But, with such a long-running series, new viewers join (especially at the the lower age range) as older viewers drop out (or even die). So the audience is ever-evolving, and over time the newer parts of the audience will find the stories and characters new and refreshing (having not experienced them previously)
Possibly, but I certainly think that (nu) Who is coming off it's peak during the Tennant years. It's just not as high profile now.
That's not Matt Smith's fault at all.. it's just the natural cycle of TV shows.
Doctor Who could remove part of the location/set problem by extending stories over two or three episodes.
I don't think this is the best approach. People nowadays don't have the attention span to follow multi-part episodes. Look what happened when Moffat tried to create a complex story arc in Series 6. I'm not against the odd two or even three part story; in fact I think a few two-parters per series is something that really needs to make a comeback, but if every story were multi-part I believe it would alienate the casual viewer who is not willing to follow one story for weeks.
My suggestion would be just to extend each episode a further 15 minutes to 60 minutes long.
I don't think this is the best approach. People nowadays don't have the attention span to follow multi-part episodes. Look what happened when Moffat tried to create a complex story arc in Series 6. I'm not against the odd two or even three part story; in fact I think a few two-parters per series is something that really needs to make a comeback, but if every story were multi-part I believe it would alienate the casual viewer who is not willing to follow one story for weeks.
My suggestion would be just to extend each episode a further 15 minutes to 60 minutes long.
An interesting point you raise here. Although best suited perhaps for another thread, would you be happy to have fewer but longer episodes? If we cut 13 down to 10 then they could all be made 60 minutes (plus an extra 15 minutes). This could be cost effective in that less sets, crew, etc are needed over a series and you can get more out of them. If the cost and difficulty of multiple sets, etc really are the cause of the delays, could this be a potential solution to help get us back to a regular series?
Another point I'd like to add to is that the BBC and Moffat tend to lie a bit now, as someone mentioned, we often can't help but think they are lying. An example is that they announced Matt was going to be in Series 8 then changed it later to say he was leaving. I know people say Rule 1: Moffat Lies, but what a S?#t rule.
An interesting point you raise here. Although best suited perhaps for another thread, would you be happy to have fewer but longer episodes? If we cut 13 down to 10 then they could all be made 60 minutes (plus an extra 15 minutes). This could be cost effective in that less sets, crew, etc are needed over a series and you can get more out of them. If the cost and difficulty of multiple sets, etc really are the cause of the delays, could this be a potential solution to help get us back to a regular series?
Another point I'd like to add to is that the BBC and Moffat tend to lie a bit now, as someone mentioned, we often can't help but think they are lying. An example is that they announced Matt was going to be in Series 8 then changed it later to say he was leaving. I know people say Rule 1: Moffat Lies, but what a S?#t rule.
I think I'd quite like the model with 10 60 minute episodes.
As for the second part, to my knowledge the BBC and Moffat never officially confirmed Matt being in series 8 (though they didn't deny it either until his departure was officially announced). The Sun creating a story out of one vague sentence from Matt ("we return for series 8) doesn't have much to do with Moffat or the BBC.
So I don't think it's about budgets or intentionally splitting the season, but rather that the production team can't get their sh*t together between series quick enough!
That is yet another problem with Moffat. He is way too slow to be a show runner; they should call him a show walker.
I don't think enough is being made of budgets at the BBC in this thread.
Since the Licence Fee freeze (in 2010), lots of recurring BBC dramas had their budgets cut. Generally this resulted in less episodes (e.g. Spooks went from 8 episodes to 6).
Moffat doesn't need to write all the episodes in a year. (I would guess RTD generally did about 4 a year). He just needs a few and some ideas for any arc.
I'm not sure why Doctor Who didn't cut their episode counts per batch, but spacing them out more has the same effect.
I don't think this is the best approach. People nowadays don't have the attention span to follow multi-part episodes. Look what happened when Moffat tried to create a complex story arc in Series 6. I'm not against the odd two or even three part story; in fact I think a few two-parters per series is something that really needs to make a comeback, but if every story were multi-part I believe it would alienate the casual viewer who is not willing to follow one story for weeks.
Part of the problem though was that the series 6 story arc was s***e. 'The Fall' on BBC2 was a five-part serial and did very well in the ratings.
I thought the storyline started well. However it got too complicated. Now it seems all links are being severed. New companion and a new doctor next year.
What SM should have done with the Season 6 arc was to have put it in the second half rather than the first. Because it took a hell of a long time for it to be resolved. And imo the conclusion with the Tesselecta was a huge cop out. And that was SM's second mistake.
I think, after the last three years with Moffat in charge and seeing three executive producers leaving - it was extremely unprofessional of him to have had the very public argument with Caroline Skinner - he should leave the show to be handled by people in the proper way. He can certainly write, but he cannot handle the responsibility of an iconic show. Sherlock was, and is, a brilliant show, dramatic and can pull in a good audience and is perfectly suited to Moffat's talents. But Doctor Who, imo, isn't.
I realise that these feelings of mine will either resonate with some people or infuriate them.
If Season 8 is to be his last, then I do hope it will be a very successful one. I wouldn't want him to produce another series that leaves us with too many questions and very few answers. And preferably a series that will not be split.
Good idea. I'd love to know what happens to the cash that Doctor Who makes for BBC Worldwide. It doesn't appear to be getting funneled back into the programme. This last series looked really low budget.
Are you serious? Low budget?! What show were you watching?! Go and watch Asylum and TATM again eh? Blimey. I've heard it all now.
I don't know for other shows, but with Doctor Who chances are that if they tried to make 22 episodes a year the actor playing the Doctor would likely end up totally burn out in a hospital. As has been said it's usually a very small cast for Who and the leads appear almost in every single scene of each episode. Take Crimson Horror this year for eample, it is for some reason called a Doctor-lite episode but since Matt appears on screen like 10 minutes into it he is featured in almost every scene of the episode.
That is odd, they used to do 24+ episodes a season in the 70's. They could do it back then on a much smaller budget.
Heck, they did 40+ episodes a season back in the 60's!
Are you serious? Low budget?! What show were you watching?! Go and watch Asylum and TATM again eh? Blimey. I've heard it all now.
Yes, cheap and low budget especially compared with series 5 and 6. The second half of series 7 (technically series 8, IMO) looked particularly cheap. The Name of the Doctor, supposedly the big finale, looked totally bargain basement. It was just a few people stood around on small sets.
Or The Rings of Akhaten for that matter. Regardless of what you think of the story, you can't say it was made on a low budget.
Yes, another example of a low budget on display. The 'market scene' looked as if it had been filmed in a large cardboard box dressed with some bits of coloured cloth. 'Journey' used about two sets and just rehashed them in every other scene.
The series 7b especially has had none of the filmic/epic quality of 'Time of Angels', 'Impossible Astronaut', etc.
That is odd, they used to do 24+ episodes a season in the 70's. They could do it back then on a much smaller budget.
Heck, they did 40+ episodes a season back in the 60's!
Yes, but from what i have seen of classic Who there seem to be much less scenes that feature the Doctor and the companion and more scenes that feature the villain/minor characters without the Doctor/companion in those episodes compared to NuWho. Also, I believe I have read somewhere that back in the 60s they only ever had one take for a scene, while you get multiple takes nowadays in order to get the best one possible, so that's additional load for the actors. Also each of those episodes back then were around like half the time of current day episodes, they were around 25 minutes each compared to the 45 ones (60 for the odd special) from these days.
Yes, but from what i have seen of classic Who there seem to be much less scenes that feature the Doctor and the companion and more scenes that feature the villain/minor characters without the Doctor/companion in those episodes compared to NuWho. Also, I believe I have read somewhere that back in the 60s they only ever had one take for a scene, while you get multiple takes nowadays in order to get the best one possible, so that's additional load for the actors. Also each of those episodes back then were around like half the time of current day episodes, they were around 25 minutes each compared to the 45 ones (60 for the odd special) from these days.
I will gladly take the occasionally flubbed line (Hartnell was particularly bad about that) if I can have twice the Doctor Who every year. Gladly, gladly, gladly. You should not let the pursuit of perfection stand in the way of what is good.
Yes, cheap and low budget especially compared with series 5 and 6. The second half of series 7 (technically series 8, IMO) looked particularly cheap. The Name of the Doctor, supposedly the big finale, looked totally bargain basement. It was just a few people stood around on small sets.
We seem to be watching different programs.
'Lets Kill Hitler' and 'A Good Man..' looked alot cheaper than 'Asylum' or 'The Name of the doctor'.
It's a difficult one, If I was told the 14 eps commissioned had to be stretched over 2012 and 2013, I'd have set aside only four eps for series 'Pond', eight for series 'Clara' & and two for the anniversary special in November.
I loved the 2012 Xmas special, but I'd happily have forgone it if meant the 50th had an extra episode to play with. Even as a casual fan, one hour just seems a bit stingy to me.
Thank you very much. I wonder how much Doctor Who we could have had for a Hundred Billion Pounds. (Sorry, I don't know how to make the Pounds sign on my American Keyboard.)
By the way, why doesn't a certain percentage of the show's profits from the BBC Worldwide DVD and Blu-Ray sales feed back to the production of the show? It would just make sense to me that, if the DVDs and Blu-Rays sell well that they would want to make more episodes so that they would have more to sell, not less.
If the BBC has enough of the public's money to waste a hundred million quid on the DMI project then they've no call to complain about funds ever again
Does that include the 'Media City' in Salford everyone hates going to or the gargantuan BBC 'news centre' which has recently opened? The BBC p**ses money away like it's going out of fashion.
Comments
Possibly, but I certainly think that (nu) Who is coming off it's peak during the Tennant years. It's just not as high profile now.
That's not Matt Smith's fault at all.. it's just the natural cycle of TV shows.
I don't think this is the best approach. People nowadays don't have the attention span to follow multi-part episodes. Look what happened when Moffat tried to create a complex story arc in Series 6. I'm not against the odd two or even three part story; in fact I think a few two-parters per series is something that really needs to make a comeback, but if every story were multi-part I believe it would alienate the casual viewer who is not willing to follow one story for weeks.
My suggestion would be just to extend each episode a further 15 minutes to 60 minutes long.
An interesting point you raise here. Although best suited perhaps for another thread, would you be happy to have fewer but longer episodes? If we cut 13 down to 10 then they could all be made 60 minutes (plus an extra 15 minutes). This could be cost effective in that less sets, crew, etc are needed over a series and you can get more out of them. If the cost and difficulty of multiple sets, etc really are the cause of the delays, could this be a potential solution to help get us back to a regular series?
Another point I'd like to add to is that the BBC and Moffat tend to lie a bit now, as someone mentioned, we often can't help but think they are lying. An example is that they announced Matt was going to be in Series 8 then changed it later to say he was leaving. I know people say Rule 1: Moffat Lies, but what a S?#t rule.
I think I'd quite like the model with 10 60 minute episodes.
As for the second part, to my knowledge the BBC and Moffat never officially confirmed Matt being in series 8 (though they didn't deny it either until his departure was officially announced). The Sun creating a story out of one vague sentence from Matt ("we return for series 8) doesn't have much to do with Moffat or the BBC.
That is yet another problem with Moffat. He is way too slow to be a show runner; they should call him a show walker.
Since the Licence Fee freeze (in 2010), lots of recurring BBC dramas had their budgets cut. Generally this resulted in less episodes (e.g. Spooks went from 8 episodes to 6).
Moffat doesn't need to write all the episodes in a year. (I would guess RTD generally did about 4 a year). He just needs a few and some ideas for any arc.
I'm not sure why Doctor Who didn't cut their episode counts per batch, but spacing them out more has the same effect.
Part of the problem though was that the series 6 story arc was s***e. 'The Fall' on BBC2 was a five-part serial and did very well in the ratings.
I think, after the last three years with Moffat in charge and seeing three executive producers leaving - it was extremely unprofessional of him to have had the very public argument with Caroline Skinner - he should leave the show to be handled by people in the proper way. He can certainly write, but he cannot handle the responsibility of an iconic show. Sherlock was, and is, a brilliant show, dramatic and can pull in a good audience and is perfectly suited to Moffat's talents. But Doctor Who, imo, isn't.
I realise that these feelings of mine will either resonate with some people or infuriate them.
If Season 8 is to be his last, then I do hope it will be a very successful one. I wouldn't want him to produce another series that leaves us with too many questions and very few answers. And preferably a series that will not be split.
Are you serious? Low budget?! What show were you watching?! Go and watch Asylum and TATM again eh? Blimey. I've heard it all now.
Or The Rings of Akhaten for that matter. Regardless of what you think of the story, you can't say it was made on a low budget.
That is odd, they used to do 24+ episodes a season in the 70's. They could do it back then on a much smaller budget.
Heck, they did 40+ episodes a season back in the 60's!
Yes, cheap and low budget especially compared with series 5 and 6. The second half of series 7 (technically series 8, IMO) looked particularly cheap. The Name of the Doctor, supposedly the big finale, looked totally bargain basement. It was just a few people stood around on small sets.
Yes, another example of a low budget on display. The 'market scene' looked as if it had been filmed in a large cardboard box dressed with some bits of coloured cloth. 'Journey' used about two sets and just rehashed them in every other scene.
The series 7b especially has had none of the filmic/epic quality of 'Time of Angels', 'Impossible Astronaut', etc.
Yes, but from what i have seen of classic Who there seem to be much less scenes that feature the Doctor and the companion and more scenes that feature the villain/minor characters without the Doctor/companion in those episodes compared to NuWho. Also, I believe I have read somewhere that back in the 60s they only ever had one take for a scene, while you get multiple takes nowadays in order to get the best one possible, so that's additional load for the actors. Also each of those episodes back then were around like half the time of current day episodes, they were around 25 minutes each compared to the 45 ones (60 for the odd special) from these days.
I will gladly take the occasionally flubbed line (Hartnell was particularly bad about that) if I can have twice the Doctor Who every year. Gladly, gladly, gladly. You should not let the pursuit of perfection stand in the way of what is good.
We seem to be watching different programs.
'Lets Kill Hitler' and 'A Good Man..' looked alot cheaper than 'Asylum' or 'The Name of the doctor'.
No they didn't.
Yes they did! 35 minutes of 'A Good Man..' was running around a warehouse! Hardly a war! More a minor skirmish in a decorated DHL delivery depot.
And 'Lets Kill Hitler' was virtually a two set episode apart from the pre-title sequence!
What is the DMI project?
I loved the 2012 Xmas special, but I'd happily have forgone it if meant the 50th had an extra episode to play with. Even as a casual fan, one hour just seems a bit stingy to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/digital-media-initiative.html
Thank you very much. I wonder how much Doctor Who we could have had for a Hundred Billion Pounds. (Sorry, I don't know how to make the Pounds sign on my American Keyboard.)
By the way, why doesn't a certain percentage of the show's profits from the BBC Worldwide DVD and Blu-Ray sales feed back to the production of the show? It would just make sense to me that, if the DVDs and Blu-Rays sell well that they would want to make more episodes so that they would have more to sell, not less.
Does that include the 'Media City' in Salford everyone hates going to or the gargantuan BBC 'news centre' which has recently opened? The BBC p**ses money away like it's going out of fashion.