2013 Transmission / Shooting Details

[The Wormhole]

Samurai8472 wrote:

---

I'll cherish those 7-8 weeks of WHO in April before we go back into the dark until 2013 Christmas special


I hope a Proms or SOMETHING is wedged in between the wait

There is going to be an anniversary special, presumably in November. And that thing Mark Gatiss is doing, which I guess will also air in November.

[Lonemagpie]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

There is going to be an anniversary special, presumably in November. And that thing Mark Gatiss is doing, which I guess will also air in November.

Last I heard there were to be two specials, but one live, so that doesn't need to be filmed ahead of time...

[The Borgified Corpse]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

And besides, during those seven months we had Torchwood and SJA (which featured a Doctor cameo) to keep the Whoniverse alive.

When first announcing that seasons would be split, the reason given was because this would decrease the gaps between seasons. Instead it has increased it, and we don't even have spin-offs to keep us entertained. Although we shouldn't blame BBC or Moffat over that. Torchwood wasn't exactly a hit with Miracle Day, and SJA can't continue anymore.

I miss Torchwood, good Torchwood anyway. I think the BBC should considering giving the show one last chance, with the mandate that it go back to the standalone format from Seasons 1 & 2. Also, try to ask RTD if he can write the series without turning all the characters into a bunch of contemptible twats.

Andrew_Kearley wrote:

---

I really don't understand why you'd all expect a complete 13 part season every year. I imagine that Moffat's team work to the dictates of BBC scheduling, which would include budgetary concerns, etc. It's not very common for tv shows to come back every year in the same months as before. Extended breaks and revamped schedules are the norm, not the exception.

Unless you're an American. In that case, it just feels like they're toying with us. But Doctor Who is still better than Sherlock or Red Dwarf or The Catherine Tate Show. What the hell is the point of doing a "season" if it's only going to be 3-8 episodes long?

The Wormhole wrote:

---

In the past, a show traditionally began in September, continued airing new episodes until the end of November, then took a break for December. After that, you could be guaranteed of new episodes in February, but otherwise the remainig episodes of the seasons would be stretched out so that the season could last until May.

These days the episodes are clumped together, which usually means splitting the season in two halves. With some shows like Lost and 24 it was felt that a mid-season split actually hurt them, and they actually did air all episodes consecutively, with a season starting in January and ending in May.

Maybe I'm ignorant here, but it does feel like BSG and the Stargates were the pioneers of the mid-season split with having mid-season cliffhangers. Hell, I'm fairly certain BSG started the tradition of releasing half-seasons on DVD.

I'm not sure if BSG was THE first, but it was one of the first to do DVD half-seasons. And it was certainly one of the first new shows to do it. (A lot of old shows do half-season DVD sets but that's because they did 30+ episodes each season, like Bonanza, Gunsmoke, Perry Mason, etc.)

It's OK to strech things out if you're doing 20 episodes per season. But if you're only doing 13 episodes, splitting it seems rediculous.

That said, it feels less awkward this year than it did last year. Last year, lodging a big mid-season cliffhanger like "A Good Man Goes to War" in the middle of the season just seemed to completely throw off its rhythm (especially when they'd already crammed two 2-parters into that 7 episode half season). On the other hand, this year, there seems to be a natural narrative break between the departure of Amy & Rory in "The Angels Take Manhattan" and the introduction of the new companion in "The Snowmen." Not to mention they seem to be redesigning everything else on the show, from the opening credits to the console room to the Doctor's wardrobe.

(BTW, if the show is really hurting for money, why would they spend money redesigning the console room after they already redesigned it a couple years ago?)

[StCoop]

(BTW, if the show is really hurting for money, why would they spend money redesigning the console room after they already redesigned it a couple years ago?)

They didn't have a choice. The old (old!) set was literally welded to the foundations of the previous studio (BBC forsesight at it's finest!), so when they moved they couldn't take it down and rebuild it.

Hence the new smaller, cheaper set.

[The Borgified Corpse]

StCoop wrote:

---

They didn't have a choice. The old (old!) set was literally welded to the foundations of the previous studio (BBC forsesight at it's finest!), so when they moved they couldn't take it down and rebuild it.

Hence the new smaller, cheaper set.

Huh. I didn't know that. Why did they have to move? And why didn't they figure on this in the first place? Didn't they have to move the old Eccleston/Tennant console room between Seasons 2 & 3? And wasn't that a total pain in the ass because it was never meant to be moved?

Still, I kinda like the new, smaller console room if only because it reminds me of the console room from the classic series.

[Allyn Gibson]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

Huh. I didn't know that. Why did they have to move?

The BBC's lease on the facility at Upper Boat expired. Rather than re-up (probably because it was too small for the productions the BBC wanted to stage there), the BBC decided to build a new (and bigger) soundstage facility at Roath Lock.

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

And why didn't they figure on this in the first place? Didn't they have to move the old Eccleston/Tennant console room between Seasons 2 & 3? And wasn't that a total pain in the ass because it was never meant to be moved?

At the time the new console room was built in 2009, they probably didn't expect that they would have to move it. When the production move was announced, I'm sure they looked at moving it but then discovered that it was more trouble than it was worth.

[FreddyE]

All this stuff about splitting the season, more who actually meaning less who, budget, etc....makes me worried. I guess season 8 might very well be the last?

[The Wormhole]

FreddyE wrote:

---

I guess season 8 might very well be the last?

Now you're just jumping to conclusions. It might be the last for Moffat and Smith (and that's just idle speculation which means nothing, I don't actually know for sure that it will), but given the ratings the show pulls in, it will continue in some way.

[Allyn Gibson]

FreddyE wrote:

---

All this stuff about splitting the season, more who actually meaning less who, budget, etc....makes me worried. I guess season 8 might very well be the last?

No. The BBC, through Worldwide, likes the revenue that Doctor Who brings because it helps to fund all of the BBC. If the series were ever really threatened by monetary issues at the BBC, a coproduction deal would be found, probably with BBC America.