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

1679111221

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 138
    Forum Member
    DiscoP wrote: »
    The title of this thread kinda says what you would expect to be contained within surely? Tell me, what fine works of prose or literature were you expecting to see instead?

    I was expecting people to stop harping on about something they cannot possibly control, but i guess most Dr Who fans on here arent happy unless complaining about something

    Guess that now includes me lol
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,920
    Forum Member
    But I'm probably talking rubbish again :D

    I don't think that you talk rubbish Davros :)

    I may not always agree with your take on things but it is nice to read your more optimistic view amongst all us cynical, pessimistic, negative souls :)
  • Tom TitTom Tit Posts: 2,554
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    13lives wrote: »
    I was expecting people to stop harping on about something they cannot possibly control, but i guess most Dr Who fans on here arent happy unless complaining about something

    Guess that now includes me lol


    Can you remind me if you've actually contributed anything to this discussion yet because I can only recall you insulting people.
  • Chihiro94Chihiro94 Posts: 2,667
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Big Bang Theory is all shot in the same studio and the vast majority of scenes involve the cast standing or sitting. Sure, Jim Parsons has to deliver some complex dialogue, but he is not on-screen throughout the majority of scenes in every single episode like Matt Smith is. The fact remains that working on The Big Bang Theory would be nowhere near as tiring as working on Doctor Who.

    How about other US shows. Supernatural for example, 23x40-5 minutes, going onto 9th season run (season 3 reduced because of the writers strike), not really an ensemble cast like the big bang theory so the two leads are in the majority of scenes more often together than not, and some of which at least filmed on location, if anything a litle more than Doctor Who because they don't even have a tardis like set, nature is it changes every episode.

    They might be knackered doing it and the production staff too but they manage and don't have to take season breaks.

    Still not liking the whole self entitled rhetoric. Even if you ignore the number of episodes/when there aired etc... end of the day the BBC aren't some secret organisation. They're publicly funded and should be upfront with the viewers and license payers which they aren't.
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,920
    Forum Member
    Chihiro94 wrote: »
    How about other US shows. Supernatural for example, 23x40-5 minutes, going onto 9th season run (season 3 reduced because of the writers strike), not really an ensemble cast like the big bang theory so the two leads are in the majority of scenes more often together than not.

    They might be knackered doing it and would the production staff but they manage and don't have to take season breaks.

    Still not liking the whole self entitled rhetoric. Even if you ignore the number of episodes/when there aired etc... end of the day the BBC aren't some secret organisation. They're publicly funded and should be upfront with the viewers and license payers which they aren't.

    I don't think it's really useful to compare UK and US TV production. It's like comparing apples with eggs. They are just too different.
  • Chihiro94Chihiro94 Posts: 2,667
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DiscoP wrote: »
    I don't think it's really useful to compare UK and US TV production. It's like comparing apples with eggs. They are just too different.

    I know, it's just becasue they were comparing to the Big Bang theory, when if your even going to attempt it at least find a like for like show.

    Eta: Though actually at the end of the day it might not be totally different, they're are still people and still have to produce the output, no matter how you get there.
  • Tom TitTom Tit Posts: 2,554
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Chihiro94 wrote: »
    Even if you ignore the number of episodes/when there aired etc... end of the day the BBC aren't some secret organisation. They're publicly funded and should be upfront with the viewers and license payers which they aren't.


    This is the part that really bothers me. If they'd just announced a one year hiatus in the production of the show people wouldn't be so annoyed. It's the trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and not being transparent about what they're doing that I think is poor form.
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Compare the information about DW with the info about Sherlock.

    Series 3 was not announced until after series 2, for plot reasons, fair enough.

    But we knew the main stars were tied up doing other things, so it would be a while. And we know, because it's how Sherlock has "always" been previously, that there will be 3 episodes of 90 minutes. which will be aired at a prime time on consecutive weeks.

    It will be (give or take) 2 years after series 2 that series 3 airs. But we're OK with that because the BBC have been upfront. We are longing to see the next series, but we're not moaning about it taking so long, because we understand why it is.

    Information about what's happening re DW has been false, obscure or non-existent. We never know when it's on from week to week, or from year to year, let alone if another series is actually going to be forthcoming. It's a poor way to treat a programme that's supposed to be a flagship!
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,920
    Forum Member
    Compare the information about DW with the info about Sherlock.

    Series 3 was not announced until after series 2, for plot reasons, fair enough.

    But we knew the main stars were tied up doing other things, so it would be a while. And we know, because it's how Sherlock has "always" been previously, that there will be 3 episodes of 90 minutes. which will be aired at a prime time on consecutive weeks.

    It will be (give or take) 2 years after series 2 that series 3 airs. But we're OK with that because the BBC have been upfront. We are longing to see the next series, but we're not moaning about it taking so long, because we understand why it is.

    Information about what's happening re DW has been false, obscure or non-existent. We never know when it's on from week to week, or from year to year, let alone if another series is actually going to be forthcoming. It's a poor way to treat a programme that's supposed to be a flagship!

    And we already know that we're getting a fourth series of Sherlock before the third has even aired! (although I think that was mainly due to Benedict being happy to divulge info rather than an official announcement).

    At the moment our main source of official Doctor Who info seems to be JLC but I'm guessing that's just because she's new. She'll soon learn to talk in riddles and ambiguous statements like everyone else and then we'll know nothing at all :(
  • cat666cat666 Posts: 2,063
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Big Bang Theory is all shot in the same studio and the vast majority of scenes involve the cast standing or sitting. Sure, Jim Parsons has to deliver some complex dialogue, but he is not on-screen throughout the majority of scenes in every single episode like Matt Smith is. The fact remains that working on The Big Bang Theory would be nowhere near as tiring as working on Doctor Who.

    It was just an example. Kiefer Sutherland in 24 may have been a better choice, or Hugh Lawrie in House.
  • macman11macman11 Posts: 339
    Forum Member
    DiscoP wrote: »

    At the moment our main source of official Doctor Who info seems to be JLC but I'm guessing that's just because she's new. She'll soon learn to talk in riddles and ambiguous statements like everyone else and then we'll know nothing at all :(

    "Doctor Who on our screens during the year? C'mon, be honest, it's just not right is it?" :p
  • cat666cat666 Posts: 2,063
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DiscoP wrote: »
    I don't think it's really useful to compare UK and US TV production. It's like comparing apples with eggs. They are just too different.

    It isn't much different at all. Both TV shows which need cast and crew and fans. Sadly the only difference is that the Americans have seemingly devised a way to make quality TV shows whose seasons have more episodes than ours, and are released each and every year with very few exceptions (Writers strike for example).

    Moff needn't write each and every episode, and in fact he doesn't, so to blame him isn't really on. Plenty of people are up to the task of writing Doctor Who. BBC Books managed to release 2 original Doctor Who novels a month for almost 7 years, those authors could at least pen a draft before a team of script editors work on it and shape it into a series.
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,920
    Forum Member
    cat666 wrote: »
    It was just an example. Kiefer Sutherland in 24 may have been a better choice, or Hugh Lawrie in House.

    Yep I must admit that I never knew how Kiefer was able to film 24 episodes of 24 each year. I can only assume that the guy doesn't need to eat or sleep!
  • nebogipfelnebogipfel Posts: 8,375
    Forum Member
    13lives wrote: »
    if people are honestly this bothered ( and posting HUGE longwinded paragraphs about their self entitled outrage) whinge to the BBC, your MP etc rather than boring those of us who arent that bothered and just happy we can watch Dr Who on the telly at all!

    My MP no longer replies to my letters. And my social worker says she'd rather have me do this than stand on the roundabout shouting at traffic again. Sorry about that.

    Why not pop into one of the threads where I pretend not to be a pedantic windbag? :)
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,920
    Forum Member
    cat666 wrote: »
    It isn't much different at all. Both TV shows which need cast and crew and fans. Sadly the only difference is that the Americans have seemingly devised a way to make quality TV shows whose seasons have more episodes than ours, and are released each and every year with very few exceptions (Writers strike for example).

    Moff needn't write each and every episode, and in fact he doesn't, so to blame him isn't really on. Plenty of people are up to the task of writing Doctor Who. BBC Books managed to release 2 original Doctor Who novels a month for almost 7 years, those authors could at least pen a draft before a team of script editors work on it and shape it into a series.

    Well I don't really know the ins and outs of these things but I assume that the big US TV network have more money to throw at these things.

    Game of Thrones is a lavish, epic HBO production but that only get's 10 episodes a year.
  • RooksRooks Posts: 9,081
    Forum Member
    DiscoP wrote: »
    I don't think it's really useful to compare UK and US TV production. It's like comparing apples with eggs. They are just too different.

    Why are they different?
  • sebbie3000sebbie3000 Posts: 5,188
    Forum Member
    DiscoP wrote: »
    Yep I must admit that I never knew how Kiefer was able to film 24 episodes of 24 each year. I can only assume that the guy doesn't need to eat or sleep!

    American shows have a very different way of filming. They tend to film as they go along, with the episodes sometimes only as little as 2 weeks ahead of broadcast. For The Big Bang specifically, they get the first draft script on, say, a Wednesday. They then go in for a read on Thursday, and revisions are done from as soon as that read finishes. The new script is couriered to the cast on Friday and they get until Sunday to learn it, as that is when they rehearse. Monday they film, then Tuesday they have off before the cycle starts again.

    Dramas tend to have more days filming, and the script revisions are done there and then (so it would be, in effect: Wednesday draft script; Thursday table read; Friday revised script; Sunday begin shooting, more revisions whilst filming; Tuesday off).

    Obviously, there will be different ways of filming different thingds (some shows are fully filmed before being delivered to the network as a whole, especially if they are a mini-series).

    In Britain, we just don't have the money or the manpower to film like that. The schedules are mostly dictated by the crew and production team, as opposed to the cast's timetables. But, again, that's just the general rule, not the definitive one.
  • RooksRooks Posts: 9,081
    Forum Member
    cat666 wrote: »
    It isn't much different at all. Both TV shows which need cast and crew and fans. Sadly the only difference is that the Americans have seemingly devised a way to make quality TV shows whose seasons have more episodes than ours, and are released each and every year with very few exceptions (Writers strike for example).

    Remember JMS wrote 22 episodes of Babylon 5 in a single season :)

    To me, it seems that working on a US TV show is a job, it's a full time commitment. Working on UK shows seems to be far more casual with actors and writers taking on other roles and other series with regularity.
  • nebogipfelnebogipfel Posts: 8,375
    Forum Member
    America is huge. I don't know if anyone has ever seen it on a map? Massive. It's a bit different from the UK. Tesco tried to run a supermarket there along European lines. Failed.
  • Chihiro94Chihiro94 Posts: 2,667
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nebogipfel wrote: »
    America is huge. I don't know if anyone has ever seen it on a map? Massive. It's a bit different from the UK. Tesco tried to run a supermarket there along European lines. Failed.

    Yeah but a TV show is filmed in a limited location for the most part. There might be more money in it, but in the end money can't buy more time.

    This is a very crude comparison but these are the imbd lisitings for Doctor Who and Supernatural (only one example, but i more familar with the latter, and they've both been running since 2005.

    DW: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436992/fullcredits

    Supernatural: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460681/fullcredits

    I haven't counted up the numbers, so could be wrong but the numbers of crew are very similar, and if anything Doctor Who has more.

    America may be big (and it does produce more shows) but the shows aren't necessarily, espcailly where it's not main network.

    Plus Supermarkets are an entirely different venture, where it is all about location and spreading as far as possible while going up in direct competition to established chains like Walmart.
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,920
    Forum Member
    sebbie3000 wrote: »
    American shows have a very different way of filming. They tend to film as they go along, with the episodes sometimes only as little as 2 weeks ahead of broadcast. For The Big Bang specifically, they get the first draft script on, say, a Wednesday. They then go in for a read on Thursday, and revisions are done from as soon as that read finishes. The new script is couriered to the cast on Friday and they get until Sunday to learn it, as that is when they rehearse. Monday they film, then Tuesday they have off before the cycle starts again.

    Dramas tend to have more days filming, and the script revisions are done there and then (so it would be, in effect: Wednesday draft script; Thursday table read; Friday revised script; Sunday begin shooting, more revisions whilst filming; Tuesday off).

    Obviously, there will be different ways of filming different thingds (some shows are fully filmed before being delivered to the network as a whole, especially if they are a mini-series).

    In Britain, we just don't have the money or the manpower to film like that. The schedules are mostly dictated by the crew and production team, as opposed to the cast's timetables. But, again, that's just the general rule, not the definitive one.

    Ah yes of course. I remember that they used to write the scripts for 24 as they went along, which goes some way to explaining why some plots seemed to finish a little early in some series and they would add on a little bit extra to make up the numbers. Seemed kinda scary to me but as you say it seems to be how they do things.
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,920
    Forum Member
    Chihiro94 wrote: »
    Yeah but a TV show is filmed in a limited location for the most part. There might be more money in it, but in the end money can't buy more time.

    This is a very crude comparison but these are the imbd lisitings for Doctor Who and Supernatural (only one example, but i more familar with the latter, and they've both been running since 2005.

    DW: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436992/fullcredits

    Supernatural: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460681/fullcredits

    I haven't counted up the numbers, so could be wrong but the numbers of crew are very similar, and if anything Doctor Who has more.

    America may be big (and it does produce more shows) but the shows aren't necessarily, espcailly where it's not main network.

    Plus Supermarkets are an entirely different venture, where it is all about location and spreading as far as possible while going up in direct competition to established chains like Walmart.

    But where you have shows with ensemble casts you can have second units filming stuff at the same time. Last time I looked there was only one Matt Smith and he's in most of the scenes.
  • Chihiro94Chihiro94 Posts: 2,667
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DiscoP wrote: »
    But where you have shows with ensemble casts you can have second units filming stuff at the same time. Last time I looked there was only one Matt Smith and he's in most of the scenes.

    Supernatural isn't really ensemble though. Theres other characters but only two real leads and they're in most scenes (together as well) I know it's not entirely representative but there are other shows like it.
  • DiscoPDiscoP Posts: 5,920
    Forum Member
    Chihiro94 wrote: »
    Supernatural isn't really ensemble though. Theres other characters but only two real leads and they're in most scenes (together as well) I know it's not entirely representative but there are other shows like it.

    Oh well I don't know then. I guess they just work harder and faster than our namby pamby actors :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 249
    Forum Member
    13lives wrote: »
    if people are honestly this bothered ( and posting HUGE longwinded paragraphs about their self entitled outrage) whinge to the BBC, your MP etc rather than boring those of us who arent that bothered and just happy we can watch Dr Who on the telly at all!

    Fancy that! People posting their opinions about Doctor Who on a Doctor Who forum! How odd!

    To misquote Basil Fawlty, what would you expect to find posted on a Doctor Who discussion forum, if not people's opinions on Doctor Who? Dostoevsky?

    Oh, and I notiiced another notch for the inappropriate usage of "entitlement". I bet you you fit the stereotype I mentioned earlier perfectly.
Sign In or Register to comment.