|
||||||||
Is Doctor Who Losing People's Interest? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#201 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scattered
Posts: 7,448
|
I like most of the Christmas and this one could pleasantly surprise us on Sunday but whether or not, it'll go down as a classic, who can tell right now.
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#202 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,076
|
The thing is why is so difficult, its 12 to 13 episodes... and yes they don't have so many standing sets which made it easier for shows in America to produce the volume that they did (22-24 eps a season) but its still not that huge a task... Its not like they are producing big budget episodes with huge scope like Game of Thrones or Westworld where the episodes cost a lot more and more time needs to go into them.. DW are doing episodes at about a million each, most filmed in the UK (with some abroad filming now and again, nothing sizeable though)...
If they can't produce 12 or 13 episodes a year then there's something wrong with how they are producing the show... other series that are on a bigger scale with much harder episodes to make are putting out regular series a year, there's no excuse for DW not to be putting out a series a year, other than the person at the top who the BBC strangely puts all their eggs into... If its to much for Moffat then have someone else work with him, or a team of other people, why rely on one person whose inability to do the job properly has damaged the shows well being (which the gaps have no doubt done) Once it was known during series 6 that Moffat was struggling the BBC should of stepped in and taken action. It surprising and bad judgement/decision making that they didn't, where is the business sense, whey aren't they trying to protect what was their biggest brand at that point, not so much anymore because they neglected it and just went by what Moffat could do rather than stepping in and taking action to ensure the show went on fully... RTD did four series and that was it for him he couldn't do more, so the BBC give a special year to end things and then replaced him... hoping to start another chunk of consistent years with someone else. There was no reason why that model couldn't of worked, there's nothing oh so special about RTD and his team that only they could pull off making DW every year, that's a very naïve and silly way to look at it, the reason why DW hasn't been able to make a consistent show after RTD and Moffats first year is because of the person (moffat) and team they chose to replace RTD... Quite simply Moffat can't pull of the job, even his first series there were problems and he had an extra year to write/think about/produce that, as soon as he had to get into doing the show on a yearly basis with series 6 he fell to pieces and the show had to go on a gap to split the series to give him more time, and it just got worse from there with the next series... At that point in series 6 when they had to stop production where were the BBC, I find their actions in handling this situation so poor and lacking, they should of recognised the problem and how damaging it will be, they got a guy in charge of their flagship show who can't do the job properly, step in and do something about it, add an extra showrunner or just flat out replace him... But no, because his name was a 'thing' because Sherlock did well and series 5 did good with some new buzz in America they just let it be, that is bad business thinking.. going by a guys reputation as a hip name in the current climate so keeping him about but knowing full well that there are big problems with him that's going to effect one of your big shows future... and look where it gone them, no episodes this year just the Xmas ep... they went for some in the now Kudos of having Moffat who was a name at the time, and sacrificed long term vitality... plain bad judgement. |
|
|
|
|
|
#203 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
I never understood with Doctor Who why they believe it's a good idea to give the show a rest every so often. I believe that this was originally Russell T Davies' idea and they've taken it as gospel.
Many shows just crack on with it and are hugely successful every series. It's a bit like Ricky Gervais and his misguided belief of the two series rule just because Fawlty Towers only lasted two series. Lots of series are great for many series. Because in my opinion it's all this splitting the series up into two parts a year, sometimes a special, sometimes half a series, which has made it almost impossible for me to follow the show, as what has happened previously is no longer in my consciousness. I just can't keep track of what is going on with the narrative. The year gap between each new series is the only break you need. That's the break in itself. Otherwise there is the real danger of turning it into the Casualty or Last of the Summer Wine senerio of just being flogged to death like a soap opera to the point that nobody really cares about the show anymore. Some programmes have benefitted by long breaks.The occasional one-off specials of Jonathan Creek for example are much more superior IMO than when it was a series. |
|
|
|
|
|
#204 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,464
|
Quote:
Much as I hate the time between series,I personally don't think there is any harm in resting any programme as long as they use the time to write some stronger storylines then they would have been able to.
Otherwise there is the real danger of turning it into the Casualty or Last of the Summer Wine senerio of just being flogged to death like a soap opera to the point that nobody really cares about the show anymore. Some programmes have benefitted by long breaks.The occasional one-off specials of Jonathan Creek for example are much more superior IMO than when it was a series. |
|
|
|
|
|
#205 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
So perhaps that's the answer, forget about a full series and just do say, four or six "specials" a year.
A 90 minute special each Christmas and Bank Holiday weekend.Maybe one around Halloween/Bonfire night?A regular quality dose throughout the year? Short enough time to keep an arc going and people's interest.Long enough not to feel like overkill then nothing for 12 months.No more peaks and troughs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#206 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 2,194
|
I've been rapidly losing interest since Series 7. Still haven't fully caught up with the last series. I like Capaldi as the Doctor, but he's being saddled with abysmal writing. To me, the show now feels rather soulless, trying to be cleverer than in fact it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#207 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,309
|
Quote:
So perhaps that's the answer, forget about a full series and just do say, four or six "specials" a year.
They're showing a full series next year and the year after, and as far as we know it is their intent to do a full series the year after that. To reduce things down to just having the 2009 "gap year" over and over again just because 2016 was a problem seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think they should just carry on doing what they're doing - aim to do a full series each year, but if insurmountable problems arise then do whatever has to be done instead. This business about gaps etc is basically because Moffat managed 5 full series, 2 shortened runs plus one Xmas only year. 5 full runs vs 3 deviations. RTD managed 4 full runs vs 1 deviation. Just doing a few specials each year would have deprived us of the 5 full runs, and don't forget that 2013 had 7 episodes which is a mini-series, but it was still more output than a couple of "specials" would have given us (and 2013 also had the 50th anway). I don't see the benefit. |
|
|
|
|
|
#208 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 413
|
To me, shorter runs for a series would be more beneficial.
Personally speaking, I struggle with series of anything more than six episodes a series. Eight I just about manage with but any more and then I struggle to maintain my interest. Now, whether that's just me is one thing but who knows whether it could be the case for other viewers. 12 episode is a committment to make in watching. So cutting down to six a year to me, spread out across the year (in a specials like style), or in just one block would work far better. It could easily mean six, one hour episodes which can then tell a story (with a bit of an arc) and then allow the show to breath and have fun across the year. It will allow the show reinvent itself as a show that comes for special occasions rather than being on just because (which it kind of feels like the last couple of years). Just making the show more special would be the main benefit of this. I wouldn't see it as depriving viewers. No show has the divine right to be on every year without fail. Shows change and to me, Doctor Who needs that. |
|
|
|
|
#209 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,829
|
I think it says a lot that Chris Chibnall wrote some of my least favourite episodes of Doctor Who, yet I'm so desperate for someone new to take charge and shake things up that I can't wait for him to take over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#210 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Master of all fit EE males
Posts: 6,503
|
Yep. It has become a shore to watch this era and tbh moffat doesnt even seem to care about the show anymore. I only just realises there hasn't been an episode all year and tbh i don't even care. Moffats era has been utterly awful for the most part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#211 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,173
|
Quote:
Avoidable, not unavoidable.
A year is a long time for anyone but it must be a lifetime for kids who are supposedly high on the BBc's agenda as an audience., then you get two Christmas specials together which isn't exactly balanced by having something in between. |
|
|
|
|
|
#212 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 322
|
They just need to stop pairing the Doctor with a pretty mid-20s 20thcentury females. The show has become so companion heavy when the companion was always the least interesting bit of the series!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#213 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 413
|
Quote:
They just need to stop pairing the Doctor with a pretty mid-20s 20thcentury females. The show has become so companion heavy when the companion was always the least interesting bit of the series!
Admittedly, some companions are rammed down the throats of viewers too much (Rose and Clara imo) but for the most part, the companions is what makes the show. It really is more their show than the Doctor's in my opinion... |
|
|
|
|
#214 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,295
|
Quote:
Well I'd disagree with that. For me, the companion has always been the more interest part of the show. They're relatable - the Doctor isn't. The fact we can relate to them is what makes them very interesting in how they progress throughout their time on the show.
Admittedly, some companions are rammed down the throats of viewers too much (Rose and Clara imo) but for the most part, the companions is what makes the show. It really is more their show than the Doctor's in my opinion... The way the show focuses too much on The Doctor and The Timewar and Timelords now is the reason for its "decline" over the past two years IMO, with a companion completely unrelatable at all, with no charisma or actual storyline or development to her that we're supposed to be in tears over her death. One quick episode about a leaf isn't gonna instantly make us fall attached to her. |
|
|
|
|
|
#215 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scattered
Posts: 7,448
|
The show has always had 20 something female companions. It's nothing new.
Capaldi's era has lacked a sense of wonder to an extent, that's what they need to recapture a bit more with Bill in Series 10. |
|
|
|
|
#216 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,275
|
For me, I still struggle to wrap my head around Capaldi as the face of the show, post-Tennant and Smith. As much as I respect Capaldi and what he has brought to the show, part of me still feels like we have been lured into a falsehood, which is that Doctor Who would do well by going back to its roots and having a grumpy grandfatherly incarnation with limited social skills. Some will defend the continuity of the Doctor changing personalities, simply because it's what he has always done, but surely one should also be careful that it does not backfire, as indeed it had a couple of times during Old Who. It's not to say that I do not enjoy Capaldi's Doctor, but after a year-long hiatus, I do not miss his incarnation either.
That said, a cape-wearing superhero in the Christmas special sounds absolutely awful, and that's coming from a Moffat fan. |
|
|
|
|
|
#217 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
I have always said that the reboot is complete rubbish, from ep 1 onwards. All style, and no substance. RTD said, quite directly, from the start, that the show was ''gothic''. But Old Who was never that. So we got a long series of postmodern ''pastiches'', which ridiculed and trashed the entire concept, and now there's nothing left. That's why old episodes from the 70's are still watchable, despite the cardboard scenery etc, while most of new who isn't .......
|
|
|
|
|
|
#218 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,362
|
Quote:
Much as I hate the time between series,I personally don't think there is any harm in resting any programme as long as they use the time to write some stronger storylines then they would have been able to.
Otherwise there is the real danger of turning it into the Casualty or Last of the Summer Wine senerio of just being flogged to death like a soap opera to the point that nobody really cares about the show anymore. Some programmes have benefitted by long breaks.The occasional one-off specials of Jonathan Creek for example are much more superior IMO than when it was a series. |
|
|
|
|
|
#219 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,690
|
No thread for the Christmas episode. Anyone planning to start it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#220 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 517
|
Over the last 3 series my interest in Doctor Who has diminished to a point where I'm only watching it through loyalty. I don't like Moffat's style or the direction he's taken the show. As for this upcoming christmas special I have so far only seen the clip that was on children in need and it looks awful.
If it's as bad as it looks then I'll be giving the next series a miss and wait until another show runner is in place before trying to find my love for the show again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#221 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,560
|
i think it has its ups and downs. The xmas special was weak, superhero? why? And now in the ad for the new series, what do we see but the sodding Daleks AGAIN! Surely someone could come up with something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#222 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,173
|
Quote:
They just need to stop pairing the Doctor with a pretty mid-20s 20thcentury females. The show has become so companion heavy when the companion was always the least interesting bit of the series!
I enjoyed today's special with just Nardole, I see no need for anyone else. |
|
|
|
|
|
#223 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Under your bed...
Posts: 15,706
|
Quote:
Over the last 3 series my interest in Doctor Who has diminished to a point where I'm only watching it through loyalty. I don't like Moffat's style or the direction he's taken the show. As for this upcoming christmas special I have so far only seen the clip that was on children in need and it looks awful.
If it's as bad as it looks then I'll be giving the next series a miss and wait until another show runner is in place before trying to find my love for the show again. I haven't sat and watched the Christmas episodes live in about three years. |
|
|
|
|
|
#224 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 517
|
Quote:
Same. It used to be must watch on airing. Now I record it and often don't catch up for days, even weeks.
I haven't sat and watched the Christmas episodes live in about three years. I'll have another look at it once moffat has left the building. |
|
|
|
|
|
#225 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,362
|
Quote:
i think it has its ups and downs. The xmas special was weak, superhero? why? And now in the ad for the new series, what do we see but the sodding Daleks AGAIN! Surely someone could come up with something else?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:56.




