Doctor Who due a major shake-up as bosses aim for 'brand new show' in 2018

[Haggis and tatties]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/doctor-who-due-major-shake-9254797



BBC bosses want Doctor who to feel like “a brand new show” under incoming boss Chris Chibnall... so we can expect a whole new line-up in 2018.
Insiders say the Broadchurch writer will have a “clean slate” to start afresh for his first series – rather bad news for actress Pearl Mackie, who plays new assistant Bill in Steven Moffat’s last run, currently filming for next year.

Pearl, 29, yet to be seen by viewers, is said to have been signed on a one-year contract and is expected to depart with Peter Capaldi, 58, and Moffat after 2017’s Christmas special.
The replacement Time Lord is likely to be played by a younger actor in a bid to help boost the flagging sales of dolls, books, DVDs and toys.

Our source says: “BBC management wants a return to the format from the David Tennant era, when you had a dashing male lead and young female companion.
"Merchandising has dropped off sharply in recent years and there is a strong desire to boost the show’s popularity among kids.”
One way to do that, of course, is by returning to its traditional tea-time slot, rather than the post-Strictly position it languished in last year.
Next year’s show is expected to air in spring rather than autumn, to avoid the Saturday clash with Strictly.


Shame as i really enjoyed Capaldi's Dr, and i bet he will just get into his stride in his third year, but still three years is all good so onwards and upwards.

Of course it is a bit rich to complain about lack of sales when the TV series, apart from a Xmas special, will have been off the air for nearly 18 months by the time it comes back. lol

 

[TommyR01D]

So their conclusion from all of this was that the reason for flagging sales and declining viewer interest was... Peter Capaldi being too old.

All this is truly dreadful news.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

They really don't have a f-ing clue, do they?

 

[Starkers]

They really don't have a f-ing clue, do they?

The BBC or the Mirror?

I think it was always a safe bet that the next Doctor will be younger than Capaldi, sure as the Doctor after 11 was always likely to be older than Smith.

I can see the BBC wanting the show to be as popular as it was under Tennant but I hope we don't end up with a series of identikit Doctors, all four modern Doctors have been unique from one another, same as all classic Doctors were. That said even if they do try and replicate the Tennant era, one thing that can't reset is that the show won't have that newness that it had back then. If people have got tired of Dr Who then likely they'll be tired of Dr Who no matter who the Doctor is.

 

[Christopher]

The BBC or the Mirror?

Yeah, how trustworthy is this? I thought I'd heard that Capaldi would be staying on under Chibnall, at least for a year.

I can see the BBC wanting the show to be as popular as it was under Tennant but I hope we don't end up with a series of identikit Doctors, all four modern Doctors have been unique from one another, same as all classic Doctors were.

Honestly, I felt that until Capaldi, all the modern Doctors were a lot more similar than their predecessors had been. In the original, each Doctor was virtually the diametric opposite of the previous one, but 9 through 11 were more just variations on a theme -- all fairly young and good-looking, all witty and quirky and manic, all with a more bitter, brooding side, with the differences mainly a matter of degree and style.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

The BBC or the Mirror?

I think it was always a safe bet that the next Doctor will be younger than Capaldi, sure as the Doctor after 11 was always likely to be older than Smith.

I can see the BBC wanting the show to be as popular as it was under Tennant but I hope we don't end up with a series of identikit Doctors, all four modern Doctors have been unique from one another, same as all classic Doctors were. That said even if they do try and replicate the Tennant era, one thing that can't reset is that the show won't have that newness that it had back then. If people have got tired of Dr Who then likely they'll be tired of Dr Who no matter who the Doctor is.

I was thinking BBC with "major shake up" and "brand new show". Sounds like PR BS to me. How much can you really change the show aside form making it about the Doctor more than the companion again?

 

[marillion]

Flagging sales under Capaldi, or a lack of actual on-screen content?? UGH!!!
While some of the writing has been hit or miss in his tenure, he has been an incredible Doctor. I can understand the young kids not cottoning on to him as much as Smith, but still.. Sigh...

 

[Starkers]

@Christopher I can see similarity between 10 and 11 but surely Ten is the opposite of Nine. Eccleston is the cynical brooding one, the one suffering PTSD and survivor guilt, his humour and hopefulness smacked of desperation, a desperate desire for something positive whereas Tennant is more manic, infinitely more joyful and excitable, he's naturally hopeful. Yes he still has that brooding side but it's far from being his defining characteristic.

Even 10 and 11 aren't that similar. Tennant's the dashing matinee hero, the romantic lead, the man who's cool, and he knows it. Smith is the cantankerous old man in a young body, the man who thinks he's cool even though he isn't remotely cool

Not as different as 4 from 3, 5 from4 etc but none of them is a carbon copy

 

[Christopher]

@Christopher I can see similarity between 10 and 11 but surely Ten is the opposite of Nine. Eccleston is the cynical brooding one, the one suffering PTSD and survivor guilt, his humour and hopefulness smacked of desperation, a desperate desire for something positive whereas Tennant is more manic, infinitely more joyful and excitable, he's naturally hopeful. Yes he still has that brooding side but it's far from being his defining characteristic.

But the point is, they both had the same manic, goofy, jokey side and enthusiasm about seeing the universe with a more somber and depressive side underneath. The difference was one of emphasis. And they were both youngish leads who were romantic interests for their companions, and they both loved Rose and weren't crazy about Mickey or Jackie, and so on. It's not like going from a clownish, diffident cosmic vagabond to a suave, arrogant James Bond-type authority figure, or from a wacky, bug-eyed Bohemian trickster who dominated the room to a shy, feckless young cricket fan whose friends kept getting him into trouble.

Not as different as 4 from 3, 5 from4 etc but none of them is a carbon copy

Yes, that's exactly my point. I never said "carbon copy." I said "variations on a theme," differing from each other but nowhere near as much as the classic Doctors differed. Even just in terms of age range and body type and hair color, Eccleston, Tennant, and Smith differed a lot less than the classic Doctors.

 

[StCoop]

The Mirror have a pretty excellent track record when it comes to DW related stories but to be honest there's nothing there that couldn't be guessed.

Of course the really big problem is that we still have one more year of Moffat and Capaldi doing the "same old, same old" to get through. A series that, lest we forget, Moffat didn't even want to make and which after five months of shooting has yet to turn up anything exciting in the way of information or spoilers.

I honestly think it would have been better to wrap things up this Christmas and then relaunch with a clean slate and whetted appetites in 2018.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

If true, I think this report is very unfortunate, not least because it feels like a retread of the treatment of Colin Baker, and Peter Capaldi doesn't deserve that. I understand the reported viewpoint of the BBC -- there are advantages to starting fresh but, as StCoop says, the real way to do that would be to rest the series for a year and then reboot/relaunch it.

Plus, I really wanted -- still want, frankly -- to see what Capaldi and a new producer would do with the series and the role, much as I wanted to see what Matt Smith would have done with someone other than Moffat at the helm and, to a lesser degree, what Tennant would have done with someone other than Davies at the helm. (Oddly, I think one of Smith's best appearances was in the Sarah Jane story, which Moffat had nothing to do with.) Smith and Capaldi haven't always been served by Moffat's storytelling tropes, and they've elevated some truly dire material and made it watchable. I feel that Capaldi deserves better. I'm not sure if Chibnall is the producer who can deliver "better," but I'd like to see it anyway.

 

[The Wormhole]

I got to be honest, there's nothing in that article that's particularly surprising. We knew even before she was cast that there was a possibility Pearl Mackie would only be around for one year, likewise was anyone really expecting Capaldi to stay longer than the standard three years? The guy was exhausted after his first year, there was very little possibility of him trying for Tom Baker's record.

The merchandising comment is rather odd. Of course sales are down on the DVDs, physical media is gradually fading away, and the output of Doctor Who DVDs is dramatically lesser than it was five years ago on account of the entire available classic era serials having been released.

Since Moffat took over there's been less and less new novels published, this year in fact only saw one new novel and it was with a former Doctor rather than the incumbent. For some reason, in recent years there has been an increase in short story anthologies, but those are usually bad. Twenty-thirty pages of large print rarely results in a particularly engaging novel. Hell, the largest Who-universe representation in novels this year has been the Lethbridge-Stewart series, which BBC has nothing to do with.

As for the action figures and the toys, the show's long hiatuses are to blame there. Remember in 2012 when Character Options had to create new toys not based on anything seen in the show and create their backstories for them, because otherwise there would be no Doctor Who toys available for that Christmas? I can only imagine how desperate the situation must be for them this year.

 

[Christopher]

...likewise was anyone really expecting Capaldi to stay longer than the standard three years? The guy was exhausted after his first year, there was very little possibility of him trying for Tom Baker's record.

I'd settle for Pertwee.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Since Moffat took over there's been less and less new novels published, this year in fact only saw one new novel and it was with a former Doctor rather than the incumbent.

What I've heard through contacts in the book industry is that BBC Books has found Moffat very difficult to work with.

For some reason, in recent years there has been an increase in short story anthologies, but those are usually bad.

The anthologies are, from what I've heard, much easier to approve. Moffat isn't as involved in them -- or doesn't take the same interest.

 

[The Wormhole]

Re-reading the article, I noticed a flaw:

Our source says: “BBC management wants a return to the format from the David Tennant era, when you had a dashing male lead and young female companion.

Emphasis mine, as it should be pointed out that during Tennant's most popular season (season 4) his companion was played by an actress who was in fact three years older than him.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I'm hoping this isn't true (especially considering the source), but at the same time, it wouldn't be terribly surprising.

Like others have said, it would be quite nice to have at least one season with Peter Capaldi under the direction of Chris Chibnall. I've largely enjoyed Capaldi's performance, but aside from "Flatline," "Under the Lake"/"Before the Flood," and "Heaven Sent," there hasn't been that many great episodes in his run (I'd also include "Face the Raven" but the over-dramatic death of Clara at the end was poorly done). While not quite the same parallel that Allyn drew, it would be a shame if Capaldi left the show without any real gems and have a fair number of stinkers to be remembered by instead much in the same way as Colin Baker.

 

[Samurai8472]

Since Moffat took over there's been less and less new novels published, this year in fact only saw one new novel and it was with a former Doctor rather than the incumbent. For some reason, in recent years there has been an increase in short story anthologies, but those are usually bad. Twenty-thirty pages of large print rarely results in a particularly engaging novel. Hell, the largest Who-universe representation in novels this year has been the Lethbridge-Stewart series, which BBC has nothing to do with.

The Matt Smith novels were good. The Capaldi novels seems even more for children than previous novels. I noticed the font was much bigger and it wasn't as long.

I liked the The Silent Star and "The Dalek Generation"

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

I'd settle for Pertwee.

Heck, I'd settle for Tennant, for technically had four series (well, even more technically three and a half, but I count the Specials as a series, so whatever).

 

[Starkers]

The Mirror have a pretty excellent track record when it comes to DW related stories but to be honest there's nothing there that couldn't be guessed.

Of course the really big problem is that we still have one more year of Moffat and Capaldi doing the "same old, same old" to get through. A series that, lest we forget, Moffat didn't even want to make and which after five months of shooting has yet to turn up anything exciting in the way of information or spoilers.

I honestly think it would have been better to wrap things up this Christmas and then relaunch with a clean slate and whetted appetites in 2018.

I'm hoping Moffat decides to go out with a bang rather than a whimper. I'd love it if it was a 5 or 6 kinda season, would be ok with a S9, just don't hope it's dull as 8!

If true, I think this report is very unfortunate, not least because it feels like a retread of the treatment of Colin Baker, and Peter Capaldi doesn't deserve that. I understand the reported viewpoint of the BBC -- there are advantages to starting fresh but, as StCoop says, the real way to do that would be to rest the series for a year and then reboot/relaunch it.

Plus, I really wanted -- still want, frankly -- to see what Capaldi and a new producer would do with the series and the role, much as I wanted to see what Matt Smith would have done with someone other than Moffat at the helm and, to a lesser degree, what Tennant would have done with someone other than Davies at the helm. (Oddly, I think one of Smith's best appearances was in the Sarah Jane story, which Moffat had nothing to do with.) Smith and Capaldi haven't always been served by Moffat's storytelling tropes, and they've elevated some truly dire material and made it watchable. I feel that Capaldi deserves better. I'm not sure if Chibnall is the producer who can deliver "better," but I'd like to see it anyway.

See I thought Smith seemed out of place in SJA, or at least out of place uttering RTD dialogue.

I got to be honest, there's nothing in that article that's particularly surprising. We knew even before she was cast that there was a possibility Pearl Mackie would only be around for one year, likewise was anyone really expecting Capaldi to stay longer than the standard three years? The guy was exhausted after his first year, there was very little possibility of him trying for Tom Baker's record.

The question is what if S10 is a roaring success? At the very least if Capaldi and Mackie make for an engaging duo I could see the BBC foisting Bill onto Chibnall.

I'm hoping this isn't true (especially considering the source), but at the same time, it wouldn't be terribly surprising.

Like others have said, it would be quite nice to have at least one season with Peter Capaldi under the direction of Chris Chibnall. I've largely enjoyed Capaldi's performance, but aside from "Flatline," "Under the Lake"/"Before the Flood," and "Heaven Sent," there hasn't been that many great episodes in his run (I'd also include "Face the Raven" but the over-dramatic death of Clara at the end was poorly done). While not quite the same parallel that Allyn drew, it would be a shame if Capaldi left the show without any real gems and have a fair number of stinkers to be remembered by instead much in the same way as Colin Baker.

Personally I'd add in Listen, Mummy on the Orient Express and Last Christmas (and I might take out Flatline)

 

[Starkers]

Yes, that's exactly my point. I never said "carbon copy." I said "variations on a theme," differing from each other but nowhere near as much as the classic Doctors differed. Even just in terms of age range and body type and hair color, Eccleston, Tennant, and Smith differed a lot less than the classic Doctors.

True, but I do think there was an element of it being a different era and I do kinda get the feeling that today people are less forgiving of a radically different Doctor to what's gone before. Of course you could argue they never were very forgiving, they just couldn't express that feeling as easily because they had no internet, and they had less options of something else to watch. However fab Troughton is I get the impression a lot of people weren't happy when he started, and even Tom divided opinion in the early days, and whilst I think we can all say that Who was clearly on a downward spiral in the 80s anyway, you have to wonder if the decline might have been less pronounced if they hadn't replaced Davison with someone so radically different? I appreciate Davison was a radical departure from Tom but at least ratings went up on Tom's last season, and stayed up during the Fifth Doctor's run.