Filming for second half of series six was pushed back. Series 7 will not start filming for the "usual" Easter launch. We are not getting a normal series next year, and I do not have to be a "nutter" to think that TV budget concerns might be a factor in this.
The Cohen spat was NOT about an inaccurate Twitter report. As you well know. We discussed it at length at the time. The actual audio of what Cohen said was directly linked in that thread. Moffat was angry about Cohen's statement and Gaiman thought it was rum too. It was in the news.
I find it plausible that the departing management of the show allowed overspend. This does not make me a nutter. The console room etc is amazing. This shows an organisation committed to the show. Possibly an organisation that let some execs sign a few too many cheques.
I struggle to understand what precisely is so implausible about the Private Eye stories. Much of what has actually happened aligns with it. If it's tosh then good - 14 episodes in 2012.
I thought Doctor Who was already being made with a lower budget, which is why things like the Ood were used for Neil Gaiman's story. Also wasn't the filming in Utah funded by BBC America?
I don't see why the BBC would need to make more cuts on top of those that they've already made.
The Cohen spat was NOT about an inaccurate Twitter report.
In fairness though, it wasn't a "spat" and there was no "public argument". Cohen made some comments at a low key media event and there was some difference of views on the interpretation of whether or not Cohen was joking about certain comments he made about Moffat or not (and even then they weren't negative comments). It's not like they were arguing with each other in a public place, which is what your orignal post suggested.
I struggle to understand what precisely is so implausible about the Private Eye stories.
In all honesty the fact that almost all of what they claimed in their initial report was discredited makes it hard not to feel that it is largely implausible. They even contradicted much of what they initially claimed with subsequent reports.
There are quite likely some behind the scenes issues, but there have likely always been some. That's the nature of a big show. We know for a fact there were substantial issues in series 1, more and more is coming out about that as time passes.
One thing I do very much agree with Minky on is that there is no more uncertainty around Doctor Who in 2012 than any other year. We know that it will be returning in Autumn 2012. We know that 14 episodes have been commissioned. The reason they aren't filming series 7 till next year is because of the move to the autumn. That's about all we would realistically know any year.
Anyway, this is rather drifting away from the topic started, which was specifically about the BBC cuts announced and what impact this coild have on the show, so I'm going to leave it there.
There was a spat and there was a public argument. It is a matter of record. Ignore everything that journalist said ( and then tried to retract with his risible "may have been joking" nonsense.) Listen to the audio. Cohen was not joking. He was 100% giving a straight faced answer. Moffat refuted it. Gaiman asked him if he felt he was being shafted and Moffat replied that yes, he did think that is what is happening.
Whatever was going on, any suggestion that it was some kind of non incident created by bystanders is bizarre.
Gaiman asked him if he felt he was being shafted and Moffat replued that yes, he did think that is what is happening.
Except Moffat wasn't talking about Cohen. He was talking about the BBC News site which was the first to run the story. There was discussion between Moffat and other BBC journalists about the article, and they said they would look in to it, etc.
“Er… is it my imagination or are you being shafted by BBC online news?”
“It’s not your imagination. Unbelievable, unacceptable.”
Of course the BBC are, quite rightly, editorially independent and had every right to run the story, imho, although one does feel at times they use stories like this to PROVE they are independent editorially.
Except Moffat wasn't talking about Cohen. He was talking about the BBC News site which was the first to run the story. There was discussion between Moffat and other BBC journalists about the article, and they said they would look in to it, etc.
Of course the BBC are, quite rightly, editorially independent and had every right to run the story, imho, although one does feel at times they use stories like this to PROVE they are independent editorially.
The BBC news people accurately reported that Cohen, with a 100% straight face and on readily available audio at an official conference at which he was on stage in his offficial capacity, said that Moffat was too busy to do a full series of Who and that that was the only reason we would not be getting a normal series in 2012.
Gaiman saw it on News Online and tweeted accordingly.
One wonders why Online didn't check the story with Moffat before publishing. But that's their problem. Cohen said what he said (not joking) , Moffat gave a firm contradiction.
The BBC news people accurately reported that Cohen, with a 100% straight face and on readily available audio at an official conference at which he was on stage in his offficial capacity, said that Moffat was too busy to do a full series of Who and that that was the only reason we would not be getting a normal series in 2012.
Gaiman saw it on News Online and tweeted accordingly.
One wonders why Online didn't check the story with Moffat before publishing. But that's their problem. Cohen said what he said (not joking) , Moffat gave a firm contradiction.
There have been a number of commentators who have said it was a light hearted comment, people who were there, so I think there remains a lack of clarity on that point, but I don't want to get dragged in to this, as none of this is what this thread was supposed to be about at all.
However, once again, there is no evidence of a public spat between Moffat and Cohen. Moffat took issue at an article BBC online wrote. Your earlier comment was trying to suggest (wrongly) that Moffat had taken a direct pot shot at Cohen, and that Gaiman had too. This was not the case.
You do not need to have been there. The audio is online and was directly linked to on thread here. It was NOT A LIGHT HEARTED ASIDE. He repeated himself to make it clear to the questioner that he was sincere. There is no doubt.
I'm on Moffat's side. He was being shafted. Not by BBC News. By Cohen. Why? We don't know. But all was rosy behind the scenes? Pull the other one.
I'm on Moffat's side. He was being shafted. Not by BBC News. By Cohen. Why? We don't know. But all was rosy behind the scenes? Pull the other one.
But Moffat doesn't say he was being shafted by Cohen, does he? No. He says he was being shafted by BBC News Online and it was about them that he had discussion with with several BBC Journalists on twitter that day, not Cohen.
As I already said up thread, I doubt that things are "all rosy" behind the scenes in any major show on TV. There are always going to stresses and pressure points, just like any work place. But the only time we have strong evidence of significant issues (and I mean evidence beyond tittle tattle) is in relation to series 1. It survived that fine, and I'm sure it will survive any problems now as well.
You do not need to have been there. The audio is online and was directly linked to on thread here. It was NOT A LIGHT HEARTED ASIDE. He repeated himself to make it clear to the questioner that he was sincere. There is no doubt.
I'm on Moffat's side. He was being shafted. Not by BBC News. By Cohen. Why? We don't know. But all was rosy behind the scenes? Pull the other one.
Good lord, this whole issue is as tedious as it was back then.
- Cohen said of Moffat "He has to eat and he has to see his family". Which sounds like a joke to me.
- The BBC said this was a joke.
- Moffat confirmed that the delay was not to with Sherlock.
I'm actually a little disappointed to still see these reports of "commentators" etc referenced as authorities. Cohen in his own words on stage at the actual event saying it in all seriousnesss, and then when quizzed further stopping to repeat it to make sure he could not be misunderstood.
I'm actually a little disappointed to still see these reports of "commentators" etc referenced as authorities. Cohen in his own words on stage at the actual event saying it in all seriousnesss, and then when quizzed further stopping to repeat it to make sure he could not be misunderstood.
I've heard the audio.
I think he was joking.
The BBC say he was joking.
It's your presumption that he wasn't joking that involves creating behind-the-scenes problems that there's no other evidence for.
Filming for second half of series six was pushed back. Series 7 will not start filming for the "usual" Easter launch. We are not getting a normal series next year, and I do not have to be a "nutter" to think that TV budget concerns might be a factor in this.
The Cohen spat was NOT about an inaccurate Twitter report. As you well know. We discussed it at length at the time. The actual audio of what Cohen said was directly linked in that thread. Moffat was angry about Cohen's statement and Gaiman thought it was rum too. It was in the news.
I find it plausible that the departing management of the show allowed overspend. This does not make me a nutter. The console room etc is amazing. This shows an organisation committed to the show. Possibly an organisation that let some execs sign a few too many cheques.
I struggle to understand what precisely is so implausible about the Private Eye stories. Much of what has actually happened aligns with it. If it's tosh then good - 14 episodes in 2012.
Excellent post.
Moffat himself said in Total TV Guide that while it's not a secret that the series will air later next year, it is unclear exactly how many episodes will make up series 7.
The 14 episodes commissioned could mean that there will be a series of 6 episodes next Autumn, a Christmas 2012 edition, 6 episodes during November 2013 to coincide with the Anniversary and a Christmas 2013 special.
It is just as likely to be as I've described as it is to be a full length series. After all, if Moffat has publicly declared in a TV Magazine that he is unsure of the amount of episodes in the next series, it certainly suggests to me that there are indeed budgetry discussions as to how best to serve Doctor Who without a) depriving the audience and b) damaging the brand.
It's your presumption that he wasn't joking that involves creating behind-the-scenes problems that there's no other evidence for.
You quoted a tiny bit. I'm afraid we will have to disagree here. Cohen was most definitely not joking when he repeated that it was the genuine reason. I'm amazed that anyone can think he was. He used the "has to eat" joke precisely to give credence to his main pont that Moffat is unable to provide a full series of Who in 2012. The inclusion of some humour in his shafting does not make the shafting a joke.
There's been just enough stuff said and responded to and commented on by Cohen and Moffat and Gaiman, and just enough people leaving DW's production team, and just enough confusion and lack of information about the next series to make me think there is something going on, and Private Eye may well be right, or near enough.
I'm a bit baffled by people who seem determined to think everything is hunky-dory, to be honest. If all this had happened in a company I was working for I'd be looking for another job before I was made redundant.
The thing is, DW has had a lot of money spent on it, and it shows. It looks and sounds fantastic, the actors and writers are mostly excellent. (I wonder how much it cost to get Gaiman? Or Nighy?)
Surely if they have to now cut back the agonising decision is quality or quantity? Is it better to have fewer shows with comparable costs per show, or 13 episodes with bubble wrap monsters and cardboard spaceships and no big name guests or writers?
I suspect they'll stick to quality, which means less episodes per series, as the fear would be the other route would lose viewers.
But Moffat doesn't say he was being shafted by Cohen, does he? No. He says he was being shafted by BBC News Online and it was about them that he had discussion with with several BBC Journalists on twitter that day, not Cohen.
As I already said up thread, I doubt that things are "all rosy" behind the scenes in any major show on TV. There are always going to stresses and pressure points, just like any work place. But the only time we have strong evidence of significant issues (and I mean evidence beyond tittle tattle) is in relation to series 1. It survived that fine, and I'm sure it will survive any problems now as well.
Which is pretty much my position..
However, Cohen really did emphasise his point. He really did pause and repeat that series 7 was likely to be reduced because of Moffat's other commitments. He was not joking. It's not an invention. It happened. Only Cohen knows why.
It is, of course, nonsense to suggest SM would specifically mention Cohen while complaining about the News report. It's called politics.
There's been just enough stuff said and responded to and commented on by Cohen and Moffat and Gaiman, and just enough people leaving DW's production team, and just enough confusion and lack of information about the next series to make me think there is something going on, and Private Eye may well be right, or near enough.
I'm a bit baffled by people who seem determined to think everything is hunky-dory, to be honest. If all this had happened in a company I was working for I'd be looking for another job before I was made redundant.
The thing is, DW has had a lot of money spent on it, and it shows. It looks and sounds fantastic, the actors and writers are mostly excellent. (I wonder how much it cost to get Gaiman? Or Nighy?)
Surely if they have to now cut back the agonising decision is quality or quantity? Is it better to have fewer shows with comparable costs per show, or 13 episodes with bubble wrap monsters and cardboard spaceships and no big name guests or writers?
I suspect they'll stick to quality, which means less episodes per series, as the fear would be the other route would lose viewers.
Good post Granny. Similar to what I posted in Post #39. I genuinely do believe that we may get 6 x 1 hour episodes in 2012 and 2013 with two Christmas specials thrown in! 14 episodes have been commissioned but the suggestion is that this will not be one entire series!
Surely if they have to now cut back the agonising decision is quality or quantity?
Taking this back to what I said at the start, as that seems to have been lost...BBC1 has been largely spared here. 3% of cuts over the next few years, with those cuts explicitly not being directed at drama.
The report also explicitly singles out DW as being a show that the BBC was going to relay on because it generates commercial revenue for them.
All in all, I don't think Doctor Who has to be worried much in relation to additional budget cuts over the next few years.
Of course what happens at that point is the big question....
Good post Granny. Similar to what I posted in Post #39. I genuinely do believe that we may get 6 x 1 hour episodes in 2012 and 2013 with two Christmas specials thrown in! 14 episodes have been commissioned but the suggestion is that this will not be one entire series!
We'll see, but something is definetely awry.
Yes, only you said it more succinctly, and I rambled a bit.
I don't know whether I'd prefer quality or quantity myself - 6 x 1 hour episodes is just not enough!
Taking this back to what I said at the start, as that seems to have been lost...BBC1 has been largely spared here. 3% of cuts over the next few years, with those cuts explicitly not being directed at drama.
The report also explicitly singles out DW as being a show that the BBC was going to relay on because it generates commercial revenue for them.
All in all, I don't think Doctor Who has to be worried much in relation to additional budget cuts over the next few years.
Of course what happens at that point is the big question....
Or, on the other hand, to protect DW's future from 2014 onwards, and to ensure some great, no expenses spared adventures for the Anniversary, maybe there is to be reduced runs over the next couple of years. Effectively using one years commissioning budget to make two series' and therefore securing longer runs thereafter! DW is most definetely protected and important. But there are also many other factors to consider:
It is unclear how many episodes Matt wants to do, but it is clear that SM wants Matt in the Anniversary episode. This could also lead to two shorter runs in order for this to happen, especially if Matt only wants to do one more series!
Purely speculative I admit, but like Granny, I do feel there is something going on that we will never know!
Effectively using one years commissioning budget to make two series' and therefore securing longer runs thereafter!
I'm fairly sure thats not how it works, I'm not sure you can "roll over" a budget in the way you suggest. Certainly doesn't work that way in the public sector...you use it or lose it...:D
Honestly? I find the BBC report very reassuring from a DW perspective. As I said right at the start, the show has never looked more safe than it does now when it's importance to the BBC is acknowledged within one of the most important reports in it's history.
We have to wait and see what the plans are for next year, but it can't be denied that we know as much now about next years show as we would any other series. *shrugs*
My concerns are for the output on other channels, especially BBC2 and BBC4.
I'm a bit baffled by people who seem determined to think everything is hunky-dory, to be honest. If all this had happened in a company I was working for I'd be looking for another job before I was made redundant.
So anyone who doesn't fall for negative spin and conspiracy theories is "determined to think everything is hunky-dory"?
Isn't it just possible that most people simply think that there's no proof - just a load of BS and misery.
The BBC not giving details of a show that isn't even going to be broadcast until around 12 months from now is perfectly normal - it proves nothing.
The BBC has not published ANY schedules for 2012 - NONE AT ALL. What they have done - and it is very much the exception - is officially announce that this one program will DEFINITELY be on next year. Name any other BBC shows that have been officially announced as commissioned for 2012. They've also officially announced that they've contracted Matt Smith for 2012 - name any other actors who have guaranteed contracts with the BBC outside of longtermers in soaps?
The BBC are paying for 14 episodes on the 2012 budget - that has been offically confirmed. Whether or not they show them all in 2012 makes no difference to how much they spend - anymore than saying that you spend less this week if you don't eat all of the biscuits you paid for.
Moffat had shown Matt Smith the stories for the first two episodes of series 7 months ago. There's never been any doubt that the series would be made. There's never been any evidence to contrary - or any evidence of budget cutsot financial problems - just a load of Chinese whispers and "I think" garbage spewed around the internet by a small number of people and then picked up by others who quote and misquote amongst themselves until they forget that it all traces back to one already discredited article from a comic book.
It's not a matter of being "determined to think everything is hunky-dory" to say that these stories are unsupported. Three months ago, there were more such stories - and one by one they've been proven to be complete nonsense. A few people are just clinging to the few that remain. If the BBC announced 52 episode of DW next year starting Jan 1st, the same people would be claiming "Yeah but - the budget's been cut" because they know damn well that there are no published figures for the cost per episode.
The facts - actual, genune facts are....
The BBC has commissioned 14 episodes.
Matt Smith is contracted to play the Doctor for those 14 episode.
The show will be on-air in a new series in 2012.
In other words - exactly the same as it has been every year since 2005.
I'm fairly sure thats not how it works, I'm not sure you can "roll over" a budget in the way you suggest. Certainly doesn't work that way in the public sector...you use it or lose it...:D
Honestly? I find the BBC report very reassuring from a DW perspective. As I said right at the start, the show has never looked more safe than it does now when it's importance to the BBC is acknowledged within one of the most important reports in it's history.
We have to wait and see what the plans are for next year, but it can't be denied that we know as much now about next years show as we would any other series. *shrugs*
My concerns are for the output on other channels, especially BBC2 and BBC4.
That would make an interesting project for someone! Finding out exactly if they can save money on future series' by spending less in a previous year! I expect you're right though.
From what I can make out re: BBC2 and BBC4 is that BBC2 will show mainly factual repeats from BBC4 on BBC2 HD in the afternoons while BBC2's daytime programmes will move to BBC1 with children's output moving onto the the relevant Children's programmes.
It seems that BBC3 HD programmes will be repeated post prime time BBC1 HD so that shows from both channels get an HD airing. This frees up 3% of BBC1's budget and the entirety of BBC2's daytime budget.
Mark Thompson has said that BBC2 Prime Time (post 7pm) will largely consist of original programming.
However BBC3 and BBC4 will now primarily be used to nurture stars and shows for the main channels with BBC3 partnering BBC1 and BBC4 partnering BBC2!
So anyone who doesn't fall for negative spin and conspiracy theories is "determined to think everything is hunky-dory"?
Isn't it just possible that most people simply think that there's no proof - just a load of BS and misery.
The BBC not giving details of a show that isn't even going to be broadcast until around 12 months from now is perfectly normal - it proves nothing.
The BBC has not published ANY schedules for 2012 - NONE AT ALL. What they have done - and it is very much the exception - is officially announce that this one program will DEFINITELY be on next year. Name any other BBC shows that have been officially announced as commissioned for 2012. They've also officially announced that they've contracted Matt Smith for 2012 - name any other actors who have guaranteed contracts with the BBC outside of longtermers in soaps?
The BBC are paying for 14 episodes on the 2012 budget - that has been offically confirmed. Whether or not they show them all in 2012 makes no difference to how much they spend - anymore than saying that you spend less this week if you don't eat all of the biscuits you paid for.
Moffat had shown Matt Smith the stories for the first two episodes of series 7 months ago. There's never been any doubt that the series would be made. There's never been any evidence to contrary - or any evidence of budget cutsot financial problems - just a load of Chinese whispers and "I think" garbage spewed around the internet by a small number of people and then picked up by others who quote and misquote amongst themselves until they forget that it all traces back to one already discredited article from a comic book.
It's not a matter of being "determined to think everything is hunky-dory" to say that these stories are unsupported. Three months ago, there were more such stories - and one by one they've been proven to be complete nonsense. A few people are just clinging to the few that remain. If the BBC announced 52 episode of DW next year starting Jan 1st, the same people would be claiming "Yeah but - the budget's been cut" because they know damn well that there are no published figures for the cost per episode.
The facts - actual, genune facts are....
The BBC has commissioned 14 episodes.
Matt Smith is contracted to play the Doctor for those 14 episode.
The show will be on-air in a new series in 2012.
In other words - exactly the same as it has been every year since 2005.
Calm down dear! And also, read my post #39. You will see a comment regarding what Moffat said in Total TV Guide. No need to be quite so uppity and defensive on the matter. You don't know anymore than anyone else on the matter so to dismiss anyone elses comments is actually disrespectful.
Oh, and here's a list of shows confirmed for broadcast in 2012 long before TX:
Hustle: All cast members confirmed.
New Tricks: All cast confirmed but possibly some might be leaving.
Luther: New series confirmed with all cast confirmed.
Upstairs Downstairs: Confirmed in April with all cast bar Eileen Atkins and with new addition Alex Kingston.
The Apprentice
Doctor Who: Uncertainty surrounds transmission and episode details but main lead confirmed.
Ladies Paradise: Brand new drama by writer Bill Gallagher.
Silk: All cast confirmed (a year before TX).
It's not about schedules, these can't be devised until nearer the time. It's about commissioning facts. If DW has been commissioned for a 13 part series and a Christmas special, they would have said so. They have confirmed episode lengths for all the other shows I've mentioned. They have even commissioned Waterloo Road up to 2013 due to it moving to Scotland. They've commissioned 14 episodes of DW, but these are unlikely to make up an entire series! FACT!
So you see, many shows have been commissioned and episode length confirmed. It seems to be only DW where confusion lies at present. Hustle btw was confirmed in February, a whole year before the series starts!
From what I can make out re: BBC2 and BBC4 is that BBC2 will show mainly factual repeats from BBC4 on BBC2 HD in the afternoons while BBC2's daytime programmes will move to BBC1 with children's output moving onto the the relevant Children's programmes.
I find it sad that there won't be any children shows on bbc1 in the future, not even something like Blue Peter.
Mark Thompson has said that BBC2 Prime Time (post 7pm) will largely consist of original programming.
But a day time of repeats that will generate very low levels of interest from the viewers probably, which is rather sad.
However BBC3 and BBC4 will now primarily be used to nurture stars and shows for the main channels with BBC3 partnering BBC1 and BBC4 partnering BBC2!
I find this concept quite odd, possibly just because the idea has been under developed at this point, especially as they have just axed one example of BBC3 working in partnership with BBC1 in relation to confidential!
Comments
The Cohen spat was NOT about an inaccurate Twitter report. As you well know. We discussed it at length at the time. The actual audio of what Cohen said was directly linked in that thread. Moffat was angry about Cohen's statement and Gaiman thought it was rum too. It was in the news.
I find it plausible that the departing management of the show allowed overspend. This does not make me a nutter. The console room etc is amazing. This shows an organisation committed to the show. Possibly an organisation that let some execs sign a few too many cheques.
I struggle to understand what precisely is so implausible about the Private Eye stories. Much of what has actually happened aligns with it. If it's tosh then good - 14 episodes in 2012.
I don't see why the BBC would need to make more cuts on top of those that they've already made.
In fairness though, it wasn't a "spat" and there was no "public argument". Cohen made some comments at a low key media event and there was some difference of views on the interpretation of whether or not Cohen was joking about certain comments he made about Moffat or not (and even then they weren't negative comments). It's not like they were arguing with each other in a public place, which is what your orignal post suggested.
In all honesty the fact that almost all of what they claimed in their initial report was discredited makes it hard not to feel that it is largely implausible. They even contradicted much of what they initially claimed with subsequent reports.
There are quite likely some behind the scenes issues, but there have likely always been some. That's the nature of a big show. We know for a fact there were substantial issues in series 1, more and more is coming out about that as time passes.
One thing I do very much agree with Minky on is that there is no more uncertainty around Doctor Who in 2012 than any other year. We know that it will be returning in Autumn 2012. We know that 14 episodes have been commissioned. The reason they aren't filming series 7 till next year is because of the move to the autumn. That's about all we would realistically know any year.
Anyway, this is rather drifting away from the topic started, which was specifically about the BBC cuts announced and what impact this coild have on the show, so I'm going to leave it there.
Whatever was going on, any suggestion that it was some kind of non incident created by bystanders is bizarre.
Except Moffat wasn't talking about Cohen. He was talking about the BBC News site which was the first to run the story. There was discussion between Moffat and other BBC journalists about the article, and they said they would look in to it, etc.
eta: link http://www.kasterborous.com/2011/06/bbc-news-unbelievable-unacceptable/
Of course the BBC are, quite rightly, editorially independent and had every right to run the story, imho, although one does feel at times they use stories like this to PROVE they are independent editorially.
The BBC news people accurately reported that Cohen, with a 100% straight face and on readily available audio at an official conference at which he was on stage in his offficial capacity, said that Moffat was too busy to do a full series of Who and that that was the only reason we would not be getting a normal series in 2012.
Gaiman saw it on News Online and tweeted accordingly.
One wonders why Online didn't check the story with Moffat before publishing. But that's their problem. Cohen said what he said (not joking) , Moffat gave a firm contradiction.
There have been a number of commentators who have said it was a light hearted comment, people who were there, so I think there remains a lack of clarity on that point, but I don't want to get dragged in to this, as none of this is what this thread was supposed to be about at all.
However, once again, there is no evidence of a public spat between Moffat and Cohen. Moffat took issue at an article BBC online wrote. Your earlier comment was trying to suggest (wrongly) that Moffat had taken a direct pot shot at Cohen, and that Gaiman had too. This was not the case.
I'm on Moffat's side. He was being shafted. Not by BBC News. By Cohen. Why? We don't know. But all was rosy behind the scenes? Pull the other one.
But Moffat doesn't say he was being shafted by Cohen, does he? No. He says he was being shafted by BBC News Online and it was about them that he had discussion with with several BBC Journalists on twitter that day, not Cohen.
As I already said up thread, I doubt that things are "all rosy" behind the scenes in any major show on TV. There are always going to stresses and pressure points, just like any work place. But the only time we have strong evidence of significant issues (and I mean evidence beyond tittle tattle) is in relation to series 1. It survived that fine, and I'm sure it will survive any problems now as well.
Good lord, this whole issue is as tedious as it was back then.
- Cohen said of Moffat "He has to eat and he has to see his family". Which sounds like a joke to me.
- The BBC said this was a joke.
- Moffat confirmed that the delay was not to with Sherlock.
None of these things contradict each other.
I've heard the audio.
I think he was joking.
The BBC say he was joking.
It's your presumption that he wasn't joking that involves creating behind-the-scenes problems that there's no other evidence for.
Excellent post.
Moffat himself said in Total TV Guide that while it's not a secret that the series will air later next year, it is unclear exactly how many episodes will make up series 7.
The 14 episodes commissioned could mean that there will be a series of 6 episodes next Autumn, a Christmas 2012 edition, 6 episodes during November 2013 to coincide with the Anniversary and a Christmas 2013 special.
It is just as likely to be as I've described as it is to be a full length series. After all, if Moffat has publicly declared in a TV Magazine that he is unsure of the amount of episodes in the next series, it certainly suggests to me that there are indeed budgetry discussions as to how best to serve Doctor Who without a) depriving the audience and b) damaging the brand.
You quoted a tiny bit. I'm afraid we will have to disagree here. Cohen was most definitely not joking when he repeated that it was the genuine reason. I'm amazed that anyone can think he was. He used the "has to eat" joke precisely to give credence to his main pont that Moffat is unable to provide a full series of Who in 2012. The inclusion of some humour in his shafting does not make the shafting a joke.
There's been just enough stuff said and responded to and commented on by Cohen and Moffat and Gaiman, and just enough people leaving DW's production team, and just enough confusion and lack of information about the next series to make me think there is something going on, and Private Eye may well be right, or near enough.
I'm a bit baffled by people who seem determined to think everything is hunky-dory, to be honest. If all this had happened in a company I was working for I'd be looking for another job before I was made redundant.
The thing is, DW has had a lot of money spent on it, and it shows. It looks and sounds fantastic, the actors and writers are mostly excellent. (I wonder how much it cost to get Gaiman? Or Nighy?)
Surely if they have to now cut back the agonising decision is quality or quantity? Is it better to have fewer shows with comparable costs per show, or 13 episodes with bubble wrap monsters and cardboard spaceships and no big name guests or writers?
I suspect they'll stick to quality, which means less episodes per series, as the fear would be the other route would lose viewers.
Which is pretty much my position..
However, Cohen really did emphasise his point. He really did pause and repeat that series 7 was likely to be reduced because of Moffat's other commitments. He was not joking. It's not an invention. It happened. Only Cohen knows why.
It is, of course, nonsense to suggest SM would specifically mention Cohen while complaining about the News report. It's called politics.
Good post Granny. Similar to what I posted in Post #39. I genuinely do believe that we may get 6 x 1 hour episodes in 2012 and 2013 with two Christmas specials thrown in! 14 episodes have been commissioned but the suggestion is that this will not be one entire series!
We'll see, but something is definetely awry.
Taking this back to what I said at the start, as that seems to have been lost...BBC1 has been largely spared here. 3% of cuts over the next few years, with those cuts explicitly not being directed at drama.
The report also explicitly singles out DW as being a show that the BBC was going to relay on because it generates commercial revenue for them.
All in all, I don't think Doctor Who has to be worried much in relation to additional budget cuts over the next few years.
Of course what happens at that point is the big question....
Yes, only you said it more succinctly, and I rambled a bit.
I don't know whether I'd prefer quality or quantity myself - 6 x 1 hour episodes is just not enough!
Or, on the other hand, to protect DW's future from 2014 onwards, and to ensure some great, no expenses spared adventures for the Anniversary, maybe there is to be reduced runs over the next couple of years. Effectively using one years commissioning budget to make two series' and therefore securing longer runs thereafter! DW is most definetely protected and important. But there are also many other factors to consider:
It is unclear how many episodes Matt wants to do, but it is clear that SM wants Matt in the Anniversary episode. This could also lead to two shorter runs in order for this to happen, especially if Matt only wants to do one more series!
Purely speculative I admit, but like Granny, I do feel there is something going on that we will never know!
I'm fairly sure thats not how it works, I'm not sure you can "roll over" a budget in the way you suggest. Certainly doesn't work that way in the public sector...you use it or lose it...:D
Honestly? I find the BBC report very reassuring from a DW perspective. As I said right at the start, the show has never looked more safe than it does now when it's importance to the BBC is acknowledged within one of the most important reports in it's history.
We have to wait and see what the plans are for next year, but it can't be denied that we know as much now about next years show as we would any other series. *shrugs*
My concerns are for the output on other channels, especially BBC2 and BBC4.
So anyone who doesn't fall for negative spin and conspiracy theories is "determined to think everything is hunky-dory"?
Isn't it just possible that most people simply think that there's no proof - just a load of BS and misery.
The BBC not giving details of a show that isn't even going to be broadcast until around 12 months from now is perfectly normal - it proves nothing.
The BBC has not published ANY schedules for 2012 - NONE AT ALL. What they have done - and it is very much the exception - is officially announce that this one program will DEFINITELY be on next year. Name any other BBC shows that have been officially announced as commissioned for 2012. They've also officially announced that they've contracted Matt Smith for 2012 - name any other actors who have guaranteed contracts with the BBC outside of longtermers in soaps?
The BBC are paying for 14 episodes on the 2012 budget - that has been offically confirmed. Whether or not they show them all in 2012 makes no difference to how much they spend - anymore than saying that you spend less this week if you don't eat all of the biscuits you paid for.
Moffat had shown Matt Smith the stories for the first two episodes of series 7 months ago. There's never been any doubt that the series would be made. There's never been any evidence to contrary - or any evidence of budget cutsot financial problems - just a load of Chinese whispers and "I think" garbage spewed around the internet by a small number of people and then picked up by others who quote and misquote amongst themselves until they forget that it all traces back to one already discredited article from a comic book.
It's not a matter of being "determined to think everything is hunky-dory" to say that these stories are unsupported. Three months ago, there were more such stories - and one by one they've been proven to be complete nonsense. A few people are just clinging to the few that remain. If the BBC announced 52 episode of DW next year starting Jan 1st, the same people would be claiming "Yeah but - the budget's been cut" because they know damn well that there are no published figures for the cost per episode.
The facts - actual, genune facts are....
The BBC has commissioned 14 episodes.
Matt Smith is contracted to play the Doctor for those 14 episode.
The show will be on-air in a new series in 2012.
In other words - exactly the same as it has been every year since 2005.
That would make an interesting project for someone! Finding out exactly if they can save money on future series' by spending less in a previous year! I expect you're right though.
From what I can make out re: BBC2 and BBC4 is that BBC2 will show mainly factual repeats from BBC4 on BBC2 HD in the afternoons while BBC2's daytime programmes will move to BBC1 with children's output moving onto the the relevant Children's programmes.
It seems that BBC3 HD programmes will be repeated post prime time BBC1 HD so that shows from both channels get an HD airing. This frees up 3% of BBC1's budget and the entirety of BBC2's daytime budget.
Mark Thompson has said that BBC2 Prime Time (post 7pm) will largely consist of original programming.
However BBC3 and BBC4 will now primarily be used to nurture stars and shows for the main channels with BBC3 partnering BBC1 and BBC4 partnering BBC2!
Calm down dear! And also, read my post #39. You will see a comment regarding what Moffat said in Total TV Guide. No need to be quite so uppity and defensive on the matter. You don't know anymore than anyone else on the matter so to dismiss anyone elses comments is actually disrespectful.
Oh, and here's a list of shows confirmed for broadcast in 2012 long before TX:
Hustle: All cast members confirmed.
New Tricks: All cast confirmed but possibly some might be leaving.
Luther: New series confirmed with all cast confirmed.
Upstairs Downstairs: Confirmed in April with all cast bar Eileen Atkins and with new addition Alex Kingston.
The Apprentice
Doctor Who: Uncertainty surrounds transmission and episode details but main lead confirmed.
Ladies Paradise: Brand new drama by writer Bill Gallagher.
Silk: All cast confirmed (a year before TX).
It's not about schedules, these can't be devised until nearer the time. It's about commissioning facts. If DW has been commissioned for a 13 part series and a Christmas special, they would have said so. They have confirmed episode lengths for all the other shows I've mentioned. They have even commissioned Waterloo Road up to 2013 due to it moving to Scotland. They've commissioned 14 episodes of DW, but these are unlikely to make up an entire series! FACT!
So you see, many shows have been commissioned and episode length confirmed. It seems to be only DW where confusion lies at present. Hustle btw was confirmed in February, a whole year before the series starts!
I find it sad that there won't be any children shows on bbc1 in the future, not even something like Blue Peter.
But a day time of repeats that will generate very low levels of interest from the viewers probably, which is rather sad.
I find this concept quite odd, possibly just because the idea has been under developed at this point, especially as they have just axed one example of BBC3 working in partnership with BBC1 in relation to confidential!