This past year since the show was last on the air, I’ve been rewatching a bunch of classic serials, and quite enjoying the longer format. It’s delightful to have big chunks of story developing over several episodes, not unlike the double (or rare triple) whammys we’ve had in the modern show.
It’s got me thinking, given the difficulties the BBC seem to have shouldering the expense of producing Doctor Who these days — wouldn’t it be feasible to release one or two multi-episode “event” series per year, one finished story each, plus a holiday special?
Altogether they could land at eight or less episodes a year, with lower production costs (say, locations and casting) across each serial. I’m sure there are still quarries and stately manors that weren’t used during Tom Baker’s stint, or deserve a revisit…
Maybe it will even be more realistic to fit a few blocks of shooting in between the main cast’s other engagements, and we could have a steady TARDIS team for (gasp!) three years or more?
Yeah, I’m reaching. Anything would be better than this current “hurry up and wait” BS.
…with lower production costs…
The cost of startup and shutdown is a lot steeper than you think.
Oh, I’m sure. What I actually know about TV production is vastly overshadowed by the confidence with which I present it 😄
I do assume creating sets and finding locations for one limited series would be cheaper than for the same number of individual episodes. Similarly casting the roles. And I would suppose different serials could be shot in one block if that saves money, too?
But I barely understand how a TV works, much less how shows end up on it. Like I said, I’m grasping for any straw of a likely way to see Doctor Who semi-regularly back on screen.
Part of the problem is that they came back with a budget. Which was great for production quality, but it also meant as the show went on, they had to maintain it. What made the original Who fun, was they were running on the same budget as a family making Halloween costumes. They don’t need to be that shoe string, but they could easily bring down the production to something more simple. Maybe do some animated runs for the big special effects to keep the budget sane.
What made the original Who fun, was they were running on the same budget as a family making Halloween costumes.
Wellll — I’ll agree it was part of what made classic Who fun 🙂 The infamous bubble wrap monster of “The ark in space” was a bit of a nadir that we don’t need to stoop to again…
On the other hand, I didn’t particularly see the big Disney-padded budgets doing much for the quality of the show, when it’s really done quite well on less. The powers that be (and viewers) need to embrace that Doctor Who can be janky and still work. The eyeball monster in “The eleventh hour” wasn’t great CGI, but Matt Smith sold it.
And I think writers would have a ball exploring a story at more length than one 45 minute episode. Add some twists and turns that otherwise might be sanded off. Imagine “Flux”, but with a story that actually makes sense 😉
The infamous bubble wrap monster of “The ark in space”
Or the cyclops people from that original Hartnell series. Where they wore mops on their heads, covering most of their face. And had a ping pong ball with a dot on it that they moved with their tongue as an eye.
Hey now, that was top of the line special effects 😄
I still watch the classic series more. I don’t know if it’s just nostalgia, or if I really just enjoy the quarry most of it was shot in. For me the jump in the budget didn’t really add anything of value. Yes it was cheap and hokey, but Pertwee and Baker eras were definitely peak storytelling for me.
To be fair, I believe there just is more of the classic show? 🙂 I like either incarnation of the show equally, but I do think some of the very early nuWho episodes have aged worse than classic era serials. That could also be because I was an adult (of a sort) through the aughts and cringe at the way contemporary society was portrayed…
I mean streamed shows are often down to 8 episodes a season. Its kinda funny they go for several seasons but its like the equivalent of one season of the way shows used to be.
True. The last couple of Doctor Who seasons have felt like they could fit into one 2005-ish season… and maybe have been tighter that way.
I’m not saying my suggestion would help that, but it might give us a steady (but slower) flow of new material.
That’s an interesting idea. I think one of the issues that the large media corps have yet to address (or even publicly identify?) is the effect of having a show vanish from the public eye for months, or even years, at a time. I don’t even know how you’d quantify that, but I think there’s something to it.
Star Trek isn’t immune to that, either, now that the number of shows has dwindled to two (or, more accurately, zero).
Then again, Disney seems to have run into the opposite issue with Star Wars, with its constant presence seeming like background noise, so there has to be a balance that needs to be struck.
A couple of “mini-Fluxes” per year could be pretty fun, though it may come at the cost of character development, which can already be pretty thin when spread across 8-10 episodes.
I was hoping the shorter production batches might eliminate the show disappearing off screens for years. In a lean season maybe there would be a single four-episode serial and a holiday special? But with enough traction to at least hit the December mark, I could see a year go by without a multi-parter, and the show remaining in the public consciousness.
But, let’s be serious. Shows like Who and Trek can be off screens for a decade and still be relevant to viewers. With 60+ years of TV and film presence available on streaming or physical media (and despite the BBC’s eccentricities cincerning international streaming deals), I’m fairly confident their cultural cache will tide them over.
All that said, and with the amount of DW media that I’ve hoarded for myself, I still want to see regular, new material. If that realistically turns out to be one serial in spring, one in autumn, and one xmas special for the casuals — you know, I could live with that.
I’m fairly confident their cultural cache will tide them over.
There was a time I would have agreed, no question. But lately…the seismic shifts in pop culture have been so significant, I legitimately have no idea.
At the every least, I think the back catalogue would have to be actively marketed - simply existing doesn’t seem to be enough any more.
I think one of the issues that the large media corps have yet to address (or even publicly identify?) is the effect of having a show vanish from the public eye for months, or even years, at a time.
Venture brothers, 7 seasons over the better part of 20 years if you count from the original airing of the pilot. A year or two between seasons wasn’t unusual.
The end of Davis Tennants run was 2 or 3 films over a year which was good. Would like to see that tried again.
