I may be wrong but wasn't it more like a serial when the episodes were 25 minutes long?

i would like 13 x 45 min eps like now

however this worked with shows like buffy etc as you had an established setting and supporting characters. you need to introduce a new place/set of people each new adventure on dr who so a lot of them feel rushed (yes you, victory of the daleks). even some of the worse eps would benefit from longer running time i think to expand the stoory.

i would like 5 x 2 part adventures then a 3 part finale.

and proper monsters/villains!

surely it would free up more money too if they could use the same sets for 2 episodes?

this would hark back to9 hinchliffe times (in episode length anyway) of 5 x 4 parters and 1 x 6 parter

I agree with that. We do kids no favour by having low expectations about attention spans or anything else.

Define 'serial'? It was still comprised of individual stories which generally stood alone, they were simply all several episodes in length so that , say, a series of 26 episodes would be made up of five four part stories and a six part story. It was more like a continuing serial in the first few years since stories tended to lead into each other, but this was pretty much dropped by about 1966.

Yes, the 25 minute episodes were never complete stories. The idea of single part stories didn't really start until the TV movie in 1996.

Indeed. Also, I think The Key to Time has a definite 'serial' feel to it. I'd say it is the closest to what we get now with an overall story arc connecting individual stories.

In a way, the story arc we get now sort of commits viewers to watching it all, rather than dropping in and out which is something I certainly did during the mid 1980s.

According to an article in Doctor Who Magazine, BARB figures show only a minority of viewers watch every episode of each season. Going back to a serialised nature will put off many viewers. Moffat himself talks about this when he says he was a sometime viewer of the early seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer until it became more serialised and he had to give up on it cos he felt he was missing too much.

Overall I'm very happy with the current story structure.

Firstly, to clarify: 13 x 45 and a Christmas Special around 60.

The Christmas Special won't change as it fits perfectly in the schedule and clearly works as such for its audience irrespective of what we on the forum think of the content.

13 eps cut down to half hour would leave an extra 13 x 15 which would create 6 extra episodes, so essentially 19 half hour eps probably rounded up to 20...6 less than the format dropped into in the late 70s, 80s and to be honest, I can't see how this would fundamentally alter what we have now? SM has introduced rolling cliffhangers, in a lesser or greater way, which has made this series feel far more of a unit (no pun intended) than those that have gone before since 2005 - if you watch TEoT purely clinically, it is broken down into four episodes of four parts with associated cliffhangers, the appearance of Rassillon being the end of the first "episode" etc.

SJA works extremely well on 25 min episodes therefore the argument that children can't cope is spurious - all soaps run to a 25 minute format so the concept that adults can't cope is also spurious.

The question then surely has to be: what would be the positives and the negatives? Personally, I can see no positives but the big negative would be convincing BBC Drama and indeed overseas purchasers that a Drama Series (which is what DW has always been and remains today) can work in a 25 min format (that's minus Opening Titles and End Credits btw) because outside of Soap Opera...eh...continuing Drama, very few Dramas are commissioned in this format - I believe "Outnumbered" began as a 55 minute programme but when someone pointed out it was a sit-com, it's format was changed to 25 minutes because "that's how sit-coms should be"

I like it the way it is now, but I prefer the structure of this series to the past 4. I think if you were to watch all 13 episodes one after the other, they would fit together better than when RTD had it.

Now that I mention it, series 4 had that sort of a feel to it, but less so than 5.

Having rewatched Bad Wolf / The Parting of The Ways recently, I think the attention span argument is bogus. Even within the 45 minute format and in just five years there seems to have been some sort of conscious effort to simplify stories and to reduce the amount of attention required.

I would hate episodes to be shorter! They already end to quickly, and there's nothing worse than getting into something just for it to end (usually ubruptly).
However i wouldn't mind the series spilt up so we got a mini sereis every 6 months. As long as it did work together as one big story arc, not 2 little ones as i dont think there'd be enough time to develop it properly.

The short answer is:

it could be re thought but it won't because the BBC likes the structure as it is.

I love it just the way it is and wouldn't change a thing, unless we ended up with even more story time on screen, not less.

I don't think we get enough, and any less would be an insult to the show's brilliance

I'm sure someone's covered this already, but are you the Ian Levine?

Yes I am THE Ian Levine.

[GROVEL] We're not worthy! We're not worthy! [/GROVEL]

Rightio. Thanks for the rescue of the episodes and all! Legend. (It's possible I'm not the first to say that.)

I remember being so excited about being able to buy The Daleks on VHS back in the [long time ago] and my flatmate and I watched one episode per week at teatime on Saturday. Beans on toast after.

I'm not sure whether a different structure would work or not, but I certainly think the present structure does. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Sounds like a good idea to me.

I struggle with only 45 minutes of doctor who a week as it is! I don't think I could cope if it was only rationed out at 25 minutes a week. The two parters in the current series work out as roughly the same story length as the old four parters anyway. Maybe one or two more two parters a series would be nice, and I've enjoyed the introduction this series of a more classic style cliffhanger at the end of episodes between stories. However, I can't see any real benefit to going back to the old style scheduling, other than to satisfy the nostalgic tendencies of the older fans.

I only wish the posters on Gallifrey Base were as respectful.
And civil.

Sorry to hear that.
BTW I met you once very briefly many years ago at TV Centre when you came in to look at some stuff with Steve Roberts! I was one of his colleagues in telecine, but I'm retired now (thank goodness!)

Perhaps they could change the structure and time but why would they bother?

Just because viewers could potentially follow a change doesn't make it necessary.

If it ain't broke why fix it applies here? The structure of episodes and seasons works well, if anything it leaves viewers wanting more, so extending the series would work, but changing episodes lengths and storyline lengths, just for the sake of change, seems pointless and unnecessarily risky, do we want it pulled from the screen again?

at the end of the day it ain't gonna change cos a 45 min format is what the commercal channels want and they wont buy into a diff format as 45 gives them 15 mins for ads in a 60 min slot standard length is now 22 or 45 mins

I like the series structure as it is now.

I agree that there are 45 minute episodes that are more or less wrapped up with too many minutes to spare, but on the whole; the running length is usually right. Also, there's a fair few times when the story dictates a longer running length - so the 45 min is a better average length to work from.

As for 2x25 mins two parters... I think you need the 45 minutes (be it for a standalone or first parter) to have enough breathing room to establish the guest characters and story each time. And 25 minute single stories would simply be too brief - the Doc and companion would barely have time to take stock.