BBC Production Values

[Shawnster]

Back in the mid 80s I belonged to a local Dr. Who group in Indiana. We watched Dr. Who and various other shows, such as Black Adder, Blake's 7, etc... Through this group, and the local PBS station, I was able to watch all of Pertwee's & T. Baker's run, Trial of a Time Lord, and a scattering of other episodes. I had a feel for the FX quality and acting levels from British TV. You had to really appreciate the story and not mind the rubber suits, etc...

Flash forward to Dr. Who's revival with Ecclestone. Production quality, FX, acting skills, etc... all seemed to have improved. What would have turned off the typical American viewer in the past was no longer an issue.

I was reminded of this recently when I started rewatching Blake's 7.

So, what happened? What caused or allowed the BBC to increase funding for shows such as Dr. Who?

 

[MacLeod]

Well part of it might have been influenzed by the Sci-Fi programming of the 1990's. So when the BBC decided to uncanel DW, they had to at least try and compete with the production values of the US Sci-Fi shows.

A 21st century audiance many of who didn't grow up on DW might not have been willing to overlook the FX and focus on the story. True towards the end of it's orignal run in the late 1980's it's viewship had nosedived thanks in no part to it being scheduled against the Soap "Coronation Street" the US equivalant would be the 'Friday Night Death Slot' it was moved into a slot that would kill it or at least justify it's cancellation (it is said the BBC1 controller at the time hated the show).

When the last new DW story aired in the UK prior to the shows return it got around 10m viewers, upon it's return I blieve it got a similiar figure. The show is hugely popular in the UK. If you strip out the Soap's and sporting events then DW is more or less the most watched drama show in the UK. In US terms it has a figure ~30-40m viewers. Gathers around a 40% audiance share.

 

[wamdue]

So, what happened? What caused or allowed the BBC to increase funding for shows such as Dr. Who?

the BBC just knew that if it was going to be successful, it was going to have to at least look like its had alot of money spent on it, to be accepted by a modern audience,well used to TV shows offering respectable to good FX and CGI.

Also the BBC knew they could never sell it internationally if it looked cheap, and CBC put some money into the put early for the first season (& I think the 2nd) something that is often over looked, in co-production cash.

I remember someone from Star Gate saying Doctor Who could afford it due to the small cast, but im not sure that fair, the new series has had plenty of recurring roles, be it Jack, Mickey or Jackie, who all needed a pay cheque. It was always more than the Doctor and Rose.

 

[MacLeod]

A smaller cast does not always mean cheaper, after all guest star(s) can work out more expenisve than a fixed cast. DW has managed to attract some of the top British TV stars to appear in it.

 

[wamdue]

A smaller cast does not always mean cheaper, after all guest star(s) can work out more expenisve than a fixed cast. DW has managed to attract some of the top British TV stars to appear in it.

UK wages are of course, nothing compared to those of US TV (then again I dont think the SG 1 were paid as well as certain network stars), but then our budgets are not as big, so maybe the two cancel each other out, again SG 1 didnt have the kind of budget HBO can give a show.

HBO would spend the entire licence fee on 1 season of 1 show. Its a minor miracle Merlin looks as good as it does. (if helped by the big castle being where most of the action is set)

Also its possible Doctor Who is so beloved bigger stars did it for less than there usual fee, whilst regeneration means that your star, can never let his ego totally eclipse the show (even if David Tennant came close) and demand a stupid wage.

 

[MacLeod]

The same is sometimes true in US shows, after all Whoopi Goldberg appeared in several episodes of TNG.

 

[Starkers]

I was reminded of this recently when I started rewatching Blake's 7.

A show that replaced a police procedural and was given the same budget

I think what others have said sums it up, people are far less forgiving of production values these days, and even now people still moan sometimes about Who looking cheap.

As well I think the cost of computer effects has reduced a lot in recent years which helps.

 

[Sci]

So, what happened? What caused or allowed the BBC to increase funding for shows such as Dr. Who?

A desire not to be laughed off the air, no doubt.

 

[StCoop]

So, what happened? What caused or allowed the BBC to increase funding for shows such as Dr. Who?

It hasn't really. You've got however many years or natural technical improvements that effected all TV production but at the end of the day Doctor Who gets the same budget as any other BBC TV drama; most of which involve (medical) doctors, lawyers or the police and don't need lots of CGI and practical special effects. DW does get a bit of a top-up from BBC Worldwide and BBC America chip in a bit when they go to the States to shoot but its budget is still far less than, say, an episode of Stargate or BSG's was.

One of the things they do that increases the production value is to build very few sets and shoot as much as possible on location. (Though that does lead to some places, like the Temple Of Peace, cropping up again and again.) And when they do build a set they repurpose it (a lot). The Oval Office set and the TARDIS corridor made multiple other appearance in Series 6 for example.

 

[MacLeod]

Well location film isn't always cheap, as for standing sets, DW really only had one standing set (from 2004 until recently) the TARDIS control room.

 

[danellis]

... And when they do build a set they repurpose it (a lot). The Oval Office set and the TARDIS corridor made multiple other appearance in Series 6 for example.

Given the number of shows that feature an Oval Office or an House of Commons, for example, sets for just a couple of episodes if there's money to be made having a standing set of these to hire out to Doctor Who, or Bones, or Random TV show of the week.

<shrug> Just one of my ideas fo when I win the lottery and want to make some real money lol

dJE

 

[Mr. Adventure]

So, what happened? What caused or allowed the BBC to increase funding for shows such as Dr. Who?

It hasn't really. You've got however many years or natural technical improvements that effected all TV production but at the end of the day Doctor Who gets the same budget as any other BBC TV drama; most of which involve (medical) doctors, lawyers or the police and don't need lots of CGI and practical special effects. DW does get a bit of a top-up from BBC Worldwide and BBC America chip in a bit when they go to the States to shoot but its budget is still far less than, say, an episode of Stargate or BSG's was.

Are you sure about that? BSG/SG-1 was like 1.5-1.7M per episode from what I've seen and I've heard similar numbers for Doctor Who. Then again, it's hard to get exact numbers from casual googling.

 

[Sindatur]

So, what happened? What caused or allowed the BBC to increase funding for shows such as Dr. Who?

It hasn't really. You've got however many years or natural technical improvements that effected all TV production but at the end of the day Doctor Who gets the same budget as any other BBC TV drama; most of which involve (medical) doctors, lawyers or the police and don't need lots of CGI and practical special effects. DW does get a bit of a top-up from BBC Worldwide and BBC America chip in a bit when they go to the States to shoot but its budget is still far less than, say, an episode of Stargate or BSG's was.

Are you sure about that? BSG/SG-1 was like 1.5-1.7M per episode from what I've seen and I've heard similar numbers for Doctor Who. Then again, it's hard to get exact numbers from casual googling.

1. Britain has a smaller population, so you have to multiply their ratings by a certain population factor to arrive at a comparable rate for American TV Ratings. With 300+ Million citizens in the US, it's alot easier to get to 20 Million then with a population 1/5 that size.

2. 1.5 - 1.7Mil doesn't sound like what I've seen/heard (Maybe for BBCA, but, not in Britain)

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^ I meant budget not viewers

 

[MacLeod]

^I think the poster meant US$ rather than viewers. As for viewers when you multiply up the UK viewership of DW to account for population difference it equates to something like 30-40m viewers.

 

[StCoop]

Are you sure about that? BSG/SG-1 was like 1.5-1.7M per episode from what I've seen and I've heard similar numbers for Doctor Who.

It was certainly right during the RTD days as I can remember reading the list of standard drama budgets which Davies confirmed was what the series got.

And in fact the series budget has actually been reduced over the past few years, along with all other BBC output. That's why you end up with things like the Office Basement Dalek Spaceship as a trade-off for the large number of CGI shots in VOTD. (Though as I mentioned previously BBC Worldwide & BBC America do chip in some extra cash.)

 

[Mr. Adventure]

To be clear, I heard 1.5-1.7M US$ for BSG/SG-1 but about 1M pounds for an episode of Who which would be about 1.5M US$.

Sorry for being so provincial originally.

 

[MacLeod]

^That's ok. I got what you meant.

 

[Sindatur]

^ I meant budget not viewers

Oh, oops, well that does look like it could be viewers

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Of course there are various factors. Licensing, international sales and merchandise are a bigger factor now, as is co-production. There's also, up until recently, the TV license fee was rising at above inflation so in current money the BBCs budget in the 80s would have probably have been a billion pound lower.