The REALLY annoying thing is reports came out yesterday saying the BBCs top stars Jonathan Ross (£13 million) Graham Norton (£5 million) are NOT overpaid. And two reports I read in the papers today say that when Jonathan Ross' contract is up next year they fully expect to give him a payrise as other broadcasters will want to poach him. (I don't think anyone aside from ITV could afford him). I think it's disgusting this amount of the license fee is paid to these "stars" when the license fee is to ensure the beeb produce original programming. They have the first gritty/adult sci-fi show in YEARS and decide to cut it. A fraction of JS salary would probably fund a good few episodes of TW. This story has made me so angry.
I really hope the BBC aren't stupid enough to push Torchwood to the side as this would surely end up in it ending before it began!
Given that it's moving from BBC2 to BBC1 that can't be seen as anything other than a vote of confidence in the series, despite whatever problems have led to the change in format.
Mickey is not nearly alien savvy enough to be in Torchwood.
Uh, he's been working for TW in the other universe for how many years now?
I really think it's down to nothing more than the changeover period for BBC Wales. In 2009, Piers Wenger, Steven Moffat and their team will be working on DW S5, while Julie Gardener, Russell Davies and their lot will be doing Torchwood and the DW specials.
It's simply not practical to have BBC Wales swell to an operation twice its normal size for one year - something's got to give. So what's given is the length of Torchwood.
It really doesn't say anything about the commitment to TW in 2010 or what format a 2010 series might take.
Exactly. 2009 is big transition year for Doctor Who and its progeny which means less of everything next year. We've just got to live with it, I'm afraid.
The REALLY annoying thing is reports came out yesterday saying the BBCs top stars Jonathan Ross (£13 million) Graham Norton (£5 million) are NOT overpaid. And two reports I read in the papers today say that when Jonathan Ross' contract is up next year they fully expect to give him a payrise as other broadcasters will want to poach him. (I don't think anyone aside from ITV could afford him). I think it's disgusting this amount of the license fee is paid to these "stars" when the license fee is to ensure the beeb produce original programming. They have the first gritty/adult sci-fi show in YEARS and decide to cut it. A fraction of JS salary would probably fund a good few episodes of TW. This story has made me so angry.
It's off-topic but I just wanted to comment on this.
I understand how you feel, but this is just the same as top footballers being paid thousands of pounds a week to kick a ball around a field while nurses struggle to keep a roof over their heads. It's supply and demand in the entertainment industry, and similar examples can be found in other industries too - hence the City Fat Cats etc. Short of a revoluton I don't think anything is going to change this.
I tend to do a lot of sticking up for the BBC these days, and that's not because I have any agenda, I just think people look at the surface or the headlines and don't always appreciate the bigger issues.
Part of the job of the BBC is to cater for a wide variety of needs and tastes, including those that would be ignored by purely commercial broadcasters. However if all they did was 'niche' broadcasting it would be increasingly difficult to justify the licence fee (or other public funding) and it would have to go down the commercial route, potentially becoming another ITV. Some people might like that, but I wouldn't.
So as well as the minority programming, the corporation has to provide programming that will appeal to the wider public. This means certain types of programmes and certain types of presenters are needed. The presenters who will draw in the wider audience are in demand and can command these kind of salaries. Sad but true. The BBC Trust do seem to be taking financial issues very seriously and are not going to accept the frivolous misuse of funds. It's a difficult balance to keep, and I would understand you being sad about what this says about society or broadcasting in general, but I don't think the BBC are the ones to blame.
Not only is it being cut to five hours, but all the episodes will be shown within a single week.
Is it me, or has Doctor Who become a victim of its own success? I can't help but feel there are decisions being made within the BBC - in terms of scheduling, commissioning etc - that are really undermining the show and its spin-offs.
Surely because doctor who is having a reduced season in 2009, so will torchwood?
Also with john Barrowman being everywhere, he may not have the time to do a full series!
I wouldn't worry about it.
It could be that the BBC are protecting the longevity of DW & TW by having this break in quantity. The British tabloids (and the public to some extent) do have a tendancy to try and destroy anything that becomes too successful.
This break, although not wanted by the avid fans, may be what is needed to ensure the wider viewing public don't get bored.
I actually think this 5 episodes, 1 story could be good and make for a nice change of pace.
I mean I do think one of the biggest constraints over all three shows has been the 45/50 minute a story limit (with a couple of 2 parters if you're lucky). That while it's been a blessing that you don't now get needlessly padded out clunkers of old it also a burden at times that stories aren't given the breathing space to develop as much as they should.
I think it'll be a nice change to see a longer, drawn out story that's allowed to develop and build. Assuming it's done well and hopefully if RTD is running things more now Chris Chibnall has gone I have faith it will. Things like this can sometimes fall into the trap of being boring and sagging in the middle but I think that while you can aim many criticisms at RTD he's rarely boring. Infact he's probably the guiltiest for fitting so much into an episode and spending loads of time building and developing stuff until he then realises he has five minutes left to resolve it all.
Also it brings the potential for a lot of juicy cliffhangers.
And anyway it's not like they've announced they're axing the show after these five episode or that this is how it's always gonna be, just that the next time we see Torchwood is gonna be in this format. After that is anyones guess.
It's off-topic but I just wanted to comment on this.
I understand how you feel, but this is just the same as top footballers being paid thousands of pounds a week to kick a ball around a field while nurses struggle to keep a roof over their heads. It's supply and demand in the entertainment industry, and similar examples can be found in other industries too - hence the City Fat Cats etc. Short of a revoluton I don't think anything is going to change this.
I tend to do a lot of sticking up for the BBC these days, and that's not because I have any agenda, I just think people look at the surface or the headlines and don't always appreciate the bigger issues.
Part of the job of the BBC is to cater for a wide variety of needs and tastes, including those that would be ignored by purely commercial broadcasters. However if all they did was 'niche' broadcasting it would be increasingly difficult to justify the licence fee (or other public funding) and it would have to go down the commercial route, potentially becoming another ITV. Some people might like that, but I wouldn't.
So as well as the minority programming, the corporation has to provide programming that will appeal to the wider public. This means certain types of programmes and certain types of presenters are needed. The presenters who will draw in the wider audience are in demand and can command these kind of salaries. Sad but true. The BBC Trust do seem to be taking financial issues very seriously and are not going to accept the frivolous misuse of funds. It's a difficult balance to keep, and I would understand you being sad about what this says about society or broadcasting in general, but I don't think the BBC are the ones to blame.
I agree with you, I too am a big fan of the Beeb and don't mind the license fee as I'm one of the people who get their moneys worth between the channels. I just have real issues paying two glorified "presenters" (Ross & Norton0 £24 million pound a year between them. I cannot see any justification. Jonathan Ross presents a 1 hour a week chat show his radio show, and does other bits and bobs. I am a fan of his tv show, but the rest of the stuff he does for comic/sport relief I don't think amounts to much. £24 million a year could produce a couple of good quality series.
The foreshortened 'mini-series' format may have much to do with the foreshortened, somewhat 'Doctor-Lite' and "let's bring back all three assistants for a series of specials" Who Season 31.
It is perfectly possible that whatever is lined up for the end of this season to explain the return of Rose, and perhaps the significant absence of The Doctor from next season, merits a crossover with TW.
Certainly, with Tennant's limited availability (and possible departure) next year, if I were the showrunner I'd structure the whole thing as one epic quest involving both Who and TW and make an 'event' out of the production necessity for a reduced number of episodes.
just my thoughts, but I am absolutely certain this season's finale sets up the 3 specials next year and powers the format change. Some kind of pan-dimensional crisis which requires tackling on all fronts allows you to inject Martha into Torchwood (there are vacancies!), and bring back Rose, alt-Mickey and potentially even alt-Owen and alt-Toshiko from the alt- version of Torchwood if you want to push it ever so slightly and over-egg the pudding
Certainly, with Tennant's limited availability (and possible departure) next year, if I were the showrunner I'd structure the whole thing as one epic quest involving both Who and TW and make an 'event' out of the production necessity for a reduced number of episodes.
What limited availability? Remember, he only took the Hamlet job after he was told there'd no full series in 2009; not the other way around.
The foreshortened 'mini-series' format may have much to do with the foreshortened, somewhat 'Doctor-Lite' and "let's bring back all three assistants for a series of specials" Who Season 31.
It is perfectly possible that whatever is lined up for the end of this season to explain the return of Rose, and perhaps the significant absence of The Doctor from next season, merits a crossover with TW.
Certainly, with Tennant's limited availability (and possible departure) next year, if I were the showrunner I'd structure the whole thing as one epic quest involving both Who and TW and make an 'event' out of the production necessity for a reduced number of episodes.
just my thoughts, but I am absolutely certain this season's finale sets up the 3 specials next year and powers the format change. Some kind of pan-dimensional crisis which requires tackling on all fronts allows you to inject Martha into Torchwood (there are vacancies!), and bring back Rose, alt-Mickey and potentially even alt-Owen and alt-Toshiko from the alt- version of Torchwood if you want to push it ever so slightly and over-egg the pudding
God USTV has a lot to answer for heheh.
Plus what exactly do you think they're planning for the 3 specials? You completely lost me after the first line .
Has there been any details on the lenght of the episodes ? A five hour slab in one week devoted to TW....ooooh there will be letters to the Daily Mail about this. Seriously though if this was to be the case then it shows a great deal of confidence from the BBC that they believe the viewers wont be put off. 2009 seems to be the 'event' year in the BBC calender as far as 'team DW' is concerned.
Seriously though if this was to be the case then it shows a great deal of confidence from the BBC that they believe the viewers wont be put off.
Indeed. Whatever the issues that are preventing a full series being made, moving the show to BBC1 and making it into what's bound to be a big event shows a major degree of confidence on the Beeb's part.
Feel compelled to write a reply to the comment that said presenters and footballers get paid more because of supply and demand in the entertainment industry.
The crucial difference for me is :
If the footballers and presenters disappeared would the world be materially worse off. In otherwords, would we suffer?!
If nurses and healthcare assistants disappeared you'd soon see a hell of a difference!
I truly believe the money footballers are paid to kick a pigskin around for 180 minutes a week is obscene.:mad:
They try and justify this by saying they have a short career. Well guess what, the footballers in past times had REAL jobs as well. There's nothing to stop a footballer getting a real job when they stop playing footie.
As for presenters, does anyone really believe they are getting paid at a rate that they warrant?:mad:
I agree with you, I too am a big fan of the Beeb and don't mind the license fee as I'm one of the people who get their moneys worth between the channels. I just have real issues paying two glorified "presenters" (Ross & Norton0 £24 million pound a year between them. I cannot see any justification. Jonathan Ross presents a 1 hour a week chat show his radio show, and does other bits and bobs. I am a fan of his tv show, but the rest of the stuff he does for comic/sport relief I don't think amounts to much. £24 million a year could produce a couple of good quality series.
Although JR's contract is for three years and is a contract with his production company rather than solely just him.
It just goes to prove that the ratings can be good (for BBC it was frequently top 3 material) and get good AI but the execs can treat it badly if they don't think it's going anywhere.
5 days in a week? Why? The last time they did that (or something similar) it was the Ronni Ancona series they aired over a short period of time as a filler.
It just goes to prove that the ratings can be good (for BBC it was frequently top 3 material) and get good AI but the execs can treat it badly if they don't think it's going anywhere.
It's going from BBC2 to BBC1. Hardly a vote of no confidence.
(And it's not as if they were under any obligation to make ANY more episodes.)
Comments
Given that it's moving from BBC2 to BBC1 that can't be seen as anything other than a vote of confidence in the series, despite whatever problems have led to the change in format.
Uh, he's been working for TW in the other universe for how many years now?
Exactly. 2009 is big transition year for Doctor Who and its progeny which means less of everything next year. We've just got to live with it, I'm afraid.
It's off-topic but I just wanted to comment on this.
I understand how you feel, but this is just the same as top footballers being paid thousands of pounds a week to kick a ball around a field while nurses struggle to keep a roof over their heads. It's supply and demand in the entertainment industry, and similar examples can be found in other industries too - hence the City Fat Cats etc. Short of a revoluton I don't think anything is going to change this.
I tend to do a lot of sticking up for the BBC these days, and that's not because I have any agenda, I just think people look at the surface or the headlines and don't always appreciate the bigger issues.
Part of the job of the BBC is to cater for a wide variety of needs and tastes, including those that would be ignored by purely commercial broadcasters. However if all they did was 'niche' broadcasting it would be increasingly difficult to justify the licence fee (or other public funding) and it would have to go down the commercial route, potentially becoming another ITV. Some people might like that, but I wouldn't.
So as well as the minority programming, the corporation has to provide programming that will appeal to the wider public. This means certain types of programmes and certain types of presenters are needed. The presenters who will draw in the wider audience are in demand and can command these kind of salaries. Sad but true. The BBC Trust do seem to be taking financial issues very seriously and are not going to accept the frivolous misuse of funds. It's a difficult balance to keep, and I would understand you being sad about what this says about society or broadcasting in general, but I don't think the BBC are the ones to blame.
Is it me, or has Doctor Who become a victim of its own success? I can't help but feel there are decisions being made within the BBC - in terms of scheduling, commissioning etc - that are really undermining the show and its spin-offs.
Also with john Barrowman being everywhere, he may not have the time to do a full series!
I wouldn't worry about it.
There again, perhaps they'll hype it up like the bbc hyped up the passion thing and the oliver twist thing.
As long as they are 5 good episodes, that last an hour rather than 50 minutes, I'll be okay with it.
Will just need to find something else to fill my telly time during those weeks.
It could be that the BBC are protecting the longevity of DW & TW by having this break in quantity. The British tabloids (and the public to some extent) do have a tendancy to try and destroy anything that becomes too successful.
This break, although not wanted by the avid fans, may be what is needed to ensure the wider viewing public don't get bored.
I mean I do think one of the biggest constraints over all three shows has been the 45/50 minute a story limit (with a couple of 2 parters if you're lucky). That while it's been a blessing that you don't now get needlessly padded out clunkers of old it also a burden at times that stories aren't given the breathing space to develop as much as they should.
I think it'll be a nice change to see a longer, drawn out story that's allowed to develop and build. Assuming it's done well and hopefully if RTD is running things more now Chris Chibnall has gone I have faith it will. Things like this can sometimes fall into the trap of being boring and sagging in the middle but I think that while you can aim many criticisms at RTD he's rarely boring. Infact he's probably the guiltiest for fitting so much into an episode and spending loads of time building and developing stuff until he then realises he has five minutes left to resolve it all.
Also it brings the potential for a lot of juicy cliffhangers.
And anyway it's not like they've announced they're axing the show after these five episode or that this is how it's always gonna be, just that the next time we see Torchwood is gonna be in this format. After that is anyones guess.
I agree with you, I too am a big fan of the Beeb and don't mind the license fee as I'm one of the people who get their moneys worth between the channels. I just have real issues paying two glorified "presenters" (Ross & Norton0 £24 million pound a year between them. I cannot see any justification. Jonathan Ross presents a 1 hour a week chat show his radio show, and does other bits and bobs. I am a fan of his tv show, but the rest of the stuff he does for comic/sport relief I don't think amounts to much. £24 million a year could produce a couple of good quality series.
It is perfectly possible that whatever is lined up for the end of this season to explain the return of Rose, and perhaps the significant absence of The Doctor from next season, merits a crossover with TW.
Certainly, with Tennant's limited availability (and possible departure) next year, if I were the showrunner I'd structure the whole thing as one epic quest involving both Who and TW and make an 'event' out of the production necessity for a reduced number of episodes.
just my thoughts, but I am absolutely certain this season's finale sets up the 3 specials next year and powers the format change. Some kind of pan-dimensional crisis which requires tackling on all fronts allows you to inject Martha into Torchwood (there are vacancies!), and bring back Rose, alt-Mickey and potentially even alt-Owen and alt-Toshiko from the alt- version of Torchwood if you want to push it ever so slightly and over-egg the pudding
What limited availability? Remember, he only took the Hamlet job after he was told there'd no full series in 2009; not the other way around.
God USTV has a lot to answer for heheh.
Plus what exactly do you think they're planning for the 3 specials? You completely lost me after the first line
Bi, surely?
Indeed. Whatever the issues that are preventing a full series being made, moving the show to BBC1 and making it into what's bound to be a big event shows a major degree of confidence on the Beeb's part.
No DW, no TW - what is the world coming to?!
The crucial difference for me is :
If the footballers and presenters disappeared would the world be materially worse off. In otherwords, would we suffer?!
If nurses and healthcare assistants disappeared you'd soon see a hell of a difference!
I truly believe the money footballers are paid to kick a pigskin around for 180 minutes a week is obscene.:mad:
They try and justify this by saying they have a short career. Well guess what, the footballers in past times had REAL jobs as well. There's nothing to stop a footballer getting a real job when they stop playing footie.
As for presenters, does anyone really believe they are getting paid at a rate that they warrant?:mad:
Sorry. Rant over now.:D
Oh, please. :rolleyes:
The entire production team are leaving and new people are taking over; that's why there's a break.
Although JR's contract is for three years and is a contract with his production company rather than solely just him.
5 days in a week? Why? The last time they did that (or something similar) it was the Ronni Ancona series they aired over a short period of time as a filler.
It's going from BBC2 to BBC1. Hardly a vote of no confidence.
(And it's not as if they were under any obligation to make ANY more episodes.)