The split season discussion thread - 2012

[Andrew Curnow]

Series Five had a far longer production lead-in than the series in the latter part of RTD's era, and the Series Six production schedule saw half that series being held back to the latter half of the year. Sooner or later, something had to give: the 14 episodes that were made annually back in the 2000s are now being made 15-monthly

Sorry to be an old moaner, but I don't think this is quite right is it? Yes, half of season six was held back but that's a transmission schedule, not production? They started filming in October, I think, and ended in... was it July, I seem to recall it was a 'news item' on the BBC site during the Summer. So that would be 10 months, and I believe the RTD seasons tended to start recording in June (usually just before or after the season finale aired) and ended around March. OK, that's maybe 9 months instead of 10, but it's not gone from a period of less than a year, to a period of more than a year.

As I say, I'm sure there are reasons for it, I'm not claiming anybody's just doing it on a personal whim; but I can't see any way of realistically being pleased about it.

Yours sincerely, Grumbly of Devon

[J.R. Southall]

Yes, half of season six was held back but that's a transmission schedule, not production? They started filming in October, I think, and ended in... was it July, I seem to recall.

Grumbly of Devon

Before I go back to your other point, I'll quickly deal with this one.

You've answered your own question. Scheduling the entire series in the usual spring slot couldn't have happened because they didn't finish it until...?

Incidentally, I'm in Devon too. We could talk about this stuff face to face.

[J.R. Southall]

I have to ask, is this guesswork or is this definitive? I'm particularly interested in this comment:

as a showrunner and executive producer, Moffat has arranged for the lion's share of this year's production episodes to be broadcast next year, during the anniversary. Or would you rather next year be the one in which there were only five (or rather, six) episodes

Isn't that a bit like me going into my boss on Monday and saying, I've decided to only work eighteen months out of the next two years, how would you like it split? In other words, why has Moffat (if that is the case) decided that we need to have a short year either this or next? I have to say, I find it hard to really believe he has that much pull with the BBC, but maybe I'm wrong. A bif part of the showrunner role is surely to keep the show ON the air, not to reduce how often it appears.

The other thing I have to say, is that I can't think of ANY other show where this happens. Most other series have a set number of episodes each year, and generally a fairly regular time of year. And I guess what really niggled me, having rewatched last week's episode this morning, is that the continuity announcer followed ad's for Strictly and Merlin with a comment along the lines of "it's all going to be very exciting next week" before then bringing on Doctor Who. Shouldn't WHO be part of the Autumn Saturday line-up?

BTW, I realise I'm very inconsistent, I didn't mind the 'Gap Year' at all - but on that occasion one could see the reason, being a change of personnel, whereas this time, whatever way its spun, it just looks like a move to reduce the amount of screentime we can expect from now on. Yes it's better than 2004, but that's not really the point is it?

You've misinterpreted my meaning, by use of the word "arranged". I'm not saying Moffat told them what they could have, any more than they told him what they wanted him to do.

The BBC say "these are the resources available, what can you do with them?" and Moffat says, "well, if you also give me x I can provide y"; there's some bartering of resources and some back and forth with the figures, and eventually a production schedule and a transmission schedule are arrived at.

That's what I meant by "arranged".

Moffat will have said to them, "Look. Next year's the 50th, and you've given me enough resources to produce x amount of episodes between now and then. So if I produce y with a view to scheduling transmission in 2012, and then another z with a view to transmission during the anniversary year, would that be okay?"

And then they barter and back and forth some more until 6 in 2012 and (possibly) 15 in 2013 is arrived at. And that's where we are.

On a more complicated level, the production schedule might now be ten months-ish per 14 episodes as opposed to the previous 9 (we don't get the Doctor-lite any more, if people are wondering how that's come about), but you must also allow for three or four months off in between times.

So let's say that 14 episodes used to take 9 months + 3 months' downtime to produce, and that now comes to 10 months (I think it's nearer 11 actually) + 3 months downtime (last break was considerably longer, in fact, to allow for the increased production schedule they were going into). Well, 12 months' work to produce 14 has now become 14/15 months' work.

So in order to schedule 14 episodes as a "block", you'd need to push each block back by about a quarter of the year.

In effect, that's what happened last year. Except in order to allow for the usual spring start-time, they only pushed half the series back by a quarter of the year.

This year, they started even later than usual (to allow for the longer production schedule), and will be finishing much later (because of that production schedule), and so the whole broadcast schedule has had to be re-examined.

Even if the production hadn't started later, they'd have had to start the whole series in the autumn with a view to a three-month break between the first and second half of the series.

Because that production schedule has allowed for extra filming, those three months have of necessity had to be made six (so we can expect Part 2 of this series sometime in the spring).

The extended production schedule means they won't be starting on a series next year, but will be making some kind of a mini-series (or series of specials) instead. So as of next autumn all bets are off as regards regular production schedules, with recommencement on the more 'normal' production regime beginning again next year, for another regular series to start transmission in 2014 (possibly spring and autumn split, again).

Therefore, there will not be a "series" as such between the end of Series 7 next spring, and the beginning of Series 8 the following spring, and whatever we get for the anniversary (hopefully those seven specials) will be entirely out of the run of a normal production regime.

[Alex]

Anthony, I don't think it's reasonable to remain accustomed to good times when everywhere else, belts are being tightened and services are being pegged back. I suspect if we hadn't hit a recession and the money was still available for Doctor Who to remain in as heavy a production schedule as it was in the latter 2000s, then it probably would be still. But the fact is, everything is being pegged back at the moment, and the BBC has lost a substantial portion of its income.

Sorry JR, but I can't see how this is true. They've managed to produce five series of Merlin on the bounce without any problems, along with (to me at least) rubbish like Casualty and Holby City which never seem to be off the airwaves. They haven't cut back on the number of episodes of Eastenders despite falling ratings (and no dvd sales, or any other similar merchandise) so why should Who be affected when the others aren't?

[Rob McCow]

I refuse to understand any of this until I read the Andrew Pixley Archive in 2020!

[J.R. Southall]

I can't think of ANY other show where this happens.

Just three series chosen at random:

Primeval

S1 2007 6 episodes
S2 2008 7 episodes
S3 2009 10 episodes
S4 2011 7 episodes
S5 2011 6 episodes

Spooks

S1 2002 6 episodes
S2 2003 10 episodes
S3 2004 (moved from spring to autumn) 10 episodes
S4 2005 10 episodes
S5 2006 10 episodes
S6 2007 10 episodes
S7 2008 8 episodes
S8 2009 8 episodes
S9 2010 8 episodes
S10 2011 8 episodes

Silent Witness

S1 1996 8 episodes
S2 1997 8 episodes
S3 1998 8 episodes
S4 1999 6 episodes
S5 2000 6 episodes
S6 2002 (two-year break) 8 episodes
S7 2003 8 episodes
S8 2004 8 episodes
S9 2005 8 episodes
S10 2006 10 episodes
S11 2007 10 episodes
S12 2008 12 episodes
S13 2010 (move from autumn to spring) 10 episodes
S14 2011 10 episodes
S15 2012 12 episodes

Changing scheduling and episode patterns really isn't that unusual. These were the first three series I randomly looked up. We just notice it, because we're Doctor Who fans.

[J.R. Southall]

Sorry JR, but I can't see how this is true. They've managed to produce five series of Merlin on the bounce without any problems, along with (to me at least) rubbish like Casualty and Holby City which never seem to be off the airwaves. They haven't cut back on the number of episodes of Eastenders despite falling ratings (and no dvd sales, or any other similar merchandise) so why should Who be affected when the others aren't?

Doctor Who is a far more complicated and far more expensive exercise than these other programmes. You're not comparing like for like. Merlin has produced the same number of episodes (give or take a Christmas Special) as Who did in its first four years. If Merlin were to carry on for another four years, don't think that that pattern wouldn't change.

[J.R. Southall]

One last word before I go off and do other things:

Seriously guys, the second half of Series Seven is in production now.

When did you think they were going to schedule it?

[Andrew Curnow]

Fair enough about the other shows, you're right I guess that I'm/we're just more aware of it with Who... although I would say Spooks is pretty consistent from series 3 onwards, but fair point.

I guess what I'm really niggling against, and I think actually you're making the same point, is that they seem to now take longer to make the same number of episodes as before. Fundamentally, I suppose, I'm disatisfied with that, and I think that trying to dress it up in different ways as "game-changing ciffhangers" or "Pond mini-series" is just annoying (to me anyway).

It would also be interesting to know why they take longer to make the same number of episodes; again I'm sure there are reasons... but then there's probably a reason why the timeslot constantly moves nowadays, whereas for the first four years it was MOSTLY fixed (I know that series 4, or was it 3, wavered around a bit, until RTD (I think he mentions it in his book) spoke to the BBC and got that sorted). So there'll always be a reason, just maybe not a very good one. (You'll notice how I'm tactfully avoiding the word Sherlock anywhere in that sentence, for example. )

Seriously guys, the second half of Series Seven is in production now

Ah, but that's circular logic - the counter-argument would be, why did they start production so "late"? It's of course going to be scheduled on when they're actually being made, you can't show what's not been finished!

[J.R. Southall]

Fair enough about the other shows, you're right I guess that I'm/we're just more aware of it with Who... although I would say Spooks is pretty consistent from series 3 onwards, but fair point.

I guess what I'm really niggling against, and I think actually you're making the same point, is that they seem to now take longer to make the same number of episodes as before. Fundamentally, I suppose, I'm disatisfied with that, and I think that trying to dress it up in different ways as "game-changing ciffhangers" or "Pond mini-series" is just annoying (to me anyway).

Ah well, this is just "publicity speak", like "Autumn is the natural time for it!" and "You'll never be more than a few months away from a new episode!" They're seriously not going to go into press situations and say, "Guys, we've screwed things up a bit." I think it's better to treat these sorts of statement with a pinch of salt; better that they appear to be going into changes with a better reason than that the episodes simply aren't ready when they used to be.

It would also be interesting to know why they take longer to make the same number of episodes; again I'm sure there are reasons... but then there's probably a reason why the timeslot constantly moves nowadays, whereas for the first four years it was MOSTLY fixed (I know that series 4, or was it 3, wavered around a bit, until RTD (I think he mentions it in his book) spoke to the BBC and got that sorted). So there'll always be a reason, just maybe not a very good one. (You'll notice how I'm tactfully avoiding the word Sherlock anywhere in that sentence, for example. )

Ah, but that's circular logic - the counter-argument would be, why did they start production so "late"? It's of course going to be scheduled on when they're actually being made, you can't show what's not been finished!

I think there are reasons, any number. And for what it's worth, I don't like there being less Doctor Who; I just accept it and understand that there's nothing I can do about it, so I choose to be happy with what there is rather than disappointed that there isn't more.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the move from one production building to another. I suspect the delay at the start of the current production run was partly to do with giving the crews a bit of a rest before the epic (possibly) 22 episode non-stop production block, and partly to allow time for the new buildings to be ready.

The fact that Moffat prefers not to do a Doctor-lite episode is another.

I suspect the diminished budgets can be manipulated so that manoeuvring the production blocks to fall into different areas of the tax year might also help to leaven the financial situation.

I expect they've built more days off for the cast and crew into the (what would then be a slightly slower) schedule, as well. The eleven-day fortnights with dawn starts and night shoots can't have been much fun during the RTD era, and are probably largely what Eccleston was complaining about when he left.

When it comes down to it though, (as long as Doctor Who remains in production) I'm quite happy with never knowing quite when it will be back or for how long; these are the kinds of mystery that the series itself thrives upon, and (as long as we know that it will be back) I find it all rather exciting!

[Larry]

I

The other thing I have to say, is that I can't think of ANY other show where this happens. Most other series have a set number of episodes each year, and generally a fairly regular time of year. And I guess what really niggled me, having rewatched last week's episode this morning, is that the continuity announcer followed ad's for Strictly and Merlin with a comment along the lines of "it's all going to be very exciting next week" before then bringing on Doctor Who. Shouldn't WHO be part of the Autumn Saturday line-up?

it?

but then ask yourself how many major BBC or even ITV dramas last 14 episodes per season. Only Doctor Who and Merlin have a 13 episode run all other programms like Hustle, Spooks , Luther, Ashes to Ashes Life on Mars , George Gentry, Silent Witness and New Tricks all average 3 to 8 episodes per season . So because of that there is no need for a mid series break.

[Alex]

But then look at the number of episodes Casualty has each season:

1 15 1986 6 September 1986 – 27 December 1986
2 15 1987 12 September 1987 – 19 December 1987
3 10 1988 9 September 1988 – 4 November 1988
4 12 1989 8 September 1989 – 1 December 1989
5 13 1990 7 September 1990 – 7 December 1990
6 15 1991–1992 6 September 1991 – 27 February 1992
7 24 1992–1993 12 September 1992 – 27 February 1993
8 24 1993–1994 18 September 1993 – 26 February 1994
9 24 1994–1995 17 September 1994 – 25 March 1995
10 24 1995–1996 16 September 1995 – 24 February 1996
11 24 1996–1997 14 September 1996 – 22 February 1997
12 26 1997–1998 11 September 1997[nb 1] - 28 February 1998
13 28 1998–1999 5 September 1998 – 13 March 1999
14 30 1999–2000 18 September 1999 – 25 March 2000
15 36 2000–2001 16 September 2000 – 28 April 2001
16 40 2001–2002 15 September 2001 – 29 June 2002
17 40 2002–2003 14 September 2002 – 21 June 2003
18 46 2003–2004 13 September 2003 – 28 August 2004
19 47 2004–2005 11 September 2004 – 20 August 2005
20 45 2005–2006 10 September 2005 – 26 August 2006
21 48 2006–2007 23 September 2006 – 4 August 2007
22 48 2007–2008 8 September 2007 – 9 August 2008
23 48 2008–2009 13 September 2008 – 1 August 2009
24 49 2009–2010 12 September 2009 – 21 August 2010
25 47 2010–2011 4 September 2010 – 6 August 2011
26 42 2011–2012 13 August 2011 - 22 July 2012
27 44 2012–2013 18 August 2012 – 2013

Dagnammit, I want 44 episodes of Who a year!

[J.R. Southall]

Casualty, like Holby, Eastenders and so on, is really a soap opera though, isn't it? Admittedly it, like The Bill before it, has a story-of-the-week formula, but that's just a gloss over the reality - it's a multi-camera, large regular cast, single-location shoot, by and large. If only Doctor Who were so easy to make!

However...

[J.R. Southall]

Okay, so here's a question...

Regardless of whether you think the following is 'morally' right or wrong.

Would you, if the Americans were to do their own Page One reboot of Doctor Who (produced by BBC America, perhaps...), running in tandem with the British series and respectful of its tropes and formula, while bringing something of its own creation to the table (sympathetic to the material but very much its own beast, like the US remake of The Office was), be happy to watch "a" version of Doctor Who for an average of 30-odd weeks a year?

Or would you say "stick the Yankee remake" and refuse to watch anything but the original British version?

Would you cut off your nose to spite your face? Or would you revel in the fact that you had some kind of Doctor Who for three times the usual amount of time?

[Alex]

As long as it didn't affect the popularity and continued success of the UK version at all, I'd love it personally. Of course it would have to be in the right hands - and I can think of very few showrunners who would be up to the job, indeed bar Joss Whedon and Alan Ball (more for Six Feet Under than True Blood, though the latter can be enormous fun at times) no one springs immediately to mind. Or at least no one with a proven track record. But say if they got Neil Gaiman* in it'd be a dream come true.




*Or David Lynch - I genuinely think he could do something amazing with the idea that would be a cross between Twin Peaks, The Straight Story, Dune and The Elephant Man. I mean, what if Dale Cooper was the Doctor all along, but just didn't know it, and Gordon Cole's the Master and...Ahem, I'm rambling, I'll stop now.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

As long as we still the series running in the UK even if we only get an average of 6/7 new episodes a year then I would say no to an American version.

If we ever end up back we were in the mid 90s with the series having been cancelled or on long term hiatus then I'd be happy to accept an American offering as "better than nothing" but if you seriously expect them to start churning out 22 episodes a year we'll see a lot more "bottle" episodes and with respect to some of our favourite classic era stories there are only so many adventures you can set in the console room.
Personally I prefer having fewer episodes with reasonably consistent production values such as we had this year.

[Si Hunt]

I'd buy a US remake on DVD, but I wouldn't take the celphane off it.

Si.