Officially no series 8 in 2013

[chardman]

The series has fallen further and further behind in production since Moffat took over to the extent that they'll only have shot one episode in eight months.

Well, only one episode that you know of. Which says nothing of material that may have been shot in secret during that period that you know nothing about. It's not like there are other project compromising Moffat's (or Gatiss') availability to do that. After all, "Sherlock' is on prolonged hiatus due to "NuTrek 2" and "The Hobbit".

The idea that they've somehow found the time and money to do all this secret shooting is wishful thinking.

Time, as per above, hasn't really been an issue. The money angle? Well, thus far the BBC sure hasn't been stingy about this anniversary, what with acquiring the not at all cheap tech to use the anniversary-date ep as the kick-off of their new 3D broadcast division, and all the costs that entails, and springing a sizable chunk of change for Gatiss' docudrama full of of easily double-duty (thus cost saving) props, costumes, etc. It seems pretty damn obvious that the BBC isn't skimping on this anniversary celebration a/k/a "Global PR Stunt" connected with their most popular and profitable export.

As far as I'm concerned, the notion that time and/or money has been a stumbling block in this matter is far more unduly pessimistic, than the inverse is "wishful thinking".

[Allyn Gibson]

chardman wrote:

---

Well, only one episode that you know of. Which says nothing of material that may have been shot in secret during that period that you know nothing about. It's not like there are other project compromising Moffat's (or Gatiss') availability to do that. After all, "Sherlock' is on prolonged hiatus due to "NuTrek 2" and "The Hobbit".

Star Trek wrapped in July. The second phase of The Hobbit filming wrapped in September. (The first phase was pre-Sherlock II filming. The third phase, the reshoots to fashion the third film, commence in May.) Sherlock was to film in January (at which point Freeman would have been finished with Hobbit publicity).

Filming has been pushed to March (which is the latest it can film to fit before Freeman is due back in New Zealand). Last month Cumberbatch was filming a Julian Assange biopic; he either took that role because Sherlock's filming dates had moved or Sherlock's filming dates were moved because he took that role. Personally, I think the former possibility is more likely; Cumberbatch doesn't strike me as a diva who would throw an entire production off by two months because he took other work, plus we know that as of the beginning of the month the Gatiss and Moffat scripts for Sherlock weren't finished.

In short, the oft-cited reason for Sherlock's filming delay -- Star Trek and The Hobbit -- has no basis in reality.

[chardman]

Then by all means, feel free to replace "Star Trek 2" and "The Hobitt" in my posts to read "other projects". But, as you say, they apparently weren't ready to begin production on the new series of "Sherlock" even after Trek and Hobitt wrapped, and even imply that Cumberbatch (and presumably Freeman) likely weren't to blame, so the cause of the delay must lie elsewhere.

With Moffat and Gatiss perhaps?

I wonder what they could have possibly been doing instead that would have caused them to fall behind so? Perhaps a secret project of some kind?

[StCoop]

chardman wrote:

---

Which says nothing of material that may have been shot in secret during that period that you know nothing about.

I think if you're claiming that there's been other shooting going on (it wouldn't have involved Matt Smith as he was preping then directing a film BTW) you need to show some tiny sliver of evidence that would make it more than the product of your imagination.

chardman wrote:

---

Well, thus far the BBC sure hasn't been stingy about this anniversary, what with acquiring the not at all cheap tech to use the anniversary-date ep as the kick-off of their new 3D broadcast division, and all the costs that entails, and springing a sizable chunk of change for Gatiss' docudrama full of of easily double-duty (thus cost saving) props, costumes, etc.

1) This isn't their first 3D drama production, it's their second,so the equipment was already purchased. This is just a way of amortising the cost.

2) AAIS&T's costs come from a completely different budget for a different channel.

[chardman]

I think if you're claiming that there's been other shooting going on (it wouldn't have involved Matt Smith as he was preping then directing a film BTW)

Duh. I've said "scenes that don't actually require Matt's presence, such as flashbacks and the like" in the vast majority of my posts on this subject. I've stated this repeatedly. Even wrote a post talking about how many of the scenes in "The Five Doctors" focused solely on other characters, and older incarnations of the Doctor, rather than the then current Doctor.

1) This isn't their first 3D drama production, it's their second,so the equipment was already purchased. This is just a way of amortising the cost.

Funny, because BBC has repeatedly mentioned how they're using the Who anniversary to unveil the technology to viewers. And as per the placard at the toy fair, the BBC would never say anything deceptive, misleading, or other than the whole truth, now would they?

2) AAIS&T's costs come from a completely different budget for a different channel.

And the various divisions and channels of the BBC never share assets with one another, even when it makes sense to do so, and to do otherwise would involve two divisions/channels unnecessarily doubling overall expenses by duplicating one another's work? I think not.

[StCoop]

chardman wrote:

---

I've said "scenes that don't actually require Matt's presence, such as flashbacks and the like" in the vast majority of my posts on this subject. I've stated this repeatedly. Even wrote a post talking about how many of the scenes in "The Five Doctors" focused solely on other characters, and older incarnations of the Doctor, rather than the then current Doctor.

Yes, but none of this exists anywhere other than your imagination, unless you can show differently.

chardman wrote:

---

Funny, because BBC has repeatedly mentioned how they're using the Who anniversary to unveil the technology to viewers. And as per the placard at the toy fair, the BBC would never say anything deceptive, misleading, or other than the whole truth, now would they?

Feel free to show me where they've claimed it's their first 3D production. Actually show me multiple examples since they've "repeatedly" done so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/20718866

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/pro.../mr-stink.html

[chardman]

StCoop wrote:

---

Yes, but none of this exists anywhere other than your imagination, unless you can show differently.

I'd assumed we all understood this was speculation.

Feel free to show me where they've claimed it's their first 3D production. Actually show me multiple examples since they've "repeatedly" done so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/20718866

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/pro.../mr-stink.html

I will concede this point for now, as I'm not willing to take the time to track down links. Also, because I acknowledge that the BBC has broadcast in 3D before, (Heck, Doctor Who has aired in 3D before; back in the early 90s for the 30th anniversary) but to the best of my knowledge, all previous BBC 3d programs have used a totally different technology from what will supposedly be used for the 50th Anniversary episode. But if, as you say, they have used this very same 3D tech before, a link supporting this notion could easily prove me wrong.

[Green Lantern]

Sindatur wrote:

---

No surprise there, S7 is Matt Smith's 3rd Series, so, it wouldn't be a surprise at all, if his tenure is nearing it's end. I'd love to see him stay longer, but, not many have stayed beyond 3 Series (Hartnell just a bit over 3, Pertwee 6 and Tom Baker 7, and then Tennant did the Specials after 3 Series)

I wouldn't be opposed to him staying or leaving for a fourth series, but I'd want him to move on after that. Although to me, it feels like he's only just got here. I've never really gelled with Smith the way I did Tennant, and plus with all this stupid splitting up series thing, it's just drawing it out longer, but seeing only one of his series has been in a big chunk, I never got to gel with him much, plus series 6 was terrible, and there's only been six series 7 episodes so far. I say stop this god awfull splitting series up thing, and sack Moffat.

[DalekJim]

Who should Moffat be replaced with, exactly?

[Allyn Gibson]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Who should Moffat be replaced with, exactly?

I'd love to see Bryan Fuller take the reins when Moffat leaves. Or Michael Hirst.

[sidious618]

I'm worried Mark Gatiss might take over. He's not proven to be a very good Doctor Who writer with both his scripts and his books.

[Admiral_Young]

I thought STscoop had mentioned Toby Whithouse at one point was a front runner? Or at least a rumoured front runner? My apologies if I'm misremembering.

[The Wormhole]

Well, Toby Whithouse is looking for work, knows how to run a show, and most of his Doctor Who episodes are pretty good. He's as good a choice as any to take over.

But really, I don't think it's necessary to replace Moffat yet. Someone just needs to overrule him and stop splitting the seasons.

[ATimson]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

But really, I don't think it's necessary to replace Moffat yet. Someone just needs to overrule him and stop splitting the seasons.

Then you need someone to replace him, since he's simply not writing the second half in a timely fashion.

[FreddyE]

chardman wrote:

---

We know that they are shooting the hour episode which is to air on the anniversary itself in 3D. That doesn't in any way negate the possibility of additional anniversary episodes being made in the conventional way to air after the one that airs on the anniversary itself.

Yep..and it seems you´re right on the money with that. In an recent con interview Moffat basically says "Whoever thinks that the 3D special is going to be the only thing is nuts".