Officially no series 8 in 2013

[Nick Ryder]

Y'know honestly I think Moffat could never hack doing an American TV series that's one thing that's for certain. I mean most of the hour long dramas run at least 15-23 episodes a SEASON - which is really like August/September until about May and then it starts up again. So the fact that in one year - one FULL year he only managed 6 episodes and a Christmas special. That's... kind of sad. While yes, there are SFX to worry about - it's still not THAT much of an effects driven show. Not like say, Star Trek or Stargate and even they still managed to put in 20-some odd episodes.

I mean when you have a show that's getting some steady interest - you don't just put out seven episodes in one year and expect people to flock to it when it does return.

Say what you will about Davies, at least you still got 13 episodes a year plus the specials.

[diankra]

Nick, it's got nothing to do with the relative talents of Moffat and RTD... it's all about decisions higher up in the BBC. If he was still here, Russell would be coming out with the same BS about 'best year ever' while knowing no-one believed him.

[The Wormhole]

Lance wrote:

---

To be honest, I think they'd be better off simply admitting that Doctor Who only has six episodes each series from now on. None of this 'Series "x" Part "x"!' business.

Honestly, any show that does split seasons should just start referring to each block as its own season as opposed to season x part x. Especially with American shows that split twenty episode seasons into two blocks of ten. Each block of ten should just be its own season. Hell, there are quite a few shows which do only have ten episode seasons anyway.

[Nick Ryder]

But my point being - during the RTD era you had like 2 other series running - Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures. So I could understand the necessity to have shorter seasons and maybe even split it up a bit.

Now there's just Dr. Who and that's really it.

I have this really bad feeling that BBC is going to let Who die again like they did in the 90s, they'll milk it for all the merchandising and such they can get but not produce anything new after Smith's run is over. Even though the series has run for 50 years which is amazing

[Lance]

Nick Ryder wrote:

---

But my point being - during the RTD era you had like 2 other series running - Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures. So I could understand the necessity to have shorter seasons and maybe even split it up a bit.

Now there's just Dr. Who and that's really it.

Absolutely. There is simply no excuse.

Edit: I think what gets me the most is exactly what has bugged a few others: a 60 minute 'special' simply isn't special enough for a 50th anniversary. Any other show, yes. But a half century is a fucking milestone that deserves far more respect than an episode with an identical running time to your average end-of-year Christmas episode. Especially given we're getting fuck all in terms of other output in the same year. They can't stump up just that bit more cash for this monumental occasion? I call bullshit on that.

[Australis]

I have to agree that the 50th Special being 1x 60min is a piss poor effort. The BBC, from Moffat to the very top, should have taken it a lot more seriously.

And it is quite within their ability to spend more money on this show, it's just a matter of allocation.

[Allyn Gibson]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Honestly, any show that does split seasons should just start referring to each block as its own season as opposed to season x part x.

I was surprised when the last DVD came out and it was called "Series Seven, Part One." The reason I was surprised was that BBC Worldwide had told merchandisers and marketers last summer (and I have the e-mails at work) that the Pond episodes were "Series 7" and the JLC episodes were "Series 8."

But plans change. *shrug*

Underground Toys uses wording like "the 2013 series" in their materials. DWM uses similar terminology. While it would be nice to have an approved style guide, the terminology used doesn't matter so much as the punters understand what they're buying and that it's what they want.

[Nick Ryder]

Well really this next "series" is pretty different compared to the previous 6 episodes that it really shouldn't be referred to as anything but a series unto itself. I mean it'd be like during Tennant's run for him to lose Rose, and then change the Tardis and everything and expect people to consider everything After Rose to be a "new series"

[StalwartUK]

Wouldn't surprise me if after the 50th shorter series become the norm.

Speculation: What if the 50th Anniversary Special is the Christmas Special? Just moved forward a month or so.

[Allyn Gibson]

Nick Ryder wrote:

---

Well really this next "series" is pretty different compared to the previous 6 episodes that it really shouldn't be referred to as anything but a series unto itself.

I completely agree with you, which is why I was excited that Worldwide was going to call it "Series 8." Until they decided not to.

[Sindatur]

Snick27 wrote:

---

Regarding the 50th.

Something like this you dont screw up. You have Baker, Davidson, Other Baker, McCoy, McGann nearing the end of their lives, and to piss this away for any reason just defeats the whole point of celibrating the 50th.

Say what? Since when is 53 (Paul McGann) and 61 (Davison) considered to be "nearing the end of their life"? The Bakers and McCoy at 69 and older, yes, definitely a legitimate concern that the opportunity may not arise again.

Not to say McGann or Davison are immune from dying/becoming incapacitated before a future opportunity arises, and I definitely want as many opportunities to see them all while they are alive as possible, but, to call call 53 and 61 "Nearing the end of their lives" is WAY over the top (Unless you know of some specific health threat they have, which I'm unaware of). Yes, I'm aware of Mary Tamm, Elisabeth Sladen and Caroline John the last few years, but, those are exceptions

[diankra]

Well, Davison is only six years off hitting 67, which is when Hartnell and Troughton both died, but as four Docors have now passed it safely(and the one who's passed on lasted another 10 years, superstitious worries about that have gone the way to 'The Rule of Five' .
The Rule of Five was based on the idea that only so many Doctors could be alive at any one time. Initially sparked off by William Hartnell dying midway through Tom Baker's first season, it took on a life of its own when Troughton died between Sylvester being cast and transmission of his first episode, and Pertwee then passed on the same way just before the McGann movie went out.
Fortunately, the pattern has been broken. But some of us were really worried back in early 2005...

[StCoop]

Let's be clear here. The BBC are losing millions and million of pounds by not having a full series of Doctor Who last year and this year at a time when they need the money more than ever.

They're not the ones respsonsible for this situation except to the extent that they seem afraid to step in and get Moffat to either shape up or ship out.

[DalekJim]

How are the BBC not responsible?

[Starkers]

DalekJim wrote:

---

How are the BBC not responsible?

They are responsible, whichever way you look at it, either for cutting funding and messing Moffat about, or by not dealing with the situation if it is Moffat's doing. To suggest its not the BBC's fault in any way is to imply Moffat is some kind of evil manipulative genius who makes Jimmy Savile look like an amateur (in the pulling wool over people's eyes, not messing with kids kind of way obviously!)