'Severance' Season 2 is only starting now, nearly three years after Season 1 ended, so it's by no means a UK/BBC specific problem.
Yeah, the new one's pretty low on my list of modern TARDISes too.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.
I'd be fine with 10/12 30ish minute episodes, and the Star Wars D+ series prove that a these kind of sci-fi shows can survive with shorter 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
Yeah, they do seem to spend an awful lot of time on modern Earth when you consider that they have all of time and space available to them.Aren’t they doing that already?
There seems to be a sort of “Gallifrey Mean Time” that time-travelers abide by (except for River Song) that’s separate from the normal flow of time, so while the Doctor was born 2000-ish years ago (allegedly), that doesn’t meaningly correspond to a date in conventional history.Have they ever said when The Doctor was born? I know he's thousands of years old, but the whole time traveler thing means he could have been born at any time, so could very well have been born centuries in our future or millions of years ago, or even yesterday.
Yeah, the new one's pretty low on my list of modern TARDISes too.
I'd be fine with 10/12 30ish minute episodes, and the Star Wars D+ series prove that a these kind of sci-fi shows can survive with shorter episodes.
Yeah, they do seem to spend an awful lot of time on modern Earth when you consider that they have all of time and space available to them.
Have they ever said when The Doctor was born? I know he's thousands of years old, but the whole time traveler thing means he could have been born at any time, so could very well have been born centuries in our future or millions of years ago, or even yesterday.
There seems to be a sort of “Gallifrey Mean Time” that time-travelers abide by (except for River Song) that’s separate from the normal flow of time, so while the Doctor was born 2000-ish years ago (allegedly), that doesn’t meaningly correspond to a date in conventional history.
There seems to be a sort of “Gallifrey Mean Time” that time-travelers abide by (except for River Song) that’s separate from the normal flow of time, so while the Doctor was born 2000-ish years ago (allegedly), that doesn’t meaningly correspond to a date in conventional history.
I guess I should have known the answer would be more complicated that just he was born in the year ____.Gallifrey is out of time compared to the rest of causality. The Doctor implies the Time Lords (or at least the Gallifreyans, if their earlier space empire counted) had six million years of absolute power but exactly where "Doctor is born" fits is more easily answered relative to Gallifrey's history (though less so accounting for the Timeless Child or, if you don't like that, the Cartmel Masterplan version with the Other ) than it is regarding "which human year was the Doctor born?".
IIRC, most people in The Biz have said the belief that two parters save money is in fact a myth.One story would be 2 X 50 minutes. That should save some money too.
Interesting. I would have thought that it would save on sets at the very least. But perhaps not on actors and SFx, which could be the larger expenses I suppose.IIRC, most people in The Biz have said the belief that two parters save money is in fact a myth.
I've got 12 bucks in my pocket. I'll finance one whole episode.I'm talking classic series budget. I don't care how pretty things are as long as the stories and characters are engaging.
Besides, low budget is part of the Doctor Who charm.
Eurovision of the stars?
No.
Sigh.
It's not necessarily a musical!
The Daleks could be using it to subvert the Galactic Federation!
BF have some daft titles that turn out to be excellent stories too.
Eurovision's been around since the 1950s. So this won't quite be the same as S1's tribute to flavor of the month reality TV shows.It can date an episode hard (look at the season one finale… all those cameos were fun at the time, but it’s really obviously of it’s time)
Isn't it a bit late to be worrying about that sort of thing in Doctor Who? And besides, is it really any different or worse than Star Trek depicting galactic civilization as Space America?and if you start making some sort of a future intergalactic federation resemble Europe… well, how does that work without colonisation? What are we accidentally going to be saying about Europe?
The episode title wouldn't have been made public like this unless that wrangling had already been taken care of.In fact, the title Eurovision is copyright I believe, so that’s gonna have taken some wrangling
Cat Valente's novel Space Opera is about a kind of Eurovision in space and it's excellent.