I don't think they have much of a chance against Disney. In my mind, if Disney pulls out, they can make multi-year distribution deals with AMC Plus and Netflix that will include the budget and the entire franchise. It was leaked that AMC spent $13 million per episode on the new The Walking Dead TV shows. It was claimed that Disney spent $10 million per episode on Doctor Who, but RTD denied this, saying "We don't have $10 million per episode, but we have a very good budget." If that's the case, Disney may be making it cheaper than the Star Wars TV shows. And AMC and Netflix could pay the same amount. In the event of Disney pulling out, they could make a deal like this with Amazon that would include the entire franchise.
Russell T. Davies Returns to Doctor Who as New Showrunner
- Thread starter Allyn Gibson
- Start date
Oh, there is absolutely no way at all that Disney is spending anywhere near the amount of money on Doctor Who, that they're spending on the Star Wars or Marvel series. It's fairly popular, but it's not even close to be at the level of those two, I'd be surprised if it even had half the budget.
I'm not saying I believe this, but I wouldn't be too quick to laugh it off either. "Reputable sources on GB" have proven true in the past, most recently with revealing the airdates to the 60th anniversary specials before they were officially announced.
AMC Network and BBC America are already owned by the same company.
I can't see the show returning to a classic era budget, not unless you want single episode seasons!
There is no reason the show couldn't be budgeted far lower than it is now of course. As RTD himself said, if needs be you could go back to claustrophobic country houses menaced by aliens. You'd have to forsake so many epic episodes (but it might make those episodes even more epic) and you might even have to reduce the number of episodes again, but with good writers and cast, and inventive directors, the show could still thrive.
What would people rather have? No Who, or a decent 6 episodes a year with (perhaps) slightly more niche appeal?
Well, of course not but...I can't see the show returning to a classic era budget, not unless you want single episode seasons!
This is precisely the point I was weakly trying to make. The show doesn't need a ton of money to be effective and fun and exciting. Maybe once and while it's needed something for an epic but that shouldn't be the standard.
We are no longer living in the era of the classic series. Stop dreaming. If Doctor Who wants to continue to be a popular TV show today, it needs to act according to the conditions of today's science fiction film and TV show production. The classic series cannot be made with the budget of the TV show in the 70s, and Doctor Who today. Because no one makes a science fiction TV series with the understanding of the TV series in the 70s, with the budget of the TV series in the 70s.
Obviously we're not getting a literal 1970s budget, as I don't think it's even possible to make a TV show these days with that little money. But something equivalent when adjusted for inflation? Not the most ridiculous idea I've heard.
I think that if Disney withdraws, they will return to the budgets and visual quality of the Matt Smith, Peter Capaldi and Jodie Whittaker era. I think that the budgets of that period and Disney's period do not vary much anyway.
Most of the money seems to have gone on the giant warehouse, er I mean Tardis set, which frankly I'm not hugely fond of anyway, I mean it's better than Whittaker's, a lot better, but that's the only modern Tardis set I prefer it to.
Wasn't the Whittaker era supposed to be better funded, or using much better camera technology. It certainly seemed more expansive, but then oddly that was just another thing that seemed to have a counter effect, the screen looked very empty at times.
The production team can be clever as well, reuse sets the way they had the Satellite 5 sets used in 3/13 episodes in Series 1. Piggyback on the production of a period drama so you can share costs for one episode etc.
Hell here's a radical idea as well, why not go back to 25/30 minute episodes? (I'm unsure if this would actually save money but logically it should) there are plenty of shows that prove you can pack a lot of plot into that time frame if you're writing is good enough (take Lower Decks, Skeleton Crew, many sitcoms etc, plus of course the SJA!)
Again what would you rather have?
No Who
6 x 45/60 minute episodes
10/12 x 25/30 minute episodes
Wasn't the Whittaker era supposed to be better funded, or using much better camera technology. It certainly seemed more expansive, but then oddly that was just another thing that seemed to have a counter effect, the screen looked very empty at times.
The production team can be clever as well, reuse sets the way they had the Satellite 5 sets used in 3/13 episodes in Series 1. Piggyback on the production of a period drama so you can share costs for one episode etc.
Hell here's a radical idea as well, why not go back to 25/30 minute episodes? (I'm unsure if this would actually save money but logically it should) there are plenty of shows that prove you can pack a lot of plot into that time frame if you're writing is good enough (take Lower Decks, Skeleton Crew, many sitcoms etc, plus of course the SJA!)
Again what would you rather have?
No Who
6 x 45/60 minute episodes
10/12 x 25/30 minute episodes
Just on the subject of whether the BBC could go it alone on the series.
deadline.com
‘Black Doves’ Producer Jane Featherstone Says BBC Has “Multiple Shows They Can’t Fund”
Jane Featherstone has said the BBC has shows it can't fund - she has produced 'The Split', 'Black Doves' and 'Kaos' lately
deadline.com
Although it should be noted that in the case of SJA, all their stories were two-parters, so we were basically getting fifty minute episodes anyway, just always split up.
I'm the grumpy old man who wants to go back to the serial format but I also realize that ship has long since sailed.
But to answer your question, I think I would choose option three. I'm certain I'll be in the minority on that point.
Honestly, I don't care if it's 6 x 45/60 minute episodes or 10/12 x 25/30 minute episodes. What would be nice is some sort of consistent release schedule. In a perfect world, same time of year every year, like how in RTD's first era it always aired in the spring. Or if that's not doable, even an annual release but at different times of the year would be acceptable.
I've been in two different minds on the scheduling. On the one hand, I agree the shifting, inconsistent schedules are frustrating. However, on the other hand, I've long since accepted that regularly scheduled series produced in Britain are not the norm, much like longer seasons. I feel that much of that is due to how the British entertainment industry is operated in stark contrast to America's. Yet, at the same time, I also know that both Moffat and Chibnall are also partially responsible for those inconsistent schedules (often due to other workloads, particularly Sherlock).
I don’t know if there is an easy fix but I agree that it is a frustrating point. I also know I'm in the minority when it comes to be more forgiving on that point. If for no other reason that there are plenty of excellent shows to keep me entertained while I wait for more Doctor Who (and vice versa for Star Trek shows, Star Wars shows, Severance, Futurama, Poker Face, etc.).
I don’t know if there is an easy fix but I agree that it is a frustrating point. I also know I'm in the minority when it comes to be more forgiving on that point. If for no other reason that there are plenty of excellent shows to keep me entertained while I wait for more Doctor Who (and vice versa for Star Trek shows, Star Wars shows, Severance, Futurama, Poker Face, etc.).
Last edited:
