I think Chibnall was always intended to take over him. Broadchurch got in the way.

I don't think he was pushed at all, he just didn't want to leave the show in the lurch. But don't let that get in the way of being nasty about him as forums tend to do.

Well that applies to pretty much anything you might read on the internet and that's why I didn't repeat the rumour (just pointing people in that direction if they were really interested). The original tweet seems to have mysteriously disappeared from my timeline though. Very odd.

All this thread title can make me think of is Moffat standing on the edge of a cliff while being prodded by a bunch of BBC execs.

Quite the opposite - Abomination's post looks totally right to me. Moffat was keen to leave but because of scheduling problems (mainly with Chibnall's commitment to the third series of Broadchurch) the BBC execs begged him to stay a little longer.

I'd quite like to see these tweets/rumours now so can dissect their content!

BBC Ex: Steven, very pleased with Sherlock. Amazing ratings.
SM: Thanks very much.
Ex: But, er, about Doctor Who. We've done some research, and it appears that you think of yourself as some sort of Showrunner Eternal. Bigger than the Show. Well, I'm sorry but...
SM: Do I?! What sort of research?
Ex: Oh, googled your name. Forums. Twitter. That sort of thing. Anyway, we want to replace you with immediate effect. We like that Chiblan chap who did Broadchurch. Think he'll jump at the chance, so, um, there we go.
SM: Yes, I know Chris. You are aware he's busy in 2016 doing Broadchurch 3? And I have discussed him taking over already?
Ex: Is he? Have you? Oh. Ah. Right. Well, could you just give us another 13 Who episodes, carry on the work with 'Class' and, of course, Sherlock.
SM: That was my intention, yes.
Ex: But then as far as Doctor Who is concerned, you're out!
SM: Well, that told me. You daft Sassenach. Hoots Mon, I don't know. (Leaves room shaking head)

The general gist of the rumour I read is now in a different thread on this forum. It's the one about replacing Capaldi with a younger actor. The rest of the rumour was money related, i.e. BBC budget cuts.

There are good odds that the BBC had already anticipated no Doctor Who being on in 2016 as a result of all of this, and has already spent the drama budget elsewhere for the year - be that spread across existing content, or whether they'll put it towards commissioning new stuff.

Moffat's comments about trying to get 'more than usual' episodes came alongside the news he'd signed to do Series 10, which in turn came some time after the announcement for new spin-off Class. I'd guess with that in mind that the BBC long knew what dramas they'd be doing in 2016, the only question remaining for them was whether Moffat would be around to do Who for 2017 to plug the gap until Chibnall's 2018 debut. By the time Moffat could request doing more episodes, the drama budget would have been spent for 2016 and they don't have the excess for more than usual episodes in 2017 either.

Again, all speculation on my part but based loosely on the idea that the BBC is not going to have wanted to have a year without the show on air. Its absence is most logically down to budget constraints and contractual limitations.

Also keeping in mind that the new financial year doesn't start until April, so the budget for Series 10 may well come from 2016 still...given that it has to be physically produced in 2016 as well.

Intresting enough the "Rumored" research said that part of he ratings drop was due to the unusual Scheduling of DW (like PC and Moffat claimed)

Not all exclusivley due to PC like some here claim.

The Radio Times carried a piece from a senior BBC exec stating that there would be no regular Doctor Who series on 2016 due to the European Championships soccer and the Olympics. The Beeb has already tested the water with changing the time Doctor Who is shown.

The piece went onto explain that there would be a Doctor Who Christmas special in 2016, followed by season 10 in 2017 of 12 episodes and the 2017 Christmas Special. Chibnall would then take over. I have no idea, if that plan is likely to change

There's no question that Moffat left on his own terms. @Tom Tit is correct that the BBC wanted to have more Doctor Who episodes and asked Moffat to do them. Moffat said he couldn't due to Sherlock. I think the BBC is angling to have Doctor Who shown on one of the major US networks and have a co-production agreement and needs more episodes to make a deal. I think that's what the BBC hoped would happen after Miracle Day for Torchwood.

I had the sense in season 9 that Moffat, Capaldi and Coleman all intended to leave the show in the Christmas special in a blaze of glory. That's all suspended, just like Clara Oswald is dead but isn't. Chibnall wasn't available due to more seasons of Broadchurch and wouldn't commit to Doctor Who. Now Chibnall is on board.

Absolutely fantastic post and it manages to do justice to Moff and the Beeb in one fell stroke.

Moffat absolutely left on his own terms but I disagree that the BBC wanted more Doctor Who, the show is very expensive to make and I doubt the Beeb could realistically afford more episodes per year. This year gap is, I suspect, due to scheduling clashes but also money. The BBC is being stretched thin by this current government and a gap year makes sense for them financially. Someone will no doubt mention the show makes more than it costs, it likely does but that money, at least part of it, ends up at BBC Worldwide and other parts of the Beeb rather than directly back into the production arm of the corporation.

To be honest. That's why I named the thread as I did
no doubt about it the BBC is in very unsettled waters at the moment.
having lost the Cash Cow of Top Gear and the Rebooted version looking already in trouble before it Airs. That leaves Dr Who which we know rakes in a tonne of money.

One thing is certain if more went on its going to come out at some point, The Daily Mirror will see to that

Edit. They must have heard me... lol


http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/p...or-who-7245477

It's happened before, when they sacked Hinchcliffe in the '70s and forced a change in tone.
deja vu?

You can disagree all you want, it is a matter of record that the BBC asked both Moffat and Capaldi if they'd do more episodes. Both demurred, though Capaldi backtracked and said he'd be happy to do however many episodes the BBC asked him to do.

BBC Worldwide is a part of the BBC, but you're correct @Rooks to doubt that more would be directed to the production of Doctor Who, despite the fact that the BBC has made more money of it than from any other show. Season 10 is the same length as the other seasons. I'd take that to mean Capaldi will still be the Doctor.

@oathy I really doubt you'd push someone out of a show and then invite them back to showrun a full season and two Christmas specials. I believe the BBC does want to break into the major US networks, which means giving BBC America time to replace its slot for new Doctor Who - and it has to do that with no regular series planned for 2016. 2 Christmas specials and 12 regular episodes provides the BBC with 16 hours (plus ads) to sell to a US network. Networks prefer 22 episodes, which breaks down to an additional 3 90 mins (without ads) specials that the BBC would need to fund this year.. The new regular companion would have to be an established IS actress or someone already known to US audiences to bring in viewers. It's a tough enough sell to get a network to take Doctor Who, but it's even harder when there's already a change in showrunner announced.

Piecing together actual quotes and applying logic in a post to present a realistic (and likely quite accurate) narrative. I don't know what this forum is coming to - how did this slip by the moderators?!?

Excellent work Abomination!

Thanks very much

I should solve crimes!

There's no way the Cardiff team could produce more than 13/14 episodes a year anyway, seeing that it takes them the best part of 9/10 months to do anyway, and you do need off time as well!

Each season of GoT is 10 episodes, so it's not as if other shows manage to churn out 20 episodes a year

Just how long do you think the production of each episodes takes? Of course it is possible.


Shows on the major networks do generally produce 20+ episodes. 10 is about standard for cable channels.

Networks in the US are able to do that by throwing massive budgets at episodes and paying large and/or multiple crews copious amounts of overtime to get those episodes out. The BBC can't do that and UK TV production doesn't work that way anyway as a general rule. Plus, a lot of network shows have mostly standing sets or a few main sets and not huge amounts of effects and so on which take weeks of post-production on DW.

Just going to echo what others have said: fantastic post Abomination. Or should I say another fantastic post. Keep them coming, you might actually give fans a good name!

Either way, I hope he returns on an episode-writer basis. His arc-plotting and big reveals may have been dwindling, but he still elevates the show intellectually like no other writer, as long as he hasn't written himself into a corner in a previous episode (which he often does as showrunner).

There are so many factors which would suggest that it isn't possible - or at least it wouldn't be possible without significant changes to the structure of the show that would betray what it is.

First and foremost Doctor Who depends typically on dual-leads. It typically never has more than two main characters at any one time, and so it is pivotal that those two characters appear throughout the overwhelming majority of episodes...and more intensively in that in nearly every scene of those episodes. Compare that to any US-show that has 20+ episodes a year and they more often have ensemble casts. Some lead characters can fall into the background for weeks or even whole seasons at a time. You can have characters not show up for multiple weeks and that be normal, whilst in the world of Doctor Who an episode like Blink where the leads barely appear is considered a relative novelty across a decade. The structure of the cast of the show is demanding of the actors... you get as much Peter Capaldi screentime in 12 episodes of Doctor Who a year as you probably used to get Sarah Michelle Gellar screentime in 22 episodes of Buffy a year.

Another thing to consider is location filming. Again these big 20+ episode American seasons will usually be grounded to central locations that can be used to film a huge bulk of footage all in one. You even end up with "bottle" episodes in which to save on budget these shows can depend on a skeleton crew, a skeleton cast and their regular set to keep things busy for the duration. Friends had an episode set entirely within the iconic apartment, Buffy the Vampire Slayer had its Magic Shop, The X Files had its FBI building. Places or sets that ground these shows, and in any number of episodes may be used to carry huge amounts of time. By comparison Doctor Who only has the Tardis control room - which is used considerably fleetingly throughout. An episode set largely in the Tardis is near on unprecedented, with the one example in the last decade also being considered a 'novelty' rather than 'normality' - and even then required the construction of more sets! In addition, Doctor Who has the added hardship of being set anywhere in time and space...sourcing locations for a show that can range from Victorian London and rural USA, to crashing spaceships and steampunk planets with flying fish is no easy or cheap task. Doctor Who does that week on week (even with the two-part structure, especially with Series 9, it never sat still in one place for too long). To further complicate matters, is the issue of acquiring access to filming locations. Whilst a US show like The X Files could quite easily film a dramatic looking scene on a wide open Californian or Canadian landscape with minimal disruption, the UK is far more crowded and condensed. Location filming is typically more expensive, has to work around public access to many locations and is dependent on far less reliable weather for filming as well.

All of these issues, as well as a different structure to writing British shows, and typically a smaller budget to work from as well. A long post this may be, but it's still only the basics of why proposing more episodes than we currently get isn't too realistic an option.

It is all different circumstances, they would have to completely restructure there filming process to get 20+ episodes of an individual series. Budget plays a factor, contracts, time and hundred other things.

American shows that do 20+ also have longer time to film, and some may film for 16 hrs a day, i know Buffy took very long to film. And they use the same setting for a large part as well. Not as easy as you think it is.

I agree with your post, except that statement isn't correct. She got a lot of screentime.

It's not a dispute of if she got a lot of screentime, that much isn't in question. But consider with such a rich tapestry of an ensemble cast - which Buffy was kind of famous for - how many scenes actually didn't include her in any given episode. It's the illusion American shows are all very good at. In one scene we'd be with say, Willow and Tara, then we've got a bit with Spike, chuck in a scene with the monster-of-the-week, then we're back to Buffy and Giles... but then we'll cycle through and when you finish your episode you actually have significantly less time with your lead protagonist than you would ever have anticipated. There'll be plenty of episodes where many of these cast members never appear at all - only two characters appeared in every single episode of Buffy, again as examples go.

Compare that then to Doctor Who, which has a main cast typically of just two actors. The Doctor and the companion are the guest stars in the story of wherever they land... be that seeing Charles Dickens in Cardiff, the Time Lords on Gallifrey or Elizabeth X on a space whale. We see all of this just through their eyes... the majority of the scenes in nearly every episode will feature both characters. And it's a typically minimal number than include neither of them at all. The show seldom cycles through many other characters, barring those monster-of-the-week establishing shots. It's surprising how many more minutes of screentime will add up and for the sake of the argument as to whether or not doing more is realistically possible it begins to seem unlikely that it is a feasible option.

A rare example of a US show that depended upon a duo-cast format but featured a high episode count was, again, The X Files. However the show is now notoriously recognised for the intensity of the workload that that filming involved (keeping in mind again that much could be shot on bulk on the same sets, unlike Doctor Who) and a huge part of the process in agreeing to the current revival of the show was establishing how many episodes they could realistically do. David Duchnovny is a few years younger than Peter Capaldi and fairly insisted he was simply too old to ever do another 20 part season of the show again. They've ultimately settled on doing 6. But that's six episodes where he and Gillian Anderson, like Capaldi and Jenna Coleman will have been in the vast majority of scenes. Unlike most ensemble cast shows you can pick out where there is a very convincing illusion - an illusion that doesn't refute the fact that the main cast still get some hefty screentime, but still hides the fact that a 20-episode commitment in an ensemble cast won't equate to much more or indeed possibly any additional filming compared to a 12-episode solo/duo commitment.