"One four part, three three part episodes."

That's my ten words - now allow me an explanation. This would solve a lot of core frustrations surrounding the series - the budget could be better utilised, as costumes and sets would be used more. This would potentially allow stories set in a wider variety of environments. It would also give the stories more room to breathe, and also mean we get nine cliffhangers in a year, rather than three.

Ditch the new series and rerun the originals on BBC.

I think the OP asked for suggestions which were 'possible'.

Why do so many FMs demand the cancelling of shows that they do not personally enjoy?

It would then have to be on later than 7pm which would lead to lower ratings and cancellation.

I am a fan of the classic series as well as the new. As much as I think the quality of some of the scripts from the classic series are far better than some from the new, the productions standards in terms of effects etc would not sustain the interest from younger viewers who expect more.

The new series has many faults as did the classic version..lessons could be drawn from the old to make the newer one much better and stronger in terms of story telling.

While I agree with the spirit of your suggestion, I think the numbers need to be tweaked a little.

These are 45 minute shows, so a fast moving 'feature-length' story should fit comfortably into 2 episodes. More than that and you risk dragging the story out and losing the interest of some less attentive viewers.

It's also true that the single episode story, when done right, works superbly. Father's Day, Dalek and Girl in the Fireplace are obvious examples. There's no point extending a story that fits perfectly into 45 minutes just to add a cliffhanger! Alternatively a cliffhanger can be tacked onto the end of a completed story - See the Series 2 finale for an example (for better or worse!).

So I would maybe suggest five two-part and three one-part stories, with an exception for the Paul McGann Time War special which would be a three-parter, whenever it happens.


edit : Here's to the next 1000 posts!

Would you mind expanding on that point? What "lessons" do you have in mind? Criticisms of the old series are often caricatured as mere intolerance of cheap effects and production values, and while those criticisms are valid, I hold a low opinion of the old Doctor Who series PRIMARILY because of the "story telling." The old series was particularly handicapped by its multi-episode serial structure, as again and again plots that may have been done well in 45 or 50 minutes were ridiculously drawn out to fill twice that amount of air time, or longer yet. Things like the infamous "running down endless corridors" were done simply to eat up more time cheaply, but those scenes were not the only way time was eaten up for the sake of it. Another thing that has to be said about the stories is that they leaned too heavily on the 1950's-movie-"scary monsters" style of science fiction, which became more and more out-dated the longer the series ran.
Last edited by MoreTears : 28-03-2007 at 11:30

Is that a boy or girl assistant then?

that is why in my post I pointed out that the classic series had many faults too. sure some of the stories were padded and relied a lot on endless shots on running down corridors but equally the standard of other scripts..Talons, Pyramids, Genesis etc...far outshines some of the scripts from the new series. Just my opinion. Sure the effects and production standards from the old would simply not wash with a modern audience and I have always applauded them for that but considering the budget Who back then they did what they could at the time..which sometimes they pulled off and other times they didn't.

Bring back Tom Baker and k-9!

Didn't say I didn't enjoy the new Dr stories but I much prefer the old ones as the new series has too much PC stuff goingf on and trying to be trendy/shocking with gay kisses, and too many stories are set in modern London/Cardiff wheras imo the best stories have been where they're off planet or back in time - the devil planet ones, unquiet dead, gas mask people and werewolf stories spring to mind.

Two..... TWO episodes have been set in Cardiff. One has been set in Scotland, One has been set in America (soon to be two) and the rest were London.

K9 was brought back in School Reunion!

and... there haven't been ANY gay kisses. Captain Jack gave both Rose and The Doctor a goodbye kiss - he was a friend expecting to die imminently.

brining in more likeable assistant, not some waste of space who credits crossroads as the highlight of her acting career so far also making steven moffat the main man to do the scripts as he seems to have the knack to produce the best episodes , for example the girl in the fireplace best i have ever saw.

Not a little rash, perhaps? Can you put your finger on what exactly you haven't liked about Martha, in all the episodes she's been in so far?

Well there was much discussion at our place today over this - caused by someone in "Life On Mars" being rather outspoken, and we all pretty much agreed with him!

It's on MSN News; apologies if there's already a discussion on it elsewhere (and if there isn't, I'll be surprised)... the guy's name is Philip Glenister, and sounds like he has a severe dislike of crap soaps, lambasting "Eastenders" and the state of British TV, suggesting... "Eastenders is up its own arse", and the "fools" running TV (presumably the BBC in this case) "put fame ahead of talent and think someone from EastEnders will put bums on seats".

As DW is probably the biggest employer of ex-Eastenders "talent", PG's comments are probably worth a mention.

In 10 words or less, what one change would you make to Doctor Who?



why in 10 words or less ? what happens if i ......
Last edited by mesonychid : 28-03-2007 at 23:41

What is with people in this country and their prejudice against people who have been in soap opera’s?

Many of the major American actors / actresses, in the past 20 years, started in a soap opera’s and those that didn’t started in a sitcom. So the fact that she Freema came to notice in crossroads means nothing especially when most of television is dominated by soaps or continuing dramas.

Yes I don't get the point of why answers are required to be less than 10 words.
What's the point of that?

Is it a game?
Or is the content of the opinions more important?

It's a bit limiting to restrict your points of view down to 10 words, I don't really get the point of needing to do that.

Most people in soap operas cannot act. Although some great stars of stage and screen have either started in a soap or appeared in a soap later in life. It it a little unfair to judge the character of Martha yet. She has not been seen in anything yet and the actress was only seen in the series for about 30 seconds.

Well, you don't HAVE to stick to the ten words. I was just trying to encourage people to be concise and to encourage more people to contribute. Otherwise things get a bit rambly, and a rambly thread is not an accessible thread. It seems to have gone all right so far, anyway... Any thoughts on Doctor Who?

By the way, I'd like to apologise humbly to everybody for starting the thread as ten words or less, when of course it should have been ten words or fewer.

1. Bring back The Rani
2. Better storylines maybe in the Doctor Who lite episode
3. Not making the Doctor fall for someone else he meets while going back in time
4. Reveal that he might not b an only time lord

A year break between series.