Eye reported possibly as few as four "special" episodes in 2012. They announced "fourteen episodes" in response. That wasn't a very high quality decision because every scifi/geek news journal and website immediately asked "all in 2012?". The answer was that only "a good chunk" were for 2012 but also (according to BleedingCool), Private Eye were right that four specials had been discussed at one point. (actuality: five regular episodes, plus christmas - and one of those was a late addition to the mix).

    So - at first there is a story (Private Eye gossip), then the Press Office get involved and there are now two stories - Private Eye gossip and the Press Office trying to cover up!

    Granted, things didn't improve much since then. Cohen was on message about "not a full run in 2012" (the Press Office had authorised that message). He only went off piste about "Moffat is busy". A journalist tweeted "possibly joking" without checking his facts (others pounced on this unchecked possibility as being definite fact). BBC News website reported Cohen's words accurately (i.e. ignoring the "only joking" falsehood). Did the Press Office help out by clarifying which journalist was correct? Regardless - we all got to hear what Cohen said in his own words. The BBC News website had reported accurately.

    The Press Office didn't seem to have a strategy to help Moffat.

    Also, we don't really know what was and what wasn't checked over by the Press Office. On the radio 4 Media Show last year (a highly respected media analysis show), a senior BBC insider said the Press Office are notorious for knee-jerk denials and spinning of almost every leak, even when they are palpably true. He said it was a real problem for the BBC that needed sorting out.

    I still think that if you look at the way the episodes of series 7a were written it seems to me that they were at least originally intended to be specials, spread throughout the year rather than five regular episodes. All of them except for Power of Three have the look of specials, Asylum and Manhattan in particular would have benefitted from some extra running time and it would have made morse sense of the Doctor keep dropping Amy and Rory off at the end of each episode and then meeting up with again, sometimes months later, at the start of the next episode. That's only my own theory though and backed up by no evidence of any kind so I am probably completely wrong :)
  • nebogipfelnebogipfel Posts: 8,375
    Forum Member
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    OK, so SM et al can talk, but all must be vetted by the Press Office first. No of-the-cuff comments, no tweeting, no convention speeches unless previously vetted.


    Or the nuclear option - no press releases or promotion at all bar what the BBC sanctions as part of its planned output or planned responses from the Production Team.

    Which is getting silly .....

    The fundamental issue is that Cardiff have had a variety of problems actually making the show. The way they choose to drip feed the fact that it leads to delays and reductions affects the way people feel about it. When the Press Office and Cardiff repeatedly cock their messages up it helps even less.

    But I'm not sure there is a real actual answer to the PR stuff (other than be better than the last couple of years). The real answer is for the BBC to solve the problems and get back to a more predictable, less shifting schedule. Which they may or may not want or be able to do.
  • nebogipfelnebogipfel Posts: 8,375
    Forum Member
    DiscoP wrote: »
    I still think that if you look at the way the episodes of series 7a were written it seems to me that they were at least originally intended to be specials, spread throughout the year rather than five regular episodes. All of them except for Power of Three have the look of specials, Asylum and Manhattan in particular would have benefitted from some extra running time and it would have made morse sense of the Doctor keep dropping Amy and Rory off at the end of each episode and then meeting up with again, sometimes months later, at the start of the next episode. That's only my own theory though and backed up by no evidence of any kind so I am probably completely wrong :)

    There was a definite sense in each of the stories of time having passed for Amy and Rory at home between visits from the Doctor. If they had been specials spread through the year this would have fitted very well. Obviously the actual passage of time portrayed was over more than just a year, but even so - the feeling of it having been a little while since last visit would have been spot on.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nebogipfel wrote: »
    The fundamental issue is that Cardiff have had a variety of problems actually making the show. The way they choose to drip feed the fact that it leads to delays and reductions affects the way people feel about it. When the Press Office and Cardiff repeatedly cock their messages up it helps even less.

    But I'm not sure there is a real actual answer to the PR stuff (other than be better than the last couple of years). The real answer is for the BBC to solve the problems and get back to a more predictable, less shifting schedule. Which they may or may not want or be able to do.

    A well-measured post there. :)
  • nebogipfelnebogipfel Posts: 8,375
    Forum Member
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    A well-measured post there. :)

    Well, we always have polite chats (i like your posts and you love the BBC and haven't called me a nutter :D ). I try to be accurate about what actually happened, and try to judge whether something is clearly true, likely to be true or just someone's opinion or guess. Sometimes I guess or choose to believe something I've read without direct evidence, but try and be cautious when I do.

    Sometimes something is a perfectly valid notion and entirely reasonable speculation - Giving Matt time to film other things, for example. But even then, just because it is a sensible guess, it might not actually be the case in this instance.

    I agree with you that there should have been better coordination of messages. But Cardiff don't seem to have been given good help with that. Sadly.

    I love the BBC. But they can be twits with their flagships.
  • Chihiro94Chihiro94 Posts: 2,667
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You repeatedly claimed that you didn't bring budgets into it, and I pointed out that you specifically did! If that's not what you meant, then by all means go ahead and clarify what you meant.

    Also, you're just harping back to esoteric statements like "it's a completely different culture" with no specifics at all to try to justify your point. It won't wash.

    I think the problem with this argument is it keeps going back to 'totally different can't compare', but you can. At the end of the day they still produce the same product (comparing like for like genres) and the Americans show you can produce more output for often less budget and on a similar timescale (still using Supernatural, it's roughly 9 months filming)

    If anything it's agreeing they are different. The ethos is different, and they have different production techniques etc... The point I'm getting at if anything, is if they want to produce reguar reasonable lengh series then it is possible, and if they cant do it they could borrow or implement methods that would make it work.

    Not saying I want an American run, they still have smaller season splits, and Doctor who probably takes more SFX wise, plus the actors go off and do other things which is great. It's just if want to produce regular series then there are the means to do.

    I wouldn't mind say 8 quality episodes (not keen on always specials though) which aren't messed about in the schedules like they get a stable 7 o'clock slot for 8 weeks straight and it comes back at around the same time next year, or is given a well in advance published return date like Sherlock (not exact but you always knew you were going to be waiting)

    Most of all though they should just cut the spin and be upfront. They're a public organisation, and this isn't to do with the plot itself. They have problems behind screen? Fine. Actors are busy? Sure. Writer can't write? Okay (though if this is a persistent problem maybe give some else headwriter job and act as exec producer or vice versa)

    Just whatever it is be honest, or at least lose the spin. If the person speaking doesn't know what will air when in what quanity, clarify that whatever you say is your estimation only.
  • sebbie3000sebbie3000 Posts: 5,188
    Forum Member
    You repeatedly claimed that you didn't bring budgets into it, and I pointed out that you specifically did! If that's not what you meant, then by all means go ahead and clarify what you meant.

    Also, you're just harping back to esoteric statements like "it's a completely different culture" with no specifics at all to try to justify your point. It won't wash.
    Chihiro94 wrote: »
    I think the problem with this argument is it keeps going back to 'totally different can't compare', but you can. At the end of the day they still produce the same product (comparing like for like genres) and the Americans show you can produce more output for often less budget and on a similar timescale (still using Supernatural, it's roughly 9 months filming)

    If anything it's agreeing they are different. The ethos is different, and they have different production techniques etc... The point I'm getting at if anything, is if they want to produce reguar reasonable lengh series then it is possible, and if they cant do it they could borrow or implement methods that would make it work.

    Not saying I want an American run, they still have smaller season splits, and Doctor who probably takes more SFX wise, plus the actors go off and do other things which is great. It's just if want to produce regular series then there are the means to do.

    I wouldn't mind say 8 quality episodes (not keen on always specials though) which aren't messed about in the schedules like they get a stable 7 o'clock slot for 8 weeks straight and it comes back at around the same time next year, or is given a well in advance published return date like Sherlock (not exact but you always knew you were going to be waiting)

    Most of all though they should just cut the spin and be upfront. They're a public organisation, and this isn't to do with the plot itself. They have problems behind screen? Fine. Actors are busy? Sure. Writer can't write? Okay (though if this is a persistent problem maybe give some else headwriter job and act as exec producer or vice versa)

    Just whatever it is be honest, or at least lose the spin. If the person speaking doesn't know what will air when in what quanity, clarify that whatever you say is your estimation only.

    As Chihiro states: you can compare the product, but not the production.

    He understood...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 249
    Forum Member
    sebbie3000 wrote: »
    As Chihiro states: you can compare the product, but not the production.

    He understood...

    Oh don't try and make out his comments back up yours, because he's not saying anything remotely similar to you.

    Unlike you, also he posted some specifics, and didn't backtrack and pretend he didn't say something that he evidently did. There's really no point in continuously shouting "it's a different culture". It's not like a day lasts longer than 24 hours over the pond.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 249
    Forum Member
    Chihiro94 wrote: »
    I think the problem with this argument is it keeps going back to 'totally different can't compare', but you can. At the end of the day they still produce the same product (comparing like for like genres) and the Americans show you can produce more output for often less budget and on a similar timescale (still using Supernatural, it's roughly 9 months filming)

    If anything it's agreeing they are different. The ethos is different, and they have different production techniques etc... The point I'm getting at if anything, is if they want to produce reguar reasonable lengh series then it is possible, and if they cant do it they could borrow or implement methods that would make it work.

    Not saying I want an American run, they still have smaller season splits, and Doctor who probably takes more SFX wise, plus the actors go off and do other things which is great. It's just if want to produce regular series then there are the means to do.

    I wouldn't mind say 8 quality episodes (not keen on always specials though) which aren't messed about in the schedules like they get a stable 7 o'clock slot for 8 weeks straight and it comes back at around the same time next year, or is given a well in advance published return date like Sherlock (not exact but you always knew you were going to be waiting)

    Most of all though they should just cut the spin and be upfront. They're a public organisation, and this isn't to do with the plot itself. They have problems behind screen? Fine. Actors are busy? Sure. Writer can't write? Okay (though if this is a persistent problem maybe give some else headwriter job and act as exec producer or vice versa)

    Just whatever it is be honest, or at least lose the spin. If the person speaking doesn't know what will air when in what quanity, clarify that whatever you say is your estimation only.

    I wouldn't say so much that they manage to produce the same product on a smaller budget. I don't think there's any evidence of that (and the previous poster was earlier implying the opposite). I totally agree with you, that you actually *can* compare the techniques. As I said, it's all a bit moot anyway. The production schedule for Who is 9 months on, three months off. The problem isn't that they can't shoot it all in 9 months, it's that they aren't ready to go again the following year, after the three months of pre-production.
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,911
    Forum Member
    To be honest I'm slightly over it all now anyway. Whatever happened has happened and that's that. I'd be interested to know the full story one day, just because that sort of thing interests me, and well I guess because I'm nosey, and it would have been nice if the BBC had been a bit more up front about things but hey ho. I'm enjoying the episodes that we have now and looking forward to a 60 minute anniversary episode and anything else that we get on top of that is a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

    I gave up the illusion that series 8 will be broadcast in 2013 a long time ago. I just hope that they sort out whatever problems they've had so that at least some of series 8 can be ready to air in 2014. Although I guess they're not off to the best of starts by needing to find a new exec producer and company to do the CGI...
  • nebogipfelnebogipfel Posts: 8,375
    Forum Member
    DiscoP wrote: »
    Although I guess they're not off to the best of starts by needing to find a new exec producer and company to do the CGI...

    They should just ask Mat Irvine to crack out the washing up liquid bottles, bubble wrap, silver spray and green paint. I were 'appy with that when I were a lad.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nebogipfel wrote: »
    They should just ask Mat Irvine to crack out the washing up liquid bottles, bubble wrap, silver spray and green paint. I were 'appy with that when I were a lad.

    Perhaps they should link up with Blue Peter .....
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,911
    Forum Member
    nebogipfel wrote: »
    They should just ask Mat Irvine to crack out the washing up liquid bottles, bubble wrap, silver spray and green paint. I were 'appy with that when I were a lad.

    I'm sure they can dust off the myrka costume. In fact I might start a campaign to get the myrka back in the 50th anniversary episode. Do you think it's too late?
Sign In or Register to comment.