A Radical Idea - Should We Go Back To 25 Minute Episodes?

[Si Hunt]

Doctor Who has been broadcasting in self contained 45 minute episodes for 6 years now, and I think everyone agrees that it was the right thing to do in 2005.

But I've been ruminating lately on just what it is that makes the new series episodes seem a little slower and less fresh than perhaps they could be... and I wondered if, perhaps, the time was right to go back to 25, or perhaps 30, minute episodes.

Think about it. It'd force each episode to be a little more dynamic in pace. We'd be gauranteed a cliffhanger every week, which would restore one missing element back to the Who that people remember loving. They could put the first episode on Saturday as usual, and then the concluding episode on a Sunday. Or even do an "Eastenders" and put both episodes on Saturday, either side of "Strictly"?

What do people think?

Si.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

It would be worth a try, assuming it took a similar format to SJA and have all the stories be two parters (with occasional four parters for event stories)as a lot of new series stories have felt like they would have worked better if they were close to 60 minutes long rather than having to tie everything up in a hurry to fit 45 minutes.
Of course I appreciate from a commercial syndication point of view 45 minute episodes are easier to sell.

[SiHart]

No. Don't change it. I like the length of thse episodes. I just think they should try more longer stories, with good cliffhangers. I'd like that more than a simple return to 25 minutes. Other than soaps and children's dramas there are no other dramas that length. There weren't in 1989 either. Clinging to the 25 minute format now would be a mistake I think, one born of nostalgia rather than a good choice.

[SiHart]

Ps- the poll choices are rather leading!

[Dirk Gently]

I'm a bit in between. I like the format as it is but the idea of two 30 minute episodes on the same evening (or subsequent evenings) is appealing.

Two things make me believe it'll never happen though;
1, As already mentioned the selling to the U.S & other countries would be more difficult.
2, Casual viewers & new fans alike might not like having to make room in their weekend for a dispersed story rather than having it all in one go.

[Jason Thompson]

Why would changing the length force an episode to be more dynamic in pace? Even a badly written 25 minute episode can drag.

The most common story length in classic Who is four episodes. But look at the variety in there. Some are tightly written stories with all four episodes packed full of incident, some lag in the middle, and some are so dull it's a chore to get through them. Even in 1988 a story involving a 17th century sorceress and 20th century Nazis going after a statue of living metal sent as a ploy by the Doctor to lure the Cybermen and only three episodes in length still included pointless padding in every episode.

The 25 or 30 minute episode format is effectively dead for adult drama series. The length of the episodes is not the issue: it's the writing. 45 minutes is an ideal length for self-contained episodes and lends itself to two-parters nicely (provided they are decently structured).

Additionally, if you go to 25 minutes episodes and make every story at least 2 parts long, well 2 25 minute episodes with the cliffhanger reprises and credits removed, with a little bit of editing, becomes a single 45 minute episode anyway, so why change it?

[Si Hunt]

Why would changing the length force an episode to be more dynamic in pace?

Because it would force the action to start working up to a point of dramatic tension at the 25 minute mark?

I think the 25 minute structure is fresher and speedier, and for Jason to say that a story of two 25 minute episodes is the same as one 45 minute story suggests he might not understand the concept at all. If you watch two Sarah Jane episodes back to back, it's a vastly different style and structure to a 45 minute episode of Doctor Who. I know they are different series, but not THAT different, and I think the difference is that SJA is lighter, less weighted, and more action-oriented. I wonder if perhaps Who could do with that right now, as the laboured story arcs and "heavy" episodes have made it a little, well, less fun than it might be. Just my opinion of course.

It's interesting Si touched on something I was going to put in my original post. Yes, 25 minute format is "dead" currently, but so was popular family sci-fi in 2005. Perhaps it's time Doctor Who lead the way and showed that it can work - after all, it did for 26 years and that was with longer stories. Jason said four parters frequently dragged, but I'm certainly not advocating that they come back. I know there wern't many, but how many old Doctor Who two parters or new Sarah Jane episodes are boring?

Si.

[SiHart]

Perhaps they need to look at the structure of the 45 minute episode and write it to a high point in the middle and try that.

I really, honestly do not see why this would be a good move for Doctor Who. I really feel it would be a backward step and a mistake.

[Si Hunt]

That's fair enough Si! It was an idea I had, and I was interested to see if anyone else would agree with me.

Si.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Ps- the poll choices are rather leading!

I'm easily lead.

Seriously though I was playing devil's advocate a little with my last post knowing full well that however much we might speculate about the series format it's very unlikely to change in the near future.
Of course there's a chance they might want to do a shorter run of 60 minute episodes but I suspect these would run of risk of slow and uneven story telling.

As much as I have personally enjoyed the current series I'm not entirely happy that we've reached the stage that my five year old nephew isn't automatically allowed to watch some of the new episodes on the grounds that they are too scary so I'd certainly like to see the series move back to being a little more family friendly again.

[Si Hunt]

I would genuinely consider changing it. I don't think it's because I'm resistant to change/an old seventies throwback/don't understand the TV landscape. I've managed very nicely to watch Who for the past 6 years. However I do think

1. It's little used today. Ok. So I don't think that should put us off. Someone always has to be the first one to change something.

2. The cliffhangers coming back would be a big plus. I'm sure if there was any other way of bringing these back on a regular basis, they'd have done it. It's a crying shame that the 45 minute format tends us to lose them. They're as much a part of Doctor Who as regeneration and the TARDIS, IMO. Something would DEFINATELY be gained by bringing them back

3. More viewers? I wouldn't be surprised if people drift off at the prospect of a complex 45 minute story

4. What I already said, I think the episodes would be pacier and seem more vibrant, if it was done right. I think Doctor Who has been very dark of late, maybe it needs to win back some child viewers?

I'd try it!

Do please continue to comment on my heathenous suggestions.

Si.

[duncan]

If I was asked this back in 2005, I would have said to change it back to the 25 minute episode. I don't think the cliffhangers really worked in the two part stories of the Eccleston series. However, I do much prefer the 45 minute format these day, but, being a fan of the cliffhanger, i would like to see things done the way we saw cliffhangers used in shows such as The Time Tunnel, Lost in SPace and more recently, Quantum Leap.

Basically, the story concludes and the regulars go off somewhere else and we see the first few seconds of the next story which ends on a cliffhanger. It's been done a few times with Matt Smith such as the lead into Victory of the Daleks last year.

[SiHart]

Now that I would happily support. they could easily generate a cliffhanger into the next story in the place of the "Next Time" trails we get at the end of earch story now. It would be a better use of time, create all the speculation we miss and bring back the cliffhanger.

[Awesome Wells]

This is an interesting idea in theory, and having watched the opening episode of the new Sarah Jane Adventures this morning - excellent, BTW - I am aware that the 25/30 minute episode format is still perfectly viable for some programmes. However, I totally disagree with the idea of bringing it back for Doctor Who, and furthermore, I think that only somebody who wasn't particularly keen on the way the series is being produced currently could have suggested it.


1. It's little used today. Ok. So I don't think that should put us off. Someone always has to be the first one to change something.

Change for change's sake isn't a good idea. I am put off by the idea of change where it isn't necessary. If it ain't broke ...

2. The cliffhangers coming back would be a big plus. I'm sure if there was any other way of bringing these back on a regular basis, they'd have done it. It's a crying shame that the 45 minute format tends us to lose them. They're as much a part of Doctor Who as regeneration and the TARDIS, IMO. Something would DEFINITELY be gained by bringing them back.

Regular cliffhangers were an important part of old Doctor Who, yes; but nowadays, I think the series works better with only a few cliffhangers. They're bigger, they're better, and all the more so because - unless you're the kind of fan who posts on Doctor Who Message Boards and can't help but read all the spoilers the internet has to offer - they're a complete surprise when they happen. In a 25 minute-length episode, you'll be waiting for the twist by about fifteen minutes in. I like the idea of the odd (an absolute maximum of three a season) multi-part story but the current episode length is ideal for the reasons already stated in this thread regarding commercial sales, etc.

(However, I do like Duncan's idea of swapping the "next time" trail for a Hartnell style dive into the next story. Props.)

3. More viewers? I wouldn't be surprised if people drift off at the prospect of a complex 45 minute story

I wouldn't be surprised if saying "I wouldn't be surrprised if ..." turns out to be a weak way of saying "I haven't really got a third point so I'll drop in some speculation in lieu of one". Personally, I wouldn't be surprised in the entire universe switched off their tellies during a 25/30 minute episode and every single TV in this dimension turned into a jar of lemon curd.

4. What I already said, I think the episodes would be pacier and seem more vibrant, if it was done right. I think Doctor Who has been very dark of late, maybe it needs to win back some child viewers?

I think the current episodes are pacy and vibrant enough as they are, and is therefore being "done right" already. I'd agree that there have also been some dark elements to recent Doctor Who but again, I have no problem with this. Furthermore, has it lost any child viewers? There's no evidence that I am aware of (feel free to correct me) that it has. Nor does a darker tone to the storytelling necessarily mean that its being watched more by adults than children.

Yes, I admittedly like the Moffat incarnation of Doctor Who more than you do, Si - that's why I don't want to change things. I suspect that your reasons for change are more because you don't like the way things are going than because you think merely swapping the episode length and reinstating cliffhangers. Like I say, an interesting idea in theory but not one I'd ever want to see put into practice.

[Lissa]

The McGann audio series tried the 45/50 minute format and it worked really well. When they switched to 2x25 I felt they lost something. The artificial peak in the middle for a cliffhanger that didn't necessarily need to be there was noticable and awkward. I love the old format for the old series but if I'm honest a lot of the classic series was so slow that 50 minutes would've been far too long. Now they rattle along so quickly and skip so much that 45 minutes flies by.

[Si Hunt]

I think that only somebody who wasn't particularly keen on the way the series is being produced currently could have suggested it.

Well, naturally. If I was happy with the way things were, why would I suggest changing it?

And saying that Doctor Who shouldn't be afraid to change just because the rest of the TV landscape works a different way isn't the same as advocating "change for changes sake".

I disagree about cliffhangers being "bigger and better". How many can YOU remember in the last six years?

Si.

[Awesome Wells]

I disagree about cliffhangers being "bigger and better". How many can YOU remember in the last six years?

Si.

Off the top of my head? The Doctor rushing off to find Melody, the discovery that Amy was a Ganger, the regeneration of the Master, the discovery of the Daleks inside that Genesis Device, Donna becoming part of the library, the massive army of Daleks that haven't been destroyed in the Time War after all ...

[egdcltd]

Something I noticed when they first started releasing the old Doctor Who on video. Some of the tapes just had the entire story play through from start to end, without breaking it into episodes, and you couldn't always tell where a lot of the cliffhanger endings were. This could have been in part at least because the cliffhangers sometimes depended on editing more than anything - I think it was in The Deadly Assassin where Tom Baker appeared to shoot the President, but the next episode filled in bits we'd missed.

[Si Hunt]

Off the top of my head? The Doctor rushing off to find Melody, the discovery that Amy was a Ganger, the regeneration of the Master, the discovery of the Daleks inside that Genesis Device, Donna becoming part of the library, the massive army of Daleks that haven't been destroyed in the Time War after all ...

Well, naturally, if you ask someone to prove themselves wrong...

The Doctor rushing off to find Melody??

Si.

[SiHart]

The Doctor rushing off to find Melody??

You remember Si, the game changing cliffhanger in May.

[Si Hunt]

Oh yes! I was on the edge of my seat knowing she was already safe and well.

Si.

[SiHart]

Unlike her Mum, eh Si

[Jason Thompson]

for Jason to say that a story of two 25 minute episodes is the same as one 45 minute story suggests he might not understand the concept at all.

I understand the concept perfectly, thank you. Whether it's a single 45 minute episode or two 25 minute episodes, the overall story still needs a beginning, a middle, and an end and is a similar overall length.

Because it would force the action to start working up to a point of dramatic tension at the 25 minute mark?

But would it? Yes, that's the theory behind having a 25 or 30 minute episode, but...

If you split a single 45 minute episode into 2 parts then you have to split the story with some kind of cliffhanger. So maybe that's the big dramatic thing it builds up to in part 1, while part 2 builds to the climax of the story. Many classic episodes follow that. Many more don't actually build to a cliffhanger at all, it just gets shoved into the middle of the story randomly, then conveniently escaped from a minute into the next. Previous experience of the show suggests that as much as 'forcing' the story to build to something dramatic in the middle, something dramatic is dropped in just for the cliffhanger, and the story could work without it.

On the flip side of that, if you look at some of the new episodes, many of them actually already build to a dramatic event at around the midpoint. Auton Mickey rampaging through the restaurant; Rose being trapped in a sealed room with a sunshade descending; The revival and escape of the Dalek; Cassandra releasing the disease carriers; and so on.

In short, I don't think the episode length is the key: a good writer can tailor a story and divide it into episodes given any episode length. The only thing the episode length 'forces' on the writer is the length, and if it is to be a multi-part story the need for a cliffhanger.

Jason said four parters frequently dragged, but I'm certainly not advocating that they come back.

Some dragged, some are superb. And the current two-part stories are more or less equivalent in length, so why not the occasional 4-parter if you bring back 25 minute episodes?

I know there wern't many, but how many old Doctor Who two parters or new Sarah Jane episodes are boring?

Few, but personally I find very few of the 45 minute episodes boring, partly because slimming down stories to a single 45 minute episode has tightened up the plotting. Looking back on the classic series now, many of them seem very long and plodding, even the really good ones.

The cliffhangers coming back would be a big plus. I'm sure if there was any other way of bringing these back on a regular basis, they'd have done it. It's a crying shame that the 45 minute format tends us to lose them. They're as much a part of Doctor Who as regeneration and the TARDIS, IMO. Something would DEFINATELY be gained by bringing them back

I'm not sure I agree with this. Yes, the cliffhangers were a big part of classic Who, but how many of them were actually any good?

Apart from a select few, most of them are contrived situations that threaten the Doctor or the companion at the middle of the story. You asked how many new series cliffhangers someone could remember, but how many of the over 700 classic ones are really memorable, and how many of them for good reasons?

The flip side of bringing back cliffhangers is bringing back the absurd cop out reprise that ends up there because the writer didn't actually want to write four distinct episodes but a feature-length story he had to split up somehow.

[Logo Polish]

Something I noticed when they first started releasing the old Doctor Who on video. Some of the tapes just had the entire story play through from start to end, without breaking it into episodes, and you couldn't always tell where a lot of the cliffhanger endings were. This could have been in part at least because the cliffhangers sometimes depended on editing more than anything - I think it was in The Deadly Assassin where Tom Baker appeared to shoot the President, but the next episode filled in bits we'd missed.

Might depend on which country you were in at the time. The only video releases of The Deadly Assassin in the UK were in episodic format, although I think it had a USA release a few years earlier, and I don't know what format that one was in.

Incidentally, regarding the issue of episode lengths, someone I know from other forums who has worked in television had this to say last year during a discussion on the same subject.

I'm surprised that nobody has picked on the real reason why DW stories aren't 4x25 minutes any more - they'd be impossible to sell overseas if they were.

NuWho is a relatively expensive drama series, it's not the throwaway bargain-basement endeavour it was in the old days. Overseas sales matter much more than they used to, and there is no market at all for selling primetime drama in multi-part 25-minute form. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but the only modern-day primetime drama programming that's close to being 25 minutes in length is soap.

And let's be honest here, nostalgia is the only reason why anyone would want DW stories to revert to the 4x25 format. If DW didn't have that history, nobody would now be saying "I really like Doctor Who, but you know what would make it better? Being shown in 25-minute episodes rather than 45-minute ones".

[Jon Masters]

Story structure is the key, rather than episode length - the classic W that ? Dennis Spooner, or was it Unlce Tewwy, once talked about. I have more problems with Nu Who's tendancy to do massive action - plot - sudden 10 minute grind to a halt for emoting. You'd have never got away with some of the 'blubbery' stuff we have now in a 25 min programme - you'd end up with no plot at all for that particular episode.

Meanwhile , the PS audios carry on the great tradition by having such tremendous cliffhangers that the TV show would be proud of !!