Moffat: No Two-Parters in Series 7

[StCoop]

According to Moffat in the new DWM there are no two-parters planned for Series 7. He adds that this might change if the story demands it but he doesn't expect it to.

The reasons he gives for the change are that two-parters are not (contrary to popular belief) more cost effective and that they have a negative effect on the series Ratings, Audience Share and AIs.

He also mentions that Episode 1 will be

Spoiler: Plot Details

Doctor Who does Die Hard.

Which does fit in with his stated aim to "slut up" (his words, not mine!) the series with High Concept, Headline Grabbing episodes.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Of course, the way he blags things, it probably means there are four three-parters and a standalone...

 

[ATimson]

The reasons he gives for the change are that two-parters are not (contrary to popular belief) more cost effective and that they have a negative effect on the series Ratings, Audience Share and AIs.

I'm curious as to whether that holds up historically to RTD's days. I'd be equally tempted to blame a drop in audience interest on the two-parters (mostly) being more complex Moffat scripts, or that they have River Song in them.

 

[RoJoHen]

The only reason I don't like 2-parters in Doctor Who is that the seasons are already so short! A 13-episode season ends up having only 9 or 10 stories.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Doctor Who has had a lot of generic two-parters - ok episodes but not among the best. That could contribute to a sort of disappointment in them. Given that, I won't mind all single episodes.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

According to Moffat in the new DWM there are no two-parters planned for Series 7. He adds that this might change if the story demands it but he doesn't expect it to.

The reasons he gives for the change are that two-parters are not (contrary to popular belief) more cost effective and that they have a negative effect on the series Ratings, Audience Share and AIs.

I can think of other reasons for no two-parters.

I know that BBC America was not happy with the Gangers two-parter falling around their Memorial Day "break," which resulted in a gap between parts. There was a similar problem with a two-parter in Canada a few years ago, where there was a lengthy gap between episodes. In short, two-parters are causing problems for the foreign broadcasters.

And then there's narrative concerns. The half-seasons of this year weren't conducive to the two-parter. The opening two-parter was fine, but the Ganger two-parter unbalanced the first half of the season. On a 13-episode plot, it was probably fine, but in the shorter frame of 7 episodes it didn't work.

 

[Saul]

I always found the two parters to be event episodes that introduced an old villain or developed a new one. Angels, Daleks, Gangers. I am disappointed if there will be none in series 7 as some stand alone episodes of season 6 sucked and were cheap, pirate ship, stuck in a hotel of fear etc I also hope it doesn't mean big long season arcs either.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I thought The God Complex was among the better episodes. By comparison, gangers, Salurians, Sontarans, etc. have been underwhelming.

 

[Brendan Moody]

The reasons he gives for the change are that two-parters are not (contrary to popular belief) more cost effective and that they have a negative effect on the series Ratings, Audience Share and AIs.

I'm curious as to whether that holds up historically to RTD's days. I'd be equally tempted to blame a drop in audience interest on the two-parters (mostly) being more complex Moffat scripts, or that they have River Song in them.

Looking at the numbers, I'm not sure it particularly holds up for Moffat's days, let alone RTD's. There are a few big viewing figure drops from part one to part two: Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel and both The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon and The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People. But there are other factors in play than those being two-parters: "Rise of the Cybermen" got boosted by airing directly after the FA Cup final, "The Almost People" was opposite another football final, and "The Impossible Astronaut" was a series premiere, which sometimes draws a curious new audience that won't be sticking around for episode two of the series whether it's the conclusion or a separate story. On the whole, I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a credible case that two-parters pull the series' performance down in any way.

 

[Christopher]

The only reason I don't like 2-parters in Doctor Who is that the seasons are already so short! A 13-episode season ends up having only 9 or 10 stories.

Most of the seasons of the original Doctor Who had only 4-6 multi-part stories, and the total season length was roughly the same (c. 22 to 26 25-minute episodes vs. 13 45-minute episodes). So we're actually getting more distinct stories per season than we did in the original series.

 

[RoJoHen]

The only reason I don't like 2-parters in Doctor Who is that the seasons are already so short! A 13-episode season ends up having only 9 or 10 stories.

Most of the seasons of the original Doctor Who had only 4-6 multi-part stories, and the total season length was roughly the same (c. 22 to 26 25-minute episodes vs. 13 45-minute episodes). So we're actually getting more distinct stories per season than we did in the original series.

Yeah, but I'm an American. I like my seasons to have lots and lots of episodes!

 

[24thcenstfan]

I'm fine with there being no two-parters. The on-going arc for Series 5 - 6 has been a little exhausting anyway... so I welcome more standalones this upcoming season/series.

 

[Admiral_Young]

This is an interesting decision if it stands. I'm fine with their being self contained episodes throughout the entire series. I do not believe this has occurred yet with New Who. I have enjoyed most of the two parters but am eager to see how single episode stories will turn out.

 

[DS9Continuing]

I'm fine with there being no two-parters. The on-going arc for Series 5 - 6 has been a little exhausting anyway... so I welcome more standalones this upcoming season/series.

Well, "no two parters" does not equate to "no arc episodes." There could still just as easily be heavy arc emphasis, just in smaller chunks. After all, "Good Man," "Hitler" and "Wedding" were all single episodes but very arc heavy.

.

 

[Starkers]

Well, whilst some of the two parters since the show returned have been less than stellar (WW3/Aliens of London I'm looking at you) and too many have been stories stretched beyond their limits (Sontarans, gangers, Daleks in New York etc) some have been superb telly (The empty child/the Doctor Dances and Human Nature/Family of Blood to name but two) so this is kina a shame, but I can see the logic of getting rid.

Of course the real downside is this means no cliff hangers (or does it? You could quite easily have a cliffhanger between two stand alone episodes- take The Beat Below/Victory of the Daleks?)

 

[23skidoo]

In my opinion if the story calls for a 15 minute episode and it works, I'm all for it. We've seen how successful Moffat can be with single-parters. Blink, Girl in the Fireplace, A Good Man Goes to War, etc. The Doctor's Wife, of course (not his but produced under his watch, ditto Vincent and the Doctor). Moffat also gave us the Library and Empty Child 2-parters which were acclaimed, so it's not as if he can't do two-parters. But clearly he finds more satisfaction in single-chapter stories and proved it's possible to deliver a satisfying season finale in one hour (granted, the revival's format of having background arcs helped get some of the exposition out of the way in earlier episodes). So if it works, and the stories work, and if it means getting 13 different stories rather than 6, I'm happy with that, and I'd be happy if it was a 13-parter.

I don't think the "BBC America wasn't happy" argument holds water. Nothing prevented them from keeping the show on for the holiday. After all when are they showing the Christmas special this year? What's the difference between the break happening between a two-parter and between standalones? A break is a break. If they're so upset about it they should have pushed the BBC to preempt Doctor Who that weekend, or pushed the BBC to begin airing Doctor Who earlier or later in the year to avoid it. I can't imagine they were very cheery about the split season idea anyway.

Speaking of which, does Moffat indicate whether that's happening again next year? Narratively I had no problem with the split season this year, but it really did make the season seem a lot shorter and, in some respects, less epic than if they'd gone 13 weeks straight.

Yeah, but I'm an American. I like my seasons to have lots and lots of episodes!

Perhaps, but there is such a thing as quality over quantity. Even at 13 episodes Doctor Who delivers the occasional dud, to be sure, but look at the history of Star Trek - every series (no exception, including DS9) could be reduced down by almost a complete season's worth of episodes if you omitted episodes produced simply as filler or ones that turned out as garbage because they didn't have the time or budget to do the story justice. The epitome of this was with Lost in Space - the fellow who played Dr. Smith was once asked why they ended up doing an episode with giant talking carrots, and the actor said it was because they completely ran out of ideas. If Lost in Space only had to worry about 13 episodes it would have been a much stronger series because they wouldn't have had to produce episodes like that. And TOS probably would have had no need to foist "Spock's Brain" on us; DS9 "Prophet and Lace"; Enterprise "A Night in Sickbay"; TNG "Shades of Grey" and half of season 1; Voyager (too many to list)...

Indeed, the ideas of the "flashback episode", the "catch-up episode", and the "bottle episode" were all because of the need to fill time. And for every "Midnight" that actually works (Doctor Who's Hugo-nominated bottle) there are tons of others like Shades of Grey (TNG's infamous flashbacker) that don't.

Alex

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I don't think the "BBC America wasn't happy" argument holds water. Nothing prevented them from keeping the show on for the holiday. After all when are they showing the Christmas special this year?

You're free to think that, Alex. But based on a conversation I've had with a higher-up at BBC America, I'm going to confidently hold to my statement.

The problem was that BBC America had already made plans for Memorial Day weekend when the BBC announced their plans. It wasn't so much that they minded the break. It was that they minded that the break fell in the middle of a two-parter. They weren't happy with the August start date, either, because that put the second episode on the Saturday of Labor Day weekend, and they couldn't really skip that week after the debut the week before.

I can't imagine they were very cheery about the split season idea anyway.

Not really. The short runs weren't a problem, since BBC America is fine with short runs on programs, but they weren't in a position to do major promotions for spring and autumn launches, which is why their promotion for the fall run amounted to bringing in people for SDCC.

Indeed, the ideas of the "flashback episode", the "catch-up episode", and the "bottle episode" were all because of the need to fill time. And for every "Midnight" that actually works (Doctor Who's Hugo-nominated bottle) there are tons of others like Shades of Grey (TNG's infamous flashbacker) that don't.

Bottle shows are done to minimize costs by not building new sets and hiring guest stars. "Midnight" isn't a bottle show because it doesn't fit that definition -- the standing TARDIS set wasn't even used, and the episode was balls-to-the-walls with guest stars. Excepting something like "Time Crash" or the special DVD scenes, Doctor Who has had only one bottle show in its history -- "Edge of Destruction."

 

[Christopher]

So if it works, and the stories work, and if it means getting 13 different stories rather than 6, I'm happy with that, and I'd be happy if it was a 13-parter.

As an "old-school" Doctor Who fan, I kind of miss the tendency of the original series to do most of its stories as serials that added up to essentially feature length (i.e. 4-parters or 6-parters made up of 25-minute installments). They only rarely did a story that was less than an hour long -- only eight in 26 seasons (seven stories made up of two 25-minute episodes and only a single one-parter, although that was a Doctor-less prologue to the series' longest single serial). The Sixth Doctor's first full season did consist of 13 45-minute episodes like the current series does, but that came out to five 2-parters and a 3-parter. So the new series tends to do stories that are shorter than the norm for the old series, and while it's true that some of those old serials were painfully padded, I like it when the new series does as many 2- or 3-parters as possible, because it feels more like the old days.

Indeed, the ideas of the "flashback episode", the "catch-up episode", and the "bottle episode" were all because of the need to fill time.

As Allyn said, bottle shows are done to save money by avoiding the expense of building new sets or shooting on location. "Flashback episodes" aka clip shows are also done to save money by reducing the amount of new footage that has to be shot. For instance, ST:TNG's "Shades of Gray" was done because the show ran over budget for the season and could only afford to shoot 3 days' worth of footage instead of the 7-8 days necessary for a full episode (not, as is often mistakenly believed, due to the '88 writers' strike, since the episode was made in '89).

Also, there's no reason a bottle show can't be an important part of a series arc -- look at DS9's "Duet," for example. For that matter, while most clip shows are disposable, there have been a few instances where they've been indispensable to the series. CSI's "Lab Rats" was partly a clip show -- and a bottle show -- but it was an important part of the "Miniature Killer" arc and a crucial episode for the development of the supporting cast. Andromeda's "The Unconquerable Man" was a brilliantly clever clip show that transformed the viewer's perception of the entire series up to that point. And there were several Stargate SG-1 clip shows that had arc significance, such as "Disclosure" and "Inauguration."

As for "catch-up episode," I don't know what you mean by that. Could you give an example?

 

[Lonemagpie]

The best clip show is still the South Park one, where all the clips were *different* than in the original episode!

 

[MacLeod]

According to Moffat in the new DWM there are no two-parters planned for Series 7. He adds that this might change if the story demands it but he doesn't expect it to.

The reasons he gives for the change are that two-parters are not (contrary to popular belief) more cost effective and that they have a negative effect on the series Ratings, Audience Share and AIs.

I can think of other reasons for no two-parters.

I know that BBC America was not happy with the Gangers two-parter falling around their Memorial Day "break," which resulted in a gap between parts. There was a similar problem with a two-parter in Canada a few years ago, where there was a lengthy gap between episodes. In short, two-parters are causing problems for the foreign broadcasters.

And then there's narrative concerns. The half-seasons of this year weren't conducive to the two-parter. The opening two-parter was fine, but the Ganger two-parter unbalanced the first half of the season. On a 13-episode plot, it was probably fine, but in the shorter frame of 7 episodes it didn't work.

And why should the fact that it is inconveniant for International broadcasters be of any concern to the BBC?

It' not like NBC/ABC/CBS etc... take into consideration the same inconvenaince when it's a US show airing in the UK.