Isn't that my point to make more effective use of time. By the way the conclusions in the 6 part Jon Pertwee episodes are in my opinion a billion times better than some of the conclusions in the new series such as Last of the Time Lords and Journey's End.
True, but the worst conclusion to any story I've ever seen probably has to be The Invasion of Time. After a 6-part story with lots of padding they somehow managed to have an entirely nonsensical rushed conclusion (The Doctor grabs a death ray and shoots a Sontaran)
I don't see what all the fuss is about recently about timing. There were badly paced episodes back in series 1-6, but it's only with series 7 that people seem to be complaining.
I personally thought the pacing of most stories in series 7 was fine.
I don't see how that is nonsensical especially compared to the last of the time lords conclusion (though I haven't seen the invasion of time in years). The really bad part of the ending from what I remember was Leela's departure.
There were a few reviews for Season 7 episodes which said that 45 minutes didn't seem like long enough to do some of the plots justice, and that as a result things felt rushed or contrived in places.
Even Neil Gaiman mentioned on his Tumblr that he was was slightly miffed how much important stuff was cut out from his original Nightmare in Silver script to make it the required length.
Given the lack of two-parters (and assuming they won't be coming back any time soon, because Moffat decided they weren't cost-effective), would it be better to see 10 episodes of 58 minute length across a series, instead of 13 of 45 minute length?
It would mean the same amount of Who to the minute as a result, but would allow for higher-impact stories, and would give writers breathing room.
On the other hand, it obviously would mean a smaller number of actual stories per year, which could be a problem if they keep the series split: two opener episodes and two finale episodes only leaves room for six 'standard' episodes per series.
Thoughts?
Given how Buffy the Vampire Slayer could tell a great and satisfying story in slightly less running time than Doctor Who normally has nearly every week for at least 5 usually longer seasons, there should be no excuses like not enough time to tell a story. Since Who came back in 2005, there's always been poorly paced/plotted stories every series. This doesn't bug me too much however as classic Who had weak links every series too.
I think that 45 minutes is definitely enough time to tell a decent story, so I'm with the Moff' on that one. But then it comes down to time management on the writers/showrunners side and I just don't think they've nailed that in Doctor Who. Others refer to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and I'd concur it is a perfect example of a series that paced itself brilliantly from start to finish, with only a small handful of episodes ever feeling like they slightly lulled.
Series 7's biggest set-back for me was the pacing. Whilst I loved the idea of so many different story ideas in the series (it can make the series more rewatchable, as you can dip in and out of episodes more freely), I never expected to feel so let down by the awful pacing.
Some stories do need longer than 45 minutes to show off their true colours in full. Be it an extra 5 minutes, 10 minutes or even developing into a two-parter, some just need the extra to offer their full potential,it's as simple as that.
Series 7 was far too strict in that regard...I think once again the series finale lacked the powerful oomph of other finales gone by as we never get to linger on the character development and it's all about jumping into the next set piece (it was admittedly a damned sight less guilty of that than The Wedding of River Song was at the end of Series 6, though). I'd have spent MUCH longer developing an epic story over two-parts, given it had such poignant story elements as River's likely final scenes and The Doctor's ultimate resting place. Instead, we've had two series in a row that had abbreviated finales, sat next to mediocre Cybermen episodes.
The Angels Take Manhattan is another episode that needed longer. I think a more in-depth story would have been needed to make it two-part material, but an extra five or ten minutes to stop us from whisking out of that graveyard so swiftly at the end (Rose's beach scene was over twice as long, and is generally more memorable to mainstream viewers) and to actually establish the Angels as more of an imposing threat throughout would have been brilliant. The Power of Three had a rushed resolution, The Bells of Saint John had a rushed resolution. There were some episodes that proved pacing could be handled well in a Doctor Who story and that 45 minutes was enough, but the pacing was off in so many more of them recently, and I suspect that that is why this has become a more frequently asked question over the past few months.
It was the point you were making, that they don't cut Top Gear to 45 mins to fit an hour on commercial stations.
No, it was not the point I was making.
Top Gear has a run time of 60 minutes. It's not reduced to 45 minutes. If you watch it on the BBC you get the full length.
It's later cut down to 45 minutes. The BBC doesn't force the Top Gear production team to make it 45 minutes. That was my point. On the BBC it is 60 minutes, it is not reduced for commercial viability.
There is a difference between something being 60 minutes and then cut for other networks and something being 45 minutes to start with.
I get that. But it's not the BBCs problem. Or at least it shouldn't be. I love that Who is popular internationally. But it's a BBC show -- as such it should be the same length as any other BBC show. Top Gear is popular and is sold internationally. They don't reduce that to 45 minutes.
Also, with shortform drama like who, an extra 15 minutes really is an eternity. I'd rather that than a return to two parters, which I always felt dragged on a bit.
And I guess who is 'event' TV & most cable channels in the US (and over here) would be more accommodating than you think, for example planet of the dead was aired over here unedited early today, with a runtime of an hour and twenty to allow a full unedited hour of actual drama, plus twenty minutes of ad breaks.
I could see the US networks fitting an hour of who into a 75 minute timeslot.
The U.S. shows we get over here are all 45 minutes (minus adverts), so why should DW be any different?
I notice these days that original 45 minute shows from BBC that are screened on ITV 3 / Drama etc all last 1hr 10mins!!
Given how Buffy the Vampire Slayer could tell a great and satisfying story in slightly less running time than Doctor Who normally has nearly every week for at least 5 usually longer seasons, there should be no excuses like not enough time to tell a story. Since Who came back in 2005, there's always been poorly paced/plotted stories every series. This doesn't bug me too much however as classic Who had weak links every series too.
"Buffy" was a one location (usually) show. With a large coterie of characters that the show was built around.
It was also a single-concept fantasy that needed little ongoing explanation.
So the viewer did not need (each week) to be:
introduced to brand new characters (who were vital to the story)
introduced to a new location, often startlingly new and unlike anything anyone has seen before.
introduced to a sci-fi concept weekly, (the general public will likely not have been reading Amazing Science Fiction Monthly when they were teenagers)
Dr Who actually needs the serial format to work, especially with Moffat at the helm since he sure likes complexity.
Russell T Davis used a coterie of characters to help deal with the limitations of the running length and the need for the viewer to have some coherence.
He also used 2-parters when necessary. As did Moffat for a time, his reasons for stopping seem more like ratings-grabbing BBC reasons to me.
Comments
True, but the worst conclusion to any story I've ever seen probably has to be The Invasion of Time. After a 6-part story with lots of padding they somehow managed to have an entirely nonsensical rushed conclusion (The Doctor grabs a death ray and shoots a Sontaran)
I don't see what all the fuss is about recently about timing. There were badly paced episodes back in series 1-6, but it's only with series 7 that people seem to be complaining.
I personally thought the pacing of most stories in series 7 was fine.
As for the last paragraph I agree completely.
Given how Buffy the Vampire Slayer could tell a great and satisfying story in slightly less running time than Doctor Who normally has nearly every week for at least 5 usually longer seasons, there should be no excuses like not enough time to tell a story. Since Who came back in 2005, there's always been poorly paced/plotted stories every series. This doesn't bug me too much however as classic Who had weak links every series too.
Series 7's biggest set-back for me was the pacing. Whilst I loved the idea of so many different story ideas in the series (it can make the series more rewatchable, as you can dip in and out of episodes more freely), I never expected to feel so let down by the awful pacing.
Some stories do need longer than 45 minutes to show off their true colours in full. Be it an extra 5 minutes, 10 minutes or even developing into a two-parter, some just need the extra to offer their full potential,it's as simple as that.
Series 7 was far too strict in that regard...I think once again the series finale lacked the powerful oomph of other finales gone by as we never get to linger on the character development and it's all about jumping into the next set piece (it was admittedly a damned sight less guilty of that than The Wedding of River Song was at the end of Series 6, though). I'd have spent MUCH longer developing an epic story over two-parts, given it had such poignant story elements as River's likely final scenes and The Doctor's ultimate resting place. Instead, we've had two series in a row that had abbreviated finales, sat next to mediocre Cybermen episodes.
The Angels Take Manhattan is another episode that needed longer. I think a more in-depth story would have been needed to make it two-part material, but an extra five or ten minutes to stop us from whisking out of that graveyard so swiftly at the end (Rose's beach scene was over twice as long, and is generally more memorable to mainstream viewers) and to actually establish the Angels as more of an imposing threat throughout would have been brilliant. The Power of Three had a rushed resolution, The Bells of Saint John had a rushed resolution. There were some episodes that proved pacing could be handled well in a Doctor Who story and that 45 minutes was enough, but the pacing was off in so many more of them recently, and I suspect that that is why this has become a more frequently asked question over the past few months.
No, it was not the point I was making.
Top Gear has a run time of 60 minutes. It's not reduced to 45 minutes. If you watch it on the BBC you get the full length.
It's later cut down to 45 minutes. The BBC doesn't force the Top Gear production team to make it 45 minutes. That was my point. On the BBC it is 60 minutes, it is not reduced for commercial viability.
There is a difference between something being 60 minutes and then cut for other networks and something being 45 minutes to start with.
Also, with shortform drama like who, an extra 15 minutes really is an eternity. I'd rather that than a return to two parters, which I always felt dragged on a bit.
And I guess who is 'event' TV & most cable channels in the US (and over here) would be more accommodating than you think, for example planet of the dead was aired over here unedited early today, with a runtime of an hour and twenty to allow a full unedited hour of actual drama, plus twenty minutes of ad breaks.
I could see the US networks fitting an hour of who into a 75 minute timeslot.
I notice these days that original 45 minute shows from BBC that are screened on ITV 3 / Drama etc all last 1hr 10mins!!
The last US show I watched on the BBC was The Wire. Which is 60 minutes.
It's only the networks that have a 45 minute runtime. Cable shows don't have that problem.
"Buffy" was a one location (usually) show. With a large coterie of characters that the show was built around.
It was also a single-concept fantasy that needed little ongoing explanation.
So the viewer did not need (each week) to be:
introduced to brand new characters (who were vital to the story)
introduced to a new location, often startlingly new and unlike anything anyone has seen before.
introduced to a sci-fi concept weekly, (the general public will likely not have been reading Amazing Science Fiction Monthly when they were teenagers)
Dr Who actually needs the serial format to work, especially with Moffat at the helm since he sure likes complexity.
Russell T Davis used a coterie of characters to help deal with the limitations of the running length and the need for the viewer to have some coherence.
He also used 2-parters when necessary. As did Moffat for a time, his reasons for stopping seem more like ratings-grabbing BBC reasons to me.