Does anyone else agree that DR Who should go back to its old style of having 3-6 episodes per story (or even 8 or 9 in some cases)

I don't think RTD's 2 parters are enough to tell a whole story properly.

I think the multi-part stories with their repetitive and ludicrously predictable cliffhangers are one of the things RTD was right to get rid of, along with rubbish sets, dreadful acting and crap special effects.

I have to admit that when the new reboot first started I aired my concerns about the lack of 3/4/5/6 part self enclosed eps. However having seen the whole 13 parts (bar father's day when my goddam recorder let me down) I'm more inclined to agree with RTD that larger epic story arcs (cf Buffy) work much better. For the next run, throw in a couple of directly related two parters but make the whole season a story arc (but please not like Trial of a Time Lord).

That's what made Dr Who so great

If you look at something like season3 and 4 of enterprise, season 3 was basically 1 continuing story, a serial virtually, yet season 4 was stand alone episodes with several 3 or 4 part arcs. Season 4 is working much better. The time is there for long stories without the need for fillers, crap cliffhangers etc.

Personally I hope this is the way Dr Who goes, fit the number of episodes to the story, not fit the story to the number of episodes

Still not sure on this, I felt that some of the two part stories were a bit rushed to squeeze the story into the two episodes.

Exactly. The rare example of a two parter working well was Black Orchid.

I prefer the 4 part format myself but I think those days are long gone. The most we can hope for is a story arc that spans the season.

In my opinion the current format of stand-alone stories linked by a loose story arc works well. You can think of the series as either a set of ten stand-alone stories (some of which are two parters) or a single 13-part story.


Think about it: Two 45 minute episodes are equal to four 25 minute episodes. With a few exceptions (Trial of a Time Lord being a notable example) the vast majority of the stories between some point in the Tom Baker era and the Paul McGann TVM were of that length.

I think trilogies would be better. Firstly, because they fit well on 1 DVD and secondly it gives more room for other stories on one series of 13 episodes.

I have to say that personally, I quite like the new format. 13 episodes, some two-parters, but with a season storyarc running throughout.

I honestly believe that going back to four-part+ stories would not work in this day and age.

IMO he's got the format right, but maybe the 'timing' or pace of some of the earlier episodes needed tweaking, as I sometimes felt that some episodes plodded in places. Maybe that's down to the Director, though?

"Go on until you come to the end. Then stop."

I've always felt that episode lengths should vary so that the story is told at the correct pace, whether than be 1, 2, 3,... 12 episodes. I think Pertwee's first season went 4-7-7-7, didn't it? Baker T's tended to be 4-4-4-4-4-6 and Davidson's became 4-4-4-4-2-4 (-4), both of which are highly artificial, IMHO.

Gary

Episode 1 was far, far too rushed. Its only 'cos I remember the Autons from the '70s that I could follow that part at all!
Having said that the other single parters have worked pretty well.
The trouble with multi parters is that if you miss the 1st then you're tempted to skip the 2nd and before you know it you stop watching - which is pretty well what happened to me back in the olden days...

Get the balance right.

Most 6+ episode stories in the old series were too long to my mind. The only exception that springs to mind is Pertwee's 'Inferno', which worked in that it had a a story within a story, with the parallel universe, and it's currently my favourite ever DW story.

You have to remember that TV audiences have moved on from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. These days, it is very difficult to make multi episode stories work. '24' is perhaps the exception that proves the rule, but then '24' is not like most other TV programmes on a number of levels.

I love classic DW and I also love the new series. RTD has done a great job and has trodden a very thin line well. OK, some DW fans are upset, but he's kept most of us happy and has ensured at least another two seasons of DW plus Christmas specials. If he's stayed true to the original format it would have flopped. That's well worth bearing in mind.

I don't think there ever was a 9 episode story by the way.

No, there wasn't a 9 episode story during the original series. You had stories that lasted for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, & 14 episodes.

Why is it difficult to make multi episode stories work?? That's bo!!ocks, It's an excuse used by programme makers, publicits etc. The most popular programmes on TV are soaps are what are they but a continung story? Ok, now quite the same as DW but you get where I'm coming from with this. To say that audiences don't have the attention span to deal with anything that lasts longer than one episode is ridiculous.

The problem with the last series of DW was the amount of 1 part stories. If you take away the titles & the next episode teaser you're probably left with around 44 minutes of screen time & that it not sufficient to tell a good story with pace, tension & decent characterisation.

This doesn't matter so much with a programme like Buffy where you have a constant settings & regular set of characters but with DW you have a new setting each week (or every two weeks) & just 2 constant characters. To introduce a new set of characters each week & a new location & tell a good, well paced, story with a good deal of tension is, on the whole, not possible in forty odd minutes.

If RTD had any sense he'd make season two into 5 lots of 2 episodes & one 3 episode story. It would allow for more characterisation, more tension & it would allow each story to utilise a greater % of the budget.

Soap operas are very different from other types of TV. You can dip in and out of them over the course of weeks, months, sometimes longer and not much has changed. Basically, it's comfort TV. You can even get away with missing odd episodes of '24', but not so easily an episode of an old 4 or 6 part DW story.

I stick by my original comment. TV series like 'The X Files', the various 'Star Trek' franchises, etc. all have one story per episode, or a running theme with different stories running through it, which essentially is what the last series of 'Doctor Who' had. I'd argue that, in some ways, you could call the season one 13 part story, although admit that would be open to debate.

Try showing kids today 'The War Games' or even 'Pyramids of Mars' and see how far you get. Today's culture is about quick fixes unfortunately and I maintain that an old style Doctor Who would have flopped big time.

Anyway, the so called one part stories are the equivalent of two part stories from most of the classic series. I don't know about you, but I found 'Black Orchid', 'The Awakening' and 'The Sontaron Experiment' all very good, for example ('The King's Demons' less so).

Of all the stories in the new series, I think that 'Father's Day' best showed how a 'one' part story could work. It had all the attributes that you mention in bold above.

But hey, we can agree to disagree, just don't going using terms like b****cks in a debate.

Ah - but Pyramids of Mars (4 x 25 mins) would be the equivalent of a modern two-parter (2 x 45 mins), once you get rid of the recaps, as has been mentioned eleswhere.

Gary

I loved the fact I was watching stand alone episodes and it was only in the last few it clicked with me there was a story arc!

The last series of Dr. Who was absoloutely fantastic and has been a great success. Lets not play with it becuase it is right as it is.

True, but the pace in the old series was still much slower generally.

How do you know? They never get the chance to see anything that lasts more than one episode.

A couple of years ago one of the guys that works on DWM went into a school & showed the kids there (who I think were about age 7) Terror Of The Zygons which is a four part Doctor Who story. They loved it.

Terror of The Zygons is roughly eqivalent to 2 episodes of the new series & the viewing figures don't suggest that the audience wouldn't watch two part stories.

If we look at season one there were 3 two part stories. The Parting Of The Ways (Ep 13) did better in the ratings than Bad Wolf (episode 12) did. World War III (Episode 5) also did better in the ratings than Aliens Of London (Episode 4) did, but The Doctor Dances (Episode 10) did worse in the ratings than The Empty Child (Episode 9). If all of the second parts of these stories had been lower then I might agree with you, but the viewing figures don't support your argument.

Older viewers, of course, are quite happy to watch 2 or 3 part dramas or things that run longer like Cutting It, Fat Friends etc.

The problem nowdays is that we are told that kids have short attention spans & will not watch anything that doesn't tell in a story in one episode. The viewing figures of season one don't support that. If a story is engaging enough they will come back to watch the second episode.

I have a friend who teaches teenagers and despondently tells me (on a regular basis) that he hasn't found any that thought the classic series anything but boring. I'm sure there are more discerning kids out there, but our culture is all about speed (stupid text speak rather than proper sentences, etc.) and I believe that much of television reflects that.

If you ever look at children's programmes you will know they often show serials lasting several episodes approximately half an hour long.

But my view is the change of format has absolutely nothing to do with kid's attention spans or ability to follow a plot over several weeks. That is the most condescending male cow manure I've heard for a while.

If you going to spend a lot of money on a Saturday night show and get as many people watching as possible then you are going to to need to do two things. Devote a decent amount of time on it and make sure that you don't lose too many people halfway through.

Half an hour is just not long enough for your flagship show and a long storyline is a sure way of forever losing anyone who missed the first episode or two.

So the change in format to 13x45minute episodes was really a bit of a no brainer.

I think the episode length has much to do with fitting in with an hour long programme for the US, etc. if truth be told. However, that doesn't address the issue of whether each episode should be a self-contained unit, or whether individual stories should cover a number of episodes.

I never suggested a return to the 25 minute format, or a story spanning multiple episodes and I have no problem with the change to the 45 minute episode.

What I said in my original post & what I still stick by is that 40 odd minutes is not enough to tell a decent story with a good level of characterisation & tension.

You can get away with that in shows like Buffy which are set in the same location & which, by & large have one main enemy who appears in at least half the episodes of the season. The audience know the location so well that they don't need to spend any time in "explanation" or exploration". They also know the characters so are completely familiar with them.

"Who" is different because you're in a different setting with new characters for each week. You have to explain & explore the location & introduce the new characters. All that takes screen time.

Let's, for example, take The End Of The World:-

The special effects, the whole "look" of the episode was better than anything that the "Classic" series produced but as a story it lacked tension & mystery because the whole thing was over before it had even started. There was no opportunity for the audience to wonder who was behind events and why.

You can say what you want about "The Robots Of Death" or "Terror Of The Vervoids" but I'd rather watch either of them than "The End Of The World", purely for the reason that you have an opportunity to get to know the characters better & you have time to wonder who is behind events & why are they happening.

What I would like to see happen for season 2 is:-

01) A move to 2 episode stories.

This would allow characters to be developed more, more msytery & tension to be introduced (so long as they get rid of those awful "next time" spoiler tags) and a greater percentage of the budget to be spent on each story. As I said earlier two of the three 2 parters in season 1 increased their viewing figures for part 2 of the story, therefore the audience didn't switch off in droves because of their short attention span.

02) Less Jackie & Mickey

This is Dr. Who, not a soap. Lose the family - there's no reason for them to be there half the time.

03) A wider range of locations.

Let's get away from Earth & various spacestations / satellites around Earth. So far, season one in the only season in the history of the programme not to feature one single story on an alien planet. Pretty rubbish really when you consider that season 1 is roughly the eqivalent of a 26 episode season of the "classic" series.

Did you ever watch Babylon 5?