Really feel with this season good as it's been some stories need more content and fleshing out. Characters seem like cardboard cutouts, they need time to breathe. Would less stories, say six double episodes work better?
Same amount of who but cliffhangers and more story content. Surely it would be cheaper with less sets, same cast for the two episodes.
This is not having a go loved the series but the stories could be better and not so rushed. What do others think?

I agree. Maybe not all stories need two episodes, but maybe three two-parters and six single episode stories is a good start.

I still feel even with lots of single episodes, series 8 is an improvement on 7 in terms of pacing and cohesion.

more episodes with slightly less levels of drama per episode but more development would be good as some of the old who could stretch to quite a few episodes to get the story properly told

I think the production team have stated before that two part episodes don't actually save money because these usually use two different sets for each episode and a larger cast etc.

My personal preference would be for 10x 1 hour episodes, it seems to work for Game of Thrones, although I do appreciate that both the running time and number of episodes were specifically chosen to maximise international sales so that's unlikely to happen.

I don't think it's the 44minutes run time that's the problem, there is clearly no desire to do the intimate stories any more.

It's like watching an extended trailer nowadays.

I keep saying it: I think hour long episodes are the way to go.

You don't want to force each story to be an hour and a half; that's too long for most of them, and it would fall into a predictable format for the general audience of part 1 and part 2, with the implication: if you didn't like part 1 this week then you needn't bother watching next week. Doctor Who should be different most weeks. There will always be not so good episodes, no matter what, and it's nice to know that if you didn't care for this week's then next week's will be totally different. Can you imagine the dismay of knowing you were stuck with *insert least favourite writer / least favourite enemy / least favourite setting* for the next two weeks?

Also, I think most writers would struggle to pad 90 minutes just as much as they struggle to rush through everything in 45; certainly that was the case in the classic series; for every great Robert Holmes story there was one written by a writer out of his depth and struggling to fill the time that Holmes could do so wonderfully with his dialogue and character sketches, resorting to boring capture / escape dynamics for the best part of the middle two episodes. The story itself needs to really merit that length.

We also shouldn't assume that lack of characterization is always down to lack of time. I don't believe that the one-dimensional characters in Flatline would have been better over 90 minutes; we just would have had to put up with them for longer. The fact is some writers are good at creating characters and some aren't. Some great writers cannot do it; 'Nightmare in Silver' wasn't an aberration for Neil Gaiman; he does not write believable or interesting characters, and I say that as someone very familiar with his body of work from his early comics to his prose. He is a great writer but that is his weak point.

To be honest, when I look back at the two-parters I have to say that most of them are no better than the single part episodes. Aside from the Steven Moffat ones (and obviously, his stories tend to have been among the most acclaimed, two part or otherwise, so the length in his case doesn't really have any bearing) and the season finales, which are event episodes, how many of them have really stood out? For me personally, only 'Being Human / Family of Blood'. And for sure, that wouldn't have been as good condensed into 45 minutes. But all of the others were pretty average.

They should be open to giving two parts to an episode which really demands it, like 'Family of Blood' did. But 90 minutes as a default hasn't shown to work any better in my estimation and has the problems I outlined in the top paragraph.

For my money, 60 minutes is the near optimal length for most episodes. It just gives that little bit more extra space. I don't believe 45 minutes is chosen for budgetry reasons; it's chosen for practical reasons of selling the show in foreign markets. Doctor Who makes money for the BBC; it doesn't cost them money, so financially I don't see a problem with it. They wouldn't have to reduce the episode count.

If you had said this last year at the end of Series 7 I would have agreed with you to no end. But after Series 8 I really don't see how anyone can still hold that opinion.

What was the end of Deep Breath if not a scene of intimacy? For an episode I didn't particularly like, it had a fantastic conclusion...some real slow-burning character stuff with Clara and her new Doctor, and her old one dropping in for a surprise phonecall.

Scenes like the argument in Kill the Moon, the heart-to-heart on the beach at the end of Mummy on the Orient Express, the confrontation in the volcano in Dark Water? These scenes are all extended character pieces, lasting many minutes at a time. No whizzing about, it's much more grounded. Scenes like these would make very boring trailers! Whilst the trailers that were Series 7 made for very boring episodes (a few good ones crept in).

I can't deny I've a problem with Danny Pink as a character...I feel he's a bit two-dimensional and I'm not invested in him like I feel I'm meant to be. But that problem aside, this series has had a very subtle, nuanced and rather mature intimacy about it. I can't believe Moffat has pulled that off...I didn't think he had it in him. The series isn't perfect, but it doesn't feel like a trailer.


As for how the pacing could be improved I'd likely try to extend average episode length to 50-60 minutes, rather than 45. BBC America would just love that, but I feel it would give breathing space to some of the resolutions. They've found breathing space for the characters, now to work on fitting in the odd extra satisfying action scene or nicely wrapped up conclusion.
As I've said many times before I don't think a regular cycle of all two-part stories is remotely a good idea. By all means have two-parters...the finale especially and maybe one or two more across the series if the story is right (and some could have warranted it) but having only two parters would turn away mainstream viewers in droves. You'd be obligated to ensure you keep up with a story or risk having the second half of every one spoiled. Every story would risk turning people away if they don't like it because they know it'll be more of the same the following week. It would risk shoehorning in cliffhangers where they really weren't needed. The Sarah Jane Adventures suffered from all these problems, managing them only because of the shorter run time, the more basic storytelling, and the target audience not being so varied. Doctor Who would not get away with it so easily.

There have been some "soap" elements somewhat similar to an Episode of Eastenders it's true, but I meant intimate in terms of story.

A good story that you can get into, it's missing. Has been so since series 7 really.


The stories are almost cursory nowadays, there's no relationship with the viewing audience. It's just hollywood trailer-style events happen and people shout at each other.

I don't think that's really true for Series 8 - or at least it's less so than 1-7. It seems to be about on par with other single-shot TV drama stories, albeit more heightened visually.