Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Doctor Who To Be Axed, Again

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the who-gets-the-scarf? dept.

Sci-Fi 304

twofish writes "According to UK tabloid The Sun, hit BBC sci-fi program Doctor Who will reportedly end next year after its fourth season. Producer Russell T. Davies has decided to bring the hit sci-fi show to a close — to 'go out at the top' — so he can concentrate on other projects, according to the article. Davies and other senior staff are feeling the strain of the heavy workload imposed by the show, nine months a year of 16-hour days, and plan to resign en-masse in 2008. Davies, a long-time fan of Doctor Who, relaunched the series in 2005, 16 years after the original series was axed." Update: 05/31 16:36 GMT by KD : Reader palewook points out that the UK Guardian sets this story straight: "But there isn't any way it would be axed even if [Davies] left. He loves the show and he does feel that maybe it would benefit from some new blood."

cancel ×

304 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (-1)

plover (150551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336599)

Does this demonstrate the Brits have just as poor popular support for good sci-fi as the Americans? :-( That's too bad, because I always held you blokes in higher regard than that...

This news is really too bad. This show is one of the best sci-fi remakes I can remember, in terms of remaining faithful to the original series while not sucking out loud the way shows like "Star Drek: Voyager" did. I mean I really like the new Battlestar Galactica, but other than keeping a handful of names and a very basic plot premise, they are two wildly different shows. Watching this current Dr. Who is just like watching the old show (only with slightly-less-cheesey special effects.)

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (4, Informative)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336661)

Well if you read the text you can see that it is not because of low ratings...

Doctor Who-Gives-a-Rats-Ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19336795)

I'd rather watch Ghost Hunters!

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (5, Funny)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336895)

Well if you read the text...

You must be new here.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19337675)

Sorry, you're mistaken. Voyager was the ONLY good Star Trek.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (4, Insightful)

crossmr (957846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336685)

it doesn't sound like its poor support for the show, and from what I gather its quite popular there. It sounds more like the senior staff are just burnt out. I guess it would be up to the BBC and others involved in the show to decide if they want to try and go at it with different writers/producers/directors/etc. They've got lots of notice, so its not like they don't have time to mull over the options.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336935)

Didn't the original series get new writers with every doctor? Possibly new staff as well.

I agree with you, I don't see why they cant swap out the management - it's been done before, it'll be done again.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337449)

they may still. This is just one rumour, and we haven't heard BBCs reaction yet. Our speculation is pretty pointless, but given the success, I think it would be silly to let it go.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (5, Informative)

gigne (990887) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336817)

At least the news came from a reputable news source... wait, thats not right. The sun is possible the worst of tabloid news. I would wait and see if this is confirmed from a news source that is less obsessed with celebrity and made up bs.

Just reading the unofficial fan page [gallifreyone.com] , I noticed this: (about half way down)

"The BBC has given an official statement to FreemaAgyeman.com, calling the Sun's story "absolute rubbish"."
So, a bucket of salt needs to be taken with this.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (1)

blacksway (464427) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336971)

Wrong SUN story - They where rubbishing a story that Freema would be replaced for series 4.

Doesn't mean the new SUN story isn't utter crap too, they needed an excuse to mention Billie Pipers divorce obviously.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (1)

mmarlett (520340) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337131)

Actually, that was in regards to something the Sun made up last week, not something it made up this week. It also constantly says things like, "Christopher Eccleston stunned the BBC by quitting as the Timelord after the first series of the revamped drama in 2005," when it is now widely known that Eccleston was up front about not playing the Doctor for more than one season (series). No one was stunned. Disappointed, maybe, but not stunned.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337233)

The sun is possible the worst of tabloid news.
No it isn't, not even close. Alas. :-(

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19336923)

A damn shame, but it just goes to show you that "nothing good lasts forever"...

Ever since the Christopher Eccleston (starring as "the good doctor") 2005 comeback of the show, into the current David Tennant (currently starring as "the good doctor") in 2006-2007, I have been a faithful follower of this series, as it is great sci-fi!

Mainly because the 2005-2007 run has been such a RADICAL improvement over its own predecessors (former BIG fan of the William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, & (especially) Tom Baker episodes), especially in terms of special effects & also in many a way, the plotlines/stories as well!

Additionally: Billie Piper absolutely ROCKED as "Rose Tyler" (as one of the latest sidekicks of "the good doctor"... lol, gotta love it - the guy ALWAYS has diff. women around him, usually very attractive (beauty in the eye of the beholder)). Freema Agyeman (the doctor's current sidekick) isn't too shabby either!

Still, I predict that it'll come back again one day though, after the 2008 cancellation, imo @ least - you can't keep a good thing down!

(Because, as David Tennant the current star said in the GREAT episode "THE SATAN PIT" (great episode, including its forebear "The IMPOSSIBLE PLANET"? "AN IDEA IS VERY HARD TO KILL!")

Fav. episodes of mine thru the 2005-2006 run were:

2005 - DALEK (awesome)
2006 - THE GIRL IN THE FIREPLACE
2006 - RISE OF THE CYBERMEN
2006 - AGE OF STEEL
2006 - THE IMPOSSIBLE PLANET
2006 - THE SATAN PIT
2006 - ARMY OF GHOSTS
2006 - DOOMSDAY
2007 - SMITH & JONES
2007 - THE SHAKESPEARE CODE
2007 - GRIDLOCK

Great stuff, I will miss it!

APK

P.S.=> Long live Dr. Who! And, to the thread post starter, I can only say 1 thing:

"YOU WOULD MAKE A GOOD DALEK!"

apk

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (2, Insightful)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337209)

For me there was something missing in the Christopher Eccleston Doctor. He wasn't the irrepresible, undaunted Doctor of the old days. That, and all the random pop culture getting thrown around didn't help.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (1)

BluhDeBluh (805090) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337091)

Part of the BBC's charter is to not chase ratings, but instead to make quality programming. This is why the BBC is unique, as the amount of viewers doesn't effect the BBC's bottom-line due to the License Fee.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (1)

farrellj (563) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337365)

/rant on

Gee, that sucks...but what sucks even more is that people are still using the term SCI-FI (Pronouced "Skiffy") for Science Fiction, or SF if you want the short form. "Skiffy" is the term reserved for bad stuff like DeLaurentis moves and some of the home-made programming of the Space Channel in Canada. Doctor Who, Star Trek, the works of writers like Arthur C. Clarke, Larry Niven, or Radio Drama like Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy are SF, not Skiffy! /rant off

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337619)

I always pronounced Sci-fi as "sigh-fi." Have I been wrong this whole time?!

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (1)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337555)

Doctor Who is not Science Fiction whatever it is. Rather, Science Fantasy, in other words, it appears (especially in these new series) that the producers couldn't give two hoots about real science or similar.

Rather, they make a show that looks good, and makes me (at least) cringe. Sure, it is a good show. I enjoy watching it, but don't call it Science Fiction, a term that really should be reserved for those shows or books that actually tend to follow current scientific thought (even if they sometimes break one or two "laws").

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down? (1)

19061969 (939279) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337699)

Hey! Those cheesy effects were part of the original shows charm! ;-)

Anything that crappy had to have a heart in it...

QAF (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19336655)

Maybe he wants to go back to packing fudge.

Dr Who can outlast any producer (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336665)

Maybe its time that Davies regenerated into someone else.
There might be limits on the timelord regenerations, but nothing said about the crew.

If its difficult making a popular weekly show, how the hell do they manage to make popular daily shows last for years?

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336713)

I thought time lords could only regenerate 12 times...

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336881)

Theoretically... but this is science fiction television... if it keeps the show going, rules were made to be broken.

That said, this is a severe kick in the head. The original series leaving the air was bad enough, but this remake series was just as good if not better. Hey, if they need fresh talent to keep it going, I'll volunteer!

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer (1)

CriminalNerd (882826) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336813)

The daily shows are (usually) different genres and have different content, quality, and fan expectancy levels. That's why.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337511)

dailies also generally have fewer or cheesier special effects. If there are special effects, they're used few and far between (if they want quality).

Pinch of salt (5, Insightful)

Baljet (547995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336697)

It is the Sun after all. But don't mind me, please resume panic.

Re:Pinch of salt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19336777)

Yes, agreed. I hesitate to trust this from a tabloid that markets itself as "The Offical Newspaper of Big Brother 8"...

Re:Pinch of salt (1)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336917)

For those state side who are not familiar with The Sun, its equivalent over there is probably the national equirer or other super market tabloids.

Calling The Sun a rag would be an insult to dish clothes the world over!

Re:Pinch of salt (1)

palewook (1101845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337129)

yup, teh sun isn't even worthy for picking up after my dog's business, much less believing any of the garbage they print.

Re:Pinch of salt (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337587)

Here are some British points of view (who also happen to be Who fans): Outpost Gallifrey Discussion [gallifreyone.com]

Re:Pinch of salt (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337721)

Reminds me of that line from Yes, Prime Minister...

"Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

Something is better than nothing (3, Insightful)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336699)

I'd like to thank Russel a lot for his efforts: a lot of people like me was missing the Doctor.
But I'd also like to tell BBC that there could be other producers able to continue the job.
After all you can slash resources from some other (maybe more stupid) program.
In any case, may God save the Great Britain and the Little one.

Re:Something is better than nothing (1, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336991)

Little Britain needs killing though. It's the same crappy joke repeated each week. Oh look wheel chair guy, bet he runs away, oh look fat slag, bet she talks shit.

Good comedy evolves and changes, not changes the sets and props each week. Little Britain is the lowest of the low brow comedy and is about on par with reality TV for it's entertainment value.

Re:Something is better than nothing (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337103)

It finished over a year ago. No new episodes apart from Christmas specials.

Dang (1)

dghcasp (459766) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336701)

Davies and other senior staff are feeling the strain of the heavy workload imposed by the show, nine months a year of 16-hour days

I guess with all their collective experience in TV production that they expected, like, two four-hour days a week, right?

Dang shame, as it's a TV formula that can handle the complete replacement of its cast and yet stay interesting... David Tennant is the 10th actor to hold the title role. Unfortunately, it may not be able to handle the replacement of its crew.

On one hand, I'm v. sad to hear this, as it's a pretty good show nowadays. I can understand wanting to leave at the top rather than the bottom (Sylvester MacCoy anyone?); but it's definately could run a few more years before becomming tired.

Re:Dang (1)

Slashamatic (553801) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337599)

On one hand, I'm v. sad to hear this, as it's a pretty good show nowadays. I can understand wanting to leave at the top rather than the bottom (Sylvester MacCoy anyone?); but it's definately could run a few more years before becomming tired.
At the time some senior staff in the BBC hated the show. They were playing all sorts of games to get the ratings down to the point where it could be killed. Eventually they managed to and on the back of ropey writing, a not very strong Doctor and continual schedule changes, they managed to lose an audience. Now, it is very different. Dr Who is *in*. It has a good audience profile, is an international seller and has merchandising. Together with Torchwood, it can also be taken to be minorities friendly covering variations of sexual orienattion as well as ethinicities. On the subject of which, it is made in Wales, not London or the home counties which brings the price down.

bummer. (3, Interesting)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336711)

Nah, don't worry it'll be back. I've lost count of how many times that shows been pulled, revived and then cancelled again.

Mind you, there must be a limit that even a time lord can regenerate.

The monsters were scarier in the 1980s though - or was that because I was much younger?

Re:bummer. (2, Informative)

tumutbound (549414) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336927)

The monsters were scarier in the 1980s though - or was that because I was much younger?
The monsters were much, much scarier in the 1960's - or is that because I'm older?

Re:bummer. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337071)

Nah, don't worry it'll be back. I've lost count of how many times that shows been pulled, revived and then cancelled again.
Three. Once when it was given an extended "hiatus" during the Colin Baker/"Trial of a Time Lord" era, once when the classic series ended with Sylvester McCoy in 1989, and once when the 1996 TV Movie starring Paul McGann failed to get picked up for a series.

Re:bummer. (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337649)

If you're counting the 1996 movie then you should also count "The Scream of Shalka" that was going to be pave the way for an animated series that was axed to make room for the new live-action series.

That's the British way (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336729)

FYI, a LOT of British series do this sort of thing (limited runs, going out on top voluntarily). Same thing happened with The Office, Ab Fab, etc. We Americans could learn a lot from these Brits (Lost and Heroes writers, I'm looking in your direction).

Re:That's the British way (1)

Drall (1006725) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336799)

I agree with you about not wanting it to jump the shark, but IMO they tend to can programs before they actually peak. Add to that the much shorter runs (6 episodes a season sometimes?), and I don't think they're getting close to getting full value out of sometimes really great ideas.

Re:That's the British way (3, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336805)

Hold on there, Heroes hasn't started sucking yet. Or are you just being preemptive? :) I hear Lost is, well, Lost. Glad I never got into that one. Battlestar Galactica is now officially lost in space. :( There's something to be said for going in with a plan, doing what you intended, and bowing out before you start stinking up the place. B5 had a magnificent run using that same idea.

Hasn't started sucking? (2, Informative)

TheFlyingWonka (1107171) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337039)

I take it you missed the Heroes season finale? Horrible.

Re:Hasn't started sucking? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337645)

No, I saw it. The overall evil plot held up well enough once it was fully revealed -- stage disaster, use it to unite the people. This was the plot behind Watchmen and it certainly wasn't new when Watchmen did it. Some people will argue 9-11 was the same kind of thing and they'll also tell you that Pearl Harbor was staged to get people behind the war. Others will tell you that's beyond the realm of comic book silly. Well, Heroes is a comic book! :)

So, the evil plot was decent enough, how about Sylar? I think his character followed a plausible arc. Everything he did seemed self-consistent and within the bounds of his own emotional rationalization.

So, the final question is how the whole exploding Peter thing was resolved. My verdict on that one won't be final until we see how they handle it next season and we get some answers. Why didn't Peter fly himself away when he was starting to explode? Could he not use two powers at once? If he can't use two powers at once, how is he going to survive detonation with the healing power? If Nathan had to be the one to fly him up, did he stick with Peter until detonation or did he "toss bomb" him like a Navy A4 dropping a tactical nuke and peeling away in time to escape the blast? Is Sylar still alive? He'd better not be if only because the villain nobody ever manages to kill is an annoying trope.

Don't get me wrong, the Heroes people still have plenty of opportunity to screw this one up. After the Star Wars nu-trilogy, Matrix, Pirates, etc, I have no illusions about how badly a series or franchise can decline. But I don't think the decline has started yet. Only time will tell.

Re:That's the British way (1)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337137)

on Lost: people bitched a lot about the end of season 2 /start of season 3 era. but it all leads up to the end of season 3 which for me was one of the best television episodes ever.

anyone who didn't like the end and isn't looking forward to the 48 remaining episodes could never have been a fan of the show in the first place.

Bitching about Lost (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337307)

anyone who didn't like the end and isn't looking forward to the 48 remaining episodes could never have been a fan of the show in the first place.

Lost is a much better show if you can watch the episodes in faster succession, like one a night. The nebulous story arc and large cast of characters make it difficult to get into, and keep interested, when you only see a new episode every week or three.

Re:Bitching about Lost (1)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337713)

Lost is a much better show if you can watch the episodes in faster succession, like one a night.

That's what my wife and I do -- we do a marathon run to watch the whole season. It's available both on DVD and on iTunes.

LOL, Heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19336859)

didn't even last a season without starting to suck.

Re:That's the British way (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336885)

Lost has a pre-planned number of seasons. They aren't just milking the show for all it's worth and dumping it when it's losing money, they have a set plan.

Heroes... I'm pretty sure they just make it up as they go along, as evidenced by the interview with the creators where they said they decided Hiro was too powerful mid-season and nerfed him.

Yeah, I watch both shows and Doctor Who, too. Shows with plot are finally coming back after years and years of Reality TV. I hope they keep getting stronger.

Survivor was great up until Season 9. It peaked at 7 and 8 (all stars), and now it's crap. They pick idiots and people who will cause strife, instead of picking people that will compete well or even just average people. It's not interesting anymore.

Re:That's the British way (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336937)

"Lost has a pre-planned number of seasons".
Yeah right. And i tell you what the plan is: Just noodling down the thing until you cannot quench a buck out of it anymore, than dumb it.

Re:That's the British way (1)

Taeolas (523275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337299)

Lost didn't get a preplanned number of seasons until late in this season. (The producers started negotiating for how long to keep it going and finally got the deal hammered out a few weeks before the finale; we have a confirmed 3 more years of Lost left IIRC). This season's finale was probably written/edited with that goal now in place in mind. As for Doctor Who, putting aside issues with the source's credibility, I wonder if this may just be an attempt to get some raw feelings about the series. As in a way to see how the fans react, how the BBC reacts (do they bring in a new crew or fight to keep the old?), and maybe a negotiation tactic by the current crew (to arrange for a lighter season schedule or more money or whatever).

Re:That's the British way (0, Flamebait)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336975)

I hate to be critical, but the "always leave 'em wantin' more" is not British. If anything, that's a Hollywood adage. Seinfeld ring a bell?

The brits deserve credit for a lot of things, but come on....

Re:That's the British way (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337139)

Seinfeld ran for almost a decade, what are you talking about?

Re:That's the British way (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337249)

...he went out on top!?!?!? It's well known that the show was thriving when it ended. I didn't think this was a mathmatical comparison of years shows run. The parent's post was about the fact that british shows tend to end when they are doing great and american shows do the opposite.

Re:That's the British way (1)

brown-eyed slug (913910) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337265)

I wanted more.

Re:That's the British way (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337097)

Heard an interview once from a BBC writer who was talking about this, small number of episodes per year, small number of years,etc.
He chalked it up to that in the UK most series have one or two people as writers, the same number as producers, directors,etc. In the US your average show has 10-20 writers, a bunch of producers, directors,etc. So the writers for the BBC quickly go through all thier ideas and after that the series is over, in the US with all thoses writers they get alot of ideas and can write alot more episodes. According to him the bad thing about that is in the US you get alot of poorer episodes while with the BBC you get thoses core episodes written by the person who thought up the idea and the show goes out before it has jumped the shark.

Re:That's the British way (1)

Zelos (1050172) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337187)

Exactly, and I'm glad they do it - look at what happened when they allowed Ricky Gervais to create a second series of Extras when the show had clearly already run its course.

Re:That's the British way (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337261)

Well, personally, I still prefer good shows to be one season too long rather than a couple ones too short. The Fox, I'm looking in your direction.

Re:That's the British way (2, Insightful)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337345)

The classic example of that was Fawlty Towers. It was a stroke of genius from John Cleese to create twelve perfect episodes and leave it at that, a series that not only never jumped the shark, but never fell below perfection. No wonder it's one of Britain's favourites. (And don't mention the war!)

Re:That's the British way (1)

nosferatu1001 (264446) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337629)

Fawlty towers was 2 series actually....

still have to agree, 12 episodes of perfection :)

The Sun? Don't make me laugh. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19336737)

Two things:

The Sun has zero credibility in the UK. The only thing it gets right is the publication date.

RTD doesn't own the right to the show, the BBC do. If he quits they can get someone else to make it.

Re:The Sun? Don't make me laugh. (1)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336889)

Exactly. It doesn't make sense that they would just let the show of which they have created something like 5 spin-offs (torchwood, sarah jane, totally dr. who, and confidential) just go away. If RTD left then they would just find someone else.

Re:The Sun? Don't make me laugh. (1)

Baljet (547995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337127)

I wouldn't mention the spin-offs as strengths. Torch-"By-ere it's an aylienn"-wood was awful. Sara Jane got cancelled after the pilot...

Re:The Sun? Don't make me laugh. (1)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337419)

Yes Torchwood stinks. However, The Sarah Jane Adventures is in production. For soem reason they just aired the hour long episode at Christmas and won't start showing the regular series until later this year.

Re:The Sun? Don't make me laugh. (1)

spike1 (675478) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337561)

1: I liked Torchwood.
2: Pilots usually appear months before an actual series. That's their purpose, to test the waters before laying out a wad of cash on a full series.

Same thing happened with little britain. They made a pilot, then about 6 months later we saw the first series.

That's dumb (2, Informative)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336741)

I give the man props for helping to bring the show back but he has, on average, written the dullest of the episodes in the new series. The beauty of the Dr. Who format is that it is designed to be timeless and exist far beyond the mortal limits of the humans involved. The only constant in the cast is the Doctor and he can "regenerate" every time the actor wants to move on to other things. The production staff should be equally replaceable. Want to move on? No problem! Take a sabbatical? No problem! A show like this should be able to run almost indefinitely, like, well, the previous series. :) I do hope they change their minds.

American remake? ;-) (1)

Terao (22771) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336811)

You guys seem love to do this to shows even when you understand what the characters are saying! (for example The office and Coupling)

Re:American remake? ;-) (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337403)

Is there an US version of Rab C Nesbitt yet ? I know some of the episodes were specifically subtitled for English speakers.

The Sun (3, Informative)

Stevecrox (962208) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336827)

This is coming from The Sun, one of the nations gossip 'newspapers'. Doctor Who is made by the BBC, considering how this latest series of Doctor Who has talked to BBC first I find it slightly suspicous, I mean the qoutes not even from Davies:

A source said: "The heavy workload -- nine months of 16-hour days every year -- has started to take its toll. It was decided the best thing for the show was go out at the top next year."

I'm betting this is anouther in a long line of Sun articles designed to sell newspapers which is based on gossip, when the BBC says there will be no more Doctor Who I'll believe them. As it standard Doctor Who is the BBC's most popular show so even if Davies were to quit I doubt they would axe the show.

Re:The Sun (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336961)

I'm betting this is anouther in a long line of Sun articles designed to sell newspapers which is based on gossip, when the BBC says there will be no more Doctor Who I'll believe them. As it standard Doctor Who is the BBC's most popular show so even if Davies were to quit I doubt they would axe the show.

Perhaps. But they could kill it, ala the Berman & Piller destruction of the Star Trek franchise. All they have to do is hire someone who has no real interest in the show or is such a raving fanatic that they make changes which strangle the show's unique qualities (pink Daleks anyone?).

Re:The Sun (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337409)

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with The Sun being owned by the same person that owns this http://packages.sky.com/buy/?CMP=KNC-UKesalesSearc h [sky.com] .

The Dirty Digger doesn't like the BBC.

They're plain lazy louts (4, Insightful)

Pao|o (92817) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336843)

The X-Files lasted 9 seasons/series of 20-30 episodes each. TNG, DS9 and Voyager lasted 7 years each with 20-30 episodes each. SG-1 lasted 10 seasons of 20-30 episodes as well.

Why in heavens name would they be burnt out with 3 seasons with only 13 episodes each? i'd understand your standard US TV show but a UK show that churns out that few episodes shouldnt be complaining.

I'm thinking the writers are just being honest that they cant write proper stories no more.

Re:They're plain lazy louts (3, Informative)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336931)

Maybe it's because the quality of the new Dr. Who is so much better than the vast majority of TNG, DS9, Voyager or the X Files.

Re:They're plain lazy louts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19337169)

British TV is notorious for short seasons or as they call them series. A show will quite commonly run 6 or so episodes a series (season). That's why there's so few total episodes of Red Dwarf or other British shows. Doctor Who has been only 13 episodes per season which is only a half season here in the US, with a normal run beeing 22/23 episodes here (usually with one being a two-parter). Production for the new Who was bumpped because of a partial development with Canadaian Broadcasting. The same can be seen with the spin-off Torchwood and the branding series Totally Doctor Who and Doctor Who Confidential, which is why I really don't believe the series would be cancelled. Maybe Davies is leaving but with Doctor Who itself being one of (if not) the BBC's highest rated shows, and co-produced with the CBC with purchased licensing from the Sci-Fi Channel let alone all the merchandising... Not to mention Torchwood being highly rated and two other series with moderate ratings... And the Sarah Jane Smith Adventures special and pilot and the K-9 animated series coming along (though, not BBC)... I can't see how the BBC would ever cancel the show.

Let the SCi FI Channel Make it (0, Troll)

ThoreauHD (213527) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336869)

If Davies and the BBC can't hack it maybe the Sci-Fi channel can do the job. I don't think I can believe anything from the Sun anyhow. I'm American, and even I know this.

Re:Let the SCi FI Channel Make it (1)

AP2k (991160) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337203)

I'd watch Plan 9 From Outer Space than a Sci-Fi original anything.

Unhappy... (2, Insightful)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336901)

I'm not pleased, either. I can understand the reasoning - high workloads can lead to burnout - but I concur with other posters. Let someone else do it...Doctor Who stories tend to benefit from fresh ideas and it can reasonably go in nearly ANY direction.

The current version has even managed to do a decent re-vamping of Daleks and Cybermen (when most re-hashings of old ideas tend to get tired). There is PLENTY more to do with this show...heck, remember that not only are there more incarnations left, we also have however long the FIRST doctor was around before his debut as an old geezer in a junkyard.

It IS a good formula for generating interest - "leave 'em wanting more" rather than getting stale (which, by the way, it wasn't at the end of its first run - internal issues in the Beeb got it canceled, not poor ratings or lack of interest).

Hey, Beeb, there's a SciFi channel out there doing reruns...and there are plenty of shows that should have found a second/third life there (Firefly is a three-four season show on SciFi, easily...and it's one of the few places US audiences can watch any Doctor Who that isn't internet).

Re:Unhappy... (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337099)

"Human daleks" are true to the original Dalek concept? Well fuck me, I'm so Glad Daleks are now so accepting of human beings, I mean it's not like they spent the last billion or so years trying to wipe out the entire universe.

Oh and Daleks have been ruined, it went from "Evil, going to kill you all!" to "oh look, it escaped again, last Dalek alive, wonder how it'll get a few more this time" Rose had access to the entire span of the universe, she saw, knew and controlled everything, then completely erased them, but nope still survive.

Daleks lost their class when they became cartoon villians.

Re:Unhappy... (1)

erroneous (158367) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337329)

So, about December 1963 [wikipedia.org] then?

Honestly, were they ever anything else?

Take the report with an enormous grain of salt (1)

Hwatzu (89518) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336925)

The Sun, as others have commented, is noted for its -- not-necessarily-true articles. For instance, they reported that Martha's character would be gone in season 4 [thesun.co.uk] -- which the BBC has roundly denied. [freemaagyeman.com] And earlier, they wrote that David Tennant would be leaving the role. I get the feeling that someone working at The Sun really doesn't like the show...

Re:Take the report with an enormous grain of salt (3, Insightful)

simong (32944) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337025)

What, someone at the Sun? The newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch? The Rupert Murdoch that owns Sky TV? And would like the BBC's TV licence abolished? Surely not.

Re:Take the report with an enormous grain of salt (1)

Slashamatic (553801) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337387)

...and Fox.

Last I heard, to get Sky, you must pay rather more than a UK TV licensing fee. Again and with lots of advertising.

Wait... What? (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336939)

How is it that the original series could go through dozens of producers, writers, etc. but the new series is too special to do the same? Does Davies think he is the only one who can make Doctor Who? If so, how incredibly arrogant of him.

Good (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336951)

I for one am glad, Season 3 has been absolutely terrible so far. Daleks are every where (Why do Daleks have to be in EVERY SERIES!? They aren't scary when they appear every other week) and they keep "killing" (or removing in some form) the doctor to make Martha comes across as a "strong woman type", when instead it just feels forced.

I suspect Season 4 will be as bad as Season 3 and by then the viewing figures will have dropped. I mean as much fun as "Evil monster chances the doctor around an Earth based place" is, whatever happened to going to alien worlds? It's like the Last 3 seasons have completely forgot the TARDIS can travel to places other than space stations and Earth.

Hope I'm the first to call (3, Interesting)

cordsie (565171) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336967)

... bullshit on this. A popular show, in it's prime, that's currently raking in cash hands over fist for the BBC from various products and merchandising efforts, is going to be axed right in the middle of a massive wave of popularity? Yes, you might kill a popular show just as its popularity or quality is fading, give it a dignified death, whatever. But this makes no sense. Producers and writers can be replaced, refreshed, whatever. Combined with the fact this is the Sun reporting this, and ... well ... as I said, bullshit.

Sun journalism 101 (5, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337017)

I wouldn't believe a word that rag says. It's the worst of the Murdoch rags. Even the people who work for it consider it pretty disreputable.

Here's an example... Tango produces a commercial where old lady puts pin into balloon and old lady pops. The Sun called up the "help the aged" charity and said "They're blowing up old people. do you think this is right?". Woman who hadn't seen it agreed that on the face of it it sounded bad. The Sun then ran a story about how Help the Aged wanted the ad banned.

They do not fact check unless not doing so will get them sued. Their source could be a teaboy for all we know.

Standard operating procedure... (1)

TermII (71766) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337027)

Seems like it's standard operating procedure to axe EVERY show, just to see if there's enough fans who care to deliver 9 tonnes of nuts or not. It's probably a lot more accurate, and cheaper than running nielson polls or whatever.

Perhaps everyone should download the shows, or use mythtv, and watch it without advertising in protest of this ridiculous trend. Oh wait...

Thinking about it more, someone should write a strongly worded letter to encourage Google to start funding sci-fi shows, with some clever google-esque unobtrusive, embedded advertising... hotlinks directly in the file, available for free download... they could even write a mythtv plugin to automate the whole shebang.

On good sci-fi, Farscape rocked. Minimal CG. Some cool puppets, a kickass storyline, plenty of comedy, drama, action... no blatantly unexplainable physics violations (yes it matters *lol*).

It's the Sun, it's a Murdoch Rag (2, Interesting)

ed (79221) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337089)

Why should we believe thenm when its something that is more popular than any Sky show, and they can't buy it

Look for the grain of truth... (3, Informative)

brown-eyed slug (913910) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337229)

The truth of the matter is that Russell T Davies has stated publicly for quite a while that he won't stay on forever - he has previously said he wouldn't be in the Executive Producer role after 2010. Another truth is that he has no control over what the BBC choose to do with the show after he leaves. Quite an important truth is that Doctor Who is one of the BBC's most important programmes - regularly top of the ratings (after soaps) and a merchandising gold mine. The Sun is not a reliable source for stories like this as they will take a germ of a story and run it in whatever direction suits them. Anyone concerned that the fourth season will be the last should stop worrying.

Disappointing. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337263)

If he wasn't willing to make a commitment to continuing a series, maybe he shouldn't have taken on the project? There is no one else at BBC capable of directing a Sci-Fi show? And what's with this mass-resignation? Some kind of ideology statement? It must be designed to say something, most people when they tire of a job simply find another without dropping bombs on the way out the door. Disappointing.

not a bad thing (1)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337285)

It wouldn't be a bad thing to stop the show when it still is very succesfull.. We've seen so many series go down the drain because they just couldn't stop, hmmm come to think about it, about every show on the telly now is just pretty boring because they milked it just too much.. Just pick up the show again in 5 or 6 years or even a decade...

What? (1)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337375)

Doctor, who? Is this a show like Doogie Houser M.D.?

Re:What? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337689)

Doctor, who? Is this a show like Doogie Houser M.D.?

      Yeah, only they have a new doctor every show and you have to guess his name. It's like a game show really...

Rubbish! What I want to know is... (1)

Octopus (19153) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337397)

When is the next season of Hyperdrive http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/hyperdrive/ [bbc.co.uk] coming out?!?

Austin...I'm...you...father (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337405)

Austin: Really?

The Sun: No. Not really....

NOOOO (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337437)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO

Please keep appending Os. If we get enough O's, and send 'em to the BBC, maybe they won't cancel it.

The Sun (1)

cubicle phobia (1109603) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337545)

Man, you have to take anything the Sun says with a large pinch of salt. The only thing I would trust them to get right is the cup size of the page three model.

You can pry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19337579)

my replica sonic screwdriver from my cold dead hands, BBC

Nothing to see here, move along (2, Insightful)

Simon Brooke (45012) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337583)

The Sun is always wrong about Doctor Who. It has been printing one manifestly untrue story about the series every week for months. Just because you read in a tabloid that a Lancaster Bomber has been found on the Moon [disco-nt.co.uk] doesn't mean you automatically believe it (note to self: excellent plot for Doctor Who episode).

Personally I would be a lot more worried if the Sun reported that Doctor Who was definitely on for ten more seasons.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>