Series 7 confirmed by BBC

[MacLeod]

I would like to point out David Tennat was in the role from 2005-2010 a period of 5 years (4 full years), Matt Smith if he does leave around 2014 would have been 4 years in the role.

Given the shows history the average span of a particular actor playing the role is 3-4 years. So it looks like Smith is on course to do the average length of an actor in the role. So out of the actors to portray the docotr since it came back, only 1 so far portrayed the character for aa shorter period than the average which was Ecceleston.

To those of us growing up with DW, it's part of the show and somewhat expected. A counter argument could be made that if they did stay on longer they overstay their welcome.

And you can't force someone to stay in a role longer than they want, doesn't matter how popular they are, if the actor leaves what are you going to do?

 

[Pseudo]

What is it with British actors on Who only sticking around for a few seasons? If you pay them enough they will stay. I know one can get type cast playing the Dr. but three or four years is not asking for a lot.

While there's a slightly interesting argument to be made with regards to the differences between public service and commercial broadcasters that doesn't necessarily hold true for all eventualities, the easiest answer to this is: Why would you pay an actor over-the-odds to stay in a role when the role is designed to be recast? The show thrives on change, why would you risk stagnation?

I understand the money argument. However, they have an actor who is right for the part, and a show that is popular, they shouldn't fix something that is not broken.

Dr. Who, today, is a popular show all over the world. A show that, I'm sure, brings in substantial money for the BBC. As such, its counter productive to every two years switch actors that work.

Almost the exact same argument was made when David Tennant left the role, and that seemed to work out okay.

The show is made for recasting because of this abstinance. Its one thing to recast every five to seven years. Its another to change a popular actor playing a popular main character every two or three years. Bad business, public broadcasting or not.

I'm not sure how having an entirely new cast every few years which necessitates a whole raft of new toys and other merchandise can be called bad business.

Furthermore, you could easily argue that without the switch from Tennant to Smith the show wouldn't have taken off stateside as it has in the last couple of years.

 

[Pseudo]

What is it with British actors on Who only sticking around for a few seasons? If you pay them enough they will stay. I know one can get type cast playing the Dr. but three or four years is not asking for a lot.

While there's a slightly interesting argument to be made with regards to the differences between public service and commercial broadcasters that doesn't necessarily hold true for all eventualities, the easiest answer to this is: Why would you pay an actor over-the-odds to stay in a role when the role is designed to be recast? The show thrives on change, why would you risk stagnation?

Also, though this isn't necessarily representative of the BBC as a whole, BBC Four are currently looking for new shows, non-specific as to genre or format they've said the average budget on the channel is £100,000 per hour, though it ranges from around £60,000 to £125,000.

You can find the BBC commissioning tariffs here.

I think it's a fair bet that Doctor Who's somewhere in the 'High cost Drama' range.

 

[MacLeod]

One could use a similair argument for US shows, i.e

Star Trek is a hugely popular show around the world, so why does Paramount focus so much on what it earns from the US network only?

Whilst it might be popular overseas it has to be said it is massively popular in the UK. With final audiance figures usually in 8-10million viewer region. To compare that to the US as the UK has around 20-25% the population of the US that would equate to some 32-45m or so viewers.

Just out of interest how many drama (let alone Sci-Fi) shows in the US pull in those ratings?

 

[Sindatur]

One could use a similair argument for US shows, i.e

Star Trek is a hugely popular show around the world, so why does Paramount focus so much on what it earns from the US network only?

Whilst it might be popular overseas it has to be said it is massively popular in the UK. With final audiance figures usually in 8-10million viewer region. To compare that to the US as the UK has around 20-25% the population of the US that would equate to some 32-45m or so viewers.

Just out of interest how many drama (let alone Sci-Fi) shows in the US pull in those ratings?

I don't think there's any. I think the ratings powerhouses top out about 25 million, and that's less than 10 shows, I believe

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I for one think it would be very cool if Matt Smith were to match or exceed Tom Baker's seven-year record.

Tom was only doing 6 episodes per over 7 series. He did 41 episodes if you count Shada.

Shouldn't be that hard to do if Matt doesn't get the (unfortunate) Hollywood bug.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

One could use a similair argument for US shows, i.e

Star Trek is a hugely popular show around the world, so why does Paramount focus so much on what it earns from the US network only?

Whilst it might be popular overseas it has to be said it is massively popular in the UK. With final audiance figures usually in 8-10million viewer region. To compare that to the US as the UK has around 20-25% the population of the US that would equate to some 32-45m or so viewers.

Just out of interest how many drama (let alone Sci-Fi) shows in the US pull in those ratings?

I doubt they'd have got anywhere near those figured. Firstly with them airing on Sky first, I think you can safely say their initial viewing figures were below 1 million, then on BBC Two, I think at that point you could maybe say 4m at the outside.

Pulled at random, I guess TNG is a repeat at least, but Voy may be new...

BBC Two week of 26th of July 1998
9 STAR TREK NXT GENRTN (WED 1801) 2.81
25 STAR TREK: VOYAGER (THU 1824) 1.92
27 STAR TREK (FRI 1849) 1.87

Sky 1 same week

1 STAR TREK: VOYAGER (MON 2000) 0.77

 

[Pseudo]

I for one think it would be very cool if Matt Smith were to match or exceed Tom Baker's seven-year record.

Tom was only doing 6 episodes per over 7 series. He did 41 episodes if you count Shada.

Shouldn't be that hard to do if Matt doesn't get the (unfortunate) Hollywood bug.

I think you're confusing episodes and stories. Including Shada I make it 42 stories and 178 episodes. Excluding Shada, I get 41 and 172 respectively.

Which by my estimates means Matt would be able to surpass the number of stories by staying for four years, but would have to stay over twelve years to overtake Tom's episode count.

 

[Pseudo]

One could use a similair argument for US shows, i.e

Star Trek is a hugely popular show around the world, so why does Paramount focus so much on what it earns from the US network only?

Whilst it might be popular overseas it has to be said it is massively popular in the UK. With final audiance figures usually in 8-10million viewer region. To compare that to the US as the UK has around 20-25% the population of the US that would equate to some 32-45m or so viewers.

Just out of interest how many drama (let alone Sci-Fi) shows in the US pull in those ratings?

As I understand it overseas viewing figures are less to Paramount because when they sell the series overseas they receive a flat per episode payment from the broadcaster, whereas in the US they receive a share of the advertising income which is obviously much more dependent on nielsen ratings. Yes, obviously the amount the show can be sold for abroad is influenced by the viewing figures it receives in that country, the income from such sales is much lower than they'd receive from advertiser income in the US.

Basically, it's nice for them that it does well overseas, but the majority of the income will come from how well it does in the US. That being said, something like Game of Thrones is reliant on overseas sales to make money, though given its production costs that's not a strategy that I see becoming too popular.

 

[MacLeod]

One could use a similair argument for US shows, i.e

Star Trek is a hugely popular show around the world, so why does Paramount focus so much on what it earns from the US network only?

Whilst it might be popular overseas it has to be said it is massively popular in the UK. With final audiance figures usually in 8-10million viewer region. To compare that to the US as the UK has around 20-25% the population of the US that would equate to some 32-45m or so viewers.

Just out of interest how many drama (let alone Sci-Fi) shows in the US pull in those ratings?

I doubt they'd have got anywhere near those figured. Firstly with them airing on Sky first, I think you can safely say their initial viewing figures were below 1 million, then on BBC Two, I think at that point you could maybe say 4m at the outside.

Pulled at random, I guess TNG is a repeat at least, but Voy may be new...

BBC Two week of 26th of July 1998
9 STAR TREK NXT GENRTN (WED 1801) 2.81
25 STAR TREK: VOYAGER (THU 1824) 1.92
27 STAR TREK (FRI 1849) 1.87

Sky 1 same week

1 STAR TREK: VOYAGER (MON 2000) 0.77

Yes but as the UK population is around 20-25% of the US to compare you have to multiple the UK by a factor of 4-5 or divide the US by the same.

So that would be

TNG: 11.84 - 14.05m
VGR: 7.68 - 9.6m
TOS: 7.48 - 9.35m

The question then becomes how does that compare to US viewing figures.

From memory as well when the BBC had first run TNG before Sky in the early ninties the figure was closer to 4-5m viewers.

 

[Sci]

I would like to point out David Tennat was in the role from 2005-2010 a period of 5 years

Not really.

First off, I don't think we can count his thirty-second cameo at the end of "The Parting of the Ways." The point is how long the actor owns the role and is in the public consciousness as owning that role. So you'd need to start with "The Christmas Invasion," which of course aired on 25 December 2005.

Well, from "The Christmas Invasion" on 25 December 2005 to "The End of Time, Part Two" on 1 January 2010, Tennant owned the role for 4 years and 7 days.

(4 full years), Matt Smith if he does leave around 2014 would have been 4 years in the role.

Similarly, I wouldn't count Matt Smith starting from 1 January 2010, I'd start him counting from 3 April 2010. For Smith to meet Tennant's record, his swan song would have to air some time in April 2014. For him to meet Baker's record, his swan song would need to air some time in April 2017.

To those of us growing up with DW, it's part of the show and somewhat expected.

Sure, but why should Doctor Who be constrained by what the original series did?

And you can't force someone to stay in a role longer than they want, doesn't matter how popular they are, if the actor leaves what are you going to do?

Oh, of course you can't. But it would be awfully cool if Smith wanted to stay that long, wouldn't it?

 

[MacLeod]

^If you note I did point out that DT's tenure was 4 full years.

But to answer your question it's only cool for Matt Smith to stay in the role if he is one of your favourite Doctors.

Plus of course the actor owns the role the moment after regeneration. He is the Doctor. But is this perception down to the way the show has been aired in different countries?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

One could use a similair argument for US shows, i.e

Star Trek is a hugely popular show around the world, so why does Paramount focus so much on what it earns from the US network only?

Whilst it might be popular overseas it has to be said it is massively popular in the UK. With final audiance figures usually in 8-10million viewer region. To compare that to the US as the UK has around 20-25% the population of the US that would equate to some 32-45m or so viewers.

Just out of interest how many drama (let alone Sci-Fi) shows in the US pull in those ratings?

I doubt they'd have got anywhere near those figured. Firstly with them airing on Sky first, I think you can safely say their initial viewing figures were below 1 million, then on BBC Two, I think at that point you could maybe say 4m at the outside.

Pulled at random, I guess TNG is a repeat at least, but Voy may be new...

BBC Two week of 26th of July 1998
9 STAR TREK NXT GENRTN (WED 1801) 2.81
25 STAR TREK: VOYAGER (THU 1824) 1.92
27 STAR TREK (FRI 1849) 1.87

Sky 1 same week

1 STAR TREK: VOYAGER (MON 2000) 0.77

Yes but as the UK population is around 20-25% of the US to compare you have to multiple the UK by a factor of 4-5 or divide the US by the same.

So that would be

TNG: 11.84 - 14.05m
VGR: 7.68 - 9.6m
TOS: 7.48 - 9.35m

The question then becomes how does that compare to US viewing figures.

From memory as well when the BBC had first run TNG before Sky in the early ninties the figure was closer to 4-5m viewers.

I believe first run TNG was higher, in the 20m or higher range, but as it went along through DS9, Voy and Ent it dropped to 3-5m

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I for one think it would be very cool if Matt Smith were to match or exceed Tom Baker's seven-year record.

Tom was only doing 6 episodes per over 7 series. He did 41 episodes if you count Shada.

Shouldn't be that hard to do if Matt doesn't get the (unfortunate) Hollywood bug.

I think you're confusing episodes and stories. Including Shada I make it 42 stories and 178 episodes. Excluding Shada, I get 41 and 172 respectively.

Which by my estimates means Matt would be able to surpass the number of stories by staying for four years, but would have to stay over twelve years to overtake Tom's episode count.

Those episodes were what, 15 minutes each? And shown every day?

 

[Pseudo]

Tom was only doing 6 episodes per over 7 series. He did 41 episodes if you count Shada.

Shouldn't be that hard to do if Matt doesn't get the (unfortunate) Hollywood bug.

I think you're confusing episodes and stories. Including Shada I make it 42 stories and 178 episodes. Excluding Shada, I get 41 and 172 respectively.

Which by my estimates means Matt would be able to surpass the number of stories by staying for four years, but would have to stay over twelve years to overtake Tom's episode count.

Those episodes were what, 15 minutes each? And shown every day?

Nope, each episode during the Tom Baker era was twenty-five minutes long and was on a Saturday, around tea-time.

If you wanted to go down the comparative length route, which despite your earlier emphasis on episode numbers, I'm guessing you will do now. Assuming that the BBC continue to produce and show fourteen episodes a year, every year without a break then Matt would still have to stay on until the first few episodes of the 2016 series to surpass Mr. Baker.

 

[Starkers]

I don't think an actor should stay in the role longer than 3/4/5 years. People go on about Tom but lets face it he was in the role too long. Any actor playing the same role for 7 years is going to get stale, and worse that actor potentially becomes so known as that character that when he does change it can have consequences. (Ok so Davison's ratings were higher than Tom's at the end but still...)

I love Matt Smith to bits, and I hope he stays as long as Tennant but I'm not sure I want him to stick around much longer than that, he's got his whole career ahead of him.

 

[Photoman15]

It's ridiculous to change lead actor(s) every 3/4/5 years. There is no following building up, it makes the story (DW in particular) ridiculous in that every 3/4/5 years the Doctor regenerates. He did fine until 1964 (approx 700 years old) with no regens then in 40 years he goes thru 10 of them. The Doctor should be smarter than that.

 

[Cutter John]

It's ridiculous to change lead actor(s) every 3/4/5 years. There is no following building up, it makes the story (DW in particular) ridiculous in that every 3/4/5 years the Doctor regenerates. He did fine until 1964 (approx 700 years old) with no regens then in 40 years he goes thru 10 of them. The Doctor should be smarter than that.

Thats always bothered me as well. Honestly, theres no reason that in universe time has to run at the same rate as real world time. Hell, have him go romp around the universe for fifty years while Rory and Amy and on their honeymoon.

I'm sure the fanfic writers would apreciate it.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

It's ridiculous to change lead actor(s) every 3/4/5 years. There is no following building up, it makes the story (DW in particular) ridiculous in that every 3/4/5 years the Doctor regenerates. He did fine until 1964 (approx 700 years old) with no regens then in 40 years he goes thru 10 of them. The Doctor should be smarter than that.

Has there been any other indication how old #1 was in Unearthly Child?

Idris said to #11 they stole each other 700 years ago, so that leaves 200+ years.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I love Matt Smith to bits, and I hope he stays as long as Tennant but I'm not sure I want him to stick around much longer than that, he's got his whole career ahead of him.

I would like to see Matt Smith outlast Steven Moffat, because I'd like to see the vision a different showrunner would have of Smith's Doctor.