Whats Going on with Torchwood?

[Starkers]

No it's just the way a lot of BBC/British shows have always been made. As said back in 1978 Blakes 7 had 13 episode runs.

Using your 'logic' I could just as easily point out that US shows only have 20+ episodes so they can sell more bloody advertising space and produce enough episodes to go into syndication! Do you think the producers want to make 20+ episodes?

First season of Buffy's great because it's only 13 eps and doesn't outstay its welcome, leaves you wanting more in fact- first season of BSG the same, and yes first season of The Sarah connor Chronicles (which in fact showed a marked decline in quality once they had to produce more episodes.)

 

[bismarck_1892]

No it's just the way a lot of BBC/British shows have always been made. As said back in 1978 Blakes 7 had 13 episode runs.

Using your 'logic' I could just as easily point out that US shows only have 20+ episodes so they can sell more bloody advertising space and produce enough episodes to go into syndication! Do you think the producers want to make 20+ episodes?

First season of Buffy's great because it's only 13 eps and doesn't outstay its welcome, leaves you wanting more in fact- first season of BSG the same, and yes first season of The Sarah connor Chronicles (which in fact showed a marked decline in quality once they had to produce more episodes.)

So, I one year break in between seasons somehow magically makes the next season better? No, of course not. More then enough shows have demonstrated that including the much often used example of BSG. I really don't think that to be the case. Its simply a matter of money. If the BBC could afford it they would be making 24 episodes a season.

 

[Stevil2001]

There's also a time factor to consider-- the BBC isn't a Hollywood production team; it takes them nine months to film thirteen episodes of Doctor Who. It simply wouldn't be possible to film as many as twenty without killing the cast and crew!

 

[bismarck_1892]

There's also a time factor to consider-- the BBC isn't a Hollywood production team; it takes them nine months to film thirteen episodes of Doctor Who. It simply wouldn't be possible to film as many as twenty without killing the cast and crew!

Yes.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

No it's just the way a lot of BBC/British shows have always been made. As said back in 1978 Blakes 7 had 13 episode runs.

Using your 'logic' I could just as easily point out that US shows only have 20+ episodes so they can sell more bloody advertising space and produce enough episodes to go into syndication! Do you think the producers want to make 20+ episodes?

First season of Buffy's great because it's only 13 eps and doesn't outstay its welcome, leaves you wanting more in fact- first season of BSG the same, and yes first season of The Sarah connor Chronicles (which in fact showed a marked decline in quality once they had to produce more episodes.)

So, I one year break in between seasons somehow magically makes the next season better? No, of course not. More then enough shows have demonstrated that including the much often used example of BSG. I really don't think that to be the case. Its simply a matter of money. If the BBC could afford it they would be making 24 episodes a season.

um no, the BBC is a $5bn a year corporation. I don't think money would be an object if they got it in to their heads to produce it that way. They have other concerns, from R&D to education, and public service, to documentary and to training and nurturing talent. They choose to operate differently to US networks, and I for one, prefer it that way.

 

[bismarck_1892]

No it's just the way a lot of BBC/British shows have always been made. As said back in 1978 Blakes 7 had 13 episode runs.

Using your 'logic' I could just as easily point out that US shows only have 20+ episodes so they can sell more bloody advertising space and produce enough episodes to go into syndication! Do you think the producers want to make 20+ episodes?

First season of Buffy's great because it's only 13 eps and doesn't outstay its welcome, leaves you wanting more in fact- first season of BSG the same, and yes first season of The Sarah connor Chronicles (which in fact showed a marked decline in quality once they had to produce more episodes.)

So, I one year break in between seasons somehow magically makes the next season better? No, of course not. More then enough shows have demonstrated that including the much often used example of BSG. I really don't think that to be the case. Its simply a matter of money. If the BBC could afford it they would be making 24 episodes a season.

um no, the BBC is a $5bn a year corporation. I don't think money would be an object if they got it in to their heads to produce it that way. They have other concerns, from R&D to education, and public service, to documentary and to training and nurturing talent. They choose to operate differently to US networks, and I for one, prefer it that way.

Okay...

 

[Tomalak]

The fact that Dr. Who is on the air for so long has much to do with its absent schedule, as any other factor. In short, the absence of these shows has more to do with an absence of funding on the part of BBC then with any other consideration.

The longevity of the series is a strength. Even if funding weren't a problem, creativity would inevitably get stretched with 26x45 minute episodes every year. It certainly did in the 60s when the show was running for eleven months of the year. That's why season five is full of nearly identical stories, but with a different monster and setting.

Some programmes simply work better with a shorter run: take Life on Mars, with two tightly plotted series, eight episodes each, and no filler. Every episode is important to the story, and it's one of the finest series in recent years. It's simply not the case that they would make more episodes if they had more money.

They choose to operate differently to US networks, and I for one, prefer it that way.

It's not a matter of choice as such, it's their charter. They didn't get the licence fee increase they had budgeted for, which has led to cuts across the board. In the meantime, they are in the midst of relocating much of their output to Manchester and Birmingham, which is a government requirement.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

They choose to operate differently to US networks, and I for one, prefer it that way.

It's not a matter of choice as such, it's their charter. They didn't get the licence fee increase they had budgeted for, which has led to cuts across the board. In the meantime, they are in the midst of relocating much of their output to Manchester and Birmingham, which is a government requirement.

Maybe I should have said that is the choice that has been made. Either way my point about operating differently stands.

 

[Tomalak]

Yes, definitely. Any comparisons with a US network are absurd.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Yes, definitely. Any comparisons with a US network are absurd.

To a certain extent I'd say comparing any UK networks to US ones is a bit of a waste of time, with the PSB and other regulations that they have the UK ones aren't so much totally commercial entities. Digital to Cable may be comparable though.

 

[Flibble]

Saw Gareth David Lloyd today, and he said that Children of Earth will be broadcast in June in the UK.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Saw Gareth David Lloyd today, and he said that Children of Earth will be broadcast in June in the UK.

In the US too, I believe it's airing same day on BBC America...

 

[wamdue]

ive just posted on Doctor Who forum/Torchwood that I think it might air week 24, 15th - 19th of June, due to the show Monday, Wednesday & Friday 9pm shows all ending there series in week 23.

just a theory on my part

 

[AviTrek]

Also, BBC America has not shown any of the new specials. I don't know what "reason" they would have for it, and don't really care.

SciFi has first run US rights, not BBCA. We don't know if the delay is Sci Fi wanting to air the specials together, or the BBC not licensing them yet.

 

[The]

^Exactly...