|
||||||||
PC Complains about the shows handling by beeb |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,344
|
Quote:
Oh dear, your loathing of Moffat seems to have blinded you to the current situation...
Moffat didn't expect to return for series 10. He's said that he thought that the Christmas episode just aired would probably be his last, hence why he brought River back to conclude her arc. I suspect also that the fairy tale ending with them "all living happily ever after" was meant to close the chapter on his fairy tale take on Doctor Who. The BBC wanted Chibnall to take over, but Chibnall was too busy with Broadchurch and so he wasn't available until 2018. In the meantime Moffat signed up for another series of Sherlock but he agreed to continue with Doctor Who so that it wasn't left in the lurch. All this shuffling around and negotiating incurred a delay of approx. three months of filming, which would mean that Doctor Who will miss it's now usual autumn start date, but the show will actually be ready for broadcast from the beginning of 2017. The BBC are holding back until the Spring so that they can put it back in that less competitive slot and so that it can be shown earlier in the evenings as it won't have to fit around Strictly. But as much as it probably turns your stomach to admit it, without Moffat agreeing to come back for series 10 the gap year which we are currently facing would probably be much larger. I dont want who at xmas I want a full series this year. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,405
|
Quote:
If Moff signed up for Sherlock he shouldnt have agreed to do Who at same time.
I dont want who at xmas I want a full series this year. |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,601
|
Quote:
If Moff signed up for Sherlock he shouldnt have agreed to do Who at same time.
I dont want who at xmas I want a full series this year. So what you actually want is no DW till 2018? Which would have been the case if Moffat hadn't signed up to do Series 10. |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 8,404
|
I'm afraid I don't believe a word of it. From my perspective, all the changes in the show's scheduling during the past six years - the mid-season gaps, autumn move and axed 2013 season - have been about accommodating Steven Moffat and a lack of production control within the senior Doctor Who team.
The BBC doesn't save money by axing a whole season of Doctor Who. It loses money. I will say the axed 2016 season isn't Moffat's fault - he clearly wanted to have left by now and has simply stayed on for a couple of extra years to ensure the show continues. But there does seem to be a somewhat determined effort to build a version of events recently which just isn't true. Dan Martin's articles in the Guardian are a good example, promoting such nonsense as "Moffat’s tenure saw the show explode globally" and "Capaldi is referring to the depleted overnight ratings of the 2015 series. It’s worth noting that the show almost made up its numbers after timeshift figures". I really wish he would do some research before committing this stuff to print. But it does tally with Capaldi's recent comments too. It just feels like there is some serious face-saving PR being spun generally in an attempt to create a positive exit-narrative for both Capaldi and Moffat which I just don't personally believe. I am HONESTLY not trying to start a row and am not saying anything you haven't all heard me bleat on about a thousand time before. But I did want the chance to say it and so thank you for that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London or Valencia
Posts: 5,732
|
Quote:
If Moff signed up for Sherlock he shouldnt have agreed to do Who at same time.
I dont want who at xmas I want a full series this year. Quote:
I'm afraid I don't believe a word of it. From my perspective, all the changes in the show's scheduling during the past six years - the mid-season gaps, autumn move and axed 2013 season - have been about accommodating Steven Moffat and a lack of production control within the senior Doctor Who team.
The BBC doesn't save money by axing a whole season of Doctor Who. It loses money. The split to Series 7 seems far more likely an issue involving the BBC than just Moffat himself - he's not entirely blameless, and I personally hold him responsible for a series I cared very little for by Who standards. But with so much money invested in 7B (new title sequence, new Tardis set, new Doctor outfit, new companion) it seems to me that it was very much about budgets. It stands to reason that the 50th anniversary interfered in many ways. In a time of cuts to the BBC as a whole, it is entirely likely that no additional budget was allocated to the 50th - it had to come from inside the budget for a regular series. Moffat, with his obligations to Sherlock as well, would not have been capable of delivering a full seventh series in 2012, and an abbreviated eighth series in 2013 which allocated money for a 50th event as well. As such the decision was made to split Series 7 over both years, eventhough both ended up just feeling like abbreviated series that were stitched together. This meant the BBC would spend less in 2012, and then 2013 would offer up the regular budget for a full series where only ten episodes would go out - the additional money being pumped into the 50th anniversary. It is of course impossible to know what happened for certain, and I am not always one to jump to Moffat's defence either. Quite likely his involvement in Sherlock has gotten in the way at some points, but that is more likely in terms of exhaustion that led to major production issues in Series 6 rather than issues regarding budget and the 50th which are intrinsically tied in with Series 7. |
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 8,404
|
Quote:
It stands to reason that the 50th anniversary interfered in many ways. In a time of cuts to the BBC as a whole, it is entirely likely that no additional budget was allocated to the 50th - it had to come from inside the budget for a regular series. Moffat, with his obligations to Sherlock as well, would not have been capable of delivering a full seventh series in 2012, and an abbreviated eighth series in 2013 which allocated money for a 50th event as well. As such the decision was made to split Series 7 over both years, eventhough both ended up just feeling like abbreviated series that were stitched together. This meant the BBC would spend less in 2012, and then 2013 would offer up the regular budget for a full series where only ten episodes would go out - the additional money being pumped into the 50th anniversary.
And the 50th anniversary special really wouldn't have cost the equivalent of a full season, even when including Tennant, Piper and Hurt. Private Eye called it and sadly got it right. There was production chaos behind the scenes and as a result we lost an entire season of episodes in 2013 - the 50th anniversary year! |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 554
|
In retrospect, making Day of the Doctor in 3D was a mistake, as it cost a lot of money and made filming much slower. At the time 3D seemed to be the way to go, but as with previous 3D fashions, it's gone away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,344
|
Quote:
BiB
So what you actually want is no DW till 2018? Which would have been the case if Moffat hadn't signed up to do Series 10. |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 4,110
|
Quote:
Chris could have signed up earlier.
I'm glad we got Broadchurch, as I couldn't imagine not having it, now that I've seen every episode so far, and have read the book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,505
|
Quote:
In retrospect, making Day of the Doctor in 3D was a mistake, as it cost a lot of money and made filming much slower. At the time 3D seemed to be the way to go, but as with previous 3D fashions, it's gone away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,344
|
Quote:
Then we wouldn't have got Broadchurch. Chris would have been too busy with DW to bother with it.
I'm glad we got Broadchurch, as I couldn't imagine not having it, now that I've seen every episode so far, and have read the book. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Wilderness
Posts: 13,088
|
Quote:
Broadchurch was a new thing though around 2013.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 8,404
|
Quote:
Chibnall would have had to start work on Series 10 the day after ITV announced a third series. Care about Broadchurch or not, it exists and it has a part to play.
I hope I don't get shot down for this but, as excited as I am about Chris taking over, I am really pleased he's going to give us Broadchurch S3 first. If nothing else, I hope it clears his schedule so he can commit to Doctor Who 100%. |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 695
|
Quote:
I love Broadchurch - real event telly. I hope he manages to inject some of that back into Doctor Who. And so many Who actors are in it too.
I hope I don't get shot down for this but, as excited as I am about Chris taking over, I am really pleased he's going to give us Broadchurch S3 first. If nothing else, I hope it clears his schedule so he can commit to Doctor Who 100%. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Wilderness
Posts: 13,088
|
...and if he's really any good, he'll be able to do it with the same lead actor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,344
|
Quote:
I love Broadchurch - real event telly. I hope he manages to inject some of that back into Doctor Who. And so many Who actors are in it too.
I hope I don't get shot down for this but, as excited as I am about Chris taking over, I am really pleased he's going to give us Broadchurch S3 first. If nothing else, I hope it clears his schedule so he can commit to Doctor Who 100%. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
|
Quote:
I was suprised its part of a trilogy so guessing after series 3 is made that ll be it for the series?
When at the end of series 2, they announced there was going to be a series 3, I was a bit like why? series 1 was the murder mystery, and series 2 was the trial. Don't really see why a third series is needed personally. Would much rather have had him writing series 10 of who. |
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
Quote:
To be Honest, to me it felt like it was supposed to be a one off series that only got series 2 because of it's immense popularity.
When at the end of series 2, they announced there was going to be a series 3, I was a bit like why? series 1 was the murder mystery, and series 2 was the trial. Don't really see why a third series is needed personally. Would much rather have had him writing series 10 of who. And as for a third (!) series, I've no idea where that will go. Bur it'd have to be better than series 2 to interest me. Was CC signed up for 3 series of Broadchurch? Or just to write three series? BIB: Oh, and I rather see a few episodes of both series 10 and 11 before making a judgement. |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
|
Quote:
I liked Series 1 of Broadchurch, but I didn't enjoy series 2. It seemed like they'd stretched an already thin concept beyond breaking point into an unlikely second series.
And as for a third (!) series, I've no idea where that will go. Bur it'd have to be better than series 2 to interest me. Was CC signed up for 3 series of Broadchurch? Or just to write three series? BIB: Oh, and I rather see a few episodes of both series 10 and 11 before making a judgement. Also, when you say you'd rather see a few episodes of series 10 and 11 to decide, I personally think that we've seen what Moffat can do in five series already so I stand by my comments that i'd rather that Chibnall had done series 10 rather than a third broadchurch, as even though I can't say for sure he'll be good at the moment, his first series will at least be something new and unpredictable, and I have a feeling that I will prefer his style to Moffats. Any new showrunner would only have to create arcs that aren't confused jumbled messes for me to prefer them to Moffat's style of a series. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,344
|
Broadchurch's popularity I think was taken by suprise, but heard alot of people didnt like series 2 and series 1 was the better series.
I did see Tennant on Fox where they showed a clip of Gracepoint and kinda wished David hadent done a american voice. |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,034
|
The "couldn't find another showrunner" thing is another one of those claims that we're just supposed to take at face value. A corporation which produces hundreds of hours of high quality drama ever year couldn't find any suitable candidates in the entire industry? There was literally just the one guy who's busy until 2017?
What a load of old monkey spunk! Doctor Who may be a prestigious series, but it's not so incredibly unique that it needs regular breaks to keep the current showrunner on-board. |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,405
|
Quote:
The "couldn't find another showrunner" thing is another one of those claims that we're just supposed to take at face value. A corporation which produces hundreds of hours of high quality drama ever year couldn't find any suitable candidates in the entire industry? There was literally just the one guy who's busy until 2017?
What a load of old monkey spunk! Doctor Who may be a prestigious series, but it's not so incredibly unique that it needs regular breaks to keep the current showrunner on-board. Also, please do correct me if I'm wrong, (because I probably am), but isn't the Showrunner role more of an American way of making TV? I don't think many other shows in the UK have show runners do they? So that rather limits their options for starters... |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,505
|
Quote:
The "couldn't find another showrunner" thing is another one of those claims that we're just supposed to take at face value. A corporation which produces hundreds of hours of high quality drama ever year couldn't find any suitable candidates in the entire industry? There was literally just the one guy who's busy until 2017?
What a load of old monkey spunk! Doctor Who may be a prestigious series, but it's not so incredibly unique that it needs regular breaks to keep the current showrunner on-board. I suppose the BBC could kidnap a handful of TV personel and threaten their families, unless they agree to co-operate and run Doctor Who for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
It is a relatively small pool of talent in the UK and it's hard for new and unknown writers and producers to get their first "break". The pool is small enough that everyone who is involved in commissioning material is familiar with the work of those in the pool, their availability, their skills and their costs.
The BBC must make a decision which minimises the risk to their multi-million pound investment in the show and to their brand's reputation. They would not risk a property like Doctor Who on an untried, untested newbie so they are restricted to the existing pool of talent. |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,034
|
Quote:
There was apparently just one candidate that the BBC wanted. I dare say there would be other candidates that the BBC would deem not fit for the job for whatever reason.
Also, please do correct me if I'm wrong, (because I probably am), but isn't the Showrunner role more of an American way of making TV? I don't think many other shows in the UK have show runners do they? So that rather limits their options for starters... |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:02.




