We don't lose 15 minutes per episode. As already pointed out, if Doctor Who episodes were made at up
to 60 minutes per episode, overseas TV networks would be far less willing to buy the broadcast rights
from BBC Worldwide. Therefore the production would end up being made on a much lower budget.
The TV Licence is paid for our enjoyment of the episodes here in the UK, and does not in any way
fund or subsidise overseas viewership of Doctor Who.
Be thankful BBC Worldwide exists, otherwise the TV Licence could cost 2-3 times as much as it is now.
Buffy is (or was) an American TV production, and especially made for broadcast on commercial channels
that have around 15 minutes of advertisements each hour. I disagree that pacing "seems massively off"
on Doctor Who, just because episodes are made to a length of under 45 minutes each. Some might
feel a bit rushed to squeeze a standalone story into that timeslot, but most cases, it's fine to me
Thats where we need the two parters as they can pad the story out giving better pacing, although that needs to be a decision during pre-production, as you cant make more of something that wasnt filmed for two parters if it only has enough material for 1 episode!
If it nearly works at 45min though, but could benefit from padding to say 50 or 55 min, then create 2 versions 1 45min for overseas sales and a 50-55 min version for UK and home media release worldwide.
If the BBC create a good enough 45min version then it wont be an issue, in fact they could even create a 35-40min version for broadcasters that are really picky about showing say 20min of adverts an hour.
My point is if the original producers do the cutting down and the BBC forbid the foreign broadcaster from doing it except for special circumstances (like religious/political or age ratings), then a better cut will be made as the original producers will be more sensitive about what is cut from the story.
its a shame then that they don't have 7 two part stories with each part 40 min then, that might about suit everyone.
Having all 2-part stories doesn't solve the problem either. Being restricted to 45 minutes isn't always a problem, and plenty of standalone episodes have proven it is plenty of time to tell a well-paced, well-structured and often in-depth story. It's thinking about the bigger picture. If you have 45 minute stories week in and week out with no break in momentum, it becomes stale. The episodes in the middle become lost and forgotten, whilst more poignant or important stories fail to make a mark or stand out - many noted how The Wedding of River Song was an unmemorable finale to Series 6 because it didn't make any attempt to stand out from all the other standalone 45 minute episodes before it. Many more pointed out that Series 7 - which adopted this structure wholly - felt like an extended run of 'specials' not dissimilar to Tennant's final year. In this context, that basically means the episodes were not up to par with the usual format or quality of a typical series of Doctor Who, and the only saving grace for that was a mid-series break - which in turn caused its own problems.
Having wholly two-parters would fix a bunch of problems and create a load more. Not every story needs 80-90 minutes to be told. There would be tremendous amounts of padding involved and it means half of your episodes are 'conclusions' which discourages newer viewers. And again it doesn't address the issue of momentum... instead of a rushed and repetitive 45-minute weekly rush, we're getting a dragged-out 90-minute fortnightly crawl. There's no momentum at all in that, and with the need to wedge in a cliffhanger in the middle of every single story the momentum of the plot itself would also become horrendously distorted.
A full series of Doctor Who works best when it can adopt two variant story lengths - be that an extended length to 60+ minutes for the most important stories, or the use of two-parters (at least for finales) to help stagger the momentum a little bit and help each series form its own identity.
of course a 60-70 min Christmas special on top is a good idea too, oh and combining two 40min episodes can turn out at 75 min due to 1 less set of titles and credits and no cliff hanger and reprise.
So all in all 14 40 min episodes with all stories over two episodes, with maybe the first two joined to form one episode and the last two joined into one, meaning 2 75 min and 10 40 min plus 1 60-75min Christmas special would be perfect.
Actually I'd say it was horrendously messy. As much as the series needs to break up its pacing a little, having such a patchwork of episode lengths only serves to deliver a lack of coherent storytelling across episodes. It's evident very much with the Doctor quadrilogy - Name of the Doctor clocks in at 45 minutes approx, Night of the Doctor clocks in at 5 minutes approx, Day of the Doctor clocks in at 75 minutes approx, and Time of the Doctor clocks in at 60 minutes approx. For an anniversary this is fine, as it's geared more towards fans and current viewers who know the show well. But for newcomers, the lack of consistency in episode length also leads to a lack of consistency in the style of scripts and it becomes very hard to get ahold of what the show is supposedly like typically.
More so, having 13 episodes has always been done for a reason. It's not just a random number plucked out of the air - they could easily have opted for ten episodes before to save money, improve consistency in production and still net as large a profit. 13 is a nice number because it equates to exactly a quarter of the weeks of the year - ideally the BBC can commission 4 shows like Doctor Who a year and they don't need to worry about the greater expense of one-off programmes to fill the gaps whilst none of those shows are on, because they can just loop them annually. With the rise in popularity of on-demand viewing, they can play about with that '13' figure a little bit more and stick Shrek on or something over a weekend in the primetime slot, and nobody will notice. But massive reductions in episode numbers not only leads to fans of the show complaining, it also leads to people complaining about the channel not producing enough original content any more. Series 8 will venture from the 13-episode format to a reduced 12-episode format. They can get away with that, although even then despite several years of broken series, there are still going to be fans who complain.
Also there should be a contract made that a foreign broadcaster can only cut episodes down in exceptional circumstances, like age ratings in their country, or religious or political beliefs, but never for time constraints.
Also a messages red out or shown on screen, to say that the respective broadcaster has cut scenes and for what reason they have cut them.
Then the cuts could never be blamed on the makers of the program!
The BBC have every right to come up with a contract exactly like that. Or any contract they wish really. The reason they don't - it will never sell. As I said in my previous post, this is business. The Beeb has to sell the show abroad, and they have to make it appealing to foreign broadcasters. This means where possible... episodes of a consistent length, episode length that is commercial-friendly, episodes that likely have elements that can be cut without detriment to the main plot.
Sure the BBC could come up with that contract, and could also ask any potential bidders for the rights to air Doctor Who to be legally obliged to photoshop a fez into every shot that The Doctor in it. But they're not going to because nobody is going to pay for a product they don't want. And when people stop paying for it, it stops being quite so good, or worse still stops getting made altogether.
Classic Who had some 45 min episodes from the 80s season 22 of Colin Baker's for example were all 45 min and some others like Resurrection of the Daleks 2 parter both 45 min long.
That's right. Because of the Winter Olympics schedule in 1984, Ressurection of the Daleks couldn't be shown as 4 25 minute episodes. The BBC had to quickly edit the story into two 45 minute parts, a few days before it was due to be shown.
Us fans have a treat, cos on the SE DVD release, both the 25 minute parts and the 45 minute parts are included.
I don't have a problem with the 45 minute length episodes. If you watch the original series they tended to be around 23 to 24 minutes, so effectively 2 of these being almost equal to 1 new show.
What I have a problem is there have been examples where the stories in new Who would have benefited from being longer to build plot, supporting characters and tension, and where with the added benefit of having a cliffhanger could have been extended out across two 45 minute shows (effectively equal to the traditional 4 parter from classic Who but with 1 cliffhanger rather than 3).
I'm not suggesting all stories, many have worked fine across just one, but if you had both types and mixed them up people wouldn't know if they are in for 1 or 2 part stories.
Sure the ads for next week & the BBC website really gives the game away but I think they need to tell/ show you less not more. Doctor Who is suppose to be all about mystery & the unknown after all.
There was an early report that Doctor Who was to return in 2005 with 6 (I think) hour-long episodes, but BBC Worldwide pushed for 13. I imagine it was a matter of the budget after that.
This sounds about right.
Adding fifteen minutes to each episode would mean adding 195 minutes a series. That's four episodes' worth of Doctor Who! I suspect 13 45-minute episodes allow them more choice and variety than 10 60-minuters. It's a sweet-spot. Merlin nicked it, so it seems to have worked.
I always thought Torchwood's 50 minute episodes were weird. Seems an odd length.
A TV licence is paid, yet we still get screwed by commercial TV channels and lose 15 minutes on each episode.
No, we don't! Name a British drama show that commissions in blocks of thirteen 60-minute episodes - the idea that if it weren't for overseas broadcasters there'd be 33% more Doctor Who to go around is completely bogus. They would have to film every series back-to-back without breaks. David Tennant would have done nothing but Doctor Who for four solid years, 2005 to 2008.
They're making as much Doctor Who as they physically can, we're being screwed by nobody.
Comments
Thats where we need the two parters as they can pad the story out giving better pacing, although that needs to be a decision during pre-production, as you cant make more of something that wasnt filmed for two parters if it only has enough material for 1 episode!
If it nearly works at 45min though, but could benefit from padding to say 50 or 55 min, then create 2 versions 1 45min for overseas sales and a 50-55 min version for UK and home media release worldwide.
If the BBC create a good enough 45min version then it wont be an issue, in fact they could even create a 35-40min version for broadcasters that are really picky about showing say 20min of adverts an hour.
My point is if the original producers do the cutting down and the BBC forbid the foreign broadcaster from doing it except for special circumstances (like religious/political or age ratings), then a better cut will be made as the original producers will be more sensitive about what is cut from the story.
Having all 2-part stories doesn't solve the problem either. Being restricted to 45 minutes isn't always a problem, and plenty of standalone episodes have proven it is plenty of time to tell a well-paced, well-structured and often in-depth story. It's thinking about the bigger picture. If you have 45 minute stories week in and week out with no break in momentum, it becomes stale. The episodes in the middle become lost and forgotten, whilst more poignant or important stories fail to make a mark or stand out - many noted how The Wedding of River Song was an unmemorable finale to Series 6 because it didn't make any attempt to stand out from all the other standalone 45 minute episodes before it. Many more pointed out that Series 7 - which adopted this structure wholly - felt like an extended run of 'specials' not dissimilar to Tennant's final year. In this context, that basically means the episodes were not up to par with the usual format or quality of a typical series of Doctor Who, and the only saving grace for that was a mid-series break - which in turn caused its own problems.
Having wholly two-parters would fix a bunch of problems and create a load more. Not every story needs 80-90 minutes to be told. There would be tremendous amounts of padding involved and it means half of your episodes are 'conclusions' which discourages newer viewers. And again it doesn't address the issue of momentum... instead of a rushed and repetitive 45-minute weekly rush, we're getting a dragged-out 90-minute fortnightly crawl. There's no momentum at all in that, and with the need to wedge in a cliffhanger in the middle of every single story the momentum of the plot itself would also become horrendously distorted.
A full series of Doctor Who works best when it can adopt two variant story lengths - be that an extended length to 60+ minutes for the most important stories, or the use of two-parters (at least for finales) to help stagger the momentum a little bit and help each series form its own identity.
Actually I'd say it was horrendously messy. As much as the series needs to break up its pacing a little, having such a patchwork of episode lengths only serves to deliver a lack of coherent storytelling across episodes. It's evident very much with the Doctor quadrilogy - Name of the Doctor clocks in at 45 minutes approx, Night of the Doctor clocks in at 5 minutes approx, Day of the Doctor clocks in at 75 minutes approx, and Time of the Doctor clocks in at 60 minutes approx. For an anniversary this is fine, as it's geared more towards fans and current viewers who know the show well. But for newcomers, the lack of consistency in episode length also leads to a lack of consistency in the style of scripts and it becomes very hard to get ahold of what the show is supposedly like typically.
More so, having 13 episodes has always been done for a reason. It's not just a random number plucked out of the air - they could easily have opted for ten episodes before to save money, improve consistency in production and still net as large a profit. 13 is a nice number because it equates to exactly a quarter of the weeks of the year - ideally the BBC can commission 4 shows like Doctor Who a year and they don't need to worry about the greater expense of one-off programmes to fill the gaps whilst none of those shows are on, because they can just loop them annually. With the rise in popularity of on-demand viewing, they can play about with that '13' figure a little bit more and stick Shrek on or something over a weekend in the primetime slot, and nobody will notice. But massive reductions in episode numbers not only leads to fans of the show complaining, it also leads to people complaining about the channel not producing enough original content any more. Series 8 will venture from the 13-episode format to a reduced 12-episode format. They can get away with that, although even then despite several years of broken series, there are still going to be fans who complain.
The BBC have every right to come up with a contract exactly like that. Or any contract they wish really. The reason they don't - it will never sell. As I said in my previous post, this is business. The Beeb has to sell the show abroad, and they have to make it appealing to foreign broadcasters. This means where possible... episodes of a consistent length, episode length that is commercial-friendly, episodes that likely have elements that can be cut without detriment to the main plot.
Sure the BBC could come up with that contract, and could also ask any potential bidders for the rights to air Doctor Who to be legally obliged to photoshop a fez into every shot that The Doctor in it. But they're not going to because nobody is going to pay for a product they don't want. And when people stop paying for it, it stops being quite so good, or worse still stops getting made altogether.
That's right. Because of the Winter Olympics schedule in 1984, Ressurection of the Daleks couldn't be shown as 4 25 minute episodes. The BBC had to quickly edit the story into two 45 minute parts, a few days before it was due to be shown.
Us fans have a treat, cos on the SE DVD release, both the 25 minute parts and the 45 minute parts are included.
What I have a problem is there have been examples where the stories in new Who would have benefited from being longer to build plot, supporting characters and tension, and where with the added benefit of having a cliffhanger could have been extended out across two 45 minute shows (effectively equal to the traditional 4 parter from classic Who but with 1 cliffhanger rather than 3).
I'm not suggesting all stories, many have worked fine across just one, but if you had both types and mixed them up people wouldn't know if they are in for 1 or 2 part stories.
Sure the ads for next week & the BBC website really gives the game away but I think they need to tell/ show you less not more. Doctor Who is suppose to be all about mystery & the unknown after all.
This sounds about right.
Adding fifteen minutes to each episode would mean adding 195 minutes a series. That's four episodes' worth of Doctor Who! I suspect 13 45-minute episodes allow them more choice and variety than 10 60-minuters. It's a sweet-spot. Merlin nicked it, so it seems to have worked.
I always thought Torchwood's 50 minute episodes were weird. Seems an odd length.
No, we don't! Name a British drama show that commissions in blocks of thirteen 60-minute episodes - the idea that if it weren't for overseas broadcasters there'd be 33% more Doctor Who to go around is completely bogus. They would have to film every series back-to-back without breaks. David Tennant would have done nothing but Doctor Who for four solid years, 2005 to 2008.
They're making as much Doctor Who as they physically can, we're being screwed by nobody.