Dr Who

[coupekid]

Re: Dr Who

I know there are some Dr Who fans on this forum as he has been mentioned a few times.
So what did you think about tonights episode, did anyone hear David Tennent was giving up doing the doctor? I certainly hadn't heard he might be, but then I perhaps don't read the papers.
It will be a shame, originally I was disappointed when he was given the part, but I think he has proved to be possibly the best Dr of all.

They have certainly got everyone involved for the last two episodes.


Patrick

He is a brilliant Dr. but I honestly think it is all a hoax.....I cant see him leaving just yet. A few key characters from Torchwood are also in trouble, so I predict that they will find a way to 'rewind time' to prevent him regenerating.

(I must post a picture of me wearing my 12ft 'Tom Baker' scarf! )

[Patrick]

Re: Dr Who

He is a brilliant Dr. but I honestly think it is all a hoax.....I cant see him leaving just yet. A few key characters from Torchwood are also in trouble, so I predict that they will find a way to 'rewind time' to prevent him regenerating.

(I must post a picture of me wearing my 12ft 'Tom Baker' scarf! )

That's a thought they rewound time at the end of the last series with the Master. Talking of which they left that with him dead but that very last scene suggests not quite.
Will we hear more of the Doctors daughter do you think, or could she become the new Doctor, perhaps its time for a woman.

Don't forget that photo we can all use a laugh.


Patrick

[Patrick]

Re: Dr Who

Re: this weeks episode. Don't take anything at face value. It's the typical end-of-season "throw everything in but the kitchen sink" to make us all go "wow". Every season since the series returned has ended with episodes in which "key character dies but doesn't die". This year is no different.

*** SOME OF WHAT FOLLOWS ISN'T KNOWN FACT, JUST GENERALLY SUSPECTED ***

The last word was that the producer (Davies) and Tennant, and most of the production team, planned to leave at the end of the 4th year - so they were planning for a proper send-off at the end to finish off the series.

Word is that it was then not budgeted for the 5th series in 2009. The BBC (or whoever is higher than BBC Wales) didn't want their flagship show to end just because the team were leaving but it was then too late. Not only had no budget been set aside for a series in 2009 but Tennant had sought other work (doing Hamlet) - so, even if they could find the money, Tennant would be unavailable for the months of filming.

The best compromise they could come up with was to do a number of "specials" in 2009 (best guess is one at Easter, one at Christmas, and one somewhere else in the year). This compromise was intended to keep Davies on as head writer/exec producer (because they're afraid that the series won't survive without him) and also to keep Tennant as the Doctor without the need to regenerate him into someone else because he'd be busy doing other work.

The BBC then "announced" the specials in 2009 and "announced" a new series in 2010. It then transpired that Davies wouldn't be doing the 2010 series (he's been replaced by Stephen Moffat), the other production team members who were leaving still left, and Tennant probably wouldn't stick around beyond the specials anyway. So the compromise to keep key people on, didn't serve to keep those people on after all.

It all turned into a bit of a farce because the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.

It is extremely unlikely that we'll see Tennant leave at the end of this series (despite what we saw in this week's cliffhanger) because that would leave a new bod in the title role for the audience to come to terms with through sporadic "specials" rather than a full series. It's unlikely the series would survive that.

Anyone who remembers the knee-jerk reaction by viewers in the old days when the new guy came along knows what folly it would be to not allow any new guy a full season with which to warm himself to the audience. We all went off Colin Baker due to the atrocious Twin Dilemma despite him having one of the strongest seasons when he came back the next year; we all tend to dislike Sylvester McCoy because of the pantomime nature of his first season and the way the BBC treated Colin, despite the fact that McCoy was improving - even when placed against the competition of Coronation Street (the Beeb dare not even put today's WHO against Coronation Street because they know viewers would desert the series much quicker than they did in the 80s).

It would be even worse today. Where the classic series sold itself on its stories and coherence of plot, today's series owes its consistently large audience due to the fact that many of the younger audience believe "Tennant is hot". Take him out of the equation, and they'd desert in droves - stories and plot are largely irrelevant to this contingent of the audience.

What happened with the Doctor in the recent cliffhanger was merely part of the "wow" factor to get everyone talking about Tennant leaving, when he isn't. It's a shame that Davies feels the need for these "tricks" to get us talking when, surely, there's enough in the story and plot to get us discussing what's going to happen next without such tricks. Isn't there?

No one knows *for sure* what's happening, of course, but my prediction (based on the most coherent rumours) would be that Tennant is staying around beyond this series and through the specials. We'll probably see him regenerate at the end of the last special (New Year's Day 2010, if rumours are true) with the new guy (whoever they decide to get in) then starting in series 5 in 2010.

There are whispers that, since Tennant heard that Moffat is replacing Davies, he might be interested in staying on a bit longer. That's 2 years away, so we'll have to wait and see.

I had read that this was to have been the very last series, but thank goodness it sounds as if that idea is now shelved all be it missing a year.

I cant see that the program its up against on other channels is relevant these days, if there is a program clash we simply record one of them and watch at leisure. Plus in the case of Dr Who its shown again on BBC 4 on Sunday.

Does Dr Who these days appeal to this generation of children? I have read it doesn't, its appeal is with us more middle-aged and older kids.

Very interesting speculation anyway.

Patrick

[Ian]

Re: Dr Who

I had read that this was to have been the very last series, but thank goodness it sounds as if that idea is now shelved all be it missing a year.

I cant see that the program its up against on other channels is relevant these days, if there is a program clash we simply record one of them and watch at leisure. Plus in the case of Dr Who its shown again on BBC 4 on Sunday.

Does Dr Who these days appeal to this generation of children? I have read it doesn't, its appeal is with us more middle-aged and older kids.

Very interesting speculation anyway.

Patrick

My 10 and 12 year old girls are bigger fans than I ever was

Ian

[coupekid]

Re: Dr Who

That's a thought they rewound time at the end of the last series with the Master. Talking of which they left that with him dead but that very last scene suggests not quite.
Will we hear more of the Doctors daughter do you think, or could she become the new Doctor, perhaps its time for a woman.

Don't forget that photo we can all use a laugh.


Patrick

ha ha, dont worry I will patrick!

As for wa woman Dr......personally, I really dont think that the Doctor should ever be a woman, I like the fact that its always been a male, with a woman assistant, it works well!

That said.....I have heard rumours of none other than Jennifer Saunders being tipped as the doctor!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-503222/Jennifer-Saunders-tipped-Dr-Who.html

So, thats the following I have heard of:
Jennifer Saunders
Robert Carlisle
Alan Davis

I still maintain he wont leave just yet though.


If I personally had to choose the next Doctor, I think Jason Statham would be good.

[peter]

Re: Dr Who

OK so what do we think will happen this weekend. My guess and it may well be miles off is it will have something to do with his hand that is in the jar or Donna who most of this season we are being told has some special power will save the the day. Oh and why is Jack so scared of that tape ??.

A bit off topic but I hear Alan Davis is doing another Jonathan Creek this Christmas. I think he would make a good Dr who but maybe he is a bit to well know for that to work.

[JSR]

Re: Dr Who

I had read that this was to have been the very last series, but thank goodness it sounds as if that idea is now shelved all be it missing a year.

I cant see that the program its up against on other channels is relevant these days, if there is a program clash we simply record one of them and watch at leisure. Plus in the case of Dr Who its shown again on BBC 4 on Sunday.

Does Dr Who these days appeal to this generation of children? I have read it doesn't, its appeal is with us more middle-aged and older kids.

Very interesting speculation anyway.

Patrick

I was under the impression that Russell T Davies (show runner, head writer, executive producer) aims the show at the 8-10 year olds. I certainly don't enjoy modern WHO as much as I enjoy the DVDs of the old series. That doesn't mean it's no good, just that I don't feel it's aimed at me.

But, who knows, the balance might sway a little the other way when Moffat takes over. If the old series showed us anything, it was that different producers have different ways of making the show - as it should be. It wouldn't have lasted so long if it stayed the same all the time.

I'm sure we all know someone who loves it, and someone who hates it. A friend's teenage daughter loves it because of David Tennant and claims she won't watch it when he leaves ('though she'll watch anything that he turns up in); another kid loved it to bits when he was 12 yet now, at 14, he feels he's "too old" for it. If internet forums are anything to go by, some forums consist solely of people who love every episode 100% while others consist of people who think it's a load of old rubbish. But it's impossible to generalise.

So long as they keep releasing DVDs of the old'uns, that's fine by me!

[Julia]

Re: Dr Who

Russell T Davies (show runner, head writer, executive producer) aims the show at the 8-10 year olds

I really enjoy the programme too - what does that say about me

I did think that the programme was aimed at the new generation AND the thirty/ fortysomethings who remember the previous series. I was a Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker fan and I did enjoy Chris Ecclestone's Doctor. David Tennent is very good although I tend to agree with Donna about his physical appearance

[Patrick]

Re: Dr Who

Do you really think the immediate viewing figures tell the whole story? I don't.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 13 Million is recouped in DVD sales alone, without taking into account international TV sales.
ITV can't put a final on every week for 13 weeks, and why is Xmas days audience captive they have as much choice that day as any other, don't forget there are five terrestrial channels and hundreds of cable, not least BBC, ITV,Channel 4 and 5's own cable channels.
Even the 14 million that watched Xmas day is comparatively low by the standards of Xmas day special from years ago when a dominant program like Morecambe & Wise or The Two Ronnies would get 22-25 million half the UK population.

These day's these thing have more than one life (much like the Doctor) even Movies are now made with DVD sales in mind, in fact that's often where the profit is.

As to the target viewing audience well it would appear from our small feed back it is watched by a very broad age group.

Patrick

[JSR]

Re: Dr Who

Do you really think the immediate viewing figures tell the whole story? I don't.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 13 Million is recouped in DVD sales alone, without taking into account international TV sales.
ITV can't put a final on every week for 13 weeks,

ITV avoid putting anything that appeals to the mass audience against Doctor Who, so Doctor Who gets 7-8m viewers every week. Likewise, when ITV show Primeval, the BBC avoid putting anything that appeals to the same audience against it so it gets 6-7m viewers every week. It's the same trick ITV and BBC use to avoid putting Eastenders against Coronation Street and vice versa. And the same trick they use when one side is showing a football match.

The final of "Britain's Got Talent" indicated that a proportion of the WHO audience would happily watch some other programme if there was an appealing alternative on at the same time. Now that's probably because they know they can watch repeats, but it also indicates that WHO isn't dragging them to their seats and they're not that eager to watch.

Then again, soap operas are repeated but that doesn't stop them having the highest viewing figures possible.

and why is Xmas days audience captive they have as much choice that day as any other, don't forget there are five terrestrial channels and hundreds of cable, not least BBC, ITV,Channel 4 and 5's own cable channels.
Even the 14 million that watched Xmas day is comparatively low by the standards of Xmas day special from years ago when a dominant program like Morecambe & Wise or The Two Ronnies would get 22-25 million half the UK population.

It's a captive audience because the largest number of people are at home on Christmas Day with TVs in front of them. If ITV elect not to put anything of significance against Doctor Who, then 13 million people watch Doctor Who.

If 13 million people wanted to watch Doctor Who, 13 million people would watch it every week. But they don't, 5-6 million regularly find something else to do. It's not good enough to say that they watched the repeats, because the Christmas episode was repeated too. If the situation at Christmas was the same as during the series, the audience would be the same.

You say that Morecambe & Wise would get 22-25m viewers - half the UK population. But Doctor Who's Christmas episode did get 13m viewers - 50% of the viewing audience. Yet it doesn't get 50% of the viewing audience the rest of the year.

There was an episode last year ('42', I think) that I didn't like much. So much so that the following week I decided I wouldn't watch WHO. I looked through the papers, the terrestrial channels, the cable channels, but there was nothing on worth watching. I either watched Doctor Who or I put a DVD in. I left the TV on BBC1 while doing other things. Fortunately, that week's episode was 'Human Nature', and it was sufficiently different to get me watching again. Had there been anything else on, though, I would have drifted away from the series - as I did on more than one occasion in the 80s.

These day's these thing have more than one life (much like the Doctor) even Movies are now made with DVD sales in mind, in fact that's often where the profit is.

[Patrick]

Re: Dr Who

[JSR]

Re: Dr Who

High viewing figures doesn't always equate with quality programming. I forget who said it, but someone once said a TV show will never be cancelled while it appeals to the lowest common denominator.

I don't know the DVD sales figures to know if they "prove" anything. I only know that classic WHO DVDs have more time, effort, and resources spent on them to have them lovingly restored and copious special features included. In contrast, the new series DVDs are pretty much "episodes dumped on a disc" - which you could do yourself with a DVD recorder on a Saturday night. That would imply that more people buy the classic DVDs and more money is made from them - otherwise they wouldn't spend so much money restoring them and filming special features. But I don't know the sales figures so that's pure speculation on my part.

Personally (my own view entirely), I think current WHO gets too much money. It's too easy to cover up weak stories and plot holes with big bangs and flashes and CGI. Yes, you can watch the episode and go "wow!" but when you take a moment to think about the story, the "wow" factor disappears. I watch every episode on Saturday evenings but any episode I pick up for a second viewing has no rewatchability because the novelty value of the CGI has worn off. In contrast, there are some classic stories that were made on a shoestring that I could watch over and over again - because of the story, the characters, and the performances of the actors.

Although the budget was woefully inadequate in the old days, it did force people to be more creative and I think we got a better series because of it. Ironically, all people ever remember is wobbly sets (there were none), and the weakest of the monsters. Other things they just believe they remember because it gets repeated often enough (like the old joke of Daleks being unable to go upstairs - despite it being shown shown in the 80s, and even as early as the 70s, that they could).

There's also the viewer loyalty factor. Even in the "iffy" period of the 80s, when the show entered its 18-month hiatus the fans were up in arms about it. Now we're in 2008 and told that the next series is two years away and no one bats an eyelid. Do the viewers even care if the show is on or not these days?

I do agree the old Who's were underfunded, I touched on this earlier in the thread, the franchise has never been properly exploited not when compared with Star Treck and other programs.

The way the BBC treated the series, particularly in the 80s, was atrocious. On the commentary track for "The Curse of Fenric" (Sylvester McCoy's last series), it's said that they filmed enough material for five episodes rather than the allotted four. The producer, JNT, went to his superiors and asked for an extra episode in the schedule (15 episodes rather than 14 for that year). They apparently said to him "You made 5 episodes for the price of 4? Right, next time you'll get less money." Utterly ridiculous! People slogged their guts out to make a very fine story only to have the carpet pulled out from under them by the BBC themselves.

It's also mentioned that the TARDIS set had fallen apart by this time and yet they had no money to rebuild it or fix it. It was all they could do to spend the money on the episodes. This is why the TARDIS interior is only shown in one story of that last series - and we see one wall and the console, with the lighting dimmed so low that you can't see it falling apart, and the script hastily rewritten to explain the dimmed lighting. How they made any kind of half-decent series out of that situation is baffling.

Despite this its has survived for over 40 years and 10 different leads so there must be something very strong going for it.

I think the essential ingredient to ensuring the series continues is to change the production team at least every three years.

One of the contributory factors to the downfall of the series in the 80s was that the producer/show-runner JNT stayed around for 10 years. He wanted to get out much earlier but, as the last "staff producer" at the BBC he had to do what he was told. The series began to improve at the end of McCoy's era because of the new production team that was being assembled - with fresh new ideas and a new enthusiasm to take the show into the 90s.

Bizarrely, it was the BBC themselves who did everything to scupper it. Doctor Who in the 80s stood its ground against highly popular US imports on ITV (like The A-Team during Colin Baker's time). Then the BBC messed about with the scheduling, reduced the series length, didn't advertise it, switch which day of the week they'd show it on, and the final death-knell was to put it against Coronation Street. It didn't stand a chance. Yet, even against all the odds, the viewers *still* increased. The last series, with everything against it, started with a paltry 3m viewers yet rose to 5m by the end. Imagine how many more people would have watched it if it *hadn't* been put against Coronation Street, had kept it's traditional Saturday evening slot, and had 26 episodes as it had in its heyday and had even half the advertisement it gets today. It'd never have been cancelled.

[Patrick]

Re: Dr Who

High viewing figures doesn't always equate with quality programming. I forget who said it, but someone once said a TV show will never be cancelled while it appeals to the lowest common denominator.

I don't know the DVD sales figures to know if they "prove" anything. I only know that classic WHO DVDs have more time, effort, and resources spent on them to have them lovingly restored and copious special features included. In contrast, the new series DVDs are pretty much "episodes dumped on a disc" - which you could do yourself with a DVD recorder on a Saturday night. That would imply that more people buy the classic DVDs and more money is made from them - otherwise they wouldn't spend so much money restoring them and filming special features. But I don't know the sales figures so that's pure speculation on my part.

Personally (my own view entirely), I think current WHO gets too much money. It's too easy to cover up weak stories and plot holes with big bangs and flashes and CGI. Yes, you can watch the episode and go "wow!" but when you take a moment to think about the story, the "wow" factor disappears. I watch every episode on Saturday evenings but any episode I pick up for a second viewing has no rewatchability because the novelty value of the CGI has worn off. In contrast, there are some classic stories that were made on a shoestring that I could watch over and over again - because of the story, the characters, and the performances of the actors.

Although the budget was woefully inadequate in the old days, it did force people to be more creative and I think we got a better series because of it. Ironically, all people ever remember is wobbly sets (there were none), and the weakest of the monsters. Other things they just believe they remember because it gets repeated often enough (like the old joke of Daleks being unable to go upstairs - despite it being shown shown in the 80s, and even as early as the 70s, that they could).

There's also the viewer loyalty factor. Even in the "iffy" period of the 80s, when the show entered its 18-month hiatus the fans were up in arms about it. Now we're in 2008 and told that the next series is two years away and no one bats an eyelid. Do the viewers even care if the show is on or not these days?


The way the BBC treated the series, particularly in the 80s, was atrocious. On the commentary track for "The Curse of Fenric" (Sylvester McCoy's last series), it's said that they filmed enough material for five episodes rather than the allotted four. The producer, JNT, went to his superiors and asked for an extra episode in the schedule (15 episodes rather than 14 for that year). They apparently said to him "You made 5 episodes for the price of 4? Right, next time you'll get less money." Utterly ridiculous! People slogged their guts out to make a very fine story only to have the carpet pulled out from under them by the BBC themselves.

It's also mentioned that the TARDIS set had fallen apart by this time and yet they had no money to rebuild it or fix it. It was all they could do to spend the money on the episodes. This is why the TARDIS interior is only shown in one story of that last series - and we see one wall and the console, with the lighting dimmed so low that you can't see it falling apart, and the script hastily rewritten to explain the dimmed lighting. How they made any kind of half-decent series out of that situation is baffling.

I think the essential ingredient to ensuring the series continues is to change the production team at least every three years.

One of the contributory factors to the downfall of the series in the 80s was that the producer/show-runner JNT stayed around for 10 years. He wanted to get out much earlier but, as the last "staff producer" at the BBC he had to do what he was told. The series began to improve at the end of McCoy's era because of the new production team that was being assembled - with fresh new ideas and a new enthusiasm to take the show into the 90s.

Bizarrely, it was the BBC themselves who did everything to scupper it. Doctor Who in the 80s stood its ground against highly popular US imports on ITV (like The A-Team during Colin Baker's time). Then the BBC messed about with the scheduling, reduced the series length, didn't advertise it, switch which day of the week they'd show it on, and the final death-knell was to put it against Coronation Street. It didn't stand a chance. Yet, even against all the odds, the viewers *still* increased. The last series, with everything against it, started with a paltry 3m viewers yet rose to 5m by the end. Imagine how many more people would have watched it if it *hadn't* been put against Coronation Street, had kept it's traditional Saturday evening slot, and had 26 episodes as it had in its heyday and had even half the advertisement it gets today. It'd never have been cancelled.

I agree numbers of viewers does not indicate quality which makes me shudder to think that Britain's Got Talent final (lowest common denominator if ever there was one) knocked the Dr Who figures to 5.5 million. What were the figures for Britain's Got Talent then?

The fact Dr Who is no longer underfunded compared with the old days then that has to be a step in the right direction. As to story content it possibly suffers from one story one episode or two episodes maximum, in the old days they were often spread over a number of weeks giving more time to develop the story line. I think this reflect the times we live, a tabloid attitude. They are still entertaining viewing and I for one wouldn't miss a single episode.

The high budget I think reflects its value on overseas sales, and with the BBC's now more professional commercial arm there are profits to be made that will supplement the licence fee.
The new found professionalism has lead to a few money making movies as well, which in turn earn their keep on the TV as well as the cinema.

Patrick

[JSR]

Re: Dr Who

I agree numbers of viewers does not indicate quality which makes me shudder to think that Britain's Got Talent final (lowest common denominator if ever there was one) knocked the Dr Who figures to 5.5 million. What were the figures for Britain's Got Talent then?

I didn't know the answer to that, so I've just been to check.

The 5.5m for Doctor Who were the overnights. The official 7-day figures after PVR and VCR figures were taken into account rose to 6.27m (down from 8.4m for the previous episode).

"Britain's Got Talent" was watched by 11.5m during the time Doctor Who was on - rising to 13.9m for the final results later that evening.

It's a scary thought that nearly 14m viewers would rather watch "Britain's Got Talent" than anything else. Where has the discerning audience gone?

The subject of overseas sales is an interesting one. I'm led to believe that classic Doctor Who used to be sold in double-season packs to the US (2x26 episodes = 52 weeks) so they could show them all year around. That was fine while they made 26 episodes per year. The Beeb began complaining that the show was too expensive to make when they cut it down to 14 episodes per year - thus requiring FOUR seasons before they could sell the same package. They cut it down, they prevented it from being sold abroad, then they complain it's too expensive. Makes you think they went out of their way to find excuses to cancel it.

[Patrick]

Re: Dr Who

I didn't know the answer to that, so I've just been to check.

The 5.5m for Doctor Who were the overnights. The official 7-day figures after PVR and VCR figures were taken into account rose to 6.27m (down from 8.4m for the previous episode).

"Britain's Got Talent" was watched by 11.5m during the time Doctor Who was on - rising to 13.9m for the final results later that evening.

It's a scary thought that nearly 14m viewers would rather watch "Britain's Got Talent" than anything else. Where has the discerning audience gone?

The subject of overseas sales is an interesting one. I'm led to believe that classic Doctor Who used to be sold in double-season packs to the US (2x26 episodes = 52 weeks) so they could show them all year around. That was fine while they made 26 episodes per year. The Beeb began complaining that the show was too expensive to make when they cut it down to 14 episodes per year - thus requiring FOUR seasons before they could sell the same package. They cut it down, they prevented it from being sold abroad, then they complain it's too expensive. Makes you think they went out of their way to find excuses to cancel it.

They were obviously being sold on the cheap, the sales not impacting enough on production costs, and yes if the powers that be at the time didn't like Dr Who they would create a situation making them less viable.
If such tactics were used on an employee they would be able to claim constructive dismissal.
I think the organisation now too professional with a successful show to take that route, although they apear to have messed up the next series schedule.

Patrick