there is a reason why the Murdoch empire had an almost pathological obsession with getting the tories elected: and that is because Murdoch wants to see the BBC dismantled so that he can totally take over the news media. The good thing about the Tories having failed to get an overall majority is that they are unlikely to be able to push through contentious legislation at this time, but Murdoch is nothing if not patient.

Still any doctor who fan that voted Tory at the election may have weakened the future of the show nonetheless. Congrats on that.

I doubt it. But believe it or not, I think that getting the country out of the mess 13 years of Labour mismanagement has left it in is a higher priority than Doctor Who, anyway.

well see given this is the DW forum it's kind of more relevant to discuss the impact the election could have on the show unlike totally unrelated electoral issues.

And I notice you totally sidestepped the Murdoch question, btw. Are you even aware of his plans around controlling news media? If not you really need to get up to speed.

eta: and now the thread has been moved out of the Doctor Who forum, which will no doubt confuse people!

The cost of making decent programming goes up on a regular basis I'm surprised the BBC can do such a good job on what little they get (and for running a decent television station these days what they get is very little).

BBC Spends Money To Make TV Programme Shock.

will this madness ever end?

Iain

Firstly, it's a lot of fuss over nothing. Venice isn't that far from Croatia. When I stayed in Croatia, I went to Venice. It was a day trip by coach so hardly a huge expense.

Secondly, how many documentaries do we see with a fraction of the viewing figures of Doctor Who that fly the presenters all over the world during the filming of the series, often for just a couple of minutes of footage. These don't get accusations of waste of taxpayers money.

I should imagine Doctor Who (and any behind-the-scenes stuff) pays for itself many times over.

very true, however I dont know of anywhere in the world that airs Confidential in full, but the £ per viewer ratio must be quite low, of course that is partly down to Doctor Who itself.

They did a similar thing for The Fires of Pompeii, but that did film in Rome, so that maybe less of an issue for people concerned about waste of licence fee money.

I have yet to see this episode, so I cant comment fully, but is it really anymore wasteful than the writer of Victory of the Daleks, touring the real underground bunker?

They underspent their budget on their election yacht? They got a good price on a Joan Collins/Brucie expose?

Anyhow.. "the representative said. "Unlike a drama, an historical film about Venice can't be recreated in Croatia.""

Or it could be easier to recreate an historical Venice in Croatia, like wot they did. Showing a modern Venice is obviously easier in, well Venice. Shooting historical Venice in Croatia's just cheaper.

But it shows a distinct lack of imagination from the BBC. Dr Who's part funded by BBCW, so they need channelfilla like Dr Who Confidential to pad out DVD's, but then so does BBC3.

What they could have done is crossed Top Gear with Dr Who and had 'star in a reasonably priced TARDIS', or 'timelord in a reasonably priced car'. They may need to do some handicapping given the TARDIS can arrive before it left and do 0-60 in -4s.

the DVDs only have Confidential Cut Down, not the full Confidential.

Again this week Confidential started to look at the history of Venice and the plague, even if they didnt go into great detail, (like they did Churchill's War Room) BBC 4 should really pick up the slack on this.

The reach and viewing figures diagree with you

Oh, and more rubbish from Mr JE I notice. I can't be bothered quoting it to point out the floors anymore

Watch the programmes JE, PLEASE!

My two daughters found it very educational.

A lovely blend of using the DR WHO blend to educate the kids.

Surely even YOU can't object to that??!!

How pathetic.

It's all about perception. What is perceived to be "waste".

Had the BBC used CGI to make Matt Smith look like he was in Venice there would have been no outcry. Even though that CGI might easily cost more than a couple of return flights to Venice.

But it's the thought that Matt Smith might have "had a free holiday" paid for by the BBC that makes some people shout "Waste!"

Like people talking about "fancy BBC champagne parties paid for by the licence payer" but when if you read RTDs book he tells how he hated those "parties" because it was all work talking to journalist after journalist all night, having one drink the whole evening and not getting the chance to even say hello to co workers at the same do.

But of course the Daily Mail and the Sun don't admit that it's work, they just moan about "Champagne parties"

To be fair, sending the star of a show shot in Croatia to Venice for a few minutes of a spin-off show on a digital channel for a hundred thousand viewers, is a massive waste of money.

DW Confidential would most likely cost anywhere between £40k to £150k per episode. Probably at the lower end since it uses locations and sets from DW itself.

So even if it was the rock bottom £40k per episode the cost of two flights to Venice, even if we assume the BBC paid for the best seats on BA (and don't get a discount rate) would be £1500.

That's less than 4% of the episode budget.

That's a "massive waste"?

As I said in a previous post, had the BBC done this with CGI you wouldn't have cared. Even if it cost way more than £1500.

£1500 is a massive waste yes.

considering the BBC flow more than just Matt Smith over to Vience, they also flow at least one camera crew, the shows producer, and probaly had to pay the guy they interviewed, and the writer of the episode.

Really this is the equal of when they sent Matt Gattis to the War Room under London, so we could all get a history lesson, only due to the location of the episode, it obviously inculded extra travel.

I think DW Confidential is an example of a show that is really cheap to film, but the general public are ignorant of how much a cheap show costs to make.

It cant get much cheaper than Confidential.

Only because you think Matt Smith got a free jolly out of it.

Had they used CGI you would never have cared, even if it had cost more.

And I hate to break this to you, but TV shows cost money. The BBC have to spend money to make shows. I hate Eastenders, but lots of people love it so I never begrudge some of my licence fee going to pay for it. Same with many shows.

DWC is enjoyed my many people. The BBC spend money to make it. Get over it.

I have no insider information of DW but it's very likely they would have sent a crew to Venice to take shots of Venice to edit into the show to make it look like it was shot there, so that crew could already have been there.

And it's standard for actors contracts to include an obligation to do press and publicity, so I doubt they would have had to pay Matt Smith to do it. Pay expenses and food quite likely.

And people would probably have complained about the quality of the CGI

I'm actually a little surprised about the fuss with this, as you say the cost of doing it CGI would probably have been more (and had a worse look imo), and the chances are they did something else at the same time rather than it being a special trip just for confidential.
Depending on when they shot the actual Confidential episode I can quite see them using the opportunity to get shots of the city (or specific areas) for reference when doing the sets,.
I know of Japanese Anime* where they've done just that, used a trip abroad to get reference shots for the series from multiple angles, and taken a member of the cast along to do work for the making of/educational shorts at the same time.


*And the budget on most of those makes DR Who look like a Will Smith film

You know this could be flipped to the other side of the coin. As in looking into Sky's way of making programmes and how much they're wasting money per programme so that we can see just how much is being spent and all.

Maybe that could get subscription costs for viewers who have Sky to go down. Also how much actually makes it back to News Corp in the US, does Sky pay all taxes on their profits or does any actually go to a tax haven, etc.

But to get back to the point, I pay my TVL and all and if it ended up cheaper to fly out the cast and crew to the actual location than it would've cost to make a HD CGI, then you send out cast and crew to the location and film it as soon as you can and get back to do indoor shoots.

I don't see a problem with that, but there is with the sun but they're under orders from him over the sea who really does. Don't think he be happy until he's got rid of BBC, Virgin, Trinity and any other newspaper publishers out here.

To be honest I'm more concerned that a lot of MP's have been forgiven over the expense scandal and been voted back in again on all sides. But then I'm pondering just what is left for Tories to sell off this time around as well. Maybe the NHS... Oh and privatise schools... Could make money there. XD

isnt funded by me and i have a television and no i dont have license because i never watch live broadcasting.
iplayer - yes
and all the other on demand services all played on my 42" plasma by connectiing my laptop to tv.
i also play xbox 360 through it and i am not breaking the law at all.
had two tv license people around and no matter how they tried they were forced to accept that i am not breaking any laws.

I suppose the Doctor Who bashers would sooner the whole show was filmed in a quarry pretending to be Mars and most of it filmed in a cramped studio at TVC. Unfortunately viewers would see through that now and the show would bomb as people now expect the best locations and sets for Doctor Who now.
Regardless of what the critics say, this is the most popular non soap drama on the television and earns the BBC millions in exports and DVD sales. I think Big Brother is more of a waste of money as Channel 4 spend £ 60 million a year on an unrepeatable, unexportable show that could never be made into a DVD.

Interestingly enough, Big Brother UK *has* been repeated in some overseas markets, such as Finland, before they had their own series. But to say, yes, it wouldn't have represented huge revenues.